I've been following this thread since the first day. I do like the philosophy. Tips are great. I've been realy near to become an insider, but in the end I decided to continue on my own. I've always suspected that the amounts put on the table are mostly small.
With small amounts a 100BTC holder can spread 0.01 trades on all the coins, get rewards from some, show them here, and start charging a 0.5BTC fee.
I've personally made tons of 100% trades (and more) with tiny amounts. I've never managed to do the same with a whole BTC.
So I ask here Ryan to show a whole trade with the volume, a big one, not a 0.01BTC one, even though we could extract it. Anyone that's looked at a bunch of charts and compared them to what actually happened with the trades at that time can confirm what you've said. And for some of them, if you take the time to really look at the times of the trades you can find a couple discrepancies. And let's not forget that this FelixOliver guy (who I personally believe is a Ryan sock puppet account given when he tends to show up) confirmed that one of the trades "Ryan" laid out in this thread did not happen as he described it. He pretty much said he is part of the "group" and that they dumped the coin into the buys as opposed to what Ryan claimed he did. So yeah, this thread has some good advice but is smoke and mirrors to drum up marks to hand over some BTC. |
|
|
|
I don't know the exact breakdown, but apparently there are three entities involved, Moolah, Moopay, and mintpal. It sounds like Moopay was formed by Moolah to buy mintpal, I think you also missed the part in his resignation post where he said "Moopay LTD does not own MintPal Limited, though I do have a small stake in the holding company.".. So he's bascially said neither Moopay nor Moolah owned/bought Mintpal and yet back in the post about them taking it over, he said they did acquire it. Mintpal appears to be owned by some other holding company that's been mentioned elsewhere, something few if any seemed to be aware of. |
|
|
|
The guy is still stating that Moopay LTD does not own MintPal so why does it say on Jason Yates (former Co-Founder & Director MintPal LTD) Linkedin page that it was sold to them. Look for it under experience http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/jason-yates/12/268/538He said Moolah did not own Mintpal. I don't think he said Moopay did not own it. From his resignation post "Moopay LTD does not own MintPal Limited, though I do have a small stake in the holding company." Course, I don't think we can believe anything he actually says anyway. |
|
|
|
The guy is still stating that Moopay LTD does not own MintPal so why does it say on Jason Yates (former Co-Founder & Director MintPal LTD) Linkedin page that it was sold to them. Look for it under experience http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/jason-yates/12/268/538Cause for some reason a bunch of them thought it would be best to lie about all of it? |
|
|
|
|
I suppose I could spout off a bunch of personal reasons why I've completely avoided XC and thus don't see this as a good thing. But really, one of the supporters over there sort of outlined my most recent reason for avoiding them. This is part of what he said.
"I also like the idea of a XC company. ....... And with a company behind XC, you'll know that there is full time development going on."
I was just revisiting XC a couple days ago and found out about the company thing. In my view that will be a huge conflict of interest since the coin development will be skewed towards what's best for that company. And yes, I know it's supposed to be going open source so that they can then claim there won't be any conflict of interest but as long as Dan is involved and/or "leading" both, the coin itself won't be a completely separate entity. IMO the entire XC thing is moving away from the idea behind crypto and is just all about the money and nothing else.
|
|
|
|
|
That Apex is funny. Weeks ago there were rumors flying around due to the way it was being accumulated that some P&D guys like Bob were stocking up on it. I see it's started it's pump today. lol
|
|
|
|
Confirmation means reducing the likelihood that a transaction can be double spent down to an acceptably unlikely level.
There is a lot of math in the Satoshi whitepaper about how the likelihood that a transaction can be double spent reduces with each block the transaction is buried under. All of this math is based on average 10 minute blocks and the parameters with which Bitcoin was implemented.
If you change all those parameters, like the timing of the blocks, you will also be changing the difficulty of rewriting the block chain and thus changing the likelihood that a transaction can be double spent.
You cannot merely make blocks faster and claim that your blockchain has "faster confirmations." You have to do the math!
From Meni Rosenfield's Analysis of hashrate-based double-spending ( link): The probability of success depends on the number of confirmations and not on the amount of time waited. An alternative network with a different time constant T0 can thus obtain more security with a given amount of wait time. Consider the math done. (I'm not being lazy, I'm just way more confident in his math than my own.) "The time constant might be relevant, if we assume that the attacker cannot sustain his hashrate for a prolonged period of time." 6 confirmations with 10 minute block times would mean you'd have to maintain enough of a hashrate for over an hour. 6 confirmations with 1 minute block times means you only have to maintain it for just over 6 minutes or so. Course if you're actually relying on the shorter time frame to be successful, you probably don't have the hashrate to succeed anyway. lol |
|
|
|
|
Oh this is going to be interesting. I have a feeling Bob will be back here promoting the second coming of this coin soon. lol
|
|
|
|
if the wallet is encrypted they would have to know your password to send the coins to another wallet so you should be ok . Back up the wallet dat and encrypt it you should be fine.  True. However the drawback is then you cannot stake the coins to get interest. Now if the devs could do a POS with an encrypted wallet; that would be awesome. Do you mean that I won't be able to encrypt my wallet after POS is applied? Is my encrypted wallet going to work after POS is applied? Yes you'll be able to encrypt your wallet. And yes the wallet will work after PoS. Not sure why people are asking these sorts of questions when there are a lot of coins out there that are PoS. You just can't stake while the wallet is locked so you have to unlock it when you want to stake. Pretty standard stuff. |
|
|
|
I was buying up (and trading to acquire more) when it was pow with the 2014 cap, got to admitted was very disappointed with the change to pos in the way it did, changing the cap on a whim defeats the whole trustless system idea (something that is lost on so many coins/devs). We had no choice. There was no blockchain security. If people liked the idea so much, they would have driven the price higher and mined for transaction fees. Community voted for 50% PoS there was other options to still keep the promised cap. I'm curious what those options were. I mean with a coin that only has a couple thousand, it's never going to be used for much so there's no incentive for anyone to mine or stake for transaction fees. So other than a high interest PoS, what other options are there that would keep the blockchain moving? Firecoin for example has a "lot" more coins but has a real problem with that and has had to come up with some creative ways to encourage people to stake that coin. Well for a start sticking to the original cap should have been a given. Right, I understand that would be nice. But what I don't understand is how that could be accomplished without a way to secure the network by people staking or mining in some way. If there's no reward for those things, there would be no one willing to do that and therefore the network and thus the coin would be dead wouldn't it? So I'm just asking you what those options were that would have kept the network going and with the same cap. If you can't keep to one of the fundamental features of the trustless system then its a flawed concept from the start, and is a pure pos a secure network? Not sure what you're getting at. No coin is completely trustless or secure. Oh maybe a couple could be considered that today, but that could easily change "tomorrow". Anyway, I can see you're not actually going to answer the question so I won't bother with this anymore. |
|
|
|
I was buying up (and trading to acquire more) when it was pow with the 2014 cap, got to admitted was very disappointed with the change to pos in the way it did, changing the cap on a whim defeats the whole trustless system idea (something that is lost on so many coins/devs). We had no choice. There was no blockchain security. If people liked the idea so much, they would have driven the price higher and mined for transaction fees. Community voted for 50% PoS there was other options to still keep the promised cap. I'm curious what those options were. I mean with a coin that only has a couple thousand, it's never going to be used for much so there's no incentive for anyone to mine or stake for transaction fees. So other than a high interest PoS, what other options are there that would keep the blockchain moving? Firecoin for example has a "lot" more coins but has a real problem with that and has had to come up with some creative ways to encourage people to stake that coin. Well for a start sticking to the original cap should have been a given. Right, I understand that would be nice. But what I don't understand is how that could be accomplished without a way to secure the network by people staking or mining in some way. If there's no reward for those things, there would be no one willing to do that and therefore the network and thus the coin would be dead wouldn't it? So I'm just asking you what those options were that would have kept the network going and with the same cap. |
|
|
|
Also, I've been looking at a target block window of ~96 hours (still a bit short for my tastes) for the hard fork block target. I was going to say at least 3 days from release but 4 is probably better. Need enough time in case exchanges/pools run into some unforseen issue with compiling, or something else rears it's ugly head when it's in actual use and thus requires canceling the hard fork ahead of time. So yeah, I have no problem with at least 4 days and wouldn't complain if it was even 5 or 6. |
|
|
|
I was buying up (and trading to acquire more) when it was pow with the 2014 cap, got to admitted was very disappointed with the change to pos in the way it did, changing the cap on a whim defeats the whole trustless system idea (something that is lost on so many coins/devs).
We had no choice. There was no blockchain security. If people liked the idea so much, they would have driven the price higher and mined for transaction fees. Community voted for 50% PoS there was other options to still keep the promised cap. I'm curious what those options were. I mean with a coin that only has a couple thousand, it's never going to be used for much so there's no incentive for anyone to mine or stake for transaction fees. So other than a high interest PoS, what other options are there that would keep the blockchain moving? Firecoin for example has a "lot" more coins but has a real problem with that and has had to come up with some creative ways to encourage people to stake that coin. |
|
|
|
|
Greetings. So I've been trying to figure out what exactly zerocoin is etc and since you guys seem to be the only ones actually doing anything with it, I'm hoping you can answer my questions about it.
1. The first question is about this statement "Using 8 cores on a 2.4GHz Core i7, Zerocoin spend transactions would take about 3 seconds to generate, and about 0.5 s to verify." What sort of time frames would that be for more a "mainsteam" system like maybe an I3. Or, and this wasn't clear to me from the various things I was reading, are those transactions actually done by the miners and so it doesn't actually apply to regular users?
2. Is zerocoin basically just a "mixer"? i.e. you can't actually do transactions with other people with them? The zerocoin site is somewhat confusing as it talks about both zerocoin and zerocash but everytime it talks about transactions, it references zerocash. In addition, the zerocoin whitepaper's example is of a person minting and then collecting their own coins.
3. Is there a record on the blockchain of how many coins an address minted or collected? It would seem to me that one way or another, there would be a balance reflected on the blockchain that others could see. So let's say I wasn't all that bright and I minted 133t coins from one wallet address and collected l337 coins on another. In this case it wouldn't be all that hard to "track" what I was doing correct?
|
|
|
|
lol where? you know vipah1 is xst investor right? you are pathetic at the very least you are a fool if you think you are fooling anybody! Don't include me in your half truths about StealthCoin and StealthSend please. What I invest in is my own business as I'm looking for any coin that I feel has true technical merit and or potential, is moving forward to improve the core tech behind proven coins, and is cryptographically sound. I got involved with this whole drama because I was interested in the soundness of Chandran sigs, and not specifically XST. I looked into it because I wanted the facts and not some cherry picked statements that are being used to further an agenda as opposed to spread facts. Hey viper, let me publicly apologize about giving you shit on the SDC thread. I know you are legit. You have the right criticisms about XST, but we should give the dev opportunity to address them in the timeframe he laid out. Thanks for that. I had reviewed your post history after you "went off" on things and it sort of seemed out of character for you. This place can really get to a person. |
|
|
|
lol where? you know vipah1 is xst investor right? you are pathetic at the very least you are a fool if you think you are fooling anybody! Don't include me in your half truths about StealthCoin and StealthSend please. What I invest in is my own business as I'm looking for any coin that I feel has true technical merit and or potential, is moving forward to improve the core tech behind proven coins, and is cryptographically sound. I got involved with this whole drama because I was interested in the soundness of Chandran sigs, and not specifically XST. I looked into it because I wanted the facts and not some cherry picked statements that are being used to further an agenda as opposed to spread facts. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
