 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
|
I'm still alive. Still want to mine BipCoin, will run a miner on my ec2 instance.
|
|
|
|
congrats everyone  Why do you think it's gone so high? Privacy coins are doing well in general but why is bitcoal specifically doing so well? It can be anything. You never know. But with things like Verge success, I think that ppl are starting to realize, that there is a potential in anon coins and they can be looking for cheap one, to make huge profit in the future. I found Bitcoal like that. Sure it doesn't have to happen, but how someone else wrote in other discussion, "in crypto is still like 1% of population and its seems to be growing very quickly, when the rest will come, we will need every existing good coin to feed" I like Bitcoal because of that super low total supply, beautiful wallet, possibility to CPU mine by one click directlly from the wallet, its still very cheap at the moment, cool name etc. We just need active devs and community and ppl will join us. Or maybe not, who knows, is crypto  Fair enough, the reason I bought bitcoal was because I liked BipCoin and I noticed that the main dev, PickWick, seemed to have left BipCoin and did work on BitCoal. |
|
|
|
congrats everyone Why do you think it's gone so high? Privacy coins are doing well in general but why is bitcoal specifically doing so well? |
|
|
|
|
It's interesting that NVO is switching to a blockchain as opposed to using the Safe Network.
Still doesn't completely answer the question about how trading will be decentralized though.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahh yes, I see the wallet on their site. If they could provide some information on how exactly their decentralized validator works, I'll be sold.
|
|
|
|
I recently bought bipcoin and found it pretty cool. (though, tbh the nogov license is kinda cringy  ) I made a discord channel if anyone else is interested in discussing bipcoin. https://discord.gg/GxYB8wX |
|
|
|
|
Do you want to create a genesis block from scratch?
If so, you can use the same template as any other block except point the previoushash to:
0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
|
|
|
|
|
It's a pretty good idea. I would also add that MasterNodes should also be able to act as HTTP oracles. That way querying a website for some realtime information would be possible.
|
|
|
|
After reading the whitepaper for NVST I was wondering what you guys thought of it? https://nvo.io/I don't want to falsely accuse anyone of being a scam artist but it isn't quite clear how the decentralized exchange would work... Specifically, how is this "Validator" decentralized? Also, from their post they seem to be delaying releasing their wallet for quite some time, I'd like to talk to them but their Slack channel is full. If anyone has any further information, opinions, or speculations, I'd love to hear it. |
|
|
|
Can someone post what's happening on the Slack? Is there even a wallet coming out this year?  |
|
|
|
Selfish mining is where miners hold back their blocks and then quickly broadcast them once someone else finds a block. A selfish miner is assumed to have a really good network connection. They can detect the other miner finding a block and then get their block (which they were withholding) to most of the mining power faster than the other miner. Thank you for correcting me, my mistake for using the wrong terminology. From what I could gather the reason miners do SPV mining, and as you addressed in your solution, is because they haven't downloaded the entirety of the previous block and as such don't know which transactions are still unmined. I think that the original proposal will still be doomed to fail even for ASIC prevention as miners could simply add in their own transactions with either OP_RETURN or something similar and use that as a nonce field. |
|
|
|
We cannot rely on there always being some minimal number of transactions to be included into a block except for the coinbase transaction. While requiring a minimal number of transactions would solve several issues, I don't think that should be done as we need to consider the scenario where few transactions are being made. The network would grind to a halt if for some reason transactions are not being made (could be from Bitcoin falling out of use and becoming an even more niche thing, some layer 2 solution makes onchain transactions few and far between, some vulnerability is discovered that people stop making txs but the blockchain must go on, etc.).
I just realized that it doesn't make sense for the network to grind to a halt. Assuming that a miner has even 1 satoshi, they can construct an infinite set of transactions between their accounts on the same block. However, there would be less incentive to do this as opposed to accepting transactions from the network due to transaction fees. I do agree with you on the fact that the hashing algorithm is the thing that determines ASIC resistance though. |
|
|
|
|
In my search to find CPU mineable coins the only ones I could find were based on the CryptoNight hashing algo written for CryptoNote and most famously used in Monero.
Does anyone else know of any other CPU viable algos?
I'm not talking about GPU viable algos like Scrypt-N or Lyra either.
|
|
|
|
|
From all the empirical evidence it doesn't seem as though there's enough support for SegWit for it to come to pass. As such, the most likely thing is the main chain will split and the SegWit chain will die.
Some people like Dr. Craig Wright (The guy who claims to be Nakamoto), threatened to start a large mining pool to kill off SegWit if it does come to pass.
|
|
|
|
|
Are there any non-segwit related transaction malleability fixes or BIPs?
|
|
|
|
You can store plenty on the Datacoin blockchain if you mine for a few days.
It has a 128KiB transaction field for arbitrary data storage.
Interesting, I looked into it. It seems as though it's like an ASIC proof bitcoin with support for a larger "OP_RETURN". I personally don't like the idea of storing data specifically on the blockchain since it stays there forever and storage prices will increase exponentially with demand. However, according to the FAQ, http://datacoin.info/faq/, it seems as though they will have a personal chain thing for specific services. It seems more interesting and scalable.
Personal chains will start from the root Datacoin blockchain and will be replicated to nodes by subscription (nodes can choose chains they subscribe to). The Datacoin blockchain will handle only identification and some metadata for all personal chains.
|
|
|
|
|
To calculate price differences on-chain one could generalize the first example to make a psuedo-exchange.
That is, have a bunch of coins on the BTC blockchain that are only spendable if coins go to a specific address on a separate chain.
That way the BTC/LTC price would simply be how low someone is willing to sell their BTC for in exchange for LTC.
I do however see a problem with divisibility here... I have to do some more thinking to figure that out.
|
|
|
|
You should look into Poon's, Lightning Network http://lightning.network/. It seems to be a very promising post-segwit scalability solution. |
|
|
|
Has there been an attempt at adding LTC or any other cryptocurrencies to BTC or another altcoin? Specifically I intend to trade crypto-crypto without an exchange. I propose a simple scheme, all nodes sync the blockheaders similar cryptocurrencies, taking up a trivial amount of space, and a new opcode is added to BTC to verify that a specific block exists within a specific blockchain. This would allow for the following transaction to take place: Suppose Alice wants to trade 10 BTC for Bob's 10 LTC: - Bob crafts an LTC transaction to send 10 LTC to Alice's LTC wallet.
- Bob does not broadcast this to the chain, but sends an unsigned version to Alce
- Alice creates a BTC tx to allow Bob to spend 10 BTC on condition that Bob's transaction to Alice exists on the LTC blockchain
- Alice publishes her transaction to the BTC blockchain
- Bob can spend the transaction that Alice sent if he can prove that a specific block on the LTC chain contains the Tx that he sent Alice
- Therefore, Bob must publish his transaction to the LTC blockchain
Obviously, one would need a timeout condition, e.g. allow Alice to spend the BTC if it has been over a day, otherwise Bob could simply burn Alice's BTC by never sending Alice 10 LTC on the LTC network. Any thoughts or insights? |
|
|
|
|
