 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
withdraws working fine
yeah looks like it,... NOT This doesn't sound overly hard to diagnose. Try different web browsers. Try withdrawing through a proxy or another computer Try creating another account through a proxy and mining a small amount Try giving me your account so I can withdraw (read: steal) your coins Personally, withdrawals have worked fine for me, but I don't deny you have an issue. Hopefully you people get some dev contact through this thread.. |
|
|
|
|
"minergate crashed with SIGILL in blake256_compress()". Something to do with the libmonerominerplugin.so.
Running it from the terminal gives "Segmentation Fault (core dumped)"
The crash happens as soon as any of the coins (don't know about LiteCoin) start mining on any number of cores.
This is on a fresh install of Ubuntu 13.10, with an AMD Phenom II X4 910e. This also happens on Ubuntu 14 when bypassing the dependency issues this has. Running the simpleminer and bytecoin works fine. I have the crash report files if anyone wants it.
|
|
|
|
(I actually believe the true history to be far shorter but I can't prove it.)
You cant come here and ask for all this proof and have non yourself. If this is the case just stop and put it to rest. Go back to the Monero thread and leave this be. Let's say I made a coin along with a bunch of developers, developed it in secret for 2 years all the while mining it for testing purposes, then released it to the public. Are you going to trust my coin too? I guess you will, won't you! You can't prove I premined it, after all! Guess what, normal people can NEVER prove premines, they can only give evidence for one. They can, however, prove within all reasonable doubt that something WASN'T premined. If you think someone needs to prove it, you're wrong, that's not the point. It's not hysterics, it's logic. Get real. Great news, everyone!
LTC and BTC mining was added to Minergate pool
Stay informed.
FANTASTIC! Now we can mine BTC and LTC with 10% fees! |
|
|
|
forget it. don't wanna waste my time trying to explain evident things.
Yeah, your time is super valuable dude, don't waste it! |
|
|
|
http:///1fNkLVs
knows about TOR search engine and nothing about google, huh?
Reread your post. I think you meant to quote a previous post of mine, so you ended up provided no context for your "takes one to know one", and you're still not providing context rofl Here's a link I got from google as well http://www.conservapedia.com/Ad_hominem |
|
|
|
Now, what again tells you that this isn't a pump-dump?
By the way, no, making a coin easily pump-and-dumpable does not make it profitable. It makes people catch on and ruin its chance to hit a marketplace.
Nothing, only assumptions. But i just can`t believe that someone 1. made such a tech for pump-dump 2. wait for 2 years for pump-dump. illogically Any way its open, and anyone is granted to use it and clone it to make something on their own taste. recent posts said the devs made a coin just to pump-and-dump it. Mining your own technology is the perfect way to test your code and ensure stability. Not destroying this data is the perfect way to both release your technology, and potentially make a lot of money - all the while maintaining your reputation by not addressing it. Yeah, it's open, and clones have been made for the purpose of fairness, but I'd just like to say that that doesn't dismiss the opposition. it takes one to know one. It takes what to know what, slo?
Now, what again tells you that this isn't a pump-dump?
By the way, no, making a coin easily pump-and-dumpable does not make it profitable. It makes people catch on and ruin its chance to hit a marketplace.
Nothing, only assumptions. But i just can`t believe that someone 1. made such a tech for pump-dump 2. wait for 2 years for pump-dump. illogically Any way its open, and anyone is granted to use it and clone it to make something on their own taste. recent posts said the devs made a coin just to pump-and-dump it. Mining your own technology is the perfect way to test your code and ensure stability. Not destroying this data is the perfect way to both release your technology, and potentially make a lot of money - all the while maintaining your reputation by not addressing it. Yeah, it's open, and clones have been made for the purpose of fairness, but I'd just like to say that that doesn't dismiss the opposition. it takes one to know one. It takes what to know what, slo? You were the one complaining about killjoys, did have a joyous point to make? |
|
|
|
Now, what again tells you that this isn't a pump-dump?
By the way, no, making a coin easily pump-and-dumpable does not make it profitable. It makes people catch on and ruin its chance to hit a marketplace.
Nothing, only assumptions. But i just can`t believe that someone 1. made such a tech for pump-dump 2. wait for 2 years for pump-dump. illogically Any way its open, and anyone is granted to use it and clone it to make something on their own taste. recent posts said the devs made a coin just to pump-and-dump it. Mining your own technology is the perfect way to test your code and ensure stability. Not destroying this data is the perfect way to both release your technology, and potentially make a lot of money - all the while maintaining your reputation by not addressing it. Yeah, it's open, and clones have been made for the purpose of fairness, but I'd just like to say that that doesn't dismiss the opposition. |
|
|
|
Another thing why i don`t think its pump-dump, its amount of coins. Much better for devs in case of pump-dumping was to make coin with a least /1000 number of coins. To make more value of single coin, to dump, pump it faster.
Smooth - what kind of cluster do you use to mine Bytecoin?
The number of coins is relevant only to the rate at which they are mined. Bytecoin was mined quickly within 2 years. Now, what again tells you that this isn't a pump-dump? By the way, no, making a coin easily pump-and-dumpable does not make it profitable. It makes people catch on and ruin its chance to hit a marketplace. |
|
|
|
Maybe, there are some indirect proves that
1.Betacoin was used by a NOT little group of users
2.Betacoin had its value since blockchain start for that people
1- Look at that chart, if that was not a botnet the whole time, difficulty means that all the time it was mined by 3000-4000 of good PC/Servers with at least i5-i7 to latest xens. because wiki.bytecoin got lots of cpu comparison. Personally, i think that it was real pc/servers, and miners. just because value of that technology (cryptonote) farther more botnet sandboxes.
2- so if that devs/users group used 4000 high class pc/servers for mining with absolutely minimum price of dedicated leasing in 70$ per unit. in that case the average per month cost of mining bytecoin hardware was around 280K $. > 2mln $ per year, man it`s crazy to call that coin premined in case of that kind of machines mined it and that kind of investment.
Diff chart can say us lot about network history.
Besides your chart, which Smooth's reply already indicates that your stats are completely inaccurate... Can you find any other indirect evidence of Bytecoin having a large userbase or any value or use at all besides hope for the future? I can do indirect evidence too. Torch Search Engine (deepweb TOR search)http://xmh57jrzrnw6insl.onion/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=Bytecoin&cmd=Search! Bytecoin: 0 results. http://xmh57jrzrnw6insl.onion/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=Bitcoin&cmd=Search! Bitcoin: 50,996 results. Search-Onion (clearweb TOR search)http://www.search-onion.com/search.php?q=bitcoin&page=458&lang=enBitcoin: 4,122 results. http://www.search-onion.com/search.php?q=bytecoin&btnG=SearchBytecoin: 0 results. http://www.search-onion.com/search.php?q=BCN&btnG=SearchBCN: 0 related results. If it's not indexed by search engines, the user base is too small or it wasn't called "Bytecoin". You might say, "But, TOR isn't the only deepweb!" but that would be grasping straws, TOR is the most commonly used deepweb, and other options such as I2P (slow as hell), from what I have heard barely have enough people to sustain a dead DRUG marketplace, the most popular type of black market. I made a semi-secret group one time. At about 30 users, an idiot posted it all over public websites pretending to be a troll. If you manage a secret group without idiots, is that any better? Hardly, what you get is a closely knit group with majority control. You know what would solve everything? A bytecoin dev addressing the misunderstanding, perhaps showing one valid use Bytecoin ever had, like as a donation button on a 2013 website. This would be doable if it was indeed called "Bytecoin" during its period of ninja-mine. However, you won't even see them claim it was popular, because if they did, people would take it as a challenge and prove the contrary. Man, could you please mine mro not posting your opinion? Its very anoying. You don't look like a clever guy, but like a parrot, repeating same things hundreds times
matej krkic's first post: Bytecoin related "matej krkic"'s online footprint according to Google: None, just Bytecoin and Facebook (because it's a real name). A rare occurrence. For all you potential shills out there, use popular nicknames like mine! oh, and Matej, don't worry, I'm not implying anything about you, just throwing some advice out there for my shill friends. |
|
|
|
Smooth makes solid points, but as I already argued upthread, nobody is willing to actually navigate the illegal/evil marketplaces on the deep web to check for BCN's presence.
If BCN is in fact used for black trade (snuff films, illegal pornography, etc.), how much of that do you think would actually surface to the clear web? I'm guessing none.
Bytecoin is the result of careful production and has too much utility to simply be a premine scam. My personal opinion is that BCN is definitely used for something, but nobody will come out and say exactly what that is without taking great risk.
People, stop theorizing about what you're not willing to investigate. Being a fraction of the "nobody" who investigated, I'm telling you that there's no super secret large group of people exchanging BCN. Maybe a small group of people, but what use does BCN have for a small group of people? They would be circlejerk tokens. How much of BCN trade would surface on the clear web? A hell of a lot of it. Go hop on TOR yourself, the deep web is not a secret, and if it was, there would be no userbase. The only secret is the identities of deepweb users. I can imagine it now, illegal website telling people to buy shit with a completely unheard of "currency" instead popular ol' Bitcoin. It wouldn't work out. How would you exchange your money for it? Send money from credit or bank to a potential law enforcement officer? Trade for bitcoin, then for BCN? (DEFEATS the purpose). Why would anyone use this GUI-less program that takes days to load? You can pretend deepweb users have all sorts of personality traits, like intelligence, but nah, they're stupid like the rest of us on Bitcoin Forums. BCN being of great utility is completely separate from whether or not it had a big userbase mining it. Personally, if I created bytecoin, I would be mining it along with my whole dev team to ensure network stability and to perform tests. I do agree that BCN wasnt made for the purpose of a "premine scam", but it doesn't have to be made for that to potentially be one. arrrrrr smooth
you are such a killjoy. we all here know your point of view and almost learned it by heart. just because you have repeated it 1000000 times everywhere. for god's sake, stop it! it so irritating.
nobody force you to mine and trade BCN. if you don't like the original coin so go and play with the copy that you have made for your own pleasure - BMR, BMO or whatever else it's called
please, leave all your theories for yourself 'cause nobody is interested any more
You know what's irritating? Delusional joy-joys |
|
|
|
who ever holds more bytecoin maybe relevant or irrelevant. Depends on the nature of the substrate I would think.
We have no idea what the substrate is, if there even is one. With regard to the bytecoin development community, so far I've seen one fix from monero get pulled back to bytecoin, and little if anything going in the other direction. If there are stores, exchanges, etc. for bytecoin, then let's hear about that. Failing that, there is no substrate. It is all a mirage. But like you I am mining both and taking a wait and see attitude. I think monero has just a whole lot more legitimacy and transparency at this point, and that counts for a lot. Just the fake cicada 3301 references are enough to convince me there is an element of scam to bytecoin, but those could possibly done by someone with no real connection, so we can't be sure. It smells bad though. If bytecoin is a scam, then it's a damn elaborate (and frankly, elegant) one. More likely BCN is a very distributed network that "smells bad" not because of suspicious "premine" activity, but because of the nature of its usage. The developers know that an anonymous currency such as BCN must first succeed in the markets where it is necessary. That is why they are so secretive. They do not want to be linked to the abhorrently evil shit that BCN is used for on the deep web (and you know exactly what I'm taking about). It sounds like you're talking about the "deep web" while not knowing how it works. BCN has not been used on the deep web in any such elaborate way. The only thing secret about the deep web is the identity of its users. You give two choices, asking which is most likely: 1. Write an entirely new cryptocurrency from scratch, incorporating an unknown (at the time) but rather brilliant cryptographic technology to secure privacy, all for the purpose of pre-mining the coin for 2 years.
2. Knowing that your product will fill a much needed demand in a very questionable market and choosing to remain anonymous and not promote it until the network is very secure. The most likely choice is #3: It has been mined for 2 years for testing and development purposes. BCN was certainly near-worthless during this time. While this may not be a "scam" on purpose, it might as well be one from our perspective. If something is able to remain hidden from the inevitable indexing by deep-web and clear-web search engines, the distribution of the currency's probably suboptimal. |
|
|
|
For about 20 transactions. I dont know is it much or not.
BTW
Comkort's news:
"
New coins will be added in next 24 hours.
The list of coins:
BCN Bytecoin
RAP Rap-eCoin
ULT UltimateCoin
PCC Polishcoin
ENC EntropyCoin
EUC Eurocoin
"
Congratulations!
I would guess they'll end up adding ByteCoin (BTE) Adding ByteCoin (BCN) requires more work than most other coins, it's a different protocol. |
|
|
|
Ubuntu binaries don't work on Debian or Ubuntu64, it crashes shortly after launch. No source to look at either QDBusConnection: system D-Bus connection created before QCoreApplication. Application may misbehave.
QCoreApplication::applicationDirPath: Please instantiate the QApplication object first
Shared memory error: QSharedMemory::create: already exists
Loading file... libbytecoinminerplugin.so
Loading plugin: libbytecoinminerplugin.so
Illegal instruction (core dumped)
Before I installed the latest version of boost (your required version was a pain) it crashed with a nice error message and stack trace, but I didn't save it, nor do I have the source to take a look. And, 10% fees.. |
|
|
|
No, it wasn't a new concept, but it practically was. Tenebrix came afterwards. Solidcoin was a scam and I0Coin, Ixcoin and Litecoin all came out within a month of each other. No Tenebrix launch: September 26, 2011, 12:09:44 AM Litecoin launch: Thursday Oct 13 2011, 03:00 GMT I was mining them both from right after the genesis block.  Well, it doesn't appear to be 2009 from this https://litecoin.info/History_of_cryptocurrencyBut you win. |
|
|
|
Oh, so you are kidding, kidding about overlooking the GUI, ease-of-use, rate of block-chain synchronization, Linux binaries, and so on. Funny man.
No, LiteCoin wasn't a winner because of "minor changes", it was a winner because of scrypt, a relatively major change compared to Bitmonoronorono, along with the fact that "altcoin" was a practically a new concept. And, don't forget booming popularity causing an influx of new users wanting a piece of the cake on an already proven, mostly stable platform. Unlike Bytecoin, Bitcoin is actually big and can take a hit.
It's as simple as installing Ubuntu 13.10, extracting a zip to a folder, and typing "make" into a terminal. It's literally that easy. Then you run the daemon and the wallet and type "start_mining". How could it be any easier? There's instructions for Windows too: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=544715Litecoin was a simple fork of Tenebrix with 4x Bitcoin parameters. Tenebrix introduced scrypt. Coblee made Litecoin in three hours (I would know, I talked to him at the conference last week). When Litecoin came out, alt coins were not a new concept -- there were plenty of scam/useless coins (SolidCoin, Tenebrix, Ixcoin, I0coin) then too. About the binaries, you forgot "install dev packages", but yes it's easy. Is it Necessary? Nah. My issue regarding this is that the release isn't very polished. As for altcoins, no, it wasn't a "new" concept, but it practically was. Tenebrix came afterwards. Solidcoin was a scam and I0Coin, Ixcoin and Litecoin all came out within a month of each other. Scrypt and litecoin was indeed simple, but it was still major in comparison to this, it stood well resisting ASICs, and for a while, GPUs. I'd just like to see things mature a bit first, the BCN blockchain's already 2 years old, it can wait another few months. To each his own, though. |
|
|
|
Are you kidding?
No. Why do you think LiteCoin won out against all the other alts? Minor changes to the Bitcoin protocol, which works. ByteCoin created their own protocol and assumably knows what they were doing, what within it have you decided needs messing with? Oh, so you are kidding, kidding about overlooking the GUI, ease-of-use, rate of block-chain synchronization, Linux binaries, and so on. Funny man. No, LiteCoin wasn't a winner because of "minor changes", it was a winner because of scrypt, a relatively major change compared to Bitmonoronorono, along with the fact that "altcoin" was a practically a new concept. And, don't forget booming popularity causing an influx of new users wanting a piece of the cake on an already proven, mostly stable platform. Unlike Bytecoin, Bitcoin is actually big and can take a hit. |
|
|
|
I forgot about Bitmonero, added it to the FAQ. Thanks!
Please dont support this coin. It is a rushed fork that will hinder Cryptonote. It could have made severe improvements but I will stand by my thought of this being something to turn a quick buck. People will outlash and disagree because they get to participate in its release and are harboring the same ideal. Despite mining, I agree. I'd like to see the ByteCoin developers make a fork that hasn't been kept secret, them being a team that has shown worthy of creating and maintaining a coin. I forgot about Bitmonero, added it to the FAQ. Thanks!
Please dont support this coin. It is a rushed fork that will hinder Cryptonote. It could have made severe improvements but I will stand by my thought of this being something to turn a quick buck. People will outlash and disagree because they get to participate in its release and are harboring the same ideal. what would your severe improvements have been? Are you kidding? |
|
|
|
guns where invented to shoot people who support coins like this
Cry about it |
|
|
|
|
It has had many bumps but on average it has only steadily risen. This rise then fall has happened time and time again. From a simplistic point of view it will reach that point again, but in reality practically nobody really knows.
|
|
|
|
|
