I used to own a forum (sorry, can't share the link here) that ran on phpBB and this was a huge problem. By the end of the month, I'd have hundreds of bot-created accounts which all had backlinks on their profile page. Some tried to spam the boards. Others didn't post anything. Eventually I had to change the forum settings so that all new posts would need to be approved by me and any accounts that had no posts in a week would get pruned. My forum had a CAPTCHA although it was the weak one that's supplied with phpBB by default. My WordPress blogs had a similar problem too except it involved the comments instead. The problem died down once I implemented Akismet. Proposal: disallow profile URLs for newbie members?
And delete 0 message account every X months And prohibit send private messages. One of them sent me spam about http://dogecoindouble.com/  I get spam PMs sometimes from newbie accounts too. I just ignore them and they usually disappear after a while. Also that link is down at the moment. Looks like the site owner forgot to update their contact details. I believe that nuking them won't do. It might remove the spam they create but spamming the forum is obviously not their goal. Deleting the account would also be problematic if it's done manually because you would be fighting bare handed against a machine. As I mentioned in a post I made about this, those accounts are probably made so websites can have backlinks. The forum needs to be protected from such automated account creation techniques, and I know it's hard to prevent this completely BUT it could at least become less meaningful with some small changes. Let's say that account's below Jr. Member position won't be able to use the forum's features to add links to their signature and website space. Take a look at the newest accounts. Most of them have 0 or 1 posts, but almost all of them have set a website address. Turns out the forum is vulnerable and someone is abusing this vulnerability to practice his blackhat SEO techniques. After scanning through that list, it looks like bot-created accounts outnumber genuine accounts 9-to-1. There are some genuine accounts there though. For example, these accounts look genuine: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=418467http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=418475http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=418479Some of the bot operators do not put the links upon registration some wait up 1 to 3 weeks. True, but I think those accounts are genuine because each made 1 post and they don't look like they were written by bots. A few months ago, hilariousandco discovered that some bots were copying other users' posts and reposting them as their own but a quick Google search should identify any accounts that use this trick. |
|
|
|
I used to own a forum (sorry, can't share the link here) that ran on phpBB and this was a huge problem. By the end of the month, I'd have hundreds of bot-created accounts which all had backlinks on their profile page. Some tried to spam the boards. Others didn't post anything. Eventually I had to change the forum settings so that all new posts would need to be approved by me and any accounts that had no posts in a week would get pruned. My forum had a CAPTCHA although it was the weak one that's supplied with phpBB by default. My WordPress blogs had a similar problem too except it involved the comments instead. The problem died down once I implemented Akismet. Proposal: disallow profile URLs for newbie members?
And delete 0 message account every X months And prohibit send private messages. One of them sent me spam about http://dogecoindouble.com/ I get spam PMs sometimes from newbie accounts too. I just ignore them and they usually disappear after a while. Also that link is down at the moment. Looks like the site owner forgot to update their contact details. I believe that nuking them won't do. It might remove the spam they create but spamming the forum is obviously not their goal. Deleting the account would also be problematic if it's done manually because you would be fighting bare handed against a machine. As I mentioned in a post I made about this, those accounts are probably made so websites can have backlinks. The forum needs to be protected from such automated account creation techniques, and I know it's hard to prevent this completely BUT it could at least become less meaningful with some small changes. Let's say that account's below Jr. Member position won't be able to use the forum's features to add links to their signature and website space. Take a look at the newest accounts. Most of them have 0 or 1 posts, but almost all of them have set a website address. Turns out the forum is vulnerable and someone is abusing this vulnerability to practice his blackhat SEO techniques. After scanning through that list, it looks like bot-created accounts outnumber genuine accounts 9-to-1. There are some genuine accounts there though. For example, these accounts look genuine: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=418467http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=418475http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=418479 |
|
|
|
Thanks redsn0w, payment was received. Also, I don't think I've seen negative post counts before. I guess these are the posts that were wiped during the recent downtime and data loss. I wasn't affected myself but gosh, that would suck.  |
|
|
|
Where can I buy this coin ? On what exchange it is trading right now . I wanna buy some coins for me too.
It's available on the NXT asset exchange. However, all development of the coin has stopped and the original devs have abandoned the project. Just before they left, they announced that the project has been sold to another group but we haven't heard anything from them since then so I suspect either this was just an excuse or the new devs decided to abandon the coin too. Unfortunately, the coin's source code wasn't made public before the project was abandoned. After a while, an attempt was made to restart the coin using the original specifications as a reference. Then it was decided that this would be too difficult so the plan was changed so that you can exchange your RSUnits for ORA tokens on the NXT asset exchange instead. ORA is a new coin that will be built on the NXT monetary system and is expected to launch in three months. |
|
|
|
|
Isn't this a 4chan meme? Anyway, I was reading articles about it and posting on Nxtforum.org.
|
|
|
|
I logged on today and found 50,001 satoshis sitting in my spare account which I never use. No idea where it came from because my stats page shows that I only wagered 2,000 satoshis with 0 wins and 5 losses. Doesn't look like I made any deposits either. I never posted in chat using this account so I doubt it was from someone else. Weird... Faucet will now be 200 satoshi's unless your wagered is over 1 BTC. If your wagered is over 1 BTC your faucet will remain the same prior to the update and will increment in the same manner.
Couldn't someone just bet 1 BTC at 98% and get the larger faucet with practically zero risk? Or they could bet 0.5 BTC at 98% two times, again with practically zero risk? I was riding high with PD, up to 0.05 profit, then I crashed down to -0.04 profit and decided that I'd better quit. Haven't played in a while. I think that lifetime profit/loss stat might be too much of a reality check. I know it's kept me from putting in more money once I saw how far behind I was. On the other hand, it's very open and honest of PD to show us this so easily.
Then again, it's possible that some users might look at their lifetime profit/loss and if it's negative then they might gamble even more funds to make up for their losses. |
|
|
|
This is the kind of mentality that allows ponzis to thrive. If you want to try cloud mining, either accept that you're playing a part in a ponzi scheme and take your profits before the whole thing falls apart or choose a legitimate service and lose any hope of making a profit at all. That's the reason why CEX.IO was so overpriced. Unlike most of its competitors, it was a legitimate mining firm backed by actual hashpower. And because of this, nobody who sat on their miners actually made a profit from buying CEX.IO mining contracts except for those who bought them just before the November 2013 bubble.
Purchasing cloud mining is no different than buying a physical miner in that regard. You don't buy an obsolete, power hungry miner for above value and expect to make a profit either. At least with physical miners, it's possible to make a profit. People have made profits when they did their own research and the company delivered the hardware on time. It's rare but it happens. Trading aside, literally nobody has made a profit with CEX.IO in BTC terms. Their contracts have been unprofitable from the very beginning. And the only cloud mining sites that were profitable so far eventually turned out to be ponzis. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, it seems that the official Auroracoin forum has been down for a while now. Whenever I try to access it from my browser, I see this:  |
|
|
|
|
I'm a senior member but since this is a question about faucets, I'll be posting it here.
OK, so I know everyone says that faucets aren't worth the time and energy and I'm pretty sure everyone is in agreement that unless Bitcoin suddenly shoots up to $1 million, you won't get rich from them. But couldn't they be useful for paying transaction fees? My Electrum wallet enforces a minimum fee of 10,000 satoshis. This amount could be earned in a single day from faucets or a couple of days from a single high-paying faucet. This would allow someone to send Bitcoin transactions essentially for free while still making sure that their transactions arrive on time.
It would also be helpful if you need to pay an exact amount. Say you want to buy something which costs 0.4 BTC. To do this, you need to send 0.4 BTC to address X. You have 0.2 BTC in address A and 0.1 BTC in two other addresses (B and C). With transaction fees subtracted from the total amount, you would not be able to buy the product you wanted. But if these transaction fees were paid using the earnings gained from a faucet, you wouldn't lose any BTC in the form of fees.
|
|
|
|
I've heard many people say that Bytecoin (BCN) was 82 percent premined. Technically it wasn't a premine but something called a "ninjamine". A premine would be visible in the blockchain and the code. You would see something like "Initial block = 100,000 coins". Instead, it's a ninjamine because very few people knew about it during its initial mining phase when most of the coins were created in 2012 and 2013. Bitcoin was arguably also ninjamined because most of the initial mining took place within a small group that was shielded from the outside world. Bitcoin became known to the wider public in 2011. Bytecoin in 2014. Hence why Satoshi has almost 1 million coins. Bitcoin's small group was a cryptography mailing list frequented by geeks. Bytecoin's small group was the deep web.
If Satoshi was a scammer who was intent on destroying the reputation of his coin, then he could have dumped all his coins on an exchange and made a lot of fiat in the process. But Satoshi wasn't a scammer, and Bitcoin wasn't a pump and dump scheme. Six years have passed since the creation of Bitcoin and Satoshi could have dumped his coins at anytime during this period but he didn't. Thus those 1 million coins are still untouched to this day.
If the Bytecoin devs were scammers, then wouldn't we have witnessed large dumping of the coin by now? Does anyone know if the 82 percent ninjamine was left untouched just like Satoshi's stash is still untouched today or have the coins moved? We know that the value of Bitcoin won't come crashing down to zero because we know that Satoshi is a benevolent character who won't destroy his creation for a quick buck. And six years of blockchain data proves this. After 10 months has passed with no evidence of a scam, perhaps we can begin to say that the same is also true for the Bytecoin devs?
Disclaimer: I own both BCN and XMR and a few other CryptoNote coins. I decided to post this because I saw that BCN has recently overtaken XMR in the coin rankings which is a bit surprising although I guess the ninjamine probably helps. IMO competition is good for all coins.
The thing is, Satoshi didn't cripple Bitcoin with unoptimized code, nor did he have a 82 %(around 80) premine/ninjamine/w.e. Read that again, 80 percent of all Bytecoins are owned by a handful of people. 80%.Enough said. The original premise of my thread proposed the possibility that those coins may never be dumped at all. Perhaps those who mined them did so while testing the coin and never bothered to save the private keys. Or perhaps they wanted to "do a Satoshi" and mine a ton of coins and then leave them permanently untouched as a keepsake or for reasons unknown. Satoshi initially mined to keep the network running when there were very few other miners and nodes. From reading his earliest posts, the potential for profit seems to have been more of an afterthought. Yes, the BCN distribution is horrible and a huge impediment to its success. 10 percent? Fine. 50 percent? OK if it's innovative then sure. But like you, the fact that it's 82 percent does leave me wondering if it is a fatal flaw. Then again, NXT was able to survive despite 73 people owning 100 percent of the currency in its early days. If BCN has just 50 people owning 82 percent then it could survive too. However, I suspect the bulk of this 82 percent is owned by the devs. While a mass-scale dumping of the coin would be disastrous, if they had chosen to follow Satoshi's example then it also means that we'd be missing out on a good, high-quality coin. A third and IMO better long-term scenario would be if the early adopters who control the 82 percent sold off their coins slowly to the market. The demand for BCN would have to rise significantly for the market to absorb this and it would probably take many months or even years for the distribution to improve but at least it would remove the permanent uncertainty of a massive and catastrophic dev-initiated dump that's currently hanging over the community. |
|
|
|
Like I said, doesn't the evidence in the code and in the blockchain show that Bytecoin didn't exist until 2014?
I'm sure it isn't. Premines are pretty obvious things that would stand out and be easily noticeable in both the code and the blockchain. You would see a method such as the following in the code: int64 static GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64 nFees)
{
int64 nSubsidy = 100 * COIN; // sets default block reward to 100 coins
if(nHeight == 1) // in other words, if block height is 1...
{
nSubsidy = 1000000 * COIN; // ...then whoever solves that block gets 1 million coins
}
else if(nHeight < 5001) // otherwise if block height is less than 5,000...
{
nSubsidy = 200 * COIN; // ...then whoever solves these blocks gets 200 coins
}
nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 500000); // block reward halves every 500,000 blocks
return nSubsidy + nFees; // returns the block reward and mining fees to whoever solves the block
}
Even if you don't understand C++, the comments make it pretty straightforward. The above coin would have an initial premine of 1 million coins. It would then have 200 coins per block for the next 4,999 blocks and then revert to the default block reward of 100 coins per block after that. The block reward would halve every 500,000 blocks. As for the block explorer, well the timestamps certainly match up. Below is the link for block height 1. Note the part which says "2012-07-04 05:00:00": http://minergate.com/blockchain/bcn/block/1 |
|
|
|
|
The forum went down right after I hit the preview button and just as I realized that my post was missing a [/QUOTE] tag. For a second or two, I got BBcode confused with HTML and thought there was a possibility that I broke the forum.
Anyway, to those who aren't sure if they have posts that are deleted or not (particularly to those who post a lot and might not remember how many posts they made prior to the data loss), go through your browser history and you'll get an idea of which posts you need to re-post.
|
|
|
|
Also, isn't it true that if Bytecoin was actually mined since 2012, that only about 10 computers were mining it?
I think someone did analysis of the hash rate a while back and came to the conclusion that the number of people mining it was very small for quite a while. Perhaps it was mined by universities during its first few months or something. The whole thing is extremely mysterious. (Then again, a lot of things in the crypto world are shrouded in mystery. Nobody knows the identities of Satoshi or BCNext. Or the Truecrypt developers. Bytecoin seems to fit the trend.) Hence you would expect to see a lot more development happening with these newer coins compared to a three year old coin that has probably already accomplished most of its original design goals.
But Monero is almost 3 years old itself. I personally mined Monero in 2012. People have called me a liar for saying that, but they couldn't come up with any objections that don't apply equally to Bytecoin. Umm... The evidence would be in the code and the blockchain, no? |
|
|
|
Umm... I always thought XMR was forked off BCN? Here is the link to the original BitMonero [ANN] thread. It says: Important: this is not a Bytecoin relaunch or not a Bytecoin replacement but a Bytecoin fork. Bytecoin has its own long history, community and stakeholders we don't know much about. I respect them and their decisions even if I don't understand them now. An intention to relaunch coin is always harmfull for everybody involved. Fork is a right way to contribute to community in case you don't agree with decisions already made. |
|
|
|
Is most of the development done by the CryptoNote/Bytecoin devs with the Monero team merging these changes into the code as required (such as in the case with Linux Mint being based on the latest Ubuntu release) or have the codebases completely diverged?
An excellent question. Let's take a look at our respective github summaries:   Our first blockchainDB LMDB implementation is in testing, and that cements the picture:  I think it's safe to say that most of the development is being done by Monero, Bytecoin hasn't had a commit since September 15. If anything, Bytecoin would have to merge our work to their code, but practically speaking our codebases have diverged way too much. I think this can be explained by the fact that Bytecoin is an older and more "established" coin similar to Litecoin so there isn't really a strong incentive for the devs to make drastic changes to it. Before the reference implementation was released, BCN functioned as the "vanilla" version and all the other CryptoNote coins were built on top of its design. Each coin has its own unique identity, feature set, and niche ( here is a link to a list of them). For example, Fantomcoin supports merged mining, duckNote/DarkNote employs unique marketing, Dashcoin uses self-mutating code, Boolberry uses Wild Keccak for its hashing function, MonetaVerde is environmentally friendly, etc. Hence you would expect to see a lot more development happening with these newer coins compared to a three year old coin that has probably already accomplished most of its original design goals. I'm guessing that the workload for Monero and most other CN coins is spread out over many individuals too so that updates will probably be more frequent and the development of the coin will happen at a faster pace. That being said, I'm fairly certain that Bytecoin will be releasing a GUI wallet very soon. The devs alluded to it in a recent blog post. Monero seems to be working on one as well and Boolberry already has one. And to what extent do the Monero devs understand the code behind CryptoNote? (I realize this is a tricky question to answer).
You've read our research bulletin, MRL-0003, "Monero is Not That Mysterious", right? Not only do we go into detail explaining the Monero cryptography in layman's terms, but we also released a reimplementation in Python: http://github.com/monero-project/minineroWhilst you're at it, why don't you check out MyMonero, the Monero web wallet. It reimplements a lot of functionality in Javascript, which also points to our very deep understanding of the CryptoNote code. I've skimmed through the PDF but haven't read it fully. As for the other links, well I'll check them out. Since the Monero devs didn't actually write the code behind their coin, I wonder if the task of maintaining it is beyond their technical capabilities.
This is an excellent question. So let me ask you this: since the Bitcoin core devs didn't actually write the original Bitcoin code, do you think the their task of maintaining Bitcoin is beyond their technical capabilities? Not only have they "maintained" it since Satoshi's departure, but they have improved on it. The question remains: are the Monero devs similarly capable? Well, if you checkout git commit 1a8f5ce (the initial Monero fork) and you do a cloc (count lines of code) of the src folder (so excluding external libraries or copy-paste code), you get a total of 20 305 lines of code. Step up to the current commit, and that folder jumps to 32 322 lines of code written by the Monero core team and contributors. With our blockchainDB implementation that count jumps even further to 35 829. That means that the we've written 15 524 lines of code beyond the initial 20 305, and that completely ignores changes to existing lines of code (of which there have been many), as well as comments (of which there have been many), as well as external projects. Is this including the list of mnemonic phrases and their translations? The main additions on top of BCN seems to be the addition of Electrum-style passphrases, aliases, and the new per-kb fee structure. We've done way, way more work than the initial project.
Agreed, as per reasons above. I know there is another CryptoNote coin called Dashcoin which tries to be a 1:1 mirror image of Bytecoin and thus circumvents the risk of inexperienced coders messing up while still avoiding that pesky 82 percent ninjamine. It's a little insulting to call all 23 contributors to Monero (that's besides amjuarez, Bytecoin's sole developer) "inexperienced". Most notable among that esteemed group are Ben Boeckel, a Fedora and KDE contributor as well as a CMake core developer, and Dave Andersen, an associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University. Many of the other contributors, myself included, have many, many years of experience. You'd do well to choose your words more carefully next time. OK, I see. Point taken. I didn't realize you were a XMR contributor so perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully. After Bytecoin was discovered and announced on these forums, it seemed as though there were tons of forks appearing all at once and BitMonero happened to be the biggest one of these. However, kicking the original dev out of the project and changing the coin's name mid-development didn't inspire too much confidence personally IMHO. Usually the quality of altcoin devs around here isn't very high but after seeing those links that you posted, it looks like Monero has some bright people working on it now who seem to know what they're doing. That's definitely good to see. My main concern was that there's a big difference between being a good programmer and being a good computer scientist. Suffice to say, most altcoin devs are neither. And it's usually the case that good programmers don't make good computer scientists and vice versa. Oh, and computer scientists are much harder to find too. Most hold post-graduate degrees and many work in research/academia. After reading the CryptoNote whitepaper, it's obvious to me that a.) Nicolas van Saberhagen is a bloody genius, and b.) a proper in-depth understanding of the protocol requires a rigorous knowledge of mathematics and cryptography. My first impression with Monero was that it was just a community fork of Bytecoin designed solely to avoid the poor distribution that plagued BCN while leaving the original coders to take care of the core protocol. Perhaps I was wrong. |
|
|
|
I am guessing that a hell of a lot of coins mined early are either lost or forgotten about. I only recovered mine after I joined BCT and got help with my wallet.
This is possible. Many of the bitcoins that were mined during its early days are now lost forever. As to whether or not they've dumped their premine, given the unbelievably low Bytecoin exchange volume I simply think they haven't been able to. In order to dump a premine you have to have buyers, otherwise who are you selling it to? Leaving aside HitBTC, which is known to be untrustworthy and filled with fake trades ( 1 2 3), Bytecoin does about $2/day in volume. The most heavily traded day was June 21 when they did around 1.5 BTC in volume at a price of around 10 satoshi per Bytecoin. In the 245 days it has been listed on Poloniex, even if they were at peak every single day they would only have been able to dump 3 675 000 000 Bytecoins of their stash of 147 882 114 539 Bytecoins, which is 2.49%. Given that they're not at peak, the best they could have achieved over the past 245 days is a couple of hundred USD. Strange to see that HitBTC has 99% of the volume while Poloniex has so little. Didn't realize their numbers were inaccurate. I understand that the Bytecoin and CryptoNote teams had a very close relationship with the other until there was a split. Supposedly the BCN team wanted to focus on implementing the technology via Bytecoin while the CryptoNote team just wanted to focus on the core technology itself. The fact that the early adopters of BCN have profited so little suggests that this is something other than your typical scam. After all, who would go through all the trouble of helping to develop and implement an entirely new and truly innovative protocol just for a couple of hundred USD? Very odd. Edit: forgot to add, the only coin "rankings" worth looking at are CoinGecko. If you're merely looking at market capitalisation then you also need to use CoinMarketCap's non-mineable/premine filter, but frankly there's not much value in market capitalisation metrics without taking other things into account (eg. market momentum, trade volume, etc.) I remember BCN used to have double stars (and so did NXT) suggesting a premine but it was taken off after a couple of weeks. Thus BCN still shows up when you use the non-mineable/premine filter. There's no propaganda in the facts above. They are not skewed nor twisted, and replicating my searches of the Silk Road 1 forum or of the various 4chan archive sites is a trivial exercise for the reader.
Most threads on 4chan don't make it to the archives. If the thread was posted on /g/ then it would stay up for a week or so and then disappear forever. We absolutely do give kudos to the mathematician(s) behind the CryptoNote cryptography (and who we'd love to have on the Monero Research Lab panel), and credit does also have to go to the developer(s) who produces the CryptoNote reference code in the 7 months at the end of 2013 / beginning of 2014. If the original Bytecoin developers were involved in the creation of the reference code, then those kudos and credit extend to them up to that point, but we absolutely do not give credit for their attempt to fleece the cryptocurrency community. I've read the CryptoNote whitepaper and it seems likely that the devs had some academic background. Or perhaps they were one of the cypherpunks that were involved in the early days of Bitcoin. If they were academics, then it's also possible that they weren't too concerned about profit and just kept their miners running while testing the code. Then perhaps word got out and a few people in the deep web found out but it failed to form a substantial community. I'm not too familiar with Monero development these days. Is most of the development done by the CryptoNote/Bytecoin devs with the Monero team merging these changes into the code as required (such as in the case with Linux Mint being based on the latest Ubuntu release) or have the codebases completely diverged? And to what extent do the Monero devs understand the code behind CryptoNote? (I realize this is a tricky question to answer). Since the Monero devs didn't actually write the code behind their coin, I wonder if the task of maintaining it is beyond their technical capabilities. I know there is another CryptoNote coin called Dashcoin which tries to be a 1:1 mirror image of Bytecoin and thus circumvents the risk of inexperienced coders messing up while still avoiding that pesky 82 percent ninjamine. |
|
|
|
|
I've heard many people say that Bytecoin (BCN) was 82 percent premined. Technically it wasn't a premine but something called a "ninjamine". A premine would be visible in the blockchain and the code. You would see something like "Initial block = 100,000 coins". Instead, it's a ninjamine because very few people knew about it during its initial mining phase when most of the coins were created in 2012 and 2013. Bitcoin was arguably also ninjamined because most of the initial mining took place within a small group that was shielded from the outside world. Bitcoin became known to the wider public in 2011. Bytecoin in 2014. Hence why Satoshi has almost 1 million coins. Bitcoin's small group was a cryptography mailing list frequented by geeks. Bytecoin's small group was the deep web.
If Satoshi was a scammer who was intent on destroying the reputation of his coin, then he could have dumped all his coins on an exchange and made a lot of fiat in the process. But Satoshi wasn't a scammer, and Bitcoin wasn't a pump and dump scheme. Six years have passed since the creation of Bitcoin and Satoshi could have dumped his coins at anytime during this period but he didn't. Thus those 1 million coins are still untouched to this day.
If the Bytecoin devs were scammers, then wouldn't we have witnessed large dumping of the coin by now? Does anyone know if the 82 percent ninjamine was left untouched just like Satoshi's stash is still untouched today or have the coins moved? We know that the value of Bitcoin won't come crashing down to zero because we know that Satoshi is a benevolent character who won't destroy his creation for a quick buck. And six years of blockchain data proves this. After 10 months has passed with no evidence of a scam, perhaps we can begin to say that the same is also true for the Bytecoin devs?
Disclaimer: I own both BCN and XMR and a few other CryptoNote coins. I decided to post this because I saw that BCN has recently overtaken XMR in the coin rankings which is a bit surprising although I guess the ninjamine probably helps. IMO competition is good for all coins.
|
|
|
|
Can you just upload the PDF by itself?
The OP posted an updated link with just the PDF file by itself here: Anyway, I downloaded the ebook and it looks pretty good so far. It's nicely written, has step-by-step instructions for newbies, and useful links. Well done OP. The file is just a PDF.
No harm will be done if you are not in Windows.
But to do the faucet you need a script, and I would verify it before doing anything
OP's website can set up the faucet for you. Or if you want to use a script, then it recommends FaucetBOX.com which seems pretty legitimate. They provide a free script and API and are similar to CoinBox.me and Microwallet.org. You can find their official thread here: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=844119 |
|
|
|
Could you explain this part? If I were to start a ponzi i wouldn't want it to be obvious. Sites like PB, Hashie, Lunamine and other succeeded because they weren't obvious.
I agree completely. It wasn't really obvious from looking at those sites that they were ponzis because a lot of work had been done to make them seem legitimate. I'm sure some people had suspicions that the mining wasn't really backed by actual hashpower but looking back, it's the unusually high rate of return that really gave it away. People flocked to them in droves because they paid more than what the legitimate competition paid. For example in this thread: Lunamine instead? Cheaper than Cex and they seem more legitimate than PBMining. BTW, PBMining has been great so far. Ponzi? I don't know but I've had no problems so far with PBMIning.
It's easy , Cex.io = loose money and PBMining win money
This is the kind of mentality that allows ponzis to thrive. If you want to try cloud mining, either accept that you're playing a part in a ponzi scheme and take your profits before the whole thing falls apart or choose a legitimate service and lose any hope of making a profit at all. That's the reason why CEX.IO was so overpriced. Unlike most of its competitors, it was a legitimate mining firm backed by actual hashpower. And because of this, nobody who sat on their miners actually made a profit from buying CEX.IO mining contracts except for those who bought them just before the November 2013 bubble. If hashie had close relations to AMhash shouldn't AMhash share the responsibility for the losses?
I'm not that familiar with Hashie since I never mined with them. What I understand is that AMHash allowed Hashie to sell its contracts as a reseller and directed people who wanted to buy AMHash contracts to Hashie. When Hashie went down, AMHash got all of the people who held AMHash contracts on Hashie and migrated them over to AMHash. |
|
|
|
The price of a single coin is meaningless without taking supply and thus market cap into account. There is currently a coin out there called 42coin. Each 42coin is worth almost $1,000 USD but no-one uses it, no-one likes it, and the coin itself is considered dead. It's only "expensive" because the total supply is just 42 coins. Hence this is why market cap (defined as the price multiplied by the supply) is a much better indicator of the true value of a particular coin than pure price alone. Nevertheless, out of the coins in the top 50, there are a few that are priced under 100 satoshis. Dogecoin (which I'm sure you're already familiar with) is 66 sats, Bytecoin (an anonymous coin and the first CryptoNote coin) is 3 sats, Reddcoin (a coin intended for tipping on social networks) is 10 sats, and Darknote (a coin similar in features to Bytecoin) is 24 sats. If you think CryptoNote technology is cool then try Monero. I myself have always liked Qora which is built from the ground up with completely new source code, has the standard set of crypto 2.0 features such as an asset exchange and voting, and has now recently gone open source. There are plans to integrate automated transactions into it as well. It's currently priced at 6 sats but to be completely honest, I wouldn't advise buying any. Why? Well, ever since it was first launched, the price has just kept on dropping and dropping and dropping like a stone. The technology behind Qora and other 2.0 coins like NXT, BitShares, Counterparty, and Ethereum are still pretty neat though.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
