|
What is the official launch date? What is the deadline for burn?
|
|
|
|
Futures price gives an estimate about the price on launch day .
all these people that are buying now are betting that INGINS price will be more than 20$ / IGNIS .
If the price is lower at 01.01.2018 they loose money !!! so the futures price is real , but not accurate .
No one will dump anything , they will keep INGINS !
Just look at EOS , which is similar to IGNIS .... from 1$ to 12$... keep this is mind before dumping at launch day !
Still, anything above around $15 would put IGNIS at #5 in terms of market cap, above LTC, and I think we can all agree that's not realistic! Much as I would like it to be... |
|
|
|
|
Rather surprised the dump wasn't (much) bigger than it turned out to be, actually.
BTC price immediately before snapshot: ~7200 sats
BTC price 2 hours after snapshot: ~5500 sats
Difference: ~1700 sats
Given that you get 1 IGNIS for every 2 NXT at snapshot, does that mean the market currently thinks IGNIS is worth 2x1700=3400 sats, i.e. much less than NXT?
|
|
|
|
I don't mean that this team are criminals, they may even be nice people, but this branding is pushing the limits of good taste and even the law.
The SegWit2x fork that was due to go ahead on November 17th (and was cancelled on November 8th) would have increased the block size form 1MB to 2MB, and nothing else. Segwit itself is already activated. The new 'SegWit2x' due in the next day or two is led by another team of people, and aims to deliver completely different things to the original project: it increases the block size to 4MB (not 2MB), premines 2 million coins, switches from SHA256 to X11, changes block time, changes difficulty recalculation algorithm, makes some not-clearly-defined claims about stealing Satoshi's coin, and promises some future features that will almost certainly never be delivered. The *only* thing it shares with the original project is the name. Actually, it is just another altcoin forked from Bitcoin. By itself, that's fine: anyone is free to do that. But many people see the SegWit2x name and assume it is a retry of the last SegWit2x fork, which it isn't. The devs are claiming they are renewing the cancelled project, which they aren't. This is where the fraud is. |
|
|
|
|
This farce of a project raises enough red flags that anyone with even half a brain should avoid it like the plague.
But, sadly, enough folks will be gullible/desperate enough to buy it that the "devs" will likely end up with a decent profit before they ditch everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Has any reputable exchange officially confirmed that accounts with NXT balance at the time of the snapshot will receive the appropriate number of tokens (for exchange/withdraw at a later date)?
|
|
|
|
I am curious. What's the reason to buy a lot of them and hold? Does this have a website? No. Active github? No. Twitter? No. If you can give me a convincing explanation, I will learn something.
That, plus the fact that there's no block explorer, and long periods of few/zero blocks (e.g. between 14 November and 3rd December this year, a total of 3 blocks mined). |
|
|
|
do we have any kind of estimate on how long 200 confs is taking right now?
Why don't you check on the block explorer, see how long the previous 200 confirmations took? |
|
|
|
XCP deposits to BTER are disabled at present (although withdrawals are perhaps working). I don't know how long that's been the case, or how long it's likely to stay like that. |
|
|
|
|
WTS qora @ 4 sats (minimum 2 million)
EDIT: currently earmarked for sale, but transaction not yet completed
|
|
|
|
<excessive quotes deleted>
I think now would be a good time to take this somewhere else and not derail the thread further. And if you respect your fellow readers, please edit away the quotations in your posts, or delete them entirely, as frankly it's an eyesore  It's sometimes hard to strike the right balance between promising something that you're not sure can be delivered, and waiting until it's all done before announcing it with huge fanfare. The signs were there, if not presented on a plate. I personally think the PR was okay, maybe I'm wrong; clearly we disagree, and I'm fine with that. I had some conversations with a couple of the Counterparty core developers at a conference earlier this year, and they do come across as very competent, professional, and genuinely interested in delivering the best platform they can (no matter how long it takes). Very different from the scam artists that plague these forums, and crypt in general. I'm happy to remain invested in XCP. |
|
|
|
was there evidence to suggest that there would be a port of ethereum?
You mean, entries like this in the public git repository? commit 54a70cc8d1eb3d4500face2533be634fe43022cb
Author: Adam Krellenstein <adam@krellenstein.com>
Date: Wed Oct 1 14:57:54 2014 -0400
partial migration of PyEthereum contract tests |
|
|
|
Specifically, I'll try to find and dig into the crypto code. If Qora is building and signing this data using different mechanisms and algorthims from Nxt then that should be pretty darn good evidence that the code is unique.
If you are examining the decompiled code in detail, please try to focus on the forging algorithm. How does a node decide that it can forge a block with its account(s), and similarly how do nodes decide whether to accept/reject a forged block that it receives. It should be possible to describe this in mathematical or pseduo-code terms. Although I no longer agree with his decision, I can understand why Qora dev has not open-sourced the code. But not to give a technical description of the forging process doesn't inspire confidence, especially when we frequently see strange forging behaviour (such as long chains of blocks forged by a single account). I have no doubt that Qora is new code, but I currently don't have any confidence that it is secure against various attack vectors, i.e. that it is a crypto-currency in any real sense. |
|
|
|
|
A moderated Qora thread can't come soon enough.
|
|
|
|
The private keys aren't stored or saved. Once the private keys are loaded they are never checked again. When you use an exchange, you use their Private Key. When you stake with us, you are using your Private Key, not your address. So yes, it requires trust in me to handle it from the submission to the entry, but after that it will be very, very hard to even figure out where they are held. I've proven I am trustworthy by sending out several thousand dollars worth of miners for our raffles
Again, exchanges require you trust them without having the Private Key for yourself. You simply use a rented address. With us, you still have the Private Key, which means you could use that, combined with the address, for cold storage that continues to stake. Exchanges also do not stake if they are smart and using proper cold storage
The staking clients are on nodes that only connect to the seednodes and reject untrusted nodes across the network. They are only visible to mainnet in a second tier of IPs. The peers of the peers is the only way they are even seen and you won't find the IP of any of the staking nodes in your peerlist. If they do try to connect, they will appear as rejected, much like if it was it was a node from another blockchain being kicked out. We do not control all of these nodes. They trust explorers, multipool, exchanges, and other trusted peers
Over 60% of the network is now staking, spread across many, many nodes, which means you can't even buy enough on an exchange to attack it. There is no Proof of Work to utilize for an attack, either
Using us requires less trust than sending your coins to an exchange. To opt out, all you have to do is move coins to a fresh address
On the storage of keys: If private keys are required to sign PoS blocks by the staking clients then they are clearly being stored/saved somewhere on those clients. In memory, on disk in a reversibly encrypted form, etc - they're still out there. (Not to mention being sent unencrypted in a web form over the Internet). Or am I missing something?? On trust issues: You've accepted that this system requires trust in you. No matter how trustworthy you've been in the past, requiring this much trust in any person should raise alarm bells. On network security: Putting a layer between virtual staking clients and public mainnet is a sensible approach, but you should accept that it isn't possible to 100% prevent unauthorised access. (And using phrases like "I assure you, though, our blockchain will now not ever be compromised", and wanting "third party peer validation that our blockchain is entirely secure" are clearly nonsense) On blockchain security: You haven't addressed the point about >50% of the staking power being controlled by a single group of people, and the implications of this on overall blockchain security? |
|
|
|
Well, the code is solid. That's for sure. The entire point is that over 60% of the network has put their coins into offline staking. I'm just looking for other opinions on where and how an attack could be successful since a vast majority of the network is on a legitimate staking schedule. This gives us a very high level of blockchain security
I guess what we are concerned with is either an attack we are vulnerable to or third party peer validation that our blockchain is entirely secure
"Offline Staking" is a centralised solution to the problem of people not wanting to run their clients 24x7, and it suffers from at least two clear issues: 1. The private keys of all accounts that are being offline staked are in the hands of one central body. The coins are therefore vulnerable to being stolen through external hacks, or the operator can simply run away with the funds. As such, this is similar to keeping them on an exchange. Exchanges have been hacked in the past (it's not possible to completely prevent this, no matter how secure people say their servers are), and exchange operators have run away with funds in the past. 2. Blockchain security in decentralised PoW/PoS systems is dependent upon no person (or group of people working together) having 50% of the hashing/staking power. If you have the private keys to 60% of the coins, you can execute a double spend attack whenever you like. Of course, it can be argued that if you performed double spend attacks regularly, or ran away with all the coins, they would suddenly become worthless. And with the market cap as low as it is now it's probably not worthwhile to do so. But if it were to increase to, say, $1million, then an offline staking operator could probably get away with a decent amount in a one-off sell, and wouldn't care about the coin's subsequent value. Virtual offline staking in its current form, requiring trust in a central body that operates the blockchain, is fundamentally against the point of crypto currencies. I think you'll have a hard time persuading people outside of the MMXIV world to take it seriously. |
|
|
|
Version 14 is now available.
...
This is mostly an experimental version. Just to see it it works somewhat stable as much of the core has been reworked.
If this version seems useable I will add the upgrade warning.
You will have to delete both your data and wallet folders and recreate your wallet to use this version.
Great  But if this is an experimental version, is it generally recommended that people run it, or stick to the previous version for now? If the latter - perhaps the first post should link to both the previous stable and new experimental versions. |
|
|
|
I originally voted to keep the source closed, but as the weeks have passed on I have had a change of heart. It's not about price, as low price means I buy more and that goes for any crypto I choose to have a stake in. My reasoning is simple, "Innovation". I know many of you are so excited about the AE, but for me, it will not help Qora at all, or any coin for that matter. An AE is a great concept, but it lends itself to scammers way too easily. The effect the AE will have on an every day adopter is null. I could be wrong, but I believe our resources should be focussed in other areas. The fact that buyers have no recourse nullifies any potential benefit, but that is my opinion and I could be wrong. Qora should solely focus on:- Re-establishing our node count
- Multiple clients to choose from - must be OS for this ( I suggested we have a client that supports themes, kind of like personalized checks)
- Attract developers from other coins - trust me, good talent pool is low right now with the influx of all these new alts - must be OS for this.
- Whitepaper release
- Full or Partial Code release, put the skeptics to rest
- Javascript Buy Now Button ( Can also be used for tipping, reputation votes etc..)
- Mobile Applications
If source won't be released, I would put focus on the whitepaper release. The proof of stake algorithm is perhaps the most important part of the coin, as ultimately it defines how secure the network can be, and yet we know almost nothing about how it works technically. The Nxt algorithm, at least it its present incomplete form, has been studied in detail, and this gives investors some confidence in what they are buying. If Qora doesn't have time to write a whitepaper, then we could schedule a Q&A session where we get technical details on the implementation, and describe it ourselves. If timing was right I'd be happy to join that - anyone else in? Regarding multiple clients: does it really need to be OS for this? It can be run in server-only mode (no GUI), and it has an API which should support everything an external client needs. If it turns out that clients need this API extended to work fully or efficiently then I'm sure Qora would be able to support that. |
|
|
|
People selling at 50% loss right now on Poloniex. Applause for them.
 IPO price was 2750 Closer to 2600? (Your point still stands, though) |
|
|
|
New York will stay on EDT until Sunday, November 2, 2014 at 2:00 AM
when clocks are moved to Sunday, November 2, 2014 at 01:00:00EST
Well, I don't know why so many people don't understand this. The website says "The crowdsale ends at 11:59 EST". It doesn't say it ends at 11:59 EDT, nor does it say it ends at midnight "New York Time". Hardly relevant now (except to the two transactions that were submitted in the last 60 minutes). But still, you guys should read up on timezones sometime... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
