As long as there are two nodes with consensus, the "currency" has not failed.  I will continue development until it is either finished or until I own the last node in existence.  Also, at any point in time if I can no longer work on the coin, Robbert is still able to hire a replacement developer as I have volunteered my services without fee and thus have not accepted any bounty.  That way the funds are still there to do with whatever is needed.

Warning: The following rant is strictly my own opinion and does not reflect Robbert's in any way. You may feel free to take it with a grain of salt or dismiss it entirely.


Really? This again?  The whole "angry gypsy" angle has got to be the most ignorant, infantile spouting of unfounded, unprovable garbage I've ever heard.  Neither myself nor Robbert have said or done anything that would cause such offense by any group of people, and any negative comments that were made prior to this posting were done by the community at large.

I stand by my position of not caring about the market, but it seems I can't overpower the need to remind people that when you buy into a coin, you are making an investment.  Just as whoever dumped this coin made an investment.

There are a limited number of coins in supply.  They can only dump so many before there are none left to dump.  If they are dumping and buying their own coin in order to drive the price down, then I don't care how rich they are, they can only afford to do it for so long.

If you are otherwise invested in this coin, and these things frighten you then by all means, sell.  In ANY market you never have more invested than you can afford to lose.  However, if you see potential in the coin for growth and expansion, then I suggest not simply investing for short term gains.  An investment is meant to last for longer than this coin has even existed, and if you would like to see any real gains, then look at this as an opportunity to buy the coins that they are "selling at a loss" for an extremely undervalued rate.

Whether or not you see this so called threat as real is entirely your decision.  Do not be swayed by the opinions, threats, OR promises of others.  Do your own research and only spend what you can afford.  Even my opinion is not enough upon which for you to base your own financial decisions.

I'm just really getting tired of hearing about it.  If we were self-moderating this thread as we have been so accused, we would not likely leave such garbage unattended.

This is the last time I'll respond to this nonsense as it has already taken so much more of my attention than it deserves.

End rant.

While I can't comment on the market (once again, this is an area from which I choose to abstain and withhold judgement) I can confidently state that this project is far from dead, regardless of what the trolls have stated.

Received, and thank you very much.
The 2.0 wallet is quite some time away.

I have only just acquired a mac to build the OSX wallet from in the past week, and just have not yet had time to build one. 

The linux binaries can be built fairly quickly and easily, but I've been debating on how best to package them as there are so many inconsistencies between distributions.  My thoughts are to target debs for debian/ubuntu and create a PKGBUILD for arch users.

In any case I'll be sure to keep you posted.

You may not have gotten a response, but we did see your suggestion and I've taken it into consideration.  I'm thinking a plugin that can be enabled/disabled on the fly, and yes, it is planned.

It is, and thank you.

I will still be updating and maintaining the qt wallet along with the 1.1 branch.  What I posted is a (way too early to even show what I did) preview of the fact that I have started working on 2.0.

Function over form.  We're way ahead of ourselves here.  I make it work, someone else will likely help make it "pretty".  Keep in mind, we still don't even have an official logo, so trying to design the wallet in anything other than a "strictly functional" fashion is a waste of time.

Well the decoupling kind-of helps to prevent the rewriting due to the fully OO nature of my development process.  Each of the core components lie outside of the wallet within shared libraries, and there is also the IPC mechanism to run internally and alongside the RPC.  I have some things in store, and they're not all from-scratch as my 2nd gen coin's sources have been semi-stable for quite some time now and I'm borrowing heavily from its design.


Actually, while I'm on the topic, the final wallet design will probably look more similar to Multibit than what I'm showing here, only when you create your wallet you have the option to create it as a "savings/staking" wallet where the funds cannot be spent directly but must first be moved into an active "spending" wallet.  More similar to a bank account.

Trying to get it functional first, then I'll make it look nice.  Keep in mind, this is a completely from scratch component that does not originate from the current codebase and does not depend on QT.  This was really to show that I am still working, even though I've been a bit more scarce than usual around here.

Ugly and far from finished (barely started) teaser of the first decoupled component.





No more QT.

I am aware.  This was an oversight on my part when I scrapped the 1.0 code and reforked litecoin.  I plan to have it fixed in the next revision, but yes, by all means -- file a bug report.  That way I won't forget it.

I've already responded to sync issues.


I can't help you if you don't respond.

I agree on all but one point:  No permission was ever given to use the original author's work, therefore I submit that unless some sort of agreement can be reached between the two of them I don't feel that the recolor should even be allowed entry as it is (even if it is modified) clearly a derivative.

This isn't for us to decide.  Let them decide whether or not to allow it entry and how to divide reward, and if either logo wins the vote, we will abide by their decision on how to divide the bounty.

Do you have any connections to the network?

Debug console, getblockhash 20000

If it doesn't report c4203f4bd41907ed62f4153eed6473a995a02fccdd198ee188eff60080bfca4e something weird happened.  Delete blocks & chainstate.

Debug console again: addnode 24.199.222.230 add

Try this.  Also verify that you are on version 1.1.0-pre1-dev.  

As for the logo, I really like both versions of this logo, and do in fact prefer the blue one, however it is rather cut and dry that it is a derivative work, and the logo was never offered under an open license.  It was offered in a competition for a bounty, community-oriented, yes, but a competition nonetheless.  If the work is accepted, we would still need some form of license agreement with the original author to be able to use it at all, be it creative commons or whatever.

The recolor was done without license and cannot be accepted without permission of the original author, which was not given.  I'd say that this particular discussion is not up to the community at large, nor even the developers.  Whether or not the logo should be allowed to be submitted is between the original author and the designer who recolored it and/or redesigned it.

When comparing this to the many altcoin forks the difference is in the license agreement.  We are modifying sources that are licensed to us under an open source license.  The agreement expressly allows us to do so.  There is no accompanying license agreement with this logo submission, and unless the original is selected as a winner and we are subsequently issued an open license (at which the point would be moot), or unless the original creator agrees to supply some sort of license agreement (perhaps via compensation in either LTCD, BTC, USD, or whatever else they decide upon) I cannot in good faith condone allowing the recolor entry.

Apologies if this offends anyone, but we've reached a discussion that ties directly into the heart of copyright law.

I personally feel that the original author should receive the entire originally offered bounty for the logo, but have no qualms about allowing an additional bounty (valued between 5% to 10% of the original bounty) for the recolor.  Anyone else have input on this?

And I understand what you are asking, and while I can't answer your question directly just yet, it ties into exactly what Robbert and I are currently discussing, therefore, we will make the announcement as soon as we have finished our discussion. (momentarily.)

An announcement regarding the block explorer is coming momentarily.

Counter-trolling is not helping.  Personal attacks are not the way to further what we're doing.  Please, stop feeding the trolls.

Another unrelated note.  I am not anti-boost.  I just don't like working with libraries to do things which are included as a part of the newer C++11/C++14 specs even if they are as widely used as boost.  I'm not saying it is without its uses, I just prefer not to work with it.

I also am not a fan of working with QT.