kFC feature exists  how ? Devs use this kilo thing - kFC: 1 kFC = 1000 FC When an exchange adds Futurecoin it's traded in kFC. So if 1 kFC is sold for 1 satoshi it means 1 FC is sold for 1/1000 satoshi. Usually price can't be lower then 1 satoshi per coin, it's the minimum price for any cryptocurrency. Never before Futurecoin something was sold for lower than 1 satoshi. But Futurecoin with its kFC feature was selling for 1/10 satoshi per coin. While true that a minimum coin price is one satoshi on a BTC exchange, the truism is meaningless. You have to have people wanting to buy at that price. What good is a "value" of 1 sat if nobody is willing to buy? I have seen coins go to one sat and shortly thereafter the buy order book dries up. GPUC and HEX are examples that come to mind. After that, they are only able to trade on other markets such as LTC, or get delisted entirely. So, there is really no such thing as a 1 sat minimum price. Also, I think that there is at least one exchange that trades in mBTC. I haven't seen a single exchange like that. Futurecoin was going pretty good, it was popular enough to be traded at least at 5-10 satoshi. I think most people was confused with kFC. I myself thought that those offers at 50-100 sat was for FC. I think lot of people who set those offers also thought it's for FC, not kFC. That was the problem why it wasn't ever traded. Coinedup has mBTC markets. Not that I believe it's a good place to be. |
|
|
|
kFC feature exists how ? Devs use this kilo thing - kFC: 1 kFC = 1000 FC When an exchange adds Futurecoin it's traded in kFC. So if 1 kFC is sold for 1 satoshi it means 1 FC is sold for 1/1000 satoshi. Usually price can't be lower then 1 satoshi per coin, it's the minimum price for any cryptocurrency. Never before Futurecoin something was sold for lower than 1 satoshi. But Futurecoin with its kFC feature was selling for 1/10 satoshi per coin. While true that a minimum coin price is one satoshi on a BTC exchange, the truism is meaningless. You have to have people wanting to buy at that price. What good is a "value" of 1 sat if nobody is willing to buy? I have seen coins go to one sat and shortly thereafter the buy order book dries up. GPUC and HEX are examples that come to mind. After that, they are only able to trade on other markets such as LTC, or get delisted entirely. So, there is really no such thing as a 1 sat minimum price. Also, I think that there is at least one exchange that trades in mBTC. |
|
|
|
And this is why you don't dump Darkcoin in a panic kids. That monster dump of 15k @ .00098 last week... that guy must be feeling pretty sorry today.
haha so true. What is worse is that he may have bought a lot of the other coin. Kai, completely OT... wtf is 68 82 75?  Convert to ASCII instead of decimal numbers.  Had not thought about that and I was looking for relations between those numbers... should have known because they were too close and in the range of letters  OCD ok now. I will be able to sleep |
|
|
|
And this is why you don't dump Darkcoin in a panic kids. That monster dump of 15k @ .00098 last week... that guy must be feeling pretty sorry today.
haha so true. What is worse is that he may have bought a lot of the other coin. Kai, completely OT... wtf is 68 82 75? |
|
|
|
I hope you people talking up this bitfinex stuff realise that this now HAS to happen otherwise we'll have a crash on our hands.
This development has now been getting slowly priced in over the last 24-48 hours, in particular regarding the fact that a correction was due yesterday that didn't occur - the price went up instead.
That's the price of jumping on these kind of rumours.
The rumour will be bought and the news will be sold. When bitfinex come out and state that periodically run viability tests on their new API functions using a variety of tickers but currently no plans to add any alts then that's going to no be seen as negative news and trigger a good old dump.
Just saying'. Watch what you talk up.
 Have you got some books to learn crypto-trading? I'm sick of reading thoses advices that seems pretty steady afterwards, and place my trades only with a look at the direction of the wind... So if there is som "crypto-trading 101", I'll be pleased to buy it. I know shit about technical analysis, but this link has been shared in this thread a few times for that: http://stockcharts.com/school/doku.php?id=chart_school |
|
|
|
Why not? nothing prevents someone in an exchange to play a little with the numbers as Mr X has been doing!
Too much playing, he also send some tips to people in the forum. So I guess Max is still the best guess. edit: we should see if it is bitfinex in the next days, they would move some coins Yeah, the tips are a bit inconsistent with the Bitfinex theory. Unless they wanted to play with us so we would speak about them, before we know it's them and after. Marketing expenses? You are right, we should know soon. Or not, they haven't said a word officially. |
|
|
|
I hope you people talking up this bitfinex stuff realise that this now HAS to happen otherwise we'll have a crash on our hands.
This development has now been getting slowly priced in over the last 24-48 hours, in particular regarding the fact that a correction was due yesterday that didn't occur - the price went up instead.
That's the price of jumping on these kind of rumours.
The rumour will be bought and the news will be sold. When bitfinex come out and state that periodically run viability tests on their new API functions using a variety of tickers but currently no plans to add any alts then that's going to no be seen as negative news and trigger a good old dump.
Just saying'. Watch what you talk up.
What's the possibility that BFX want this to be priced in somewhat before they make a sudden announcement? Any reason they might be letting these sneak peeks out deliberately for that reason? So if they are Mr. X (the one with biggest wallet), that would make sense. But I do not think Mr. X is an exchange... Why not? nothing prevents someone in an exchange to play a little with the numbers as Mr X has been doing! |
|
|
|
That's pessimistic and I don't see why a correction was due. Never know with Darkcoin.
It was due in the sense that day traders buy and sell on cycles. In particular the 4 hour chart - which has a period or about 2 days for DRK - is a favourite for them to buy in and dump on. Yesterday was a clear dump opportunity as far as that cycle went. Around midday Sunday it was clearly heading down but it balked just as it was about to turn over. May be just co-incidence but it happened right when people started posting all those screenshots of the DRK market on Bitfinex. All I'm saying is that that is a fairly huge rumour now that will backfire quite significantly if it turns out to be no more than that. You start rumours like that and it basically becomes fact quite quickly. Then when the truth behind it emerges (e.g. there are no plans at all to incorporate DRK) you end up doing more damage than you would have just by shutting up. That's a big assumption, but IMO there is currently less day trading going on with Darkcoin than with other alt coins. Moreover, with the last "dump" there are now more investors who are in for the long term, and less weak hands. Therefore, a rise is not necessarily followed by a correction, at least not for those values. There were way more DRK acquired in the pump than sold in the dump. And by way more it is really WAY more That's the most stupid fucking thing I've heard today. There's always an equal amount of buying and selling, it's kinda how a trade works. I think that he is saying that the volume in the pumps is much higher than in the dumps. Evey coin someone buys is a coin someone sells, but the number of transactions may vary. |
|
|
|
I think most likely, it will top out at around 1000 MNs is my guess.
I'm guessing around 300 max, because those that would've had tens or even 100+ of nodes with the old 1000DRK=1MN system will now just have 1. That said, could someone please tell me why the multi-ticket masternodes was a good idea again? Multi-ticket was built for whales and possibly the exchanges. So, I stick to 1000 to 2000 MN guess, as much easier for whales and exchanges to build MNs if multi ticket is implemented in current form. It is easier to update and secure one big MNs than 20 smaller ones. As long as the total number doesn't go down a lot it doesn't affect decentralization that much. Anyway, afaik, it has been pushed back to RC4. This should happen in July, so there is a lot of time for this to change. Even so - it might be limited to a maximum of 2-3 tickets per masternode so you cant have 20,000 drk / 20 tickets in one MN. Still too far away to be anything to worry about for now. A limit seems like a good idea to me, whether thats 2 or 3, or even 5 or 10, it would makes things easier for those who hold a lot of DRK and want to set up masternodes but would be one way of increasing the level of decentralisation as opposed to a system where you can have as many tickets as you want from one masternode. I can't find the exact post, but I remembering Evan saying there would be a limit of 5. I think he hasn't committed to any number yet. |
|
|
|
I think most likely, it will top out at around 1000 MNs is my guess.
I'm guessing around 300 max, because those that would've had tens or even 100+ of nodes with the old 1000DRK=1MN system will now just have 1. That said, could someone please tell me why the multi-ticket masternodes was a good idea again? Multi-ticket was built for whales and possibly the exchanges. So, I stick to 1000 to 2000 MN guess, as much easier for whales and exchanges to build MNs if multi ticket is implemented in current form. It is easier to update and secure one big MNs than 20 smaller ones. As long as the total number doesn't go down a lot it doesn't affect decentralization that much. Anyway, afaik, it has been pushed back to RC4. This should happen in July, so there is a lot of time for this to change. |
|
|
|
Guys,
A bit OT. What would be the best graphics card to mine DRK coin? There is a huge debate on Nvidia beating the Shit out of AMD recently. I was seriously thinking of getting an AMD, but now i am having second thoughts. In your opinion what would be the best graphics card to mine DRK (an indication of the hash rates would be the icing on the cake)? I am on a bit of a budget, so i am looking at graphics cards below $150 at this stage, but if the indicated hash rate is very high for some of the others, i may consider! The PSU on my system is 300W, so it will have to be a card that i can use without having to change over the PSU.
Thanks all!
Spend your money to buy Darks and setup a MN (or be part of one) because you will get a much better ROI. The difficulty is only going to keep rising for miners, whereas MNs will be getting 40 to 50% ROI, without any electricity running costs. How do you figure that? There will be thousands of masternodes, they may only get a payment once a month. the more masternodes, the less the payments just like with mining. Yes, but with masternodes there is no real investment to recover because the coins are always there. You can stop it and sell them anytime... not that I would recommend that |
|
|
|
Does anybody know why MN count has dropped to 288?
Probably helping out on testnet. Also, there was a known problem with ghost masternodes that showed up on lists but were not online, maybe it is being solved and the list is more accurate now. |
|
|
|
// little OffTopic, i know  sorry to bring this up, but the average has no value. i do understand that media loves averages, but in a (scientific/meaningful) discussion the average is pointless. it can so easily be manipulated by individuals. // or single points in the distribution if you want to tell me something about distribution,
give me the median. Always give the median. // nice figures, nevertheless  Completely agree! Using the middle of the interval for those who give one as a prediction, the median is $1725. Completely different story. |
|
|
|
This isn't working correctly. It shows my nodes as being on. I took them offline a couple of days ago. Haven't had the chance to update. Hope to do so soon, but I have to run soon again  Makes me wonder how many masternodes are really running right now? I think it's a problem in DarkSend and not on the website. Same here. In fact, when I updated to 0.10.8.11 I didn't start the masternodes again because I was not sure if it was better for the network to have them up or not (I think some of us asked this in darkcointalk). I did start the daemon but not the masternodes. They have been like that until today. 57 min ago I changed masternode=1 to masternode=0 in darkcoin.conf because I want to do some work on them but they still show on both lists with a 1 next to them. |
|
|
|
The OP can lock this thread and start again with a moderated forum.
I never liked that idea...but this thread, more than any, is hijacked by everyone - promoting xyz coin, trying to force the price of drk down, etc. we've even had people openly saying they got paid to troll.
I don't mind anyone that is here to challenge, raise difficult questions, etc.
But the open nature of the community has been hijacked.
Another thread would only cause confusion. Darkcoin has its own forums doesn't it? So that best thing is to always remind people of the darkcoin forums. But I wouldn't start creating new threads here at bitcointalk, because many people will feel confused. This thread is like a blockchain, like a time document explaining everything from the past to the present. So I wouldn't start "forking" the thread if I were the moderator. I would keep on growing this thread, just let the trolls selfdestruct or lose interest sooner or later. Yeah, discussion at darkcointalk.org is much more civilized. |
|
|
|
Probably a naive assumption about the MN servers & versions' issues: can MN with the latest version just agree to ignore (blacklist) the MN with previous versions? Well, it wouldn't be the Masternodes, it'd be the network, but I believe it should be possible. It should. However, I think the problems during the last fork started with P2Pools, not MNs. |
|
|
|
No, it would only stop an Amazon employee stealing your instance when it's powered down and not being accessed. (Whilst it is not running). If it's running it's possible to access. I would think that Amazon's cloud security is really high. Lot's of intellectual property runs on top of Amazon cloud. Engineering solutions worth hundreds of millions, simulations by banks when they don't have enough computing power, even competitors have used Amazon cloud for their own cloud hosting. If a wallet was to be stolen via an Amazon employee, they would compensate you for the entire amount or face losing far more money due to bad press. (They aim for their cloud services to pull in $20,000,000,000 per year, or more money than all Cryptocurrencies combined. They have a lot at stake. I agree, thats why i switched from digitalOcean to Amazon. But digitalOcean would be cheaper and has much more power I'd say that DigitalOcean is probably about as secure. They are smaller, but they have investors like Andreessen Horowitz. Pretty serious people. |
|
|
|
Maybe all the FUD, attacks, etc. in the last month have left me skittish -- but I wonder even in the short term what might happen to the coin if there is an organized effort to hurt DRK based around pools cheating. If Evan does go through with this then I hope I am just worrying over nothing.
If? It is a given that at least half the pools and big farms (a lot of them nowadays) won't be paying. So the 20% will be more like 10% for the masternodes, =what they were expecting anyway. But it will be a disproportionate weight to the "fair" pools. The whole thing to appease investors with "ok guys no hard forks" and bagholders of masternodes with "ok guys you'll get 20%" is sketchy. I know I'm harsh but I like things to go right  Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development. Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds? The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily) We also need improvements in DarkSend. The competition (MRO) is integrating I2P (as we've said) and XC will be using encrypted communication between nodes (as it has been said of DRK's future plans as well). I know this sounds like a mom's "to-do list" to the child until she gets back home, but priorities are priorities, and price or reaching litecoin immediately are not a priority. If the code is sorted out and the product delivered in final form, LTC will start rolling down. Too fast of a price rise with a half-baked product is problematic. LTC can't compete anyway in fundamentals like inflation (10x the BTCs to absorb LTC production compared to DRK) or innovation so they will be dead anyway by debasement. #2 is a given. Preserving #2 is not due to the competition. Who is gonna buy 300k USD of LTCs per day? It'll go 0.019 -> 18 -> 17 over time. It doesn't look that "hot" of a property. Only buys will be for cost-averaging buys at 0.025+. Having said that about the #2 competition, the anonymity competition actually looks pretty lame (BCN and clones too many issues, XC mostly vapor for now but that could change a few months ahead as they seem to have the prospects of delivering a product similar to what Evan has at like 70-80% completion). But we can't base our strategy on others failing or being pumps & dumps that are "threatening" us due to pumps => we must excel and take the market. Then bring V2 for "fatality". Otherwise the risk is there for more serious contenders appearing. My 2 duffs. Apparently I have more faith in humanity than anyone else around here I'll implement the masternode payments via hardfork, who knows, maybe all of you are right. By the way, I'm not talking about the price now or even in a year. It's about the security of the network when it's large enough to support a decent amount of transactions. Giving a higher reward simply doubles or triples the cost of such an attack, 10% was just too low. A lot of minds set at ease there hopefully. edit: and thank you! Great news, thanks! we stand behind you |
|
|
|
I'm wondering if those of you with Masternodes are more interested in going with Evan's new proposal so you can start getting paid, or would you rather Evan take more time to get the original implementation, or something similar working? I'm curious to know, I know where I stand (I'd rather he take his time) but don't know where you all stand Please comment Same here. I trust him and don't care if the price suffers because things go slower if he thinks that's the way to go... ok, I do care, but I can stand the pain |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
