FUD army arrived; must be a good sign.
The sdc fud team never leaves. They are an infection. Crave is one of the many infected. Of course they WILL....Just STOP reply them. another new account made as they try recoup losses by being bagholders here |
|
|
|
just like i did those at 600k lol
Yeah, we have a genuine bagholder here, trolling while he's holding 91k.  huh bagholder, i made some bagholders. everyone was warned the dump was coming. its gonna happen again just being pushed by those that bought in morning. take it to 170-180k please |
|
|
|
Oh come now… don't be so coy… spill the beans. and why do u know if others don't?
Neat. Now child harold is coming to try to salvage the fud attempt by longandshort. Out of juice = sdc fud team What makes you think you can do it any better than your master? Why do you have to single out the COIN, these individuals do not represent the SDC team or community at large, everyone is entitled to their own opinnion and can voice it all they want. I hold multiple coins, SDC is a primary one yes, does this now make me an SDC FUDDER? Raising legitimate questions and tech discussion is not fudding. Its discussion plain and simple. If everyone would stop attacking a persons opinions as being a representation of the coin its team or community then maybe there wouldn't be so many troll wars. Hahahahaha more sdc fud teamers. You are out of juice man. Give it up. Your master longandshort failed. If there is a problem with the function of crave say so. You sdc fudders suck. You have no specifics. Just vague accusations and nitpicking about things that aren't even implemented. If you sdc fudders can't say how this coin is not functioning correctly, then you are fudding plain and simple. I hold well more than just sdc and you are insulting quite a few coins now. If you actually looked at any of my past posts in this thread that i have nothing against crave and i hope it succeeds for the holders. its gonna have to lots of heavy bags. i bought at 91k this morning. looking for a exit No prob.........fill my order.Thanks just like i did those at 600k lol |
|
|
|
Oh come now… don't be so coy… spill the beans. and why do u know if others don't?
Neat. Now child harold is coming to try to salvage the fud attempt by longandshort. Out of juice = sdc fud team What makes you think you can do it any better than your master? Why do you have to single out the COIN, these individuals do not represent the SDC team or community at large, everyone is entitled to their own opinnion and can voice it all they want. I hold multiple coins, SDC is a primary one yes, does this now make me an SDC FUDDER? Raising legitimate questions and tech discussion is not fudding. Its discussion plain and simple. If everyone would stop attacking a persons opinions as being a representation of the coin its team or community then maybe there wouldn't be so many troll wars. Hahahahaha more sdc fud teamers. You are out of juice man. Give it up. Your master longandshort failed. If there is a problem with the function of crave say so. You sdc fudders suck. You have no specifics. Just vague accusations and nitpicking about things that aren't even implemented. If you sdc fudders can't say how this coin is not functioning correctly, then you are fudding plain and simple. I hold well more than just sdc and you are insulting quite a few coins now. If you actually looked at any of my past posts in this thread that i have nothing against crave and i hope it succeeds for the holders. its gonna have to lots of heavy bags. i bought at 91k this morning. looking for a exit |
|
|
|
I pmed the dev about this a few days ago, but haven't received any response, nor has anything been done about these, so I'm posting this here now hoping it'll get some answers. This is not the message I sent, this is reworded for general users who I don't expect to know much about the code. There are multiple things I've found in the code that seem like problems. In the masternode payment enforcement, the code for checking that masternodes are being paid is checking the wrong transaction. In btc(and pow coins like darkcoin which the code came from) the block reward is in the first transaction (vtx[0]), and in PoS forks like crave is, vtx[0] is always left empty and the block reward is in vtx[1]. It can be seen here https://github.com/industrialcoinmagic/crave/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2375 and https://github.com/industrialcoinmagic/crave/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2357 that the code was not updated to look in vtx[1], and continues to look at vtx[0]. It can also be seen a little higher up in the same function that the block verification does check that vtx[0] is empty https://github.com/industrialcoinmagic/crave/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2302 . Since block verification checks that vtx[0] is empty to even get to masternode payment verification, payment verification will never find an output to a masternode in that loop, and should reject all blocks, except it doesn't deadlock due to the next point. I have about 5 seconds to check this out, but vtx[1] is the marker for PoS in crave. https://github.com/industrialcoinmagic/crave/blob/master/src/main.h#L728If the rest of your analysis is equally flawed, I'd suggest to the community not to waste to much time worrying about it. [addendum]The second paragraph is flawed too. The first points to CBlock and the second to CTransaction. Yes, vtx[1] is the coinstake transaction, and it looks at it in the IsProofOfStake function, that doesn't contradict anything I said. vtx[0] is where the masternode payment verification code is looking however when the payment is part of that coinstake in vtx[1]. dev be awesome if you clear this up Be awesome if you could read code. Why do you need the dev to teach you c++? i do read code but a statement from dev is what is better. if id give my opinion it would be fud |
|
|
|
I pmed the dev about this a few days ago, but haven't received any response, nor has anything been done about these, so I'm posting this here now hoping it'll get some answers. This is not the message I sent, this is reworded for general users who I don't expect to know much about the code. There are multiple things I've found in the code that seem like problems. In the masternode payment enforcement, the code for checking that masternodes are being paid is checking the wrong transaction. In btc(and pow coins like darkcoin which the code came from) the block reward is in the first transaction (vtx[0]), and in PoS forks like crave is, vtx[0] is always left empty and the block reward is in vtx[1]. It can be seen here https://github.com/industrialcoinmagic/crave/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2375 and https://github.com/industrialcoinmagic/crave/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2357 that the code was not updated to look in vtx[1], and continues to look at vtx[0]. It can also be seen a little higher up in the same function that the block verification does check that vtx[0] is empty https://github.com/industrialcoinmagic/crave/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2302 . Since block verification checks that vtx[0] is empty to even get to masternode payment verification, payment verification will never find an output to a masternode in that loop, and should reject all blocks, except it doesn't deadlock due to the next point. I have about 5 seconds to check this out, but vtx[1] is the marker for PoS in crave. https://github.com/industrialcoinmagic/crave/blob/master/src/main.h#L728If the rest of your analysis is equally flawed, I'd suggest to the community not to waste to much time worrying about it. [addendum]The second paragraph is flawed too. The first points to CBlock and the second to CTransaction. Yes, vtx[1] is the coinstake transaction, and it looks at it in the IsProofOfStake function, that doesn't contradict anything I said. vtx[0] is where the masternode payment verification code is looking however when the payment is part of that coinstake in vtx[1]. dev be awesome if you clear this up |
|
|
|
Funny how my post with Vertoe in it was deleted after posting on DASH thread yesterday... Screen shot it before it disappears again like most Vertoe posts....  A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. Quote Quote from: vertoe on March 29, 2015, 11:53:05 PM Quote from: toknormal on March 10, 2015, 02:46:12 AM Quote from: Lebubar on March 10, 2015, 02:30:19 AM So yes there is ideology behind this coin : privacy, liberty, freedom, try to make the world less directed by "power" and more with the heart... I hope that changing the name will not make the ideology behind it change too, otherwhise it will failed. There's no ideology in something that nobody uses. The ideology's in the design, not the name. Vertoe is justified in leaving over not being consulted but less so over 'ideology'. It's not a rock song that's being built here it's electronic money. The name can easily be compromised without any loss of principle but the functionality can't. So Evan has got his priorities right in that regard. no. i left because i disagree darkcoin or however it will be called next year is not a decentralized entity. it never was but i ignored it as long as darkcoin was following the same path i was following. the path to total financial privacy. and thats why i am so upset about how this currency is lead by a single person. darkcoin is like an old conservative company with strong hierarchical comamnd structures and a single person on the top of the pyramid. evan duffield. the rebranding using a detergent name was just a step forward in creating something like apple or paypal. fuck this i tell you. what we need is a trustless, decentralized and anonymous currency. darkcoin is not decentralized as it still relies on a single person. and this reaches deep into the code base. the core devs were just a bunch of volunteers exploited for the big thing. the extended darkcoin team was the same with even a lower place to sit on that pyramid. and what was the darkcoin foundation again? right, something to reserve some rights on some names and collect money. who nominated and voted for the foundation board? who does even know who are these guys? how did we learn about the foundation? from local news papers! the team listings kept counting names of people nobody ever noticed before. and they never committed anything visible to the community or the repository. and i was spending 25 hours a day monitory everything that happened in the darkcoin community for more than a year. the things going on here are fishy, intransparent and rely on a single entity. i will get out and and will contribute to something decentralized and anonymous. i always hoped darkcoin could fill that void. i cant blame anyone to stay with this project. you are probably investors trying to win a gold donkey. or you are simply trying to exploit every possible vector of profit in the coins space. whatever. you are not here because darkcoin is something it claims to be. if you disagree with my statement above, i dont care, but answer that simple question: what if evan duffield suddenly announces he quits the project tomorrow morning? good luck You guys can always come join us on da crave train! ICM and Vertoe gonna rock da crypto world $$$ vertoe is not on board he is not been asked yet nor has he confirmed it. he has just said he is available to be hired As of me speaking to Vertoe yesterday, he is not on board with this coin. However mods were deleting his posts as quickly as he could post them so who knows what he actually said on this thread! As vertoe said at the time, its almost like somebody didn't want him to be posting here. a bit weird i must say but vertoe can always use irc to chat. its not like bitcointalk runs the altcoin scene, exchanges do |
|
|
|
Funny how my post with Vertoe in it was deleted after posting on DASH thread yesterday... Screen shot it before it disappears again like most Vertoe posts.... A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. Quote Quote from: vertoe on March 29, 2015, 11:53:05 PM Quote from: toknormal on March 10, 2015, 02:46:12 AM Quote from: Lebubar on March 10, 2015, 02:30:19 AM So yes there is ideology behind this coin : privacy, liberty, freedom, try to make the world less directed by "power" and more with the heart... I hope that changing the name will not make the ideology behind it change too, otherwhise it will failed. There's no ideology in something that nobody uses. The ideology's in the design, not the name. Vertoe is justified in leaving over not being consulted but less so over 'ideology'. It's not a rock song that's being built here it's electronic money. The name can easily be compromised without any loss of principle but the functionality can't. So Evan has got his priorities right in that regard. no. i left because i disagree darkcoin or however it will be called next year is not a decentralized entity. it never was but i ignored it as long as darkcoin was following the same path i was following. the path to total financial privacy. and thats why i am so upset about how this currency is lead by a single person. darkcoin is like an old conservative company with strong hierarchical comamnd structures and a single person on the top of the pyramid. evan duffield. the rebranding using a detergent name was just a step forward in creating something like apple or paypal. fuck this i tell you. what we need is a trustless, decentralized and anonymous currency. darkcoin is not decentralized as it still relies on a single person. and this reaches deep into the code base. the core devs were just a bunch of volunteers exploited for the big thing. the extended darkcoin team was the same with even a lower place to sit on that pyramid. and what was the darkcoin foundation again? right, something to reserve some rights on some names and collect money. who nominated and voted for the foundation board? who does even know who are these guys? how did we learn about the foundation? from local news papers! the team listings kept counting names of people nobody ever noticed before. and they never committed anything visible to the community or the repository. and i was spending 25 hours a day monitory everything that happened in the darkcoin community for more than a year. the things going on here are fishy, intransparent and rely on a single entity. i will get out and and will contribute to something decentralized and anonymous. i always hoped darkcoin could fill that void. i cant blame anyone to stay with this project. you are probably investors trying to win a gold donkey. or you are simply trying to exploit every possible vector of profit in the coins space. whatever. you are not here because darkcoin is something it claims to be. if you disagree with my statement above, i dont care, but answer that simple question: what if evan duffield suddenly announces he quits the project tomorrow morning? good luck You guys can always come join us on da crave train! ICM and Vertoe gonna rock da crypto world $$$ vertoe is not on board he is not been asked yet nor has he confirmed it. he has just said he is available to be hired |
|
|
|
I pmed the dev about this a few days ago, but haven't received any response, nor has anything been done about these, so I'm posting this here now hoping it'll get some answers. This is not the message I sent, this is reworded for general users who I don't expect to know much about the code. There are multiple things I've found in the code that seem like problems. In the masternode payment enforcement, the code for checking that masternodes are being paid is checking the wrong transaction. In btc(and pow coins like darkcoin which the code came from) the block reward is in the first transaction (vtx[0]), and in PoS forks like crave is, vtx[0] is always left empty and the block reward is in vtx[1]. It can be seen here https://github.com/industrialcoinmagic/crave/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2375 and https://github.com/industrialcoinmagic/crave/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2357 that the code was not updated to look in vtx[1], and continues to look at vtx[0]. It can also be seen a little higher up in the same function that the block verification does check that vtx[0] is empty https://github.com/industrialcoinmagic/crave/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2302 . Since block verification checks that vtx[0] is empty to even get to masternode payment verification, payment verification will never find an output to a masternode in that loop, and should reject all blocks, except it doesn't deadlock due to the next point. The hard fork never happened. If you scroll up a little from the previous section, you'll see a flag used for enabling masternode enforcement. https://github.com/industrialcoinmagic/crave/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2341 Right below it checks it against a timestamp, and sets the flag to true if we're past the fork time. Before we actually use the flag, there's another condition calling the IsSporkActive function https://github.com/industrialcoinmagic/crave/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2341 which is capable of turning the flag back off. If you follow that function https://github.com/industrialcoinmagic/crave/blob/master/src/spork.cpp#L80 what happens in that call is it doesn't see that flag in the map, so heads into the else block where it copies SPORK_1_MASTERNODE_PAYMENTS_ENFORCEMENT_DEFAULT to r, and then compares r to the current time. If you take a look at the value compared https://github.com/industrialcoinmagic/crave/blob/master/src/spork.h#L28 , and convert that timestamp(2428537599) to normal time ( http://www.epochconverter.com/ ), you'll see that the timestamp used is Dec 16 2046. Clearly this hasn't happened yet, so IsSporkActive returns false, and that causes it to set the flag back to false so the masternode payment enforcement code is skipped over. Until ICM quieted the logging, it could also be seen in the logs that the skipped message was still being logged after the fork supposedly happened. Lastly at https://github.com/industrialcoinmagic/crave/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2320 the constant passed to IsSporkActive is the timestamp from before, not a spork ID, which causes the InstantX checks to be skipped. Go away fudder who wants cheap coins. The CRAVE dev is smarter than satoshi himself. His code must be perfect. How could there be bugs? /s this guy too funny. crave dev is not even 0.001% of satoshi. the reply from dev should be interesting |
|
|
|
TROLLS going crazy, they were trying to make people dump to 50K but trolls lost their CRAVE (Sell orders are bought), hahaha, see you over 1 Million sats
or it could be those who got dumped at 70k are just pushing up price to sell at profit. look where the buy orders are they careful they are not dumped into this pumper is making you guys look like fools lol 28btc buy order at 85k like someone really gonna dump that lol. he just making order look good so he can sell what he has. this shit is too funny |
|
|
|
TROLLS going crazy, they were trying to make people dump to 50K but trolls lost their CRAVE (Sell orders are bought), hahaha, see you over 1 Million sats
or it could be those who got dumped at 70k are just pushing up price to sell at profit. look where the buy orders are they careful they are not dumped into this pumper is making you guys look like fools |
|
|
|
you guys are delusional. The pumpers have left the building and are planning their next vacation and/or car purchase.
Explain to me why a pumper would spend so many BTCs pumping the price to 800k and then ...dumping down to ...68k, in order to crush the price instead of maximizing BTC profit. It's impossible for the pumper to have made any money on this. The only profit comes from attacking the coin's price and confidence, leveling it at much lower levels, where re-purchasing the same quantity or higher quantity of coins can take place @ lower cost. This scheme can only work if people dump at 100-200-300k etc, otherwise the pumper/dumper lost his BTCs to the casual investors. pumpr probably made so much by selling above 500k he doeesnt care what price he sells it. you all saw how it was dumped on the other coins bob pumped. its the same style. once he has made enough he likes to let people know he is out. see the charts for the coins he has pumped. If he was selling above 500k, why wasn't the price crashing and instead got to 800k / pump-style? The argument doesn't make sense. there were large orders above 500k. he mostly bought his own orders. pumper can do anything as long as his makes profit. the dump can only have been done by the pumper just like the other coins. there style is not to spend too much time on a coin and slowly sell it. remember there were two too. first dump to 450k then back up to 650k. then big dump 1. Selling at 68k is not generating maximum profit. So there is something wrong here. 2. Pumpers aren't gods to do anything. 3. Yes there were large orders above 500k, no need to sell at 68k. It's irrational. This was done on purpose to crash price with a thin order book at the bottom. that can be said as well but it got dumped to 68k but little amount was sold. the lowest large order i saw was 100k. 10btc order. then after that it was done. who knows what was in the head of pumper but the coin is not that great as people say it is. is good the price was too much. below 100k is ok. |
|
|
|
you guys are delusional. The pumpers have left the building and are planning their next vacation and/or car purchase.
Explain to me why a pumper would spend so many BTCs pumping the price to 800k and then ...dumping down to ...68k, in order to crush the price instead of maximizing BTC profit. It's impossible for the pumper to have made any money on this. The only profit comes from attacking the coin's price and confidence, leveling it at much lower levels, where re-purchasing the same quantity or higher quantity of coins can take place @ lower cost. This scheme can only work if people dump at 100-200-300k etc, otherwise the pumper/dumper lost his BTCs to the casual investors. pumpr probably made so much by selling above 500k he doeesnt care what price he sells it. you all saw how it was dumped on the other coins bob pumped. its the same style. once he has made enough he likes to let people know he is out. see the charts for the coins he has pumped. If he was selling above 500k, why wasn't the price crashing and instead got to 800k / pump-style? The argument doesn't make sense. there were large orders above 500k. he mostly bought his own orders. pumper can do anything as long as his makes profit. the dump can only have been done by the pumper just like the other coins. there style is not to spend too much time on a coin and slowly sell it. remember there were two too. first dump to 450k then back up to 650k. then big dump |
|
|
|
you guys are delusional. The pumpers have left the building and are planning their next vacation and/or car purchase.
Explain to me why a pumper would spend so many BTCs pumping the price to 800k and then ...dumping down to ...68k, in order to crush the price instead of maximizing BTC profit. It's impossible for the pumper to have made any money on this. The only profit comes from attacking the coin's price and confidence, leveling it at much lower levels, where re-purchasing the same quantity or higher quantity of coins can take place @ lower cost. This scheme can only work if people dump at 100-200-300k etc, otherwise the pumper/dumper lost his BTCs to the casual investors. pumpr probably made so much by selling above 500k he doeesnt care what price he sells it. you all saw how it was dumped on the other coins bob pumped. its the same style. once he has made enough he likes to let people know he is out. see the charts for the coins he has pumped. |
|
|
|
yes but thats if you own as many as you. you got in early. buying now requires some capital. im not running nodes but am enjoying the rise |
|
|
|
Everyone is worried about the "coming dump" but I believe this is whole "pump" is being done by disillusioned Dark/Dash whales unhappy with the direction Evan is going.
It is in their best interest to send this up and maintain the price in the several dollar range for awhile to challenge Dash's dominance, they won't be able to do that if it gets real high and crashes to the ground floor then no one will trust it.
Yes! Some Long term Da$h investors did not like the name change...I said it before but the Dark name change created a void for a talented Dev like ICM a too open up a can of jones soda 1999 Can of Whoopa$$ Rumor spreading that ICM is vertoe.  Who is Vertoe? He was a DRK dev but imho he was far overvalued.. If you look at his commits at github he did mainly translation Jobs but nothing really innovative or "new". He left DRK, and i am quite glad he did as he often overreacted and was too "loud" for a professional project. If he would be in here - i would be out. anyone got a link to vertoe profile will see posting styles and compare if true and thats him then im out. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
