agx.io seems good, but not enough volume at the moment for any coin.
Still voting on Mintpal, but we are a long way away from being added to that site.
Still keeping the faith and still mining Noblecoin.
yeah problem is all the bitcoin voting system to push the votes up If we do get added to Mintpal, it will be due to a true community push rather than the path of a buy-in. And that will be an accomplishment in and of itself. |
|
|
|
We will be releasing a bit of a 'manifesto' over the weekend regarding everything that has been in discussion across the entire forum (our ANN and BTCT) for the last three months to clear the air and answer any questions. It will answer everything on tech., forks, algorithms, and everything non-technical. I have literally spent 18 hours a day for 3 months on NobleCoin and very deep in this scene, too deep if I wanted to keep my idealistic view on crypto. (a year beforehand on cryptocurrency but not as time intensive or at the same level). I think it's time we set our gameplan, intentions, 'standards' and 'policies' in stone. I don't think anyone who has stuck with us at this point will be unhappy with how we're going to take it forward as the 'short-term profit-taking coin-hoppers' have long moved on (I don't begrudge them, but at this point they are no longer a part of Noble). In fact I'm hoping it sets a solid anchor for us to move forward and brings a lot more people into the community to support us in one way or another. Sorry we've been a little quiet the last few days (and fallen behind on PMs, will catch them up again). With the market as it is right now we're concerned the casino fun and games are over (at least for now - could be a week or two, could be a month or two). We will be releasing this (attached below) as another little ' gift' (  ) to the cryptocurrency scene to show we mean business. I name no names and don't say anything that isnt already available on the forum & Twitter, but I know even presenting it 'formally' might make a stir for all the right (in our eyes) reasons. It's all there. At 15,000+ words, it will be aimed at newcomers for informative/introductory purposes and the 'everyday little people' who need to be properly introduced to this scene. We want this to solidify our position and standards moving forward, and do 'what is right' to prevent this scene from cannibalising itself. That or we'll hear a lot of TLDR (can't win with some people). For the NobleCoin community and anyone checking us out, it will also be very detailed responses to every question we've received and a solid plan we intend to stick to moving forward through what might very well be a painful bear market. I expect more coins to be copying it as they do when we release something At this point, it's the coins that show they aren't here to screw around that will survive, with a solid community who believe in its ideals and potential to last and grow. Hopefully it changes and we can all enjoy the rollercoaster again, but we don't want to be left behind if things go a little slower in this market. Expect it soon, it has just taken a little longer as we lay out every piece of information we want everyone to know. Definitely looking forward to this! Keep up the great job Rofo! |
|
|
|
@james6546: We're still in the process of optimizing for mobile. There will be improvements made for phone/tablet usage in the future. Right now most of the site is authenticated but you'll see additional content come online soon. @adam1230: Glad to have you at AGX! Did your confirmations go through? If not please submit a Support Ticket through agx.io so we can investigate. To the rest of the NOBL Community: We hope you'll check out the big changes to agx.io that were made this weekend! We've also launched a new NOBL promo, details below: - The Austin Global TeamFind us at:
agx.io
bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=507474
bitcointalk handles: "agx.io," "AustinGlobal"
twitter.com/AustinGlobalX
austinglobal.tumblr.comI actually also really like the changes that you have made to the site. Having the different markets on the side readily viewable is a solid move, and the little touch of having the coin's icon available is a nice little touch (and is something that surprisingly a lot of other exchanges don't bother doing). The site seems to be running a smidge slower to me, but I think it's an okay thing for the amount of added functionality. I will say though, I do wish there was more traffic on agx.io. It's a solid platform from what I've seen so far, I just wish there was more volume on the markets. |
|
|
|
|
This may be one of the more beautiful TA charts that I have seen in a while. Bravo good sir, bravo.
[Okay on a serious note, it seems that right now, we are teetering on a floor and so far it has held pretty firmly, but I expect it to be tested a few more times. If that holds, a strong rally could happen. It just seems to me that a break out in one direction is bound to happen.]
|
|
|
|
|
The idea is novel, but a coin like this would be attacked like no tomorrow. A blockchain secured by smartphones would easily be attacked by just a small set of computers.
I think you are trying to implement something that can only be mined by smartphone CPUs; but if something can be mined by one CPU, then it can be mined by any other CPU.
|
|
|
|
|
Just as a note, I tested out some amounts with my NOBL and BTC and they both worked. So make of that as you may.
I personally do hope they are able to seal up their security gaps, even though they have had some pretty bad issues in the past, they've always done right and did what they could to set everything straight.
|
|
|
|
|
I look at the poll results and my first instinct is to be surprised, but then I think about it and realize, no it isn't.
Frankly, we're still only looking at a fringe amount of people or people who haven't invested much into Litecoin. A lot of the more serious people on Litecoin aren't necessarily on this sub-forum. Even if there is a "majority" here, it doesn't mean the infrastructure that surrounds Litecoin is going to follow.
|
|
|
|
|
But why not be optimistic? Yay! World is good! Happy times for all folks. Secret to living long and healthy! Yes?
I will say, there are some different paradigms that we can consider when it comes to the "clonecoins." And there are actually some with innovative features. It doesn't necessarily mean as much though since this place is riddled with "crap."
[By the way, don't forget there were several other boats like NMC and PPC.]
|
|
|
|
Well if it ain't a small world! I used to be Senior Hardware technician at GE, Cherry Semiconductor and On Semiconductor (after acquisition) back when my brain used to work.  I don't miss the Bunny suits. ON Semi? Huh, I know that company. (I work for Quality Engineering at ON.) And yeah, I don't miss bunny suits either. Was in the fab for two years, and I don't plan on returning. Hehe. |
|
|
|
...
The intent of LTC when released was to be resistant to GPUs/FPGAs/ASICs for the foreseeable future. One quickly went down, and with the advance in lithographic technologies and geometry creation, the second is being bypassed and it's going straight to the third one.
As a note, the thread on the LTC forum is not from the "developers" who want to fork LTC. So it still looks like profit motive. Maybe this is the new paradigm that people are going to use to make money now: forking already existing coins to new algorithms with the intent of "ASIC-resistance."
I will say, ASICs are just a new starting barrier for a coin. In no way does it decentralize the system as anyone is still able to participate in the system. In fact, ASICs provide the service of securing a blockchain which is just as important. After all, the same arguments happened with CPU vs. GPU. And in fact, for a long time, GPU was akin to ASICs as only certain cards could mine more effectively and we had a whole bunch of hobbyists trying to outdo each other by tweaking existing components to gain an additional edge. ASICs to me are just the next evolution of that. The difference is that instead of manipulation from the hardware level, it's being done at the wafer level.
You should drop this post in that thread. I don't think I agree that ASIC secures a blockchain. Once a quantum computer comes out any blockchain is in danger and centralizing with ASIC is the wrong direction in my mind. Think On this, any large enough government can and may use ASIC tech to centralize hash and take control (Bitcoin better watch for this). It can be done now with the Us gov if the will was there. I may drop that post in that thread if it gains further traction. On the realm of quantum computing, that is a fair concern. After all, quantum computing that resolves both entanglement and the eigenvector trap (both a physical and a code-based restrictions) would easily simplify all of the integer-based algorithms and make solving them relatively trivial. Instead of taking 2^O(n) time, that's reduced to 2^O(log n) time (from exponential to polynomial) in the best case scenario [and at worst, with a bad implementation, we would have something in quasi-polynomial time]. Once that happens, any crypto-currency that is secured with an algorithm that runs in exponential time will be well...fucked. So even a switch to X11 and so forth would be moot. At the minimum, in order to resolve this, the new algorithms will need to have 2^(2^O(log n)) time, i.e. double exponential run time so that at the best, Shor's Algorithm will reduce it to something that is still NP-time. [It would be fun to see a blockchain secured with something like Akerman's function though...] In this sense, ASICs are a better security mechanism than what we have right now. I still disagree that ASICs will have the centralizing affect if enough people participate. I'm still of the opinion that if the government wanted to take down a coin like Bitcoin, they could easily do so by implementing their own sort of ASIC chip, and having a fab or foundry produce/assemble them. Of course, now it's actually significantly more expensive then it was prior to the advent of ASICs for the SHA-256 algorithm [based on current network power, lithographic advances in the realm of ASICs and continuously improved adaptation, it'll likely be a ~$500 million proposition right now, back in mid-2012 while ASICs were in the development stages, it would have only been a ~$35 million proposition]. I may have to stop discussions with you. you make me think and I'm getting too long in the tooth for that!  I think we agree on a lot of points and has just been posted in the thread for this discussion which I quoted for truth "The only way to be ASIC proof" Is to hard fork when needed. Now where we disagree is upon whether ASIC will centralize. We can debate that forever I think as no-one knows the future but bitcoin is much more centralized than before ASIC. Even botnets which everyone seems to have their panties in a bunch about decentralizes. As to Gov takeover you need to add the law of returns to your calculation. As the price has changed in a non-liner fashion that actually makes it much more cost effective to accomplish now than then. You made me start reading algorithms and I had to force myself to stop as At this point in my life I am not going to fall down that hole. I'd rather goto the casino tonight then start that path.  Yes QC will be a game breaker with time being the key to the castle. But I am of the assumption that when we break that barrier the next will naturally follow. EDIT: As you can see I am speaking all off the cuff. I will not waste the time and effort that these questions need to be properly vetted without a return. Hehe, fair enough. I'm also speaking from what I can quickly recall. So I'm not entirely sure if those are the correct time complexity formulas. Yeah, the calculation I made for a takeover was based on the normalized development of a new 20nm line at a wafer fab (I work for a major semiconductor company, so I'm fairly familiar with those numbers) and an estimation on how much hash each assembled chip inputted into a finalized hashing ASIC makes in comparison to the current network hashrate. There are lots of factors to account for, but I was lazy and just multiplied the costs by 2.25 (sounded like the right factor to me). I'm glad I could make you read algorithms? Hehe. Never hurts to keep the mind sharp though. Although, going to a casino sounds really nice right now. Too bad that's a two hour drive for me. Gah... [Personally, I'm still saving up for a Vegas trip for me and some friends. So I guess I'll go crazy then. Ha!] |
|
|
|
What new crapcoins do you imagine SHA256 ASICs are going to move on to?
I already mentioned that I won't consider the merged mined family of scrypt coins worth risking until I see litecoin and DOGE being merged mined together or one of them becoming so insignificant it no longer seems a serious fragmentation of the scrypt space, didn't I?
-MarKM-
Hopefully none. BTC has the SHA-256 realm and just let it remain that way; other coins can be made to be merged-mined as it should be for something with strong infrastructure. Anyhow, yes you did. I guess what I'm trying to say is that even the merged-mined coins like NMC/DEV just doesn't seem worth getting at the moment since BTC is still "struggling." I'd still rather get more BTC while it is in its dip, rather than divesting what I have in BTC to get alts. Don't get me wrong, I think that the merge-mined coins will go up (and in fact will likely gain significantly more value than coins in the scrypt realm), but I'd rather see the correlative TA first before taking that risk. I guess I'm just a smidge risk-adverse at the moment. Heh, I guess in response to the thread question, I'm holding; but if I had to choose between sell or buy, I'd buy. |
|
|
|
...
The intent of LTC when released was to be resistant to GPUs/FPGAs/ASICs for the foreseeable future. One quickly went down, and with the advance in lithographic technologies and geometry creation, the second is being bypassed and it's going straight to the third one.
As a note, the thread on the LTC forum is not from the "developers" who want to fork LTC. So it still looks like profit motive. Maybe this is the new paradigm that people are going to use to make money now: forking already existing coins to new algorithms with the intent of "ASIC-resistance."
I will say, ASICs are just a new starting barrier for a coin. In no way does it decentralize the system as anyone is still able to participate in the system. In fact, ASICs provide the service of securing a blockchain which is just as important. After all, the same arguments happened with CPU vs. GPU. And in fact, for a long time, GPU was akin to ASICs as only certain cards could mine more effectively and we had a whole bunch of hobbyists trying to outdo each other by tweaking existing components to gain an additional edge. ASICs to me are just the next evolution of that. The difference is that instead of manipulation from the hardware level, it's being done at the wafer level.
You should drop this post in that thread. I don't think I agree that ASIC secures a blockchain. Once a quantum computer comes out any blockchain is in danger and centralizing with ASIC is the wrong direction in my mind. Think On this, any large enough government can and may use ASIC tech to centralize hash and take control (Bitcoin better watch for this). It can be done now with the Us gov if the will was there. I may drop that post in that thread if it gains further traction. On the realm of quantum computing, that is a fair concern. After all, quantum computing that resolves both entanglement and the eigenvector trap (both a physical and a code-based restrictions) would easily simplify all of the integer-based algorithms and make solving them relatively trivial. Instead of taking 2^O(n) time, that's reduced to 2^O(log n) time (from exponential to polynomial) in the best case scenario [and at worst, with a bad implementation, we would have something in quasi-polynomial time]. Once that happens, any crypto-currency that is secured with an algorithm that runs in exponential time will be well...fucked. So even a switch to X11 and so forth would be moot. At the minimum, in order to resolve this, the new algorithms will need to have 2^(2^O(log n)) time, i.e. double exponential run time so that at the best, Shor's Algorithm will reduce it to something that is still NP-time. [It would be fun to see a blockchain secured with something like Akerman's function though...] In this sense, ASICs are a better security mechanism than what we have right now. I still disagree that ASICs will have the centralizing affect if enough people participate. I'm still of the opinion that if the government wanted to take down a coin like Bitcoin, they could easily do so by implementing their own sort of ASIC chip, and having a fab or foundry produce/assemble them. Of course, now it's actually significantly more expensive then it was prior to the advent of ASICs for the SHA-256 algorithm [based on current network power, lithographic advances in the realm of ASICs and continuously improved adaptation, it'll likely be a ~$500 million proposition right now, back in mid-2012 while ASICs were in the development stages, it would have only been a ~$35 million proposition]. |
|
|
|
Be careful when withdrawing your BTC on Poloniex right now... I tried to withdraw 1BTC this morning and it somehow landed in a different address when I look at the block chain even with confirmation to my personal wallet. Waiting for a response from support right now.
Oh shit that's all we need is another exchange issue.  You guys read this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=549572.0I'm reading it now. There is understandable trepidation behind scrypt ASICs. And that's fine. However, it is not fine to affect hundreds of millions of dollars and investment because of said trepidation. Going renegade is a disservice to the developers and to the community. Even with all of the anti-ASIC rhetoric, I still feel a change to the algorithm is still a fringe movement. If they truly cared about LTC, they would have posted this on the LTC forum first and linked it to the BTC forum. All I see again, is profit motive. I think LiteCoin was designed to be Asic proof was it not? That was what differentiated it from bitcoin. Here is Litecoin community thread. https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=18122.0I think I would support Asic protection but I'm not sure if X11 is the right choice for LTC. The intent of LTC when released was to be resistant to GPUs/FPGAs/ASICs for the foreseeable future. One quickly went down, and with the advance in lithographic technologies and geometry creation, the second is being bypassed and it's going straight to the third one. As a note, the thread on the LTC forum is not from the "developers" who want to fork LTC. So it still looks like profit motive. Maybe this is the new paradigm that people are going to use to make money now: forking already existing coins to new algorithms with the intent of "ASIC-resistance." I will say, ASICs are just a new starting barrier for a coin. In no way does it decentralize the system as anyone is still able to participate in the system. In fact, ASICs provide the service of securing a blockchain which is just as important. After all, the same arguments happened with CPU vs. GPU. And in fact, for a long time, GPU was akin to ASICs as only certain cards could mine more effectively and we had a whole bunch of hobbyists trying to outdo each other by tweaking existing components to gain an additional edge. ASICs to me are just the next evolution of that. The difference is that instead of manipulation from the hardware level, it's being done at the wafer level. |
|
|
|
Be careful when withdrawing your BTC on Poloniex right now... I tried to withdraw 1BTC this morning and it somehow landed in a different address when I look at the block chain even with confirmation to my personal wallet. Waiting for a response from support right now.
Oh shit that's all we need is another exchange issue. You guys read this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=549572.0I'm reading it now. There is understandable trepidation behind scrypt ASICs. And that's fine. However, it is not fine to affect hundreds of millions of dollars and investment because of said trepidation. Going renegade is a disservice to the developers and to the community. Even with all of the anti-ASIC rhetoric, I still feel a change to the algorithm is still a fringe movement. If they truly cared about LTC, they would have posted this on the LTC forum first and linked it to the BTC forum. All I see again, is profit motive. |
|
|
|
I find it very concerning that the main developers aren't behind this and may not even have had an opportunity to view this proposal, let alone comment on it. I also find it very concerning how lightly these guys are taking the idea of a hard fork. To hard fork a chain as established as Litecoin is without some chain-breaking emergency going on (i.e. Scrypt found to be completely broken), you need at least a year and a very good plan. The premise of leaving a placeholder for the new client downloads and making it seem like a block has already been chosen for the fork is misleading at best, if not outright fraudulent.
Therefore, in the interest of protecting the Bitcoin community, I have rightly flagged this thread as unofficial. You should be ashamed of having posted this.
Thank you for doing this. Going renegade is not the way to go about enacting what someone may think is "the correct change." |
|
|
|
These posts such as the OP's bear no purpose other to reinforce how the OP bought at a higher price, is concerned about the price dropping so pretends to express glee at the lower price and make fun of sellers. The sole purpose of the post is to stop people selling at ever lower prices, and certainly not because the OP is happy the price is falling. If a falling price made cheap bitcoins even cheaper the OP would be sitting quietly buying up bargain bitcoins and would do nothing to stop people selling.
+1 You know, that could be the case for the OP. Or then again, some people like to gloat about things. But speaking of how a lot of people on these threads are, you're probably right. But if that person is smart or has additional money, he/she could take a short position on the downward trend instead of hoping for it to stop (assuming that he/she thinks that the trend will continue on for a while longer). |
|
|
|
Once this persistent rumor is confirmed, Its gonna get really ugly when bulls ( knife-catchers) and hodlers panic and capitulate as it pops.
Sheer Panic and unreal prices is not excluded in the coming weeks..
It is possible you are very wrong. It is indeed possible. But do you know how many times and at how many price ranges I have heard that 'China is already priced in', only for it to turn out that it actually isn't? Going forward, we have to assume that sooner rather than later, all the volume on the Chinese exchanges is going to stop, as the exchanges cease to operate because the Chinese government are not going to allow a phenomena to openly flourish that has the potential for undermining their entire economic system. As the reality continues to materialise, there will be further sell-off events, which a combination of arbitrage takers, those anticipating the arbitrage takers, and those simply panic selling cos the price is going down, will ensure that activities on the USD exchanges mirror the CNY exchanges. Any uptrend between now and the end of digital Bitcoin trading in China will be a counter-trend rally...........(and I personally am suspecting a little rally up to mid $550 ranges). It is that simple. The China story is losing it's power especially after the recent hoax. The China story is still losing it's power even if the recent rumors are true. Gotta remember though, "the markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." I still feel that there is a lot of consolidation that is yet to occur before any other trending will occur. After all, the Chinese markets have been affected by all of the news (rumors as they may be) and their market share will continue to impact the entire bitcoin landscape for a while to come. Sure I don't think the trendline will continuously go down, but I think it could last a little while longer. As for that analysis chart that someone posted, I think at this stage, better results would be gotten with a exponential chart. If this stretches out to May (which I highly suspect will be the case) we could see ~$300, but I think by then the market trend will have finally shown signs of going in the other direction. |
|
|
|
|
Well, looks like my prediction was completely off. Oh well.
Admittedly I didn't think the news out of China would be fully corroborated so that affected my judgment.
|
|
|
|
Exactly, that is why the time to buy is on the way down and at the bottom (on the way is so you definitely at least got some somewhat cheap even if you don't guess the exact bottom), not once they start going up. Once they start going up you want to already have your sell orders in place waiting to sell at a profit the coins you already bought back when it was going down. (And while it is going up, people buying your sell orders, place your buy orders ready for the next down-turn.)
The trick is to figure out which are the serial up-down-up-down coins and which are only going down because they are merely a dump not a blockchain with serious miners devoted to securing it.
A big clue there is that miners who do not have to abandon one coin to mine another can well afford to continue securing the coins they already mined while still being free to mine new coins. Thus the appeal of the merged mined coins. Look at DeVCoin for example, it has gone down many times but keeps on skyrocketing back up again too.
Basically those coins continue to have hashrate securing them even when they do go down in value, so are well positioned to go back up after each wave of useless garbage that lacks hashpower gets dumped into oblivion.
-MarkM-
That's fair, it just that this time, around I don't have confidence that any of these alts are necessarily going to go up again. Maybe MEC and DGC could go up again as an example, but there has been so much negative press around a lot of these older altcoins too. I just don't have enough confidence to even say with serious miners that a coin will go up again. A lot of people in this scene have turned to a fickle type of panic mode so I think a lot of serious miners will start switching either to newer coins or to LTC. And if that is the case, it makes it very difficult to instill confidence in me that any of those alts will go up in price. I would rather wait to see signs of life in the BTC market as a prompt to check for signs of life in those older altcoins and use some sort of correlative TA to determine what to get. Sure the profits won't be as much, but for me, the risk would be much more acceptable. Part of me wants to say with the advent of new hardware, a lot of that hashrate will go the way of LTC or newer coins where is it "easier" to make a profit. Anyhow, before I ramble on too much, I just don't have any confidence that any of these coins will necessarily trend upward again. That's why I'm personally going to take the correlative method so that I protect myself from a lot of that risk. |
|
|
|
|
From a purely financial perspective, I feel that the markets right now are too tenuous for people to buy. So for now, I wouldn't necessarily say sell, but I probably wouldn't buy.
A lot of this is due to the price of BTC. I think once BTC starts showing signs of a prolonged rally, then it'll be another good time to buy some coins, but there is usually a very small window between those times. There is only a slight delay between the time BTC goes into a prolonged rally and altcoins following suit.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
