Some numbers to think about:
Thanks for making that! The only issue I see with it is it only takes the price up to .003 SPR. If my math is correct, that's well less than a 1.5 million market cap. I suspect SPR will be much higher than that within a few months. |
|
|
|
SPR is truly a fascinating coin to watch. Because of the decentralized mining, only people who really want this coin are mining it. And it's pretty hard to mine so they aren't selling many, if any at all as they mine them. Normally, coins are raped by the constant selling of multipools. Not SPR.
Once masternodes go live, this coin is going to go parabolic. Reasons being:
1. To get a masternode you need 1000 SPR. There's not much SPR for sale so you have to buy at the ask. People just plain aren't hitting bids.
2. Mining is hard but having a masternode will be a means for most people to get more SPR on a regular basis. People are going to want masternodes.
All of this is going to feed upon itself.
I'm actually quite amazed that the price is still this low. I suspect people are waiting to make sure that Mr. Spread comes through with the masternode promise.
Once he does, this is going to be epic.
Good point!masternodes will serve as POS to some extent. That's one way to look at them, yes. Mining coins is already really hard yet people understand Mr. Spread is an excellent dev so they mine anyway. Once masternodes go live, mining will be that much harder so people will want to get 1000 SPR to get a masternode. Thing there is, as people buy 1000 SPR over and over, the price is going to go up which will attract more miners and people who want masternodes. Rinse and repeat. |
|
|
|
|
SPR is truly a fascinating coin to watch. Because of the decentralized mining, only people who really want this coin are mining it. And it's pretty hard to mine so they aren't selling many, if any at all as they mine them. Normally, coins are raped by the constant selling of multipools. Not SPR.
Once masternodes go live, this coin is going to go parabolic in my opinion. Reasons being:
1. To get a masternode you need 1000 SPR. There's not much SPR for sale so you have to buy at the ask. People just plain aren't hitting bids.
2. Mining is hard but having a masternode will be a means for most people to get more SPR on a regular basis. People are going to want masternodes.
All of this is going to feed upon itself.
I'm actually quite amazed that the price is still this low. I suspect people are waiting to make sure that Mr. Spread comes through with the masternode promise.
Once he does, this is going to be epic.
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, I really don't want to sell any of my SPR, but I understand the value of a fair distribution, especially to those of you who also are in on DRK. As such, I've put 10k up for sale on Bittrex at a fair price. First come, first serve and I sure as hell am not going to be selling any for a long ass time after this.
|
|
|
|
I personally like the current name.
Fair enough. Thanks for the response. |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Spread, I mean ZERO disrespect when I ask this and will definitely not push the issue as it's your coin... but would you be open to a name change for Spreadcoin at some point? One of the biggest arguments against Darkcoin by many is its' name. Spreadcoin is going to have many of the same features as DRK (and maybe even some improvements by the sounds of it!) BUT in my opinion, "Spreadcoin" isn't the greatest name ever for a coin, especially for a coin I feel can be a top 3-10 market cap coin within a year. Again, I mean no disrespect and if you love the current name, I won't mention it again. But if you are open to a name change, I think it could bring even more attention to this coin.
|
|
|
|
Let's see what happens.
Good to see you over here.  Looks like I am going to have some serious competition as I attempt to add to my position. |
|
|
|
|
If I buy XRP on Cryptsy, I can I withdraw it to a wallet? How does that work?
|
|
|
|
May I post a suggestion here?
Since some DRK features are implemented, and some could be improved upon, the original concept for the Darkcoin masternodes (RC2/RC3 releases) involved a protocol-level enforcement of the masternode payments. The problem with these releases was that there was some kind of bug that triggered sporadic network forking by misbehaving nodes or mining clients. The consensus wasn't working as it should.
In a sense, Darkcoin tried to use a dual consensus for every block: One for the transactions / mining, and one for the masternode payout. This didn't work as planned (there were sporadic forks of the network) and DarkSend development was lagging - so a workaround system was created instead that was "safer" and relieved some of the price speculation (it was the period of the great pump - and all eyes were on DRK news and how something would succeed or fail).
In that payment system (an evolution of which, is the current system of MN payments) the pools decided whether to pay or not in a semi-voluntary scheme. If a pool wanted to cheat payment, they could. The strategy was to shame the pools that "cheated" and it worked to compliance levels of 80-90%. The added threat of "enforcement" where Evan would "flip the switch" to fork off the non-compliant pools was also added as an extra measure. However, in my view, this is not the ideal solution to the problem. Rather, it should be done like it initially was conceived so that misbehaving clients are simply forked by themselves out of the network. No centralization / enforcement switch, no need for asking pools to play nice etc etc.
Perhaps the dev wants to give it a look* and see if he can come up with a system that works and which is free of forking bugs. It could also be implemented by DRK if successful, and it would also give added credibility to SPR itself for improving something in a significant way. The good thing with SPR is that, unlike DRK which is more mature, it can risk multiple hard forks to try things out.
* Perhaps the RC2/RC3 bugged solutions of DRK where there was a voting system in place to decide the MN payments are not the ideal concept for this implementation and another idea can be used altogether.
It pleases me to no end to see you here making suggestions AlexGR. Mr. Spread, AlexGR was in pretty early with DRK as well. He is one of the Darkcoin investors whose insights I have always valued a great deal. My suggestion would be to look into what he has to say because it is always well-thought. |
|
|
|
Make no mistake, at some point a good developer is going to come along and make massive changes to the Darkcoin codebase that can't simply be merged. Open source code can be merged with time and effort, especially if it is a derivative of the initial codebase (easier). BTC could implement DRK's coding into itself, absolutely, but they won't because it will fundamentally and structurally change the dynamics of their coin--not only would a fork be absolutely in the cards (something BTC is notorious about not doing unless absolutely necessary), incentivizing people to run masternodes would change reward structure. With time and effort, we also put a man on the moon. At some point in the development of some coins, it no longer becomes all that viable to do a feature merge as we see with BTC/DRK. I am saying is DRK needs the means to identify such coins long before that point. As an investor, when I identify such coins, I take a position in them. If I was in charge of the business side of DRK, my strategy would be different. |
|
|
|
Spread's dev corrupted/lost his 80k wallet ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.msg8599670#msg8599670) and was going to relaunch the coin but received about 60k (if not more) from about 4-5 other holders to continue working ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.msg8620397#msg8620397). I'd wager at least half the coins out there are held by a few holders, no different than the initial Darkcoin instamine so it's not really an argument--the difference is that there has been enough stagnant price action of periods of months where the majority of the instamine was churned whereas I haven't seen the volume indicating that the majority of Spreadcoin's coins have been sold at market. By all means, if you want to invest in a clone, knock yourself out. Any viable features fixed or implemented into Spread would be pulled and merged into Dark (not a bad thing). Having said that, lets keep the focus of this thread on Darkcoin and anyone wanting to discuss Spread to go to their respective thread. Should Mr. Spread find any more potential vulnerabilities, the smartest thing to do is contact Evan directly. I'm certain credit will be given where credit is due. I absolutely love Darkcoin. I have from the near beginning. We all know Evan is an amazing developer and that anonymity is a needed solution in the world we live in. I caution everyone to not take "clones" with excellent developers for granted though. The last thing I want is for my investment in DRK to turn into an investment in MySpace while Facebook starts up a few threads over. In the world of crytocurrency, we must remain nimble. The difference is that with open source, any fixes or innovations made to the Darkcoin codebase, can be implemented into Darkcoin--so comparing MySpace to Facebook isn't a fair comparison. Further, you have a bit of one-sided distribution and lack of market volume. Yes, that certainly could change, but any position in, is that much harder to get out of should things go the other way. I'm all for competent devs working with (and on) Darkcoin's codebase. What I am against is the ongoing marketing pitch in this thread and the arrogance that some of the holders have over there. Can we please stay on topic? If the fixes or innovations are minor in scope, I agree that they can be merged. In the case of shitcoins, that is usually the case. But that's why I specifically said, "With excellent developers". Can Bitcoin just merge in the Darkcoin innovations? Of course not, yet DRK started as BTC. Make no mistake, at some point a good developer is going to come along and make massive changes to the Darkcoin codebase that can't simply be merged. If Darkcoin is a nimble operation, it will have analysts on the lookout for devs capable of doing exactly that and act before the coin becomes a top 25 coin. I'm not over here screaming, "Buy Spreadcoin". Frankly, I don't give a shit if anyone here does because I understand a few DRK buyers aren't going to make or break SPR. If I was, then I'd understand you saying to stay on topic. But I am very much on topic as I am trying to watch out for my DRK investment and keep this coin/community thinking about its need to adapt in a changing business and technology environment. |
|
|
|
Spread's dev corrupted/lost his 80k wallet ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.msg8599670#msg8599670) and was going to relaunch the coin but received about 60k (if not more) from about 4-5 other holders to continue working ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.msg8620397#msg8620397). I'd wager at least half the coins out there are held by a few holders, no different than the initial Darkcoin instamine so it's not really an argument--the difference is that there has been enough stagnant price action of periods of months where the majority of the instamine was churned whereas I haven't seen the volume indicating that the majority of Spreadcoin's coins have been sold at market. By all means, if you want to invest in a clone, knock yourself out. Any viable features fixed or implemented into Spread would be pulled and merged into Dark (not a bad thing). Having said that, lets keep the focus of this thread on Darkcoin and anyone wanting to discuss Spread to go to their respective thread. Should Mr. Spread find any more potential vulnerabilities, the smartest thing to do is contact Evan directly. I'm certain credit will be given where credit is due. I absolutely love Darkcoin. I have from the near beginning. We all know Evan is an amazing developer and that anonymity is a needed solution in the world we live in. I caution everyone to not take "clones" with excellent developers for granted though. The last thing I want is for my investment in DRK to turn into an investment in MySpace while Facebook starts up a few threads over. In the world of crytocurrency, we must remain nimble. |
|
|
|
darkcoin finally getting real code review.
What's with all these "Spread" accounts now? Even Mr. Spread sounds belligerent. Not a good way to make a first impression gentlemen. The Spreadnode account is uncalled for. But my suggestion would be to be cordial with Mr. Spread. |
|
|
|
darkcoin finally getting real code review.
As a large investor in both Spreadcoin and Darkcoin, please stop. You're not helping anyone or anything. Thank you. |
|
|
|
The Spreadcoin dev is reviewing the Darkcoin code and just posted this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.msg9839488#msg9839488Mr.spread,what's status of masternode and darksend developmnet?
It is far from ready yet but I think I found a potential vulnerability in DarkCoin which allows miners (actually pools) to not pay part of the block reward to masternodes. DarkCoin wallet checks the following things for each new block: 1) There is a payment to master node. 2) There is a payment with the same amount as a payment to master node should be (30%). But there is no check that this is the same payment. This means that if you generate a block you can pay 0.0000001 DRK to masternode and pay 30% and (70% - 0.0000001 DRK) to yourself as separate coinbase outputs. Such blocks should be accepted by DarkCoin network but I haven't tested it on testnet so I can't be 100% sure. I don't want any vulnerabilities out the wild so thought I'd check here. This is what happens when "Enforcement" is off, right? Or is this a separate issue and potential vulnerability? Patched: https://github.com/darkcoin/darkcoin/commit/ee8174a2c690b995003449a046b036d87ae25b5d (sorry, trimmed space after every line) Compiling 10.17.24 now, feel free to update from source Awesome, thanks. The Spreadcoin dev will contact you privately from now on if he finds anymore vulnerabilities. |
|
|
|
Mr. Spread, have you found the part of the Darkcoin code where, "Enforcement" is on or off? I THINK that may be what you're seeing as when enforcement is off, yes, that can and has happened.
And have you notified the Darkcoin developer, Evan Duffield?
It is in the code that checks that payments are correct if they are enforced, more specifically it is in these lines: https://github.com/darkcoin/darkcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2822I found it about half an hour ago and haven't yet notified anyone from Darkcoin team. This probably is bad, I should think better next time and contact dev first. I'm still not 100% sure if it is a bug, maybe all the necessary checks are performed somewhere else but I didn't find any other checks. I see. And yes, I'd contact the Darkcoin dev privately first in the future. |
|
|
|
You say this: The beauty of open source technology is that anyone can take it, change it, and make something of their own. And then you say this: I guess what I am ultimately saying is, if Spread has capable devs and they actually want to be apart of something, they should do commits to Darkcoin's codebase.
If great devs aren't compensated for their time (and great devs should be making 6-7 figures a year) or they don't already have a large position in a coin, the chances they are going to work on a coin for nothing or next to nothing are very low. If venture capital or other forms get involved, that would be outside capital for purchases, not generating new coins to do so. The day a coin can change it's max supply or reward structure on a whim is the day it fails to do what crypto really stands for
If venture capital gets involved in an established coin, they're going to want a supercoin generated so they can get coins in return for that investment. |
|
|
|
The Spreadcoin dev is reviewing the Darkcoin code and just posted this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.msg9839488#msg9839488Mr.spread,what's status of masternode and darksend developmnet?
It is far from ready yet but I think I found a potential vulnerability in DarkCoin which allows miners (actually pools) to not pay part of the block reward to masternodes. DarkCoin wallet checks the following things for each new block: 1) There is a payment to master node. 2) There is a payment with the same amount as a payment to master node should be (30%). But there is no check that this is the same payment. This means that if you generate a block you can pay 0.0000001 DRK to masternode and pay 30% and (70% - 0.0000001 DRK) to yourself as separate coinbase outputs. Such blocks should be accepted by DarkCoin network but I haven't tested it on testnet so I can't be 100% sure. I don't want any vulnerabilities out the wild so thought I'd check here. This is what happens when "Enforcement" is off, right? Or is this a separate issue and potential vulnerability? |
|
|
|
Mr.spread,what's status of masternode and darksend developmnet?
It is far from ready yet but I think I found a potential vulnerability in DarkCoin which allows miners (actually pools) to not pay part of the block reward to masternodes. DarkCoin wallet checks the following things for each new block: 1) There is a payment to master node. 2) There is a payment with the same amount as a payment to master node should be (30%). But there is no check that this is the same payment. This means that if you generate a block you can pay 0.0000001 DRK to masternode and pay 30% and (70% - 0.0000001 DRK) to yourself as separate coinbase outputs. Such blocks should be accepted by DarkCoin network just fine but I haven't tested it on testnet to be 100% sure. Awesome! (if the vulnerability works) We can be the first coin to have the masternode vulnerability fixed! While I understand your perspective, it my opinion, it would be wrong not to notify the Darkcoin dev of any potential vulnerabilities. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
