|
what does the mandatory mean here. If I still use the older version, it will not mine any more?
|
|
|
|
Is there another CPU mining coin? Where can I find this information?
Coin of Magi. Coin of Magi is not CPU only. it can also be mined by GPU. |
|
|
|
what is RNG?
Random number generator. Just means there's a lot of luck involved in solo mining. I think right now the difficulty is very low. Every one can get a block using solo mining in a day or two. |
|
|
|
It is excited to know new algorithm. May I know if this algorithm for CPU mining only and resist to gpu?
And what is the requirement to setup a masternode? Thinking to try setup a masternode by using one of my vps machine.
Yes, CPU only. It resists GPU by including the AES512 Encrypt+Md5+the 31000 chained bible verses in the hash function, things that are hard to port to plain c. As far as Sanctuaries, you will be able to run one on a cheap linux VPS, but it must be dedicated IP and on a dedicated VPS node, and with a certain biblepay stake amount (not determined yet) sent to an escrow address, we will need to see what our average trade price is for 90 days and then determine these things. Do you mean set up a masternode in vps? It is interesting and I would like to try since I have 2 vps on hand currently. I will start mining to gain my coin for masternode needs later. Thanks. BTW, it is good to know another new CPU only mining coin, keep up the good work. Is there another CPU mining coin? Where can I find this information? |
|
|
|
Been mining this since last night and I've gotten two blocks so everything seems to be working, more or less. That was with the old miner, the updated one actually seems to be utilizing my CPU cores to their fullest so I'm hoping snatch some more blocks before everyone's using it. Hopefully we'll see a mining pool soon to take some of the RNG out of mining.
I like the idea behind this, hopefully the dev team is committed to carry through on it.
what is RNG? |
|
|
|
|
Would you please explain these virus issues?
|
|
|
|
|
it can only run on windows 64 bit system? my 32 bit computer says it can not install a 64 bit software when I tried to download the exe file on your website.
|
|
|
|
I withdrawal my bitcoin to electrum.There you can control the keys and you cant have worries about that bro but I am 100% sure that from bitcoin will not be born another cryptocurrency so there will not be splitting for sure.
The BCC coins are sure to come. I 'll have to get prepared. BCC is a hard fork. They may compete with BTC directly in near future. I never tried electrum. I will give it a try. Do you have to wait a lot of time for syning? |
|
|
|
|
it's happening and it's being exchanged. currently they are exchanged at about 20% of the BTC price. which I think is quite significant. It may stay much longer than you think. It's like LTC. it can develop its own path. I'll hold both and see how it goes at the end of the year.
|
|
|
|
|
I have no way to contact with them. the ticket system is so slow and their twitter account literally publish one sentence a month. They refused to gave users free steller lumens airdrop. Now I don't know if they will give us BCC after Aug. 1. any ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
it reaches 0.007 now. all time low since we went as high as 0.03. It's interesting that the change ratio of KNC to RSGP was 10:1. right now the KNC price is even lower than RSGP. maybe launching a new currency too quickly before the first one get mature lost some people's faith on us.
|
|
|
|
Hello, I'm new to this bitcoin technology. And I have a question about double spending. Can you take a look at the following case and tell me what I am wrong
So let's say my wallet has 5 BTC. First I send a payment of 1 BTC to receiver A. It is verified by a full node and put into the mem pool.
Immediately after that, I send all 5 BTC to B. It is then verified by a different full node and also put into the mem pool. Because I put more transaction fees on the second transaction, the second transaction will mostly likely picked up by a miner faster than the 1st transaction and get 1st confirmation. Thus I did my double spending.
Which part of my logic is wrong?
I was once a beneficiary of a double spend transaction, this was when you sent a transaction with a low fee it could take almost a week or more to confirm, I sent the first payment after an hour or so, i saw that the funds had returned to my account and later the transaction went through and still the funds were in my account. That's not how double spend works. Based on what you have said, you sent the first tx, btc was returned, then confirmed and still was in your balance? That couldn't happen since that scenario would have created two instances of the same value you have sent, and that will negate the 21 million mineable coins of bitcoin since you just created another bitcoins out of thin air that is beyond the 21 million coins bitcoin officially has. In an extreme case, what if both tx have similar fees and both were picked up into the same block. what will happen?
It wouldn't happen. Whichever gets confirmed first by the network would be the accepted tx and the other one would just be dumped. I think I understand it probably won't happen that these two tx are picked up by one block. But I don't understand how this pick-up process work in such a way to avoid it. In another case, i can have two legit tx in the mem pool at the same time(no double spending), so the mem pool can only have one tx include in one block even if I have two legit tx in the mem pool? Two different tx initiated by the same address can be picked up in a single block. Now we are not referring to any double-spend scenario in here but basically creating two tx from one address. Why would you do that when you can send one tx with two outputs? That would be more economical and viable in your end since you will be paying less fees compared to two tx. economically I wouldn't do it. But it could happen in many ways. for example, some people don't know how to send two outputs. or after I send first one, I forget I need to send another one. Or the first one sent a wrong amount, I add more on second one. I think I am more concerned technically how the mem pool works to avoid this double spending, if it happens. |
|
|
|
Hello, I'm new to this bitcoin technology. And I have a question about double spending. Can you take a look at the following case and tell me what I am wrong
So let's say my wallet has 5 BTC. First I send a payment of 1 BTC to receiver A. It is verified by a full node and put into the mem pool.
Immediately after that, I send all 5 BTC to B. It is then verified by a different full node and also put into the mem pool. Because I put more transaction fees on the second transaction, the second transaction will mostly likely picked up by a miner faster than the 1st transaction and get 1st confirmation. Thus I did my double spending.
Which part of my logic is wrong?
I was once a beneficiary of a double spend transaction, this was when you sent a transaction with a low fee it could take almost a week or more to confirm, I sent the first payment after an hour or so, i saw that the funds had returned to my account and later the transaction went through and still the funds were in my account. That's not how double spend works. Based on what you have said, you sent the first tx, btc was returned, then confirmed and still was in your balance? That couldn't happen since that scenario would have created two instances of the same value you have sent, and that will negate the 21 million mineable coins of bitcoin since you just created another bitcoins out of thin air that is beyond the 21 million coins bitcoin officially has. In an extreme case, what if both tx have similar fees and both were picked up into the same block. what will happen?
It wouldn't happen. Whichever gets confirmed first by the network would be the accepted tx and the other one would just be dumped. I think I understand it probably won't happen that these two tx are picked up by one block. But I don't understand how this pick-up process work in such a way to avoid it. In another case, i can have two legit tx in the mem pool at the same time(no double spending), so the mem pool can only have one tx include in one block even if I have two legit tx in the mem pool? Two different tx initiated by the same address can be picked up in a single block. Now we are not referring to any double-spend scenario in here but basically creating two tx from one address. Why would you do that when you can send one tx with two outputs? That would be more economical and viable in your end since you will be paying less fees compared to two tx. economically I wouldn't do it. But it could happen in many ways. for example, some people don't know how to send two outputs. or after I send first one, I forget I need to send another one. Or the first one sent a wrong amount, I add more on second one. |
|
|
|
Hello, I'm new to this bitcoin technology. And I have a question about double spending. Can you take a look at the following case and tell me what I am wrong
So let's say my wallet has 5 BTC. First I send a payment of 1 BTC to receiver A. It is verified by a full node and put into the mem pool.
Immediately after that, I send all 5 BTC to B. It is then verified by a different full node and also put into the mem pool. Because I put more transaction fees on the second transaction, the second transaction will mostly likely picked up by a miner faster than the 1st transaction and get 1st confirmation. Thus I did my double spending.
Which part of my logic is wrong?
2nd transaction will be removed from mem pool. How can the mem pool determine which one to remove? Is there a timestamp? because the first one comes earlier or what reasons? Transactions of double spending (from conformed blocks) never accepted in mem pool, and removed if have. I thought as long as your tx is verified by a node, it can be accepted by mem pool. So if these two tx were verified by two different nodes in a short period of time. both of them can be accepted by mem pool. |
|
|
|
Hello, I'm new to this bitcoin technology. And I have a question about double spending. Can you take a look at the following case and tell me what I am wrong
So let's say my wallet has 5 BTC. First I send a payment of 1 BTC to receiver A. It is verified by a full node and put into the mem pool.
Immediately after that, I send all 5 BTC to B. It is then verified by a different full node and also put into the mem pool. Because I put more transaction fees on the second transaction, the second transaction will mostly likely picked up by a miner faster than the 1st transaction and get 1st confirmation. Thus I did my double spending.
Which part of my logic is wrong?
I was once a beneficiary of a double spend transaction, this was when you sent a transaction with a low fee it could take almost a week or more to confirm, I sent the first payment after an hour or so, i saw that the funds had returned to my account and later the transaction went through and still the funds were in my account. That's not how double spend works. Based on what you have said, you sent the first tx, btc was returned, then confirmed and still was in your balance? That couldn't happen since that scenario would have created two instances of the same value you have sent, and that will negate the 21 million mineable coins of bitcoin since you just created another bitcoins out of thin air that is beyond the 21 million coins bitcoin officially has. In an extreme case, what if both tx have similar fees and both were picked up into the same block. what will happen?
It wouldn't happen. Whichever gets confirmed first by the network would be the accepted tx and the other one would just be dumped. I think I understand it probably won't happen that these two tx are picked up by one block. But I don't understand how this pick-up process work in such a way to avoid it. In another case, i can have two legit tx in the mem pool at the same time(no double spending), so the mem pool can only have one tx include in one block even if I have two legit tx in the mem pool? |
|
|
|
Hello, I'm new to this bitcoin technology. And I have a question about double spending. Can you take a look at the following case and tell me what I am wrong
So let's say my wallet has 5 BTC. First I send a payment of 1 BTC to receiver A. It is verified by a full node and put into the mem pool.
Immediately after that, I send all 5 BTC to B. It is then verified by a different full node and also put into the mem pool. Because I put more transaction fees on the second transaction, the second transaction will mostly likely picked up by a miner faster than the 1st transaction and get 1st confirmation. Thus I did my double spending.
Which part of my logic is wrong?
I was once a beneficiary of a double spend transaction, this was when you sent a transaction with a low fee it could take almost a week or more to confirm, I sent the first payment after an hour or so, i saw that the funds had returned to my account and later the transaction went through and still the funds were in my account. Really, how is this possible. So if I understand it right, it seems you created new bitcoin out of nowhere. the total amount of bitcoins increased?  |
|
|
|
Hello, I'm new to this bitcoin technology. And I have a question about double spending. Can you take a look at the following case and tell me what I am wrong
So let's say my wallet has 5 BTC. First I send a payment of 1 BTC to receiver A. It is verified by a full node and put into the mem pool.
Immediately after that, I send all 5 BTC to B. It is then verified by a different full node and also put into the mem pool. Because I put more transaction fees on the second transaction, the second transaction will mostly likely picked up by a miner faster than the 1st transaction and get 1st confirmation. Thus I did my double spending.
Which part of my logic is wrong?
2nd transaction will be removed from mem pool. How can the mem pool determine which one to remove? Is there a timestamp? because the first one comes earlier or what reasons? Whichever gets confirmed first will be kept in the chain, and the one that remains unconfirmed gets deleted. Most of the time, tx with high fees gets confirmed faster than those with lower fees. So on *most* cases, the one who has the lower fees gets deleted regardless of time the tx was initiated since it will, theoretically, be confirmed slower than the one who has more fees into the tx. In an extreme case, what if both tx have similar fees and both were picked up into the same block. what will happen? |
|
|
|
|
There is still be hard fork. So not get too optimistic
|
|
|
|
|
You will have both BTC and BCC. personally, I would treat BCC like any other altcoins.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
