I'm not going to push and push.

1) Download the wallet from the link.

2) Put it on a usb.

3) Then put it on an offline computer.

Opening the main program it says "connecting" forever. Clicking on simplewallet in the program file, it does not generate an address. Back when Qcn was on bittrex or polo I created wallets with simpleminer, but with boolberry it does not work. Long ago when aeon was cheap I created wallets with it. I have tried many times. Boolberry is the only coin, out of many, that I have never been able to create an offline wallet with. I've tried on several computers, several downloads, etc.

I'll drop it but I am baffled that there is no mention in  the thread of this issue, nor of the "Are you really sure you want to download potential malware?" issue.

I have some boolberry and hope the price goes up but I won't interfere anymore.

Here is my experience.

I go to the page you link and see

This file may contain malware and the automatic download has been disabled.

Are you really sure you want to download potential malware? Here's the direct link.

I'm not really sure I want to download potential malware, since I don't get that warning with any other coin, but okay, I download it.

Then I put it on a computer and it gives a "connecting" symbol endlessly, presumably refusing to do anything unless I let it connect to a network, unlike any other coin. Not good.

add
I'm sure you must know that people create offline wallets with cryptocurrencies? i can do that with any currency, but not boolberry? Why?

I don't know anything about tech and have no interest in the mechanics, but how can there be so many hours put into slack when a wallet, a basic wallet that even the worst coins has, is not simply downloadable without warnings, and if you download it you cannot even create a wallet unless you have a degree in figuring out confusing wallets? 

As an outsider who owns a small amount of boolberry, I'll point out some headscratchers, some previously mentioned.

1) Going to the original website, then to the downloads page, a person is warned that the file does contain malware, and they are asked if they want to download a file that contains malware. That doesn't seem bright.

2) Just about any person who invests in crypto will want to create offline wallets.And in fact among all of the crypto wallets I have tried, lots of algorithms, lots of very different coins from very different devs, there is only one wallet that you cannot put on an offline computer and generate a backup wallet for. Easy to do with bitcoin, litecoin, even any scamcoin you can easily create an offline wallet for. Only boolberry, of all coins, does not make that doable for a beginner. Last time I mentioned that I got a comment along the lines of "Yes you can, if you do this and that", and a comment "Yeah the ability to create offline wallets might be useful", both dishonest responses.

Cryptonote I followed for a while, I was trading Bytecoin from Maria 2.0 on cryptsy when suddenly other bytecoin links appeared and followed the initial confusion, as well as the obnoxiousness of the monero spam terrorists back then who harassed other threads in a very unpleasant way.

Boolberry seems to have a fair history, it was rated early as the most popular cryptonote currency among the most experienced users, somebody analyzed the threads to find out which coin had the most senior supporters. It has potentially a lot of credibility if bullshit is kept to a minimum and simple real development occurs. The 1% tax thing is absurd. Somebody is not willing to make money by buying their own coin, but rather they want users to pay tribute?

instead of running around in circles the focus should just be on producing an actual coin and wallet that works, that does not give "this is malware" warnings, and that has a useable wallet for new people who are not interested in tech stuff.

add
a comment about the 19 page blockology pdf.
Companies in the 'regular' economy have always had to balance between pressure from shareholders, and the interests of long term quality. The one thing that a person notices quickly in the pdf is reference to a $50m market cap target. The previous conversation on this thread sounds like maybe that was written semi seriously. it does look more like a crypto prospectus than anything serious, but a person has to wonder who the paper is written for, and why. It seems like a rough draft that did not get feedback, so use of pronouns like "we" and "our" sound kind of phony. bottom line, where is a workable wallet that simply is as good as the average wallet from any other currency. Whether from zoidberg or blockologist?

Like most coins, what Mindcoin is waiting on is somebody with a good idea for a project that would involve using the coin as some kind of currency or token within the mh community. That is the most important priority, but we kind of just have to wait til somebody comes by with a good idea.

Exchanges are a lot less important, but they do keep the coin viable for miners.

Cryptopia seems like a good exchange, if somebody wants to start a donation fund to buy a listing there. I was critical of cryptopia earlier but it actually is a better exchange than most, and will probably be one of the major exchanges before long.

Mindcoin is a strong long term coin, well made and positioned to find some use in one of the largest niches in society.

just a matter of waiting.

Very possible I am just not understanding some basic thing about mining or am otherwise generally confused. I hope that somebody who understands this stuff can unjumblefuck the mining so that it produces steady blocks in a fair way, since that is what has given this coin an edge, and hopefully the game project Vern is working on will turn out to be legitimate. My brain has to regenerate for a while before I can look at that blockchain again.

We are back to the mystery address CLHHW7MTXNjj4WFqkSzXtCNxF59xhZeWU6 https://chainz.cryptoid.info/1cr/address.dws?CLHHW7MTXNjj4WFqkSzXtCNxF59xhZeWU6.htm
and its associated address CLuu5ymUnn3GtzJkxRG5cWbtQSh2HoRP9y https://chainz.cryptoid.info/1cr/address.dws?CLuu5ymUnn3GtzJkxRG5cWbtQSh2HoRP9y.htm

Some questions I have.

1) Why would anybody mine 1cr when they know that the field is so uneven? That computer owns the network. What is the point of other computers mining?

2) The exploit, if it is that, seems to involve a fake difficulty. Is there a legitimate reason why the coin was created with an unstable difficulty, or could the design have been to deliberately allow an exploit?

3) Can a person see the progression of connections outward from CLHH... to the computers that propagate the 'new' chain? Does the debug log have that information?

4) Why is somebody investing money in the coins at Poloniex, churning volume, when there is a big question about the coin. They have probably spent several btc just on polo commissions. Would it be better to ask polo to halt trading until the network issue has been resolved? At this rate the price will be 1 btc soon, which is great since I own hundreds of 1cr, but until the issue is solved, any and all discussion and development may be just unwittingly promoting a mystery.

5) Regarding development, I hope it is real, but why the effort to hide details? Vern is obviously a little more gifted with a lot of things than the average joe. I hope development is legitimate but there have to be common sense measures to limit pumpiness when the network is owned and development is secretive.

add
polo seems to have 32,764 1CR, and if development is done well the market cap is certainly still in the low range of good game coins. So it's unlikely 1 pumper has bought up Poloniex unless it's Donald Trump.

-

This is very off topic, but it baffles me. There are lots of game coins that have risen rapidly lately, but valuations do not seem to make a lot of sense.
HUC / 100% known developers / strong history / market cap usd 300k http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/huntercoin/

1CR / development unknown / market cap usd 500k  http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/1credit/

GAME / Shaky history / a lot of unknowns / market cap usd 9,000k http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/gamecredits/

And there are a lot of new smaller coins just coming out.

Game coins that connect some human activity to the currency are going to be valuable, but the coins will not be practical until human activity is directly involved in creating the coins. So far only huc has taken that step.

add2
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/1cr/address.dws?CLHHW7MTXNjj4WFqkSzXtCNxF59xhZeWU6.htm



http://imgur.com/a/DLpSV

It's already $456k.   In the short term obviously somebody put a lot of money into buying up Poloniex. If they are working to make a solid longterm project then 1cr could do well. it might be just a short pump though.

The big issue is whether the connection that the game has to the coin economy is sustainable.

The best design is something like huc or the original moto where a person mines by playing a game. There is a payoff for playing and it is sustainable because the 'cost' is actually just mining.

The other gamecoins depend mostly on attracting people by making 'popular' games but the underlying economies there are kind of weak long term probably.

With all the money somebody has invested in this coin, they could pay huc devs or other devs to build an algorithm that continues a steady emission of 1 coin per block, but with mining done by players, if somebody wants to 'mine', they just play the game. There are a lot of challenges involved long term in a project like that but some huge opportunities too. have to wait and see what Vern has done.

-

add
As of right now 8:52:47 AM utc Sunday, October 16, 2016 the explorer shows 4 days without a block. The last block was
Block #60710
Hash    54fe6e256eca1d81bd6f84661b09cdaa5f01dd03402f271ea2549f6492e286da
Date/Time   2016-10-13 16:05:42
Transactions   1 0.2 kB
Value Out   1.0 1CR
Difficulty   4189.79652439
Outstanding   60,710.0 1CR
Created   1.0 1CR

So from Oct 13 16:05:42 to Oct 16 8:52:47 there have been no blocks found.



http://imgur.com/a/xKkju

Browser client would be very cool.

I don't know anything about coding, except rot13 and that's not really good for anything except confusing people.

Usually developers have a pretty good sense of what needs to be done. They can look at the coin and say it needs this or that. But other people, with most coins, are short on ways to get involved. They need to coordinate with others and in most cases that's best done publicly, either by spamming threads as I do or by direct messages.

Hopefully Tharani and Jason and others can form a network of people to do something with huntercoin. It's difficult to work in an unstructured way without contact and feedback from developers but I guess that's part of 'decentralization'.

Tharani's website was actually pretty well done. I can understand the devs side too. One of the downsides of 'a decentralized project' is that people need to get a sense of what others want to do, rather than trying to impose or push them. No bosses but no serfs either.

Would be cool if there were a more clear way she and others could do things to help people get started with Huntercoin. Maybe something like a "Get involved" or "Projects" page at huntercoin.org that provided some very basic direction for somebody with a lot of energy who wanted to make a website or whatever.

I am totally confused, and am not a miner nor a tech person, and don't want to add confusion, but... the explorer at cryptoid shows two different protocols mining. Is the explorer watching two chains that are mining differently? Is it possible that rather than an "exploit" it is just two groups, each mining, with some heavy computers on one side or the other that thrash the network, though in a way that is visible, in which case the other computers on that network see the regular progression but the other network gets blindsided?

Here are the two groups https://chainz.cryptoid.info/1cr/#!network

70023
addnode=103.253.43.162
addnode=115.178.253.118
addnode=178.217.56.195
addnode=192.99.62.23
addnode=46.254.11.158
addnode=80.245.117.132
addnode=85.214.125.73
addnode=85.236.188.28
addnode=86.61.113.84
addnode=91.134.233.254
addnode=96.127.136.18

70024
addnode=109.94.0.77
addnode=162.208.11.59
addnode=203.20.114.252
addnode=46.226.109.16
addnode=5.189.144.97
addnode=84.200.210.130
addnode=84.200.7.231
addnode=88.206.141.110
addnode=91.121.77.74
addnode=94.175.27.83
addnode=98.115.147.74


Are they two separate mining groups forming two chains? They are spread among a lot of countries
Germany
Russian Federation
United States of America
Sweden
Canada
Australia
Hong Kong
Indonesia
United Kingdom
Ukraine
Slovenia
France
Bulgaria
Luxembourg

I have no clue about what's going on and don't want to provide cover for an exploit but I also want to be sure what is actually going on.

Is it possible the "3 different IPs which are sending large numbers of blocks" are just the 3 most powerful computers on one of the two protocols? If there is an exploit then it has to be dealt with, but if it is not an exploit, just two groups on different wallets then somebody has to fix things so every computer sees all the blocks of both protocols.

Poloniex is going to be preventing deposits for how long?

DTC has a market cap of usd 13k http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/datacoin/ . It is one of the best old coins, one of the first to put information in the chain.

BTER, if their volume figures are correct, may be doing a brisk business in China, even if they are not focusing much on western markets.

The big wallet might be the BTER wallet.

After cryptsy bit the big one. BTER locked up a lot of high quality older coins and its possible that some rare opportunities exist with coins like dtc that could easily become major mainstream coins once crypto starts trending up.

You can't do wrong having a small amount of dtc just in case.

It looks like it is not an actual scam, and the coin is probably being deliberately 'unhyped' to keep it's distribution limited to long term investors and the market for which it is planned.

it is positioned to do well when crypto turns up and its only real weakness is that it is on Bittrex.

Money is still being invested in developing it obviously https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeuCoin and long term it is probably a better coin than most. A longterm investor would probably do well to buy some and take it off Bittrex. I own a small fraction of a btc worth and consider it less risky long term than most coins in that market cap range.

I'm an argumentative person and don't want to fall into my habit of offtopic spamming, but I'll make a few points then drop it.

With regard to 5)
It's very common for people to fall into Orwellian language traps. You can call something "a free market" because you have freedom in the market, but if you ask a mouse what the best mousetrap is they won't choose the one that catches the most. One of the biggest changes in crypto over fiat is that phraseslike "free market" can be redefined according to more natural rules.

With regard to 9)
Calling the 'test' at that link a Turing test is like saying "people do addition, therefore if a computer does addition it passes the Turing test". Again, it's clever language that obscures rather than enlightens.

-

The ai aspect of coins is longterm much more important than the financial side, it is better to focus on reducing scarcity than redistributing.

Eventually all coins will have "productive" algorithms, whether science coins like fldc and grc or mathcoins like xpm, ric, gap etc or coins that can easily be adapted to ai like huc.

Coins are like anything else, as good as a coin might be, it has to adapt. Coins that cling to useless algorithm, poor distribution techniques, etc will not thrive. Blakecoin has a good ethical history, active supporters despite a near zero market cap, a history that goes back a little further than most coins, etc. Those things are all good but unless it keeps an edge it will not advance.

With regard to 'gaming, I am not personally a gamer but I recognize the importance of gaming as a way to develop algorithms that incorporate human input, which can be directed to something useful. I think the current 'pump' around gamecoins is strictly a pump, except in cases where the coin focuses on actual human interaction with the algorithm, i.e., very few of the game coins. i don't especially care for one coin or another, but I think it's useful to try and promote coins developing in a positive direction.

edit to add
http://www.kurzweilai.net/ask-ray-response-to-announcement-of-chatbot-eugene-goostman-passing-the-turing-test

Just noticed a new wallet was released a couple days ago https://twitter.com/MazaCoin

https://mazacha.in/ gives a very hard security warning in chrome.

Mzc should do well when crypto picks up.

Definitely not suggesting rebranding. In fact it's annoying when coins try to build on 'branding' rather than more substantial things. Blakecoin has a pretty solid bunch of backers, very reliable developers and cosmetics should not be necessary.

Gamers coins are doing well, but a person has to notice what is going on.

There is no question that 'online games' whatever you want to call it is a major niche. But the important thing about games is not the game but the algorithm. I've argued this a lot on the hunter thread and it's important that more people understand it.

In any economy, but especially crypto, a decentralized economy, distribution is extremely important.

Mining a coin that requires hardware or technical knowledge eliminates about 90+ % of the world from even trying it.

Mining that is done through a real human activity, using the human brain or whatever, if adaptable across languages, cultures etc, is the ideal algorithm.

The jump from regular 'mining' to 'human' mining will be bigger than the jump from fiat to crypto. If the process is done ethically and intelligently it will level all economies eventually.

If you look outside the crypto world, outsiders will step in when they see responsible development of a technology that may have significant social benefit. Compare the news articles written about mazacoin, hundreds of articles, in the nyt and other major papers, to news articles on the average shitcoin, dozens of articles in cryptocoinnewsorwhatever.com

Huntercoin has a strong history in this area, and its association with namecoin is important, even if namecoin has plummeted recently.

Blakecoin should break away from the crowded pack and go more in huntercoin's direction. a game coin, or a coin that involves some human activity, maybe more productive than a game, and generates coins to any human who can simply prove they are human. Of course that last part touches on ai which is ultimately much more important than the currency side of crypto.

Does anybody know why no blocks are listed on the explorer from Dec 2 2015 to Aug 8 2016? The block height progresses from 249418 to 396492 but the blocks are not shown. https://chainz.cryptoid.info/gap/#!overview Everything looks right. No extra coins or obvious oddities but why the gap?

Blakecoin has huge potential. I've followed it off and on since just about when it started and bought some on Cryptsy early and Bittrex now at cheaper levels. Originally I did not like the name, because I thought some guy named Blake had named the coin after himself. Thought the same about joulecoin.

Why the coin is so utterly ignored, I'm not sure, but it deffinitely will be a good coin to have long term.

In my opinion, the game thing is important but there are two main trends that will probably influence the success of individual coins, the algorithm, or 'usefulness and distribution', and the exchange factor.

Blaketrader was probably the prototype for what most coins will start doing eventually, as currencies get actual use, and it would be a good idea for somebody who knows technical stuff to restart something like that. It will have low volume for a while but it will be a major asset to have something like that waiting for crypto to become mainstream.

The game aspect is more important though. I've looked at a few of the coins associated with games and I think the ideal is to have the mining of the coin tied to some process in the game, what Huntercoin calls 'human mining'. I'm sure that suggestion won't be followed but it is a good longterm idea and should be considered a background idea to ponder in development.

Bittrex at it again
"This market is in danger of de-listing due to low trade volume and lack of user interest. It may be removed on Friday, October 7th 2016 unless the average daily trade volume for the last 14 days exceeds 0.3 BTC. If you would like to keep the market listed, please encourage the development team to contact us at support@bittrex.com."

My suggestion, rather than letting them extort from supporters is to let the coin drop from Bittrex. They have already lost a lot of customers by being too quick to drop good coins.