I don't because ICOs are bullshit and are going against the basics of crypto.
I know that recently a lot of people are angry or annoyed by scams and really weak projects raising a lot of money, but imagine this wasn't the case. Without recent frauds and other problems, don't you think that the idea of a democratic crowdsale to fund a promising project that could increase the blockchain technology popularity and maybe help to improve the quality of a specific market segment or product has everything to do with what you call "the basics of crypto"? I am interested in why do you think ICOs go against the basics of crypto and what are the basics of crypto to you. I am not saying I support any kind of ICO and I am expecting some kind of change in the current scenario to help prevent people from falling for scams and solve other ICO issues, but "the basics of crypto" for me is about decentralization and allowing anyone in the world to get access to investment and participation in different projects and technologies they support, no longer relying on big corporations, regulators and government to do so. I think that, problems apart, the ICO model was a big disruption in traditional investment model but now some malicious people are trying to take advantage of it. Besides, I don't think that this problem (of scams and people trying to take shortcuts to big profits) is unique to ICOs. ICOs are by definition premined coins which are therefore centralized. There's no decentralization with premines/ICOs/airdrops/bounties/etc at all and while it might not be the government issuing them, a couple of anon devs doing it still makes it centralized. Premining all or just a significant partion of the supply is a form of control regardless of what the coins are used for. And when you have someone being in control of these funds or you're hoping they'll develop what they promised, you introduce trust while crypto should be trustless. If a group needs funding they should use their own money if they're confident (if not then why bother) or get it from the outside, not tied into the project via coins or tokens. And if they want ongoing funding, they should use the model which automatically transfers a set percentage of each blocks' reward to a dev address. |
|
|
|
|
I don't because ICOs are bullshit and are going against the basics of crypto.
But as I see it the reason others put money into ICOs comes with the massive increase of Bitcoin's price, which attracted all kinds of people seeking quick money.
It's exactly like a gold rush except most people are too lazy to prospect and dig in the dirt - as it were, they just want quick money with no effort. They couldn't care less about what crypto stands for or even sometimes not eeven the projects they're throwing money at.
That all boils down to what is essentially pure, no-skill gambling; they give money to anon people in exchange for a few pretty images and promises and for some coins the devs made out of thin air for free in the hopes of the price getting pumped higher than the initial price at which point they dump their coins and dance and cheer over the few slices of pizza's worth of profit they made or keep silent in case they lost and start looking for the next pull on the ICO slotmachine.
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback - who apparently can't ever leave.
|
|
|
|
Um, there is no way to stop ICOs from taking place, so this line of thinking gets absolutely nowhere.
There are plenty of legitimate cases in the crypto world that started with ICO's... Ethereum being a case and point. It's a different world since that time though, and the model they used for an ICO is no longer legitimate.
ICO Funds need to self be ESCROWED, and ICO's need to layout their own payout and development plan. If promises aren't kept then people need to be able to withdraw their remaining share from the escrow (can't withdraw what is already spent). The crypto world has the solution to it's own problems in it's own hands... Smart contracts can go a long way towards making ICO's fair and safe.
If you have to rely on promises it's already a shit system - compared to Bitcoin. And escrows doesn't do anything other than delaying the money getting into the hands of scammers. |
|
|
|
There is a big need for ICO certifications/ratings based on criteria which create fair and safe ICO practices. Legitimate projects should not being pulling moneygrabs, but in a world with no regulations and a bunch of sheep, there is no reason for new projects to do anything but get the most cash possible.
There are some organizations starting to do reports on ICOs doing detailed research and giving them a rating, but some of these charge for the detailed report. I don't know why someone with some weight in the community hasn't stepped forward with some kind of plan to solve this issue.
No such thing as fair and safe crypto friendly ICO - either you have to blindly trust the team behind an ICO (e.g gamble) or you have to have them verified and accountable. Both of those things are completely against crypto. Going one step further, premine in any form (ICO, airdrop, bounties, etc) is not acceptable. If a group needs funding they should use their own money if they're confident (if not then why bother) or get it from the outside, not tied into the project via coins or tokens. And if they want ongoing funding, they should use the model which automatically transfers a set percentage of each blocks' reward to a dev address. |
|
|
|
I know that and I dont give a damn! I use those ICOs to increase my BTC.
Funny how everyone who gambles with ICOs claims they're making profits. Who's losing then? |
|
|
|
|
How do you propose we fight them off?
|
|
|
|
i find info about bitcoins' testnet uses a rule where difficulty drops to 1 when no block has been found for 20 min. i can be usual to fix this bug ? end how to secure this funcion if use it for main network i say about this // Only change once per interval
if ((pindexLast->nHeight+1) % nInterval != 0)
{
// Special difficulty rule for testnet:
if (fTestNet)
{
// If the new block's timestamp is more than 2* 10 minutes
// then allow mining of a min-difficulty block.
if (pblock->nTime > pindexLast->nTime + nTargetSpacing*2)
return nProofOfWorkLimit;
else
{
// Return the last non-special-min-difficulty-rules-block
const CBlockIndex* pindex = pindexLast;
while (pindex->pprev && pindex->nHeight % nInterval != 0 && pindex->nBits == nProofOfWorkLimit)
pindex = pindex->pprev;
return pindex->nBits;
}
}
return pindexLast->nBits;
}
I can't imagine that being secure. You can set your wallet 20 minutes in the future and mine a low diff block over and over so you'll have the longest chain. But I'm not a programmer. Your best bet is probably renting hashrate to find the next block and hope for the difficulty retarget that it lowers the diff in just the next block. Otherwise, you have to hardfork if you want to avoid ASICs kicking the diff into the moon. |
|
|
|
|
I can't help you with a stuck coin but here are some thoughts:
Since every difficulty retargeting logic can only change the difficulty when a block is found, they can all be "attacked" by getting them stuck with a lot of hashrate.
This is why coins like Digibyte have multiple PoW algorithms - if one algo is stuck in a high diff, the chain can move forward by finding block with other algos.
And if an algo's diff is stuck, it should be possible that whenever a block is found with another algo, the difficulty of the algo that is stucked could be lowered. I don't know if it's the case with Digibyite or similar coins (Joincoin, Myriad, Verge, Aurora, etc).
|
|
|
|
|
No. What you can CPU mine can almost always be mined on GPUs much more efficiently.
Look at it this way: CPUs have a few strong cores, generally between 2-16 while GPUs have thousands of smaller cores.
Now imagine each CPU core being like a strong weightlifter and GPU cores being small childs.
Now imagine mining being the task of picking berries in a forest; thousands of kids are much better suited than a few strong adults.
|
|
|
|
Again, again and again. http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/07/24/yet-another-ethereum-ico-gets-hacked-veritaseum-loses-us4-5m/Unstopable hacks! This time Veritaseum ICOs token based on ETH suffers from atack with 4.7 million $$$ looses. Obviously Ehtereum Network have a massive problems. And devs will always tell you that this is imature of experimental technology  How far this will goes? Its madness I never heard before about so many hacks on blokchain before Ethereum and ICOs appeared. It is the 3rd hack for the month. Its just tooo much. Bitcoin was never hacked at all so as many other coins around. Just WTF is going on??? This is more bad news. I wish these hackers would give Ethereum a break. I wish people would stop using overly complex and untested systems and centralized ICOs. |
|
|
|
|
On slack, you don't just wonder around and find projects like you could let's say here, on this forum. No, the only people joinning slack channels are ones who are interested in a specific project.
So there are no bystanders or just random people not familiar with a project popping up. Only people who agree with the project and people who disagree gets piled on and banned (which is why I'd guess it's sole wildly used for ICOs as the voice of reason or opposition can be silenced or ignored easier).
That makes it a terrible hugbox.
And it's also terrible feature-wise. Starting with the terrible search system which makes finding relevant info in the sea spam, circlejerk and just general noise just annoyingly hard.
|
|
|
|
Problem is the curves don't hold. And either do too low or too high.
While manual tends to keep the setting .
It is general rule of thumb
I find there's only two reasons for fan curves not holding; one is if there's two softwares trying to compete over changing speeds. And the other is if you have the fan speed update period set too high - which would be located just under the graph I linked above, if it weren't cropped out. |
|
|
|
Skunk mod #2  100% PL and 60% PL. |
|
|
|
Hey,
I have a rig with 3 ASUS STRIX GTX 1070 8G and this morning one of them was in a strange state.
I use MSI Afterburner with a custom fan control curve.
Here is the behavior :
First fan (nearest from connectors) was spinning at 100%
Second fan was spinning at the speed defined by the control curve (that's what I think)
Third fan was spining very slowly and intermittently (and it was very hot when I touched it)
From miner point of view, card is fine (temp. also ok)
The card has a few month.
Have you ever heard this kind of problem?
Thanks
I have written this over and over don't use auto settings of any kind on msi afterburner. set manual at 70% check your temps and adjust up or down by 10% all msi auto settings custom or not tend to fail after time. and I am sure someone will pop up to disagree with me.  oh do you use msi afterburner 4.3 stable build? Fixed speed is a bad idea imo. It's much better to have a simple custom fan curve, something like this:  That way if the cards are not mining due to whatever reason, the fans won't work at higher speeds unnecessarily and in case they get too hot, the fans ramp up to 100%. Anyway, for the Strix 1070 it seems all 3 fans have their own tach and PWM connections so all 3 fans can be controlled independently. (stop at 3:56 https://youtu.be/0GUySjP7-gI?t=236 to see cables) Usually only one fan has a tach signal and the rest of the fans get the same power so they spin at the same speeds. But not with this Strix model. Apparently there's a bunch of threads complaining that fans tend to spin at different speeds or that one fan is being "lazy", only turning on after some time while the other two is spinning fast already. I'd try to control the fans with GPU Tweak II to see if that works. |
|
|
|
|
@cmdash stop being a cunt.
|
|
|
|
|
Good luck! I'm definitely interested in this project.
|
|
|
|
It's unlikely a time restriction could work. You can tell the wallet whatever time you want.
Also, people can easily have hundreds of addresses to spam so same address restrictions are also useless.
It seems to me that messages are simiar to transactions and we have transaction size limits, block size limits and transaction fees for the same reason - to combat spam.
Interesting. What about a protocol built into the wallet that auto blocks/bans addresses that send more that x number of messages in y amount of time? The spammer attacking Burst seems to not care about the cost. That could work. It's certainly much harder/more expensive to control hundreds of IP addresses in order to attack the network. Banning badly behaving nodes are built into most wallets AFAIK, so it should be viable to include new rules regarding messages spam. |
|
|
|
Interesting, I put intensity 25, and i gave me 5% bump (105 vs 100 MH/s). But memory consumption jump to 2,200 Mb (10x more). Weird results...
Intensity is not linear. Each intensity integer means double the threads as the previous (eg. intensity 25 has double the threads as intensity 24). Jesus, up to 91°C at 98% fan? That's kind of ridiculous. 1080 Ti's start to throttle at 84°C and even that temp is not intended for 0-24h use. Your cards are way too close to each other I presume. To bad with GPU Boost 3.0 we can't set a temperature limit, only indirectly by power limit and fan curve. |
|
|
|
|
It's unlikely a time restriction could work. You can tell the wallet whatever time you want.
Also, people can easily have hundreds of addresses to spam so same address restrictions are also useless.
It seems to me that messages are simiar to transactions and we have transaction size limits, block size limits and transaction fees for the same reason - to combat spam.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
