its simple, i need the money.
|
|
|
You provide logos, name and specifications. 0.1 btc is the minimum rate. extra features means extra money. i can crank them out in as little as 24 hours, with windows installer package and github included.
to apply, simply post in this thread the word "bump" then send me a pm with your inquiry.
|
|
|
they also charge 500 bucks for things that are 150 everywhere else.
|
|
|
I knew the dev was retarded when he referred to x13 as a hashing algorithm
WTF are you talking about ? x13 isn't a hashing algorithm. its 13 hashing algorithms chained together in consecutive order making all MOTHO's drool in awe. I knew the dev was retarded when he referred to x13 as a hashing algorithm
WTF are you talking about ? x13 isn't a hashing algorithm. its 13 hashing algorithms chained together in consecutive order making all MOTHO's drool in awe. Well, yeah we already know that! If you were expecting a copy and paste coin here i would have called it '15 rounds of scientific hashing' and written every single algo out in the OP like all the other coins.... As i'm sure you already know... The 2 extra Algo's are added in to the hashblock.h in the same order the BitBlock created, to keep to the new X15 standard, including them in a different order would 'Chain' calculate the block hash differently an therefore would not be the same X15 which is what we are trying to push here... Posts like this are a disgrace to the legacy of Satoshi. I knew the dev was retarded when he referred to x13 as a hashing algorithm
WTF are you talking about ? x13 isn't a hashing algorithm. its 13 hashing algorithms chained together in consecutive order making all MOTHO's drool in awe. It´s there one really diference between 11x, 13x, 15x, etc about security and stability? Not really, but MOTHO's will drool over it so you can probably make alot of money mining promoting and eventually dumping it.
|
|
|
I did all that and now have 0 blocks right? But when I mine, it says Waiting for work to be available from pools. And cpu mining shows no activity. https://github.com/BitpopCoin/BitpopCoinSend me a pull request with everything working for .01 btc don't break the bank big spender!
|
|
|
new code snippet. PHP function to ban users in chat application. function newBan($user_message) { global $mysqli; $command = explode(" ", $user_message); if(count($command) >= 2) { $toban = $command[1]; if(!empty($toban)) { if(usernameExists($toban)) { $begin = time(); if(isset($command[2])) { switch ($command[2]) { case '10m' : $length = 10 * 60; $duration = '10 minutes'; break; case '30m' : $length = 30 * 60; $duration = '30 minutes'; break; case '1h' : $length = 60 * 60; $duration = '1 hour'; break; case '1d' : $length = 24 * 60 * 60; $duration = '1 day'; break; case '1w' : $length = 7 * 24 * 60 * 60; $duration = '1 week'; break; default : return; } }else{ $length = 5 * 60; $duration = '5 minutes'; } $end = $begin + $length; $stmt = $mysqli->prepare("INSERT INTO uc_chat_bans (username,starttime,endtime,duration) VALUES (?,?,?,?)"); $stmt->bind_param('siis',$toban,$begin,$end,$duration); $stmt->execute(); $stmt->close(); $ban_nme = 'System'; $ban_msg = '** '.security($toban).' has been banned from chat for '.security($duration).'**'; $ban_col = '000000'; $ban_now = time(); $stmt = $mysqli->prepare("INSERT INTO uc_chat_msg (username,message,color,timestamp) VALUES (?,?,?,?);"); $stmt->bind_param('sssi',$ban_nme,$ban_msg,$ban_col,$ban_now); $stmt->execute(); $stmt->close(); $response_text = mask(json_encode(array('type'=>'userban', 'toban'=>$toban, 'bantime'=>$duration))); send_message($response_text); //send data } } } }
|
|
|
What are your rates?
My rates are negotiable. Depends on the complexity of the job. If its a small job, i would be inclined to charge a fixed rate. if its a large job, i might charge per hour. This is my first time offering my services. Make me an offer if you like.
|
|
|
I would like to signup for this signature campaign.
1337xmR8JRzwKonFgd17dhVo9NHQiP7875
Sr. Member 420 activity, 4882 posts
|
|
|
Mandatory upgrade to latest source. some light internal changes, just to be safe you should upgrade. see OP
|
|
|
without the technical side. your theory is based on the assumption that the hash is accepted as is and checked if it meets the difficulty. instead the values you send are run through the client, a hash is produced using the algo of the coin, and if that production matches up the block is valid. so a sha256 hash matching isn't enough, it'll be invalid. snipped code: class CBlockHeader {
uint256 GetHash() const { return Hash9(BEGIN(nVersion), END(nNonce)); }
};
class CBlock : public CBlockHeader {
uint256 GetPoWHash() const { return GetHash(); }
};
(you were looking at the gethash function from transactions, not blocks in your above snip) How will it be invalid? the target and all underlying block data are the same. when the hash is converted to sha256, how would the hash be accepted but rejected if it is short circuited with sha256? Because sha256d(blockheader) produces a different result to sha256d(other_hashing_algo(blockheader)). If you assert that it can produce the same, that'd be a sha256 collission and every crypto program which uses sha256 is screwed. As I said earlier, the checks you are looking at all assume the hash you send is the one being used, when the hash is reproduced by each client when a block is broadcast. The client will come to a totally different hash that doesn't match the one you specified and just reject the block. you're right I was totally ignoring the difference in the output after x rounds. I didnt thinkit would mean a collision but you are right in the end. Bitcoin doesn't use prngs so the hashes have a certain precision in which they are predictable. If I know correctly understand, its the constant nnonce that makes it all work to produce independently verifiable hashes
|
|
|
I can bet you are involved in this scam.
In fact, you are just a pedophile. I just told that is possible to cut the text with a image when you code a design app. Also you don't know what is a escrow...? i think you can stop talking bullshit and wait, nobody have the truth. It is not possible to cut the text with an image that way. I have designed like 10+ wallets and never cut the text with image. I'm not taking away from your point that this is an obvious scam, but it is possible to accidentally cut the text like that. Say your original widget has a variable width and you replace the image with a larger image without opening the UI file in qt designer, one widget will overflow on to the top of the other widget because qt designer didn't get to recalculate the dimension, and the window size of your app is fixed. This being sai this coin is an obvious scam
|
|
|
- 5 coins per PoW block to the foundation wallet for long term support. On the front page But state there 505 per Block (500 for user, 5 dev) Which pool wrong ? Or is supernova stealing from dev ? I quit mining this, something wrong. dedicatedpool is stealing from miners I've already moved to suprnova me too! Calculate the force in dedicatedpool dig very not bargain!Fuck mine rotten this garbage pool! your choice of words makes the English from Google translate hard to interpret. Choose simple phrases instead so people don't think you are illiterate moron
|
|
|
Not to mention that when quantum computers become a reality, they'll be able to unencrypt all transactions in that blockchain, leaving your past open for anyone to see. maybe that doesn't matter anymore by then? Quantum computers could break the encryption that secures a lot of things. I doubt they will target Bitcoin he read it on the internet, it must be true
|
|
|
No amount of whining will stop the scam. Beat them in the market, expose flaws in their technology(working on it as a personal project ), or post non stop in their thread. You'll find most of them are morons and will give up after you thoroughly ha d them their asses.
|
|
|
congratulations you've successfully split a cunt hair. the master node setup is still a centralized structure reliant upon trust.
Trust only in the sense of transaction knowledge, not in the sense of a transaction being trusted. The current abundance of nodes strengthens your argument in favor of dark send but this goes against the entire concept of trustless regulatory consensus algorithms.
Not really. Each people who have a consensus to mix their coins / transactions and are using a non-centralized (not 1 center) matchmaker to do so. Btw, masternodes can be used for other things beyond DarkSend. Which is the key point I want to make here. Dark send is the appliance of provably corruptible centralized regulatory coin mixing services on top of a brilliant trustless decentralized regulatory consensus algorithm. Zerocoin is the future, not dark send. The transaction mixing needs to become apart of the algorithm its self not on centralized masternode servers.
- Trusted accumulator - Zero proofs non quantum resistant (=not very future-proof) There is no perfect solution for anonymity.
|
|
|
Again, just to reiterate on the piece of my post you didn't address, I do not like the centralized nature of the Masternode setup at Darkcoin, BUT , many coins have a centralized aspect, such as checkpointing servers in some POS coins. the way i see it, masternodes and checkpoint servers may be a necessary evil. So all in all i guess the Masternode setup isn't a big deal, so long as it offers no unfair disadvantage to common miners.
The concept of center, is that it is singular. It is a single point where all the other things revolve around / are based upon etc. Checkpointing is centralization because there is one point where the network uses to align itself. Masternodes are like ...500. 500 is not a single point / a center. There is no "center". There are 500 masternodes all over the globe. If there was one masternode that did the mixing, it would be centralized mixing. If there are 500-1000 nodes all over the world that operate in a p2p fashion, it is not centralization. If the government can go to one place (center) and take down the system = centralization / client-server model - with the server-mixer being the single point of reliance. If the government can't do that because it has to shut 500 nodes all over the world = decentralization / p2p model - with every node adding to network resilience. congratulations you've successfully split a cunt hair. the master node setup is still a centralized structure reliant upon trust. The current abundance of nodes strengthens your argument in favor of dark send but this goes against the entire concept of trusless regulatory consensus algorithms. Which is the key point I want to make here. Dark send is the appliance of provably corruptible centralized regulatory coin mixing services on top of a brilliant trustless decentralized regulatory consensus algorithm. Zerocoin is the future, not dark send. The transaction mixing needs to become apart of the algorithm its self not on centralized masternode servers. zerocoin? that project is hardly active, DRK has to offer the best privacy still and possibly for a long time to come false. True privacy can never come from centralized systems that require trust. Only decentralized regulatory algorithms are probably secure, and that statement can be extended to privacy features. I respect what is being done here, but Satoshi has enlightened us the importance of consensus algorithms. Centralized and hierarchal systems are outdated and have no room in this space. In time all things centralized in our world will be replaced with trustless regulatory algoriths, all in the vein of bitcoin
|
|
|
Again, just to reiterate on the piece of my post you didn't address, I do not like the centralized nature of the Masternode setup at Darkcoin, BUT , many coins have a centralized aspect, such as checkpointing servers in some POS coins. the way i see it, masternodes and checkpoint servers may be a necessary evil. So all in all i guess the Masternode setup isn't a big deal, so long as it offers no unfair disadvantage to common miners.
The concept of center, is that it is singular. It is a single point where all the other things revolve around / are based upon etc. Checkpointing is centralization because there is one point where the network uses to align itself. Masternodes are like ...500. 500 is not a single point / a center. There is no "center". There are 500 masternodes all over the globe. If there was one masternode that did the mixing, it would be centralized mixing. If there are 500-1000 nodes all over the world that operate in a p2p fashion, it is not centralization. If the government can go to one place (center) and take down the system = centralization / client-server model - with the server-mixer being the single point of reliance. If the government can't do that because it has to shut 500 nodes all over the world = decentralization / p2p model - with every node adding to network resilience. congratulations you've successfully split a cunt hair. the master node setup is still a centralized structure reliant upon trust. The current abundance of nodes strengthens your argument in favor of dark send but this goes against the entire concept of trusless regulatory consensus algorithms. Which is the key point I want to make here. Dark send is the appliance of provably corruptible centralized regulatory coin mixing services on top of a brilliant trustless decentralized regulatory consensus algorithm. Zerocoin is the future, not dark send. The transaction mixing needs to become apart of the algorithm its self not on centralized masternode servers. I understand the technical challenge this presents. Maybe at some point in the future the developer will understand the reason why the system must remain completely decentralized and discover how to make the mixer built into the client instead of depenc on centralized middle ware.
|
|
|
"Regulation doesn't fucking work" Bitcoin in the Beltway: Andreas M. Antonopoulos - The Future of Cryptocurrency http://youtu.be/tgEDOBgYg-g+1 excellent speech, with excellent ideas and concepts from a brilliant mind.
|
|
|
First thing, whoever told you that POW was finished for this coin was LYING. Next time, you should go to a different source for your crypto info or do your own research. In the worse case, there is still about 70% (read that again -- 70%) of DRK that remains to be mined. Could be more available depending on hashrate. Miners will get 80% of these. Sorry this is not some early adopter scheme like the 1 week POW then 100% POS coins. If DRK is a early adopter scheme then so is Bitcoin. Well i'm glad that it isn't true. To be honest i read it in the trollbox, and didn't necessarily treat it as fact, as the poster was promoting BC at the time. Come release of Darksend i'll have a look at the source. Who knows, i might become a Darkcoin miner/enthusiast yet!! As for the rest of your post, well.... you sound like one of the "Bitcoin is perfect and nothing can be to improve it" types. I don't know if Darksend will stand the test of time, but I do know that to call it a illusion before it's full release is very short-sighted.
Not at all. I love bitcoin, its the standard, but i also love and embrace all tech as whole. I'm also fairly adept with the inherent insecurity of the internet, so when i hear about things like "DarkSend" and "100% Anonymous Crypto" the bullshit alarm in my brain starts ringing. Again, just to reiterate on the piece of my post you didn't address, I do not like the centralized nature of the Masternode setup at Darkcoin, BUT , many coins have a centralized aspect, such as checkpointing servers in some POS coins. the way i see it, masternodes and checkpoint servers may be a necessary evil. So all in all i guess the Masternode setup isn't a big deal, so long as it offers no unfair disadvantage to common miners. At this point, the only other thing i might complain about, is Darksend, but i don't know enough about it, and haven't read the code to make a reasonable quantification about the pros and cons. For now, i will "crawl back in my hole" and continue to observe from a distance. If i see something awesome, i'll be the first one here to praise it. if i see something wrong, i'll be the first one here to denounce its usefulness. Fair?
|
|
|
I knew the dev was retarded when he referred to x13 as a hashing algorithm
WTF are you talking about ? x13 isn't a hashing algorithm. its 13 hashing algorithms chained together in consecutive order making all MOTHO's drool in awe. Well, yeah we already know that! If you were expecting a copy and paste coin here i would have called it '15 rounds of scientific hashing' and written every single algo out in the OP like all the other coins.... As i'm sure you already know... The 2 extra Algo's are added in to the hashblock.h in the same order the BitBlock created, to keep to the new X15 standard, including them in a different order would 'Chain' calculate the block hash differently an therefore would not be the same X15 which is what we are trying to push here... Posts like this are a disgrace to the legacy of Satoshi. I knew the dev was retarded when he referred to x13 as a hashing algorithm
WTF are you talking about ? x13 isn't a hashing algorithm. its 13 hashing algorithms chained together in consecutive order making all MOTHO's drool in awe. It´s there one really diference between 11x, 13x, 15x, etc about security and stability? Not really, but MOTHO's will drool over it so you can probably make alot of money mining promoting and eventually dumping it.
|
|
|
|