Particl is scam?
i not found whitepaper?
The chances are my dear friend. Scam projects usually have a whitepaper and no code. Feel free to visit our active Github account where you can see all the amazing work going on : https://github.com/particlAny other questions, let us know! |
|
|
|
my particl wallet has been cold staking for over 2 weeks and still shows 99.97% complete. Seems like it will never get to the full 100%...
You could open Particl-qt and use coin control to see which output has yet to transfer to a 256bit address, and then manually do it by sending to a new 256bit address (I think even regular addresses would do the trick, not 100% sure though). EDIT: Be sure your qt is the last version though! thanks for the info will try that! only problem is I don't know how to create a 256bit address but I'll do some digging and see what I can find edit: figured out how to create the 256bit address. Transferred two txes that were still under the regular address. Will see if this makes the cold staking go to 100% now. Ok let me know if that worked or not. I'm curious myself. As for 256bit addresses, you can create them with the latest version of particl-qt! Hasn't worked yet and I've received 3 new stake rewards since this post...still showing 99.97% complete for cold staking. Cold Staking Activation is a process which measures the # of your outputs which have converted to the new cold staking smart contract. A 99.97% activation implies that 99.97% of your coins are "NOW" cold staking with 0.03% still waiting to convert (so make sure that staking node is online!!). For argument sake, lets say you had 1000 PART ... so we know that 999.7 PART are Cold Staking and 0.3 PART are not. The chances of your 0.3 PART of staking in the next few years is next to none (being realistic). You therefore essentially have a few options. 1. Close your real wallet and forget about the 0.3 PART cold staking 2. Wait for the next GUI release which will give you the option to FORCE that 0.3 PART to convert. 3. If you are crypto tech savvy pop into our Riot channel and I am more than happy to explain to you how you can do this WITHOUT waiting for the new GUI Wallet. I hope that clarifies matters. EDIT : Please remember that the % Cold Staking Activation shown in the wallet is of coins currently Cold Staking. 100% = all of your coins are cold staking; 50% = half of your coins are cold staking. |
|
|
|
<snip>
Assuming you are completing this now vs. before the network launched then you can simple download the QT wallet, create a new wallet ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ66ud54l2Q), generate an address and enter that into the Portal. Are you sure this is correct because if that is so then it makes no sense for litebit to have told me entering the bittrex receiving address would not work? why would that not work? No reason for it not to work. You can send to any valid address since mainnet. |
|
|
|
<snip>
Assuming you are completing this now vs. before the network launched then you can simple download the QT wallet, create a new wallet ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ66ud54l2Q), generate an address and enter that into the Portal. |
|
|
|
Someone just told me for your "MAD" or DDE you guys give exploded funds to stakers?! That is a bad idea if true. Because a person who gets lets say 20% + of the blocks or not enough nodes are online they may calculate the advantage of extortion and hope to stake their own destroyed funds. Not to mention they can collude with other stakers. I've been asked to do this before in Halo and had to decline as there is no charitable cause where the incentive could not end up working against us.
Thats why lost funds are burned. You guys should consider the risk there. If you are burning then don't mind this comment. Otherwise, have a nice day fellas.
Your insight is valid and something we have considered internally - as things stands no decision has been made on distributing fees back to the stakers or how and if it would happen - there are numerous challenges aside from the attack vector you described. |
|
|
|
Said individual has a history of saying he will do something and never going through with it  I certainly am not going to be holding my breath for any conclusive evidence of his claim. That aside, this is the most excited I have been about Bitcoins future in a long time. Onwards and upwards! |
|
|
|
Apologies in advance Afrikoin since its off-topic! Anyone who still thinks SegWit is any good needs to read this: How do SegWit and FlexTrans compare?More incompetant rubbish There is no reason to choose SegWit over Flexible Transactions. There need only be ONE reason. That reason is the BU developers are amateur coders and should not be within a hundred miles of any production code. End of conversation. |
|
|
|
<snip>
I should add that there is a slack channel, a private one that's been going on for the past 8 weeks. Craight Wright, from nChain, suspected to be one of the Satoshi team, has poked holes at SegWit, and there is a plan underway to hard fork. This has not been mentioned anywhere publicly on media. But to me, it seems like the kind of event that could trigger an unexpected downturn. And its the only case, a black swan event, where i could see such a huge drop.
<snip>
Got linky? Thanks. |
|
|
|
I'd like to ask that how many people of those who dumped their coins on news release had patience to watch this video from last summer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUuk3W4tSzoRyno states already on that video that Silk Road isn't a target of Shadow market and there will be some kind of censorship. It seems that dark market hype was created by those people who were dissappointed on news release. But yeah what I understood from Friday is that legally devs has to say that they are doing utmost to censor dark market items, but what can day do, if users decide to vote for allowing dark market items as market is decentralized. If something is dissappointing, it's slow progress on stuff where we can actually witness the progression. But I don't mind, if SAME PROJECT continues under a new name and get's some funding. But I'd like to see statement that those SDC's collected for swap won't be used under any circumstances. That would be fair for users donating. Here are the addresses where SDC and BTC are sent: Anyone can follow up on those, as you definitely should. For reference |
|
|
|
<snip>
They should really prolong this bonus a few days. The wallet takes a long time to sync right now. That would show more fairness.
Please use the blockchain.zip if you are having issues, more info here https://github.com/shadowproject/blockchain (it literally takes minutes to sync) |
|
|
|
If you folks need any other assistance, jump onto slack or riot. All details at https://particl.io/ |
|
|
|
|
Dare I say this is not the last we are going to see of BTC under $1000 ... Room for more downtrend as uncertainty remains high.
Repeat of the first two weeks of Jan 2017?
|
|
|
|
I have to admit the rules on this fundraising are not very clear. Can someone shed some light on this? Example: I have 100 SDC, I send them to the address generated on the dashboard and get 1:1 credit of PART. Ok this part is clear. What about the BTC? Can I send 1000$ worth of bitcoin? Or just 0.15 $ worth of bitcoin per SDC? In this case 100 SDC -> 100 x 0.15 $ = 15$ worth of bitcoin?? Is the 0.15 $ bitcoin bonus in any way connected to the amount of SDC already deposited? This is really not clear...
Edit: The way it reads right now on the FAQ is like this: For every 1 SDC you donate you will receive credit for 1 Particl. For the first 5 days, if you choose to additionally donate $0.15 worth of Bitcoin you will receive 15% bonus credit in Particl. I can send 100000 SDC for example, receive 100000 PART. Then send 0.15 $ of bitcoin (0.0001489 BTC atm) and get 15000 PART. That is just ridiculous... If you have 100 SDC ... first send in your 100SDC. That covers you for 1:1 SWAP so 100 SDC = 100 PART Once deposited and the transaction shows up in the portal, you will get a 24hour counter to send X BTC PREMIUM for 15% of the 100 SDC i.e. 15 PART for $15 (first five days, after which this will change depending on variable based on market price). The choice to take the premium is yours and expires after 24 hours. Hope that makes it clear. |
|
|
|
Let me correct you. The "thin" mode in Umbra has been disabled due to upgrade to PoSv3 ... It was not a priority and thus will be redesigned inline with PoSv3 in the coming months.
I have followed this discussion and wanted to add that one of your own @kewde stated when I spoke to him about the code, that the 'thin' mode in SDC was broken:  And I just told you the reason. When we upgraded to PoSv3 we decided that there was a much better way to have "thin mode" nodes inline with our future design plans and thus it will not be upgraded as part of PoSv3 but instead later. |
|
|
|
How do I run the wallet in lite mode?
I checked the box "thin mode" under the options tab, then I restarted the wallet. This didn't work though, and now the wallet is stuck syncing at 0% and no transactions are coming in.
Whether its thin or tight, it would not run. Could the thinness of SDC wallet change the fact that substandard quality of gui interface poses a treat to stability of SDC price. If u stay here any longer u will get fed with UMBRA hype and involuntarily coerced into buying of this shit on the open market which u cant feel happy with. Has this been run through google translate or am I talking to a bot? Your point is to try and attack one of the most beautifully crafted cryto GUI available? Please post pictures of the Umbra wallet and give us your critique The 'thin' wallet of SDC doesn't work. <snip> Let me correct you. The "thin" mode in Umbra has been disabled due to upgrade to PoSv3 ... It was not a priority and thus will be redesigned inline with PoSv3 in the coming months. |
|
|
|
You didn't answer the question though. How do you prove that you sent X SDC to stealth address: smY.....................xx if the intended recipient denies having received the payment. There is no trace of the stealth address in the block explorer to refer back to and not in your wallet transactions either. This is a genuine question. Is this why exchanges like Poloniex only uses 'normal' deposit addresses for SDC and not stealth? Because if there was a dispute you can't prove the transactions as it's unlinked. That is the point isn't it? So, with XMR there is a key that can be used / payment ID that can be shared for the purpose of audit so that a dispute can be settled between the seller / buyer. https://imgur.com/gQlj9OyIt's not FUD but a genuine question. How do you prove that you sent to a certain stealth address? I suggest that you can't prove it, hence the exchanges uses 'normal' addresses and so you will need to use 'normal' addresses for trade as well for transparency as there is no audit system with a peyment ID as is the case with XMR. So, the trust-less system isn't trust-less after all if you use stealth addresses, you will need to trust the recipient not to lie and say he didn't receive the payment. You would imagine it would be obvious since the technology is known as "Dual [key] Stealth Addresses" .. i.e. dual simply referring to the pairs of spend and view/scan keys. |
|
|
|
|
Good call indeed (was the China BTCC news just the perfect excuse for this to play out) ..
|
|
|
|
|
^^ agree looks like a cup and handle in play
|
|
|
|
nothing funny about that gif, looks like some deaths happened there  looks horrific indeed ... ouch |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
