I think this is pretty spot on, all information points to Nick Szabo having one of the largest roles as he worked on the idea. Jim McCoy and Szabo are the closest personalities to the Satoshi Pseudoname. I remember someone saying before that when working with Satoshi that if you got him angry, he would just call you an idiot and never speak to you again. This clue comes closer to Nick and Jim McCoy's battle where Nick forced out Jim's identity by prodding him a bit. Who......
I had never put the beginning of Wei Dai’s “bmoney” paper to much thought until it was brought to my attention by a software designer named Oleg Andreev. This information seems to be the “key” that Satoshi left for us to unlock the puzzle.
The first credit to Bitcoin in the white paper was a citation for Wei Dai’s “bmoney”.
The first paragraph of “bmoney”: (read carefully)
“I am fascinated by Tim May’s crypto-anarchy. Unlike the communities traditionally associated with the word “anarchy”, in a crypto-anarchy the government is not temporarily destroyed but permanently forbidden and permanently unnecessary. It’s a community where the threat of violence is impotent because violence is impossible, and violence is impossible because its participants cannot be linked to their true names or physical locations”. ~Wei Dai
Why......
The Internet and Bitcoin were created to allow people to solve social problems in a novel way: Instead of the ancient formula of “the strongest wins and then beats the crap out of the loser” we all can achieve a peaceful society where both rich and poor, strong and weak can protect their property and freedom on more equal grounds without relying on violent institutions like governments.
Why anonymous?
Tim May: “Anyone contemplating building such a system, or entity, or cybercorporation, should think long and hard about the wisdom of ever having an identifiable nexus of attack. Money must be collected in untraceable ways. This is what I meant about it being time to rethink the theory of the corporation.”
"Where once a corporation existed to both protect the rights of shareholders (against lawsuits and partners having to pay for losses) and to enable the group participation of many workers, corporations for the things Cypherpunks think are interesting is just a bad idea. And given the growing trend toward trying to prosecute the V.P of Yahoo-Europe because some bit of Nazi history was sold to some German citizen, etc., corporations are becoming a liability in cyberspace”.
"The answer is to vanish into cyberspace. Not an easy task, maybe, given the state of today’s tools, but the long term trend".
Summary......
Bitcoin is the exact implementation of the system envisioned by Tim C. May, Wei Dai, Nick Szabo, Hal Finney and Zooko. The only requirement is for transacting parties to remain anonymous. If there’s no trace to physical persons, there is no place for the violent intervention and thus the contracts can only be enforced according to the voluntarily agreed-upon rules between the parties. Bitcoin allows encoding these rules right in the transactions so they are automatically enforced by the whole network.
Tim May, Szabo, Hal, Alan Back, Jim McCoy, Zooko.....they all have a part in this.
*Ray Dillenger (Bear) quote: “Look, (Satoshi) was a construction made explicitly for the purpose of launching Bitcoin……That purpose is fulfilled. The person who created (Satoshi) has no further need for him. Thus ends the story”.
Note: it seems BitCoin was mostly created in the comment sections of the "Nanobarter", "BitGold" & "BitGold-Markets" papers. What happened in private emails and Meet-ups may never be known. Szabo & Zooko or maybe Jim McCoy? We may never know. IMHO...Szabo and Hal made all this possible in one way or another. They had dedicated their lives since at least 1993 to bring an anonymous digital currency to us.
|
|
|
|
I came across this that was quite interesting written by Nick Szabo and provides a few more clues to the puzzle. He talks about the Cyberpunks as a small group working on traceless digital cash. Some of the references to pseudospoofing or use of sock puppet accounts still holds true today. •To: ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu (L. Detweiler) •Subject: SILLY FLAMES: pseudospoofing •From: szabo@netcom.com (Nick Szabo) •Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 5:25:22 PDT •Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com•In-Reply-To: < 9310180941.AA15703@longs.lance.colostate.edu>; from "L. Detweiler" at Oct 18, 93 3:41 am L. Detweiler -- shocked, simply shocked, at the realization that multiple pseudonyms are possible on the net -- explodes: > ....how can this be a `forum' if an opinion > is not *representative*? Perhaps there are differences between a forum and a voting booth? > what if a single person just `ganged up' on > someone they didn't like by overwhelming them with pseudospoofs? what > if there was *truly* support for some project but a pseudospoofer > ganged up on the proponents and clobbered them with flames? Perhaps "support" is better measured by how many people are motivated enough to go to the effort to make multiple but individually unique, reputable posts in favor of a proposition, rather than by simple numerical polls that abstract away knowledge and motivation, or by how many True Names position themselves with I'm-on-your-side posts. On cypherpunks' better days, "support" is measured by what kind
of code gets written, not by who flames whom how often under
how many names. Of course we all know that writing code does not constitute *true* support, since only Democracy is The One True Way. > doesn't > it throw every `conversation' on this list into spectacularly > *grotesque* doubt? Welcome to the Internet, Detweiler. Perhaps you might get together some physical meetings in Colorado, talk to more cypherpunks on the phone, look at the pictures in Wired magazine (perhaps also faked?), etc. if you are so concerned about being ganged up on by unknown numbers of strangers. (Is it better to be ganged up on by known numbers of strangers? Why of course, that's called Democracy). > the idea > of `one man one vote' is SACRED. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord & pass the card punch! Let's vote ourselves bigger paychecks & unlimited medical care. Let's take a vote on which cypherpunks tools we will implement. Those who vote with the minority get to do the programming work, those in the majority get to tell the minority what to write. I nominate L. Detweiler President of the Cypherpunks. All in favor say "aye" and bow down to His Holiness of the Veiled Booth! > it is > *anti egaltarian*. it is a recipe for anarchy God forbid! Quick, Detweiler, get out your garlic, raise up your cross and abjure these crypto-anarchists before we spread any further! Next thing you know
we'll get some elitist, anti-democratic development like
untraceable digital cash. Some people will accumulate more digicash than others, and Detweiler won't even know who they are. Horrors! Quick Detweiler, write your electronic leveling tax protocols before its too late. Better yet, get the majority to vote on making us evil crypto-anarchists -- only a small cypherpunk
minority once our pseudonyms are unmasked, of course -- make us write them for you. After all, egalitarian software is a basic human right! > UNFAIR INFLUENCE. ABUSE > OF POWER. MANIPULATION. DECEIT. TREACHERY. EXPLOITATION. SECRET CONSPIRACIES. >... Isn't it just dreadful? > p.s. if anyone doesn't hear from me for awhile, assume I've been > `liquidated' and this isn't really an `open forum' ... Detweiler to be axed by untraceable crypto-moderator. Can't figure out how to make a pseudonym or use a remailer to avoid his fate in Oblivion. Graphic pictures at 11, may be unsuitable for children! Nick Szabo szabo@netcom.com |
|
|
|
|
AuroraCoin has lost 99.8% of it's value since that chart
|
|
|
|
static const int64 MAX_MONEY = 2000000000 * COIN;
static const int STAKE_START_TIME = 1418470264; // Sat 13 Dec 2014 06:31:04 AM EST
static const unsigned int POW_START_TIME = 1418403600; // Fri 12 Dec 2014 12:00:00 PM EST
static const unsigned int POW_END_TIME = 1419181200; // Sun 21 Dec 2014 12:00:00 PM EST
2,000,000,000 total coins with 12,000,000 premine, current total coins 12,375,656. Means 375,656 POW but we have to minus the large POS blocks and early POW blocks (ill get to that). Now I dont know the specs but I seen 500,000 XPY was the apparent POW supply which was incorrect and deliberately coded incorrectly to allow less POW blocks then indicated. If you were to allow a certain number of blocks you would allocate the POW change to block height, no time. By using Ntime you will usually a) confuse users as you are only estimating and b) always get it wrong. Block times are averages and using time instead of height is a deliberate method to reduce total coins. Now if we look at the stake start times, once again should be based off height not time, POS kicked in the day after launch. This then ensures less POW blocks are generated and more POS blocks, once again reducing total coins allocated to POW as more POW blocks are mined before the POW cut off time. Now even if total coins for the POW stage are not pre-announced, this method is what most devs use to allocate a greater % of total coins vs what they advertise. Now 375,656 POW coins is fine I guess until we look at the POS blocks generated. So between block 9180 and 9229, 13,000 XPY were generated through POS. Between block 14200 and 14000, another 18,000 XPY were generated. When POW was disabled, we had a total count of 12,343,000 or 343,000 coin POW phase. Since that POW phase has ended a total of 33,800 XPY have been staked with all 32,700 XPY going to POS on premined coins and addresses, with only 900 XPY to the 341,000 POW owners. This is based on the code below and looking through the block explorer. Stake Min and Max Age static const int STAKE_MIN_AGE = 60 * 60; // minimum age for coin age
static const int STAKE_MAX_AGE = 60 * 60 * 24 * 5; // stake age of full weight
Primenode Requirements. static const int64 NUMBER_OF_PRIMENODE = 50;
static const int64 MINIMUM_FOR_ORION = 50 * COIN;
static const int64 MINIMUM_FOR_PRIMENODE = 125000 * COIN; Primenode Rewards. if (primeNodeRate == 0)
nRewardCoinYear = 5 * CENT;
else if (primeNodeRate == 10)
nRewardCoinYear = 10 * CENT;
else if (primeNodeRate == 20)
nRewardCoinYear = 20 * CENT;
else if (primeNodeRate == 100)
nRewardCoinYear = 100 * CENT;
else if (primeNodeRate == 350)
nRewardCoinYear = 350 * CENT;
Now using the previous figures, lets take a look at the yearly projection using the base that POS stage is 10 days old. Primenode yearly POS XPY count 32,700 XPY * 36.5= 1,193,500 XPY (Total (BTC)51797.88806500) POW nodes yearly POS XPY count 900 * 36.5= 32,850 XPY. (Total (BTC)1425.68967150) As long as these match up to the projections and pre announcements, who cares I guess. These numbers are not 100% accurate, check the block explorer for an exact amounts. Wow! Talk about Ponzi! With 5 days maximum age that means it limits all the smaller Blocks. The Coins from the premine will always push out the small players as those Coins that DO stake, compound with interest. To limit the smaller Blocks can be good for the Coin, but you need a balance where the average person CAN stake their Coins. This means that GAW has a nearly unlimited supply of Coins they can dump on the market. |
|
|
|
there is less than 10 people to swap that i know of so its not really holding adt back the things that are holding the swap up are the adt1 chain as i need to make sure people actualy have the coins they say they have ( i am sure people dont want me giving out the coins to people that never owned coins in the first place )
Also i did tell people to swap there coins asap when adtv2 was made and the swap server was up for over 3 months
the swap server was up but there were endless problems, i had over 600m and only got a few swaps to go through. i am still holding about 400m in my adt1 wallet that are still stuck the adt1 wallet would never sync since during the months the swap server was up ppl kept smashing the adt1 chain up If you get everyone on the highest Chain you could create a hardfork to make some changes to help difficulty. |
|
|
|
yes ok, but i can honestly say i do the same. i think we are on the same page hehe. but if it really is a scam the exchanges have to remove them. but i think thats going to be difficult. companies can be faked easily as well. in real life i have been fucked a couple of times. first a company which i bought stocks from on the regular market vanished in a day...all money lost. then another company filed bankruptcy while they owed me 25k. the day after the owner started the same company under a new name and there was nothing i could do...judge said he didnt do anything illegal lol...again money lost. and here the same, malibucoin, roxcoin, and so on, allvanished or worthless... so trust me when i say i want to get rid of those scammers as well.......but till the market is regulated there is basically nothing we can do. if we dont want to be scammed then dont use the altcoin market...even legit coins can vanish... oh and i got a 4.5 for the test, max was 5  . but problem i always have that im not filling them in honestly..i know it was a psycho test, so i know which answers where bad or good and that effected the results! im a star in faking tests hehe...have gotten many jobs due to that skill I win, I got 5 out of 5 on both primary and secondary on my first try. Do I win something? You score for primary psychopathy was higher than 98% of people who have taken this test.
You score for secondary psychopathy was higher than 99.68% of people who have taken this test.
The test is nonsensical anyways, they are nuts not to grammar check the results..... ^^^^ |
|
|
|
Yeah I want you to do a giveaway, Col2.0 is in Beta testing right now and should be good to start some giveaways around Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.
OMG cant wait for that! i have alot of cash in COL v1! Hit me up on ICQ, we are live |
|
|
|
|
If ISIS made a Coin....
No exchange would trade it since it funds terrorism and depending on the country, the exchange could be shut down
Mining pools and people would attack the Coin
It's value would be 0
|
|
|
|
This is quite interesting, they are talking about both BitCoin AND the early elements of Proof of Stake.
eddie8:35 PM
I don't think you need provable cost. You need provable scarcity. And if your scheme has a byzantine registry, you're there already - you don't even need a method for generating and allocating random numbers. If there is a registry that establishes ownership of a number by a participant, then there must be a means of identifying participants - and that's all you need. Participants own their own identity.
A participant's ID becomes a coin, which they can trade as usual. Anyone who owns a coin can revoke it and issue new coins as change - the new coins are the old coin with bitstrings appended, such that the appended bitstrings completely partition the subspace. The value of any coin is then simply 1/(2^N) where N is the length of the coin (not counting the original issuer ID). For example, you could split the coin X into the coins X00, X010, X011, X10, X11, creating three +2-bit coins and two +3-bit coins. All this gets tracked in the registry.
This scheme has a (mostly) fixed amount of money that can be split into arbitrarily small denominations (and pooled and tranched into arbitrary denominations of any size). It's only mostly fixed, though - the amount of money is equal to the number of participants, and grows as the participant pool grows. Thus, the basic monetary unit is the lifetime of a person.
A similar scheme could be that each participant can issue new coins whenever they want; each coin would have a serial number, and serial number + issuer would be globally unique. Coins could still be split as before; the splitting digits would be separate from the serial number and issuer identifier. Again, the registry provides proof of scarcity. The value of coins would be measured in participant-seconds: the number of seconds between the coin's registration timestamp and the registration timestamp of the immediately prior registered coin from the same issuer. If I issued one coin a day each would be worth one person-day; if I issued two coins a day each would be worth half a person-day (on average, that is; each would be worth a specific, exact amount depending on exactly when they were issued). Now the monetary base grows both with the population and over time, so that on day 10,001 of the scheme there's .01% monetary growth from the day before. This is similar to your idea of pooling and tranching bitgold into standard-sized time-based chunks. Also, now the basic monetary unit is one day of a person's lifetime (or one second, or one year, etc.) instead of a person's entire lifetime.
With bitgold, the basic monetary unit is the cpu instruction cycle. To prevent ever-cheaper cpu cycles from causing inflation, your pooling idea then bundles cpu cycles into weeks (or days, or seconds), which become the new basic monetary unit. I think the person-second is a better fundamental unit, but if you prefer just plain seconds you can still get them without having to waste cpu cycles solving puzzles: use my person-second scheme, but stipulate that a coin's value is proportionate to the number of registered participants at the time of the coin's timestamp. In other words, my half-a-person-day coin would be worth 1/28th of a day if there were fourteen participants in the registry on the day the coin was registered. Now the monetary base grows strictly by time (adding equal amounts every time period), and the growth is distributed evenly among all participants.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I want you to do a giveaway, Col2.0 is in Beta testing right now and should be good to start some giveaways around Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.
|
|
|
|
ColossusCoin 2.0 is currently in private Beta.  |
|
|
|
|
LTCD needs a new Dev,
First off it's a bad idea to piss off the strongest supporters, second is that you should never need a moderated thread in the first place because criticism should be heard and worked out in mature discussion, third is that you should never lock the community thread because you are busy with holidays. Just because you are *too busy* to answer the hard questions or do any kind of Dev work at all doesn't give you the right to lock the community thread.
Seriously, it's holidays and it's the time when you SHOULD be working on it because you have the extra time off. They want POS but don't want to even attempt to start working on it or have any idea how it should be implemented. POS could be coded in a week but I don't see that happening because no one wants to work with Vic
My 2 Satoshis
|
|
|
|
Ah thanks you did a re-calculation and came to the same results?
Can you clarify what happened at block 1576? Why would somebody spread his mined Quark over multiple wallets 2 hours after launch?
Well, you had quoted me on it from something I had read before and posted about so I thought I'd add to it. IMO it can still be called a fair launch as it was launched within a few minutes of the original post and a lot of people jumped on it pretty quickly, the Original Post was about the same time as the first block and isn't any hidden premine or extra code or viruses as far as I can tell. The only stuff I ever heard about Quark being unfair was about the first 1000-1500 blocks and even that is still better than most launches. I was never a fan of Quark, hate the name, could have never mined it on my 4 yr old laptop and didn't want to buy it because my realization a month in was that all POW coins were going to plummet in value and they all did. "Fair" in that respect that there was a thread, and right thereafter you could mine "it" therefore you can say now; "no, Quark is not a pre-mined coin". But: 1) People had no idea what they could mine at launch, because it was not properly announced: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.msg2774534#msg2774534 2)There was at launch not a windows wallet available and you needed to be an expert in mining coins at linux. Quark supposed to be a mining coin for everyone, but it wasn't: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.msg2774809#msg27748093)The first time the developer showed himself in the Quark thread was 5 days after launch. But still he didn't say anything actually. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.msg2806797#msg2806797The developer uses a fictional name, and has not any objectives for the coin. Many months later (end 2013) you will find somewhere an interview with Max http://quarktalk.org/resources/interview-with-quark-developer-max-guevara.5/, but that is the same thing as an interview with Donald Duck who created "Duckcoin". In that interview Max doesn't say anything about himself or what other coins he created. Coins Max created or is associated with: - Myriad (confirmed by Kolin and Adam (shake) ) and to a certain extent by Max him self in an IRC meeting. - Mimiccoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=781954.msg9007804#msg9007804Note: this post also shows how nervous Max is to be associated with other coins created by him. So I don't doubt one second that he created many many more. - Zetacoin: (why authored Max for Zeta to be included with vanitygen? ) https://github.com/llamasoft/securecoin-vanitygen/pull/1/commitsWell this is a sniff thread and that is more information than I have but I was saying that it looked to be a fair launch with the possible exception of a small premine in the first 1000 blocks or so. I did read somewhere in the Quark thread about them joking about creating a coin that could only be run on an outdated computer. In my opinion "No pre-mined coin" will never work, because if you want your coin to succeed you need to have a lot of money to pay for infrastructure, development and marketing for your coin. Who is going to pay for that?? Therefore I advocate for transparent pre-mines, and that people working for that coin are not anonymous. The very few people still "working" for Quark don't show their self. I regular visit bitcoin meetings, and then it is open who is who and who is doing what. People are proud of what they are doing for bitcoin in an open way (or other altcoins).
Too bad you can't explain the spreading of Quark two hours ater launch. I still have not found somebody who could give me a logical explanation for this.
I fully agree with this, hosting and ongoing development requires an ongoing source of income and you would need some BTC in reserve to get help from people on critical issues or bugs that could render the Coin inoperable. The question with this is trust, competency and security and being too open can have unforeseen consequences. |
|
|
|
Ah thanks you did a re-calculation and came to the same results?
Can you clarify what happened at block 1576? Why would somebody spread his mined Quark over multiple wallets 2 hours after launch?
Well, you had quoted me on it from something I had read before and posted about so I thought I'd add to it. IMO it can still be called a fair launch as it was launched within a few minutes of the original post and a lot of people jumped on it pretty quickly, the Original Post was about the same time as the first block and isn't any hidden premine or extra code or viruses as far as I can tell. The only stuff I ever heard about Quark being unfair was about the first 1000-1500 blocks and even that is still better than most launches. I was never a fan of Quark, hate the name, could have never mined it on my 4 yr old laptop and didn't want to buy it because my realization a month in was that all POW coins were going to plummet in value and they all did. |
|
|
|
This is very interesting to read, and people can learn how scammers work by trying to follow this thread. The main character in this thread is "Kolin Evans" aka "digitalindustry" : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=674410.0 and made many profits with Quark and acted as if he was the spokes man of Quark. Kolin created multiple accounts and has many shill accounts. It is one big Digitalindustry family on bitcointalk. It is still difficult to find out which persons in this thread are real and who are just another account name of digitalindustry (or a shill account). But first the investigation. There are calculation mistakes and the OP overlooked (on purpose?) a few interesting things while he pointed to it. The most important doubtful things I found: 1) the blocks 1, 100 and 1000 and timestamps:block 1: 13:03:50 Block 2: 13:04:06 (=16 seconds block time) block 100: 13:14:18 (=average block time of 612 seconds/100 blocks = 6 seconds!) block 1000: 14:42:58 (=average block time of 5932 seconds/1000 blocks = 6 seconds!) With the 30 second blocktime of Quark you would expect: Block 100 after: 100*30 seconds = 50 minutes. Not 10 minutes after launch Block 1000 after: 1000*30 seconds = 500 minutes = 8 hours and 20 minutes. Not 1 hour and 38 minutes after launch. Above is exactly the reason why Quark is called an instamined coin by many persons: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=833442.msg9341740#msg9341740 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.msg2774252#msg2774252Nowhere in his investigation this is discussed. 2) Multiple wallet addresses direct after launch.When you check the blockchain you will find multiple Quark wallet addresses mining Quark. This is mostly used as an argument for good distribution of Quark. However... Is each wallet address a single miner, or have single miners multiple wallet addresses? Or was a mixing device used? I have no idea.... But... If there were so many miners at launch why was the hashrate so low?? https://bitinfocharts.com/de/comparison/difficulty-qrk.htmlAs can be seen, the hashrate increased when the price exploded in November/December 2013. Not at launch. Also what is doubtful is that Quark was spread over multiple addresses just two hours after launch (see block 1576: http://qrk.blockr.io/block/info/1576 ) Nowhere the OP discussed this in his investigation. 3) Total amount of Quark Quark is designed that after 6 months there were 247M Quark in circulation, and thereafter there can still be 1M Quark mined each year. This means that at the moment about 248M Quark is in existence. According to the OP there are about 782M Quark in circulation at 20NOV2013 (4 Months after launch). A miscalculation of more than 500M Quark by the OP. So far in my opinion the lousy investigation by the OP. I notified him, but of course he didn't react or corrected his investigation. Further about the reactions afterwards. That is also interesting to see. According to " digitalindustry" (DI) and "Spoetnik" (a person associated with Kolin, who have problems to distinguish himself from DI ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=833442.msg9366830#msg9366830 ) this is a great investigation and compliment the OP. . The Quark holders (netnox, coinmama, quarkfx, quarkcheck and reraise), are also happy and relieved that they haven't invest in a "scam coin" and show appreciation to the OP. But then there is one person "Stealthcoin" who knows more about Quark and knows this whole investigation is just one "theater play" by scammers. He tried to show, but he is attacked by (shill)accounts of DI, and the OP removes some of his posts. The (shill)accounts of DI who attack "stealthcoin" are: StephenJH, AliceWonder, Spoetnik and BitcoiNaked. It is interesting to see that scammers attack the attackers (try to denigrate the attacker) and try to confuse. But that real investors are done with posting in this thread after they showed their appreciation. Your calculations are mostly right but I think you are mistaken about the relationships between the people with it, for the most part people around the forums don't communicate as much and are just skeptical of each other in general. The First Blocks that would have been mined then or Premine through Instamine might be about 2 Million or so? I guess it would depend on how long it was released after BitcoinTalk launch and how many Blocks were mined before then to get an idea of the amount of hashrate that the initial rigs were outputting. Height: 1 Version: 112 Transaction Merkle Root: 7db74d7bdacb6068375d799062dbe044a0fa77debdf43c02bca55c7e8a5f7243 Time: 1374422630 (2013-07-21 16:03:50) looking at the Quark Block Explorer, 28 Blocks were mined in the first 5 minutes (average time 10.7 seconds) Height: 28 Version: 112 Transaction Merkle Root: cfcaad1952520c853c4376e6dfea85c9dd0815bf46ee5041890e1964a3ff8fe4 Time: 1374422928 (2013-07-21 16:08:48) 95 blocks after 10 Minutes (average time 5.7 seconds) Height: 95 Version: 112 Transaction Merkle Root: 0038481bdc7830eee0ca15b18082f1459840ff2052b7225817ae5e4d30350137 Time: 1374423222 (2013-07-21 16:13:42) 500 blocks after 45 minutes (average time 5.4 seconds) Height: 500 Version: 112 Transaction Merkle Root: f3a9c374a5fe484c12602592a02cdef33d4c1da8d1a6e791a4a5f88bc41380dd Time: 1374425372 (2013-07-21 16:49:32) 750 blocks after 1 hour and 6 minutes (average time 5.28 seconds) Height: 750 Version: 112 Transaction Merkle Root: 8b58465d421d334280b471272a3fa381dd48981fd04203bbedc89db7034db4a8 Time: 1374426572 (2013-07-21 17:09:32) Difficulty: 1.991 (Bits: 1e008091) Cumulative Difficulty: 1.583 1000 blocks after 1 hour and 40 minutes (average time 6 seconds) Height: 1000 Version: 112 Transaction Merkle Root: 0bfc8ae71f8d1316e80e36d115cc1012dd6450ab5d189a209677f5d8183c3544 Time: 1374428578 (2013-07-21 17:42:58) Difficulty: 6.949 (Bits: 1d24d6f1) Cumulative Difficulty: 5.363 1500 blocks after 3 hours and 50 minutes (average time 9.23 seconds) Height: 1500 Version: 112 Transaction Merkle Root: deede55bf518b02db7532b706dab0e7cf8451d4e9f6aaef495cb9511f8aab737 Time: 1374436403 (2013-07-21 19:53:23) Difficulty: 76.878 (Bits: 1d035477) Cumulative Difficulty: 59.770 Now you can go to the Quark topic main page https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.0 and you can see that everyone was complaining about orphans but lots of people got blocks, one guy got 50 blocks of the first 1000 blocks. Conclusion:With low starting difficulty and a long retarget time, the reward output increases until the hashrate levels out. If there was a large rig put on to Quark after it was launched by the developers that made it, that hashrate would have been pushed out by the time it hit block 1500 or so, a lot of miners found the difficulty getting too high to mine quite early on in the life of Quark. |
|
|
|
This thread is full of lies... you know this is what your setup really looks like. liar.  Total Hollywood style, the pressed suit gives it away |
|
|
|
|
Trolls are gonna troll and make smartass comments, I know there is some joke in there somewhere about a developer in his natural habitat lol.
Nice setup you've got there, looks like you are working hard on Emunie. The only advice I can give is to keep it simple and robust, make it easy for non-tech people to understand and take price over the long-term into account.
|
|
|
|
The most protocol advancements were through Proof of Stake Coins which also introduced POS 2.0, sending using minimal CoinAge, Stake for Charity, use of int64_t and levelDB for efficiency improvements, Quick-sync among many other smaller changes.
Is the bolditalicised part ^^^^ a description of the components that differentiate "POS 2.0" from "POS 1.0" or an unrelated list of added features/changes? I've seen the term "POS 2.0" used but I've yet to encounter a definition. Cheers Graham The definition mainly refers to BlackCoin in that the Proof of Stake has advanced enough that it is a far cry from Proof of Stake a year ago. There is no real definition as there are varying layers that could fit in so it is a general term. |
|
|
|
|
No I don't think GasCoin FuelCoin will be bigger than BitCoin.
|
|
|
|
|
For top 10 scams you should list the Scam by severity with references. StackCoin, AuroraCoin and BitSwift are a few that immediately come to mind.
CryptoRush got hacked and lost everything
Bter was hacked for 50 million NXT
MintPal was hacked for 30% of Vericoin and they rolled back the Blockchain
MaintPal was acquired by Moolah and Ryan Gentle ran off with everyones funds
X11 was introduced
BlackCoin helped standardize POS only
Anonyminity was introduced
The most protocol advancements were through Proof of Stake Coins which also introduced POS 2.0, sending using minimal CoinAge, Stake for Charity, use of int64_t and levelDB for efficiency improvements, Quick-sync among many other smaller changes.
Nubits, the first USD peg was also introduced
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
