Do you have some statistic on % of people on the latest version ? I think one of the other team members may have the stats on this, but I could tell you that it's still a large number. If you look at http://seeds.auroracoin.is/, the USA West node is the bridge node that allows the older clients to connect to the newer ones. The fact that it's much higher in connections is because there are still a ton of older clients connected to it. If needed, I can provide a list. The other nodes will only have the newer clients connected to them. -Fuse Thanks. Is it anyway to send each wallet a note ''Hey buddy, please update!'' ? (-------------------technical noob If we had the original alert keys, we could do that. However, we were not given the keys for the old code. So we added new keys to the code, and we will be able to push messages like this in the newer wallets. At some point we'll cut off the bridge node and just move on, but we figured we'd leave it open until we saw enough transition from the community. -Fuse |
|
|
|
Do you have some statistic on % of people on the latest version ? I think one of the other team members may have the stats on this, but I could tell you that it's still a large number. If you look at http://seeds.auroracoin.is/, the USA West node is the bridge node that allows the older clients to connect to the newer ones. The fact that it's much higher in connections is because there are still a ton of older clients connected to it. If needed, I can provide a list. The other nodes will only have the newer clients connected to them. -Fuse |
|
|
|
Support just emailed me : Bittrex AUR market is open !
Great news indeed! Let's get some volume moving  -Fuse |
|
|
|
Want to remind everyone to update their wallets to the latest version.
This is too broad a statement, I think. I think you should be more specific about who should update to (or from) what version and why. Also: do you have a changelog somewhere? Cant find one. I'm on the 0.8 master branch, version 0.8.7.5 since about 3 weeks ago. You probably don't need me to update, right? You're good, mate. 0.8.7.5 is the latest.... for now  -Fuse |
|
|
|
I just checked the hash distribution and it turns out this unknown pool has 99% of the hashing power..
Is that not a problem ?
People usually start freeking out when it goes over 51%
where did you check that? I'm guessing "unknown" is not really a pool, it just means the site that does the stats doesn't know who is the miner. It's probably not a single entity. This means that CryptoID doesn't know from what pools / miners the hashrate comes from. Just states the collective hashrate of all unknown pools / miners together not that 99% is from a single unknown pool. This can be verified by checking the latest block solvers block by block. There is a lot of variation in there on what addresses are solving blocks. If a single entity was solving 99% of the blocks, we would be making a statement about it for sure. -Fuse |
|
|
|
This is where the Gulden haters hang out. Can we get more bad comments on that ANN to kill price.
Trackcoins, you're a funny guy. But seriously, please stick to the NLG thread for NLG stuff. We've already ditched a bunch of the fudders and trolls, so we're trying to keep things clean over here. We're trying to stay away from drama over here, mate. If you want to get involved with AUR in a constructive way, that would be awesome. If you're just here to troll NLG and AUR, we really don't need it, mate. -Fuse |
|
|
|
Welcome back Fuse Good to see you still following the topic. I don't. Someone let me know about this stuff. And no, it wasn't LTEX. I'll go back to unwatching this thread now. If anyone has anything to say to me, you can bring it up in PM. -Fuse |
|
|
|
LTEX I know Biomike and criptoe are your sock puppets and the team will have there sock puppets supporting them. You do the thinking for biomike and criptoe and team does thinking for it's supporters. Not everyone can have their needs met.
I truly don't know where you always get the impression I'm controlling anything or have sock puppets working for me. FYI, I'm the only one here that is member of Criptoe, no other active member here as far as I know. And BioMike is a big boy, that can perfectly speak for himself. As far as I'm concerned I'm one of the community members of Gulden, just as you are. I might be a bit more concerned with things than others, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to dictate things. I have an idea for the team, shutdown the official forum and let a person in the community build one. 99% of the other coins have forums setup by community then it doesn't become your issue and everyone is content. Like others have said it's a waste of time for the team to be focussing on something as trivial as a forum.
Now this is something I fully agree on. This is also the reason why this discussion keeps coming back again and again. Why? Because it's not us, the community members who get to decide what forum is going to be used, that is being dictated by the ones in control of the media, being the Dev's. They refuse to cooperate in building a community forum the community (by large majority) asks for. They singlesidedly changed "our" forum overnight into something very technical, without any consultation whatsoever. A vast majority complained about that and kept asking to go back to the old one. Up to this moment, Rijk refuses to even discuss that. So explain to me how the dev team is here only to serve the majority of the community, while they even refuse to let that community use their main means of existence the way they ask for? 1. Biomike and Criptoe are with you on AUR team? This tells me they agree with you and will side with you whatever you say. It is just human nature as you have close relationship. 2. The community can serve the majority of the community. I do agree the switch over to new forum without consultation wasn't very smart and premature. Have they done this again since? They also human and will make mistakes and that was a mistake sure but to keep on and on about the same shit is getting old. Stop complaining and build a new forum. I've kept my mouth shut for a very long time, but I'm starting to get sick of this shit with dragging my team(Criptoe) through the mud in this fucking childish, dick-measuring display of power. Leave us out of your little community shouting match. We are no sock puppets to anyone. We don't follow whatever LTEX says, as evident by the fact that my entire team, with the exception of LTEX, sold out of NLG and walked away. I've told LTEX over and over again to just sit on his coins and walk away, or sell out and have fewer grey hairs this year. We walked away because we didn't want to be a part of this circus anymore, he chose to stay. That should tell you something. And what, because we said we'd help out when we could with AUR, we're mindless zombies blindly following LTEX? We were asked by the foundation members if we wanted to help out. We gladly accepted, as it was a breathe of fresh air after trying to work with people here. Some of the team already had holdings in AUR. It was a coin we were already interested in because of it's early distribution model. We didn't go because LTEX said "do it". So frankly, fuck off if you can't get your facts straight. You, that guy berry, and anyone else that wants to drag us into this community fight after us walking away like 8 months ago. I'm tired of people dragging my team through the mud because they can't find anything else to back up their arguments. We walked away. Let us be for fucks sake. -Fuse |
|
|
|
AUR has checkpoints.
How does it work? Did you reverse transactions before?
Does AUR have merged mining?
Estimated inflation?
I can answer 2 of these question and am interested myself in answers to the other 2. Does AUR have merged mining? => no, purely scrypt pow currently Did you reverse transactions before? => no Estimated inflation? => ? AUR has checkpoints. How does it work? => ? I couldn't answer the question of inflation. I honestly don't pay much attention to inflation to be honest. A lot of people have been talking about inflation lately... I wonder why there's a trend lately. As far as checkpoints go, are both of you asking how checkpoints work in general? Like almost every other coin that uses static checkpoints, we hardcode a blocks on the blockchain in the wallet code so when the chain syncs it has a reference block to compare to, making sure that there are no forked chains being accepted as a valid chain. Some coins use automatic checkpoints, which is a novel idea, but good old fashioned hard-coding works just fine. Typically, you place checkpoints around major development changes, so hard and soft forks are handled better on a fresh sync. Let me know if you meant something different with regards to checkpoints. -Fuse |
|
|
|
Anyone have some addnodes? Only six connections on my nodes and 2 are mine.
This is the list of updated nodes connected to the bridge node. There was about 5 times this list that was still on the old version. Please update your wallets.87.213.74.218
94.242.229.111
37.97.135.213
195.154.185.5
104.236.66.174
89.18.181.134
80.248.18.148
80.248.18.177
80.248.22.20
80.248.18.176
85.220.104.87
89.160.194.106
159.203.74.236
46.182.188.8
82.137.8.232
46.182.188.8
-Fuse |
|
|
|
@ny2cafuse
I am sorry that you can't handle multiple thoughts and ideas in the same post.
If you reread what I posted about supernet, that first mention of arbitrage was about them NOT a weed coin fund/group/cabal/etc.
You still haven't provided a coherent reason why we should merge them all into one coin to rule them all. I find it funny that instead of answering some of the questions I pose you waste time responding point on point about something I mentioned twice and in a different context than you interpreted it.
I won't reiterate my previous questions but consider this my last response TO YOU on this topic until you give a reasoned response to the multiple questions I posed that are at the core of doing what you want to do.
I gave you multiple reasons in my post, but you failed to really read any of it. You let your ego get in the way of taking the time to process the information. I'm guessing like the last time, you instantly dismissed what I wrote, because to you I am a lesser person who can't possibly comprehend anything you say. It's pointless discussing anything with you. Seriously. When you can put your ego and your wallet aside, I'll take you seriously. Until then, please just put me on ignore and I'll do the same to you. For the sake of sanity, there's no reason for us to discuss anything further. What is the purpose of this "supernet?" Is there any plan for a single consolidated wallet? Will a user be forced to transact in multiple currencies? Its hard enough getting people to accept a single cryptocurrency as viable how do you plan to sell them on a handful of currencies at the same time?
I don't understand how combining multiple coins into a "network" is going to serve any purpose. Its all just code. if you want a feature from another coin somebody just has to write it in (ahem...PoSv anyone?). A "supernet" will just confuse things and require a more robust development team to maintain it all. We barely have a development team capable of running a single coin let alone a network of them.
Exactly correct. I'm glad I'm not the only one not seeing this as a solution. -Fuse |
|
|
|
I know you dislike when I break down my replies to individual points, but like I've said before, it helps for clarity so it's easier for you to dismiss what I'm saying. Besides, I find it funny when you don't read it and come back with another argument. We don't disagree on consolidation and unification of ideas and resources. However consolidation of ALL weedcoins into 1 larger mega coin to me is not needed.
As I tried to elude to with the question about General Mills and the 100+ varieties of cereal with the same basic ingredients, its about marketing and market share. Giving people a choice of coins will bring greater adoption and community support/action than bundling them all up under one banner/blockchain. Not to mention that consolidation and destruction of all current weedcoins doesn't preclude someone or multiple someones from launching new coins. What do we with those? Bring them into the fold as well? Who pays for that?
Do you really think anyone is going to start another MMJ coin if one coin holds the majority of the market's support? That's an uphill battle that is pointless. The only reason there are so many MMJ coins right now is because they all started in the span of a couple months trying to be "the coin". With regards to marketing, if there is one serious coin that had the backing of all communities, I would think marketing the coin would be a lot easier than it's proven to be. You seem to be all over the map with your analogies and understanding of my POV and statements regarding inflation, supply/demand, etc.
By your states versus federal dollar logic, ALL altcoins should be melded into BTC. Why have alternative blockchains who are testing the limits of what crypto is and can be? Why have alternative coins to test new code and features? Why not just abolish all alts and issue BTC for their destruction?
Its pretty ironic when you talk about me be all over the map. You go from financials to testnets in the span of 2 sentances. BTC should be BTC. Earthcoin should be Earthcoin. Hell... Tittycoin should be Tittycoin. And so on and so on. But we don't need to divide the community among 7(?) different MMJ coins. Also, you don't need alternative coins to test features. You can do that with a testnet or a private live network. It's pretty common with devs to do this. Not sure if you were aware of that. IMO having a weedcoin super group is a better and more prudent option than creating one blockchain to rule them all. Which coin do we use for this new chain? And who pays for the coins used for the conversion? Do we do a premine for a brand new coin? How long do we give people to turn in their other coins for this new world currency? How do we price the conversion?
You expect the "people" to decide that? The "people" can't even decide on whether or not to raise the blocksize for BTC, the "people" can barely decide who their leaders should be. Your mistaken to think that my argument against consolidation into 1 chain is about arbitrage, its NOT and I never said it was. The reason as I stated above was about choice, you get more sales by offering the illusion of choice than by offering only 1 option.
The only reason you gave besides using other coins as a testnet was arbitrage: Why consolidate them? I believe the point by the actual supernet is that each coin has unique features being tested on that coin, eventually other coins may want to integrate that code if/when it proves useful and popular. The other idea behind the supernet index/pool/whatever you want to call it is that they have a fund that arbitrages and trades those coins, they provide liquidity and price smoothing and pass those returns on to anyone actively staking BTCD. My thinking is to do something similar. Setup a fund that is split 50/50 between staking and arbitrage and pass those returns onto fund holders, the only question is how to pass it on and that would depend on how its setup and how many individual investors are involved.
For someone who is so involved in this community, you hold a really diminished view of what people here are possible of accomplishing. If members and leaders from each community came together to form one organization that worked together to hash out a plan, it would come together pretty quick. Specifics on destruction and exchange could be hashed out pretty fast. I've worked with people in the past that have done this with other coins and have offered their help with facilitating the logistical processes that are needed. It's not that big of a deal if the community really wanted to come together. It's happened before elsewhere. As I also said and you ignored, the multi coin wallet is a good idea. I will repeat, maybe we can bring coinomi in on it. Having HD support for every crypto possible is better than dealing with 1 off or brainwallet generated addresses. Its also clear that your either not grasping what I am proposing or your ignoring it because your having a hard time wrapping your head around it.
What I am proposing is to do exactly what your saying I am not, to bring the communities and devs of the various weedcoins together, possibly in one place, a new forum or a slack channel, whatever works. By bringing together and unifying resources we can maximize the effect of any outreach and onboarding attempts we make for crypto in general and weedcoins in particular.
I am also mulling over the idea of launching an asset to invest in various coins as I have also posted. Split the investments 50/50 between trading and staking, this will do 2 things, it will provide support for the networks by having coins online to stake and any profits brought in from the arbitrage or HFT if HFT is applied in some capacity and can be used to accumulate more of the underlying coins providing consistent buy support to stabilize the coins and give them some upward momentum.
Again... arbitrage. But you didn't say anything about that, right? I get what you're saying. You keep focusing on the financials and not the technology. Multiple blockchains is a mess at best. Bringing them together in one wallet isn't going to accomplish anything. People are still going to need to decide which coin to put their resources behind(read mining and blockchain services). Unless your wallet is going to exchange the coins for one coin that all merchants take, you're still talking about acceptance of the individual coins. And if it does exchange them into something like BTC, than that's going back to your argument against my proposal for a unified coin. In the end, the marketing focus needs to be unified. This is just easier and more logical with one blockchain. It just seems like your answers to problems are always driven by your desire to make a buck with some service that you control. You can't always buy your way into a solution, mate. It gets really old coming to this thread to discuss things if all you're going to do is argue with people about how stupid they are compared to you. You're off-putting, mate. Not every discussion is an attack on your beliefs, and your beliefs don't always outweigh others. You might take that into consideration if you want to be taken seriously. There's a reason you're the only one ever really talking in this thread. Think about that. I'm heading to bed now... don't wait up waiting on another response. -Fuse |
|
|
|
IMO there is no need to consolidate them unless its decided that there should be only one weed coin. Who makes that decision? No clue. I do agree that the idea for a weedcoin multi wallet is a good one, possibly get the coinomi people on it and brand it as such. No need for the destruction IMO, coinomi has integrated shapeshift for the coins it supports, so someone from the weed coins would need to work towards getting shapeshift support. The people make that decision. The fact that I'm not the only one at this point asking that question makes me think that I'm not crazy with this idea. The only reason you seem to put forth as to why they should stay separate is for making money in arbitrage. You keep going back to the financials of this coin, and not the community use and unification. Putting up walls around the communities will create disparities in the success of the coins. Unifying the coins brings the communities together and, in turn, each coin's resources and available uses. It shows how the individual coins are coming together to be a serious solution for the industry instead of being niche solutions for their respective communities. "My coin is better than your coin" egos aside, isn't that what everyone wants? Even you talk about keeping the talk of the coins focused towards the common goal of being recognized as a serious and well thought out solution. But in a sense, you're saying the states should have kept their individual monetary systems instead of adopting the national currency of the dollar because you could make money in the exchange. You've got to have a better reason than that. If you want to create a "supernet" of MMJ coins and services, start unifying some of that into single systems... not a conglomerate of separate systems. That's just my thoughts. -Fuse |
|
|
|
If anyone here is interested, I am working out the logistics of a "supernet" for weed coins. Its currently on the drawing board, meaning I am still on the design stage, any help or suggestions would be welcome. My thinking is that if instead of being passive and bitchy about any one coin or screaming that POT rules while DOPE drools, etc, if we come together we can do more to promote adoption of crypto in general and the weed coins by the weed shops in particular.
I'm with rdyoung on this. We all have one goal in mind bringing crypto and cannabis together to help each other out. We have been looing into 'supernet' of coins also and can help you out rdyoung as I believe we have someone who works inside the team there and have been 'told' by him that whatever feature they drum up there it can be ported into Dope , or some sort of thing like that. But, yes agree with rdyoung. If the responsible parties are all saying "we should be working together", why not consolidate all like-minded coins into one coin/blockchain? I understand the pride of each coin would be at stake, but if the goal the same across these coins, why operate separately? Why not form a conglomerate with a single coin for everyone to get behind? -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
The problem is that there are only like 4 of us that want to continue this coin, myself included. Updating/changing the code isn't going to do anything for us at this point because it really seems that no one cares anymore. I tried to spark some conversation here about what people wanted to do, and there was all of 2-3 responses. It didn't seem like people cared enough to do anything.
If the community(all 3 of us) had some kind of idea of what to do with this coin, besides trade it, we might be able to get somewhere with it. At this point though, it's almost better to just relaunch the coin under a new name and hope for the "new coin" factor of community support. We'd still be stuck on what to do with it though.
If some kind of initiative could be started to garner support and use of the coin, I would come back and work on the code with my team. But until there's more than 3 or 4 of us holding on to a spark of hope, there really isn't a point. I hate to say it, but it's the truth at this time.
-Fuse
|
|
|
|
Why can't he give you the alert key then? And the official Github?
That would probably be a question better directed to Balduro. I will say though that you will probably find out that he isn't open to direct communication now. Our team reached out to him numerous times to try to square away a lot of those issues. Not knocking Balduro... sometimes you just want to be left alone. However, I'm sure you could understand now why we would want to change the alert keys with Balduro out of the picture. Additionally, it's just easier to have the code in a github we control, rather than rely on keeping the project on an account of someone who has obviously stepped away from this project. -Fuse |
|
|
|
ya I remember the 14.4k, first computers i build were amd 486DX2 66MHz cpu's, 8MB ram, 40MB hdd, DoS 5.0 with Win3.1, lol
Did it have the turbo button? -Fuse I was playing around on an apple IIe when I was in grade school, my first personal pc after that was an unnamed tower that had a bad gpu so it couldn't run 3.x, had to do everything in DOS  Before that I was reprogramming and teaching my parents how to use a word processor my father had for work. Commodore 64 for xmas when I was 5. I pretty much learned to read by reading the BASIC programming book that came with it trying to get that damn computer to talk to me like in the movies lol. After that it was a monochrome 286 with a turbo button( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_button). Many games of solitaire were played on that thing... you just made sure not to win because the cascade of cards would grind that thing to a halt. Then the iterations of all the processors in various hand-me-down computers after that. Speaking of parents, I was responsible for doing the 30+ diskette backup of my dad's work computer.... "insert new disk, press ok when ready" and then wait for 5 minutes. If I was old enough then, I would have been looking for some magical, recreational substance that would have made the boring repetitiveness less boring.  -Fuse |
|
|
|
ya I remember the 14.4k, first computers i build were amd 486DX2 66MHz cpu's, 8MB ram, 40MB hdd, DoS 5.0 with Win3.1, lol
Did it have the turbo button? -Fuse |
|
|
|
"bridge node"? Is this explained somewhere? What does it do and why is it necessary?
We operate a node that allows older wallets to communicate with the newer wallets. The newer wallets block connections to from the old wallet via the minimum protocol version. The US West node still allows the connections, effectively bridging the old clients with the new ones. It's necessary to not cause a fork between the two versions while we get everyone updated. Bridge node isn't necessarily the technical term(not sure if their is one), but it was about the best phrase I could come up with. I guess you could call it the transitional node too. -Fuse |
|
|
|
Is this new wallet a hardfork or is a hardfork planned in the near future?
This was pushed out more as a soft fork. The code is in place to restrict the connections to newer versions, but no code has been changed that will invalidate old wallet block creation. At this time, there is a bridge node connecting the network and keeping everything in sync. The next wallet update will most likely require a hard fork. Possible changes to the next version's code are still in being SWOT'd. Is it problematic to keep my blockexplorer on an older version (1.03) or do I have to update? What exactly are the changes from a pure node point of view (no wallet)?
There are no changes in algos, timing, or anything else. This release was more of an overdue update to the wallet version. Your explorer will still function until we update the bridge node. We won't update the bridge node until we're sure all the services have updated to the new wallet, and it's safe to cut off the old wallets. I would suggest updating to be safe. -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
