Excellent rebuttal. It's a shame that it is needed against the FUD.
Good to hear that other potential algo solutions are being researched to permanently mitigate the ASIC problem. People have to realize that DGB does not have unlimited budgets and it takes time to research and implement these changes but if ASIC's can get kicked out of the game for good, it's worth to wait for it.
There's a problem with your line of thought. DGB is not the single best solution for fast transactions anymore, it WAS. The longer the dev team wait to implement changes, the worse it will be. This coin had a great exposure and adoption back when it was trully decentralized. All the dev team had to do was to keep it that way. Sadly what really happened is that they got lazy (to say the least). I don't even think a hardfork for new algos will save this coin anymore. You'll need to do that and something much bigger if you want to take one of the top 10 cryptocurrencies now. |
|
|
|
YOU WANT.... YOU CAN'T... YOU WOULD LIKE... YOU DON'T.... Newsflash: the world doesn't turn around YOU......  Many answers and options are given... Take them, or leave.... But Stop making yourself look like an idiot please.... Take your shill to your coffin. He accused me of not helping DGB. I mined this coin for almost two years, back when very few people gave a shit about mining. If there's an idiot here, it's you because you're the one giving the devs of this coin a pat on the back while they fool everyone lying about the nature of this coin. |
|
|
|
so we have still no news about the algos switch ?
why they keep so silent? are they gonna add 1 algo POS or not ?
it s gonna be 6 month and no news about that
Forget about that. The DGB devs and their friends have no intention of sharing the money they've been making with their ASICs, which they certainly got before most average DGB users. This is complete and utter FUD. Please go cause problems elsewhere. A hard fork to a new algo takes a tremendous amount of work at this point. And as mentioned previously, the Algos we had planned on switching to in January of 2018 now have confirmed ASICs as well. So, in summary, switching from one ASIC algo to another is not wise or secure. However, research is being done into some very innovative ways to get around this problem. We very much watch DigiByte to stay as decentralized as possible. Finally you came out of the woodwork. Custom equihash algos don't have Asics at the moment, take a close look on those, as a developer you should've known about that. The amount of silence on the dev team along with the broken promise of changing algos only shows incompetence really. The key word you mentioned above is correct: "don't have Asics at the MOMENT,". A hard fork to a temporarily GPU algo, will not remain GPU for very long is not a long-term solution. Nor is it worth the security risks of a hard fork to the entire network. Work is being done on potential algo solutions that will permanently mitigate the ASIC problem. There are some promising ideas and leads. However, DGB does not have millions to poor into full time "algo" research. Something typical done by top research universities over the course of many years with government grants. Once again, for those who have questions and ideas, the majority of active discussion occurs on Telegram and is publicly released on social media. Very few people actually check this thread anymore. The fact we are still here replying on this thread almost 5 years after DGB launched is a testament to active, continuous, committed development and communication with the public. Please stop fudding and help contribute to the project. If people spent half as much energy trying to help improve things as they did attacking, spreading false information and armchair quarterbacking we would all be much further along. Anyone can begin contributing to DigiByte. Please check here: https://www.digibyte.io/digibyte-communityTo the individual accusing the "Devs" of hoarding ASIC miners and not changing the algo, this is completely and blatantly false. Solo mining is very much still possible with DGB, the way its setup has changed. The latest changes in DGB reflect the advancements put into bitcoin core from researchers in 2017 -2018. To those accusing DGB of no active developments or improvements, please stop trolling and spreading false information. Or you really are living under a rock and need to look outside of bitcointalk. Over 120,000 lines of code have changed in DGB in 2018. We have released several versions of DGB with multiple significant improvements this year including: I used to contribute to Digibyte, WHEN I WAS ABLE TO MINE IT! Now I can't mine it because this is ASIC centralized crypto just like BTC, LTC, DASH and other crap like those. I don't want to go to Telegram, I just want to see actual changes to the coin that are not new pools and new exchanges and new circlejerk 1 year has gone and nothing has improved on the code. If you call this FUD, you sir are a big scammer. This is reality, not FUD. |
|
|
|
|
Nobody cares about new pools and new exchanges.
What DGB needs is active development, improve decentralization like this was supposed to do at the beginning.
This project is mislead (or not) as a pump and dump scheme because development and devs are absent.
The theory that says devs are mining with ASICs is plausible and the only way for developers to prove they are honest is to implement algorithm changes ASAP.
If nothing is done soon, this coin will pump eventually, but it's gonna be the final exit pump and then it's gonna die.
|
|
|
|
so we have still no news about the algos switch ?
why they keep so silent? are they gonna add 1 algo POS or not ?
it s gonna be 6 month and no news about that
Forget about that. The DGB devs and their friends have no intention of sharing the money they've been making with their ASICs, which they certainly got before most average DGB users. This is complete and utter FUD. Please go cause problems elsewhere. A hard fork to a new algo takes a tremendous amount of work at this point. And as mentioned previously, the Algos we had planned on switching to in January of 2018 now have confirmed ASICs as well. So, in summary, switching from one ASIC algo to another is not wise or secure. However, research is being done into some very innovative ways to get around this problem. We very much watch DigiByte to stay as decentralized as possible. Finally you came out of the woodwork. Custom equihash algos don't have Asics at the moment, take a close look on those, as a developer you should've known about that. The amount of silence on the dev team along with the broken promise of changing algos only shows incompetence really. |
|
|
|
|
This coin is just a pump'n'dump / mine'n'dump at the moment
XRP is much better placed on the marketcap and has good partnerships going to make it rise and do everything DGB does.
The DGB developers abandoned the decentralization origins of this coin and it seems they abandoned developement as well.
The only ones supporting this coin right now are bag holders.
|
|
|
|
Posted this into the telegram, but figured we could get some additional input here. We are working on building out a Radium University, a set of instructional videos detailing everything from the basics to the advanced with regard to operating and getting the most out of the SmartChain.  Those are the topics at this moment, adding more periodically, any additional suggestions/requests? I am just recording the application steps and then am going to make some edits, perform voice over work, maybe throw a little background music, and publish. Buying RADS perhaps? |
|
|
|
I think they care, it's just that the whole community or certainly the majority of it needs to be behind whatever is done here and there is no real urgency to do anything immediately. DigiByte may have already accepted there is no such thing as ASIC resistant POW but a fundamental of DigiBytes overall security by design, requires that not more than one of the five algorithms should be mined by the same hardware. So, I reckon they have to be thinking about something to do here, still.
If that's the case, they should remove the whole 5-algos, decentralization, etc.. Jared said himself a lot of times that DGB was created because BTC mining became centralized. DGB mining centralized now, what's the point of DGB? Don't pretend you know what devs are thinking and look at what they're doing. Yeah, they aren't doing anything about it. |
|
|
|
Are they over optimistic predictions? Digibyte has lots of usages in real life. It means that the project has big community behind, high demand on the coin surely; so when the growth period of crypto market comes, Digibyte will jump into the ride (raising one). I have no doubt about this theory. That is a ridiculous prediction. It would mean that DGB has a market cap of about 90 billion. I agree, 4 dollars will be too much already. The way things are going so slow in the updates, it doesn't look like DGB has a bright enough future to do 500x / 1000x increase in prices. I'm still asking about the hardfork situation for months now, and devs don't care about it. |
|
|
|
still no new algo asic resistant for months ?!
It's ridiculous right now, 5 algos and 5 of them dominated by Asics |
|
|
|
|
I'd love to hear some news about the algorithm change hard fork, it's long overdue.
I can't support the DGB network with my mining rigs because it's dominated by ASICs only.
|
|
|
|
|
Congratulations RADS team! 👏
|
|
|
|
|
Any updates on the hard fork?
|
|
|
|
Aside from the scaling issue with high DPI screens, how has the 1.5.1.0 wallet been working for everyone? We'd love to gauge your input!
It's working perfectly here since the update. No errors 24/7 on Linux. |
|
|
|
is there any realistic speculative value of DGB next 6 months?
In other words: how realistic would $1 be dec. 2018?
If the promised hard fork happens, it will jump in price very rapidly. If it doesn't, it's anyone's guess... |
|
|
|
Would you kindly send a screen shot? Not sure what you mean. Looks like this for me...  I forgot I had changed the display configuration on the system settings. It's all good now. |
|
|
|
It worked! Thank you for the attention. I̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶p̶ ̶b̶a̶r̶ ̶m̶e̶n̶u̶ ̶g̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶g̶u̶i̶?̶ NEVERMIND my bad |
|
|
|
@dgbfanster We've tried to replicate this but cannot. It's reporting the proper build on our end. Would you kindly replicate your steps for us? Thank you!
1) downloaded https://github.com/RadiumCore/radium-0.11/archive/1.5.1.0.tar.gz2) unpacked on desktop 4) opened the terminal inside the radium-0.11-1.1.5.1.0 folder 3) sudo apt-get install qt5-default qt5-qmake qtbase5-dev-tools qttools5-dev-tools \ build-essential libboost-dev libboost-system-dev \ libboost-filesystem-dev libboost-program-options-dev libboost-thread-dev \ libssl-dev libdb++-dev libminiupnpc-dev 4) sudo qmake 5) sudo make The executable 'radium-qt' that is built shows 1.4.7 when I open it: https://i.imgur.com/iDpmhHW.png |
|
|
|
|
The linux source code is still for version 1.4.7?
After compiling radium-0.11-1.5.1.0 the application is showing 1.4.7
|
|
|
|
|
Any updates on the Hard Fork?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
