We add terms, please check.
Currently we don't add any promotions and focus on simplicity. We offer 2000 mbtc bonus if you wager this amount x35 times within 30 days.
How to get this 2000 mbtc bonus? Do we have to deposit anything or we can claim this. 35x is not that high to reach, i would love to try your games if this bonus is for free. From what i understood you have to deposit and wager 70 BTC, and than you can take 2 BTC bonus. I am not fun of any bonuses because it's almost impossible to wager them, but if you want to use bonus, isn't it better to use it on site which will give you bonus on deposit? Yes, I agree...wager 70 BTC within 30 days is really a hard task... but it maybe easy for someone but at least not for me. I prefer deposit bonus more too. It really depends on the game mostly, wagering 70 btc in 30 days is truly a lot, however reaching the goal of 70 btc wagered only on 2x payout is literally not possible with small funds. I hope you didn't lie to as when you said that website security is a priority for developers, it does not looks so safe. Also as previously mentioned, good idea would be to implement some system, where you get some extra features for using Crocozino for longer time. Many casinos offer something like level system, where you get bigger faucet by reaching some goals, usually wagering coins. Referral system is something that people like to see too, i have many friends who are just not playing on gambling sites, but they make a lot of referrals instead. That would attract them also to your site, if the rates would be attractive. |
|
|
|
|
There are many thing going on in bitcoin world (and in cryptocurrency world too) right now.
Miners are divided, and the 1200$ level is an mental barrier for some of new users, but most importantly we can see a strong resistance over there.
We need at least 1300$ break to see somthing bigger going on.
|
|
|
|
|
As anyone can see, bitcoin has very big competition, it is one of hundreds cryptocurrencies available ( not talking about scam coins ).
Totally different aspect is that it would be very hard for any altcoin to overcome bitcoin, mostly because BTC is known worldwide, it was first cryptocurrency ( so many alts are using parts of btc code ), and the current price is really high according to the yearly chart.
To see bitcoin falling down to the second place, we would need to see some dramatically strange event, I cannot even imagine what would have to happen.
The volume of bitcoin trading compared to other cryptos is really high, so to weaken the position of bitcoin, an enormous amount of people would have to dump the bitcoin and exchange the money ( previously invested in BTC ) into altcoin- however that would need a very big movement on the market.
For now, we cannot say if bitcoin will be #1 cryptocurrency in 10-20 years, but we surely can say that it will be very strong in the next 5 years, and no alt will overcome the origin of cryptocurrencies.
|
|
|
|
I think getting a day job is the best and easiest way to do this. There's no "hidden" or "secret" way in making money in Bitcoins unless those people that are e-whoring, doing illegal stuffs, and I'm pretty sure you don't want to mess around because getting in jail will be such a hassle in your entire life.
I think you're fine with that signature campaign already, just keep up with the maximum post count. But if you want to add more income to you, then try studying and understanding the art of altcoin trading.
Exactly. For some reason, people still ask questions like " earning 1 bitcoin in 1 hour " or something , and I cannot understand why. 1 bitcoin is 1200$. Ask yourself a question, how to earn 120$ in a week? Probably the best answer would be "go to work" or "find a job", because bitcoin isn't some kind of a mystery machine that will make you rich in one day. You need investment or something to start with, at least some abilities like coding or some knowledge ( e.g trading experience ) which might help you earn decent gain every day. Obviously, you can start with signature campaining but you need to know a lot about bitcoin plus you need to have some decent rank account to get satisfying amount of btc per week. |
|
|
|
|
Russia accused of using chemical weapon in Syria?
Accused by who?
US?
Alright, that sets up everything perfectly clear.
Tell me how it is possible that Russia have taken part in that crime, if the United States Of America have their armed troops in there.
That would be both political and military suicide for Russia.
I would also like to remind all of you, that both Trump and Putin has access to nuclear weapon, they can just launch the rockets and send them everywhere they want.
There is another important thing: Russia has more nuclear bombs than US has, isn't that terrifying for all of you?
Looks like people still dont believe what will happen in case of Russia - United States war. I will tell you what is going to happen.
the end
the time when anyone launches nuclear rockets, will be the 0:00 time of human extinction.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is quite going strong now, I see it is continuing at its Bull stance, I just hope this run is not another Bull trap like what happened the previous week. After hitting the ATH, resisted the ETF rejection, but crumbles down due to the joint announcement of several exchange due to the speculation/rumored fork, I hope this time it is really become stable at $1200+. There is no doubt as long as no bad press coming $1300 is just a week away.
Yeah. Hopefully bitcoin can keep it together for at least a month before the hard fork. A lot of debates going on currently in the bitcoin community about the hard fork. I think that it is best that a decision is made or the hard fork just implemented, instead of having this fighting going on forever. It's a very good time for bitcoin still, the price has climbed from $1000 a week ago to around $1200 right now. |
|
|
|
and for those who said it is not an anonymous system, do a transaction and try to figure out the source, it is not difficult. The system uses random nodes to create multisig address, so when there are enough participating nodes, you will not be able to pinpoint the source. Also it is easy to use a random address from each party to create the multisig address, I did not implement it due to time constraint, but it is trivial to do so. All explaned in the whitepapers.
Anyway, no more jokes, I won't have time to answer them.
yes you did a great job, though I don't understand all the code, I know it works fine with my client  Agree good job supercoindev and thank you! |
|
|
|
now that supercoin released their code, XC you can copy it over and claim real multisig  |
|
|
|
synechist, I am surprised at your low moral and ethics. You and your fud partners fud this thread and many others, only to show other people how stupid you are, it is disgusting the way you desperately argue and try to deny the facts.
Again, here are the facts:
XC does not have multisig tech [edit: under Timerland's definition] implemented. XC dev and its supporters did not even see an XC multisig address until some138 created 2 true XC multisig addresses for them.
They clearly mixed something else as the multig while they did not even realize it.
Again, this investigation is not on how good or bad XC is, or whether XC supported anonymous transfer. These subjects are not part of this investigation. The purpose of this investigation is simple and clear, it is stated clearly in the OP. And now the investigation is concluded with clear facts.
The fuds will never ever change the facts!
To repeat myself once again, you don't have a monopoly on terminology. Who do you think you are? God? It's incredibly arrogant to call your terminological preference a "fact". Our preference differs. Deal with it. (In fact, terms are never "facts". They only describe facts. So you're on very shaky ground there.) XC uses the term "multisig" to refer to transactions that require multiple parties to sign in order to be valid. This is a common scenario with any new technology: what to call it? It's new, and so there are no words for it. In this case we decided that our tech is best termed a multisig transaction that is distinct from a multisig address. If you don't like our usage, well you'll just have to accept it anyway. You don't get to decide. Because you're not God. P.S. You don't know what FUD is do you? It stands for "fear, uncertainty and doubt". To have a differing opinion to yours is not to spread FUD. Perhaps it's you who needs to use terms correctly. There are common terms used, which means something. Like multisig technology means what bitcoin implemented in the coin code and its many usage. http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3718/what-are-multi-signature-transactionshttp://bitcoinmagazine.com/11108/multisig-future-bitcoin/By using this common terms for something else, people will think either you are completely ignorance, or want to use it for your benefits in a cheating way. Either way it is not good. If you don't know it, it's probably ok. Now you are told the facts and you continue to depend it desperately, I don't see the points. |
|
|
|
I appreciate some good discussions there. However, let us focus on our original questions. That is, does XC uses multisig technology? The answer is a clear no. They clearly took something else as the multisig, and they did not even see an XC multisig address before (which some138 first created 2 of them).
This said, I don't conclude that they don't have an anonymous system. XC may have a good anonymous system but this is not the investigation here. As I said before, multisig and anonymous system are two different things. Although multisig can be used to create an anonymous system like what Supercoin/mammothcoin did. Multisig can also be used for other things like open p2p marketplace created by Open Bazaar, in this case there's nothing to do with anonymous system. So let's be clear what is the problem we are investigating here, and don't boil the ocean by citing unrelated things. I am not here to judge the whole technologies used by XC. I merely try to understand their claim on the multisig, for that me and many others have got a clear answer and conclusion.
So investigation closed. No more fuds please, especially no need from people who understands nothing about the subject and multisig. Thank you all.
Thank you for the investigation, that clarified which coin in the alt coin world actually implemented multisig. **Timerland wins an argument about a terminological nicety by deleting comments that disagree with his terminological preference. You don't win an argument (or even establish a point) by deciding that any views contrary to your own are off-topic. I've made a clear case for my view, only to have had it repeated to me that Timerland's terminological preference rules and thus that (a) I do not understand multisig and (b) my comments are irrelevant and worthy of deletion. Secondly you don't establish a point by removing other parties from the debate. Timerland's having a party all on his own. Timerland you silly totalitarian. Better delete this quick before anyone sees. Respect for Timerland's ethics: zero. synechist, I am surprised at your low moral and ethics. You and your fud partners fud this thread and many others, only to show other people how stupid you are, it is disgusting the way you desperately argue and try to deny the facts. Again, here are the facts: XC does not have multisig tech implemented. XC dev and its supporters did not even see an XC multisig address until some138 created 2 true XC multisig addresses for them.
They clearly mixed something else as the multig while they did not even realize it.Again, this investigation is not on how good or bad XC is, or whether XC supported anonymous transfer. These subjects are not part of this investigation. The purpose of this investigation is simple and clear, it is stated clearly in the OP. And now the investigation is concluded with clear facts. The fuds will never ever change the facts! |
|
|
|
|
I appreciate some good discussions there. However, let us focus on our original questions. That is, does XC uses multisig technology? The answer is a clear no. They clearly took something else as the multisig, and they did not even see an XC multisig address before (which some138 first created 2 of them).
This said, I don't conclude that they don't have an anonymous system. XC may have a good anonymous system but this is not the investigation here. As I said before, multisig and anonymous system are two different things. Although multisig can be used to create an anonymous system like what Supercoin/mammothcoin did. Multisig can also be used for other things like open p2p marketplace created by Open Bazaar, in this case there's nothing to do with anonymous system. So let's be clear what is the problem we are investigating here, and don't boil the ocean by citing unrelated things. I am not here to judge the whole technologies used by XC. I merely try to understand their claim on the multisig, for that me and many others have got a clear answer and conclusion.
So investigation closed. No more fuds please, especially no need from people who understands nothing about the subject and multisig. Thank you all.
|
|
|
|
If EVERY node has to sign(meaning multiple signers) it is multi-sig. It is a trustless version, unlike supers where coins can be stolen.
lol - every node on the network? You understand that multi-sig is just an extension of pay-to-script-hash, right? When you understand P2SH we can talk. they clearly don't know what is a multisig. They think something else is multisig, lol |
|
|
|
BTW, this is Gavin Andersen's example on the multisig in Bitcoin. Supercoin/mammothcoin implemented exactly the multisig technology, same is done at OpenBazaar. https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071XC devs please learn and hope you will have a real multisig system implemented, not just a name.  Funny... do you still use AOL for your email as well. You are using bitcoin technology and open bazaar's rationale, both without anon.... therefore nodes can be more trusted, but they have to be trusted. XC offers trustless mixing where every node signs off and can't steal coins, if it doesn't sign, it resyncs and sends the transaction to another set. Highly likely most transactions will be very quick, but if there is an attempt to be a bad actor they are inhibited from gaining access to the coins. Your old technology multi sig allows bad actors/nodes to steal coins. THis has been know for a long time, with coins before yours that you stole to write your code. In fact you deleted a 500 post thread because it primarily discussed the inadequacies of this design. ok since you attempted so many times, let me answer you: multisig tech is not anon, it can be used for anon system like what Supercoin/Mammothcoin did. There's no "old" multisig, there's only one, implemnted by Bitcoin and used by many. You try to use regular tx and with some software side controls, this is completely different things. It is not multisig, it is whatever your private tech. Don't call it multisig because it is not. No wonder why Xc people never saw a XC multisig address starting with "4". Please don't post garbage here. I think everything is very clear. If you have other facts as I asked, please post, otherwise don't waste our time. If EVERY node has to sign(meaning multiple signers) it is multi-sig. It is a trustless version, unlike supers where coins can be stolen. No, please do a google on multisig transactions, you see what it is. For example: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3718/what-are-multi-signature-transactionshttp://bitcoinmagazine.com/11108/multisig-future-bitcoin/what you have is reg tx, anyone can post it in the network. someone also posted a youtube on multisig with open bazaar implementation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK85PCee3pUmultisig addresses can be created with RPC command such as addmultisigaddress in almost any client of the coin, including the XC client (that's how some138 created 2 multisig addresses for XC). multisig tx are those tx created on multisig address, where you have to have the required signature with private key in order to spend it (i.e. being accepted by the network). For normal raw tx, any one can post it in the network, no additional sigs required. |
|
|
|
BTW, this is Gavin Andersen's example on the multisig in Bitcoin. Supercoin/mammothcoin implemented exactly the multisig technology, same is done at OpenBazaar. https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071XC devs please learn and hope you will have a real multisig system implemented, not just a name. Funny... do you still use AOL for your email as well. You are using bitcoin technology and open bazaar's rationale, both without anon.... therefore nodes can be more trusted, but they have to be trusted. XC offers trustless mixing where every node signs off and can't steal coins, if it doesn't sign, it resyncs and sends the transaction to another set. Highly likely most transactions will be very quick, but if there is an attempt to be a bad actor they are inhibited from gaining access to the coins. Your old technology multi sig allows bad actors/nodes to steal coins. THis has been know for a long time, with coins before yours that you stole to write your code. In fact you deleted a 500 post thread because it primarily discussed the inadequacies of this design. ok since you attempted so many times, let me answer you: multisig tech is not anon, it can be used for anon system like what Supercoin/Mammothcoin did. There's no "old" multisig, there's only one, implemnted by Bitcoin and used by many. You try to use regular tx and with some software side controls, this is completely different things. It is not multisig, it is whatever your private tech. Don't call it multisig because it is not. No wonder why Xc people never saw a XC multisig address starting with "4". Please don't post garbage here. I think everything is very clear. If you have other facts as I asked, please post, otherwise don't waste our time. |
|
|
|
And in what sense can the following deleted posts possibly be taken as inappropriate?
No, there's only one technology for multisig, there's nothing "different", or it is not multisig. Try to use some other names.
You are incorrect about this. I repeat: you are not in a position to tell what technology XC has or has not implemented. XC has technology that you do not know about. Therefore you are not in a position to make the above statement.
Yes this is the truth from all the above messages.
This is an irresponsibly one-sided remark. What possible reason would you have for deleting these? because while you are arguing and you don't even know what is multisig address and what is multisig transaction! marseille posted Gavin Andersen's example of multisig transaction, go read it and understand it please, before repeating the same thing here! I again request you that please on the facts, no fuds, and understand multisig before posting please.Again here Gavin Andersen showed what is a multisig tx and how to create, sign and spend!https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071BTW, I thank all the fuds to pump the thread for me, appreciated |
|
|
|
I am tired to argue with you guys, please if you want to show facts:
provide us an XC multisig address that has tx associated with it, in the blockchain, so we can inspect and see what is there. This can prove you actually have the capability of multisig.
what you have provided so far are NOT XC multisig addresses, they are regular XC addresses. What I asked is extremely simple, and can be provided in 30 sec.
I've told you this several times: XC DOES NOT USE WHAT YOU CALL "MULTISIG". It uses multisig transactions, not multisig addresses. Can we move on? It uses regular tx in this case, where you can put software to do anything, but it does not require all party to sign in order to spend! mutisig transaction is the transaction created on multisig address (you understand why? well read what is multisig!). |
|
|
|
I will repeat a previous remark that you ignored:
Multisig transactions and multisig addresses are two different things.
A multisig address is just an address that requires y of x signatures.
A multisig transaction is just a transaction that requires more than one signature.
The two concepts are separable; the former is not required for the latter.
I hope you are joking, or you completely have no idea what is multisig. Multisig tx must be created on multisig address so it can be guaranteed the feature it has. Otherwise what you created is simply a regular tx, no restrictions at all. I feel like teaching a tutorial on what is multisig here. Please ask this question at the development thread of bitcoin, you'll get the right answer. |
|
|
|
|
I am tired to argue with you guys, please if you want to show facts:
provide us an XC multisig address that has tx associated with it, in the blockchain, so we can inspect and see what is there. This can prove you actually have the capability of multisig.
what you have provided so far are NOT XC multisig addresses, they are regular XC addresses. What I asked is extremely simple, and can be provided in 30 sec.
|
|
|
|
BTW, this is Gavin Andersen's example on the multisig in Bitcoin. Supercoin/mammothcoin implemented exactly the multisig technology, same is done at OpenBazaar. https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071XC devs please learn and hope you will have a real multisig system implemented, not just a name. Yes this is the truth from all the above messages. FUDs do not help, truth will prevail. I am glad I created a thread to show people the truth. |
|
|
|
I am really getting tired with all the fuds, if you have no knowledge about multisig, don't waste time here. I am sure I spend a lot less time deleting your fud than you type it. So let's all have a better life |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
