Hey cool to see this thread living up again, I've restarted my pool: https://wood.suprnova.ccPlease re-add to OP ! Is there a Sgminer for GPU yet ? or ccminer for nvidia ? ocminer, you are everywhere how do you do it?  Keep up the great work! There is no GPU miner that I know of released yet. Difficulty remains low. Current rewards are ~12 LOG per block, 2 minute blocks. Next milestone: Block 100k. Reward drops to 10 LOG/ block. |
|
|
|
Thanks Salim In other news all hardcoded IPs are removed from the repo (and those servers are down). Now there is only a single DNS resolvable node, and IRC node resolution has also been tested in case that server goes down. Still operating with with no checkpoints, no alerts, and no pools.. making us pretty damn decentralized. |
|
|
|
|
Announcing..
A funkenstein the dwarf production...
2Crow.org
2Crow is currently in BETA stage, requesting comments, criticisms, security audits, and abuse. It works, but there is very little error checking in place and many cosmetic errors and other changes are underway. It is NOT recommended to use this for substantial commerce at this stage. Please test the service with small amounts, or comment on the readability / usability of the format of the site.
|
|
|
|
|
static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 50000 * COIN;
fyi that is a maximum you can transfer, not a cap to the money supply.
|
|
|
|
My point was, there is 25.15 BTC worth of incentive for double spend avoiding security in 10 minutes of confirmation on bitcoin. For NXT, it looks like there is jack shit in 10 minutes.
Can you make a better estimate?
You just brought up the main problem with virtual assets located on a block chain and why those projects seem to keep imploding or not really going anywhere. The security of the chain only accounts for the monetary value of the coins. When you make the coins also represent assets, PoW miners aren't receiving a cut of that, so there's no hash power security increase on their end. You then end up with high incentive to attack, and low incentive to defend. For PoS assets, they're piggybacking on top of the system like PoW, the only difference is that PoS attacks are always far more catastrophic in the long term since coin ownership is network control. Then you have the fact that "ownership" is all defined by the legal system, and no legal system recognizes the authority of a block chain to determine who owns what when tied to assets in the real world. Hmm.. that is a very interesting point indeed which I hadn't considered, which is more general than talking about any specific chain. Coloured coin users beware. However, one can at least estimate security for assets sitting on the BTC block chain, using the simple formula of block reward = maximum amount you should trust to a single confirmation. Miners don't even know that your one satoshi transfer with 1 millie fee was actually the controlling interest in a multithousand coin company. If the recipient doesn't know you or trust you, they will likely wait a lot of confirmations before acting on the transfer. |
|
|
|
But does he like how the NXT initially was distributed?
Are you okay with people in 2010 buying BTC for cents? I know you are, so what's your problem?  Same early adopter principle. Those who found out about NXT earlier were rewarded. Just like BTC. Not really, in BTC early days, no one knew cryptocurrency would work. Also, NXT distribution is beyond insane, even today, 15 people hold 80% of all NXT. Bitcoin distribution today is much more fair. BULLSHIT! Prove it or walk. Nxtblocks.info says you're completely full of shit. He was only off by an order of magnitude, as nxtblock.info tells us, 76% of the nxt is held by 144 different accounts. On top of this there are at least 20 of these accounts which are owned by many different people, like SuperNet, Nxt community funds stash, or Exchanges like Bter. Your insistence that the number of accounts has anything to do with the number of people controlling them suggests that you have something to hide. |
|
|
|
Hey guys What is happening everywhere ! As 2015 started i see only hacked bitcoins thread ! There are some possibilities ! Wallets are not so secured! Exchanges stealed money and saying that they are hacked ! Hackers got much knowledge to how to hack bitcoin addresses i mean they learnt much about private keys ! Tell me which is right statement ?👈 Also if hackers are clever enough then thts for them 🔫 Hack hack hack. First there was that 150 car hack up in Michigan, because of all the weather hacks. Then those planes were hacked, and Ukraine's army was hacked. And with these prices, I get hacked every time I go to the grocery store. Hack you very much, Hacky new year! |
|
|
|
|
This question relates to a type of smart contract around atomic cross chain transaction I am trying to develop.
I'm looking for comment on the feasability and implementation security.
Alice wishes to rent out coin on some chain lets call it PPC, in exchange for BTC from Bob (for example).
Bob creates a time locked transaction for some agreed upon amount of BTC to be given to Alice, in the event that he fails to return the PPC in a timely manner.
This transaction is a smart contract that automatically deletes itself if a certain amount of PPC arrives to an address controlled by Alice.
It also arranges for a fee in BTC to be given directly to Alice for her service of renting out the PPC.
In an atomic transaction, Alice reviews and signs this transaction and adds a signed portion giving the PPC to Bob.
Bob reviews the whole thing, adds his signature, and posts to the relevant networks. In the process, he pays the fee in BTC, collects the PPC, and locks his collateral in BTC into the network.
Now, Bob can use the PPC for staking for a short time, Alice knows she will receieve either the agreed upon amount of PPC back or the collateral BTC held in the TX.
Bob knows he will get the collateral back by depositing the PPC to Alice's agreed upon address.
Can this work?
The only hard part is making a smart contract which can watch both chains. If it is possible, it seems to me this is has great importance in analysis of proof of stake network security.
-- funkenstein the dwarf
|
|
|
|
|
Dust and nonstandard inputs are to be expected on an open network, but logging of nonstandard error messages is a bit strange?
Did somebody say log?
|
|
|
|
How the hell are legacy financial institutions going to implement blockchain technology without a distributed network of miners to secure it? If they do get miners, where is the financial incentive for them to mine?
Any way I look at it, it would be more logical for these unimaginative anachronistic glorified pawn shop operators to just use our blockchain whether side-chained or colored coins or something like that. The Bitcoin blockchain is more powerful than the world's top ten supercomputers combined, even factoring in recent reduced difficulty.
These johnny-come-lately corporate bozos had better come out with an answer, give up or get on board because we're doing it ourselves with or without them and I kinda hope it's without them.
Are you blind? This is how: MtGox, Circle, Coinbase, Xapo, etc. etc. Bankers in the golden age didn' t create new gold, they stored it and issued IOUs for it. |
|
|
|
Still waiting to see a single argument that delivers a sound explanation as to why we should know Satoshi's real identity.
As Cyberdyne pointed out, we do know it. |
|
|
|
The whole concept of 42coin is amazing. The rarity, creativeness and uniqueness gives the coin a tremendous potential that no other coin will likely never have. I firmly believe that in a few years it could easily reach the old value of 1,000 BTC. Even that would put the market cap at only 42,000 BTC. Cryptocurrencies will certainly gain popularity as the 1990's and early 2000's generation grows older and overall economy adopts the wide technical knowledge of todays kids.
And I see 42coin fitting right into the place of "diamond of cryptocurrencies".
There is just this one problem which propably all of you know: in five years only 42 42coins in existence won't be the case. Instead, there will be 180 42coins. The code doesn't cap the amount of total possible coins to 42. The whole foundation of the idea isn't there. This will, at worst, kill the coin. If, however the cap was there us current miners and pool owners would have a huge leverage.
There is something we can do to gain back the leverage: hard fork. I know it requires some sacrifices and effort but the benefits will easily be worth it.
Pool owners: You run the original 42coin pools and the future mining power flows to larger pools, your pool being one of them. The future price increase will likely over 10-fold the income made by your pools mining fees.
Miners/pool owners: hold the ridiculously easily earned 42coins now and you end up having a small fortune when the cap is filled. Nothing will limit the value of 42coin if the code gets fixed.
So now I ask you:
Pool owners, are you willing to implement the new version?
Coders, PM me if you're able and willing to make the changes to the code.
Thank you for reading
What part of the code dictates 180 coins? Are you the first to discover that, or was there someone in the past that brought this up, as its the first I've seen it. I question your motive as you just joined BCT and made this as your first post, which doesn't make much sense. If your intentions are not to scam, then accept my apology, but this sounds very much like a scammy power grab trying to take advantage of a otherwise functioning and mature coin. I only say this because you made the claim that 1) it would increase value 10 fold 2) promised pools they would be successful and make out well with fees 3) claiming miners will have small fortunes after the hardfork Sorry, my scamdar went off. See discussion at https://github.com/fourtytwo42/42/pull/4You guys have until mid July before you pass 42 coins issued. Good luck- |
|
|
|
Bitcoin miners have no incentive to mine Bitcoins at a loss (relative to electricity cost). Rationally, each miner would shut off if the price goes below this point. (They might be in a position of having spent money on hardware that they can never hope to recoup, but still be operating above their electricity cost, as a way to reduce losses).
Large NXT holders should be willing to forge, even at a loss, because they risk losing all of the value of their stake if the network dies. Unless they give up completely, they should be willing to continue forging. Its not altruism, it is in their best interest to keep the network running so that they can hope to recoup the value of their stake in the future!
OK I can follow that logic, thanks. Next (no pun intended), lets look at network security on a per confirmation basis. With bitcoin I can easily estimate the cost of reversing (by renting hash) a singly confirmed transaction: 25.15 BTC (25 coinbase plus average of 0.15 fees). Now how much would a similar estimate run (renting NXT from holders to get the required stake) to reverse a singly confirmed NXT transaction? 2 confirmations 2x 25.15 BTC, 3x ... this is bekomming costly of people have some half hour of time to spend on security. Staking coins usually have way faster cycle times. Even getting worser if you scale that up onto a half hour. Thanks for your reply! My point was, there is 25.15 BTC worth of incentive for double spend avoiding security in 10 minutes of confirmation on bitcoin. For NXT, it looks like there is jack shit in 10 minutes. Can you make a better estimate? |
|
|
|
re: Bitcoin, Darkcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, et al..
What's the point in having 500 different "altcoins"?
People don't understand technology. I know this, because I'm having hard time understanding why anyone would be against the 20MB fork in bitcoin, i feel completely out of my depth reading these threads, yet my friends think I'm like Neo because I can set up their wifi for them. They are clueless, as are like 98.5% of everyone everywhere when it comes to technology. Having 500 different coins and whatever will keep the masses AWAY from cryptocurrencies, until one or perhaps a handful clearly emerges as the dominant and most widely accepted one.
Also, you will NEVER convince granddad that something called ZIFTERcoin is money. You will never convince someone who doesn't have a deep understanding of technology that it is safe to use something called DARKcoin. It sounds like it was created specifically for buying drugs on the internet. Computer geeks understand what the "dark" in darkcoin is supposed to mean, but we are an extreme minority in that regard. I think these coins will fail ultimately just due to their silly names, regardless of how good the underlying technology might be. Bitcoin at least sounds legit.
My thoughts exactly, all the altcoins are just elaborate speculation currency's with alot of volatile swings in value. Bitcoin is standing on the threshold but the technical barrier will keep it from bringing it to the masses. I believe that the cryptocurrency or follow-up will be the future. There are alot of coins and great developers but ultimatly, the system gets weakened with each new coin released. If some coins have the same goal, they should combine forces to bring their coins to the next level, meaning making it easy enough to understand for untech-savy people. I checked out 20ish different coins and their wallets. Bottem line, they are all the same with some minor tweeks. It's nearly impossible to build a valuable coin if the improvements are nihil.. It's time to face that reality and hire economics to work with the crypto community to share ideas. What's the point of having 500 different text editors? 500 different fonts? 1000 different linux distros? There are going to be millions of separate chains, you better get used to it. But yeah, don't go overboard. Building a new coin for your work means you don't have the existing network, and adds costs to people signing on. Don't waste your time if you don't have to. |
|
|
|
|
The figure for fiat users is undoubtedly a factor of 10 larger.
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of big businesses are more reliant than you might think on the counterfeiting cartel.
|
|
|
|
|
The word "travelling" implies increasing t parameter.
That being said, it is possible for a block to have a timestamp before the previous block's timestamp. If you can keep this up for a few hundred blocks get back to me.
|
|
|
|
|
We are still trying to figure out what the bright new altcoins of 2014 are.
|
|
|
|
I agree, and that's why bitcoin will likely prevail and alts wont. They're just unnecessary.
Alts *are* bitcoin. You don't have open source software without forks. Altcoins are part of the ecosystem and without a doubt strengthen it. They prove that bitcoin is here to stay. Mainnet BTC is absolutely the best store of value in all of bitcoin. There's a lot of shit bitcoins out there. Collect, play, learn, use.. with caution. |
|
|
|
Satoshi Nakamoto set in motion the unraveling of the nation state
You sound like the kind of person who denounces the state as a legitimate authority. So why then, do you then continually equate 'identity' with only government-approved identity? not to want an identity attached to the source code.
So who is Satoshi Nakamoto? Information on their identity remains unknown.
Satoshi’s last call was to deemphasize his unknown identity.
Satoshi's identity is known - it's Satoshi Nakamoto, inventor of bitcoin, author of the bitcoin whitepaper, etc. The inventor of bitcoin isn't anonymous - we know who created it. Satoshi Nakamoto did. We just don't happen to know the government-approved name this person has on some stamped piece of paper that his parents got from the state. +1 props This guy not only gave us public coin but also an example for quality of publication and scientific endeavor. Step 1: remove small ego and petty political motivation. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
