So should we take that ending emoji that the FairCoin devteam is working on a new and improved plus unique PoS of algorithm? Well, there is nothing yet to inform, but what is clear is that dont exist yet a blockchain algorithm that is so fair at the economical level, to be accepted as the algorithm that reaches the faircoin values. So, is a priority for us, to work on that innovation, and when there is something to share we will do. Yeah it may be interesting if changes to the PoS interest rate for example could be tied into the velocity of the FairCoin economy in a decentralised manner for example. So that possibly as the FairCoin market capitalisation relatively increases. That the PoS interest rate were possibly to increase. To further accelerate the macro economic growth of the network for example. |
|
|
|
There's a new PoS algorithm being released by NeuCoin. That claims to have some design improvements over Peercoin's PoS algo. The whitepaper is at the bottom of this page - link. And also NEM has launched a new algorith that is called POI, proof of importance. It includes POS + more other factors are allegaly have relation with the participation of the economy related the currency: http://cointelegraph.com/news/113839/nem-launches-targets-old-economy-with-proof-of-importanceAnyway i dont see any of this two innovations, the fair algorithm that faircoin deserves...  So should we take that ending emoji that the FairCoin devteam is working on a new and improved plus unique PoS of algorithm? Also on another point is it possible to PoW mine FairCoin using the Grøstl algo with a GPU? If it is I haven't been able to find any online documentation on how to do so nor could I find any pools or public P2Pool nodes. |
|
|
|
There's a new PoS algorithm being released by NeuCoin. That claims to have some design improvements over Peercoin's PoS algo. The whitepaper is at the bottom of this page - link. |
|
|
|
Very disappointed to see the switch from pure Scrypt. I've seen coin after coin make this switch thinking they will better protect themselves or increase value. Without a single exception, I've seen the value of all of the coins I've watched do this dramatically drop immediately after the change, maybe some have recovered that I've missed, but I've not seen one yet. Difficulty? Again I don't see an immediate need to fix. 51%? Don't understand the concern for the coin...the value is so low and what could possibly be gained by controlling a coin of little value at this point... this is a rhetorical question; I understand the possibilities but I can't see it as the priority right now.
The priority has to be updating the wallet so transactions don't get stuck...job 1.
Secondly, the only long-term (or near-term) value for this coin is zerocoin. If that doesn't get done, the coin is history.
The other things can come in time.
Do I really care? Why? I have stake in the coin with at least 1 account in the top 100. I'd like to see the coin have long term viability. I like it's charter.
my 0.02 ANC
-NP
Yeah but have you seen any coins make the switch from pure Scrypt to a myriad of chains. With three myriad chains an attacker would need to control at least two of the three chains to pull off a successful attack. And with these myriad chains also going to be AuxPoW chains then their hashrate's will be a lot higher than otherwise. So in effect the current Scrypt hashrate should greatly increase even though it'll only be one of the three chains. As the Scrypt miners will also be able to merge-mine Litecoin, Dogecoin and several other Scrypt coins at the same time for next extra work or cost. The difficulty algorithm does have some serious problems. As when a very large amount of hashrate joins and then leaves the chain suddenly. Then it takes a very long time for the remaining hashrate to find a block. Which means no transactions at all can be processed for a very long time. I strongly feel that its the epically slow development that is causing the new all time lows in the price of the last twelve months. Although the core dev moved over to core I2p development a few months ago. So we need to give the two new devs time to get up to speed. |
|
|
|
I tried installing ZeroReserve on Xubuntu 14.0.4.2 and get the following error. :~/.retroshare/extensions/ZeroReserve$ qmake && make clean && make
WARNING: /home/xxx/.retroshare/extensions/ZeroReserve/ZeroReserve.pro:1: Unable to find file for inclusion ../Common/retroshare_plugin.pri
Project ERROR: Could not include file ../Common/retroshare_plugin.pri
Also this decentralised exchange may be best suited at intra altcoin exchange to and from bitcoin. |
|
|
|
What about changing the block reward reduction to happen per block rather than a one day event happening every four years. The last and first block reward reduction happened when bitcoin mining was still GPU mined. And most people were mining for the fun of it at home. Even though they were probably paying a lot more in electricity power then they were financially generating in bitcoin. This move would end a possible shock event in Q4 2016 - Q1 2017 when the next block reward reduction happens. The mining scene is very different now to how it was during the last block reward reduction of Q4 2012. As I've already said mining was mostly a hobbyists pursuit then by miners willing to mine at a short term financial loss. To speculate long term on bitcoin and as one of the easiest and most anonymous way to acquire bitcoin at the time. Things are very different today and the next block reward reduction. Could quite possibly be a shock event where the hashrate may drop dramatically. Opening up the network to an attack event a lot easier and cheaply.
This idea has already been alpha tested for the Bitcoin network by Monero. Who already have this type of emission. This fundamental change to the block reward does not have to affect the 21mn hard cap or any of the other bitcoin protocol fundamentals. While in effect it could help make the bitcoin network much more secure.
I'm guessing you mean that the block rewards get's reduced by a small fraction every block rather than having the step changes. I'm also guessing you want it to be reduced at an equivalent rate. I do think that the halving is a very predictable event. Most large mining business that are mining near such a halving should plan for it in their business plans etc. If not then they are just stupid. And as you say there are less hobbyists around. After the block reward reduction the value of all mining gear would be drastically reduced. Therefor soon after this singular event it would make it a lot cheaper for a potential attacker to buy and/or rent mining equipment to mount an attack. |
|
|
|
For linux distros Faircoin should really create repo's with all the dependencies included as well as including the wallet software. Or at least .DEB's for anything Debian based.
Or at least you should have an install section on the wallet downloads page. Stating that all flavours of Ubuntu and Debian such as Linux mint plus Raspian as well. Needs several of the following dependencies installed to run the Linux binary: sudo apt-get install qt4-qmake libqt4-dev build-essential libboost-dev libboost-system-dev \
libboost-filesystem-dev libboost-program-options-dev libboost-thread-dev \
libssl-dev libdb++-dev libminiupnpc-dev It could help a lot of non expert Linux users use the FairCoin wallet. I agree with you, we should have repos for different distros. In fact I would rather like to bring the FairCoin wallet to the standard repos of ubuntu and debian and provide private repositories for rpm based distros like CentOS, Fedora, Suse or RHEL. This task is on my todo list for some time now. I'd like to complete it mid term. Ehrm, none of the packages you quoted in your post are needed to run the FairCoin pre-built binaries! This is only a selection of packages that need to be installed if you want to build the walle from source. But I agree, we should have the information on the web page which packages are actually needed to run the binaries for each major Linux distribution. Help is very appreciated here, please post findings here or PM me  regs Thomas I had a fresh install of Xubuntu 14.04.2 and the binary would not work until I installed the above packages. Although I know not all the packages were needed. Try it yourself on a fresh install the binary will not work out of the box. Nor is there any clear easy to find documentation on what packages are needed to run the binary on a default installation. None expert and new Linux users would really struggle and most would give up trying to run the wallet. I also feel that the wallet would be a lot more inherently secure. If it had separate passwords for unlocking the wallet to mint transactions. And a separate password for unlocking the wallet for sending transactions. So as that the wallet is not left open insecure and naked when leaving the wallet for long term minting.
i agree with you. leave the wallet nake for long term minting ,just like put a sheep into a group of wolf Hi, leaving the wallet unlocked for minting only does not have a considerable impact on security! One can not send coins or dump private keys from your wallet. The key pool is decrypted in memory only while the wallet is unlocked. This is needed for minting because the wallet tries to create transactions (2 per second) that basically send coins to it self and adding 3% of interest. The private key pool is encrypted with your password using the openssl library. It does not provide a way to encrypt private keys with more than one password, therefore it is not possible to have one password for minting and one to transfer coins, because these two processes are mostly identical. Multisig transaction can not mint, so, this is no solution for this problem (if it exists at all ). regs Thomas Anyone with physical or remote access to your machine would be able to make transactions and empty your wallet without the need of the password. I think that is the major concern that most people were highlighting. Also if a machine was infected with malware it would be a lot easier to steal the coins if the wallet was unlocked for minting. |
|
|
|
|
What about changing the block reward reduction to happen per block rather than a one day event happening every four years. The last and first block reward reduction happened when bitcoin mining was still GPU mined. And most people were mining for the fun of it at home. Even though they were probably paying a lot more in electricity power then they were financially generating in bitcoin. This move would end a possible shock event in Q4 2016 - Q1 2017 when the next block reward reduction happens. The mining scene is very different now to how it was during the last block reward reduction of Q4 2012. As I've already said mining was mostly a hobbyists pursuit then by miners willing to mine at a short term financial loss. To speculate long term on bitcoin and as one of the easiest and most anonymous way to acquire bitcoin at the time. Things are very different today and the next block reward reduction. Could quite possibly be a shock event where the hashrate may drop dramatically. Opening up the network to an attack event a lot easier and cheaply.
This idea has already been alpha tested for the Bitcoin network by Monero. Who already have this type of emission. This fundamental change to the block reward does not have to affect the 21mn hard cap or any of the other bitcoin protocol fundamentals. While in effect it could help make the bitcoin network much more secure.
|
|
|
|
|
I also feel that the wallet would be a lot more inherently secure. If it had separate passwords for unlocking the wallet to mint transactions. And a separate password for unlocking the wallet for sending transactions. So as that the wallet is not left open insecure and naked when leaving the wallet for long term minting.
|
|
|
|
For linux distros Faircoin should really create repo's with all the dependencies included as well as including the wallet software. Or at least .DEB's for anything Debian based.
Or at least you should have an install section on the wallet downloads page. Stating that all flavours of Ubuntu and Debian such as Linux mint plus Raspian as well. Needs several of the following dependencies installed to run the Linux binary: sudo apt-get install qt4-qmake libqt4-dev build-essential libboost-dev libboost-system-dev \
libboost-filesystem-dev libboost-program-options-dev libboost-thread-dev \
libssl-dev libdb++-dev libminiupnpc-dev It could help a lot of non expert Linux users use the FairCoin wallet. |
|
|
|
I sent an email to the Tails developers, on the news they are including Bitcoin in the distro, I ask them to give a look at Monero since its the best crypto for privacy, I have not thought before that it was really a problem but we do need an official repo for Monero someday: the only way to add a software in Tails is to make sure there is an official debian package, well maintened, and it doesn't seems to be the case for monero...
cheers. Electrum isn't a Debian package and is just a simple Python package afaik. Does Monero have a very lightweight web wallet that can be generated with a deterministic seed only. Until such a time it won't fit within the minimal TAILS distro. The whole TAILS ISO is only 951.8 MB in size. And needs to be able to run completely from permanente media like DVD-R's. Actually you raise a good point - we could look at distributing *just* simplewallet with it, which is useful for generating offline wallets or to use with remote daemons. Something for us to look at. Yeah a simple wallet package that uses - mymonero.com - as a backend similar to how Electrum works. Could be very useful and become the bases for building lots of different lightweight wallets. For mobile devices for example. |
|
|
|
I sent an email to the Tails developers, on the news they are including Bitcoin in the distro, I ask them to give a look at Monero since its the best crypto for privacy, I have not thought before that it was really a problem but we do need an official repo for Monero someday: the only way to add a software in Tails is to make sure there is an official debian package, well maintened, and it doesn't seems to be the case for monero...
cheers. Electrum isn't a Debian package and is just a simple Python package afaik. Does Monero have a very lightweight web wallet that can be generated with a deterministic seed only. Until such a time it won't fit within the minimal TAILS distro. The whole TAILS ISO is only 951.8 MB in size. And needs to be able to run completely from permanente media like DVD-R's. Correct me if im wrong, but I think you just described mymonero.com Well it looks like you don't need to get any wallet software installed on TAILS to use Monero. Although it'd be much better if there was deepnet hidden service versions of mymonero.com So that all your web traffic doesn't have to pass through Tor exit nodes. Which are all heavily monitored. IIRC they're deepnet hidden service Electrum servers. Also how is Monero's I2p development going and is there any timetables yet for releasing an I2p net only wallet. TAILS does include the I2p software too btw. |
|
|
|
I sent an email to the Tails developers, on the news they are including Bitcoin in the distro, I ask them to give a look at Monero since its the best crypto for privacy, I have not thought before that it was really a problem but we do need an official repo for Monero someday: the only way to add a software in Tails is to make sure there is an official debian package, well maintened, and it doesn't seems to be the case for monero...
cheers. Electrum isn't a Debian package and is just a simple Python package afaik. Does Monero have a very lightweight web wallet that can be generated with a deterministic seed only. Until such a time it won't fit within the minimal TAILS distro. The whole TAILS ISO is only 951.8 MB in size. And needs to be able to run completely from permanente media like DVD-R's. |
|
|
|
|
For linux distros Faircoin should really create repo's with all the dependencies included as well as including the wallet software. Or at least .DEB's for anything Debian based.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for doing this! Can someone work with Mullick to test the new wallet before the next release? It would be nice to have ANC trading at Cryptsy again right away once the new wallet is out. I was going to beta test it on Xubuntu 14.04x64 but get the following error after checking for Berkeley DB C++ headers... default
configure: error: Found Berkeley DB other than 4.8, required for portable wallets (--with-incompatible-bdb to ignore or --disable-wallet to disable wallet functionality)
Will I have to change to Berkeley DB 4.8 to use the new wallet. As I'm not sure if some of my other wallets would like that? Or will the new Linux binaries be ok like the current ANC wallet I have works. Although I think I currently use the i2p repo. Will that be updated with the new wallet timely. |
|
|
|
Now if only Satoshi would write something about Monero in esperanto!! of current Darkwallet development learnt esperanto. Knowing Amir political inclinations, dark wallet seems like a fairly poor project now that ring signatures are around. Yeah but he's like 2010 bitcoin oldskool. I don't think he'll start pumping any altcoins for a while if ever. Although he has indirectly shown support for FairCoop. You are probably right. Which is sad, because in an ideal world, supporting (or at least acknowledging) a privacy-wise infinitely superior technology should not be seen as "pumping". I personally think he'd be a big fan of the Cryptonote technology and ring-signatures. And all crypto-anarchism in general. Although don't think he'd be so quick to put his name on any single project. Even the support he shown for FairCoop was very distantly. Like many very early bitcoin supporters from when it really was a grassroots movement. Even much smaller than the Monero community today. They still all mostly see Bitcoin as being the one true coin to rule them all. Much more than most of the diehards who found Bitcoin post Litecoin creation. |
|
|
|
Now if only Satoshi would write something about Monero in esperanto!! of current Darkwallet development learnt esperanto. Knowing Amir political inclinations, dark wallet seems like a fairly poor project now that ring signatures are around. Yeah but he's like 2010 bitcoin oldskool. I don't think he'll start pumping any altcoins for a while if ever. Although he has indirectly shown support for FairCoop. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
