Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 12:18:21 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 »
301  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [ANN] B&C Exchange - A decentralized exchange paying BTC dividends on: March 17, 2016, 07:59:41 PM
what is the latest on this thread, maybe I would be interested to be part of this thread


Have you read through it yet? The main info is listed in the first post, while questions and answers about B&C Exchange are posted throughout the thread. Jordan just announced a new version release (v4.0) a couple posts above.
302  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [ANN] B&C Exchange - A decentralized exchange paying BTC dividends on: February 22, 2016, 09:39:06 PM
This is also important to note for anyone that is able to recruit these developers...

Quote from: Jordan Lee
We will pay 10% of whatever the developer makes in the first six months to anyone who introduces me to a developer we end up hiring as a consultant. I will ask all candidates how they heard about the job to ensure proper credit.
303  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [ANN] B&C Exchange - A decentralized exchange paying BTC dividends on: January 17, 2016, 03:42:14 AM
Thanks for the update Jordan. I think it's also important to mention that any performance updates added to Nu 2.1 will ultimately be incorporated into B&C as well, so this outside development of Nu will positively benefit both projects in the end. So you could probably get away with saying that you were working on B&C improvements, even though they will first be incorporated into Nu.
304  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [ANN] B&C Exchange - A decentralized exchange paying BTC dividends on: October 17, 2015, 02:39:50 PM
Why doesn't B&C Exchange have a Facebook page? I went to add it to my profile and noticed it was missing and not on the main website. At least with Peercoin, our Facebook account allows me to type out longer news updates to followers that would be impossible on Twitter, due to the character count limit. I noticed that Nu doesn't take advantage of this and only allows their tweets to be shown on their Facebook page. The lack of character count limit allows for better communication with shareholders and the community.
305  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [PPC] Peercoin Official Thread on: October 10, 2015, 11:19:07 AM
Peercoin has totally lost it's momentum, used to be the number 3 coin and now?
Not even in the top 10 any more.
Goes beyong my mind why people still hold this coin and not just cash out.

It's ok. Whenever Bitcoin goes up, Peercoin seems to jump by leaps and bounds over all the coins listed above it. Last time it happened I believe Peercoin jumped back to #3 again for a short time. If Bitcoin does go up, I believe Peercoin will follow.

Any updates or stores accepting Peercoin?
Just some fanboy talk while the price keeps going down.

You misunderstand Peercoin's underlying purpose. It is not meant to be used as a payment network for everday transactions like practically every crypto in existence. Peercoin has a different focus altogether. You can read about it here...

https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=4272.0

Peercoin's initial design is what's important. It doesn't need to innovate as much as others. It can simply be.
306  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: What is the perfect hedge for our bitcoins? on: August 24, 2015, 08:24:26 PM
Also for those who discount Peercoin because of centralized checkpoints, they won't be part of the protocol forever. As many Peercoiners know, checkpoints are similar to training wheels. They are an added protection when the network is young. Once minting participation increases and the network strengthens, centralized checkpoints will be removed by Sunny King and Peercoin will be able to exist without them.

The Nu Network, which is one of our Peercoin forks has already removed centralized checkpoints due to its higher participation of minting by shareholders. The participation is higher because of the requirement of shareholders to place votes when minting, which are needed in order to successfully run the network and change the supply of NuBits. Nu has run without checkpointing for almost a year now with no problems and Peercoin will eventually reach this state. It's just a matter of time.
307  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: What is the perfect hedge for our bitcoins? on: August 24, 2015, 08:20:44 PM
Peercoin: this is a good hedge against a flaw in PoW because it also has PoS combined with PoW. Seems a more secure solution AND it has the first mover advantage in the PoS space. But it doesn't offer anything else. And theoretically PoS could be implemented in BTC if needed (although unlikely).

It seems many people believe Peercoin is simply a PoS clone of Bitcoin, but they couldn't be more wrong. Sunny King designed Peercoin with a different purpose or role than Bitcoin. I'd like to talk about this aspect of Peercoin's philosophy that I think many Bitcoiners don't realize, but first I'm going to post some quotes from a couple days ago about the block size debate, one of them from Bitcoin Core Developer Gregory Maxwell...

Do we want it to handle all world daily transactions,
or do we want protection from current monetary systems and government involvement?
If we achieve the second, we can have both.  But if we only achieve the first, we likely cannot have the second (and wouldn't find it to be a substantial improvement over the fiat systems we have now, even if).

The reason for this is that if Bitcoin is secure and trustworthy, trustless decenteralized micropayment facilities can be built on top of it and extend Bitcoin's transaction security with arbritary speed or scale.  But if the system is fragle and underminable by attackers (government or otherwise) then it won't be robust enough to underpin these things.

(and things like micropayment channels were't my invention, they were recommended by the system's creator-- thats part of why Bitcoin has smart contracts to begin with.)

whats interesting is Peercoin Achieves the second, now by design.

It heads of the whole Block size issue by going for the backbone, which is now becoming the problem for BTC as it tries to be 1 and 2, without being 2 first.

It seems that something like peercoin will take the lions share of large value transactions and BTC is falling into the middle of not being doge Ie doge can handle a high TPS at sacrifice of security [but who cares when your buying an ice cream and dont get hit up huge credit card fees], and not being good as a backbone.

Dont get me wrong I am a hardened BTC supporter, its just the boundary conditions do not support backbone currecy as well as Peercoin and so a debated like this rages.

I have being saying this for some time now, and it has come to fruition.

Just in case anyone is not clear on what Jubalix is saying here, Sunny King coined the term "backbone currency" in an interview on October 24th, 2013 where he laid out his vision for Peercoin and explained why he designed it the way he did. In his quote, Gregory Maxwell is describing Bitcoin as a backbone currency when Sunny King designed Peercoin to fulfill this exact role. Here is Sunny's main quote on this topic...

https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=2218.0

Quote from: Sunny King
"Both PPC and XPM are designed to last. PPC is designed with energy efficiency, XPM is designed with energy multiuse. Bitcoin has a long term uncertainty as to whether transaction fees can sustain good enough level of security. Before that the main concern is how to balance transaction volume and transaction fee levels. Currently I get the feeling that bitcoin developers favor very low transaction fees and very high transaction volume, to be competitive against centralized systems (paypal, visa, mastercard etc) in terms of transaction volume, to the point of sacrificing decentralization. This also brings major uncertainties to bitcoin's future.

From my point of view, I think the cryptocurrency movement needs at least one 'backbone' currency, or more, that maintains high degree of decentralization, maintains high level of security, but not necessarily providing high volume of transactions. Thinking of savings accounts and gold coins, you don't transact them at high velocity but they form the backbone of the monetary systems.

Pure proof-of-work systems such as bitcoin is not 100% suitable for this task. This is because transaction fee is not a reliable incentive to sustain network security. If the mining generation amount is kept constant (there have been several such attempts in altcoins) it would work better security-wise but then it would also significantly weaken the scarcity property of the currency. XPM's inflation model is designed in such a way that it could serve as backbone currency better than bitcoin if needed, because it could maintain high security reliably for longer, with reasonably good scarcity property as well. Of course that's only from architect's point of view, whether or not it would be chosen by the market is a whole different matter.

PPC is designed to serve even better as a backbone currency. The proof-of-stake technology in PPC is not only energy efficient; it also maintains high level of security without relying on transaction fee. Thus PPC could be safely designed with strong scarcity property yet serving well as backbone currency. Both PPC and XPM use protocol enforced transaction fees, which reflects my preference that high transaction volume is discouraged in favor of serving as backbone currencies.

Right now if we are talking about micropayments in the US$1 range, both PPC and XPM still handle them with much lower overhead than credit card network. In the long term micropayments should be provided by centralized providers, or a less decentralized network optimized for high capacity transaction processing.

On the other hand there is no promise that minimum transaction fee wouldn't be adjusted. If processing capacity of personal computers continues to advance at the current pace, both max block size and minimum transaction fee could very well be adjusted at some point. However I do take a very cautious approach to adjusting transaction fees, as opposed to bitcoin devs. The impact to the fitness of the currency as a backbone currency is of great concerns to me."

Therefore, Peercoin is designed first and foremost as a secure store of value which prioritizes decentralization over speed and transaction volume. This is the definition of a backbone currency. Further, Sunny said in the quote that large volume and high-speed microtransactions can be achieved by using off-chain networks, which could range anywhere from centralized solutions to semi-decentralized to trustless. This allows Peercoin to remain a highly decentralized network and store of value while the majority of transactions take place off-chain.

Peercoin just turned 3 years old and its blockchain is only around 400 MB. This is a result of Sunny King's very specific design. The Peercoin community has been promoting these ideas for a long time now. It seems that certain people are only now starting to realize the importance of them.
308  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Szabo just tweeted this on: August 22, 2015, 05:21:49 AM
Just in case anyone is not clear on what Jubalix is saying here, Sunny King coined the term "backbone currency" in an interview on October 24th, 2013 where he laid out his vision for Peercoin and explained why he designed it the way he did. Here is the main quote...

https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=2218.0

Quote from: Sunny King
"Both PPC and XPM are designed to last. PPC is designed with energy efficiency, XPM is designed with energy multiuse. Bitcoin has a long term uncertainty as to whether transaction fees can sustain good enough level of security. Before that the main concern is how to balance transaction volume and transaction fee levels. Currently I get the feeling that bitcoin developers favor very low transaction fees and very high transaction volume, to be competitive against centralized systems (paypal, visa, mastercard etc) in terms of transaction volume, to the point of sacrificing decentralization. This also brings major uncertainties to bitcoin's future.

From my point of view, I think the cryptocurrency movement needs at least one 'backbone' currency, or more, that maintains high degree of decentralization, maintains high level of security, but not necessarily providing high volume of transactions. Thinking of savings accounts and gold coins, you don't transact them at high velocity but they form the backbone of the monetary systems.

Pure proof-of-work systems such as bitcoin is not 100% suitable for this task. This is because transaction fee is not a reliable incentive to sustain network security. If the mining generation amount is kept constant (there have been several such attempts in altcoins) it would work better security-wise but then it would also significantly weaken the scarcity property of the currency. XPM's inflation model is designed in such a way that it could serve as backbone currency better than bitcoin if needed, because it could maintain high security reliably for longer, with reasonably good scarcity property as well. Of course that's only from architect's point of view, whether or not it would be chosen by the market is a whole different matter.

PPC is designed to serve even better as a backbone currency. The proof-of-stake technology in PPC is not only energy efficient; it also maintains high level of security without relying on transaction fee. Thus PPC could be safely designed with strong scarcity property yet serving well as backbone currency. Both PPC and XPM use protocol enforced transaction fees, which reflects my preference that high transaction volume is discouraged in favor of serving as backbone currencies.

Right now if we are talking about micropayments in the US$1 range, both PPC and XPM still handle them with much lower overhead than credit card network. In the long term micropayments should be provided by centralized providers, or a less decentralized network optimized for high capacity transaction processing.

On the other hand there is no promise that minimum transaction fee wouldn't be adjusted. If processing capacity of personal computers continues to advance at the current pace, both max block size and minimum transaction fee could very well be adjusted at some point. However I do take a very cautious approach to adjusting transaction fees, as opposed to bitcoin devs. The impact to the fitness of the currency as a backbone currency is of great concerns to me."

Therefore, Peercoin is designed first and foremost as a secure store of value which prioritizes decentralization over speed and transaction volume. This is the definition of a backbone currency. Further, Sunny said in the quote that large volume and high-speed microtransactions can be achieved by using off-chain networks, which could range anywhere from centralized solutions to semi-decentralized to trustless. This allows Peercoin to remain a highly decentralized network and store of value while the majority of transactions take place off-chain. Peercoin just turned 3 years old and its blockchain is only around 400 MB. This is a result of Sunny King's very specific design. The Peercoin community has been promoting these ideas for a long time now. It seems that certain people are only now starting to realize the importance of them.
309  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [ANN] B&C Exchange - A decentralized exchange paying BTC dividends on: August 22, 2015, 01:07:42 AM
Also, the team is currently debating how to structure our forum. While we're waiting for an official B&C forum to be launched, if any motions need to be posted, the team created this temporary board for B&C on the Nu forum...

https://discuss.nubits.com/c/b-c-exchange

Try and keep the conversation in this thread though, since keeping this thread bumped and on the first page is important for awareness.
310  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Szabo just tweeted this on: August 21, 2015, 05:09:05 PM
whats interesting is Peercoin Achieves the second, now by design.
By, by design, requring the blockchain to be periodically signed by a trusted authority... you have a weird notion of resistance to state attacks.


This won't be the case forever. As many Peercoiners know, checkpoints are similar to training wheels. They are an added protection when the network is young. Once minting participation increases and the network strengthens, centralized checkpoints will be removed by Sunny King and Peercoin will be able to exist without them.

The Nu Network, which is one of our Peercoin forks has already removed centralized checkpoints due to its higher participation of minting by shareholders. The participation is higher because of the requirement of shareholders to place votes when minting, which are needed in order to successfully run the network and change the supply of NuBits. Nu has run without checkpointing for almost a year now with no problems and Peercoin will eventually reach this state. It's just a matter of time.
311  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: The 2.0 throwdown thread on: August 19, 2015, 01:57:52 PM
Why did you remove Nu from this chart as it is a 2.0 technology? Did you see the answer I posted in response to your thread on Reddit? I will include it again below. Nu is one of the most unique networks in crypto and its voting mechanisms would have prevented the mess we see in Bitcoin right now. Further, we believe that stable currencies are the future of crypto and Nu is one of the leaders in this new and innovative market. We have now kept a stable peg for almost a year and are constantly working to improve our service.

Quote from: Sentinelrv
Whereas most crypto supporters believe mass adoption will eventually stabilize price, the creators and supporters of Nu believe they have it backwards, that price stability will encourage mass adoption.
 
Nu is comparable to a central bank, however it's the world's first decentralized bank. The network is split into 2 units, NuBits and NuShares. NuBits are pegged to the dollar. NuShares are free floating in price and represent equity in the network. NuShareholders control the supply and demand of NuBits through various decentralized voting mechanisms.
 
NuBot: We have a trading bot called NuBot which is designed to place buy and sell walls directly above and below $1. This bot keeps the peg as tight as possible.
 
Custodial Grants: If demand is rising and there are not enough NuBits already in circulation, shareholders will vote for a specific amount of NuBits to be created. Those NuBits will then be placed as a sell wall directly above $1 to prevent the price from rising too much.
 
Parking: If demand is in a slump, then shareholders can vote to increase parking interest rates. Doing so will encourage people to withdraw NuBits from exchanges to park them for a certain length of time in order to receive interest. This creates temporary synthetic demand to prevent the price from dropping below $1.
 
Variable Transaction Fees: With the release of v2.0, shareholders now have the ability to vote on the transaction fee. The fee acts as a natural way to destroy NuBits and permanently decrease the supply. Raising the fee rate will destroy NuBits at a faster pace, but could discourage transactions as well. It's up to shareholders to find an appropriate fee rate.
 
NuBits Burning: If parking interest rates have been raised for a while, but aren't having the intended effect, then this is an indicator to shareholders that the supply of NuBits needs to be permanently decreased. As a last line of defense for the peg, shareholders will vote to dilute themselves by creating more NuShares and selling them to raise funds. These funds will then be used to buy back NuBits and burn them to reduce the supply. When demand finally picks back up again, shareholders will do the opposite, vote to create more NuBits, sell them on the market and use the proceeds to buy back NuShares and burn them.
 
Liquidity Pools: Nu operates under a zero reserve model to eliminate counterparty risk. To accomplish this, we've created two types of liquidity pools. The first type requires a little bit of trust. Shareholders appoint a pool operator and provide them with a monthly grant of NuBits. Regular people deposit their own money with the pool operator. The operator then runs NuBot on an exchange to place buy and sell walls. The operator then provides depositors with interest from the NuBits grant as compensation for the risk of providing liquidity.
 
The second type uses software we built called the trustless liquidity pool. Once again someone is appointed to be a pool operator and they are provided with a monthly grant of NuBits. Rather than depositing funds with the pool operator though, people deposit money to the exchange they plan to provide liquidity for. They then install a client, which places buy and sell walls using their deposited funds. The client sends this trading data to a server under the control of the pool operator. This server verifies whether the liquidity is being provided and how much. After verifying, the server then distributes interest to everyone as compensation for providing liquidity. It's important to note that using this trustless method, liquidity providers maintain full control of their funds at all times.
 
Business Model: NuShareholders provide the service of a price stable crypto. This service costs shareholders as you can see from the monthly fees we pay out to provide for decentralized liquidity. The job of shareholders is to continuously increase demand and adoption for NuBits. As demand increases, new NuBits are created and sold. The proceeds are then either distributed to shareholders in the form of Peercoin or NuShares are bought back and burned. The transaction fee is also one way that users of the network pay for the service we provide them. The transaction fee slowly decreases the supply over time, which then allows us to create and sell more NuBits again for profit. In the future, NuShareholders will also decide to add more pegged currencies, such as the Euro or Yuan to target different markets.
 
If you would like an even more detailed account, I wrote an entire history for Nu, which takes new people through our entire evolution since we launched...
 
https://docs.nubits.com/history/

Please tell me if there is anything else you need to know.
312  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Moving into LTC until XT issue is resolved? As a safe haven? on: August 19, 2015, 04:43:22 AM
If you want a safe haven alternative, try NuBits, price stable at $1 for almost an entire year now. We've had a lot of volume today thanks to the price dive.
313  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [ANN] B&C Exchange - A decentralized exchange paying BTC dividends on: July 23, 2015, 12:36:07 AM
I guess I was one of the ones that didn't get a Bitmessage. I just wanted to let BCexchange know that I probably won't be able to get to creating addresses until the weekend, but I will get to it. Sorry for the delay.

Even though bitmessage initially seemed like a really nice technology and suitable for such use cases, for some reason it just fails to provide reliable service at critical times. I wonder if the Tor or I2P network could be used for communication instead?

We need Peermessage to be finished. You can help Emeth by posting a message for him on Github. Check here...

https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=4203.0
314  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [ANN] B&C Exchange - A decentralized exchange paying BTC dividends on: July 22, 2015, 05:07:33 PM
I guess I was one of the ones that didn't get a Bitmessage. I just wanted to let BCexchange know that I probably won't be able to get to creating addresses until the weekend, but I will get to it. Sorry for the delay.
315  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [ANN] B&C Exchange - A decentralized exchange paying BTC dividends on: July 17, 2015, 12:22:29 AM
I requested even more Blockshares but you didn't get back to me for over half a week now. The bitcoin price dropped by 35 dollars during that timeframe. Given that I purchased bitcoin for over 1000 dollar just to purchase Blockshares, I am quite disappointed right now.

I'm just curious. Why didn't you convert your Bitcoin to NuBits? That would have prevented the devaluation you experienced. I personally collected money for over a month and converted it to NuBits while waiting until we had the go ahead to make payment. If I had not done so I probably would have taken a loss.
316  Economy / Services / Re: NuDroid Mobile Wallet - Paying with Bitcoin without being exposed to volatility on: July 14, 2015, 03:07:01 PM
Price stable NuBits with the mass adoption of Bitcoin. This app just makes so much sense. I hope people are using it.
317  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [PPC] Peercoin Official Thread on: July 09, 2015, 11:03:06 PM
I see Peercoin is doing well today. Currently up about 55%. Shocked
318  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [ANN] B&C Exchange - A decentralized exchange paying BTC dividends on: July 08, 2015, 06:25:28 PM
Excellent design! Somehow I imagined something like this, minimalist and green/blue colors. I also love the various ways that it can be visually interpreted. Great job!
319  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [ANN] B&C Exchange - A decentralized exchange paying BTC dividends on: June 24, 2015, 01:59:34 AM
Sportscliche said on Peercointalk that he hasn't gotten a reply back on Bitmessage...

https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=4095.msg39847#msg39847

I haven't gotten any acknowledgement on Bitmessage, even after multiple attempts.  Is anyone else experiencing this?
320  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [ANN] B&C Exchange - A decentralized exchange paying BTC dividends - 80% funded on: June 08, 2015, 04:58:45 PM
Total funds committed have reached $161,348 including seed funds. We are now over 80% of the way to our goal of $200,000.

Wow, only 20% left to go! Shocked

If we somehow reach 100% before the banner ads are ready, will the advertisements be canceled? I imagine many shareholders would rather not advertise BlockShare sales after this goal is hit, as their share of the pie will only be diluted.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!