Physical DRKs... we should have some by then. Preferably minted on silver...

Once the final logo is picked, I'd say the crowd is offered like 10-20 variants* based on it, with refinements and colors if possible. Just because something is better than the others doesn't mean it's the best at its current state, it might be able to get further optimization.

* And for those who may create them: I liked the black/gold logo of another design but since it's not getting much voting, I'd like to see a black/gold theme for the logo that will be picked. Gold in general is a color that is used for financial stuff. Black and gold, if done correctly, is quite classy.

How much do they lose?

Suppose we are a few years ahead and that we have already discovered AI that exceeds human intelligence. How would that effect today's cryptocurrencies? Would they be able to compete with AI?

What I have in mind is this:

Right now dumb if-then-else algorithms dictate the operation of PoW and PoS crypto.

What if we eliminate the need for PoW / PoS and all 51% risks, by replacing these systems with a trusted party which is actually ...not human, but rather an intelligence which acts as the "operator" of the whole network and runs as a decentralized intelligence.

This AI operator will have no politics or agenda, so in that regard "he"/"she" would be as trusted as an if-then-else dumb algo, if not more (because there is no 51% threat anymore). So trust is not something that would bother anyone really.

This AI operator would conduct and verify all transactions, ensure network resilience, load balance the network in an intelligent way, protect it from DDOS on its own by detecting attack patterns, distribute the blockchain over the cloud so that no 15 TB wallets are needed and much more stuff that could be added due to its super-intelligence. For example personal authentication by presenting yourself to the "operator" as an additional safeguard to one's password where the operator can understand you based on your face, voice, etc.

The question is this: How futureproof would Bitcoin be in such a scenario of an intelligent currency network that does everything one would dream of with very few of today's limitations? Or how would it be, from the developers perspective, that in, say, 15-20 years later from Bitcoin's inception, the BTC would look like a dinosaur that needs "updating"... What then? Would the devs feel obligated to keep Satoshi's dream alive by remaining true to that vision he had, or would any discussion of updating the core to an intelligent network be faced with a church-like attitude of "blasphemy"?

This thought experiment has implications because it also puts into question what we know about BTC right now... stuff like "its characteristics will be these and these by year X" could be totally invalid. (I'm not necessarily talking about coin numbers, but mining could be affected if the PoW is redundant as a dinosaur-type-of-way to verify the blockchain).

There may be quite a dilemma into how to stand true to what was once started as X or evolve into the much better Z alternative. I know the date of this happening seems too far into the future but you'll recall this post when the first intelligent cryptocurrency is issued to compete with BTC. Questions will start to be raised about how to deal with the situation and whether to adapt or "remain true".

Or maybe the tables are turned and the criticism is on the AI side: Who will update the AI? Isn't the AI's update a form of centralization and control of the network? Or if the AI is "fixed" from its inception and non-upgradeable, what would stop someone making a better currency in another 10 years when AI is even more advanced and has more capabilities, or even self-improvement-capabilities that will allow it to evolve on its own?

We'll see how it goes...

1. Suppose I want to mine x11 only if diff is <500 because 600-700-800 is not profitable for my setup, is there something in the code that I can tweak with an if-then-else to do it? (ideally it could be integrated into sgminer?)

2. Can somebody with a 79xx / R9 test their hashrate if they use a #pragma unroll 1 before the fourth and eighth "for i" loops for the dark kernel? (seperate tests). For 5830 I get small speed gains by disabling loop unrolling. Instructions here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=556277.msg6089358#msg6089358

Regarding the altcoin article: The underlying premise of liquidity is ok, but the altcoins are already dead in terms of marketcap. Their market cap is so tiny that it's not even funny - with the exception of Litecoin. So it is already factored into their price, it's not some kind of revelation.

Another issue is that he supposes all altcoins will act in the same liquid way and that they are competing in the same "there can be only one" space. An anonymous coin for example does not "go" in the same category for it serves a different purpose that the transparent coins cannot handle.

When you have an anonymous coin, the monopoly of the transparent market is broken and a new option is presented to the people on how to conduct their payments. Do you want to pay with your visa (so that the government can see what you bought) or use cash? So there are two different needs, covered by two different types of coins.

Supposing a 10bn BTC market cap, if just 1% of the transparent market chooses the emerging option of anonymity => that could translate to 100mn market cap. There is serious potential there. Will Bitcoin cover the anonymity/privacy needs of its user base? Nope because they want government approval. And the government needs Bitcoin's cooperation to tax the hell out of owners.

If the government requests, say, 30% of capital gains, then by the very mechanism of taxation, people will need to liquidate their BTCs to pay the government. So they create a destructive loop for the price of BTC where people need to cash it all the time, pressuring the price downwards. They can't do that with an anonymous coin that they can't control.

The community voted against it, so...

It can be constructive... If some people are accusing you of having a scamcoin it can heighten your resolve (as a coin dev) to "prove them wrong" by going into high gear and doing your job as a coder in the best way possible.

I understand that. But those who want to pull the ponzi argument, they can use it for every single coin, whether it's bitcoin, litecoin or anything. Because the logic is still there: The buyer who bought at 1$ needs a buyer at 2$, who'll need a buyer at 4$, who'll need a buyer at 8-16-32-64$ to make 100%. The stock market, real estate, all are called "bubbles", in the same sense. Someone is waiting for another to buy his own stuff for more than he bought it. If it doesn't happen the bubble is burst.

People in general and miners are a different issue. The cryptocommunity is so self-absorbed that it lacks the understanding that cryptos are far broader than their mining. You see people saying "oh, it's over, ASICs came" and what they really mean is that's its over from their own mining perspective even if a coin like Bitcoin goes up a few hundred times in price. It's no wonder why miners are so low in the "food chain" of cryptoland (miners < traders < investors). It's also no wonder why miners lose so many of their BTCs by engaging in scams, pump and dumps etc.

There are coins out there with IPOs / ICOs, serious premines, full premines and PoS. Compared to all these anomalies, an accelerated mining curve is pretty fair - you just have to be there to mine (I wasn't). If i was there, I'd get coins. The premine gives me 0 chance to get coins so it's a wholly different game.

If you aren't there, you can then say "ok I missed the train", you can say "I can buy from those who were in the train for cheap", or you can invest / mine later because you still think there is potential for growth beyond the first days boom. It's like Bitcoin... People were selling for a couple of dollars and thinking they got the best deal of their lives.

As for the fairDRK, in general people aren't kind to shitclones. You either bring something to the table or you are dealt like a shitcoin that you are. And, given that DarkSend is a new feature, I wouldn't like to be hanging from the main devs balls to provide me with a fix if a problem occurs because I've no idea how to fix it on my own. Even quark with the 97-98% early distrib was not "bettered" by one of its multiple clones despite its image being trashed. I think there's a coin called FairQRK or something and others with other names - none of them is doing good really.

When people try to benefit from the work of other people (clone a coin and expect to make money) it imprints in their subconscious that they are useless. The ultimate form of programming is not in computer code but in mind code. The computer code is simply an analogy that will make people realize the mind code (later on).

Coding the mind is a process which is usually performed indirectly, through every action or thought that we make. For example, if I steal something, my subconscious is observing my action and then thinks to itself "since I'm stealing, I'm obviously useless to gain what I want on merit, otherwise why would I steal? By the mere fact that I'm stealing, I accept that I'm useless".

Cheating, stealing, leeching etc etc, all those behaviors self-program one's mind into limitation through subconscious self-suggestions / self-admissions of inadequacy, which are very strong as they are reinforced by one's conscious thoughts and actions. Humanity doesn't even need karma or hell to penalize the "wrongdoers".

Every negative act that one does versus others is an automatic self-programming into limitation. For example if I want to gain something against another by tricking them, then I'm registering a subconscious self-admission that I am useless to excel with my own capabilities without dirty tricks. This self-admission becomes a strong subconscious self-suggestion that then limits my mind's creative capacities. Why would I want to limit myself in this way? People only do it because they are unaware of the hidden cost of their actions and thoughts.

Society will tell us "do whatever you have to, and its ok if you are not get caught" yet the subconscious always monitors everything and makes its conclusions which in turn are programming our capabilities and limitations.

Every time we are "caught" it registers self-limiting admissions that restrict our innate (enormous) capabilities and potential. It says "if I'm stealing / cheating / advancing against others by harming them or ripping them off etc etc, it's obviously because I can't do it on my own capabilities". And this creates a feedback loop where the same behavior is replayed and the same mindset is calcified into further self-limitation, where eventually the mind can only act in a parasitic way, instead of a creative way where it can stand on its own and excel.

When I see a shit-clone, I know what I'm seeing: Some poor guy who wants to get a quick buck by cloning something else and thinking that this is the "way" to go (for his pocket). He doesn't know that at that instant he is also registering his own inadequacy. And that inadequacy will show up later for everyone who'll "trust him" as a coin dev to do things right, when in fact he never had to make anything, or gain experiences through trial and error. This is a huge "no-no" for the backer of a coin, unless the time-span of involvement for the backer is a short one (mine & dump, pump & dump, etc). Long-term however is problematic.

I doubt the blackcoin multipool can have any serious effect on the market of any altcoin. DRK is actually using x11 so it's off the multipool list for people shifting between a wide selection of scrypt coins.

I mean the concept is "I can't mine blackcoin, so I mine something else, sell it and then buy blackcoins".

Why not go for an established and more efficient multipool and buy blackcoins with the BTCs if you are a blackcoin believer? You'll probably get more blackcoins (or any altcoins for that matter). Just to save a few clicks by transfering the btcs to the exchange and then the blackcoins from the exchange to your wallet?

If alt-cryptoland was more oriented towards the people who have no idea how to mine or use exchanges etc etc, then it might have some benefit for them, otherwise I don't see it.

If a coin succeeds => the coin is criticized.

If a coin dies => nobody is around to even care about criticizing.

Or the opposite (less miners / less network safety). I'm not entirely sure how merged mining operates, but if its simply one mining client doing the same hashing and applying it to multiple coins/pools, then DRK could benefit from merged mining with other X11 coins.

DRK can secure its network far better in this way because the inverse rewards with the increased diff create an artificial barrier for network hashrate that will probably not exceed the 20ghash rate for quite a while. But merged mining with other X11 will bypass this issue and secure DRK well.

DRK miners would probably love to increase their profitability by mining DRK + getting all the extra revenue from DRK clones. If several scrypt coins go the merged mining route, profitability for X11 could come under threat without a merged miner of our own that can be provided as an alternative. I mean if someone can mine, say, 15 scrypt coins with one miner, why would he mine DRK? It wouldn't make sense unless he has a CPU.

What I'm saying should be valid unless there is some kind of technical obstacle that I am unaware off. Perhaps those with Bitcoin merged-mining experience can shed some light.

What have they developed?

Now that you said you are just 17, I like you too even if you are erasing my posts or trolling. Who cares. We all did "funny stuff" when young. May you grow up and some day understand that the pursuit of privacy is something serious and a worthy cause. I'm sure you'll understand that and also understand that you were being a prick that got overexcited for creating a stir and have a laugh with it. It's just how it goes. You should see me at 17 what I did.

As for the negative / positive, there was a saying in ancient greece "Ουδεν κακον αμιγες καλου", which translates to there is no bad thing that doesn't have a good thing. You see even your trolling acted as a catalyst for the issue to be brought up and be decided that it's ok as it is - and that people were actually more upset if things were changed. So there you have it. And as for the inflation, it's simple math. Divide the daily coins versus the existing coins and you'll find the daily inflation rate. Then compare it with other coins and you'll see DRK is better off right now, except coins which are PoS and are quite "experimental" - as the community experts think they are fundamentally broken. We'll see how that goes.

The negative became positive because DRK achieved, even by accident, a distribution formula that is not killing its daily price due to enormous inflation. If you inflate fast at the start and inflation is steeply reduced after a while, you won't have the problem that other coins have. Everyone can get cheap coins at the start yet inflation is not as a large problem for the next months / years. I think this form of coin distribution will prevail because people have realized that inflation is killing prices yet the monetary base HAS to expand so that the coins can be distributed. So it'll either be proof of stake (yeah right), or fast mining + declining production in an accelerated timetable (ie what bitcoin did in several years, an altcoin will have to do in weeks/months).

I have a few vertcoins -just in case it did some kind of spike due to LTC people moving over there- and vert can't go up due to the daily inflation and dumping. Most coins require multiple times the BTCs that DRK production requires and hence they go down and down and down because there are not enough BTCs around to buy these coins. DRK has no such issue due to the fast production in the start and slower production right now.

You can have a coin that needs like 50-60 btcs per day that will be dumped every day and then cry why the price is always going down (like most altcoins), or be able to at least resist the downward trend if not go higher, as DRK does with the 0.0012 - 0.0014 levels.

Thing is, people have been dumping cheaply acquired DRK for a period between the ccex incident and late March - we are talking thousands per day, so a large part of that supply has changed hands. Early miners have sold tons but that was in the prior stage.

Actually the fact that this was discussed openly and people voted/accepted the situation as is, is a good step forward. These pages can be a future reference that people know and accept the situation / do not want to change something fundamental regarding coin distribution.

After all, the market had already taken care off the abundance of coins by having them at 0.00001 on hitting the exchanges. This allowed the coin to spread.

I have made a separate page on the wiki.darkcoin.eu about Price history, that, if updated correctly, can serve as a chronicle so to speak for people entering later: http://wiki.darkcoin.eu/wiki/Price_history

https://cointweak.com/calculator/coin/drk

And here you can find avg diff for the last 24hrs (as the diff is changing all the time and you need an avg to do the proper estimation) http://drk.poolhash.org/graph.html

We must leave some margin for errors and hiccups. Anonymity is a huge task and it's unlikely everything will go without unforeseen problems. If you have attracted the spotlight while going live and you have problems after official launch / post-beta (a likely scenario), it can instantly turn around and people say "oh its broken" even if some things just need a bit of fine tuning. Bitcoin is 5 y.old code and is still patched quite a lot (0.90 changelog quite extensive), so, naturally, a few months old code that is not reviewed will require patching, hardening, etc.

Now this margin can be achieved in two ways: Not attracting too much attention OR attracting attention with a footnote that it's still in active development or something.