DGC went on Vircuerx - this means few hundreds % up on price - so... Big fishes started mining.... when such a low difficulty...
If my hypothesis is not right please do correct falsifiability.
Cannot see DGC on VirCurEx. Tried URL modification but it didn't come up either. Can you provide a link? It passed the latest shareholder vote to be added. Its not actually on there yet though. Should be in the coming days. |
|
|
|
another coin with a horrible launch, what else is new  argentum launches sometime tonight, hopefully it wont drop the ball too |
|
|
|
|
stablecoin has kept a stable 200MH network speed since its launch a few days ago. Its what im currently mining. one of the better launches compared to all the shit we've seen here lately.
|
|
|
|
You can't get a good connection or download the chain correctly because there are bad nodes out right now.
the chain still downloads properly. its just a visual error. open the debug window and you can see the chain downloading. |
|
|
|
OP didnt hardcode any checkpoints, and someone stole his premine. Hilarious. This forum is fucking amateur hour, I swear. Stop releasing coins if you dont know what youre doing. |
|
|
|
|
Dumb name, dumb logo. How does "ice" imply any sort of value?
No preannounce either. Sloppy launch.. Yawn. These days your coins needs a solid launch to even considered being looked at, imo.
|
|
|
|
|
do you think people see these threads and then rush over to buy goldcoin on the SECONDARY market?
no, they just laugh at you.
|
|
|
|
|
smart people know that gldcoin was instamined garbage and doesnt have a future
smart people dont post shit like this
|
|
|
|
Initially, it was unspendable because of a quirk in the indexing. That quirk has been found, studied, named, and must now be faithfully reproduced. If I recall correctly, the current client now has special case code specifically to make those coins unspendable.
Of course, he isn't running on bitcoin, but on litecoin. Litecoin is fee to choose whatever rules they wish to follow and enforce. Litecoin is already not-bitcoin, so bitcoin's rules do not apply. Also, I suspect he is running on a testnet, perhaps even his own testnet, with his own genesis block. (Or perhaps he's the guy that has the litecoin genesis block key. It would be easy to look his name up, but it is late, and I'm lazy.)
Thanks for the info. I am confused as to why he's using talking about the Bitcoin genesis block (or at least the Bitcoin genesis timestamp message) if he's using litecoin. In any case, if the litecoin genesis block is also unspendable, the same thing applies -- you can't spend it without a hard-forking modification of the rest of the network clients' code, and also knowing the private key for the pubkey the block reward went to. Just because this is a bitcoin forum, and more people know what the bitcoin genesis block look like rather than some random genesis block that I create.  |
|
|
|
Interesting behavior now... I can send the coins from the genesis block, but they never confirm.  |
|
|
|
If you want to invest in a coin other than BTC or LTC, go with something like PXC, atleast those developers know what they are doing.
Too late. I already decided to make this coin work. Hehe, I really like you man.. have only 20% left of my original gold but really enjoy to see your devotion about this project... makes moaners even more laughable than they really are Thanks man for the kind words!  (I would to stay around and reply to all the haters, but it's time to get back to work! Peace, out!) Just ignore them, they're not worth of it.. and I'm here to fight if needed anyway though not kinda feeling to do it, screw the suckers You sure do pick some pointless battles.. The only suckers are the ones who are left holding GLD. |
|
|
|
If you want to invest in a coin other than BTC or LTC, go with something like PXC, atleast those developers know what they are doing.
Too late. I already decided to make this coin work. https://www.cryptsy.com/markets/view/36instamined garbage, this coin has no future. my hardfork offer still stands though. youre unlikely to find anyone else up to the task. im the only free agent around here |
|
|
|
|
i will issue a corrective hard fork for you for 5 btc. inquire within...
|
|
|
|
|
Leads to more errors, this function can't be static.
Also, LOCK(cs); needs to be called before trying to add it to the memory pool, which is why I created a new member function. Just running addunchecked by itself would results in errors.
|
|
|
|
Here's what I'm using. This is within init.cpp: // Genesis block
const char* pszTimestamp = "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks";
CTransaction txNew;
txNew.vin.resize(1);
txNew.vout.resize(1);
txNew.vin[0].scriptSig = CScript() << 486604799 << CBigNum(4) << vector<unsigned char>((const unsigned char*)pszTimestamp, (const unsigned char*)pszTimestamp + strlen(pszTimestamp));
txNew.vout[0].nValue = 50 * COIN;
txNew.vout[0].scriptPubKey = CScript() << ParseHex("04678afdb0fe5548271967f1a67130b7105cd6a828e03909a67962e0ea1f61deb649f6bc3f4cef3 8c4f35504e51ec112de5c384df7ba0b8d578a4c702b6bf11d5f") << OP_CHECKSIG;
uint256 hash("0x0x000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f");
CTxMemPool::addUnchecked(hash, txNew); |
|
|
|
Yeah, I want it to run at the start. I tried running it from init.cpp, and it seemed to fix at least part of the problem. It appears the TX gets created now. I created a member function within main.cpp void CTxMemPool::addGenesis(const uint256& hash, CTransaction &txNew)
{
{
LOCK(cs);
addUnchecked(hash, txNew);
}
} Where hash is the genesis block hash. But trying to call it with CTxMemPool::addGenesis(hash,txNew) gives the error: src\init.cpp: In function 'bool AppInit2()':
src\init.cpp:781:39: error: cannot call member function 'void CTxMemPool::addGenesis(const uint256&, CTransaction&)' without objectAny ideas? Also post your address, thanks. |
|
|
|
|
CTransaction txNew; works just fine.
|
|
|
|
Did you try putting it at line 57?
Yeah, same error there too |
|
|
|
3rd EDIT
Feeleep is online but hasn't responded to my PM. I'm pulling my miners and going elsewhere until my account is properly credited for the the shares I've mined, which looks like every single one going back thru my transaction history. I'd recommend avoiding this pool until the issue is resolved, which is kind of a pity because the only other pushpool listed in post #2 of this thread is closed to registrations.
I am sorry that you are having issues with the other pool. I would like to open registrations on mine, but unfortunately the network hash rate has dropped to the point that even though my pool has dropped to 40MH/s at the moment we are still more than 45% of the network. Registrations will automatically unlock when the network hash has increased such that we are less than the limit of 45% of total network hash. Given all the troubles that FTC encountered yesterday it's more obvious than ever how important it is to keep any one pool from taking too much of the network hash and that sort of thing is why the automatic limit was instituted in the first place. I really expected there would be more good pools to use by this point. The only other option that I have would be to open a new and entirely separate pool for SBC in addition to my regular one, which I really wasn't planning on doing, but it wouldn't be difficult. Thoughts ? http://silverwolf.ath.cx/sbcyou misunderstand what a 51% attack is, it does not require 51% of the network, nor does 51% of the network ensure success. Such an attack is possible with 40% or even 30% of the network. Its likelihood of success is just relative to the percentage. Thus there is really no reason to shut registration on your pool I appreciate your input here. I know you are a coin developer and you know the ins and outs of coin development far better than myself. Strictly speaking perhaps I don't have to cap registrations at 45%, but I still don't think it's particularly good idea for the coin to have so much of the entire network running through only one pool. Since we have differing opinions in this matter I will ask the advise off the SBC developers and see what they want me to do.
Can a developer chime in here ? Should I leave the cap at 45% or should I raise it ?I agree its not a good thing, but in the case of (what appears to be, i havent really been following this thread) a lack of good pools, opening up more slots is probably beneficial, until some decent pools pop up, anyway |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
