Always set auto-payouts.
b-but... TX fees...  TX fees vs losing all your coins in some pool hack or failure. I'll take TX fees every time. |
|
|
|
''this f*****g stuipid Coinye'' brought me 3BTC in 2 days..
Keep hating, lol
Teach me please haha How did it get you 3BTC? Thanks for the lesson i am about to learn lol Can't reveal the secret of buying low, selling high, sorry   PS: Oh, snap! Did I reveal the secret?! Buut conye hasn't been listed on an exchange yet - you can only mine it.. am i missing something hahaha Speculative buyers. Look at the trading forum section in Alternate cryptocurrencies. Learn its ways. |
|
|
|
|
If this is heavily premined I'm out.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, this is going absolutely no where if we don't get a node to connect to.
|
|
|
|
|
Good news for Catcoin. I think this coin is going to take some time to take off. I am currently mining other altcoins, and I hope they pay off. A 3rd of what I make will be invested back into Catcoin. I'll let everyone know exactly what my stake is in Catcoin.
I still have faith in this coin, but I need more BTC to be able to support it. When I invested I put 0.4 BTC into Catcoin. I need to buy back in for at least a couple of BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
Not touching this one with a barge pole. Just wait for the cease and desist letter.
|
|
|
|
|
It's quite ironic that the recent scam accusations, and the rigorous defending of eMunie by its dev has actually made the IPO seem a lot more legitimate.
You didn't need you to cancel the IPO. All you needed to do was defend it with evidence and show that, contrary to what people think, it is a legitimate IPO.
In the long run I think cancelling the public IPO will do more harm than good, but I agree that the scam accusations are also harmful. In that case, I would perhaps suggest just creating a thread with a detailed outline of what eMunie has done, and is doing so far. Present the evidence, then lock the thread. Any time someone cries scam, you can point them in the direction of said thread and allow them to make an informed decision.
I wouldn't take it personally. If you're looking for someone to blame for this, then blame the IPO scammers. This sea of paranoia was created by them. It's not an attack on eMunue. It's an attack on all IPOs.
Yes, you shouldn't need to spend every other minute defending it, however it you do it once, in a single place, then it's just a matter of copy/pasting a URL. Nobody would expect you to respond to every single accusations, especially if they're all the same accusation. The problem here is that people are uninformed, and with more visibility, so people can be informed, the scam accusations should decrease.
|
|
|
|
what is this : accept agreements ?
This Agreement governs your use of Valid-Error USDE Pool.
1.By using any of the Pools or registering an account on the website, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions below. If you do not agree with the terms and conditions in this Agreement you may not use the Pool.
2.The Valid-Error USDE Pool staff may modify this Agreement and any policies affecting the Site at any point of time. Such modification is effective immediately upon posting to the website and will be distribution via email, forum post and a link in chat. Your continued use of the Pool following any modification to this Agreement shall be deemed an acceptance of all modifications.
3.The Pool rewards miners according to a pplns system with 1% fee. The fee may change at any time, but notice will be given before doing so. Any fee change will be communicated through the pools news page.
4.The Pool is not an e-wallet or a bank for your coins. The Pool and it's operators are not responsible for any loss of coins which are stored on the Pool. It is your responsibility to configure your account so that the coins you mine are regularly transferred to your own secured offline wallet.
5.The uptime of the pool or website is not guaranteed, maintenance and downtime may be required at times. Users are responsible for configuring their miners so that they will automatically reconnect, switch to all the pools we offer or a backup pool in the case of downtime.
6.Botnets are not welcome. Accounts with a large amount of miners connecting from different IPs may be suspended without prior notice. If we are uncertian then an investigation will be opened and the user will be notified via their configured e-mail address. If we do not receive a response your account may be suspended.
7.Multiple accounts controlled by one person may be considered as a botnet and a investigation will be opened, see 6.
dont mine at this pool !
Why not? A lot of pools have these terms and conditions. It's just covering their backs. Always set auto-payouts. |
|
|
|
@bosian it looks like we have a fork. One of the block chain explorers is stuck to it and someone continues to PoW mine with the old client: http://coinblockchain.com/grain/However, the PoW difficulty there is not really big, so I hope it is really small percentage of miners. Have all the pools been notified of the new wallet? If not it could a problem. Both pools stated that they updated to 1.3. could really be that there are some solo miners who didn't update to the latest version. Quite possibly. Hopefully the network hash on this fork is greater. Not that it matters too much. Anyone new to grain will be on the correct fork. |
|
|
|
Validation Error Pools has one open for registration right now! http://usde.validerrorpool.com1% fee, PPLNS, STRATUM, VARDIFF US Based server For the first 30 people to register, you will have 0% fee for the life of the pool! username: mytminer454 0% please. User ID = 4, by the way. I'd like to get 0% for being early for once. Other pools never gave me the discount. |
|
|
|
Validation Error Pools has one open for registration right now! http://usde.validerrorpool.com1% fee, PPLNS, STRATUM, VARDIFF US Based server For the first 30 people to register, you will have 0% fee for the life of the pool! wrong PPLNS stats , use prop stats instead ! Could you explain the difference, and why it matters? prop is fairer on miners with less hashpower? |
|
|
|
Validation Error Pools has one open for registration right now! http://usde.validerrorpool.com1% fee, PPLNS, STRATUM, VARDIFF US Based server For the first 30 people to register, you will have 0% fee for the life of the pool! username: mytminer454 0% please. |
|
|
|
Another bullshit coin
Heh. It really isn't, but I don't mind that you think that. More coins for me. The first decent coin in a long time where I've actually got a decent stake for once. People are too busy buzzing around the next coin to launch to notice. This is why it's a gold rush. We've found the gold, while everyone else is mining pyrite. |
|
|
|
@bosian it looks like we have a fork. One of the block chain explorers is stuck to it and someone continues to PoW mine with the old client: http://coinblockchain.com/grain/However, the PoW difficulty there is not really big, so I hope it is really small percentage of miners. Have all the pools been notified of the new wallet? If not it could a problem. |
|
|
|
 I ran a simulation of what would happen if we continuously adjusted difficulty based on taking the average time it took to solve the last 36 blocks, and used the ratio of (10 minutes) / (average time it took to solve last 36 blocks), to determine what the difficulty should be for the next block. I used real data pulled from catchain.info for when each block was generated. The blue lines indicate the algorithm we are using now. The red indicates the simulation of what is being proposed (unless I misunderstood the formula, or made a mistake in my simulation code). I am going back over my code to make sure I did not make any mistakes, so I want to make a disclaimer that this is only the initial result. But since there is talk of a fork, I wanted to get a graph of the simulation out as soon as possible, for discussion. Etblvu1 The biggest error factor is that you didn't take it into account that hash power is a factor of the real-time profitability. Different diff target algorithm attracts miners differently. Which is the factor that is hardest to predict. How do you factor in market price when it's inherently unpredictable? |
|
|
|
Am looking at CatCoin and thinking it has roughly the same total supply... Wondering if their valuation could be comparable.
That's exactly what I thought. However, Catcoin behaved a little differently, and although that made it more profitable to begin with, the coin just couldn't keep up with the momentum. Once the coin lost some value after getting dumped by the early miners, the hashrate started dropping, and the retarget time was so long that Catcoin ended up in a sort of spiral; miners left because of slow block times and lower prices, and this just became a vicious cycle. Then the coin was forked to correct this, but then the retarget time made the difficulty swing, so miners are just jumping in when it's low, then leaving after the retarget. Klondike is more like the new Catcoin, but Klondike's retargets are 4 times slower. I'm not sure if this will prevent difficulty swings, as the difficulty will reflect market value. but provided enough people hold Klondike hopefully it won't end up in the same situation like Catcoin. It can learn from its mistakes though. Ok, yes, people want this coin on the exchanges. That's good, but it needs more distribution among miners. For that we need giveaways and further interest before we even consider getting on an exchange. We should also stay off of multipools and coinwarz as long as possible. They will make the price and difficulty extremely unstable. It's exactly what's happening with Catcoin now. More promotion, more giveaways, more hashpower on the network. Stay off of coinwarz, multipools and the like as long as possible. We don't want the market controlled by pumpers and dumpers, and by promoting the coin we'll increase the amount of small stake holders. This coin is an easy sell. The only way it's going to increase in value after hitting exchanges is by promoting it now. It's an easy sell. 20 million coins? The difficulty level is still wonderfully low. |
|
|
|
I'd like to buy 10,000,000 kitteh coin
Anyone selling for a reasonable price?
Buy it at Coinedup. Bargain price. |
|
|
|
|
The new logo is a vast improvement.
|
|
|
|
At this stage, I wouldn't even consider a fork unless something new was proposed to tackle the multipools and switchers. Several suggestions have been made. Lowering or increasing the difficulty retarget isn't going to solve it on its own. We both want the difficulty to slowly go up, but also want the coin not to crash back down. We also don't want the difficulty to go so high than if we lose miners we end up in a difficulty spiral we can never escape.
It's not the retarget time that's the problem. The retarget is fine. It's the rate at which it DROPS is the problem. Leo suggested a maximum cap on the drop rate, and also the increase rate. 30% min 20% max caps would prevent the difficulty crashing too much, and 20% cap from increasing too much if any miners hop.
That's it. It's not a hugely difficult problem. We don't need a complex solution or yet another adjustment of the retarget time. We keep going from one extreme to the other.
The real challenge with putting too much constraint on the difficulty adjustment, is that sometimes there is value in having a rapid rate of increase or decrease in the difficulty. For example, if the coin receives a huge amount of attention from the press or a big investor comes along and wants to sink millions into it, we can easily see a 100x increase in the value of the coins. At that point, it is proper and desirable for the difficulty to increase rapidly. If there is a cap on the rate of increase, it just means that we will have lots and lots of coins being generated in an extended hyperinflationary period, which is not good for the coin. Likewise, if we discover that there are a bunch of speculators mining the coin for temporary profitability, we want the difficulty to go down quickly, when they leave. Otherwise, the coin may enter an extended period of slow block reward times (we are supposed to be 10 minutes between blocks; if 90% of the miners are coin hoppers and they leave - then the block time would jump to 100 minutes, and we would regret any extreme caps, that allow only 20-30% change per difficulty period - in fact, this cap can kill the coin, in this situation). I have proposed that under normal circumstances, .25x - 4x difficulty constraint (the original constraint we had, and we still have) - is just fine. I also proposed that during exceptionally easy mining periods (defined as when the difficulty just dropped more than 50%, or any successive period after that, until full recovery of the difficulty level to where it was before it crashed), we should still allow high adjustabiltiy for downward difficulty, but put a big constraint on increasing the difficulty, i.e., .25x - 1.25x. The idea being, if a bunch of hoppers just left, they should not be allowed to play with the coin difficulty by coming back. But a further necessary component to this system is that those who do come back despite the difficulty being stuck on easy, should have their pay be cut. These components together take away all incentives to coin hop, and reserve profitability to those who stick with the coin over a long period of time regardless of fluctuating difficulty. Coin hoppers will still receive rewards, but not that much in the way of high profit. They are free to contribute to the security of the network, but not free to walk away with a killing. But if they stay awhile, they can begin to earn the full rewards of participating in the network. I think your ideas would change the coin too drastically to predict how miners or the market would react to it. You're introducing all different kinds of assumptions and reactions to those assumptions, and I have absolutely no way of knowing what kind of effect that would have on the coin. We don't want the difficulty to explode. That's what happened with the original catcoin. It climbed so high that we couldn't get over the next difficulty level, and as profitability dropped so did the hashrate. Now, if you wanted to simplify your idea, you could allow the difficulty to increase quickly when the difficulty goes up, but slowly when the difficulty comes down. To do that all you need to do is put a small percentage cap on difficulty decreases, but allow the difficulty to increase without any imposed limit. You can't both make the coin difficulty stable and also highly reactive. It's a contradiction in terms. You can find a compromise somewhere in the middle, but trying to impose both makes the coin wildly unpredictable. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
