yesterday i sent some BTM from polo to trex, after 24 hours it still has only 1/6 confirmations? what's up with the blockchain? or is bittrex responsible for that delay?
No, that's just the network being slow due to the high difficulty and low hashrate at the moment. Sorry for the inconvenience, but it will confirm eventually. |
|
|
|
Well, to be fair a lot of people were turned off by both the rhetoric surrounding XMR and a few of the worst offenders constantly posting zealotry. Since the price drop though those people haven't been posting at all from what I've seen and things have gone back to normal. There were two people I can think of that probably were mostly responsible for the public perception of 'shilling', Nekomata and Skinnavaj(sp?). Drawingthesun was somewhat similar for a while but he quickly realized that sort of attitude was doing more harm than good and did a good job of reigning it in. And then someone came along and created Moneroman88 as a parody of XMR supporters. And it's safe to assume that a lot of people reading the forum didn't realize that the account was a 'reverse shill' meant to cause damage. So it's not too hard to see why many people here have a bad impression of XMR from their readings here. That and a lot of people seemed to have a problem with the amount of separate XMR threads that were active at one point. But they were all legitimate separate topics though like mining, speculation ect. People here get offended easily though over the smallest things.  |
|
|
|
any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.
You have no idea who Satoshi is, nor whether he (or they) got paid. If you'd rather developers steal coins from their users in the form of pre/insta-mines as opposed to asking for contributions, then you have a plethora of options. The rest of us have XMR. Not to mention that Bitcoin is also funded by donations since years... yes and there is nothing wrong with people making donations because they want to vs developers begging for money and threatening to stop developing because of lack of donation support. There is a difference in my mind. If its that good than someone will step in and donate their time because they believe in it. Or the community will raise funds to help. Not because some greedy developer feels their time isn't being compensated enough for a project they supposedly believed in enough to create. It's your money, donate to whatever scam you want. But you won't change my mind about investing in what I consider bad behavior. Lol. The XMR devs have never begged for money or threatened to stop developing. I have no idea where you're getting that idea from. All I was saying before is that if they had some huge instamine that they could fund themselves with it's likely that things would be a bit different now as having that much money to put towards development is a huge advantage. Even with minimal funding they've done a lot of work. They do obviously believe in it else they wouldn't have spent so much time and money on the project. |
|
|
|
lol your funny i just want to make a profit gmc keep promising things and its taken them like 50 years almost like they pump the price to sell there bag and then its back down untill they deside to say mmmm " partnership" but its secret one
The partnership part of it isn't important. The important part is the development of the Games Payment Platform. It doesn't matter who's working on it as much as it matters that it's being worked on. A payment platform using cryptocurrency is essential to many projects, including my own. This is the first step towards enabling adoption by both game companies and gamers themselves. |
|
|
|
One thing that I've noticed is that the instamine seems to actually have turned out to be a good thing for DRK(in the short term at least) as it clearly gives Evan Duffield a massive incentive to continue to develop and foster growth. Also it enables funding to further the project and it seems that DRK has been pretty consistent with development. Personally I completely dismissed DRK at some point last year and I'm surprised to see that it's continued to do fairly well. But it makes sense because the incentives are aligned with continued development. Long term though single individuals holding so much supply can be dangerous. Even Bitcoin has this same issue though with Satoshi.
Contrast this to XMR where developer funding is a big problem. The XMR devs have put a very large amount of their own money in to paying for research and code reviews and such. And from what I've read the entire team holds less than 80k XMR between them(7 people?). This has been used as a selling point by some people in the XMR community as evidence of a fair distribution, which it seems to be. But fair in the short term doesn't necessarily equate to a situation where those who have the ability to produce the most value actually have the resources to do so. So we get to see the trade offs here between two currencies with similar goals.
edit: that 80k XMR number is probably way out date and doesn't consider the likelyhood that they've all bought more since the price has come down quite a bit.
any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin. Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard. Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it. "handouts" from performing skilled labour? That's a first. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is "hopelessly out-of-date".
Not really. While it's out of date compared to '2.0' projects like NXT, BTS, Ethereum ect there's still a lot of development going on. 0.10.0 has a good amount of new stuff including RESTful nodes and such. Bitcoin development is orders of magatude more active than Litecoin. Which is why it makes a lot more sense to fork a project that stays update with Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
When I registered in late 2013, most of the coins being released were based on Litecoin but with a different name/logo and slightly different specifications (e.g. different coin supply, faster/slower block generation, etc.). The first altcoin I tried mining was Kittehcoin, followed by Coinye. Looking at the announcements board, it seems that there aren't quite as many altcoins based on Litecoin anymore and the popularity of the scrypt algorithm seems to have dropped for new coins. I'm guessing this is due to scrypt now being dominated by ASICs.
Is there still any interest in coins based on Litecoin? And if not, then what is the coin that most altcoins are based on these days? Peercoin? Blackcoin? Darkcoin?
Litecoin has been hopelessly out of date for a while. If the development had stayed active on it you would probably see more forks. But now there's Pfennig which is based on Bitcoin 0.9.4 and modified to scrypt. So forking a legacy currency like Litecoin isn't really worth it these days. |
|
|
|
|
One thing that I've noticed is that the instamine seems to actually have turned out to be a good thing for DRK(in the short term at least) as it clearly gives Evan Duffield a massive incentive to continue to develop and foster growth. Also it enables funding to further the project and it seems that DRK has been pretty consistent with development. Personally I completely dismissed DRK at some point last year and I'm surprised to see that it's continued to do fairly well. But it makes sense because the incentives are aligned with continued development. Long term though single individuals holding so much supply can be dangerous. Even Bitcoin has this same issue though with Satoshi.
Contrast this to XMR where developer funding is a big problem. The XMR devs have put a very large amount of their own money in to paying for research and code reviews and such. And from what I've read the entire team holds less than 80k XMR between them(7 people?). This has been used as a selling point by some people in the XMR community as evidence of a fair distribution, which it seems to be. But fair in the short term doesn't necessarily equate to a situation where those who have the ability to produce the most value actually have the resources to do so. So we get to see the trade offs here between two currencies with similar goals.
edit: that 80k XMR number is probably way out date and doesn't consider the likelyhood that they've all bought more since the price has come down quite a bit.
|
|
|
|
[1] - stop with the instamined crap. It wasn't and everyone's bored with that year-old stale fud
I could have sworn I saw some pretty good evidence that there was in fact a large instamine. I remember seeing graphs and such. The number 2 million seems to ring a bell, but I'm not sure. |
|
|
|
How long will a trade take in this new wallet? What I don't like about trading in the NXT asset exchange is waiting ages for a trade to confirm. They say each confirmation should only take minutes, but in practice I found it sometimes takes half an hour for one cofirmation.
InstantDEX to the rescue!  |
|
|
|
You want to have open-source because it lets people work on the project they are investing in. Say something like Bitcoin was closed source, how would anyone take Bitcoin seriously if they didn't know how it's run? Then it would just be another startup company like moneygram or paypal in which you have to go through all the legislation process. If you have open-source it means that you have the confidence to share your ideas freely and not care if other people use them because you are advancing the tech as a whole.
If Bitcoin was closed source it would be just as popular imo even more. we would be trading at 10k a coin already. people would still understand it . closed source doesn't mean no documentation. I like your term "share ideas freely". thats exactly my point . people mistake open source with sharing ideas or not protecting them legally. i'm all for that but bitcoins idea could have been shared without open sourcing it. this wouldn't hinder skilled individuals to develope similar code. it would only leave out the unskilled and lazy. Bitcoin would be close to worthless if it was closed source. It being open source is absolutely fundamental to what it attempts to be: a trustless decentralised cryptocurrency. If it was closed source you might as well just make a database and not bother wasting all these resources on mining. Closed source requires trust. And there are lots of companies I would trust and have no problem running commercial software from. But closed source in crypto is the cardinal sin. I understand that argument. but don't misinterpret decentralisation with belonging equally to everybody. a good that belongs equally to everyone could never function as a medium of exchange (money) like btc is intended. the gold in this worlds underground doesn't belong equally to all of us neither. it belongs firstly to those who put the work in to mine it. now if you wanna make the analogy here between a goldmine and a bitcoin miner it only works when bitcoin like gold remains unique and not inflationary duplicatable with little effort. Same goes for every altcoin that aims to improve upon btc. I think the obsession with open source in crypto is the cardinal sin and will be its death eventually if we don't realise. It doesn't have to belong to everyone if it's open source. You can choose whatever licence that you want and set the rules how you see fit. But the important thing is that the code is available and can be reviewed and compiled by people. |
|
|
|
Regarding the double spend every 30hs, I have given all the technical details (which were never a secret, that's just how POW and POS work), so you'll have to admit it's possible: the only problem is acquiring the forging weight (be it leasing or buying/scamming/stealing/whatever).
Is this any different from the stuff outlined in Kushti's paper? Or is this different? |
|
|
|
You want to have open-source because it lets people work on the project they are investing in. Say something like Bitcoin was closed source, how would anyone take Bitcoin seriously if they didn't know how it's run? Then it would just be another startup company like moneygram or paypal in which you have to go through all the legislation process. If you have open-source it means that you have the confidence to share your ideas freely and not care if other people use them because you are advancing the tech as a whole.
If Bitcoin was closed source it would be just as popular imo even more. we would be trading at 10k a coin already. people would still understand it . closed source doesn't mean no documentation. I like your term "share ideas freely". thats exactly my point . people mistake open source with sharing ideas or not protecting them legally. i'm all for that but bitcoins idea could have been shared without open sourcing it. this wouldn't hinder skilled individuals to develope similar code. it would only leave out the unskilled and lazy. Bitcoin would be close to worthless if it was closed source. It being open source is absolutely fundamental to what it attempts to be: a trustless decentralised cryptocurrency. If it was closed source you might as well just make a database and not bother wasting all these resources on mining. Closed source requires trust. And there are lots of companies I would trust and have no problem running commercial software from. But closed source in crypto is the cardinal sin. |
|
|
|
Curious, is the number of computations capped in the network, or potentially infinite as well? Can multiple stakers compete for this 200%?
If multiple stakers compete for 200% then the quotient is lowered from 200% to, say, 180%. If all the stakers compete then it's back to 100%. Hm, do they obtain 200% of their own stake relative to the network, or is the result a higher net subsidy created overall? No subsidy in NXT, only fees. So it's not as big of a problem as it would be if there were block rewards that inflated the supply. |
|
|
|
UpdateBitmark 0.9.4 is released, full builds for Linux, Windows, and OSX can be found on v0.9.4 ReleasePfennig 0.9.4 is on GitHub. Pfennig 0.9.4 with KGW Support is also on GitHub. Bitcore 0.10.3 is ready to use and available here. Insight, and Insight APIYou can also find a new bitmark-seeder on GitHub. All master nodes have been updated, as has the official block explorer. The network now has active DNS Seeds which all prior releases, and this release, will use with immediate effect. The next release of Bitmark will be 0.10 in late March, or as soon as a suitable new difficulty algorithm has been identified, implemented, and tested. Great to see.  Thanks. |
|
|
|
What was decided from meeting any timelines or more stall?
markpfennig: I'll share in more details shortly, for now they can be summarized as:
[23:10] markpfennig: On Bitmark Core
1. Liaise with Leathan to get 2 DNS Seeders for the Bitmark Network Running
2. Add (1) to Bitmark Core
3. Finish Bitmark 0.9.4 release, cross compile, and publish on Friday.
4. Patch Block Explorer to latest version
[23:11] markpfennig: On Marking Layer
1. Setup GOLD server to store marking data
2. Hook in the Marking Button prototype to store markings on (1)
3. Hook in Markus to store markings on (1)
[23:11] markpfennig: On MUWA Layer
1. Work with @amarha and @alex to get that project underway and being developed.
[23:12] markpfennig: Those are my personal deliverables for the coming week, which are realistic, on point, and measurable.
[23:12] markpfennig: For the community, I'd like to see
[23:14] markpfennig: 1. bitmark.co website handed off to somebody who can "own" that, we have most elements and text in different resources already, templates done, it just need text put in to templates.
2. Make a document or wiki page of example marking usage, we've had hundreds of examples, want them documented somewhere
3. Identify 3 -4 end to end use cases to implement and use for testing.
Getting these projects started this week. |
|
|
|
|
"cold wallet"
So either they don't know what this phrase means, or someone physically took their keys from their office or where ever they kept them.
Or Lin the guy who was one of the main culprits in the Bitbay scam with Bob Surplus et al decided that it was time to close up shop and move on with ~7k BTC.
|
|
|
|
After very public acknowledgement depicted profusely here in BTCT of the BTER willful participation in the scam that BitPay was, along with Bobsurplus and David Zimbeck, anyone using BTER at all cannot be surprised if scammed, so not sorry at all for those who choose to be victims.
Aren't you a Paycoin apologist though? Why go from a scam hater to defending one of the largest scams in crypto history? |
|
|
|
Hey guys, I am considering to invest in Supernet. Theres just one important question for me. Is there clear information about the identity of jl777? I know his name is James, but is there more info?
His real name is Dennis Ritchie. But no one is supposed to know that. |
|
|
|
i must say nxt is one of the major underrated coins out there. the stuff they have so far is a bit mind blowing to whatever one else is just building. its sad that they dont have the marketing down.
Marketing a crypto is kind of difficult. Because people are really resistant to things that aren't Bitcoin and like to brand everything a scam. That or you get accused of 'pumping'. I think marketing to people outside of the crypto community is probably a lot more beneficial. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
