 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
Anarchists support Monero.
This one definitely does.  Many people are using it not only anarchists. I hope many people around the world will be using it everyday |
|
|
|
|
I'm downloading. Thank you all. It looks like a lot of time saved using them for more than a pc.
|
|
|
|
By far from what I have seen. Digibyte support from both the Dev's and the community is beyond great. Now we just need stable and reliable pools. I just went through my old list and none of the pools bookmarked are running. Not just for DGB, but many other coins as well.
fortunately we still have amazing support from devs. Hope it will last and our community grow bigger and spread. |
|
|
|
Dear James,
Will Supernetwork IPO be after Teleport release?
KL
yes IPO will last 2 to 4 weeks and Poloniex will deal with all the details I am recruiting people to filter all the applicants I just had some time available as I was waiting for the release from BTCDdev, so I figured I should do something productive James I am amazed, just speechless. I will for sure move some of my BTCD assets to the supernetwork IPO. As you know, I am an XC supporter as well (basically from day 1) I mentioned the supernetwork in their thread, if we would get XC on board that would be awesome. great news glad to hear it |
|
|
|
Delisted from bittrex? Please inform me when you get back, taking off WTM for now as well.
shame, bittrex was an important exchange. are planned some new places or exchanges ? |
|
|
|
Great work again from the best promoter in crypto. I just posted the link I reddit. More good development from Aerocoin...continuing it's perfect streak. great work thank you all |
|
|
|
If MCC gets on Bittrex it would do us a lot of good
+2 we need to make a list of what this coin needs. 1) more exchanges 2) a official site 3) a official pool with 0% fee finally a coin which we all need. |
|
|
|
to the person that said i have just moved on to next coin. round of applause for you. i have myself invested heavily. i paidfor android wallet. i bought the coins off the market so you all could be sure huge amount of coins will not be dumped on exchanges anymore. i have been around here no matter what happened.
now i am so busy with my own life and job that i cant find much time to do things. but no one cares really. go few pages behind and everyone said it price or support doesnt matter. now when youre losing some money. you're concerned that what are we doing to thrive the coin.
but the question is what are you doing? bought the coins? great for you. i could make a killing by pumps and dumps in energycoin. i have a broad view because i know what amount of coins is where. i must be the stupidest person to bring the coins off the market and donate money for development.
thank you for nothin.
hopefully it will roll out like M-pesa but M-pesa in kenya has no competitors but new coins arise everyday... http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/05/economist-explains-18 |
|
|
|
The short answer is that it is unlikely unless it becomes extremely popular and btc transaction volumes increase a lot (and monero usage does not also increase). Coinjoin-style mixers can only work when the transactions are occurring at the same time. It is possible to premix coins the way DRK does as a way to coordinate these but even in that case the anonymity set consists only of those coins being premixed at the same time. Ring signatures don't require the transactions to happen at the same time so the set of viable mixing candidates is much larger. There are other privacy issues with bitcoin such as widespread address reuse. They are all likely fixable one way or another but frankly look at the pace and direction of bitcoin development and ask yourself how likely that is. Lets hope more people will want to make these kind of tranactions and it will be implemented and done and bitcoin transactions can be finally made as private as Monero |
|
|
|
Lots of frustration here I have bought some naut and I'm not even a bit frustrated. This coin is for the longterm, longterm, longterm. If you don't have the patience then just sell your coins. I fully understand that BK doesn't have the time to hold our hands. but unfortunately long term in altcoin vocabulary means 1 month or something... I wish it would appreciate in value but with so many new altcoins every new day it is hard to believe that NAUT will ever get back to the price where I bought it months ago.... It is sad but with current state of things we cannot hope in anything better. I hope that the money which I lost somebody else uses for good and not bad things |
|
|
|
great news. thank you for information |
|
|
|
|
Leprocoin, they're very valuable and precious.
Should buy as long as there are. The price will go up.
|
|
|
|
Monero has today passed DarkCoin in Price/Coin for the first time.
So it has. The only reason it hasn't surpassed DRK in market cap is the slightly lower coin supply. I think people in Argentina prefer to buy XMR before bitcoin or darkcoin |
|
|
|
|
I pay in bitcoin all the time, but that's because I am a trader, and spending in bitcoin is the principle way that I cash out my gains. If I weren't a trader, would I buy BTC to spend? No. But I might buy BTC to invest and spend down the road, if I were that type of investor.
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody is promising you anything, you buy bitcoins to use them. A ponzi scheme is based on giving a percentage each month based in your investment.
Bitcoin is based on supply and demand.
You could argue that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, but it does not promise anything to anyone. The only thing Bitcoin promises is an open source public ledger for transfer of value. If that were to fail then obviously Bitcoin would be worthless.
|
|
|
|
|
Offline storage, and a secure paper wallet.
|
|
|
|
*SNIP* - Yeah, sorry for walls of text.
Am I missing something here? Where is such an "announcement" stored? A masternode can only sign its ping with its provided private key, which has no relation to a DRK address holding 1k except via signed message by the actual address giving authority for said masternode key to act on its behalf. Yes, and such a message could be put into the blockchain and act as the 'initialization' transaction for a MN. This ties the 1000 DRK to the public address of the MN. From that point on, the 1000 DRK will be watched, and if it moves then the MN will have to be re-initialized before it is capable of being paid again. Frankly I'm kind of surprised/shocked that such a thing is not already being done. (Although I have been keeping up with DRK for a long time, I have never really looked into implementation details of MNs....) No wonder RC3 had so many damn forking problems! Valid MNs need to show up in the blockchain somehow, otherwise how will you ever have consensus what's a valid MN? Perhaps the solution is to have additional space in the blockchain for storing these messages (this is what you were thinking all along, isn't it (you're a genius!))? They'd exist for all eternity unless pruned at some point in the future (though that would need some workaround to keep the blocks paying them in the past valid when the evidence of their being a masternode is removed), but I'm not sure that matters... You would actually be able to make a "list" of sorts then based on the messages in the blockchain, but it wouldn't vary at all from node to node! Now you get it.  Assume the same address could initiate a stop command in a future block to not have his old MN clutter up the payments by never responding. However, I don't see any incentive for people to do this, so there needs to be some mechanism where the block finder can insert the stop message on behalf of the masternode. You might think the lingering nodes wouldn't be an issue, but something absolutely has to be able to issue a "stop" command in case the 1,000 DRK move. Unless you could possibly modify the protocol to have nodes reject any tx formed out of the 1,000 DRK input without a "masternode stop" command included in a prior block? If you allow for removal after X number of missed pings, you have the (tiny) vector of the block finder being able to remove a masternode if he found the right blocks, but I don't know of any incentive to do this. Well, no, I think you're over-complicating things here. There are really kind of 2 lists: one for "valid" MNs and the other for "active" MNs. By creating an initialization transaction and putting it into the blockchain, a MN declares itself as "valid". It remains "valid" for as long as the 1000 DRK does not move. This means that it is *capable* of being nominated and receiving payment, *if* it proves itself to be "active". Upon nomination by block n, it has to ping back in or before block n+2. This proves it as being "active" and eligible for receiving payment in block n+3. A MN maintains its "active" status as long as it keeps responding to all nominations with pings in a timely manner. If a MN does not respond in time to a nomination, it will be marked un-"active" until the next time that it responds to a nomination. That "activating" ping will bring it back to the "active" list, but it will not be eligible for payment in that block because it was non-"active" for the previous nomination. And again, all of this information will be 100% determinable in the blockchain. Now we're just stuck with n block finder (that happens to have his node in the list of candidates) pretending he didn't get pings from some or all of the other candidates. Perhaps this vector is small enough to just discard. That's the point of having the nomination take place by the hash of block n, and valid+active MNs have to get their "ping" transactions inserted into either block n+1 or n+2. (Maybe this should be lengthened to 3 or 4 or 5. It would require some testing and modeling.) Presumably block n+1 will not be mined by the same miner as block n+2. And then block n+3 is the one that actually makes payment to the winning MN. (Although maybe the payment should actually happen in block n+4, with the winner being determined by the hash of block n+3. So block hash n+3 declares the winner out of the pinging MNs in blocks n+1 and n+2, and n+4 must pay. This may be better than having the block hash of n+2 determining the winner, and being paid in n+3.) The winning MN must be one of the MNs who validly pinged in block n+1 or block n+2 and whose nomination matches block n. It's all right there in the blockchain, so there's no way for anybody to cheat. And the likelihood of the miner of blocks n, n+1, n+2, and n+3 all being the same person, and happening to be one of the MNs nominated by the hash of n, is so small as to be negligible. I mean this is basically somebody who is 51% attack capable, so we would all be screwed anyway. And as long as the MN payment remains small relative to the block reward (4 DRK to miner, 1 DRK to MN per block) there would be no incentive for a miner to withhold a block in order to wait until he found one that nominated one of his own MNs. Give up 4 DRK in order to possibly earn 1 DRK? It just wouldn't make sense. I suppose the only way this can really be attacked is by a malicious miner not including any ping transactions in blocks that he mines. This would unduly penalize MNs who don't deserve it. Such an attacker would throw a monkey wrench into the system, but they could not profit from it since the MN payment must still be included in every block. You have almost described how the current system already works. The 1000DRK for each MN already live in the blockchain, and those addresses are monitored. MN votes already accumulate over multiple blocks. And MN comms are, need to be and will continue to need to be far faster than the 2.5 min average block time. thank you for the explanation but is shame that price is going constantlyy down |
|
|
|
if 1200 in one address you can do 3 transactions of 400 or 4 of 300. I want tell you, when your machine prepare one transaction so big, depend of your machine but is not immediate, you need to waiting some time. In windows seems like to halt/freeze but you need only to wait  Thank you! This finally worked. It took some time to split the transactions up but it is all good now. Thank you for your feedback! I suggest you next time send a little bit before into another your address/wallet. I calculated for compund interest at 3,5% yearly, optimal solution is do staking one time a week, more, is not necessary about financial aspect. So, after one week you have 2 change address, after 2 weeks you have 4, after... 8 , 16 ,32 64, 128, You can stop here or another one week again, and like every 2 months you can send on another your address/wallet in one unique transaction. So you don't lose staking percentual in this time and about 2 months is maybe a good time to do this job again or waiting good news thank you now it is clear |
|
|
|
she looks like  |
|
|
|
this one  awesome  funny style. i like it |
|
|
|
|
