Can coinmarketcap update clams moneysupply? That number coinmarketcap has is old.
Same with AEON. I wonder how those get updated? They probably use the API of certain blockexplorers for that. The only blockchain explorers for AEON that I know about are chainradar and minergate, both of which show the correct supply. "alreadyGeneratedCoins":9.393907288722e+18
|
|
|
|
Can coinmarketcap update clams moneysupply? That number coinmarketcap has is old.
Same with AEON. I wonder how those get updated? |
|
|
|
Will Monero get in touch with Ethereum developers, or get the ethereum source code and create a similar lightweight wallet?
....
In due time. The beta version needs to become a release version, and then libraryization. Once that happens, I think we'll see a variety of wallets both official and non-official. We'll probably even see one funded via the Monero forum.... Will Monero get in touch with Ethereum developers, or get the ethereum source code and create a similar lightweight wallet?
It would be nice to see some lightweight clients being done for monero. Preferably similar to Ethereum since its already familiar in the bitcoin space.
Can anybody confirm or deny this?
Maybe there was some discussion I missed? What is the connection between Ethereum and lightweight wallets? Will Monero get in touch with Ethereum developers, or get the ethereum source code and create a similar lightweight wallet?
It would be nice to see some lightweight clients being done for monero. Preferably similar to Ethereum since its already familiar in the bitcoin space.
Can anybody confirm or deny this?
Maybe there was some discussion I missed? What is the connection between Ethereum and lightweight wallets? Looks like a indirect troll post to me. Oops, what I meant to say was ELECTRUM, not Ethereum. Fuck, they sound so similar. So is there any plan to get ELECTRUM lightweight client developers to work on Monero, or copy the source code of it and implement it to Monero so that we can have lightweight clients in Monero? Are you aware the fluffypony has worked on Electrum? https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/commits?author=fluffyponyThe idea of just copying the source code for Electrum is not viable since the architecture of the underlying coin is quite different, unlike Bitcoin fork coins. Some ideas from Electrum can be applied to Monero lightweight wallets though. |
|
|
|
It's cute that people say this, but JD has controlled more than 50% of the coin supply ever since I've been using it. It's over 70% currently, peaked around 77% recently, somebody big divested, it would seem.
Yes, but it is not Doog's money, but from the investors, and there is no one big investor: http://just-dice.blogspot.de/search/label/bankrollThere is no way to know how many accounts one investor might have. The danger of 51% attacks is very real until and unless the coin becomes much more widely distributed and used for more things besides investing in the JD bankroll. Most people trust dooglus (or the coin would have no value) but things can go wrong. The site can be hacked. He might sell it. Or, he might turn bad after all. More large diggers are probably an advantage for security especially if they stake their own coins. If they invest in JD or sell to people who invest in JD then it is no change. It's pretty unlikely that a single new (huge!) digger is going to come along and dig up enough to 51% attack by himself and that becomes even more unlikely the more coins are dug up (including by this current whale digger) and staked. |
|
|
|
Why you people even argue anymore. Monero was a scam. Period.
Both your English language skills and logic are laughable. Keep smoking your LTC drugs. Because sigspam |
|
|
|
Will Monero get in touch with Ethereum developers, or get the ethereum source code and create a similar lightweight wallet?
It would be nice to see some lightweight clients being done for monero. Preferably similar to Ethereum since its already familiar in the bitcoin space.
Can anybody confirm or deny this?
Maybe there was some discussion I missed? What is the connection between Ethereum and lightweight wallets? |
|
|
|
make them use their private pools which we can then shut down with the help of AV and law enforcement...
Go right ahead then. Most of the hash rate is not on identified pools, at least according to the minexmr chart. Maybe there is a better chart, I don't really know. minexmr currently shows only 2 pools + small + unknown at 61% while monerohash shows 8 pools + small + unknown at 34% Thanks for the pointer, I wasn't aware of the monerohash chart. It indeed shows more pools, but still right now (the numbers vary over time) shows 48.4% unknown.  |
|
|
|
I was necessarily promoting to buy gold or anything. I was just saying based on the past history, any legit form of currency is backed by gold or silver. When the fiat system collapses, you need some kind of ratio to judge how much something is worth.. I think it will be gold
I think bitcoin is the new benchmark. You cannot have a commodity basket because they are all manipulated, to my knowledge bitcoin has small manipulation and decreasing volatility.Despite scammers, looks like the gold certificate scam is far bigger than any crypto scam can imagine to be. Are you serious? Bitcoin has no volatility as of right now in your opinion? It went from 240 to 500 in less than a month. Gold has its up and downs, but it's kind of hard to manipulate the market with gold as much as Bitcoin. Plus I agree with you that the gold certificates ended up being one huge scam... Though gold doesn't increase in price 100%+ in less than a month either. How in your mind is price volatility evidence of manipulation? Is it not possible that an asset is simply volatile for no other reason than normal changes in demand or sentiment? (This is not to say that Bitcoin isn't manipulated, but volatility itself doesn't prove it.) Also, is it not possible that manipulation takes the form of lower volatility? |
|
|
|
make them use their private pools which we can then shut down with the help of AV and law enforcement...
Go right ahead then. Most of the hash rate is not on identified pools, at least according to the minexmr chart. Maybe there is a better chart, I don't really know. |
|
|
|
This Site would have all wallets like the digger on the exact date to do the digging, otherwise to promote the coin they just go to an exchange and buy these clam.
If you find wallets with balances just on that exact date it would be evidence of cheating. More likely that the balances are there before during and after the cutoff date. That wouldn't be all that unusual for any site that keeps balances on many addresses (for example, gives each user a different deposit/payment address and doesn't automatically sweep everything right away). As for going to an exchange, that has a liquidity cost. Right now to just buy 20k CLAMs you would double the price and many of those CLAMs would be bought well above the market. You then risk being unable to liquidate except at substantially lower prices. That might very well discourage new participants in a way that being able to claim a bunch of CLAMs would not. as far as i know, no one wants to remove the digging feature, just slow the digger down.. Some have certainly suggested eliminating digging altogether, or imposing a tax that would make it worth a lot less going forward. I don't really see a good method to just slow it down, and especially not slowing down larger diggers without making it prohibitive for smaller ones. |
|
|
|
|
I like b4 better. Be6 seems likely followed by Rf6 and then we just move the bishop back. At least with b4 we are advancing our pawns to the point where black may at some point need to give something up to stop them. Probably not (and we still draw), but it is possible.
3 votes for Be6: ArticMine, LucyLovesCrypto, XMRChina
1 vote for Bxc6: nwfella
2 vote b4: XMRpromotions, smooth
|
|
|
|
So now it comes full circle again to simply limiting the mining (digging) to an amount that would be equivalent to a PoW coin that has been out for as many months as CLAMs has. Several hundred clams dug per day was a rough approximation I had come up with in the past.
There is no need to stop the digging but it must be limited so that millions of coins cannot get dug in a short period of time. Any low impact solution that does not limit the daily digging in some way will probably not save the coin. I can see it limiting the speed at which diggers can make money and increasing the value of the coin significantly. So diggers might be against it having to wait longer to dig all their coins.
But better CLAMS market cap be $1 million+ again and have to wait to dig your CLAMs than for them to be near worthless as the market cap drops under $100k.
So how long till this vote? And then how long after that for implementation.
I don't share your optimism that slowing the digging will result in a recovered price. Higher than it is currently? Possibly, but I'm skeptical it holds for any meaningful period of time. The problem is that even with slowed digging, there's already a great many more CLAMs out there chasing the same small base of buyers, and the buyers are mainly gamblers at JD. So unless you increase demand for the coin, the base of buyers doesn't increase, and the price doesn't recover, it just keeps slowly dropping. Now the price might recover initially as confidence is restored in the system and people buy back in to earn their staking income under the delusion that they're "making money" by holding CLAM, but eventually to realize the "profit" they have to cash out to BTC, and when this happens in any meaningful way, the price plummets. This is the long term reality of CLAM. The falling price isn't an anomaly caused by the whale digger, it's the long term trend being accelerated by him. I agree and that's a large part of the reason, aside from it being unethical, that I'm firmly against any undug CLAM grab. The do well in the future this coin has to grow and that means: a) long term confidence that comes from NOT tinkering with the parameters when it is convenient, and b) bringing new people and services into the ecosystem, which is helped not harmed by having a stronger distribution mechanism. What if the next big digger is a huge site with a big BTC/LTC/DOGE wallet that instead of digging and dumping (as this digger appears to be doing) instead sees it in their interest to support CLAM on their site and promote it? That will never happen if the short-sighted decision is made to hurt future diggers in response to THIS digger. |
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war has donated the domain ion.cash to the AEON project. While that domain is not identical to our name, it is similar and the domain could be used for some sort of affiliated or independent project that supports AEON, or just redirected.
However, the issue we have had is that transferring the domain to his registrar to ours has not been working for some reason. I'd like to not spend any more time on this so I'm looking for a volunteer to manage the process of getting the domain transferred. PM me if you are willing to do this.
Does this mean TPTB will be working on Aeon now? No |
|
|
|
Yes that is right. The block time and 60 KB full reward zone (minimum amount of transactions allowed in each block without any penalty) can't be changed without a hard fork, so that will wait until April or so. Most of the features of 0.9 will be active right away though.
So, + An increase in block time: 1 to 2 minutes, available but effective until April 2016 + 60 KB full reward zone? What does it really mean? What happens to miners those who try to create block without transactions (empty block) or create blocks with full of low-value transactions? Nothing happens to empty blocks. Blocks can include up to 60 KB of transactions without any penalty (60 KB/2 min so 50% increase from the current 20 KB/1 min). Above 60 KB, more transactions can still be added up to double the current full reward zone size but they will incur a penalty. The 60 KB full reward zone can grow (and then subsequently can shrink) based on the median size of previous blocks. |
|
|
|
If I recall correctly, fluffypony stated a while ago that they were waiting for i2p to have a stable release before it would be integrated into Monero. That, and 0.9 is well past a feature freeze state. It is being prepared for release. |
|
|
|
I`m still waiting for a lightweight client, perhaps if you can get it touch with electrum's devs ,they could implement it.
Just my 2 moneros.
I just use https://mymonero.com/ and https://monerodice.net/ for storage at the moment and get a bit of ROI bankrolling the house. A webwallet is not as secure as a lightweight. Plus I want to keep them offline and use the lightweight to broadcast the TX. You can do that with simplewallet and a remote node. You give up some privacy but that will likely be the case with any lightweight wallet as well. at some point, couldn't we do some kind of SSL/SSH thing wherein a simplewallet user could connect to a remote node via an encrypted connection? maybe it does already I dunno. Or maybe this is what you guys are referencing to the "node as service" concept.... The issue is that you give up some privacy to the operator of the remote node. Encrypting the connection doesn't solve that but does help a bit with eavesdroppers. The best privacy is achieved by running your own node (especially once i2p is integrated). This may serve as an incentive to run nodes, for people who care about "the node incentive problem". In a privacy-oriented coin it is logical to believe that many people would actually care about their privacy, and therefore have an incentive to run a node. But there is no way to know how well that will work out in practice. On the matter of i2p...take a look over at https://github.com/monero-project?tab=repositories -- you might find that interesting. Yes, same idea of connecting to a remote node. |
|
|
|
...
Yes that is right. The block time and 60 KB full reward zone (minimum amount of transactions allowed in each block without any penalty) can't be changed without a hard fork, so that will wait until April or so. Most of the features of 0.9 will be active right away though.
So would I presume the now min 0.6 XMR (based on 2 min blocks) per block tail emission since that was not included in the official 0.8.6.6. binaries as far as I understand. The 0.3 minimum has been in the source code for a long time and included in the beta binaries. You are correct it was not in the 0.8.6.6 binaries. The fork code changes that to 0.6 at the same time that the block time doubles (in fact, the code now scales it for whatever the block time happens to be). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
