I'll just wait until you guys fix their broken code for them and then i'll fork it.
This stuff needs a ton of refactoring. Any serious fork would not be recognizable from the original. Anyway, I recommend everyone to stay away from this coin until they can get their act together. |
|
|
|
Folks!!!! You guys are PARANOID!
I have no idea why people here are taking great pains to discredit the company. It is bordering on ridiculous.
Sure maybe they don't answer emails or phone calls, but they certainly are a real company with a real product.
Real companies respond to inquiries. You don't think a little paranoia is warranted with the number of scams associated with this industry so far? If you aren't paranoid, you're an idiot. I have to ask, what percentage of hardware bitcoin manufacturers were pure scams? TerraHash - Fail BFL - Late. KNC - Good Avalon - Delivered AsicMiner - Delivered Bitmain - Delivered Bitmine - Chips tested HashFast - Late. Sending units out. Cointerra - Late. Chips in package. who else... what hardware vendors are running a total scam? |
|
|
|
I sent you 100 BTC.
It was an error. Please, return 90 BTC to 14rnPyFaV5KT93ZV72RJeJMNXEUrsyuoC3 and you can to get my 10 BTC donnation like investigation !!
Thanks in advance!!
Hmmmm? I don't recall ever posting a BTC address and asking for donations. |
|
|
|
The photo provided by the newbie forum participant is not just in a different address advertised by AMT, but it also shows the company name as "Advanced Mining Technology, INC". The register of the domain advancedminers.com is "Advanced Mining Technologies INC". The company name used in the invoice is "Advanced Mining Technologies INC".
Photo shows "Advanced Mining Technology" My invoice says "Advanced Mining Technology" Domain name entry says "Advanced Mining Technologies inc" - created 2013-09-10 The Delaware registration is "ADVANCED MINING TECHNOLOGIES INC" formed 05/29/2013 So I would think it would be conceivable that they changed their name from incorporation and domain registration to the creation of the office sign and their invoice. Also, I did a google for the name of the doctor on the sign "Ruth Garfield" Here's the result: http://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-ruth-garfield-2s7pl 349 Lancaster Ave Suite D Haverford, PA 19041 The address on AdvancedMiners.com page is: 355 Lancaster, Bldg. E1, Haverford PA 19041 So the photo of the place is legit. Folks!!!! You guys are PARANOID! I have no idea why people here are taking great pains to discredit the company. It is bordering on ridiculous. Sure maybe they don't answer emails or phone calls, but they certainly are a real company with a real product. |
|
|
|
|
How are the balances of an Account determined?
|
|
|
|
Possible launch dates ?
This is an experimental platform, so don't expect to see any kind of buy-in for this. |
|
|
|
NXT was written by a gang of amateurs. Furthermore, their motivations are questionable considering they released to the public a system that has not been vetted. That kind of irresponsibility is clearly unacceptable in my book and can be considered gross negligence. |
|
|
|
I find it funny how all these people claim for it to be super easy to get in touch with someone from AMT.
Seventeen emails unanswered. Three phone calls not returned. All from the beginning of December.
That truly is unfortunate. Anyway, I suspect, they botched up the delivery of the Bitfury systems and are only able to roll it out right now! You know, just so I can test this out. I'm going to ask for a refund on one of the two systems that I ordered. I am close enough to PA to be able to knock on their door to ask for a refund. I will let you folks know how it proceeded. Cheers! |
|
|
|
At any rate, I ordered a 80gh miner on December 5th. My order number was #888. I paid with BTC. A few days before Christmas I sent an email and Jim replied that I would hear shortly from them that the miner was finished. Sure enough, this week I got an email in my inbox saying that the miner was ready for me to pick it up. I live just outside of NYC, so I took the drive down to Havertown. Could you provide a copy of your invoice (redacted if necessary) and the transaction ID of the payment? I have to admit that I was pretty happy to see that indeed the location is real, the company is real, it is indeed US based, and I have a real miner for them. Nope, they have no legal registered company whatsoever in the USA. I still haven't gotten the miner hashing. It was working fine at the office when Josh was showing me, however I needed to change settings to get it working on my network and managed to mess things up. So now Josh is back and forth with me on email trying to help me fix up what I messed up! Why is not working? Could you explain with more details what is happening? Very good! What kills me is that there IS an advanced mining technology inc registered in Pennsylvania. https://www.corporations.state.pa.us/corp/soskb/Corp.asp?868855I guess they haven't heard about this new one. I am guessing they registered in delaware. I found this: File Number: 5341525 Incorporation Date / Formation Date: 05/29/2013 Entity Name: ADVANCED MINING TECHNOLOGIES INC Now you can pay the $20 to get more info behind this registration. |
|
|
|
At any rate, I ordered a 80gh miner on December 5th. My order number was #888. I paid with BTC. A few days before Christmas I sent an email and Jim replied that I would hear shortly from them that the miner was finished. Sure enough, this week I got an email in my inbox saying that the miner was ready for me to pick it up. I live just outside of NYC, so I took the drive down to Havertown. The order number jives with my order number. I ordered on Dec 9th, my order was #961. My order was for a 1.2 THs system, so I don't really expect my system until Feb. So far everything is aligning. Bitmine.ch has shown their chips to be legit. Bitmine.ch has on their web page AMT as their distributor. Bitmine.ch would not have chosen AMT if they had no evidence of having the expertise of delivering. AMT appears to have delivered a bitfury system. There's a video 2 months ago with Josh demo'ing the bitfury system. Now I don't really care if the bitfury system works or not, or whether they have enough bitfury systems to supply. I only care about the Bitmine systems and hopefully AMT learned some lessons in how much effort it really takes to deliver their Bitfury systems such that they won't make the same mistakes with the Bitmine systems. I expect most of the glitches in delivery in their first generation systems. I do expect better delivery with their 2nd generation systems. Note: Bitmine.ch also is on their 2nd generation. |
|
|
|
Hi, I'm one of those people who have been reading and watching this thread since the day I ordered my miner from AMT. I've been silent the entire time because, frankly, this thread became rather heated and I didn't want to get involved. Besides, I thought the whole "noob" thing was more involved than it actually is, so I didn't want to sign up. I've been doing bitcoin for a long time now and so I didn't feature being considered a "noob". At one stage people were asking how we found out about AMT - in my case, I found out about them from their ad on CoinEx. After seeing it multiple times I decided to give them a shot. They do have quite a professional-looking website, so I bought one 80gh miner to try them out. On the one hand I understand the several of you who have reservations or doubts about AMT. I have to admit that I was quite afraid that I had lost my investment over the past few weeks. Also coupled with the fact that there is (or was) no trace of anyone having one of their miners, not on Google, not on eBay, not anywhere, was truly scary. At any rate, I ordered a 80gh miner on December 5th. My order number was #888. I paid with BTC. A few days before Christmas I sent an email and Jim replied that I would hear shortly from them that the miner was finished. Sure enough, this week I got an email in my inbox saying that the miner was ready for me to pick it up. I live just outside of NYC, so I took the drive down to Havertown. Josh was at their small office, he had my miner, and he sat me down and showed me how to connect it and get hashing. I have to admit that I was pretty happy to see that indeed the location is real, the company is real, it is indeed US based, and I have a real miner for them. I know that Biomech will give a report on the product within the next few days, but for anyone out there thinking less of what his report will be based on the fact that he was given a miner to review, I want to add this post as a paying customer who has received his product. Furthermore, they didn't pay me to post this, I paid full price for my miner - I'm getting nothing out of giving this report. Still there are many of you who could appreciate someone going to the physical office to reassure you (more than a google earth pic), so I'm writing this to give you that reassurance. I still haven't gotten the miner hashing. It was working fine at the office when Josh was showing me, however I needed to change settings to get it working on my network and managed to mess things up. So now Josh is back and forth with me on email trying to help me fix up what I messed up! Here are some pics: http://ppl.ug/e9xgrqCkWTA/http://ppl.ug/FxUihk9hGmA/http://ppl.ug/eoz0__3CIq4/http://ppl.ug/6JonrknehbQ/Man... now I am going to pick up my terra hash miners myself. Forget waiting for UPS to botch up delivery. Anyway, thanks for the report. |
|
|
|
Ok people... take a break from all the advanced thoughts... and help us coding-challenged people for a sec.!  Can someone please point to the exact lines in the code where it is established that empty accounts cannot forge. Is the Genesis account excluded from forging? What is the forging conditions set for an account with negative balance? Just wondering what happens if someone unlocks the Genesis account... in respect to the code under examination, of course. thnx   if someone unllocks genesis account, could they send negative NXT to everone to reduce everyone's balance to zero? I believe peers reject transactions from accounts with Negative balances. CfB (or the source) can give the definitive on this. Fingers crossed on this one! Oh.... $#(#%&*! |
|
|
|
You could refuse the offer, but look like you felt for the trick... If this is a fraudulent scheme you became an accessory for their criminal enterprise
This is uncalled for. Biomech didnt ask a thing, and got offered a free miner. No one should be expected to refuse that based on a hunch this might be a scam. I would however, be careful not to put too much weight on the results. Not that i have reason to suspect Biomech from being untruthful, its just that the ability of anyone to cram a few off the shelve technobit boards in a standard mATX case was never in question. True enough, however it does at least show they are getting those boards and doing the assembly. I will make as thorough a report as I can when I get the thing. Current UPS estimate is monday, end of day. Wait, if we all know that all they are doing with is taking off the shelf boards from their suppliers (either technobit or bitmine) then surely we expect them to be able to deliver. The situation is entirely different from BFL. BFL had to not only conjure up the systems, they had to conjure up the chips themselves. How hard is it to stuff boards in a case? I mean, many of these miners don't even have a case! There's nothing wrong with this business model. I mean, that is what Michael Dell used to do in his dorm room. |
|
|
|
You asked how nodes will be informed of all tree blocks, and is done simply by propagating valid blocks like today. As indicated above information travels at the speed of light. And with TCP/IP it's 5-10 that. So you need some mechanism to communicate in coordination. The timestamp mechanisms solves that. And GHOST removes the basic communication channel. With such rules there wouldn't be even communication/coordination. The longest chain represents the majority decision. From the bitcoin paper " Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash." If you want to invent a new CC be my guest, but then you have to get all the primitives right. You can't just wave a bunch of equations around and hope it works. Everything in the GHOST paper just doesn't make any sense if you think about it. I mean it just claims it "proves" it solves the 50% attack, without really defining the procedure. It doesn't use even the right terms for node and chain. Anyway, all the best in these efforts. Yes, I'm curious, how is that supposed to work when you have a subtree? If you have block C1 and C2 that have B as its parent, then what will the child be of C1 and C2? Are we combining some kind of hash? |
|
|
|
Fair enough, but you still might be able to get a bound without these variables, no? Could be helpful.
No. Nxt protocol uses some tricks to add as many non-formalized factors as possible. Why? Does this preclude a formal description or whitepaper? That's just some B.S. that we'll hack into the protocol as we make it up. |
|
|
|
Perhaps you can try to solve it analytically and get an equation?
No. It should take into account non-formalized variables like network topology. Man you are really full of it. |
|
|
|
Not sure how it should work here since nobody has provided a spec.
Anyway, for Nakamoto's bitcoin, no single miner has exclusive right to mine a block. So you see competing blocks submitted to the network and eventually the block that is in the longest chain gets committed and the rest become orphaned.
With this system, it appears that a single miner gets the right to mine a block. So there is an assumption that you never see competing blocks commited to the network and you never need to decide which is the longest block.
I honestly think this is a bad assumption, and the protocol should allow for competing blocks to be submitted.
U r wrong. The only difference that in Nxt u can predict who will forge next block. That's the main point of Transparent Forging. Is the account that forges the next block is still randomised? How far ahead can one predict? Again, still no spec. But I think with transparent mining, you can predict forever into the future. |
|
|
|
Not sure how it should work here since nobody has provided a spec.
Anyway, for Nakamoto's bitcoin, no single miner has exclusive right to mine a block. So you see competing blocks submitted to the network and eventually the block that is in the longest chain gets committed and the rest become orphaned.
With this system, it appears that a single miner gets the right to mine a block. So there is an assumption that you never see competing blocks commited to the network and you never need to decide which is the longest block.
I honestly think this is a bad assumption, and the protocol should allow for competing blocks to be submitted.
U r wrong. The only difference that in Nxt u can predict who will forge next block. That's the main point of Transparent Forging. That is exactly what I am saying, if you can predict which miner is allowed to forge the block then you trust that miner to forge the block correctly. What I am saying is that this assumption is problematic. You cannot trust miners to be available or to be trust worthy, so you need other competing blocks. |
|
|
|
Then what is rationale behind it? Pretty much the main point of proof-of-work is that this can't be done.
This can be done in PoW too. No. In PoW the cumulative work clearly decides the valid branch, there is no option that you see two branches and can't decide which one is the "real one" accepted as the consensus. Not sure how it should work here since nobody has provided a spec. Anyway, for Nakamoto's bitcoin, no single miner has exclusive right to mine a block. So you see competing blocks submitted to the network and eventually the block that is in the longest chain gets committed and the rest become orphaned. With this system, it appears that a single miner gets the right to mine a block. So there is an assumption that you never see competing blocks commited to the network and you never need to decide which is the longest block. I honestly think this is a bad assumption, and the protocol should allow for competing blocks to be submitted. |
|
|
|
What was new for me, is that target doesn't directly depend on time your previous generation. There's no "coin days" like in PPC or NVC.
No coin days, so miners can game the system since with what they call 'transparent mining' they know beforehand if it is there turn to mine, so they can move around their coins to the miner that is going to get its turn. So to game this system, you have a bunch of say N miners and then you have a balance of M that you move around to the miner that will be mining next. So effectively you get N*M more profitability. Mmm... Can't understand, why I need to move my M coins from one of my miner to another? Transparent mining just allow me to give transaction fee to desired account, if it is on mining. I had thought this was Proof of Stake, so the bigger the stake of the miner, the bigger the reward. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
