This is a good point and I would need to look into the code now to confirm or deny this. Good possible that you will only see a fraction of the wallet balance after importing the priv keys.

Its the private key, so every coin which is currently on the controller will be in your possession. I would not send a coin there, probably not even XPY, cause they are $20 each you know ....

I should clarify: Although this is super hilarious, I am against causing real damage here, because it will again be the fools still following it who will suffer in the end. Burning some XPY from the big controllers would teach them a reasonable lesson. But I will surely not sync such a blockchain for this.

This is really funny. You don't need to own any paycoin, just import the private key in the wallet. This private key is a number you saw on the internet, and a number cannot be patented. You can write them into the coinbase string of a block in some shitcoin and many people will have a copy of it stored.

Don't let them intimidate you, if I write my gmail password in my github repo then its my fault if people look into my emails. That's not different here.

So if I want to trade on the exchange, I first need to buy BKC which I then can *consume* in my trades, correct?

Now the other side: Someone applies for a custodianship on the exchange. BKS shareholder approve the proposal and grant the custodian 1000 BKC. The custodian now sells those BKC (in a centralized way?) externally to the exchange and passes the revenues back to the shareholders in form of BTC. Correct?

Is there an incentive to act as a signer? Will they get compensated (through a part of the tx fee in BKC) for their availability and reputation?

Very interesting input from both sides (except Shuai, who didn't provide anything good to this thread except creating it). I think if both systems survived the last BTC crash then this is already a good sign that both teams are on the right track. In my very personal opinion, a working dynamic liquidation processor sounds like a more elegant solution than having locked/dead money. Elegance of course doesn't justify vulnerabilities ...

The particular tier levels of liquidity in NuBits in fact seem to show some effect - however, as nice as it is that tier 5/6 were never required, it also means that there is no large scale field test of those levels as of yet.

OK in the beginning I thought this here is an interesting subject, but now I understand that its yet another thread where one community member of a coin bashes on the community of another coin. Really sad, because the general topic is really worth debating. So thanks for not having a good discussion here, I'll consider other sources to get my info.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I read into both whitepapers it seems to me that both NuBits and BitUSD won't be able to keep up the pegging if and only if NuShares or BitShares respectively crash to zero value. I don't see how the BTS market rules are able to counteract this effect.

Shareholders of a dual currency with reserve have no incentive to actually use the reserve for its purpose. Since there is also no law that forces them to do it anyway, the reserve model is not applicable as long as the shareholders act as rational agents.

The backing has to be done within the system, and right now I don't see any project (neither NuBits nor BitUSD) which does this in a completely convincing manner. Although at least at NuBits those things are heavily discussed.

In total I agree with Omnivion, that it will be extremely interesting to see how these things turn out. However, I personally would like to see a dual currency succeeding, because they in fact fulfill a need.

Then its how maarx calculated it. Since BlackCoin has the same block size as Bitcoin, but produces 10 times as many blocks, you get a tps of around 70.


And please define the "worsed case confirmation time" in more detail.

Depends how "transaction load" is defined. 70 tps is the maximum number that is possible. I thought he meant the current average transaction load, which was around 300 per hour when I looked it up so 0.08 tps would be correct in this case.

Some clarifications on these categories would be helpful.

Some corrections.

Consensus Mechanism	Pure PoS (PoW was only in distribution phase)
Worst Case for Confirmation Time	Infinity <-- thats right but can you please elaborate on this category? Its infinity for every blockchain in my definition.
Network Security Costs	1% of expected market cap over a one year time period <-- this is a theoretical maximum, since inflation is 1% of staking coins
Mobile Wallet	Yes. Full node: https://github.com/janko33bd/bitcoinj/tree/blackcoinj Lightweight: http://coinomi.com/
Pruning	No active development on that in BlackCoin afaik, however, Gavin Andresen often speaks about it in his blog so it might be implemented in the Bitcoin core and eventually be merged into BlackCoin (in contrast to NXT, BLK is forked from the bitcoin core).
Voting System	In development, its the same technology as messaging and will be part of blackshares.
Alias System	Considered (not really planned)

Sure.

Recommended Confirmation Time:
64 sec block time * 10 recommended confirmations = 640 seconds

Worst Case for Confirmation Time
Obviously infinity, as with every other coin, if no blocks are produced. Average time for first confirmation is 0.7298 minutes. [1]

Transaction Load
In average 301 per hour. [1]

Anonymous Transactions
Won't happen on protocol level.

Transaction Fee Costs
0.001 BLK per kB.

Network Security Costs
1% of expected market cap over a one year time period.

Share Supply
You probably mean coin supply: 74748558.43040356

Share Divisibility (precision)
Divisibility: 10^-8



Profit Sharing
Yes [2]

Order Matching
In Development [4]

User Registered Accounts / Messaging
Same technology (you should also mention voting, since you list everything your NXT client can do). In Development [2].

Cross-Chain Trading Support
In Development [3/4]


[1] https://bitinfocharts.com/blackcoin/
[2] https://github.com/doetsch/blackshares
[3] http://blackhalo.info/
[4] http://nighttrader.org/


Side note: I am respecting the NXT community very much, but I have the feeling the intention of your questionnaire wasn't a very noble one. But I can be wrong and also you don't speak for the whole community I suppose.

Gritt tweeted the BitcoinWisdom guy. Since its weekend, it may take some days until the API keys are updated.

This is not a hard fork, it is just a rebranding of the name. Really nothing changed for you as a user, just that you have to look up another three letter code when searching for blackcoin on an exchange.

Well the additional RAM won't bring any advantage. The dual core of the banana will probably make it more responsible even on heavy load and also compiling the source will be faster. If I would today decide to buy such a device for general purpose I'd probably have an eye on the banana.

However, if you really only want to use the device for staking one could argue that with the banana you're actually buying to much power for the task.

EDIT: yeah basically what Subtuppel wrote while I was still typing

Yes, its easy and just behaves just as any other linux. Compiling the source takes several hours and I would also recommend to copy the blockchain data from somewhere else, but once synced the pi is staking smoothly.

I know its silly to say something like this on the internet but you all should ashamed! Nobody can tell if the price of an asset goes up or down. Vertcoin crashed even harder and regardless they still kept developing and made some impressive things.

Speaking of rat4 as some hedge fond manager who is responsible for the market situation of the currency he created is just absurd. And just as in VTC he will always continue to work on this project and will create many useful features, regardless of the price valuation.

As long as you see BlackCoin, and some other altcoins, only as speculative asset you will not only most likely lose money but also miss the most interesting part of their evolution.

This is open source. Rat4 is a programmer who contributes to the source code. If you use the software, you either have to read the code or trust some others that the code does everything as intended. Rat4 has neither a team, nor any responsibilities for any outcome of the project, because you are not paying him within a contract to fulfill certain milestones. That is the crucial difference between Bill Gates / MS Windows and rat4 / blackcoin.

I understand that you are frustrated, but by simply buying a coin you cannot demand anything, since rat4 didn't see a single satoshi of your BTC investment. Since "logic is your first language", maybe next time you could make some contribution to the community and the overall project, which would put you in a much better position when criticizing the results. Or, you can go ahead and hire a developer full time, then you can make someone responsible if you don't like what you see.

Make sure that your system time is set correctly and that you have the newest version of the wallet software. At the current network weight you probably won't generate a block very soon wit 1200 BC.

Same problem on Linux. I posted an issue on the Github and Bushido answered that for now we should start our wallets with -reindex so it resyncs everytime. This works, and is endurable right now considering the size of the blockchain.