Well, I suspect that the community would treat actual deployment of God-Emperor Exchange even less warmly than it treats large "future development/exotic laundry" premines.

Though I think that Ixcoin could do that with relatively little public relations issues... Maybe we should propose that to the fakepanese guy ?

I think that if you read 1st post in the TBX thread, you know that I have a far more fascinating plan then just "cash out", a plan that pretty much requires a buffer of several million coins to work (In case you didn't read, I plan to set up a transaction anonymization service that 1) has buffer in the millions 2) can operate without a website)

That will make TBX and GG extra-attractive for SR types

Also, there is no upper limit on TBX generation, so at some point in the future, the Fun-d won't be all that big compared to the whole system


Doesn't seem to bother people with diamonds, gold, and USD (and the latter can be printed at a whim as well)

Meh, botmasters will have  incentive to hoard anything that they don't need to spend on their immediate human needs (hookers and blow) and botnet's expansion (buying 0day exploit  know-hows etc.)

Which means that botnets will increase price (slowly, at first)

And the higher the price escalates the more incentive rational botmaster will have to hoard.

Y not mine Geist Geld ? It's GPU friendly and has 15s blocks and Escrow transactions (and might soon get other funnehs)

Meanwhile, if you want to mine a CPU-friendly cryptocurrency while mining a GPU-friendly cryptocurrency you can mine Tenebrix

P.S.:
Full disclosure - both are currencies I am strongly associated with and allchains.info sez that NMC is by far the most lucrative GPU currency to mine.

Solidcoin is for now largely an imagination-friendly currency. That is, you can only mine it with your imagination.

Sadly, it can thus be exchanged only for imaginary assets.

I wonder, why it does concern you so much, is this some peculiar competitive sense, or are you just upset that I didn't donate any to the "Solidcoin 2.0 makefile restoration fund" ?

Probably some of the folks from the speculation subforum 

He continued it quite for some time, I dunno why he did. Even now he occasionally pops up.


An obnoxious Russian woman has beaten you to it by about two years or so.

I wonder if ixcoin author is gonna try resuscitating his little baby tho....

Next Big Thing:

Coin Necromancy.

I think I will, when I sort out a few things with updating TBX and GG with a bunch of Good Things and fixes, and some other things.

I think clients will just crash


Yes, exactly, though I'm being told that the problem could be solved even before we move to 128 bit processors, just currently there exists no urgent need for a blockchain with 200+ billion coins in it.

It's not like anyone is starting DollarCoins, with guaranteed USD equivalence ~__^

Um, you mean you just copypasted the binaries built on one linux box to another lin and it misbehaved ? Or is something more sinister afoot ?

Also, AFAIK the max coinage a chain can deal with is around 130 billions....

Well, I will do a branch from main Tenebrix-minerd tomorrow (the optimization is too experimental to throw it into the main, IMHO). I'll PM you when it's done.

General advice is to build it on Lin64 since that's where Art was getting good results, it's currently verily experimental so take care.

Agreed, you're awesome.

I hope I will not be booed down for issuing a reward for this awesome bit of work ?

Bulanula, are you on win or on Linux ? I'm about to pull an experimental Tenebrix Minerd optimization by ArtForz that is tailored to 64 bit linuxes (completely untested on win)
Can squeeze out up to 30% more.

Warning about NTP means that you are best to restart - most likely, you've merely got a shitty NTP server talking to you (I find the "ntp=0 crowd strikes again" to be somewhat implausible at this point), but better safe than sorry.

Good doggie, now run and sell some of the Tenebrix you've mined, because I hear there's some folks buying those thingies quite eagerly over there on btc-e.

From the top of my graphic-designery meatbrains (so likely a very measly attack), let's consider a situation with 2 exchanges (not implausible), one of which is under attacker's influence (knowingly or not).

Exchange 1 "blesses" block No X on "legit" chain

Exchange 2 transmits a blessing for same block number ("X"), but on a chain synthesized by the attacker.

Attacker then "reveals" his blockchain, and it is "longer" (in the "sum of work" sense, of course)

How does system respond ?

First, thank you for the remark - while I am aware of how and why upgrades are  implemented at "Block X", your pedantic reminders are appreciated anyway (Since I am far from being a shining example of skill, having someone pedantic around is very important)

However, the issue brought up by MoonShadow was not "how does one implement a PoW upgrade" but "what if a group of people with a significant fraction of network computational power  willfully refuse to upgrade their software with a new version that includes a "chain-breaking" update"

To which my humble response is, basically, "as long as they don't have pools and / or exchanges among them, that is not an issue".

Also, to address an issue I find mildly bothersome, I am not a "showrunner" or "leader", and am a little bit annoyed when people make such claims.


You want to say that alt-coins, or, for that matter, bitcoin itself, has a lot of goods/services providers whose business model is not reliant upon ability to convert cryptocoins to fiat, and are essentially "cryptocoin self-contained" ?

Well, since I am not aware of independent research as to the subject, I might very well be wrong and such enterprises might very well be common, but so far I fail to recall even one...would you please dispel my ignorance ?


So, typing dog  standard of evidence strikes again ?

Congrats indeed.

Too bad the Coin King doesn't share his racket fund with his subjects so willingly