Update: Offer is now closed. I don't have any gift cards to sell anymore. I ended up selling them all through Trade Me instead.  |
|
|
|
Mine is 1PFMGybSCDnoq8bHtzQD2vUfyHohsH8FF5. It's the same one that I posted in the thread above. Why are you guys posting your addresses here? There is a proper thread to post your address, where someone else will confirm it in a quote. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.0If someone ever hacks your account, they can simply delete your post in this thread, erasing any evidence you had. True, but I think this is more of a competition to find the "best and most unique one". Someone might have a normal-looking BTC address that they would use as their main address and an unique one that they don't really use all that much (apart from showing off).  I think I saw someone with a 13 character vanity address once where the first 13 characters were identical to their username.  EDIT: Found it. It was actually 12 letters: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=355322 |
|
|
|
I have multiple computers. Windows XP SP2 is currently my main OS since it's installed on my main laptop. The system restore disc only has SP2 installed (since SP3 wasn't around back then). I'll probably be updating it to SP3 soon. My other computers use XP SP3, Windows 8, and Windows 7 (it's a netbook so it's the starter edition  ). I've used pretty much all of the Windows OSs including 95, 98, 98 SE, 2000, Me, XP, Vista, 7, and now 8. XP is by far my favorite out of these. I also have a few Linux discs which I boot from every now and then. I mostly use Ubuntu or Linux Mint but I also have discs for Knoppix, Morphix, Browser Linux, and Puppy Linux. |
|
|
|
BCNext was a big admirer of Satoshi and tried to emulate him: I follow Satoshi's vision of the best currency.
Maybe you answered it before... but why the Anonymity? What can go wrong if you'll say who you are?
Maybe it's a superstition but I'm trying to follow in Satoshi's footsteps.
I know there were various of discussions about whether Satoshi Nakamoto, BCNext and Qora are the same person. There are also good proofs (text analysis, on-/offline profiles, etc) which states that they probably could not be the same person.
They also have different programming styles. Satoshi was an old school C++ programmer. BCNext was a Java programmer who didn't follow standard programming conventions (i.e. he put the whole code in a single file with no comments and no of additional libraries). Qora's code was also written in Java but is comparatively well organized and commented. |
|
|
|
OK, I think I am starting to get it now.
One more question.
I see Pure POS on many coins yet, they have 1-4000 blocks POW.
How can it be pure POS if it has POW in the beginning?
That sounds similar to the system that Blackcoin uses. If I remember correctly, those initial blocks are mined via proof of work in the same way Bitcoin is mined today. However, after a while, the coin disables PoW mining entirely and switches over to proof of stake. Hence there are two separate phases: a pure PoW phase and a pure PoS phase. The PoW phase is there to distribute the coin. The problem of how to distribute a PoS coin is a tough one. Another option is to distribute them via an IPO where all of the coins that will ever exist are pre-generated all at once and sold in a massive auction. This method is popular but also somewhat controversial. Indeed this is the system that NXT, Qora, and a few other notable PoS coins have used. So NXT and Qora have no annual interest and they have no POS block rewards? The block rewards come from transaction fees in the network. Transactions are put into blocks which contain fees. Whoever forges that block gets the fees. The total number of coins in the entire network remains constant. |
|
|
|
OK, I think I am starting to get it now.
One more question.
I see Pure POS on many coins yet, they have 1-4000 blocks POW.
How can it be pure POS if it has POW in the beginning?
That sounds similar to the system that Blackcoin uses. If I remember correctly, those initial blocks are mined via proof of work in the same way Bitcoin is mined today. However, after a while, the coin disables PoW mining entirely and switches over to proof of stake. Hence there are two separate phases: a pure PoW phase and a pure PoS phase. The PoW phase is there to distribute the coin. The problem of how to distribute a PoS coin is a tough one. Another option is to distribute them via an IPO where all of the coins that will ever exist are pre-generated all at once and sold in a massive auction. This method is popular but also somewhat controversial. Indeed this is the system that NXT, Qora, and a few other notable PoS coins have used. |
|
|
|
Currently transfers are only allowed for verified users
What's the reason for this change? I remember it was possible to send coins to other Cryptsy users with just their Cryptsy key and without the need for verification. |
|
|
|
Although I agree it's used a lot to describe most altcoins out there, that's not really exclusive to cryptocurrencies.
Well, for the past 1.5 years marketcap is shrinked about 4 times and we have hundreds of new coins in it. Lately a lot more started to launch too. While I believe in future of cryptocurrencies we should agree that situation is not looking very good at the moment. Agreed, although the rate of new coins has actually slowed down. It reached a peak in mid 2014 and has been declining since then. I posted an earlier thread about the declining quality of altcoins here: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=741706My actual opinion on the subject has changed a bit since then. I find that the average quality has dropped but there are still a few innovative and non-scammy ones out there which have potential. Problem is, the sheer number of scams and shitcoins have made searching for these all the more dangerous. Hopefully this bear market will end soon and coins which bring something new to the table will be rewarded rather than pushed down along with Bitcoin and the rest of the crypto markets. |
|
|
|
I can't believe we are forgetting a favourite of bulls everywhere on the forum. HODL
I honestly have no idea who originally mispelled hold but whomever did certainly influenced the crypto masses.
Interesting thread though, it's sort of silly to see the made up words the crypto ecosystem uses.
Well OP did mention "hodling". Also, you're a hero member and you haven't seen this thread? It's a pretty epic read. The OP was a failed day trader who was drunk at the time. Variations of the same theme include "sodl" and "codl" (as in "if you hodl store them codl!"). You guys forgot the most important word (and outcome for most of the coins) out there. FAILAlthough I agree it's used a lot to describe most altcoins out there, that's not really exclusive to cryptocurrencies. |
|
|
|
"Too many people", gratifies a personal opinion (in this case yours) against my initiative to post my ignore list in the public. Yes, the specific risk is there but it's an acceptable one; it's a common phrase: "don't quote the trolls". Other users? I don't follow. You mean provocable ones? Someone would've say the same for everybody with an ad campaign undersigned his posts. The point is that (and let me bold it, because it's the 3rd or 4th time I'm writing it):
To clarify, I was thinking along the lines of a situation where someone might post a question and some of the replies are from ignored users (possibly mixed in with non-ignored users). If I wanted to answer the thread starter's question and I had a large ignore list, I could either choose to submit an answer with the risk that others might think that I am parroting what has already been said (which I'm sure most people wouldn't think too positively of) or read the ignored users' posts which kind of defeats the purpose of having an ignore list. It's not a huge problem if most of my list consisted of trolls since they're not likely to contribute intelligently to discussions but a much more comprehensive list that encompasses a wider variety of users could eventually cause problems. I don't recognize any of the names in your list and it isn't very long so it's probably fine. DannyHamilton's list goes a bit too far in my opinion since it includes posters like redsn0w, bryant.coleman, and Muhammid Zakir who tend to make highly constructive posts and are an integral part of this community. Only meanies with no sense of humor ignore people, I feel you Blind. Biz you say how you shouldn't have to many people ignored because you run the risk of repeating something someone else has already said! If you look at every thread on this forum and I mean every thread, you will see people must do a lot of frowning because it is all repeated sometimes with different wording but still repeating like a parrot on every thread.
It's pretty common, yeah. |
|
|
|
Interesting. How many kinds of POS are there? I just saw a coin in the altcoins mentioning vPOS...  Peercoin uses minting (which uses coin age), NXT uses transparent forging (where the next forger is known in advance), BitShares uses delegated proof of stake (DPoS) where 101 delegates are elected to process transactions, Reddcoin uses proof of stake velocity (POSV), and NEM uses proof of importance (POI) where factors other than just the size of your balance alone are also taken into account when determining staking probability. There are probably others that I have missed but I think these are the major ones.  And to think that I thought that I started understanding POS  Also forgot to mention that they were pretty much developed in that order too, with Peercoin being the first PoS coin and NEM being the newest (well technically, PoI more of an off-shoot of PoS rather than pure PoS and had already been in development for months when it was launched but you get the idea). The basic idea behind PoS is actually quite simple. Each coin is like a minature mining machine that solves blocks just like the way a real miner does. The more coins you have, the more blocks you can generate and the more coins you can get. Most of the above are simply variations of this basic theme. |
|
|
|
Ah OK, I see. Thanks for the quick reply.
After re-reading the post, I can see AllCryptoAllDay was probably describing how PoS works in general and I thought he was claiming that it was something specific to this particular variant of PoS.
So what was the determinant of staking probability during this time if it wasn't no. of coins? Was it no. of inputs? No. of addresses?
It was still coin count / stake weight, but users realized if they staked large amounts, like 10-20k, they would only "win" a stake block once, then their entire chunk would leave active staking for many hours. By breaking them up to many 50-1000 TRON sized chunks they were able to keep winning stake blocks over and over. It was pretty interesting to watch, and they talked about it for many pages of the ANN. Same POS tech, but different reward scheme and users tried new ways to manipulate it. I see, thanks for the explanation. The question was pretty much born out of this thread. I always try to keep up with the latest developments in PoS so I become curious whenever I see a new implementation of the idea. |
|
|
|
Interesting. How many kinds of POS are there? I just saw a coin in the altcoins mentioning vPOS... Peercoin uses minting (which uses coin age), NXT uses transparent forging (where the next forger is known in advance), BitShares uses delegated proof of stake (DPoS) where 101 delegates are elected to process transactions, Reddcoin uses proof of stake velocity (POSV), and NEM uses proof of importance (POI) where factors other than just the size of your balance alone are also taken into account when determining staking probability. There are probably others that I have missed but I think these are the major ones. |
|
|
|
"Stealthmine" is sometimes used instead of the more popular "ninjamine". Then you also have technical words such as "automated transactions" and "arbitrary messaging" which aren't necessarily exclusive to cryptos but take on a different meaning when used in relation to cryptos. You'll also find a few more in this thread: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=126798It's a bit outdated though (e.g. "hodl" wasn't in use at the time and "goxxed" had a far less strong meaning than it does today). References to more recent terms pop up later on in the thread. |
|
|
|
|
It doesn't seem like a very good idea to ignore too many people IMHO. You would run the risk of repeating something that someone else posted in the same thread which is generally frowned upon. Other users would have no way of knowing whether you did it to boost your post count or if you genuinely couldn't see their (the ignored user's) response since ignore lists aren't publicly viewable.
|
|
|
|
Can you explain your dynamic proof of stake?
The way it stands looks like i could hold 1 coin in my wallet and stake like someone else who holds many...
It like mining, you coins you have like more hash you get. If you have 1 coin your chance to mine a block is lower than the guys have like 100, or 1000 coins. How is this different from traditional proof of stake systems though? In most proof of stake systems, someone who holds 1 coin has 1/100th the chance of generating a block vs. someone who holds 100 coins. In almost all PoS coins (e.g NXT, Peercoin, Qora, etc.), your chances of generating a block scale linearly with the total number of coins you stake at any given moment. It's the same traditional POS system. It was just the name we came up with for distributing coins in blocks 4100-21000. In those blocks, instead of getting a percent reward, winning a POS block gave 20 to 200 coins, depending on the schedule (see ANN), but now its 9% solid, with a 2% lowering per year until 3% final. During the high POS distro phase, which was 3 weeks, users came up with novel ways to win more stake blocks, splitting up their inputs into smaller chunks, because instead of getting a % of the size of that block, they got a static reward. Ah OK, I see. Thanks for the quick reply. After re-reading the post, I can see AllCryptoAllDay was probably describing how PoS works in general and I thought he was claiming that it was something specific to this particular variant of PoS. So what was the determinant of staking probability during this time if it wasn't no. of coins? Was it no. of inputs? No. of addresses? |
|
|
|
My prediction is that NEM will probably take the role of NXT's "Litecoin". I think there is great potential for the platform, and NEM does bring a few good ideas and innovative concepts to the table (such as their POI algorithm which has never been attempted before). Litecoin did the same back in 2011. It allowed people without GPU farms to mine it, and it had a faster block time which meant that people had to wait less for confirmations. Like Litecoin, NEM offers some potential advantages over NXT but also like Litecoin, I personally don't feel that these advantages are significant enough to overcome the fact that NXT got there first. That isn't to say that the NEM community won't grow over the next months/years or that the technology is destined to die. It just means that it's unlikely that NEM will overtake NXT, that's all. Even utopianfuture seems to have liked the Litecoin comparision. When drawing up the specifications for NEM, he copied Litecoin's practice of multiplying the total coin supply by 4 (which was later abandoned however). I'm not a software dev, but I have some experience in software development and programming. I've seen snippets of NEM's code and it looks to be well written (although the same also went for Qora too which wasn't exactly a success). Then again, it's the ideas that matter and not the quality of the code. NEM has good ideas, good distribution, good devs, and the beginnings of a good community. I think it has a bright future. I whish everyone was levelheaded enough to write down their thoughts in this manner. I may not agree 100% of what you're saying but I respect that you kept it clean I would agree with you if NXT was already was what BTC was when LTC came. I don't think NXT has the adoption yet (not that BTC has much of "real" adotpion but you know what I mean ?) that would prevent NEM - or any other crypto - to take it's spot. IMHO there isn't much of a spot to take as the majority of people haven't even heard of either of them. Can't argue with the fact that NXT is far ahead regarding 3rd party driven projects utilizing it and even community wise (to some extent at least). Hmm... That's a good point. I'll add a few others too: 1. Litecoin was released a couple of months after Bitcoin was first "revealed" to the mainstream world. That was around June 2011. NXT, so far, has not had such an opportunity to cement its name into the public consciousness. 2. NXT isn't the only platform in the 2.0 niche whereas Bitcoin was pretty much the only crypto back in 2011 so the possibility of NXT getting dethroned as the most widely used 2.0 platform is probably far greater than Bitcoin getting dethroned. 3. If you compare the market cap of Bitcoin in October 2011 when Litecoin was released and NXT today, they're actually pretty comparable. Bitcoin was trading at $2-3 back then with a total coin supply of 7 million coins which equals a market cap of about $20 million. NXT's market cap right now is $10 million and was higher in the past. However, market cap doesn't really tell the full story and being the first crypto is a lot more significant than being the first 2.0 crypto. I do still think that NEM being so late to the party will prove to be a handicap though but you definitely have a point in saying that this barrier will probably be nowhere near as unsurmountable as that of Litecoin's. |
|
|
|
Can you explain your dynamic proof of stake?
The way it stands looks like i could hold 1 coin in my wallet and stake like someone else who holds many...
It like mining, you coins you have like more hash you get. If you have 1 coin your chance to mine a block is lower than the guys have like 100, or 1000 coins. How is this different from traditional proof of stake systems though? In most proof of stake systems, someone who holds 1 coin has 1/100th the chance of generating a block vs. someone who holds 100 coins. In almost all PoS coins (e.g NXT, Peercoin, Qora, etc.), your chances of generating a block scale linearly with the total number of coins you stake at any given moment. |
|
|
|
My prediction is that NEM will probably take the role of NXT's "Litecoin". I think there is great potential for the platform, and NEM does bring a few good ideas and innovative concepts to the table (such as their POI algorithm which has never been attempted before). Litecoin did the same back in 2011. It allowed people without GPU farms to mine it, and it had a faster block time which meant that people had to wait less for confirmations. Like Litecoin, NEM offers some potential advantages over NXT but also like Litecoin, I personally don't feel that these advantages are significant enough to overcome the fact that NXT got there first. That isn't to say that the NEM community won't grow over the next months/years or that the technology is destined to die. It just means that it's unlikely that NEM will overtake NXT, that's all. Even utopianfuture seems to have liked the Litecoin comparision. When drawing up the specifications for NEM, he copied Litecoin's practice of multiplying the total coin supply by 4 (which was later abandoned however). I'm not a software dev, but I have some experience in software development and programming. I've seen snippets of NEM's code and it looks to be well written (although the same also went for Qora too which wasn't exactly a success). Then again, it's the ideas that matter and not the quality of the code. NEM has good ideas, good distribution, good devs, and the beginnings of a good community. I think it has a bright future. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
