you would need to ask coinomat about debit card plans

I am working on a migration path for NXT assets and the WAVES conversion in my mind was a short term migration path that benefited the existing holders. so I didnt see any reason not to do it

We will need some upheavals in the global financial networks before people's privacy rights become greater than "protecting the children"

At some point, money talks, so as more money shifts to crypto with privacy demands, then privacy solutions will arrive. Right now, we are still in very infancy

this is a marathon, in time the majority will have financial privacy, instead of the current situation.

there are much fewer cryptocard assets outstanding now, so the large conversion has increased the future revenues from the card to the remaining assets.

also there are dividends being paid out, but coinomat will know the schedule

I can confirm this.

For those who think sending out $20 million dollars worth of crypto should be automated, I ask them how would you verify that all the ICO account fields are correct. Do you have some new AI module that will just know when things are right and how to fix it automatically?

For people who wonder why sasha is manually sending out all the ICO funds himself, the reason is that he CARES. He doesnt want there to be any mistakes, do you? How many other multimillionaires do you know would spend personal time slogging through each and every account, no matter how small it is?

Also, do you know anybody you would trust with $1 million dollars? $5 million? $20 million? Anybody sending out the ICO waves could easily make a "mistake" and send some to the "wrong" account. And then what to do?

As far as exchanges go, please let me know how I or anybody can force them to not only list a coin, but exactly when. I will pay you a nice bounty for any method that actually works.

James

Last I checked, ripple's XRP had 5 validator nodes. All run by ripple. Theoretically it seems possible for non-ripple servers to be a validator node, but that causes a couple of issues for ripple

1. one of the "features" of ripple ledger is that it is possible to at any time for any reason, modify any account's balance, priviledges, etc. this is to protect the women and children. Now if ripple let non-ripple validator nodes into the system, and some of the validator nodes disagreed as to whether a particular ledger edit should not be done, well, seems the balances will diverge. And this is not anything acceptable to ripple corp, so all non-ripple validators will probably have to agree to 100% follow whatever the ripple validating nodes do.

2. The ripple protocol is not a blockchain, but a pure ledger. Now I am not any cryptographer I just write code that uses the crypto functions, but to me it seems that if the ledger is an arbitrary set of balances, then as long as all the validator nodes agree to any particular ledger, then there is no way to know if it all added up correctly.

I remember this was another "feature" as it allowed to correct divergent ledgers due to the non-guaranteed consensus. Of course, maybe there is now a method used by ripple that assures convergence and the need to edit the ledger isnt needed to keep it consistent. But it is still needed to enforce KYC and be able to freeze any account at anytime for any reason deemed valid by ripple.

Also, the business practices of arbitrarily setting the price of XRP, selling it at discount to open market prices to preferred customers, well I guess any entity that owns 80% of a currency is free to do whatever they want, so who am I to complain about this.

ripple is as much a decentralized cryptocurrency as paypal is.

So you cant really make any direct comparison between WAVES and paypal ripple. WAVES is a crypto currency that for now is running just with WAVES servers as it just started mainnet earlier this month. Imminently full nodes will be run by the major exchanges and at that point, it becomes at least a distributed crypto. When anybody can run a full node, then it joins bitcoin as a fully decentralized crypto.

ripple has had years to make this transition, but has refused to do so. Assuming that WAVES transitions to being a fully decentralized crypto, then it becomes the first with fiat gateways built in. There will still be need to rely on gateways to back the fiat equivalents (until somebody comes up with a way to store fiat value in a decentralized way), but the risk from this can be minimized simply by doing small incremental transfers.

Clearly WAVES is worth more than LISK and as soon as the market trusts that WAVES will become fully decentralized, more than ripple.

James

P.S. I am not 100% objective as I have a significant position in WAVES. I also established significant positions in Siafund, SYS, VPN, IOTA, BTCD, SuperNET and various related assets

actually last minute seller just filled the entire order.

will be offline for a while, I will respond to all PM's tomorrow

Thanks to the sellers so far for smooth transactions.

I have bought over 100K waves today, you can look at 1W3PKphXrDK5uwzaKJnpDrkzvp9XRLq8FvUjD

http://wavesexplorer.com/address/3PKphXrDK5uwzaKJnpDrkzvp9XRLq8FvUjD

I am the jl777 sasha referred to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1387944.msg14104345#msg14104345

Also I am trusted with millions of dollars worth of crypto: http://www.supernet.org/nav.php

I have another 12 BTC available for 20,000 WAVES, that is a price of .0006

If you want to sell, PM me the amount of WAVES and the address you will send from BEFORE you do, along with the BTC address you want me to send your BTC to.

I will confirm there are still unfilled portion of 20,000 available.

you send to 1W3PKphXrDK5uwzaKJnpDrkzvp9XRLq8FvUjD

I send BTC to your address

if you cannot trust me, then that's fine, no need to sell to me. If you dont like the price, that's fine, you dont have to sell to me. However if you want to sell WAVES and get BTC back within minutes, just follow the above procedure.

James

P.S. this is on a first to send waves basis and once the order is filled, then I will post

I can do smaller amounts, will PM

WTB 20,000 WAVES @ .0006 BTC

no bitcoin devs here?

i didnt realize that. I usually get decent answers here, unless it is buried in the altcoin section. I asked how schnorr sigs could be used to save space and do large MofN multisig. Based on the feedback I got, it seemed that it wouldnt save space, so I was hoping to find the way to make use of the schnorr library

I asked a question about schnorr sigs that is in the libsecp256k1 library that is in bitcoin
I have seen other posts about schnorr sigs in the bitcoin technical section
In my experience, alt coin devs dont know anywhere near as much as bitcoin devs

So, I wanted to ask for help in how to use the schnorr sigs here. but it was buried in the altcoins section

Hopefully it is not inappropriate to ask whether I can use a combined pubkey using the combine pubkey function in the mainstream libsecp256k1 library that is in bitcoin, to create a bitcoin transaction for the bitcoin network.

notice this is about bitcoin.

I know I can use the schnorr function to validate a combined signature, but I dont think that would work in a bitcoin script, so I was trying to get a combined signature indirectly that can be verified with the existing bitcoin network

thanks, I guess this requires every node sharing the pubkeys globally... But if that is the case then how would this save space on the blockchain as these are temporary keypairs each multisig would need all the pubkeys, which is essentially the same as now.

Not exactly the behaviour I was expecting.

I had thought using schnorr partial sigs allowed for space efficient threshold sigs, ie MofN
If iterating through the pubkeys is required, that seems to not allow any space savings

https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#bitcoin-core-apis is what all the rest is built on.

https://github.com/jl777/SuperNET/graphs/contributors

jl777
4,167 commits / 797,347 ++ / 239,368 --

I have been experimenting with the schnorr combined signatures and I cant figure out how to directly determine the number of signers.

From what I am seeing, the combined pubkey will say any combined pubkey with any subset of signers is valid.

I dont see a clean way to get a specific threshold validation. Is the process to iterate through all the pubkeys from each signer to see which ones validate against the combined signature? Otherwise it seems that some sort of combinatorial explosion of combined pubkey needs to be made to find the exact set of signers.

but I only need the number of signers, not the exact ones, so I am hoping there is a simple way

James

Are there any plain language descriptions of equihash algo?
I tried to look at the zcash C++ code, but it is C++...

Ideally some comparable reference implementation in C would be really helpful

I am making the basilisk functions extensible, but at first it is getting address balances and constructing raw transactions

discussion continued here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=684090.msg15023504#msg15023504

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=684090.msg15023504#msg15023504

I would like to consolidate threads and move discussion to the BTCD thread. Above has a lot of relevant details.

James