What are the features your like and which coins has it?
As for masternode coins, you may want to check this website: https://masternodes.online/It has a list of more than 350 masternode coins, with DASH on the top, of course. You can rank them by price, marketcap, ROI, currently active number of masternodes, required collateral, etc. |
|
|
|
Excuse me, but why are you treating it as a decimal number rather than a binary?
It doesn't matter how you treat it or what numeral system (decimal, binary, hexadecimal,...) your code uses, as long as it is the same number. Why is it the same number? I added the 0b preffix to the number and got "Generator point has x or y out of range." quod erat demonstrandum. Quick digging into the code shows that in the multiplication operator there is a modulo operation: if self.__order: e = e % self.__order so it doesn't matter how big number you use, the operation will be done with its modulus (which is no bigger than 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFEBAAEDCE6AF48A03BBFD25E8CD0364141 by the definition) Thanks for clearing this up. I wasn't knowledgeable enough to go through the python code myself, but there had to be a modulo operation somewhere. Either that or the math is wrong. |
|
|
|
Articles like these are full of praise for blockchain technology, but I don't really see how Oracle is going to run their network so as to enable security and immutability. From the second article: Another aspect of blockchain Biagianti likes is its distributed nature, which makes it more secure and unalterable. If all the nodes are going to be their own, Oracle will have full control over the blockchain, thus it won't be any more secure or immutable than their databases. |
|
|
|
1) Only Sr. Members with no negative trust can participate.
Is there any specific reason why you are excluding "Hero Members" and "Legendary Member"? I mean, it's fine to have Sr. Members as the lowest rank acceptable, but this rule of yours doesn't say so. Or should it be interpreted as Sr. Members and above? |
|
|
|
As most of the replies to your questions were not so specific, here are a couple of links to trading tutorials I find very useful: 1. Crypto Cred: Youtube channel Great in-depth analysis of his trading system and how to properly use a couple of his favorite trading tools. 2. InnerCircleTrader: Youtube channel Tutorials for Forex trading, but very much applicable to Crypto trading. If nothing else, it's worth taking a look at this guy's unique style of trading. 3. Bitcoin Trading Challenge: Youtube channel Some unique tutorials and trading strategies. Note that it takes a lot of time to go through these videos and assimilate the lessons. Even if you put a lot of effort in learning, there's no t guarantee that you will become a successful trader. There are people out there making a shit load of money without any technical analysis, just looking at the charts, trading, and learning from experience. Great! I found many solution from this thread questions replies, but nothing better than your solution. Thanks for that. I'm glad you find them useful. They all are really very decent tutorials, and also completely free. What I did? Stayed here in this forum and stick with the stories that I have read.
This is also very true, learning from other people's experience. Which reminded me of a cool thread by @Raja_MBZ who shares crypto trading signals related to different coins: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3445170.0 |
|
|
|
In the book " Digital Gold: Bitcoin and the Inside Story of the Misfits and Millionaires Trying to Reinvent Money", its author ( Nathaniel Popper) quotes a couple of emails sent by Satoshi to other members of the early Bitcoin community. This was apparently right before his disappearance from the forum. Here is the excerpt: The author of the Bitcoin software hadn’t posted to the forums since December, but he had continued to e-mail with a select number of developers, including Gavin, Martti, and Mike Hearn, a Google programmer in Switzerland, who got drawn into the project after the WikiLeaks blockade. In late April Hearn politely asked how involved Satoshi intended to be moving forward.
“Are you planning on rejoining the community at some point (e.g. for code reviews), or is your plan to permanently step back from the limelight?” he asked.
“I’ve moved on to other things,” Satoshi wrote back. “It’s in good hands with Gavin and everyone.”
[...]
Satoshi’s final e-mails went to Martti, whom Satoshi asked to take full ownership of the Bitcoin.org website.
“I’ve moved on to other things and probably won’t be around in the future,” Satoshi wrote to Martti, in early May, before transferring the site to Martti and disappearing into the ether. [emphasis mine] Source: https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Gold-Bitcoin-Millionaires-Reinvent/dp/006236250X I couldn't help noticing that Satoshi announced that "he had moved on to other things" on two different occasions. What do you think these other things could be? From the context, it sounds these things are unrelated to Bitcoin. Maybe he was working on other projects where programming skills were needed. This can also be interpreted as Satoshi being more or less satisfied with the development of Bitcoin and confident in its intended future. I know that this is very speculative and impossible to know with certainty, but I would like to hear your opinion. |
|
|
|
Excuse me, but why are you treating it as a decimal number rather than a binary?
It doesn't matter how you treat it or what numeral system (decimal, binary, hexadecimal,...) your code uses, as long as it is the same number. |
|
|
|
If you already know the basics of how to send and receive ETH (in other words if you have already used MEW and you know what you are doing), you won't ever need to use the testnet. Go straight to the mainnet. But, if you are unsure, or if you are afraid that you may screw things up, better practice with imaginary (test) Ether. You may want to check this article to find out how to obtain some test ETH and play with them. |
|
|
|
As for being commission free, I don't think so. There will be a fee incorporated somewhere, that's for sure. What the article doesn't say is how the users are supposed to charge their mobile application with fiat money (to be converted to crypto). On second look, you can go to their website and find out more about their service. They are planning to introduce subscription plans for active traders. So it won't be free after all. And they are planning to have their own ATM card, so charging won't be a problem. On the down side, I guess the users won't have much privacy. In any case, their target customers probably won't care too much about that. One thing is certain: this is a good step toward a wider adoption of cryptocurrencies. |
|
|
|
Github repository (code):—this isn’t always necessary, but it certainly is a positive if the ICO you are evaluating has a Guthub repository with recent contributions to it. This means the project is being worked on/developed.
This is a good point, and it is relatively easy to check. It is obvious that the vast majority of ICOs don't have a Github presence. Most of the scam ICOs are running on top of ETH, being just ERC-20 tokens, so you can imagine that they don't really intend to do much coding. The few ICOs that do have a GitHub repository are not very active there. So their GitHub presence is super easy to check, and you can even rank them according to the number of their GitHub commits. |
|
|
|
|
Charlie Lee is a really cool guy, but this move is hard to comprehend. I mean, it goes against everything the cryptocurrencies should stand for. Or at least it goes against Satoshi's original idea and what bitcoin should stand for. IMO, the point is to make the banks obsolete, not to enter into partnership with them.
|
|
|
|
For scrypt mining you can use the "tpruvot" variation of ccminer: https://github.com/tpruvot/ccminerHowever, as already suggested above, chances are you won't earn anything. Your GPUs will be competing with ASICs (even if the coin is brand new) and this is a lost race from the beginning. You can always mine altcoins that run on the NeoScrypt algo, though. |
|
|
|
As most of the replies to your questions were not so specific, here are a couple of links to trading tutorials I find very useful: 1. Crypto Cred: Youtube channel Great in-depth analysis of his trading system and how to properly use a couple of his favorite trading tools. 2. InnerCircleTrader: Youtube channel Tutorials for Forex trading, but very much applicable to Crypto trading. If nothing else, it's worth taking a look at this guy's unique style of trading. 3. Bitcoin Trading Challenge: Youtube channel Some unique tutorials and trading strategies. Note that it takes a lot of time to go through these videos and assimilate the lessons. Even if you put a lot of effort in learning, there's no t guarantee that you will become a successful trader. There are people out there making a shit load of money without any technical analysis, just looking at the charts, trading, and learning from experience. |
|
|
|
PoS or hybrid (such as PoW & PoS) have security/decentralization concern
Exactly. There's no guarantee that PoS wouldn't introduce centralization. Small holders may have various economic incentives to group together, for example, to reduce expenses and increase profit. Capital investments may also favor larger stake holders that will bring higher profits. It will be interesting to see how things develop if/when Ethereum makes the announced transition to PoS, but my guess is a certain number of large players will soon appear. In any case, PoS is no magical solution to enforce decentralization. |
|
|
|
|
Hi guys, please quote and verify my message. Thanks!
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This is butka @ BitcoinTalk.org, today is July 16, 2018.
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
12ogpE52MVNFoFFYVZ6n6hLDMso69JF6ZV
H/FAooulBUnpCD45/s3/hKYBZY3hwxMOnm9Xllv4x3whTaMRGLldoFW2ZKihekM42wEU8F6JbcjVA3OGR5noAPk=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
|
|
|
|
4. Do not join the signature campaign that do not meet your posting habits. If your posting habit is of around 10 post per week than do not enroll in
signature campaign that ask for 25 post in a week.
I completely agree. This point might seem trivial at first sight, but in my opinion it is crucial. 25 quality posts a week can be a bit overwhelming. At least for me personally. Not to mention that a lot of signature campaigns require posting the majority of your posts in the Alternate cryptocurrencies boards. Which is hard to do without being repetitive and without introducing some kind of spam. So definitely, the required number of posts per week is a very important deciding factor for joining a campaign. |
|
|
|
Infinite Slope? What? Geometry in a quotient space? Really?
So this would imply that the linked article is wrong with this respect. Don't take me wrong, I have nothing against your arguments. I'm not an expert and the purpose of my post was to learn about the mathematics behind Bitcoin. Have you tried out the python script?
No, I'm not really a programmer to be able to test your code. Ah, and to be super-precise: Furthermore in the OP I've linked a post indicating that the number of private points is not 2^256, but somewhat less than that.
There is also no such thing as "private points". Private keys are numbers ... they can be 256bit, 2048bit, 4096bit, or anything you like. The number of public key points is limited though. It was a typo. Of course, I meant private keys. Still, somewhere has to be a contradiction, and it would be nice to know where. Either the linked articles are wrong or your argument is wrong. If you are right, of course I would have to change the OP, as the basic premise of the OP was that there are less than 2^256 private keys. |
|
|
|
The thing is, why should it not be valid?
If your private key is p, that means that your public key is formed by adding the point G exactly p times (G + G + G ....[p times]).
Why should there be a limit? No way you will at some point reach a magical "barrier" where you cannot add one more G; you can add as many G as you want - there is no limit. Just make sure that your key is not == 0 (mod n)
As far as I understand it, there is a limit. Here is a reference indicating that after you add one more time beyond the order n, you get an infinite slope, a vertical line and you cannot continue adding: The order of the base point, which is not independently selected but is a function of the other parameters, can be thought of graphically as the number of times the point can be added to itself until its slope is infinite, or a vertical line. The base point is selected such that the order is a large prime number. [......] Here it is in a nutshell: In ECDSA, the private key is an unpredictably chosen number between 1 and the order. The public key is derived from the private key by scalar multiplication of the base point a number of times equal to the value of the private key. Expressed as an equation: public key = private key * base point This shows that the maximum possible number of private keys (and thus bitcoin addresses) is equal to the order. Source: https://www.coindesk.com/math-behind-bitcoin/Furthermore in the OP I've linked a post indicating that the number of private points is not 2^256, but somewhat less than that. |
|
|
|
NOT that this will ever be the case, but if you use coin flipping for your private key and get a number with a lot of leading 1s, like this: 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111010111010101011101101110011100110101011110100100010100000001110111011111111010010010111101000110011010000001101100100000101000001
it won't be a valid private key. (Fewer leading 1s in your private key are fine, but more 1s won't be acceptable as well). This is just not true. This private key is perfectly valid! The only invalid private key would be "0x00". But wouldn't this private key be larger than n (aka N in the OP)? Maybe you mean that one can do modulo n operation on this number to make it valid. Would you care to explain your point a little bit more? |
|
|
|
Be carefull with this exchange, they've been "hacked/attacked" recently and with a week+ of radio silence they released this statement;
It is questionable if they have ever been legit. For example, to this day they haven't distributed their bounty rewards. And now with their exchange closing down, they will never pay the campaigners, given that the rewards were to be distributed internally, on the exchange. It looks to me that their claims of being hacked or attacked is just an excuse. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
