I think coinmarketcap prefers/requires stock block explorers, like insight or something, because they want to use the same api calls for everything.
tell me the API call they use and it shall be built. In the meantime this is pretty much the authoritative source - http://unitus.info/json/supply.phpSubmitted a request for them to update their block explorer, we'll see if they reply. |
|
|
|
Wallet 0.9.2.16 will not open.
Assertion Failed! error
Windows 7 64bit trying the 64 bit version wallet.
If it's the first time that you run 0.9.2.16 you need to start with the -reindex flag I think. |
|
|
|
|
Is it just me or do they look exactly the same? Also, wtf is orangecoin?
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any way to see a list of currently guessed guesses?
|
|
|
|
|
I think coinmarketcap prefers/requires stock block explorers, like insight or something, because they want to use the same api calls for everything.
|
|
|
|
If BARR can't destroy at least 30% of the total supply of 3 altcoins in 1 week, then altcoins are a failure. BARR will certainly be a failure in that case, and altcoins in general as well. Because it will mean that people are determined to hold dead coins until they lose 100% of their money. But I don't think people will choose to keep altcoins that they're unable to sell at any price, instead of burning them in exchange for BARR.
We'll see by the end of November, and if altcoin users agree then we'll burn more in December. Well, we'll burn more in December anyway, because we're altcoin users ourselves and we already agree.
Can you stop spamming this shit already? Didn't you just make a topic called "It's time to let go of your altcoins" or something like that? But are you offering to buy those altcoins from those people? I am. Do you think they will just "let go" of coins they've spent money on? I'm offering them an exchange if they destroy their coins. That's the only way they can let go without losing - there's not enough BTC on offer to buy all those coins, but there's enough BARR. "But why should they give up their coins for BARR?" Why should they give up their coins just because you said so? Seems like I'm saying the same thing you are, except I'm also doing something instead of just talking about it. He's telling them to sell for btc, you're asking people to exchange for some useless nxt asset, at the same time that nxt itself is crashing to all time lows. Not exactly apples-to-apples. |
|
|
|
...
That is lack of respect for or awareness about people who expend their precious time to read your paper.
...
I honestly didn't fathom that he might have a solution for the one-time key (the "MG" sig) that he would not have published in his paper. Who would? You read a white paper expecting all the pivotal elements to be covered. That is the point of a white paper.
...
I didn't go publishing my white papers in half-finished state, thus wasting the time of my readers.
You can choose what to spend your time on. No one forced you to read the paper or publicly comment on it. Maybe in cryptoland, but in the real world a white paper is typically a 1-2 page document outlining the essential ideas of something, not the minutiae of implementation. Yes, you did go publishing your paper in a half-finished state. It's the first post in this thread. |
|
|
|
reminded by that graph that there's no presence in south america. Well that's kind of sad if you take in consideration the naming of MONERO. Maybe we should host a VPS there.... There is a node in Brazil now. I'm surprised there's not at least a few between Mexico and South America. It seems like the most frequent visitors to #monero-pools on IRC are spanish speaking people looking for help. Maybe they all just mine straight to exchange though...or they're all actually the same person...or something. |
|
|
|
btc went up because dollar got weaker, not because btc got stronger. Other currencies against the dollar went up aswell, so its not just btc.
This is may be a very small part of the reason, but not even close to explaining the recent price increase. BTC is up 10-20% in the last month. The USD/EUR or GBP or yuan hasn't changed nearly that much, and also, BTC is up versus those currencies as well, by approximately the same amount, 10-20%. |
|
|
|
i thought it was a Scrypt coin so why would a pool be letting you mine with SHA256 ?
smells like exploit LOL
Think it hard forked to be multi algo sha, scrypt, and x11. |
|
|
|
You're really cherry picking from that post by Rosenfeld. Here is a more complete quote of his post (with portions that you probably don't agree with bolded): Given that compromise failed, Gavin and Mike went ahead to push Bitcoin-XT, and now the real issue isn't about technology, it's about the philosophy of Bitcoin evolution. To me, Bitcoin-XT represents a somewhat reckless approach, which in the name of advancement shatters existing structures, fragments the community, and spins the ecosystem into chaos. Whereas Bitcoin Core represents a frigid approach, where no technology improvement will ever be made because consensus can't be reached, and where we can't do anything about the fact that we can't do anything, because of the delegitimization of attempts to change the status quo by forking and letting the best currency win (and make no mistakes, there will be many necessary technology improvements down the road; the block size limit pales in comparison).
Both choices are bad.I had plans once to write a paper about the game-theoretic aspects of changing the Bitcoin protocol, the contingencies in case of a fork, and how the mere threat of a fork can create a Schelling point which would prevent it from happening. I regret never getting around to it, because it might have been illuminating in the current debate. (For that matter, the other paper I had plans for writing was about transaction fees and how they relate to things like a block size limit; I regret that too, but again the block size is no longer the real issue). But anyway, I do strongly believe that the possibility of forking Bitcoin - even if at first it has no consensus - is vital to Bitcoin's health, growth and survival. It's the glue that holds everything together and makes sure the Bitcoin economy has a say in case something goes wrong with the development. Ideally a contentious fork would forever remain a theoretical possibility - but if it is possible it means it can happen, and that's what we're seeing right now. Rejecting a fork on the grounds that it's a fork is wrong.Of course, there are reasons to reject Bitcoin-XT on the grounds that its timing and method are wrong. The objection to the technical change was too strong to just gloss over it. We're definitely not anywhere near the point where Pieter, Greg or Wladimir can be conceivably considered rogue and we should break away from them. Mike and Gavin have, quite arrogantly I would say, assumed that this is just like any other software change and that virtually everyone will just automatically follow them, where the reality is far from it. They didn't properly consider the consequences of making this move without enough support. (They might reply that they have been fighting for this for a long time and exhausted all other options, but I don't accept this - they made many attempts at persuasion, but not enough at compromise). So here we are, having to choose between two bad alternatives. The mere act of choosing commits, in my opinion, the logical fallacy of privileging the hypothesis. There are millions of possible approaches, and "someone" out there restricted them to just 2. Most of the decision process (culling from millions to 2) was made for me and I'm left rubber-stamping one of the choices that remain. (See also http://lesswrong.com/lw/mi/stop_voting_for_nincompoops/). But hey, even a noisy bit contains some information, and the question was asked, so... Given the choice between short-term sticking with 1MB or going all the way to 8MB, I am in favor of going to 8MB. Given the choice between sticking with Bitcoin Core or switching to Bitcoin-XT, I am in slight favor of sticking with Bitcoin Core, but that could change any time. You make it out like he is gung-ho "team core", as you like to put it, but at the end he says he is only "in slight favor" of core over xt and that his preference could change at any time. |
|
|
|
So, if I run light wallet and unlock it, I should be able to forge blocks, right? I don't see how to check if I'm forging, besides I guess monitoring transactions and see if I get some tx fee transaction for forging.
Right-click tray icon and then click Wallet Status (web). I'm pretty sure I tried that, and just saw a page with my balance and dialog box for sending funds, but I'll check tonight and update my post in ten hours or so (workitty work work). Edit: Ohyea, it's working. I was going here http://127.0.0.1:9090/webwallet instead of here http://127.0.0.1:9090/index/status.html |
|
|
|
I want to start the specs and design of making BURST able to store data.
anyone want to participate in this?
What i personally think would be cool, would be something totally decentralized, totally encrypted. it should not be possible for anyone to know what they store, or what people are requesting, yet, the network as a whole should be able to serve requests for data, and searches for data if data was put there to be searchable.
i guess it should cost a little to read data off the network, and it should cost a little to put data into the network.
it might also be possible to put data in, that cost more to read, then the profit could go to the "owner" burst address of the data
i would assume people could then choose what amount of diskspace they want to use for mining, and what amount for keeping data in the BURST cloud. If you keep data, it will just look like encrypted garbage, you would not know what it is, and not be able to read any of it.
This is a huge task, i expect we'd have to create a file system from scrath and then some, but the reward would be the first decentralized totally anonymous totally non-cencsored file storage with general access as well as protected access. Sort of like utorrent only where nobody will be able to tell what you are downloading and uploading and storing.
what we have going for us is a working payment system ( BURST ) and the first 10PB or so owned by people in the community.
Btw. i don't even know if it is possible to make it anonymous to the degree i want it to be, but i haven't yet seen any hard evidence why it should not be possible.
So other coins are already doing that. Maidsafe, Storj, Sia Why not spend more time devising Ideas on how to work together on our brother coin Qora which already supports small file uploads and can be exchanged with Burst on cross chain transactions. I agree. I own some Sia and monitor their thread. It seems extremely complex to offer redundant file storage off blockchain and compensate hosters for storing files. Not something you can just tack on to an existing coin in a few weeks. |
|
|
|
Who cares? It's a dumb idea anyway, and obviously a rip off of the earlier chained hashes that used a different number of functions. Is the first person to add another few hash functions on top of the 11 also a genius? Clearly the creator of X13 is two smarter than Duffield, and the creator of X15 is another two points smarter than him. |
|
|
|
|
So, if I run light wallet and unlock it, I should be able to forge blocks, right? I don't see how to check if I'm forging, besides I guess monitoring transactions and see if I get some tx fee transaction for forging.
|
|
|
|
|
If I use the light wallet, do I need to make an RPC call or something to unlock the wallet, or is there some way on a localhost webpage that I'm missing?
Edit: Nevermind, just saw it in systray.
|
|
|
|
Satoshi is among us. There is even a chance he is reading this right now.  Most people don't know this, but Satoshi is actually the developer of litedogedarkcoin  |
|
|
|
Hi People. I may add DOGED to this game: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1201700.0What would be the interest? We have 0% house edge games and even 1% player edge if you are interested. If there is interest I will add DOGED to the coinpayments.net gateway. Seems kinda complicated, but I'd at least give it a shot if you add doged. |
|
|
|
I was submitting this coin to cryptopia but they won't accept coins with significant premine
That's OK, as I wrote above, single exchange with private API - is enough for initial phase. btw, 'significant' - is not very precise term... i.e. what level of premine is eventually acceptable? (e.g. 0.2% is OK? ) On their list of rejected coins: ziftrCOIN(ZRC) 4.5% Premine too high. was the lowest number I saw. So, yea, I'm pretty sure your premine that will give you more than 90% of available coins for years, and more than 50% of available coins for almost a century would fall into the "way too fucking high" category Yea, but what would you say for 0.2% premine, then?  I guess it's deliberately vague so they have some discretion, but they do carry Zeitcoin, which I know has/had 1% premine, so I guess 0.2% would be acceptable in general. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
