PM'd you about 23 hours ago, still can't access site.  Not ideal with open positions.

Site seems to have been down for 24 hours+ now and no word about it?  No one cares?  Or is it somehow just not working for me?

Is there some sort of anti-ddos IP flagging being used, and I've somehow been falsely flagged?

If this whole Miami performance and set of lies can't convince the GAW faithful that something is wrong, I doubt anything ever will.  Anyone who still believes in GAW and paycoin is beyond hope.  Team "WELCH" at it's finest.

If the market doesn't collapse in the next couple of days, I'm guessing we'll be looking at a slow bleed that may take months for XPY value to slowly die.  It would take something drastic like Josh being arrested or the premine being hacked and dumped to finish the job.  That's assuming Josh doesn't dump the premine himself and flee the country.

That has nothing to do with this thread, but I heard $150 estimated by someone before for electricity costs per bitcoin mined. Obviously it depends on local electricity costs and type of ASIC used.

I'd sort of like to see the nushares and nubits markets start to crash just to see how a currency centered around the idea of stability fares when it comes to real volatility.  It would be interesting to see if it holds up or if it ends up being destroyed - if the price of Nubits starts to fall the whole system comes crumbling with it.  (Of course, I have no money at stake, so it's easier to be simply curious.)

Theoretically, a fractional reserve could continue to function as long as there is no "bank run" or continued fractionalizing of the system, but certainly not an ideal situation (even a gradual, long-term decline could eventually deplete the funds).

In the pump-and-dump prone cryptocurrency market, this strategy may be worse than buying and selling at random.

I'm not sure if your original post was a trolling effort or simply misguided.  The faster a ponzi scheme collapses, the better - fewer people will lose their money in the end.

You also don't really seem to understand how the market works.  Most of the money invested in GAW and Paycoin is already gone.  The market cap is just a temporary equilibrium - you can't pay out everyone who has invested their money.  It is only a matter of time before this all collapses, whether it takes days, weeks, or months.

So if you truly care, you should want the ponzi scheme to collapse as soon as possible, unless your bleeding heart desires more victims.

The Paycoin koolaid drinkers from hashtalk have started spamming that link with praise for the almighty Paycoin, anyone with an Amazon account ready to go feel like enlightening them and directing them to this mess of a thread bastion of high-quality discussion?

Has anyone attempted to contact this Stuart Fraser guy or his company?

"Backing Mr. Garza is Stuart Fraser, Vice Chairman and Partner at Wall Street inter-dealer broker Cantor Fitzgerald LP, a long-time backer of Mr. Garza’s projects..."

Source:
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/11/25/bitbeat-gaw-miners-to-launch-bitcoin-challenger-paycoin/

Generally people aren't happy to have their names and their companies smeared through the mud in support of fraud and scammers.  If they could publicly disavow any association with this, it may help fewer people get scammed - the earlier we can pull the rug out from under this, the better.

(Another instance of this guy being mentioned by GAW in a press release here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gaw-miners-announces-plans-initial-120000855.html)

It is probably very slightly preferable to have all of your coins in the same address, moved there in the same transaction.  That allows all your coins to stake as a single unit, so it will happen more frequently.  (Technically speaking, each individual "unspent output" stakes by itself.)  You will gain a very, very small increase in staking gains due to compound interest this way.

Though it isn't a huge deal, and some people may prefer to keep coins in different places for privacy reasons.

Since some people don't check reddit, figure this could be worth posting here as well.  Speculation on GAW miners:

http://www.reddit.com/r/blackcoin/comments/2lblui/rbitcoin_thread_skeptical_about_gaw_miners_and/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2l7myv/can_we_talk_about_gaw/

Several people on blkfeed were talking about their hashlet purchases (even investing all their dividends into more hashlet purchases) and the foundation itself apparently has some invested, so these issues may be worth considering.  Hopefully not too much foundation money has been placed into this single [potential] point of failure.

Was that 170 volume downward spike a pure instadump of like 700,000 coins?  Pretty crazy that someone with that many coins would just throw them away right now.  (Wonder if there's any chance it was a misclick somehow, that would be painful.)

Yeah, something to do with micro-payment channels or repeatable contracts was mentioned at some point, though I don't know the details.  But that only works with divisible items on both sides of the trade, like one currency for another.

I think we'll start to get a better feel for what sort of things are possible when people actually get a chance to try it out for themselves.

Another use-case that may appeal to some people: decentralized sports betting (no fee/vig/house %).

Well, assuming my understanding is correct, yes.  But the idea of it is that this should be a very rare event - not many people would decide to do the equivalent of lighting hundreds of dollars on fire.

That's one of the simplest versions of the contract.  You could also set up a contract to allow arbitration I believe (though that requires trusting that the arbiter and other party won't collude against you.)  You set up a multi-sig account that requires 2 of 3 keys to send, and if you can't agree, the arbiter could step in for a fee.  The arbiter could set up his service to use a standard fee/agreement, and you may not need to contact or pay the arbiter anything unless he is needed.  This version isn't as trustless as the original though.

Yes, that is correct.  If the buyer/seller never reach agreement, no one will get their money back.  The coins would essentially be destroyed. (At least for this simple contract.)

You could structure the agreement differently, for example, the seller of the card deposits 100, the buyer deposits 300, and once the contract is completed, it will send 300 BC to the seller and 100 BC to the buyer.  Once the contract is setup, the seller sends the card and signs the contract transaction (he has no reason not to.)  Once the card is received, the buyer also signs the transaction, and the payment will be received.  (There's no way to keep the total value at risk always equal between the two parties, because this changes as soon as the card is sent.)

I just chose the larger numbers to illustrate that the cost of breaking the contract should be greater than not doing so.  Because the BlackCoin market is currently somewhat volatile, the higher amount reduces the chance of a backout due to market price falling.  You'll be able to choose whatever escrow amounts are desired to balance ensuring you won't get scammed vs not placing more than needed into the escrow address. (And some types of transactions can be broken into multiple steps to further minimize the escrow requirement.)

I see that transaction on the chain with 108 confirmations at the time of this post.

http://blackcha.in/tx/0dced350c399122041ea5a6b07e5429c0f4a5bfcc5b1f0dc6cff0c8992db51f3

If the exchange hasn't credited it to you, that's the exchange being slow, not the BlackCoin client.

If you really initiated your transaction 12 hours ago, you probably have some kind of connection/firewall problem.  (If you're on a Mac, apparently programs go into some kind of sleep mode unless you change some setting, but I don't think that would explain an 11 hour delay.)

Or maybe you want to buy a rare Magic the Gathering card, but don't trust the Online eXchange.  You find someone who will sell the card for 200 BlackCoins, but neither of you are comfortable sending to the other person first in case it's a scam.

You create a BlackHalo contract and both deposit 300 BlackCoins each - you each hold one of the keys to this money. They send your card to your safe deposit box, you send the BlackCoins to their address, and once you're both satisfied that everything is fine, you sign the contract transaction and both parties receive their 300 BC deposit back.


Alternatively, if you both agree to cancel the exchange, you can both decide to sign the contract and receive your money back.  If one of the two individuals decides not to complete their half of the transaction, they would lose the 300 BlackCoin deposit.

Contrary to what digicidal said, I believe both parties lose their deposit in that hypothetical scenario, but it should be a very rare one.  I believe the contract can be done in such a way that neither can contact the other once it's set up through to prevent extortion, but I'm not sure on the details.

There are also more complicated contracts you could do, basically whatever you could think of/program in/get someone to agree on.  Even with very basic contracts, you could make whatever stipulations you want, but leave the decision of whether or not to sign the transaction that concludes the contract up to human choice. More complicated contracts could probably complete contracts automatically if they can retrieve the necessary info, but again I'm not sure on how the programming could be executed in the blockchain.

The block explorer coinmarketcap links to for BlackCoin isn't working.

Link to this one instead:

http://blackcha.in/

Yeah, it does seem a bit bizarre, but some of the volume for many coins looks low on Cryptsy as well - only Dogecoin has a high trading volume today.  Maybe just a slow trading day.

It's nice to hear that someone is taking the reins on this coin.

However, I think it still suffers from the main problem it's had since the beginning, which is a lack of trasparency in the airdrop distribution.  Baldur has appeared to act in a trustworthy manner, but it is not ideal to have to trust a single, unknown entity.  Surely there would have been someone in the cryptocurrency community that is both well-known/trusted and would have been willing to preserve Baldur's anonymity who could have overseen or at least audited the airdrop.