Barwizi, care to respond to these allegations?
Throw New \Exception('assumed guilt in Line 1:1 drippx.cpp');fuck off douche, if i say something happened it did, and thats all there is to it. Nuff said. |
|
|
|
so will NRB be ( how to say it it /DELETED or Destroyed )
i don't understand why you will have 2 coin. We havent seen any thing about NRB for a good 6 months i dont know why you will even merge it
I only join crpyto and mined NRS so why should my investments be diluted even further
1) *coin 2) What is it that makes NRS valuable? 3) Why should NRS be the only one used? 4) What are your expectations for NRS? Actually, 98% of the coins on this forum need to be deleted, and rather than compounding the issue, we are working to alleviate it. |
|
|
|
will this be postpone like last week ? so it locking in ?
no postponing, we've given everyone enough time. if you have not moved your coins to a local wallet by the set time, we cannot help you. |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563925.0you dont have to base it off bitcoin, any coin you like. I can run you through the steps on how to do it in practice. though i wont partner with you  edit: In fact i've written a guide on how to do this already (just remembered) , just let me know if you want a few quick tips. I like the idea of "green" distribution, although that won't be enough. If you don't mind, my asking, what is it that makes your coin unique? What sets you apart from the rest? I ask because i tend to avoid clones, and i would rather not encourage their production.
|
|
|
|
No need for that, spammers get banned, and often get negative feedback as well.
on the typical forums yes, but i frequent the Alt Section, which for for the most part has no moderation, there is just too much traffic and not enough mods to do the "banning". I doubt mods really read ALL the feedback, it's just too much i think. Increasing the number of mods has been suggested, but unfortunately, most of the candidates have ulterior motives. Adding a tag wouldn't do anything for this issue, since tags are added by us. If we're looking into a user enough to add a tag we'd just ban them. Alt currencies will probably get a moderator, though likely from the current pool of staff (should eliminate concerns of ulterior motives which is a strong possibility when considering "outside" candidates). I was against it at first for various reasons I don't really want to talk about, but overall it's probably better to have one. quite right, i've resorted to self-moderated topics now, better to mod my own areas of interest. Yeah, the alt section used to be fun but now it's a mess. with the clones, it stopped being hilarious a long while back. I rarely (if ever), go to that section of the forum. There is way too much to sift through before finding anything worthwhile in my opinion. I have seen some good ideas every know and then, but it is too much work reading it all SO true, that entire sub forum needs a team of mods if it's going to in anyway resemble the rest of the forum. From spammers to scammers and completely pointless posts it's just awful. There is total anarchy (has pros and cons) which now results in most people just avoiding it altogether. |
|
|
|
|
Unless you can back up your allegations, we will not tolerate them.
FUD, shill and spam have no home here.
|
|
|
|
Good luck on this, Barwizi. I was interested a bit initially when I saw it on Bitsharestalk but forgot all about it.
That's because it was a failure. Read the old thread.  people who impose their opinions and try to present them as fact. |
|
|
|
Good luck on this, Barwizi. I was interested a bit initially when I saw it on Bitsharestalk but forgot all about it.
Thanks, it's been a tough road, but we are making headway  |
|
|
|
No need for that, spammers get banned, and often get negative feedback as well.
on the typical forums yes, but i frequent the Alt Section, which for for the most part has no moderation, there is just too much traffic and not enough mods to do the "banning". I doubt mods really read ALL the feedback, it's just too much i think. Increasing the number of mods has been suggested, but unfortunately, most of the candidates have ulterior motives. Adding a tag wouldn't do anything for this issue, since tags are added by us. If we're looking into a user enough to add a tag we'd just ban them. Alt currencies will probably get a moderator, though likely from the current pool of staff (should eliminate concerns of ulterior motives which is a strong possibility when considering "outside" candidates). I was against it at first for various reasons I don't really want to talk about, but overall it's probably better to have one. quite right, i've resorted to self-moderated topics now, better to mod my own areas of interest. Yeah, the alt section used to be fun but now it's a mess. with the clones, it stopped being hilarious a long while back. |
|
|
|
No need for that, spammers get banned, and often get negative feedback as well.
on the typical forums yes, but i frequent the Alt Section, which for for the most part has no moderation, there is just too much traffic and not enough mods to do the "banning". I doubt mods really read ALL the feedback, it's just too much i think. Increasing the number of mods has been suggested, but unfortunately, most of the candidates have ulterior motives. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe have a "spammer" tag
|
|
|
|
Whoa there!!!!
Can someone please link me to the "proof" that Jasin' been naughty? I find it hard to believe.
And I can tell you without a single shred of doubt that the Cachecoin dev is not in anyway linked with any shady shit.
Very naughty ; ) https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=2702.0No proof there, tho. But some things do look.. u know.. weird ; ) Fib ASIC marketing was nice - aim at forum members, LTC defense blah-blah, 'trusted' distribution. Most of concerns raised were flagged as 'trolling'/'FUD'/'shill attacks' and sometimes post deleted. Also - 'we are not forcing you to buy our Fib ASIC' type answer was used frequently to answer some of the concerns ; ) Litecointalk forum moderators were made involved by making some of them 'trusted hosts'. And ofc it is very hard to separate your private interest from public forum moderation. This resulted in biased(imo) mods actions in Fib ASIC threads and other ASIC manufacturers threads. As in - in Fib thread mods were making warning and deleting(?) 'concerns' as fud/trolling and posting similar 'concerns' in other threads by themselves ; ) To confirm read all posts of mods in all AISC threads.. (yeah it's very annoying, but funny). CACHE.. Jasin started accepting CacheCoin as a payment for Fib ASIC at a fixed price, higher than on the exchanges. Some members on bitcointalk and litecointalk had "ASIC coin" in their signatures. CacheCoin exchange rate went up. If I'm not mistaken litecontalk moderator Sy had huge ammount of Cache(mined?) so he bought a lot of Fib ASICs. After Fib stopped accepting Cache exchange rate plummeted down. Some ppl claim that this was an intentional pump&dump of Cache and that the developer of Cache was involved. Cache dev(kalgecin) and jasin apparently were working together(?) on some Cache features and jasin occasinally made claims that he is very interested in Cache(and XC) and has some plans for it. At the time, the proof from jasin that is was not pump&dump I've read was that he has not sold any Cache received for the ASICs. However to gain profit from this possible p&d you don't necessarily need to sell aquired Cache, you just need to make enough profit on Cache rate fluctuation you knew in advance and number of ASICs you can buy with Cache was intentionally limited. Also there were some allegations(with proof) that jasin wife sold some Cache prior the pump. Also Fib ASICs were not sold as actual asics instead they were sold as hardware shares also Fib profit shares were sold. Exchange was promised for those to be implemented. It was never completed cause.. jasin said dev run away. There is also no proof that it ever was developed. Also defense line - 'we make ASICs no websites' was used to 'calm down' ppl concerned that Fib site is buggy and exchange is not completed yet ; ) And ofc that ppl are trolling and are shills of the competitors and that they are not developers and don't understand how much effort it takes to make and test a web site ; ) What's funny is that long before Fib began sales there was a talk that practice of giving money to 'trusted' ppl should be stopped. mmitech(litecointalk) argued that there are enough cases when 'trusted' ppl collected vast ammounts of BTC and dissapeared after. At the time Jasin said that comparison is wrong, cause he have not collected any money yet ; ) Well.. now he has ; ) After 'fud' of corrupted litecointalk mods, admins and LiteCoin association spread, TheMage(litecointalk mod) organised a meeting with Jasin where some 'trusted' ppl representing investors were allowed to ask Jasin some questions. Some of the info was not made public, cause Jasin said it is a part of NDA between him and ASIC chip designers. However, total ammount of planned ASIC chips was made public - ppl counted their orders and realised that planned ammount is much(?) less. Also coversation revealed the fact that Fib is still on ASIC prototyping/simulation stage. This is odd cause when KNC announced their scrypt ASIC, Fib raised performance, claiming that they have been designing ASIC for years and that at first they revealed well below performance number not to spook competitors. Again concerns were either marked as trolling/fud and partially answered with 'we have genious salsa dev'. Also Jasin claimed that ASIC design company(or fab?!) is not aware that they are designing ASIC to be used for litecoin mining and that it was deliberately made secret, because they hate everything about the cryptos and won't do the job if they knew. Lol, what a mess. Oh well, hope he clears things up. ha, if that was the plan...it was pretty elaborate. |
|
|
|
|
Whoa there!!!!
Can someone please link me to the "proof" that Jasin' been naughty? I find it hard to believe.
And I can tell you without a single shred of doubt that the Cachecoin dev is not in anyway linked with any shady shit.
|
|
|
|
|
Lol, we need to see the list of coins that were accepted
|
|
|
|
Great, that means our final snapshot will be accurate. Lets Move our conversation to our new Moderated Topic. link below. New ThreadThread rules are simple 1) No Spam, No excessive trolling 2) No foul language All the rest is the same as the mods around here do. (basically nothing, they just leave be.) |
|
|
|
|
Did you Know?
Reducing Orphans when Staking can maximize Compounding Interest?
When minting, to reduce occurrence of Orphans, i.e. "?" blocks & wallet bloat, please
MAKE SURE YOUR COMPUTER TIME IS ACCURATE
In Windows simply,
1) click clock/date/time bottom right
2) click change date time settings
3) Click Internet Time Tab
4) Click change settings
5) Make sure box Synchronize with internet is checked
6) and click Update now
7) Time should be correct, and more shares for you!
|
|
|
|
My balance is almost correct ! Difference is 0.000479 NRS, but I'll get over that  Do I only need to confirm here ? yes, this snapshot was just to prove the software is accurate, thus far it seems ok. The final one is on 09/09/14 00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Can you show us the list of peers you are connected to?
yes, i can... meanwhile i´m on block 50998 "addr" : "61.157.175.11:8500", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1409911789, "lastrecv" : 1409911789, "conntime" : 1409911132, "version" : 60006, "subver" : "/NoirShares:1.9.1/", "inbound" : false, "releasetime" : 0, "startingheight" : 70840, "banscore" : 0 }, { "addr" : "82.225.189.236:8500", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1409911462, "lastrecv" : 1409911699, "conntime" : 1409911210, "version" : 60007, "subver" : "/NoirShares:1.9.1/", "inbound" : false, "releasetime" : 0, "startingheight" : 70842, "banscore" : 0 }, { "addr" : "180.115.227.132:8500", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1409911406, "lastrecv" : 1409911700, "conntime" : 1409911244, "version" : 60006, "subver" : "/NoirShares:1.9.1/", "inbound" : false, "releasetime" : 0, "startingheight" : 70842, "banscore" : 0 }, { "addr" : "114.226.127.19:8500", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1409911577, "lastrecv" : 1409911700, "conntime" : 1409911245, "version" : 60006, "subver" : "/NoirShares:1.9.1/", "inbound" : false, "releasetime" : 0, "startingheight" : 70842, "banscore" : 0 }, { "addr" : "115.70.145.217:8500", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1409911669, "lastrecv" : 1409911700, "conntime" : 1409911306, "version" : 60006, "subver" : "/NoirShares:1.9.1/", "inbound" : false, "releasetime" : 0, "startingheight" : 70843, "banscore" : 0 }, { "addr" : "37.59.31.185:8500", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1409911702, "lastrecv" : 1409911702, "conntime" : 1409911339, "version" : 60006, "subver" : "/NoirShares:1.9.1/", "inbound" : false, "releasetime" : 0, "startingheight" : 70843, "banscore" : 0 }, { "addr" : "96.20.110.172:8500", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1409911810, "lastrecv" : 1409911812, "conntime" : 1409911808, "version" : 60006, "subver" : "/NoirShares:1.9.1/", "inbound" : false, "releasetime" : 0, "startingheight" : 70846, "banscore" : 0 } ] Restart your client, i'm sure if you open the debug log, you'll find that it is attempting to mint PoS blocks, this is a bug we noticed later on as it is not prioritizing syncing over minting. |
|
|
|
^^ this is for noir BITS... my problem is within the noir SHARES wallet Can you show us the list of peers you are connected to? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
