Yes, I'm sure he's 'fucked' people by working 30 hour days coding like a machine getting everything ready. Do you know who Spoetnik is? The thought of him being a paid shill is laughable. And your accusation that SuperNET pays people is childish and ridiculous. Yeah, working 30 hours / day I said he's been working 30 hour days, obviously not 30 hours per day.  WTF that means? It means he puts in an ungodly amount of time coding and working on SuperNET. He likes to put in marathon sessions of work. |
|
|
|
Yes, I'm sure he's 'fucked' people by working 30 hour days coding like a machine getting everything ready. Do you know who Spoetnik is? The thought of him being a paid shill is laughable. And your accusation that SuperNET pays people is childish and ridiculous. Yeah, working 30 hours / day I said he's been working 30 hour days, obviously not 30 hours per day. |
|
|
|
Yes, I'm sure he's 'fucked' people by working 30 hour days coding like a machine getting everything ready. Do you know who Spoetnik is? The thought of him being a paid shill is laughable. And your accusation that SuperNET pays people is childish and ridiculous. |
|
|
|
If you have a marking system, you could buy and build accounts in order to boost your rating so you could get some kind of pool of accounts as a paid marking service to boost rep which is not really any different than it is now.
The point of developing the algorithm is to mitigate things like that. It's one thing to buy ten accounts, but it's another thing to buy ten accounts that have all been active recently and have a enough of a reputation themselves for their markings to be weighted heavily enough to make it worth it. Also, this isn't meant to be a trust system in the first iterations anyway. Later on with further integrations with trust systems like identi.fi, then maybe. But not yet. Think of early versions more like reddit karma, but with the added bonus of money. Gaming this type of system at this point shouldn't really have much of an incentive. I don't think it should have the added bonus of money with it, maybe other incentives? It shouldn't feel like the users are being squeezed for cash or they will quickly leave in droves. I assume it would be more donation based? Where is the source of income coming from? If Bitcointalk had some ad revenue system going on as well maybe they could buy BTC with the ad revenue? Why not just have a permanent amount of trust in which people can get up/down voted with more weight to senior active members who have been a part of the forums for a long time. If you have an older account that is misusing trust and it gets banned, it takes a long time to get back up to where it was before. IMO the trust system needs a lot of improvement, maybe it would be good to look into how Silk Road did their trust system too since it worked well in practice. It's a p2p system, the money comes from the users. You're giving and receiving money that also counts as reputation. If you're a good poster and make well thought out posts some people might want to mark that post as a way to acknowledge it. It incentives good content and rewards people for contributing. Trust systems are on the agenda but there's much to do before then. Sirius( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4) is finishing his identi.fi system and our lead developer has discussed us integrating it in with our marking system to provide a layer of trust above the raw reputation scores. |
|
|
|
So the Quark team is back?  It's around yes, but it has kicked out that scammer kolin evans aka digitalindustry Yes I see now he has not been active. His username was banned from Bitcointalk and it was a hero account, so he made a new one, a newbie one maybe that doesn't give him the incentive to post comments lol Something like that. There were allegations his account was sold to somebody else who has been using the account to scam. Not even sure if it was a legitimate allegation in the first place, wasn't the guy always a snakes' oil salesmen? Well maybe he will return, I enjoyed some of his posts. More importantly, has the time of Quark finally come, once more? I hope so buddy, last time this guy digital industry was involved this time he won't have much to say at all since he got banned from r/quarkcoin and even from Bitcointalk. Wow, really? What happened with that? He didn't really seem like a scammer. Deluded maybe, but not really giving off any scammer vibe to me. |
|
|
|
Don't bother with cloning Litecoin now there's a new updated scrypt version of Bitcoin courtesy of Bitmark ready to clone for anyone who wants. https://github.com/project-bitmark/pfennigThere's someone cloning it right now too that you can work with if you'd like. They are also writing a guide for people. If you send me an email I can invite you to our slack group and you can get some help with it too. |
|
|
|
Buyer beware. It's not a hard concept. do your homework before you invest in anything including alt coins.
Especially altcoins!  |
|
|
|
LOL at the idea that Spoetnik the one of the most infamous posters on this board would be paid by SuperNET. It's actually a really funny idea. I'm sure Spoetnik would see that humor in that too.  |
|
|
|
It is not the same, and I do not see their FinCen msb number anywhere. So they will be shut down as soon as they gain any sort of legitimate use. If you're going to register with FinCEN why why bother making a cryptocurrency? Just make a secure centralized database and skip all the headaches of making a crypto. The point of decentralisation is that they can't just be 'shut down'. |
|
|
|
I have concluded that libertarianism and anarchism is simply a mild hell on earth. Altcoin forum has convinced me how utterly the idea has failed.
I'm not sure what my political ideology will be ... but congrats.
Scammers need jailtime. Noobs need protection. The idea of ethical and not ethical needs to be defined by something other than profit.
So yeah ... good job altcoin forum.
Maybe time to go back to the idea of dictatorship since democracy has also obviously failed ...
You are not the first, and you certainly won't be the last. Bitcoin in general has opened a lot of peoples eyes to a harsh reality.  |
|
|
|
If you have a marking system, you could buy and build accounts in order to boost your rating so you could get some kind of pool of accounts as a paid marking service to boost rep which is not really any different than it is now.
The point of developing the algorithm is to mitigate things like that. It's one thing to buy ten accounts, but it's another thing to buy ten accounts that have all been active recently and have a enough of a reputation themselves for their markings to be weighted heavily enough to make it worth it. Also, this isn't meant to be a trust system in the first iterations anyway. Later on with further integrations with trust systems like identi.fi, then maybe. But not yet. Think of early versions more like reddit karma, but with the added bonus of money. Gaming this type of system at this point shouldn't really have much of an incentive. |
|
|
|
P.S. funny that SuperNET was immediately moved to the non-hotbed of activity called "Marketplace", but blocknet is allowed to stay in the main announcements thread.
Oh James don't be bitter. Keep on smiling about your success and keep coding the good stuff.  No, that was a good point by James. It's kind of BS that happened. It is a shame SuperNET did not get better marketing and more attention. But on the bright side, it's a good thing that it's not built on hype. In the crypto world, hype always ends badly it seems. Probably because it tends to attract to the wrong crowd. I intentionally didnt over-market SuperNET This ensures that a large percentage of people have not even really found out about it and represents future investors. Once you saturate the market, then who is left to buy it afterwards? After market support is quite important. Now in a bear market like we have now, it is tough for everyone, but with very little overhead, it is just a period of lower prices that will pass. I keep coding away James Yes, people seem to have forgotten you saying something along the lines of "if I wanted to maximize the amount of money for the ICO I would have waited until I had a bunch of pretty pictures and videos before announcing this thing". He's done everyone holding UNITY a massive favour by limiting the initial hype. SuperNET has intentionally been kept low key thus far. The game hasn't even begun yet. |
|
|
|
|
Choose a money that actually wants itself to be used as money by people on a large scale.
Without adoption this whole sector might as well be just called alternate casinos.
One, three, five years down the road we'll see what projects still exist. It won't be many, but there will be some.
|
|
|
|
That could end badly for someone. Does it look like one seller?
Still not clear on this buyback thing. Presumably it just means SuperNET now owns a chunk of itself and gets to collect dividends, strengthening its NAV?
Yeah, I don't remember how exactly it works either. Hopefully James can provide us with more detail of what will happen now that the buy wall is gone. On a different note; just listened to your interview podcast. Very insightful stuff and nice explanation of SuperNET. Keep it coming  Great, thanks! Sounds like BlockNET have run into the same problems with trading not being disabled while the ITO is going on. Also seems like something else has happened, but I haven't got time to wade through the last 30 pages - anyone happen to be keeping up? If you're talking about Poloniex then that's 100% intentional. They're not doing an "ITO" they've just opened a market for third parties to trade. There are no restrictions. I was curious myself as to why Poloniex was supposedly offering the Blocknet ITO after they passed on the chance to do the SuperNET ICO so I asked them. People seem to be under the impression that it's a regular ITO, but from what I understand it's just a regular market and this way they're not the ones offering the shares. |
|
|
|
Does anyone know where I can find some responses to Andrew Poelstra's PoS criticisms?
Proof-of-Stake research group is working on that https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=829639.0 ! Unfortunately, it's hard to deal with Andrew Poelstra's as it's not academic paper but just a bunch of thoughts with no any formal proofs provided. So we're going to specify formal model now to make some proofs based on some assumptions later. Great, thanks. |
|
|
|
^ Is it the Nothing-at-Stake criticism?
Yeah https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdfThis thing gets linked constantly by all kinds of people but I distinctly remember Vitalik and CfB coming to an agreement that there was a technical solution. I have a feeling that this document isn't the end all be all of the whole PoS debate and I'm really tired of seeing it pop up everywhere. |
|
|
|
Looks like someone sold in to the wall. That's actually kind of funny. I wonder what their motivations are... On the plus side that means that SuperNET itself now has a nice check of UNITY shares now. Those might come in handy at some point in the future. |
|
|
|
Are they any good services around currently that offer the ability to create a scrypt altcoin for a fixed price? Or reputable devs?
Whatever you do, you should really be using this as a base: https://github.com/project-bitmark/pfennig |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
