Well, I'll be damned.

BCA team, I stand corrected.

You did NOT handle that well, but you came through Good job

still no sign of activity on github, still saying "soon, soon".

Yeah.

Right.

Futures scam.

Does the sun rise in the East?

I would take the middle position and say do both. I mine (alts, ain't got the money for ASIC devices), and I trade. I honestly make more money trading, but I make money mining, and I enjoy both, so they are both profitable in ways beyond money.

Why I think this approach is better for the general ecosystem is that trading is what drives price, but a secure blockchain is what sustains it. Both are necessary to the cryptocurrency ecosphere, so why not diversify?

And let's not forget POS minting, either. Never put your eggs in one basket

Bone up yer skillz. I'm making money.

When is it? And where? I am a transhumanist, I'm interested in both hearing you speak, and the subject in general

Yeah, true, except that if they don't deliver it DOES hurt others. Those who bought futures.

Frankly, you don't announce a project and then not have the code ready at launch. And yes, the forking date IS launch.

Maybe I am being too harsh. But to be perfectly honest, incompetence is not a great deal better than fraudulent. If the various features were not fully ready, they could STILL launch the basic wallet. Hybrid consensus is not a roadblock. Atomic swaps and LN could be, but they didn't NEED to be implemented on day one.

As it stands, the only proof we have that this coin exists is... Well, the word of the same developers who have yet to put out any code or a block explorer.

I mean seriously, simply that, would be sufficient. Show us a working chain.

Only partially correct. We know how, we don't have the necessary precision yet. It has been done, with partial success.

yeah, I"m necroing a thread. Deal with it.

Two years have passed, and I find nothing saying they did it.

However, there were a number of questions and speculations in this thread that bear re-examination. At this point, nanometer scale manufacturing is commonplace. Assemblers do not yet exist, or if they do it is a very well kept secret. The prerequisites for their existence are no longer speculative, and that is FAR beyond the bounds of this doctor's probably fraudulent claims.

Dr. Aubrey de Grey has stated many times that the first man to reach 150 has likely already been born, with far less radical interventions than are theoretically possible with nanotech assemblers.

As was noted earlier in the thread, immunosuppressant therapies are now commonplace, and I personally know someone who was cured of terminal cancer by stem cell implantation.

Cyberpunk isn't dead, it's just not fiction anymore.

Being able to direct our own evolution is essentially inevitable. The consequences will be many, some intended and some not.

The ethical concerns are also many. But far less so than chopping off somebody's head in order to preserve another person. So, I am going to present an ethical argument IN FAVOR of life extension. The words are mine, the arguments are not. Though I came to the same conclusion, it was Dr. deGrey who convinced me of the inevitability of human immortality, though he dislikes the term. Or at least claims to.

I will dismiss out of hand the religious argument that death is natural. I find the people who promulgate such nonsense while being immunized against various diseases, going to doctors and, if need be, specialists, etc. to maintain their health far beyond the 'natural' span offensive, as well as morally bankrupt. If you actually believed that crap, you'd never see a doctor. Disease is natural too. We have spent countless lifetimes intentionally curbing or eradicating it. This is not a valid argument.

One I won't dismiss, and that gets brought up frequently as a "counter" to those of us desiring life extension, is the spectre of overpopulation. This one is actually a valid concern, but it's misplaced. It will happen anyway, as we have no natural predation sufficient to keep our open ended and unrestricted reproductive system in check. Life extension may exacerbate that problem by a few years. Maybe as much as a decade, if everyone living today were made undying. I'll come back to this, there is a solution. It is not, properly, an argument against life extension. It is a problem unto itself that MIGHT be exacerbated by life extension. 

Another that I hear frequently expressed is the idiotic idea of becoming bored with living. Boredom, frankly, is brought on by either captivity (rare) or being boring. Other than that, it's a passing mood. As show stopping arguments go, it's ludicrous. There is a whole universe to explore, and if the proponents of string theory are correct, possibly many more. Besides, if life bores you that much, do the ecosystem a favor and become fertilizer. Yeah, I said that.

And that brings me back to overpopulation. I'll write much more on these intertwined subjects later, but the answer to overpopulation lies in the above paragraph. There is a WHOLE UNIVERSE that we have not explored. The biggest obstacle to interstellar exploration is our lifespan, as with our current understanding of the physical world, we cannot go faster than just a bit below the speed of light. Not by acceleration, at any rate. Which means that the distances are daunting. Given time dilation, this is less of a bugbear than people make it, but shipboard people would by necessity be a separate nation unto themselves, as ships would have a population that ages much more slowly (in comparison) to those left behind. Life extension actually eases this burden, as those who care to live will be around when the ships return.

But even within our own solar system, we've barely begun. Terraforming Mars appears to be well within our technological reach. Likely was around the time I was born, aside from sufficient rockets, which came to fruition just 8 months later.

Moreover, since it is LIKELY that such therapies would be based on nanotechnology, the problem of only the wealthy having access to it should decline very rapidly. It's going to happen that way, frankly, but it need not remain that way. The very wealthy will have it first because they will be the ones who can finance the initial research! This is not "unfair", it's simply inevitable. The only way to have it immediately widely disseminated would be to get a government to commit to the project via taxation for a very long time. While the idea of a hundred year 'special' tax is likely to appeal to every politician that ever lived, keeping that project as the actual recipient of the funds would simply not happen. Politicians are motivated by a lust for power, primarily, and any good they might do with it if they achieve it is at best a secondary consideration. Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions. But I've met a lot of politicians in my life, and not one of them failed to have that obvious lust for power. Not even Ron Paul, even though I do believe he meant well. So it falls to the very wealthy, and due to the jealousies and prejudices that allow civilization to be centrally ruled, it must needs be done in secret. This, I object to, but I am not unrealistic about it.

However, the man who finances and develops such therapies will be able to name his price. At first. If he's smart enough to build a system of open ended life extension, he's likely also smart enough to know that charging everyone a small amount is far more sustainable and desirable than charging a few exorbitant amounts. Besides, he would likely have friends and family that he wanted to keep around, and after a decade or so, the secret would no longer be secret.

Once it is known that it is possible, others will develop it, even if they don't have access to the initial research. We have seen this again and again with technology. What is revolutionary today is commonplace, mass produced, and done by machines in a very short period of time. Rapid development and deployment of technology at levels that were science fiction when I was a young adult are yesterday's news. This will happen.

Further, the inevitable development of nanotech assemblers is going to fundamentally alter how we interact with the universe REGARDLESS of whether it is applied to medical technology. So ALL of these things need to be addressed.

And, of course, one of my personal favorite reasons for having unlimited lifespans: "What the Captain meant" will become a historical phrase, cuz the captain will be able to speak for himself.

To be revisited.

If you're talking about the QT standalone wallet, it does not have a mining interface built in to the gui. You can, however, start it mining via your cpu from the command line console (help ->debug->console) and type "setgenerate true -1" without the quotes.

You'll not likely ever hit a block, the network is too large. For more serious mining, you'll need to go to a pool, or set up a stratum proxy/private pool and get you some Scrypt asic devices.

Here's my issue: One, if you didn't have the code already working, why would you not then DELAY the fork? That part, you can get from a dozen github repos, the most currently famous being BCH.

Second, why is there no testnet? Or if there is, see the first question. That's the whole purpose of a testnet. You know, testing?

And if it DOES work, but not quite as intended, would it not make more sense to release what you got (a working, mining capable client, for instance) and work towards fixing that which does NOT work? Or again, delay the fork.

What we have now is something either designed to create fud and scam accusations, or a REALLY SERIOUSLY incompetent dev team.

BCA is alleged to have forked from BTC at block 505888. As I write this, we are at 507311. Making the assumption, as it is not clear at all in the announcement, that the block times are the same and the block reward is the same, that means the dev team ALONE has had access to this chain. If they coded no premine, they still have mined 1423 blocks since then. that's 17787.5 BCA, even if they claim no premine. Granted, the number of people who had coins at the initial block is going to be vastly more than that, but this just smells like market manipulation.

OTOH. If it doesn't yet work, then what the hell is the POINT of forking first and fixing later???

As for the sale of futures.. well, on a semi anonymous project who's only traceable asset is a pretty website, that's plain out sucker bait. Whether the Bitcoin Atom team has anything to do with that or not, it's still just wrong. Not a fan of Yobit to begin with, but that borders on criminal.

What disturbs me about this is what's not being said. Not in the mainstream press, but that's not surprising. Not really in the fringe press, which is a little more so. Not here, which terrifies me.

People, do you not see the blatant admission by the United States Federal reserve that what they do is criminal?

This whole 'scare' is about fractional reserve banking. And the people who are calling tether out, regardless of the merit of the accusation, are doing the exact thing they are complaing about on a grand scale!

There is no way in hell that Tether is operating at the low level of reserves that the dollar is. None.

Yet we keep falling for this, over and over and fucking OVER!

The powers that be (trippin) scream about how crypto is, might be, or ought to be used in criminal proceedings. Unsaid, almost always, is what currency is MOST OFTEN used in criminal proceedings! Anybody want to take a stab at which one that might be?...



I'll wait.






Yeah, ok, for the couple of credulous newcomers. It's the United States Dollar. The Euro comes in a distant second. In a recent study commissioned by the very people doing the screaming it was estimated that criminal use by their definition of bitcoin is less than one percent of all transactions. And that accounted for Silk Road, most of which was only criminal in a legal sense. By this I mean that declaring something illegal doesn't make it immoral or wrong. If I want to buy something and you want to sell it, and no one ELSE is harmed by it happening between us, there is NO LEGITIMATE WAY of calling criminal. But I slightly digress.

Now this thing with Tether, this is way bigger. Because the whole criminality argument goes into grey areas, interpretations, etc. This doesn't.

The questions are these: Is Tether backed one to one by the USD, or is it practicing fractional reserve policies?

If the answer is the latter, is this fraudulent?

If so, then why are we calling out TETHER and NOT EVERY FUCKING CENTRAL BANK IN EXISTENCE???

Scale does not make a thing immoral or not. There is a reason why appeal to popularity and appeal to authority are logical fallacies.

Now is the time to buy. Once the token is properly announced, you ain't getting it for 1 or two satoshis.

They're not tokens.

They're futures contracts.

They are a promise to deliver x number of BCA at Y price when/if the coins become available.

...yeah....

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Try like 2011, maybe earlier. Novacoin. Peercoin. Kick it up to 2013... TEK, SYNC, TECH, FIRE, TRK,...... I could go to hundreds. Hybrid POS/POW is NOT NEW NEWS

I'm hoping you misunderstood, because if that's what they said, well, I'll be calling shenanigans. It's really beginning to look like this one's just another cash grab.

I've got a FUNK pool about halfway built. Haven't the time to do it both fast and correct, so I'm going for correct. It's primarily because I want to solomine but hate dealing with asic to wallet mining, but since I'm building it anyway, I'll make it public once it's up and tested.

Anyone interested in a private test run, PM me. I can't set a schedule right now as I'm doing it in what little spare time I have, but if there's a good deal of interest I'll give it more priority. For my own use, it only has to be moderately secure

Setting up a pool is relatively easy. Maintaining one isn't.

Oh, and Shavers, this one's for you https://clyp.it/abhyt13p#

Thanks for the info! I'm here to learn, more than anything else. I figured the actual forking was relatively trivial, and I will be reading up on the info you linked there. I'm fairly serious about creating a crypto, but I don't know if I"m serious enough to try to develop one. My reason(s) for doing it are mostly curiosity. I want to see if I can do it successfully

My secondary reasons is I can tell Spoetnik that he accidentally told the truth, even though retroactively. According to him, I'm Shakezulu. The only good thing about that old conversation is that prior to that, I'd not heard of the aforementioned gentleman, and I got to read some very interesting things

It's rare that I get useful replies to coding questions anymore. Enjoy the merit

Who dis?

You sound like you know me. PM me

Highly unlikely. This coin went devless years ago.

Users with coins might be willing to trade with you. I will see if I still have any, but it's not a high priority for me. It used to be very easy to mine, but I haven't touched it in years. I'm not even sure I still have my old wallet

compile on your own machine. It will take more than 15 minutes, but the problem will resolve itself with modern dependencies.