Unlike Bitcoin which difficulty is adjusted every 2016 blocks, EDC's difficulty is adjusted every block and depended on the average time finding a block, ei, depend on network hash rate.

Hi, Dev!
I saw, you are collecting money for exchange. So, i'd like to suggest one idea for you.
Please, organize auction. Then, you can get BTC that you need.
You have some coins for bounty and dev's fund. And you can spend part of this amount for auction.
This is community projet and it will help you.
For example, you can start auction from 0.005/1000 coins. (I don't know, what price you are expecting. So, i can be wrong)
What do you think about it?

I wrote this up in response to one of the Anoncoin bounties : https://ihb.io/2014-11-17/news/anonymity-block-chain-13570

Comments appreciated.

You are almost there if you got to 5.6. When you use nano Makefile, did you scroll down the file to look for the correct section to edit? Even if you skip this step you will be able to run johntheripper with a single core which may be enough to crack it in a day or two if it is in fact just a typo.

What is your problem? Send me a PM if its privat.

dont know, there is a bitcoin password recovery service that helped me many times with altcoin wallets back last year.
They didn't steal anything! and it always worked

http://www.walletrecoveryservices.com/

@rsa_ufo_attack
I do not tend to respond to trolling, however I do _not_ consider these questions to be trolling. Your requests for information might seem a bit hostile though and thrown onto the trolling pile. Like you pointed out these are completely legitimate questions that should be answered. However we do not have the answers to these questions at this time.
Preferably we will have a way to ensure that anyone can verify that the generated UFO's are in fact the ones that are deployed, and at the same time deliver proof of destruction of the initial parameters. Worst case scenario, the users might actually have to trust the dev team to do this right. If it comes down to trusting the team, it will probably hurt the price quite a bit, but the technology itself will in no way be impacted.

@everyone
Some additional information for those that haven't caught on yet. We are primarily in this project to push the boundaries of anonymity technology, not to amuse the investors that buy loads of the coin. To avoid zerocoin implementation using the UFO's (the best tech to date) because there is a slight chance it might be abused is not an option. It was said that it will be attacked and eventually cracked, this is a given. The important factor here is time.

To crack the UFO's will most likely require several decades even with a wast constant, or even increasing, amounts of computing power. With previous statements in the thread some people are indirectly implying that all development will halt when zc with ufo launches. This is certainly not the case. With zc and the UFO in place we will have _at least_ 5 years to come up with a better solution without ever being at risk of the UFO's being cracked.

If any of these risks are not acceptable to you, I suggest you drop your coin, and shift your interest towards another coin.

The setup itself will be trustless once implemented. I do not have enough insight to contradict Gnosis's announcement, but I haven't heard of any way to provide good proof of destruction at this time. You should not weight my word heaver than his though as he might know how to do it. I'm just saying there is a chance that trusting the team for at least some part of the implementation might become necessary.

I do not tend to respond to trolling, however I do _not_ consider these questions to be trolling. Your requests for information might seem a bit hostile though and thrown onto the trolling pile. Like you pointed out these are completely legitimate questions that should be answered. However we do not have the answers to these questions at this time.
Preferably we will have a way to ensure that anyone can verify that the generated UFO's are in fact the ones that are deployed, and at the same time deliver proof of destruction of the initial parameters. Worst case scenario, the users might actually have to trust the dev team to do this right. If it comes down to trusting the team, it will probably hurt the price quite a bit, but the technology itself will in no way be impacted.

Haha.. No wonder why I'm always offline from here. Listening to those trolls trying to increase their e-penis and save the last of the fallen coins they sit on.. Maybe angry for us not letting them easily copy us... well well, I wouldn't care, either should you.

This was not a reply to the trolls. They are on /ignore.

/Back to work

If you are not able to understand, then ask Meeh or Gnosis (they were both online on bitcointalk today):
1) Who will setup the 13 accumulators of zerocoin?
2) If it will be possible to review this setup to be sure that Gnosis doesn't know the factors (P and Q) of the accumulators (to avoid the risk that he forge zerocoin proofs and generate infinite ANC)?

The reponses are:
1) Gnosis
2) No because the setup will be done OUTSIDE the open source wallet code.

EDIT: If 2) response from Meeh is YES, then I'm out. You will never see me again here.

Your profiles "Untrusted feedback" kinda tells a different story. Either way regarding your statement. Everyone knows that zerocoin was abandoned by the original developers who released the first whitepaper, then moved on to the new concept of zerocash which is a trust based setup. This is unacceptable to most users that require anonymity or invest in the product as infinite coins could be created, or their identities/transactions exposed by the devs.

Back on track. We are in fact developing zerocoin based on the whitepaper released and has been for months. This means we are tweking the original ideas but the concept is still the same, weeding out the issues that made them abandon it for zerocash. Adding our trustless setup makes it, at least at this time, unique as neither the users or dev team will be able to manipulate it.