I think it will be less than 50.. 10k nem friendly wager? Lol we can have the honor of the first ever nem wager.. :p
Done. But can we make it 50k?  That's... 0.02 of a stake.. Ya I can do that.. Probably guna lose but it's worth it so I can say I made the first ever bet in nem!  You have yourself a deal!  Yeehaw! *handshake* |
|
|
|
Tomorrow night when exactly?
Publish a GMT time please.
Why wouldn't it be 0 GMT? I think it will be less than 50.. 10k nem friendly wager? Lol we can have the honor of the first ever nem wager.. :p
Done. But can we make it 50k? |
|
|
|
PLEASE REDEEM YOU NEMSTAKE! REDEMPTION ENDS 26TH(TOMORROW NIGHT)!
REDEMPTION WILL NOT BE EXTENDED THIS TIME!
Wanna bet with 50/50 odds that they'll be at least 50 unclaimed stakes with me betting that there will? |
|
|
|
|
Looks like a significant number of NEMstakes aren't going to be redeemed...
|
|
|
|
XMR.TOPay any Bitcoin address. Anonymously, using Monero.Hey people, arnuschky, a friend, and I made this new service called XMR.TO. It allows you to pay any Bitcoin address in a fully anonymous fashion using Monero. Payment is nearly instant, so you can use it to pay bitpay bills, or any of your other bitcoin purchases. Have a look at the website, it explains all the details: https://xmr.toWe're still in beta. In case of problems or suggestions, don't hesitate to contact us or just reply in the dedicated thread. Any feedback of course welcome! Nice job, fellows! On an unrelated note, your first sentence is ambiguous due to "a friend". It could be interpreted either as an appositional phrase or as three in a series using a serial comma. I love grammar. I hate grammar (I quit school because of it), Iit is used by elitists nerds on the internet to attempt to prove their superiority. Did I do that right? Close. |
|
|
|
arnuschky, a friend, and I made this new service called XMR.TO. On an unrelated note, your first sentence is ambiguous due to "a friend". It could be interpreted either as an appositional phrase or as three in a series using a serial comma. I love grammar. Looks like an amphibology to me. And since it is unvoluntary, a solecism too. I love rhetorics. We really get to organize a monero conference so you two can get together. Will be fun! (or not...  ) LOL, I await the day. |
|
|
|
please add monero
1 GB per day
Well that's not even close to true. Edit: looks like about 11.8 MB / day. Happy to add it to the list, am interterested to see where it lands on the projections, having trouble finding the info on current block size, whats the best website? I couldn't find it either. A guy quoted me the current .bin as being 3.5 GB. |
|
|
|
please add monero
1 GB per day
Well that's not even close to true. Edit: looks like about 11.8 MB / day. |
|
|
|
XMR.TOPay any Bitcoin address. Anonymously, using Monero.Hey people, arnuschky, a friend, and I made this new service called XMR.TO. It allows you to pay any Bitcoin address in a fully anonymous fashion using Monero. Payment is nearly instant, so you can use it to pay bitpay bills, or any of your other bitcoin purchases. Have a look at the website, it explains all the details: https://xmr.toWe're still in beta. In case of problems or suggestions, don't hesitate to contact us or just reply in the dedicated thread. Any feedback of course welcome! Nice job, fellows! On an unrelated note, your first sentence is ambiguous due to "a friend". It could be interpreted either as an appositional phrase or as three in a series using a serial comma. I love grammar. |
|
|
|
|
Haha, I wonder how many of these I still have.
Surely more than 200k, bought much, much higher.
|
|
|
|
There are over 1500 masternodes online. IMHO this rebuts your centralization argument.
Sort of like there are just under 7,500 FDIC insured banks in America so they are not centralized? Exactly there are far more banks in the world than Darkcoin masternodes. Furthermore just as in banking case there are minimum capital requirements to set up a Darkcoin masternode. It's apples to oranges though. The banks, despite having so many locations, mostly have this central point of failure. You need to be pointing out something similar in Darkcoin to make a fair comparison. Edit: I'm not saying there aren't comparisons to be made, just that this particular one isn't very worthy. There are more banks in the world than BTC nodes too. |
|
|
|
Why would someone be motivated more (compared to value today) by expected future value of a bounty if his actions necessary to obtain that bounty are likely to reduce the value proposition of the deliverable for the bounty?
I understand that this is your assumption. But my assumption is the exact opposit. A workable escrow pool with collateral that can run profitable for 30 days is not going to happen. It will be horribly expensive, dangerous and will not be profitable. And if YOU want to disprove that, it should be YOU who has to pay for this experiment. The bounty is just a little present, we are not going to pay you for your expenses, if that is what you would like! In the contrary, your expenses are what will cause you to give up such an experiment, and we are firmly counting on that. "I" don't want to set up a pool. I'm interested in the discussion of whether it is possible/feasible/economical. You make it sound like I or someone else has this desire to make a pool to "kill" the coin. I don't believe that is the case, at least right now. As far as I know, the point of the bounty is to provide incentive for someone to at least attempt to break the antipool measures set up on the belief that putting the coin "through the fire" is better for its long term health. My point is only that there is very little incentive to (attempt to) implement a pool. That doesn't mean someone won't try anyway though. The discussion remains interesting regardless. |
|
|
|
There is a bounty of 3500SPR to break the no pool. Whoever has solid idea of how it can be done should try it out. Is a cycle that things are being built, being broken and then being built again. The MN codes that Mr. Spread is building is from scratch and not clone. Let him focus on that and someone else can try to break the no pool.
Well, I mean, ~1 BTC isn't much motivation for someone to actually go out and make a pool; talk, however, is cheap. 3500 SPR has nothing to do with 1 BTC. Please don't confuse those two. That's nonsense. It's almost exactly 1 BTC worth presently. They are interchangeable. But then, who is doing the cheap talk here? You just assume that you are going to make the pool work today, and get the money immediately? Is that the reason you take the current BTC/SPR rate?  Show results first, and then you can claim the bounty and its conversion rate! Might take a few weeks or months, right? That's why we express the bounty in SPR, because 3500 SPR will still be 3500 SPR no matter if someone succeeds today or in 6 months, IF EVER! And 1 BTC will still be 1 BTC today or in 6 months. I don't understand what you're trying to say. Why would someone be motivated more (compared to value today) by expected future value of a bounty if his actions necessary to obtain that bounty are likely to reduce the value proposition of the deliverable for the bounty? |
|
|
|
There is a bounty of 3500SPR to break the no pool. Whoever has solid idea of how it can be done should try it out. Is a cycle that things are being built, being broken and then being built again. The MN codes that Mr. Spread is building is from scratch and not clone. Let him focus on that and someone else can try to break the no pool.
Well, I mean, ~1 BTC isn't much motivation for someone to actually go out and make a pool; talk, however, is cheap. 3500 SPR has nothing to do with 1 BTC. Please don't confuse those two. That's nonsense. It's almost exactly 1 BTC worth presently. They are interchangeable. |
|
|
|
There is a bounty of 3500SPR to break the no pool. Whoever has solid idea of how it can be done should try it out. Is a cycle that things are being built, being broken and then being built again. The MN codes that Mr. Spread is building is from scratch and not clone. Let him focus on that and someone else can try to break the no pool.
Well, I mean, ~1 BTC isn't much motivation for someone to actually go out and make a pool; talk, however, is cheap. |
|
|
|
SCIence Property Auction ( SCI Points )
The recent research subgame has generated SCI points to some enterprises that have been able to setup research facilities. I have decided to auction off some the newly generated SCI points. The points can be used in future advancements in the game when technology advances and technology can be unlocked.
The recent capability to create windows in the kingdom was unlocked with 1000 SCI points.
The recent Royal Window Works company foundation auction valued SCI points at 2M per point.
I am auctioning off 100 SCI points in this auction.
The auction will end in 3 days from the time of this post.
Please post your bids in the following format:
(no SCI points) @ (price per point)
This is a great opportunity to acquire Science points to be used in future technology advancements if you do not have any research facilities!
SCI ence Points AuctionCurrent situation:20 @ 0.25 Mm Haridimous 80 @ 0.1Mm Duke of New Liberty ---------------------------------------- 20 @ 0.1Mm Duke of New Liberty Approximately 1 day left in the auction. Some great deals here considering that new technology can lead to new game products and significant income in the future! (clothes, transportation, etc) 20 @ 0.2 |
|
|
|
So, for a pool, I think what you would do is just have people send the BTC equivalent of one block's reward to the pool (which isn't much), then if the miner's steal the reward, the pool still retains their deposit so net miner gain is 0. You would have the miners themselves mine to their own pubkeyhashes, and you'd submit partial solutions to these blocks to the pool itself. When the miner gets a block, they would be given n many blocks to get the coinbase from their block to the pool to redistribute to the other miners. If they didn't return the reward to the pool, the pool would then just take their deposit and ban them.
So, I don't think there's a big issue with pooling, just a slightly more complicated implementation. There's a small associated cost with joining a pool, but it's not really much.
coinbase mature is 120 blocks, pool have to wait that time, before spend the block reward. a big miner can mine more blocks during this time, so every miner sould pay a bigger guarantee (60 spr for 10 blocks, 120spr for 20 block guarantee), do you think they will do this? Probably, yeah. Considering 100 SPR is only $6 USD and assuming that that majority of miners probably have a cheeseburger worth of funds to spare, it should be fine. I mean, reward is like 6.66 SPR, *= 120 blocks (worst case, extremely unlikely) is ~800 SPR. But if you have enough to get 100% of the network's blocks, why would you be on a pool? More likely case is that a big miner gets maybe 20% of the network... That's a deposit of ~160 SPR to prevent a large loss. This does discourage pools though, particularly if a coin gets more valuable. One could also have the mature time be longer. The pool could also stop accepting work when x number of blocks in the last 120 have been solved by the same miner (matching collateral), but that would suck from the miner perspective. In the event a miner started stealing coins, it'd be kinda a funny battle between the miner and pool to get the spending TX in the 121st block before each other for all of the remaining blocks (you would assume the pool would ban the miner at the first block stolen). Though it seems to me that the pool should be spending the TX in the first block it's allowed regardless, so the miner wouldn't have 100% chance of even stealing the first block (pool possibly has a better connection as well). |
|
|
|
Are you saying that a pool can appear as two pools while working on the same block?
Pools won't show up at all, it'll look like solo mining followed by a tx spending all the coinbase to the pool sometime later. The pool could choose to give totally random addresses for a miner to send funds to, making it impossible to see which pool it went to. But couldn't a program tell the time it took to mine a block and compare it to the minimum time it should take? Only then it would payout. No. Variance. |
|
|
|
I would love to see such a propsed "escrow pool" that uses automated escrow by using multisignature on the SPR blockchain itself.
I wonder if this could work out.
I don't think multisig would work because I think that (a) coinbase needs to output to a single P2PKH output and (b) you'd have to have all members of the pools receive all blocks from each other and sign them before determining if they met difficulty, which would be super slow. You could maybe send the coinbases to a multisig account after, and have all the pool members sign off on payouts, but that seems overly complicated. Can this even be automatized? This all sounds we would need to trust someone to initiate all that, so this will just introduce a single point of failure again, which is what will prevent such pools from appearing in the first place. I don't know why you would, seems to make it overly complicated when it doesn't need to be. Unrelated, but is the gist of that paper that one would need to use ZKP so that pools could not know a "bad" miner is cheating, because they wouldn't know he solved the block in the first place? |
|
|
|
The payout for finding a block would look at the reported hashrate during the time the block was mined. If that hashrate exceeds the maximum the payout is refused.
Such a thing doesn't exist. Not yet. If there was a third party service which held all of the payouts until the hashrate is determined that would solve large pools. Wait, hold on. You're suggesting a centralized system to "solve" the problem of too much hashpower in too few hands? Essentially yes. However, i'm not suggesting an escrow service or a website handle this. What if something like the masternodes program handled it. The problem remains that it's still effectively unenforceable. But i'm not entirely understanding why. Even if someone had their machines pointed at several different pools that still keeps pools small and numerous. We can never run into the 51% problem. Because a pool is not forced to use the same pubkeyhash for each block, and cannot be forced to do so. Therefore, a pool that is approaching whatever limit you set would just add a second pubkeyhash, effectively appearing as a second pool, and solving nothing. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
