We have 0.4 vol at YObit  I can't access that site. |
|
|
|
BTCD runs the superNET BTW
What exactly does this mean? |
|
|
|
I told you guys  EAC is a really good coin. // EDIT: Finally price is going down, shopping time is coming // EDIT 2: I do not only understand why pumpers are selling their own coins to their own buy walls at this stage, but the most important is that price is slowly going down  Someone on dumped almost 400k EAC on Cryptsy today on the XRP market and filled a really low order I had for 70k EAC. I feel lucky, I just turned 300 EAC I collected from faucets into 70k EAC  |
|
|
|
But is quiet as well. Is kind new exchange right ? May see a lot more exchanges like that popping up now that peatio is simple to install. https://github.com/peatio/peatio |
|
|
|
Sorry I meant which mining pool is best? If you have the hash power, the solo pool is the best reward at the moment. |
|
|
|
And staking started
I am curious, what coin was this based on? Bitcoindark? |
|
|
|
it go to 1428. it working  we need a pool I am working on that. The source code has problems building in Linux/Unix. I will try build it int linux after I get up,then fix it. Thank you for your I think there is something wrong with the makefile, it's failing for me here: c++ -c -O2 -pthread -Wall -Wextra -Wformat -Wformat-security -Wno-unused-parameter -g -DBOOST_SPIRIT_THREADSAFE -I/home/user/porkcoin/work/porkcoin-porkcoin-a60f73d/src -I/home/user/porkcoin/work/porkcoin-porkcoin-a60f73d/src/obj -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/include/db48 -DUSE_IPV6=1 -I/home/user/porkcoin/work/porkcoin-porkcoin-a60f73d/src/leveldb/include -I/home/user/porkcoin/work/porkcoin-porkcoin-a60f73d/src/leveldb/helpers -DHAVE_BUILD_INFO -fno-stack-protector -fstack-protector-all -Wstack-protector -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -O2 -pipe -fstack-protector -fno-strict-aliasing -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/include/db48 -L/usr/local/lib -L/usr/local/lib/db48 -Wno-invalid-offsetof -fpermissive -MMD -MF obj/cubehash.d -o obj/cubehash.o cubehash.c
c++: warning: treating 'c' input as 'c++' when in C++ mode, this behavior is deprecated
cubehash.c:601:6: error: assigning to 'unsigned char *' from incompatible type 'void *'
out = dst;
^ ~~~
cubehash.c:610:2: error: no matching function for call to 'cubehash_init'
cubehash_init(cc, IV224);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~
cubehash.c:535:1: note: candidate function not viable: cannot convert argument of incomplete type 'void *' to 'sph_cubehash_context *'
cubehash_init(sph_cubehash_context *sc, const sph_u32 *iv)
^
cubehash.c:617:2: error: no matching function for call to 'cubehash_core'
cubehash_core(cc, data, len);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~
cubehash.c:542:1: note: candidate function not viable: cannot convert argument of incomplete type 'void *' to 'sph_cubehash_context *'
cubehash_core(sph_cubehash_context *sc, const void *data, size_t len)
^
cubehash.c:631:2: error: no matching function for call to 'cubehash_close'
cubehash_close(cc, ub, n, dst, 7);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cubehash.c:579:1: note: candidate function not viable: cannot convert argument of incomplete type 'void *' to 'sph_cubehash_context *'
cubehash_close(sph_cubehash_context *sc, unsigned ub, unsigned n,
^
cubehash.c:639:2: error: no matching function for call to 'cubehash_init'
cubehash_init(cc, IV256);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~
cubehash.c:535:1: note: candidate function not viable: cannot convert argument of incomplete type 'void *' to 'sph_cubehash_context *'
cubehash_init(sph_cubehash_context *sc, const sph_u32 *iv)
^
cubehash.c:646:2: error: no matching function for call to 'cubehash_core'
cubehash_core(cc, data, len);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~
cubehash.c:542:1: note: candidate function not viable: cannot convert argument of incomplete type 'void *' to 'sph_cubehash_context *'
cubehash_core(sph_cubehash_context *sc, const void *data, size_t len)
^
cubehash.c:660:2: error: no matching function for call to 'cubehash_close'
cubehash_close(cc, ub, n, dst, 8);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cubehash.c:579:1: note: candidate function not viable: cannot convert argument of incomplete type 'void *' to 'sph_cubehash_context *'
cubehash_close(sph_cubehash_context *sc, unsigned ub, unsigned n,
^
cubehash.c:668:2: error: no matching function for call to 'cubehash_init'
cubehash_init(cc, IV384);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~
cubehash.c:535:1: note: candidate function not viable: cannot convert argument of incomplete type 'void *' to 'sph_cubehash_context *'
cubehash_init(sph_cubehash_context *sc, const sph_u32 *iv)
^
cubehash.c:675:2: error: no matching function for call to 'cubehash_core'
cubehash_core(cc, data, len);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~
cubehash.c:542:1: note: candidate function not viable: cannot convert argument of incomplete type 'void *' to 'sph_cubehash_context *'
cubehash_core(sph_cubehash_context *sc, const void *data, size_t len)
^
cubehash.c:689:2: error: no matching function for call to 'cubehash_close'
cubehash_close(cc, ub, n, dst, 12);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cubehash.c:579:1: note: candidate function not viable: cannot convert argument of incomplete type 'void *' to 'sph_cubehash_context *'
cubehash_close(sph_cubehash_context *sc, unsigned ub, unsigned n,
^
cubehash.c:697:2: error: no matching function for call to 'cubehash_init'
cubehash_init(cc, IV512);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~
cubehash.c:535:1: note: candidate function not viable: cannot convert argument of incomplete type 'void *' to 'sph_cubehash_context *'
cubehash_init(sph_cubehash_context *sc, const sph_u32 *iv)
^
cubehash.c:704:2: error: no matching function for call to 'cubehash_core'
cubehash_core(cc, data, len);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~
cubehash.c:542:1: note: candidate function not viable: cannot convert argument of incomplete type 'void *' to 'sph_cubehash_context *'
cubehash_core(sph_cubehash_context *sc, const void *data, size_t len)
^
cubehash.c:718:2: error: no matching function for call to 'cubehash_close'
cubehash_close(cc, ub, n, dst, 16);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cubehash.c:579:1: note: candidate function not viable: cannot convert argument of incomplete type 'void *' to 'sph_cubehash_context *'
cubehash_close(sph_cubehash_context *sc, unsigned ub, unsigned n,
^
13 errors generated.
|
|
|
|
it go to 1428. it working we need a pool I am working on that. The source code has problems building in Linux/Unix. |
|
|
|
I'm glad we can discuss this openly. Anything impacting Uno in a such a big way should be vetted by the community.
It's a good exercise to talk it out. You guys raised merged mining previously as an option. If it's a bad idea, I'm sure someone will point out exactly why. That's why it's open source.
If Blazr/Bryce decide to do it, we should all understand it enough to be able to embrace the decision. Maybe they'll come along and sink the entire idea with one sentence. It's their judgement that matters here more than mine. But if there's a better way, we should find it.
+100 That's open source spirit. Also important to have everyone on board with it. Waiting for word from the devs. According to this https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Merged_mining_specification#Aux_proof-of-work_blockIt's possible to have 'multiple auxiliary chains' which means you can merge mine UNO with BTC and ZET. Also found some python code for pools https://gitorious.org/bitcoin/luke-jr-bitcoin/commit/6849ac73f3577c1b445787993d134a596c89c09bI'm going to research this more... |
|
|
|
I think it would take a payment of some Bitcoin and donations of some Octocoins to find a decent dev that could dig us out of this.
Just curious, what is broken with Octocoin that requires a developer? The block chain appears to be moving just fine as far as I can see. The devs abandoned the coin. Then there was a double withdrawal issue at bittrex for the second time. It's something about the code being based on a certain version of Dogecoin. If you dig through the last few months posts which are fairly light, there was some discussion about it. I'm no dev so I don't know much about that part of it. Either way we have a coin dead in the water, we are just now able to withdraw from bittrex and have no dev to take over and try to make something of this. So if I merge with the latest Dogecoin, that should fix the issue? |
|
|
|
|
1 Petahash!
Network Hash Rate: 1.00 PH/s
|
|
|
|
Merge mining is optional. You can still solo mine it.
then that's pretty cool. Does it need a change in blocktime for uno? (hope not as that would be much slower) No, block time does not matter. Doge has 60 sec block time, Litecoin has 2.5 minutes. then it's a no-brainer, is it? any downsides to it? That's a matter of opinion based on these two facts: - UNO would need to fork (again)
- It would be more difficult to mine UNO
|
|
|
|
Merge mining is optional. You can still solo mine it.
then that's pretty cool. Does it need a change in blocktime for uno? (hope not as that would be much slower) No, block time does not matter. Doge has 60 sec block time, Litecoin has 2.5 minutes. |
|
|
|
It appears the parent chain doesn't need to be changed or updated. Only the weaker childcoin (example doge) would need implement auxpow.
That is correct, the 'weaker' coin that wishes to get stronger, would make the change in order to gain the benefits of the stronger one. It doesn't work as great the other way around. If your not clear as to why, I'll be happy to explain further. 1) make uno a sheltercoin for many weaker alts which all would implement auxpow when they feel they need it - uno doesn't need to change for that (correct?) This option will not benefit UNO. However you are correct UNO would not need to hard fork. 2) merge mining with bitcoin - uno needs implement auxpow This is indeed the 'best' option. It may be possible to do a 'multple' auxpow so it's not just limited to BTC. If so, that would be great. can't have both, or can we? Your technically can. Another ALT could choose to 'leech' on to UNO and live off it's hash power. Agian, as stated, this benefits the ALT more than it benefits UNO. Personally I don't see an issue with hard forking UNO again. I think it's already done it twice. thanks for clarification. my last question would be: Could Uno still be mined solo (without mining btc at the same time) after implementing auxpow in case of a fatal event with bitcoin? Merge mining is optional. You can still solo mine it. |
|
|
|
It appears the parent chain doesn't need to be changed or updated. Only the weaker childcoin (example doge) would need implement auxpow.
That is correct, the 'weaker' coin that wishes to get stronger, would make the change in order to gain the benefits of the stronger one. It doesn't work as great the other way around. If your not clear as to why, I'll be happy to explain further. 1) make uno a sheltercoin for many weaker alts which all would implement auxpow when they feel they need it - uno doesn't need to change for that (correct?) This option will not benefit UNO. However you are correct UNO would not need to hard fork. 2) merge mining with bitcoin - uno needs implement auxpow This is indeed the 'best' option. It may be possible to do a 'multple' auxpow so it's not just limited to BTC. If so, that would be great. can't have both, or can we? You technically can. UNO can merge mine again BTC and another ALT could choose to 'leech' (merge mine) on to UNO and live off it's hash power. Agian, as stated, this benefits the ALT more than it benefits UNO. Personally I don't see an issue with hard forking UNO again. I was not pleased when it did it the first time, but that's now in the past. I think it's already done it twice. |
|
|
|
" Authpow with Bitcoin (merge mining) is a viable option for a long term rare, store-of-value, crypto-bullion/currency with big plans"
Yes!
UNO implementing AuxPoW against other coins is more beneficial than asking other Alts to implement AuxPoW against UNO. Take for example, NameCoin, IXCoin which are merged mined against BTC. They both enjoy a large amount of hash power since people would prefer to mine BTC and merge mining these coins with BTC is 'free' extra income. Perhaps the best example is also DogeCoin that is merged mined against LTC. If they did it the other way around I don't think they would have gained the amount of hash power they currently have. I'd love to see UNO merge mine with more than one coin. Wouldn't it be great to mine BTC, NMC, ZET, DEM, and UNO all at the same time? That sounds like a win for everyone to me. |
|
|
|
Network Hash Rate: 720.11 TH/s
Not bad.
where can i find this info? Do you know if there is a wallet? It's displayed on my pool. The wallet doesn't have the feature built in. I calculate this value using block times, difficulty, etc... Network Hash Rate: 911.94 TH/s |
|
|
|
|
I willing to give these guys a chance to prove themselves. They are senior forum members and I doubt they are going to throw away their reputation on a simple 'scam' coin.
In other news, I just found 2 more blocks!
|
|
|
|
|
Network Hash Rate: 720.11 TH/s
Not bad.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
