Good friends are they? Who told you that?
I really hope for PIO holders this is not the case.
If you think that XDE2 is going to be the shining example of the new exchange, I really feel sorry for all PIO holders.
Blatant scam coin that goes against every statement made about the types of coins the exchange would accept.
Who knows.. PIO dev has vanished at the most important time, so perhaps it will fit right in.
Exactly my thougths - hopefully Banzai stays away from XDE2, but if they know each other, then who knows what's gonna happen. |
|
|
|
soo, can we get atleast a little info or something?
When Pioneershare able to have exchange volume of $100,000. At 1% Fee it will be $1000 and 40% goes to revenue of PIO Holder = $400 This is rather impossible - the current common exchange fees are 0.15/0.25%, so your 1% is far from reality. If a new exchange wanted to use such high rate at its beginning it'd be DOA. |
|
|
|
Those are always from one sided view coming from Elastic. but there are many issues that are going to be addressed in future releases, there is a public roadmap for Golem... Well, the list was prepared by Elastic but it can be used as a starting point for further research. On another note, I really wonder how Golem team is going to address verification of the output for rendering jobs. Reputation system isn't something that can be fully trusted. The main problem is that in order to verify the final image (or frame), it needs to be fully rendered by requester, or some other worker. Any partial results will simply not work in this case, and additional full renders will be huge overhead for the system. [EDIT: Golem actually says "Such reputation systems are vulnerable to numerous attacks. There is the famous sybil attack, where the attacker creates a large number of identities and fakes those scores via a large influence on the network. There is also the re-entry attack, where the attacker starts fresh with a “neutral” reputation by abandoning the old identity. So far, we are aware of no system resilient to all attacks. Reputation systems in decentralized applications remain an open problem. Golem’s reputation system too is still a subject of research, and we plan to cooperate with the best teams in the field to come up with the best solutions." https://blog.golemproject.net/the-challenges-ahead-933f040cba95] |
|
|
|
Hi everyone, I'm somewhat lost between docker, elasticPL, mining and core. What do I need to install ONLY to test the wallet in testnet in Ubuntu?
thank you very much
I think it's enough to compile elastic-core and elasticPL. At least this is what I have on my side and it works. Haven't tried with docker |
|
|
|
|
Is version 1.0.1 working correctly for someone?
My node says finished blockchain download, but in wallet it reports "Downloading blockchain (2716 blocks left)".
The blockchain is stuck at height 1565. What am I doing wrong?
|
|
|
|
I think it's already impossible for certain machines to download full Bitcoin blockchain. It's not only the problem of the size but also tech specs.
Few days ago I started to sync the blockchain from scratch on my older laptop (purchased 6-7 years ago), and it's "stuck" at 40% (with db_cache set to 2000 which was max for that machine). The progress is 0.2% per hour now, so I'm pretty sure it will never sync but wanted to check how bad is it :-)
I wonder if regular home-class users will be able to sync BTC blockchain at all in the future (let's say in 5-6 years). Maybe the only option for them will be bootstrap files, but not sure if it's possible to verify the downloaded blockchain against network version.
And we must remember that to run a node you need to have the full blockchain on your computer. With its size increasing at every block, the computational power demand will be constantly rising. This will probably kill the home based nodes, leading to the already much-discussed topic of undesired node centralization, right? Well, if a node is already synced, then I think there won't be problems to follow the newly created blocks. If you run out of space on your current disk then you just add a new one and continue. If you run out of computation power, then you change the specs and use your synced blockchain. The main problem is to sync it from scratch and in few years, with bigger blocks (be it Segwit, EC or something else), it may be a problem for any home user. Having it synced now and keeping updated may be a valuable asset :-) |
|
|
|
... It looks like crypto devs are do not bother to make it easier to mine...
Right, some of the devs (especially those from Core) are not interested in user experience too much. Those guys are there for various reasons, and many of the reasons aren't necessarily economic. As a result, they have no direct incentive for doing what users want, but rather trying to force their own views or ideas. When I first time learned about BTC, the first question to me was: what will be with those block sizes and overall chain size? I understand that you can move it up always as needed, but cmon, if BTC will ever be the number 1 currency in the world, the blockchain will weight enormous amount of terabytes... anyone from devs thinking about it? Have any solutions to it? Even now on my new mac to download btc core wallet with all blockchain and to purge it to smaller size took like 3 days with normal internet... in future it could take ages...
I think it's already impossible for certain machines to download full Bitcoin blockchain. It's not only the problem of the size but also tech specs. Few days ago I started to sync the blockchain from scratch on my older laptop (purchased 6-7 years ago), and it's "stuck" at 40% (with db_cache set to 2000 which was max for that machine). The progress is 0.2% per hour now, so I'm pretty sure it will never sync but wanted to check how bad is it :-) I wonder if regular home-class users will be able to sync BTC blockchain at all in the future (let's say in 5-6 years). Maybe the only option for them will be bootstrap files, but not sure if it's possible to verify the downloaded blockchain against network version. |
|
|
|
I think they are just bluffing - both sides.
Maybe, but if they are, it cannot last forever. The discussion is too long, and it's time for solution(s). Bitcoin is losing market share quickly, and even the tx backlog is not that big recently. Apparently many users already started using other coins for their operations. |
|
|
|
is it really mining? I thought we had another word for the process  Someone came up with Elastic Processing Unit (EPU) for the miner, so presumably the act of mining would be Elastic Processing. We could call it Knieveling eventually  |
|
|
|
You missed my point. If the mining process from the begining would have been easier, like downloading the wallet and pressing button to start it, now we would have really decentralized coin. But from the begining all things related to BTC is too difficult for ordinary people to adopt it.
Ech, you kids... Believe me or not, but the mining process was that easy at the beginning. You had to check the option "generate coins" in the pop-up menu and they'd sometimes just appear in your wallet. But that times are long gone. Now you need a bloody power plant to compete on this market. Nobody could have stopped it and I seriously doubt anyone will be able to... It's a mining arm race and nobody is really in control. Which brings us back to the topic: if anyone actually tries to change the bitcoin protocol while not having the mining majority, because he thinks that "users majority" or "economic majority" is just enough, this will be his funeral. Or in other words, one more time: UASF without mining majority can never succeed, because it's against the nature of bitcoin. Anyone who doesn't understand this simple fact is not really a very smart bitcoin developer. Core's behavior is really strange to me. Those guys are smarter than most of the rest of the world, so it's obvious they know how it all works, and what will be the result of going to war with miners, but somehow they're limited to their current stance. Normally, you could expect reasonable discussion with arguments on both sides, and finally a compromise, but surprisingly it's not happening for some reason. Usually, if you have no idea what something is all about, or why something obvious isn't happening, then it's probably about money and/or power. |
|
|
|
The biggest problems for BTC and all crypto currency:
1. Its centralized. It will never be a decentralized system until all mining process will be as easy as downloading your bitcoin core wallet. Actually, it should be done like this: you can activate mining by clicking one button in your wallet. Now still the whole bitcoin thing is understandable only to small percentage of people in the world, and mining is only possible to those who are advanced level in tech and programming. If BTC has a vision to be better and more popular than fiat, it should be made much more easier to use and to mine. (Soon the whole mining power will be in few hands and it will no longer be different from fiat).
2. Voting power should be not only in miners hands, but in ordinary bitcoins users too. Now BTC is facing the problem that it is slowly transforming to the ordinary money system, where the whole power have federal reserve bank, and here the control is slowly taken by big mining pools and wealthy BTC holders. They want to make decisions to the rest of the users, because they think they can make better decisions.
The whole situation sucks, and the current path of BTC is wrong. Ordinary user with his wallet, should be a miner too, mining rewards should be split among everyone fairly, all have the voting power.
Well, I can understand your pain, and how nice would it be to go back in time and have yet another chance to mine easy BTC when the price was $1 or even less, but unfortunately it's old good 2017 :-) However, if you had that chance again, and knew nothing of what you know today, would you really be interested in Satohi's idea? You missed my point. If the mining process from the begining would have been easier, like downloading the wallet and pressing button to start it, now we would have really decentralized coin. But from the begining all things related to BTC is too difficult for ordinary people to adopt it. The beginnings of any technology is difficult for ordinary people. Look at Windows 3.11, or Windows 95 and so on. Do you remember how difficult it was to install device drivers back in late 90's? And now you don't even bother about it in modern Windows or Linux distros. |
|
|
|
The biggest problems for BTC and all crypto currency:
1. Its centralized. It will never be a decentralized system until all mining process will be as easy as downloading your bitcoin core wallet. Actually, it should be done like this: you can activate mining by clicking one button in your wallet. Now still the whole bitcoin thing is understandable only to small percentage of people in the world, and mining is only possible to those who are advanced level in tech and programming. If BTC has a vision to be better and more popular than fiat, it should be made much more easier to use and to mine. (Soon the whole mining power will be in few hands and it will no longer be different from fiat).
2. Voting power should be not only in miners hands, but in ordinary bitcoins users too. Now BTC is facing the problem that it is slowly transforming to the ordinary money system, where the whole power have federal reserve bank, and here the control is slowly taken by big mining pools and wealthy BTC holders. They want to make decisions to the rest of the users, because they think they can make better decisions.
The whole situation sucks, and the current path of BTC is wrong. Ordinary user with his wallet, should be a miner too, mining rewards should be split among everyone fairly, all have the voting power.
Well, I can understand your pain, and how nice would it be to go back in time and have yet another chance to mine easy BTC when the price was $1 or even less, but unfortunately it's old good 2017 :-) However, if you had that chance again, and knew nothing of what you know today, would you really be interested in Satohi's idea? |
|
|
|
Why did I discover this project only now? ...
Question: will the project make us able to "sell" computerpower too?
Yes I believe,it will be known when brass golem is out on july does july is confirmed date for release? Actually 6 months from the crowdfunding ends on May 11th (afaik), so it's pretty close now to the first milestone. |
|
|
|
Storj also reported that users (colloquially called 'farmers') have been asked to pay increasingly high fees as a result of block size constraints on the bitcoin network. (Due to bitcoin's limited block size, those who send transactions effectively bid for space, a development driven by increased use and limited capacity). It's likely Bitcoin will resolve its own issues sooner or later, so not really sure it's good decision. |
|
|
|
Hi Unvoid, was the block 1399 fixed ?
i can't pass that block with both dedi servers ! i guess not. Yes, I can confirm this too - blockchain download stops at height 1399, and reads 3193 blocks left (forever)... |
|
|
|
I think Golem is too expensive right now because of the total supply is 100 billion not 100 million right?
Maximum number of tokens generated is 1 000 000 000 (1 billion) - OP clearly states it, so please check before posting incorrect information. |
|
|
|
I send 30 000 xem from nanowallet, to poloniex. Block was already opened. Money retiremented from nanowallet 2 hours ago. But didn't come to poloniex. Said, please where should I write to pay back xem
Search for your transaction on here: See if it went to correct address: http://chain.nem.ninja/#/blocks/0Number of transaction 1030856. nbhl6v-hsapkr-2jkoa7-uqxatf-leye2r-b3hbvd-neus is not my wallet. Does 30 000 xem went on it? NBZMQO7ZPBYNBDUR7F75MAKA2S3DHDCIFG775N3D - my wallet (3 xem). I forgot write message in transaction. Advise please how pay back nem? NBZMQO7ZPBYNBDUR7F75MAKA2S3DHDCIFG775N3D is probably Poloniex address http://chain.nem.ninja/#/search/NBZMQO7ZPBYNBDUR7F75MAKA2S3DHDCIFG775N3Dtry to contact their support |
|
|
|
I send 30 000 xem from nanowallet, to poloniex. Block was already opened. Money retiremented from nanowallet 2 hours ago. But didn't come to poloniex. Said, please where should I write to pay back xem
Did you use a message as instructed in Poloniex deposit form? They say " You MUST send your deposit using the unique Message above. Failure to do so may result in the loss of your deposit." |
|
|
|
POS will be great for eth .
Yeah, POS for Ethereum is It would be great, but i think that is just desire. but it's worth to hope  Switching Ethereum to PoS will require another hard fork - is that correct? When PoS will be activated? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
