 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
The police officers from the article already confirmed that the quoted conversation happened as specified.
“I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it. It’s been turned over to other people. They are in charge of it now. I no longer have any connection.”
If that was truly said, hard to wiggle out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
The truth will out regardless of our wishes. His exact location will come out. Wishing otherwise and what we do here will make no difference.
|
|
|
|
Something came into my mind, about Dorian Satoshi ...
when the reporter first contacted him by e-mail that she got from the company he was purchasing parts from, she first showed interest about his model trains and she pointed out that he was responding to her e-mails normally, so she had some interaction with him, until she brought up Bitcoin, she stated that only then he stopped replying to her mails.
Yeh, that occured to me as well. I do think it is him although he may or may not have had help with making the original paper so professorial. He could have written it slowly and carefully after studying similar papers - what I would have done. Or, Nick Szabo or someone else could have still been involved. I say this as someone who has strongly suspected one of two others as being Satoshi. |
|
|
|
I added 2.4MH/s to your pool. I hope it helps a little.  19JkysEHKhx5iV2eXZCX28UpYaUQg8wYXZ |
|
|
|
|
Guys, you need to make block generation longer and difficulty higher. These parameters are going to be a clusterf*ck.
|
|
|
|
Here's what I think happens with these popular, highly anticipated coins with lots of Mhash at multiple pools.
Each of the large pools start mining based off of the current block chain. Because the difficulty is so low, block generations are occurring nearly instantly. Meanwhile, the network, users and pools are ddosing each other trying to get connections and updates. Competing block chains don't have enough time to propagate globally before N more blocks are found locally in a pool. So, each local pool has a block chain that could potentially stay longer than the updates that it is seeing from elsewhere. Other smaller pools and users are getting updates from these competing pools and either sticking with the closest/longest or switching back and forth.
As the difficulty goes up and speed of block generation finally goes down, you eventually get a more globally consistent block chain. However, potentially the vast majority of users find that they didn't get on the longest eventual chain and suddenly their coins disappear.
I would say that the solution probably lies in either much better pool communication (even under ddos type conditions) and/or raising the starting difficulty and slowing block generation to a liveable level quickly. If you don't have a globally consistent block chain then these coin launches are going to keep looking bad and anger a lot of participants.
Would love to hear other's thoughts.
I think you're right I would agree, but we were finding absolutely no blocks in that time. The pool did find stale shares which were reported on the frontend, and in between the 1000% rounds there were brief 2-3 blocks around 30-300% So, the front end was updating like it should, matching with the shares I was submitting and the shares of the pool. No blocks though... I wonder if some of the smaller pools were constantly playing catchup with new blocks found by larger pools and by the time their participants completed all work on a block, that block was already stale. It would be like a constant live-lock. Again, another degenerate symptom of too fast block generation and insufficient blockchain syncing time. |
|
|
|
|
Here's what I think happens with these popular, highly anticipated coins with lots of Mhash at multiple pools.
Each of the large pools start mining based off of the current block chain. Because the difficulty is so low, block generations are occurring nearly instantly. Meanwhile, the network, users and pools are ddosing each other trying to get connections and updates. Competing block chains don't have enough time to propagate globally before N more blocks are found locally in a pool. So, each local pool has a block chain that could potentially stay longer than the updates that it is seeing from elsewhere. Other smaller pools and users are getting updates from these competing pools and either sticking with the closest/longest or switching back and forth.
As the difficulty goes up and speed of block generation finally goes down, you eventually get a more globally consistent block chain. However, potentially the vast majority of users find that they didn't get on the longest eventual chain and suddenly their coins disappear.
I would say that the solution probably lies in either much better pool communication (even under ddos type conditions) and/or raising the starting difficulty and slowing block generation to a liveable level quickly. If you don't have a globally consistent block chain then these coin launches are going to keep looking bad and anger a lot of participants.
Would love to hear other's thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
Great looking coin! I'm going to put two machines on this. Nice solid release.
9mxHnAso3JZBPPs9w2CSxsiV6H1tGrMd9b
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like a smart approach to some initial distribution. Perhaps something like this will become the way of the future - although, I'm sure massive abuse will be attempted with emails/ips/capchas.
|
|
|
|
|
Quantum computer for Scrypt mining? No?
|
|
|
|
|
Is it not listed in the block itself?
|
|
|
|
|
Mine new ones in a mining pool. As mentioned, they won't stay fresh for long.
Old ones, you might try to pm the original people on the release thread or developers. Maybe they would throw you a (DOGE) bone or shoot you to the MOON.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds very Waterfall. Not lean or agile. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
