With ethereum he has a potential big reward, if he gets lets say 5 mio USD for changing and doing the same work with this coin, I can't possible beleive that he would not accept.
Then offer the same to CfB and see if "he will change sides" would be my suggestion. |
|
|
|
I bet if we offer him more than the expected value of etherium, then he would change the team  I would bet the opposite of that - he is tied to Ethereum and with "golden handcuffs" so don't think for a minute he would do that. |
|
|
|
|
Andre despite your very poor "support" I still used your exchange because *I wanted to try and see how this might work out* (and I was accused later by *goat* of somehow being your "partner in crime").
I lost money from an AUD deposit that never *appeared* (around the time your business was failing) and never complained as I managed to convince my own bank to *refund* me (it helps when you have had a long term relationship with your bank).
You have *burned your bridges* here a long time ago and I think it would just be best to "let the past be the past" and *move on* (the rest of us have I think).
(btw - I think MPOE-PR got perma-banned so you probably don't need to worry about "it")
|
|
|
|
How does the "PIN mechanism" protect against keyloggers? I'm really curious.
My understanding is that it works similar to online banking pin entry systems where the digits 0-9 are "randomly re-arranged". |
|
|
|
Q1 What is the error rate of representing 1/3 with int64_t vs double?
Q2 Is nodecoin a financial money application?
James - rounding is rounding - the accuracy is the "size of the mantissa" and the problem with a double is it has a smaller mantissa than a 64 bit integer (as it holds both mantissa and exponent in the same 64 bit space). So for *accuracy* an "integer" is always going to be *better* than a "floating point" of the same "size". I really don't care about nodecoin at all - so if you've used binary floating point in that code only then that is good. |
|
|
|
Floating point for "scientific calculations" is and always has been *perfectly fine*. Money is not "scientific calculations" and *everyone in the money business* knows that you don't use binary floating point. Again my simple example: #define test( v1, op, v2 ) if( v1 op v2 ) printf( #v1 " " #op " " #v2 "\n" )
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
int main( )
{
volatile double a, b, c;
char buf[ 50 ];
a = 13.06;
b = 0.54;
sprintf( buf, "%lf", a + b );
c = atof( buf );
printf( "a = %lf, b = %lf, c = %lf\n", a, b, c );
test( c, >, 13.60 );
test( c, ==, 13.60 );
test( c, <, 13.60 );
test( a + b, >, 13.60 );
test( a + b, ==, 13.60 );
test( a + b, <, 13.60 );
return 0;
}
Basically it shows that 13.06 + 0.54 != 13.60 and this is because 0.1 (and 0.01) *cannot* be represented in binary floating point (same as 1/3 cannot be represented in decimal). The problems are *not just rounding issues* but actually are *logic issues* (and therefore not obvious to "math" people who are only thinking about things like rounding). It means that code which say says is A > 0 might *fail* because of a simple addition or subtraction. |
|
|
|
No way.What he needs now is someone who will bring up every possible mistake he made. If there is something wrong,sooner or later it will appear, we need it to happen now.
Then please look at his continual use of *binary floating point*. |
|
|
|
|
If I did *criticize his code* then here is what he would do:
"I quit".
Then the "fan base" will say:
"James, we need you"
and he will come back without changing a line of code (proof of point his continual use of *binary floating point* despite *all my warnings* and even *my proof in code*).
|
|
|
|
Give it a try, make it public, and we play referees  He has his "James is a machine" fan club already - I am not going to even try and *compete with that*. |
|
|
|
Bump, can anyone help James with a code review? DAC is going to help differentiate our AE from others and we need to make this a priority.
Unfortunately I can't help as I know that "any criticism" that I make of James' code will be taken as a "personal attack". I hope it is *possible* to find someone he *will accept* criticism from but I wouldn't be "overly optimistic" about that. |
|
|
|
|
I can't access nxtforum.org - is it down?
|
|
|
|
Not easier but more trustable. At least for me, I'd rather run an .exe than a .bat.
Actually I would trust a .bat any day over an .exe (at least a .bat is *text* so I can *read it*). |
|
|
|
Instead of having run.bat in the official release, why not include an exe?
Why would it be any "better" to have an .exe vs. a .bat file? |
|
|
|
I dont think there is any reason for the bitcoin network to be technically affected by it. It would actually give undue advantage to some miners, especially if solo mining of zero tx blocks are possible with smaller hash power.
So you need to do more *research* as there is no such *advantage* (the cost of including the txs is trivial compared to the reward from the fees) - the only reason that this is happening would be due to botnets who are not likely to ever get *much of a majority*. |
|
|
|
I think it is technically possible to create a miner that will mine zero tx blocks only. This is dangerous for the network.
Again - *it has already been done before* and guess what? The Bitcoin network is still alive despite that! |
|
|
|
I am inclined to agree with you.
The *correction* that BTER released (saying it was only 3rd party stuff) makes me suspect that this is *just another game*. We will of course see *after* mid-April but my advice to people would be to "hold" and not "panic sell" (and don't leave any coins on exchanges that you aren't *prepared to lose*). |
|
|
|
I think it is still happening and those who have been able to set up their miners properly are getting advantage of it. A few hours ago this figure was 84452 and now it is 84453. I guess zero Tx blocks are being mined everyday and if a solo miner gets 25 BTC per day, he does not need the share of Tx fees...
It *has* happened before and it *will* happen again but once more - if you look at the history of Bitcoin it is not something to worry about. |
|
|
|
What I understand, mining is solving the transactions with SHA-256. So if I dont have to include any new Tx, wont it be much more easier for me to mine ? (Please correct me if my understanding of mining is wrong.)
Sure it is *easier* to just do the "coinbase" *but* you miss out on all the tx fees. |
|
|
|
|
I happened before (when we had 50 BTC block rewards) but died down.
I wouldn't lose sleep over it - the *fees* are becoming *more important* making it *less attractive* to just grab the coinbase amount (quite possibly it is a "botnet" as was assumed to be the case when it occurred previously).
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
