(In case anyone reading this doesn't know, I'm a developer at ziftr.)

FreeJack2k, RoomBot, and myagui, thanks for your support! I don't check in here as often as I probably should, it's good to see that you all are fighting the good fight on this forum.

Ziftr has merged with GoCoin, and that's a very good thing. Half the time you hear about a new merchant accepting bitcoin in the news, it's GoCoin that got them on board. But merging our technology is going to take time. The hundreds of miners still mining ziftrCOIN understand that.

Looks like you posted the same question on the Bitcoin SE (http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/38978/x-y-coordination-division). Hope between Andytoshi's answer and mine, you got what you needed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ziftrCOIN/comments/3d4fjg/with_gocoin_ziftr_merging_what_to_expect_going/

ZiftrCOIN giveaway, as far as I know, will be happening through merchants after the ziftrCOIN & GoCoin technology has been integrated.

You can store anything in the data that a .bit domain name refers to, it's usually JSON with the nameserver encoded within. No reason you couldn't add another JSON field for a public key.

I've thought before that it might be useful to tie a Certificate (like X509) to a particular output in a blockchain, owned by the certificate issuer. Then if you want to revoke the certificate, you just have to spend the output. i.e. the certificate is only valid if it's corresponding output is unspent.

The bitcoin.SE is a good reference on this:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8439/why-was-21-million-picked-as-the-number-of-bitcoins-to-be-created

It's a good thing Satoshi didn't go much higher, because 21 * 10^14 is breaching on what a signed 64 bit integer can hold.

We're creating the products in this order intentionally. ZiftrPAY platform will be most useful when there are users who have ziftrCOINs ready to spend in a convenient wallet. The wallet is multi-coin and doesn't need ziftrPAY itself to function, so it makes sense to put out the wallet before ziftrPAY.


I think low volume is an indication that coin holders are waiting to use their ziftrCOINs with a ziftrPAY merchant, rather than mining coins just to sell.

Thanks! I've submitted my vote

Were you solomining with the wallet? If so, that will happen however often you mine a blocks, which depends on your hashrate compared to the network's total hashrate.

As someone mentioned earlier, the LEAT asset on counterparty seems to have something to do with this puzzle. Seems to be spelled LEAT instead of LEET because https://counterpartychain.io/asset/LEET is already taken, but possibly also because 347 (EAT in LEET) seems to be an important number to the puzzle creator.

Anyway, there are a total of 347 LEAT created (https://counterpartychain.io/address/1MArwmcosCBy18fMob8wgCbLWiqGuD2nqs). 346 of them are owned by our very own 1FLAMEN6rq2BqMnkUmsJBqCGWdwgVKcegd, and the other 1 LEAT is owned by 15fx1Gqe4KodZvyzN6VUSkEmhCssrM1yD7. Maybe we need to get them combined somehow into the full 347 LEAT to make something happen?

It's also interesting that the 1 LEAT given to 15fx1... was given in block # 343373. I doubt that's a coincidence.

I've written up a post about this on reddit, so I'll refer you to that

http://www.reddit.com/r/ziftrCOIN/comments/2xlgsz/how_does_the_ziftrcoin_mining_algorithm_work/

The TL;DR is that you can mine while proving knowledge of the transactions that you are mining to get a 5% higher reward. As wolf0 pointed out, though, no miners currently support mining with PoK on (except for the CPU QT wallet miner, which is really slow).

Nicely put, FreeJack. Ziftr has a lot more than just ziftrCOIN going on. ZiftrPAY API is where all the magic is, the coin is just something to make the whole process enticing to both merchants and consumers. Merchants get a dedicated user base who want to spend coins at their store. Consumers get discounts.

You are right, the bulk of the coins are for people who have never tried crypto before, but early adopters deserve some free coins too

Yes, I did! I think I know the issue, you need to put 'usepok=0' in your config file. Your GPUs were probably mining with work with the PoK bit set, but doing work without PoK (proof of knowledge).

If you're using ziftrpool.io you should see payouts each hour, with a minimum payout of 0.001 coins. If you're using a different pool, you'll have to check their website to see what their payout structure is.

Hi All,

I have asked what I think is an important that bitcoin faces here. Looking for some more responses, if anyone has any insight. As a bonus, the question has a 100 rep bounty that ends tomorrow.

Thanks!

@zmija, we've been keeping an eye on everything. It's early in the game, ziftrPAY isn't up yet, there will be lots of updates in the coming months.

However, I actually got on here to post an update. We've just put up some new builds that should fix the problems most people were having with the QT wallet (for mining). Try them out at http://www.ziftrpool.io/downloads.

And for anyone who hasn't seen it, https://www.ziftrpay.com/ website is up now. The mobile ziftrWALLET (which supports multiple coins, not just ziftrCOINs), will also be released soon. So, in summary, we're not stagnant, we're focused and we're letting everyone know about updates as they happen.

I did some pixel analyzation to see if the least significant bits gave any pattern, but couldn't find anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phoenix_and_the_Turtle

^ seems to be the most promising lead I've seen. It's a poem that some people think is about Queen Elizabeth I and John Salusbury, whom Queen Elizabeth knighted for helping suppress some sort of a rebellion.

A few relevant lines of the poem:

Let the bird of loudest lay,
On the sole Arabian tree,
...
Save the eagle, feather'd king:
Keep the obsequy so strict.
Let the priest in surplice white, [bishop!]
That defunctive music can,
Be the death-divining swan,
Lest the requiem lack his right.
...
Phoenix and the turtle fled
In a mutual flame from hence.
...
'Twixt the turtle and his queen;
But in them it were a wonder.
So between them love did shine,
That the turtle saw his right
Flaming in the phoenix' sight:
Either was the other's mine.
...
Whereupon it made this threne
To the phoenix and the dove,
Co-supreme and stars of love;
As chorus to their tragic scene.
...
Death is now the phoenix' nest;
And the turtle's loyal breast
To eternity doth rest,
...
To this urn let those repair
That are either true or fair;
For these dead birds sigh a prayer.


It's interesting that the phoenix and the dove are so nuzzled in the image. I'm not sure what all this means, but it seems the painting and the poem may be related.

Ah, I got em mixed up. It's still a little weird that the painting has that many themes in common with the series.

Maybe just a coincidence, but it's strange how the image has so many themes in common with the second book of the harry potter series.

The painting is a chamber of secrets. The secret is the private key we are seeking.

 - Ron, Harry, and Hermione play a game of chess.
 - They are ensnared in a vine called the "devil's snare"
 - Dumbledore's phoenix punctures the eyes of the basilisk
 - Gryffindor corresponds to the element of Fire (http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Hogwarts_Houses)

We never said or tried to imply that the coin would be traded at $1 each, in fact we have tried to be very clear that the $1 value is not guaranteed on any exchange. I think people see the $1 language and just assume they know what's coming next so don't read on.

The coin is a coupon that can be given away to newbies to let them try cryptocurrency, basically giving them a $100 coupon incentive to get some cryptocurrency and try it out (and, obviously, this is good for us too because it gets us new users to try the products we are building around cryptocurrency as well). But literally EVERY product/service we put out there is being built with support for multiple cryptocurrencies. We are integrating bitcoin, as well as Litecoin, Dogecoin, and more to follow.

See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=894605.msg9995327#msg9995327 for more details on how this $1 value can be guaranteed.

I think there is a way that we can extend the NO-OP set to beyond just 0xb0-0xb9. I'm not sure why it was kept so small anyway, when 0xba-0xf8 are not really being used. It basically involves making a one-time soft fork to change one of the currently unused NO-OPs to be OP_METAOP. OP_METAOP is similar to the proposed OP_EVAL, but simpler as it can only execute one opcode, not a whole script. If the name doesn't give it away already, I think an example will most clearly describe what it does:


OP_METAOP basically means take the byte (maybe even bytes, someday) that was just pushed onto the stack and interpret it as an OP_CODE. When an opcode is executed through the use of the OP_METAOP, however, it is executed in a new context -- a context which extends the set of NO-OPs. So, while the two scripts above would produce the same results, the two below will not:


These are not equivalent because un-upgraded nodes will refuse the first but allow the second. In the first one, the opcode 0xba executed directly is invalid, but when executed through OP_METAOP there is further context that can tell the script interpreter when it is okay to execute this OP differently. When evaluating scripts that use OP_METAOP, un-upgraded nodes just ignore it and execute the rest of the script, so it's a soft fork.

And theoretically, if we needed to extend the opcode set again, another one of the (original) unused opcodes could be changed to OP_METAMETAOP and behave in the same way as OP_METAOP but provide another differentiating context to interpret opcodes differently. However, fully backwards compatible OP_META*OP abstractions have to use one of the original 0xb0-0xb9 OP_NOPs. OP_METAOP could possibly even be used to extend the opcode set beyond the 1 byte range, I believe. Why did satoshi only give us 10 OP_NOPs anyway?

I know of these planned/proposed uses for some of the OP_NOPs. With 4/10 already being planned for use, OP_METAOP could be useful to extend the OP_NOP set.

• OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY
• OP_RELATIVECHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY
• OP_SCHNORRCHECKSIG
• OP_SCHNORRCHECKSIGVERIFY

(Sidenote: maybe this type of setup could be used to version the opcodes. So, define OP_V1EXEC to be execute the top byte as bitcoin executes them now, then use another to OP_V2EXEC to use a modified rule set.)

Other considerations:

• I think there would have to be some serous IsStandard() constraints on these OPs.
• Script analyzation for signature check counting may get messy... but not as messy as OP_EVAL. Using OP_METAOP within OP_METAOP should probably be dis-allowed to make script analyzation less error-prone.
• Scripts that use the OP_METAOP in an improperly formatted way should fail, just like other ops fail if used incorrectly.

If this proposal is received well (and not old-news, I think it's impossible to keep up with every idea in the crypto-currency space), I'll begin working on a pull request.