About to be doing the vouch, to this is my public statement verifying. Will update after,  . |
|
|
|
There is a vouch copy available for a reputable member with positive trust rating for 0.032 BTC.
I'll do it. |
|
|
|
First place:
Idmab865 - 0.35 BTC Reward!
600.68BTC wagered.
Second place:
Bond007 - 0.15 BTC Reward!
589.46BTC wagered.
Third place:
22md - 0.075 BTC Reward!
306.08BTC wagered.
Can you also add in their volume, just to get an idea? You can check the full board under Rewards -> Contest -> Last monthI've added the numbers for those three above Yeah, knew about the leaderboard, just hate having to keep going back and forth to find things, :p. And thanks! |
|
|
|
Bitvest now offers 3 different passive ways of offering free play and rewards to users.
Rainbot, Faucet, and now Quests, Both Quest and Faucet offer more then higher your level is on the site.
Was a little sad to see today's quest (if it's the same for everyone). I had 79k tokens, but one of the goals required was to do 3 faucet claims. That meant getting down to 50. So you either have to build 79k to 200k or lose it all just to gain a few more tokens. It essentially became a decision of breaking the chain bonus and keeping tokens or severely diluting them for the purpose of leaving the chain bonus in tact. Just seems a bit broken. |
|
|
|
Monthly wagering contest for September is over, those are the winners:
First place:
Idmab865 - 0.35 BTC Reward!
Second place:
Bond007 - 0.15 BTC Reward!
Third place:
22md - 0.075 BTC Reward!
Rewards has been dealt to the winners!
Congratulations!
Can you also add in their volume, just to get an idea? |
|
|
|
|
I'd also be willing to do a vouch for this... but due to the nature it'd have to be under the agreement that I'm vouching based on my experience alone and am not personally guaranteeing anything.
|
|
|
|
my investment is negative  Not only yours investment is negative but who ever invested since last few or couple months back all those are under loss. There is another thread whether users are comparing few sites investments growth from last few months you can check to see which site is giving the best return. Here is the thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1585408.msg16385938#msg16385938Past performance doesn't dictate future performance. If you invested in Dec. 2015 you'd be up over 100% still, which isn't bad at all. Variance is just part of the game. |
|
|
|
in regards to quantum computing people need to get their heads out of the sci-fi section and into reality.
quantum/d-wave (once you wash away the foolish buzzwords of it) is simple. instead of a micro transistor having 2 options(binary).. it has 4.
and here is where the magic evaporates.
in binary
imagine 0 volts is 0(false/off/no/negative/dark)
imagine 1 volt is 1(true/on/yes/positive/light)
now.. imagine instead of 2 options. there are four options 0 1 2 3
imagine 0 volts is 0(false/off/no)
imagine 0.33 volts is 1(not false not true/not off not on/not no not yes)
imagine 0.66 volts is 2(false and true/off and on/ no and yes)
imagine 1 volt is 3(true/on/yes)
now imagine all this shit about trans-dimensional space, time travel and parallel states as just bait, to keep the very simple logical process from being revealed(avoid corporate competition by not revealing the simple secret sauce ingredient) of micro transistors with 4 options instead of 2
the whole "new states of both on and off" is just wishy washy wording, meant only for sci-fi movies because its not actually any magic of
binary "off / on"
dwave "off / not off not on/ off AND on / on"
as these are just attributes(names) and those 2 new options in the middle can mean anything you want it to mean.
yes / maybe / not sure / no
yes / sometimes / not often / no
night / morning / afternoon / evening
all you need to know is a micro transistor in a Dwave has 4 options instead of 2.
an 8 bit dwave 'byte' allows for 65,536 possibles(4^8) instead of 8 bit binary 'byte' allowing for 256 possibles(2^8)
this allow a hex to be stored using just two bits instead of 4bits
meaning you can store FFFF(33333333) in one dwave byte instead of just FF in a binary byte(11111111)
its utility for compression and speed improvement of data is limited. but its utility in logic problems opens up immensely.
its just going to take time for then to think up some logic problems that can utilise the 2 extra options.
if you want to think of it like a switch.
bright light on / romantic dim setting / movie-gaming dim setting / light off.
if your light switch in your living room or den only has on or off. your missing out on 'mood lighting'. get yourself a dimmer switch
and then spend some time thinking about what you will use the two new dimmer settings for, but be warned they are not for trans-dimensional wormhole jumping or parallel universe hopping
First off, this is an awesome explanation (ELI5) of what's going on. I'm not knowledgeable about hardware but that was even easy enough for ME to understand it. But something people aren't answering WRT changes in algorithm due to faster processing is... ASICs would all be rendered useless, correct? Like aren't ASICs only working with BTC solely because of the current algorithm, such that changing this would render them worthless since they can't be modified? Or is there a way to alter the system in such a way that it's still protected but the current hash power would still be usable? Essentially, I see a huge shift of mining power otherwise, where the first people with quantum ASICs would dwarf all the other hash power combined. |
|
|
|
EDIT: It is also true that if we saw this coming we could switch to another encryption scheme.
This is the part so many people neglect to realize. If quantum computing made any real impact on things like encryption, we'd have more processing power to create a better, more secure one. And since BTC is open source, that is a quick and easy solution. At the same time, however, it would disable all current ASICs, and I do believe most altcoins would be susceptible (as the majority don't even follow current development). |
|
|
|
Looks like the wallet is not updating anymore. Did everyone upload the current receiver file? I did this time I always upload them the same day that they're sent to me. So no issues on my side WRT the receivers. |
|
|
|
This is an officially owned email address that is being used while altering the current support setup. That said, before clicking any link (as emails can be forged), verify the URL you're going to. It should ONLY go to https://moneypot.com/* |
|
|
|
5m would need about 4-5 days of coin age so that part makes sense yet. Staking for max rewards is most definitely wasting coin age though
I was under the impression the most you can get in a stake is 10% of the block #. Block number, let's say 1.1m, would be 110k. Highest APR is 500%, or 1.37%/day. 8,000,000*1.37%=109,600, which is close enough to the 110k. So that's 8m coins. At 5m in a single stake, it would be 8/5=1.6 days for the maximum stake (assuming 500%). Assuming you get half that, 250%, it would still just be 3.2 days for the cap. The BEST method is to stop it at 1.6, just because it encapsulates all other stake % possibilities as well and ensures no matter what's chosen, you aren't losing anything. Yes, I was wrong. I was reading it as .5m for some reason 5m can stake twice per day (2 x 2.5m chunks) Can you reach out to them to tell them how to stake more efficiently? They don't want to listen to me. And that 5m they've held for multiple days now... add another day to the non-stake (it's up to 4+). |
|
|
|
5m would need about 4-5 days of coin age so that part makes sense yet. Staking for max rewards is most definitely wasting coin age though
I was under the impression the most you can get in a stake is 10% of the block #. Block number, let's say 1.1m, would be 110k. Highest APR is 500%, or 1.37%/day. 8,000,000*1.37%=109,600, which is close enough to the 110k. So that's 8m coins. At 5m in a single stake, it would be 8/5=1.6 days for the maximum stake (assuming 500%). Assuming you get half that, 250%, it would still just be 3.2 days for the cap. The BEST method is to stop it at 1.6, just because it encapsulates all other stake % possibilities as well and ensures no matter what's chosen, you aren't losing anything. |
|
|
|
|
Update for you, iGotSpots (on POSWallet). My deposit still hasn't been staked (5m coins in 72+ hours). Their response is "Yes, the staking path changed in the most recent fork - looks like we are using the most efficient staking method."
|
|
|
|
Hey Yahoo, just wanted to say this is an awesome and unique idea. I was thinking about this the other day and was wondering if there was any way to implement something like it. Looks like you did! |
|
|
|
I want to say that I spent a while reading and analyzing the whitepaper for FirstBlood. I seriously hope none of you invest in it -- it's a HORRIBLE idea. They're doing a predatory investment scheme and it's ridiculous.
On using an ETH-based coin (or similar), I'm kind of iffy. This severely limits the market. Most people don't use or want to use ETH, and you add yet another failure point:
1) BTC
2) ETH
3) NewCoin
This just isn't a good idea. Not to mention now you have to build MORE value because you have to get people to go from fiat -> BTC -> ETH -> NewCoin, which is far more work than most are interested in doing.
Agree with pretty much everything here. A move to ETH would be premature and not helpful imo. The single biggest problem this coin has is the blockchain bloat, the supply is low, it has a large community and plenty of interest, the parameters and coin specs are excellent. Maybe I am biased, as I too am a top 10 holder but HYPER is still one of my most prized possessions, its nowhere near a 'dying' coin as some have suggested here. So HyperFuture has gone missing.. again. No big deal if you ask me, not the first time and it simply opens up an opportunity for the community to take it where they see fit. A simple swap to a new chain could be a possibility where the wallets the community decides are excluded can not take part. Plenty of devs out there, some of which Id assume are already in this coin in some way or another. Hell if I had the time, Id do it myself. Regardless, Ill keep buying and staking. I'm not entirely sure if blockchain bloat is even an issue. Is this what's causing the RAM problems, or are they elsewhere? I don't know the technical specifics behind that. I just know the wallet as it is SUCKS. It needs a huge overhaul, and I agree that if the blockchain can be shrunk, that would be great as well. That part isn't needed now, but would likely be down the road if the community can make it take off again. And it's kind of funny, so far I've seen 3 posters (aside from me, so 4) out of the top 20 wallets. We account for 20% of the top holders (30% if we exclude Bittrex) but none of us have the technical expertise to take this to the next level. |
|
|
|
I might be alone in this...but only because I'm not a coder whatsoever...but what about Ethereum based tokens? Here's First Blood for example: https://firstblood.io/This is a good idea, I think if we can somehow rebuild the coin on top of ethereum or omni it would bring the coin more value. just my 2 satoshi....im no developer though haha  I want to say that I spent a while reading and analyzing the whitepaper for FirstBlood. I seriously hope none of you invest in it -- it's a HORRIBLE idea. They're doing a predatory investment scheme and it's ridiculous. On using an ETH-based coin (or similar), I'm kind of iffy. This severely limits the market. Most people don't use or want to use ETH, and you add yet another failure point: 1) BTC 2) ETH 3) NewCoin This just isn't a good idea. Not to mention now you have to build MORE value because you have to get people to go from fiat -> BTC -> ETH -> NewCoin, which is far more work than most are interested in doing. |
|
|
|
|
How much are you asking for?
|
|
|
|
I have not even heard of a single miner who has profited EQUAL to, much less above, what they could have earned if they skipped that and simply bought the coins.
Well, who have you talked to? I don't think firms like Bitmain or BTCC are particularly open about their mining profits. I don't think you have the numbers to make these determinations. Plus, that example is cherry picked. Like any other entrepreneurial endeavor, enter if you have an edge. Otherwise, stay out. The people that lost were the people that invested in GPUs near the end of their usefulness (many of whom put those to use on alts), or bought pre-order ASICs and didn't account for time and difficulty growth. Anyway, my main point is that these numbers we can pull out of our asses just don't apply to the big mining firms. Particularly in China, where there is significant oversupply of electricity in certain areas. I was under the impression the topic was about the "average joe," as stated in the title. Not about corporate (i.e., massively-funded companies). What you're saying when you bring them into the equation is like saying "the lottery is profitable... didn't you know every month or so someone wins?" Ignore the other 99.99999998% of the players and you're absolutely right. Yeah, and if we're talking about "average joes" that mined with GPUs pre-ASIC, I've never met one that didn't profit immensely. Sure, you can cherry pick buy/sell dates to paint this picture that buying and holding bitcoin was more profitable, but you're not providing any data, nor have you shown any consideration of miner costs. In any case, your assertion that "GPU mining screwed most (if not all) people who took part" is completely insane. Like I said: The people that lost were the people that invested in GPUs near the end of their usefulness (many of whom put those to use on alts), or bought pre-order ASICs and didn't account for time and difficulty growth. Your arguments don't really apply to GPU miners. But they probably apply to misguided home miners pre-ordering ASICs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe GPU mining came out near the end of 2010. At this point, you can view a price history chart and find that BTC was worth anywhere from $0.006 to $0.08, depending on when this occurred. I'm inclined to believe that the GPU mining was the onset of the price increase, rather than at the end (which would also correlate to the hash rate). So $6 was worth 1,000 BTC. If you spent $300 on a GPU, that was the equivalent to 300/6=50*1k=50k BTC. I doubt anyone mined 50k BTC with a single GPU. Even if we go with a bit of the ways into the hash rate increase (when GPU was undeniably in effect), you'd still be looking at 25k BTC per GPU. This, again, assumes 1) you don't value your time at all, 2) you have free electricity, 3) your hardware had zero issues and nothing had to be replaced. All three are very, very unlikely stories. Official history shows that in early 2010, when BTC was worth almost nothing (read: CPU days), someone couldn't even sell 1k BTC for $50. There was zero market. Those who were mining with their CPU could have gotten nearly free coins WITHOUT the other costs, simply by making an offer to buy the then-worthless coins. Anyways, everyone's free to do as they wish. All I can do is try to open peoples' eyes to what they're missing -- the next step is up to them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
