I just noticed something weird while staking with wallet. Apparently I ''mined a block '' however in the transactions tab it says ''Generated but not accepted mined''
Is it possible to have orphan blocks in POS?
PS. I have been staking normally the past week, just noticed the instance a few mins ago.
Yes you get orphaned blocks in PoS. It's an analogous situation to PoW: part of the network accepts one version of the chain, and your newly mined (and un-matured) block is on another version. Naturally, the network syncs up and your block is left orphaned. |
|
|
|
You called me and others crazy. No I didn't. Referring to "the crazies on this thread" does not entail that every poster on this thread is crazy. You are such a hypocrite. Please, stop using the work ethical. You really don't understand what does it mean. I know very well what "ethical" means. I live up to it too. I wish I could show you all some of the conversations I've had in the background here. Unfortunately my *ethics* require me to get consent before publishing private conversations, so that's not gonna happen. Ah well, patience is a virtue. In due time you'll all come to see the way I practice what I preach. In the meantime, do as you will... Regardless whether or not BlockNet becomes a success, your behavior cannot be regarded as ethical. I urge you to reconsider your usage of words ethical, ethics and alike. 1. It is not ethical to label legitimate questions as FUD and trolling and delete them - The posts I delete that you might call "legitimate questions" are the ones where people come across as if they're entitled to demand that developers conform to their expectations, or demand that we answer every little worry and concern. This is a case of people not taking our perspective into account when posting. 2. It is not ethical to market BlockNet as 450-900% profit investment - The Blocknet was never marketed as a 450-900% profit investment. - I posted a cursory analysis of fundamentals, which some trolls twisted to be "advice". The analysis was then removed and an apology was issued due to it having been misinterpreted. - That said, I'll be very surprised if the Blocknet doesn't represent a much higher value once its tech is delivered and it matures as a platform. 3. It is not ethical to call people to invest in your product - Umm... to market something is always to call people to invest in your product. - So all marketing is unethical? - This is an absurd point of view. 4. It is not ethical to call legitimate logs fake - I did not "call legitimate chat logs fake" - I called them unverifiable. There's a big difference there. - And I cast doubt on their authenticity. - I maintain my former position: they were modified (some more than others; minimum modification being omitting certain context-specifying parts), and they were used to present a radically skewed and malicious interpretation of the facts. 5. It is not ethical to call Prometheus an ethical investor - I did not call Prometheus an ethical investor. - I call him a non-scammer. - And I called him a capitalist. 6. It is not ethical to post cheerful posts regarding ITO success when your investors are losing money - Yes it is. - The ITO was a success because the Blocknet will be built. - Hence I'm cheerful. - "My" investors are losing money? Market exposure sir. That's what investors take on in order to profit. Get a grip. - Lastly, it's generally agreed that the Blocknet is not a short term hold. This does not take away from the fact that the ITO is a success and that the Blocknet will be built. etc. |
|
|
|
I knew this ITO would be a success, you can't keep a good crew down.
The price is dropping, how is it a success? Unless of-course you mean devs have successfully collected 960 BTC Yes I think that's what he means. The price is currently recovering from the shock of a dump. It's unclear whether it'll go down again at all. |
|
|
|
|
You can expect some news today. Chances are we'll have an update on funds and hopefully the foundation too.
|
|
|
|
I knew this ITO would be a success, you can't keep a good crew down.
Thanks! It was an extremely tough battle, and I must say it was close. |
|
|
|
You called me and others crazy. No I didn't. Referring to "the crazies on this thread" does not entail that every poster on this thread is crazy. You are such a hypocrite. Please, stop using the work ethical. You really don't understand what does it mean. I know very well what "ethical" means. I live up to it too. I wish I could show you all some of the conversations I've had in the background here. Unfortunately my *ethics* require me to get consent before publishing private conversations, so that's not gonna happen. Ah well, patience is a virtue. In due time you'll all come to see the way I practice what I preach. In the meantime, do as you will... |
|
|
|
Well those sells on Poloniex were no fun to watch.... Lets see if the market can recover  I though the double post Mchammer threw down was elegant lol. The price going down allows other players to get in. For each coin sold there is a buyer. We are all waiting for some news. Have you guys checked out the timeline in the new OP? That should give you an idea of upcoming developments. We're keen to formalise the foundation as soon as possible, and after that to accept the funds from the exchanges and start work! How much BTC was collected overall? ~969 BTC. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=829576.msg9495668#msg9495668 |
|
|
|
Well those sells on Poloniex were no fun to watch.... Lets see if the market can recover I though the double post Mchammer threw down was elegant lol. The price going down allows other players to get in. For each coin sold there is a buyer. We are all waiting for some news. Have you guys checked out the timeline in the new OP? That should give you an idea of upcoming developments. We're keen to formalise the foundation as soon as possible, and after that to accept the funds from the exchanges and start work! |
|
|
|
The dictatorship at XC with no communication to XC foundation on what's happening development wise is exactly why we left.The XC fanboys now make up a story that Antoun and I extorted XC funds.
We never received even one XC coin for our work and efforts on the foundation and the foundation is supposed to know what developments are happening,but instead,nothing was communicated to us.
Absolute alienation from the XC team and a great shame for the XC community.
Are you serious? Who made up a story that you extorted funds? You never received even one XC. True. You also never delivered a single report of any work - nor any fruits of your alleged labour - to the community, despite the fact that I tried to touch base with you a while back and to check whether you were in fact doing something. But you weren't, you were doing things for QiBuck instead. You simply did not bring anything to the table for XC, despite my encouraging you to do so and to check in with me regularly. As for a "dictatorship", do you recall your sharp injunction to me a few months back to "get your people in line" when you made an arse of yourself and the community turned against you? My response to you was that you were being authoritarian and that I thought it was unethical. And now you call me a dictator? That's inconsistent. Given that you've supported a disciplinarian approach publicly in the past, what sort of problem might you have with a dictatorship? I'm at a loss as to what you might say here. The way I moderate: I welcome, as always, constructive criticism, and I do not welcome accusatory, uncivil, abusive, or deceitful posts. As always. The perception by the crazies here that I'm a "dictator" has everything to do with the unawareness of what it is to consider the perspective of another person when addressing them. Most abusive posts are the result of someone bashing others over the head with his/her opinion about the "truth". There cannot be constructive critical discourse without a clear awareness of the perspectives of the other people participating. Lose this and you just get a bunch of people sincerely and truthfully shouting at each other. If you want to avoid polarising a discussion, you simply must come alongside other people and demonstrate that you're not against them. *This* is my so-called "dictatorship". Call it what you like, but I value it highly. |
|
|
|
Is Xcash part of the blocknet?  Yup. Check out the OP. |
|
|
|
give it a day or too, the truth will be twisted to come out in a positive light for xc/blocknet
l'll start early. The truth is that Prometheus approached us yesterday, saying that his dev was in a rough patch and asking whether we could possibly take on Util. He did not want to drop the coin but was at a loss as to how best to go forward on his own. Since the Blocknet has a lot of resources, and since Util's tech will be valuable to the Blocknet, it makes sense for us to take it on. That's all really. But I know you all won't be persuaded. |
|
|
|
Ah okay, thanks for the answer. Well I'm sure we'll be kept informed with how funds are spent and it'll be transparent so I'm satisfied in that regard.
And Dan, I've been a staunch supporter of yours since the beginning and still am but posts of mine have been getting deleted by you in the XC thread for no reason. One such post was : "Would be good to get some clarity on upcoming milestones and when we can expect them. A few dates you're committing to in regards to rev 2.5 and rev 3 would be great to hear." If you don't want to respond that's your prerogative, but deleting is absolutely unnecessary.
From my side, as far as I'm aware we're likely to steer clear of concrete dates because of the generally destructive reaction to delays. On the other hand, I think that it would be good to put out some upcoming milestones. For now though, just check out the OP on the old XC thread. Its timeline is pretty much current. |
|
|
|
Thanks Ursay.
I think we're all just exhausted by FUD. At a certain point one reassesses one's relationship to the community and decides that being dependent on them is just too toxic.
Personally I've concluded that I'd enabled a sort of dependency relationship with the XC community that had me nannying people, which is not respectful to them, and exhausting to me.
What I hope for in the middle-term future is a more dispassionate attitude from the communities here. Some XC people are as likely to proclaim XC's wonders as they are to turn paranoid and spread FUD. It's way too fraught.
A solid community is essential for the success of any large project, particularly in crypto, and you are saying that being dependent on yours is toxic?(just assume that I start screaming insults about your unbelievably arrogant, dictatorial and condescending attitude from here on in. Full-on Spoetnik mode engaged) OK, you can ban me now. I won't assume you're pulling a "Spoetnik." And you're not banned either. My point is entirely in agreement with yours: a solid community is essential for the success of a project. What we lack is a solid community. The way I engaged with the community made it a pretty flaky community unfortunately. Things need to change. |
|
|
|
Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.
That's ridiculous.
That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned? Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously? AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet.. No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way. Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util. This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins: - Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding. - Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins. - Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet. My understanding was that funds were solely for the development of the Blocknet. This, to me, includes; development of the X-bridge protocol, and development of blocknet specific services like file storage, an exchange etc. From what you're saying it sounds like participating coins will be entitled to funds to develop their own coins features. This to me doesn't sound right as the blocknet's success doesn't depend on any one coin so why should its funds be used this way? As I understand it, if a coin has innovative and legit features it can join the blocknet. If it doesn't, it can't. Why should coins be entitled to funds to develop these features? Has it already been mentioned that participating coins are potentially entitled to funds for their own development because I think I must've missed that? Yes it has been mentioned, in the FAQ (see the link in the new OP), and on the wiki. Ah, I stand corrected! I still disagree that funds should be spent this way. I personally believe that the people behind the coin should fund their own project. I, as an XC investor, don't believe that XC should be entitled to the Blocknet's funds to fund their development. But alas, if it was in the terms of the ITO then it's my own fault. It's more important than ever that it is fully transparent how all the funds will be spent as I'm sure you know! Basically, it's imperative that the Blocknet acquires a full set of valuable services early on. Since coins provide services, it makes every bit of sense to incentivise them to develop services that are valuable to the Blocknet. Hence we fund coins on a per-proposal basis. |
|
|
|
Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.
That's ridiculous.
That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned? Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously? AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet.. No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way. Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util. This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins: - Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding. - Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins. - Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet. My understanding was that funds were solely for the development of the Blocknet. This, to me, includes; development of the X-bridge protocol, and development of blocknet specific services like file storage, an exchange etc. From what you're saying it sounds like participating coins will be entitled to funds to develop their own coins features. This to me doesn't sound right as the blocknet's success doesn't depend on any one coin so why should its funds be used this way? As I understand it, if a coin has innovative and legit features it can join the blocknet. If it doesn't, it can't. Why should coins be entitled to funds to develop these features? Has it already been mentioned that participating coins are potentially entitled to funds for their own development because I think I must've missed that? Yes it has been mentioned, in the FAQ (see the link in the new OP), and on the wiki. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks Ursay.
I think we're all just exhausted by FUD. At a certain point one reassesses one's relationship to the community and decides that being dependent on them is just too toxic.
Personally I've concluded that I'd enabled a sort of dependency relationship with the XC community that had me nannying people, which is not respectful to them, and exhausting to me.
What I hope for in the middle-term future is a more dispassionate attitude from the communities here. Some XC people are as likely to proclaim XC's wonders as they are to turn paranoid and spread FUD. It's way too fraught.
|
|
|
|
Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.
That's ridiculous.
That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned? Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously? AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet.. No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way. Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util. This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins: - Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding. - Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins. - Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet. |
|
|
|
|
Longenecker, your posts were deleted.
Here's why:
It is incorrect to think that you have some sort of say over what we do.
You don't.
Your complaining about the decisions of a professional developer is completely inappropriate. You are *not* entitled.
We are developing XC and the Blocknet. We have the funds, the team, and the time to do so.
How we do it is up to us. You don't get a say.
Buy, sell, and converse constructively. *Do not* bitch and complain here, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.
That's ridiculous.
Edit: for ethical reasons I DO need permission to publish any private conversation. I cannot prove my assertion above without first getting consent.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
