Dark/Ducknote has promised PoS in a cryptonote. I don't see how this is really possible, considering that if you reveal to the network the amount of coins you're holding (and possibly how long you've been holding them) how you/your address remains anonymous, but they're implementation is supposed to be revealed in the next several months, so...we shall see.

Anyone care to speculate on how this impacts poloniex or bittrex (both based in USA but I'm assuming not registered as money transmitters)?

OK. I just think at this point it might be better to start from scratch, but just my opinion, and maybe related to the fact that I dumped everything I had between 20-30 satoshi

From the first page:

From your daemon:

The difference between max BCC and current money supply is ~500k coins. The coin has been staking for ~6 months, so that means another 7.5% should be generated by next April? That would more than another 3M coins, right? That would be greater than the maximum number of coins? Is staking done after this year, and network relies on transaction fees only? I don't think the original "dev" was a dev at all, I seem to remember it was just a coingen coin that the "dev" paid someone to hack PoS into, and I'm not sure they did it in a way that the numbers on the ANN page conform to.

Besides all the shitty launch and possibly messed up stake implementation, isn't pretty well agreed upon that pure PoS is not secure, and that's why the original PoS coin is actually a PoS/PoW hybrid (PPC) and also why Blackcoin had to move onto PoS 2.0 (whatever that means) and BTSX uses delegated PoS, etc...?

BitcoinNational, why are you buying up this crappy coin with a checkered past? I seem to remember quite a bit of the premine went missing, so only a fraction went out with airdrop, and then there was incorrectly implemented proof-of-stake so that the staking yield was much higher than reported, and I think the max number of coins was also misleading. It's just a complete cluster. If you want BTCtalkcoin, why not just start a new one with an actual fair launch, and maybe that isn't 100% PoS?

I think what I might do is just get rid of the network hashrate all together, and report a large pool pie chart with the sum of their hashrates and a small pool pie chart with the sum of their hashrates, and if they don't all sum up to the network hashrate...ohwells. That way everything is self-consistent at least.

It's definitely related to the poor estimation of network hashrate from the diff (calculated either as diff/60e6 or diff/(60*1024*1024), in this case the latter). The sum of the pools queried comes out to be greater than the calculated network hashrate; here are the two numbers from a test I just ran:


where network hashrate is calculated from diff and sum of pools is just the sum of all the pools self-reported hashrates. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this is. Just report the total network hashrate as the sum of all reporting pools? Figure out a more accurate way to calculate network hashrate from the diff? I'd be glad to hear any suggestions.

I think it's a combination of two things. One, the percent is calculated automatically by matplotlib and represents the pools % of hash among the large pools shown on that graph, not in relation to the total network hashrate (Edit: nevermind, this should be total network hashrate, I need some coffee, and will think about it more later...). The other thing is that for some reason the node-js pool software uses 1024 instead of 1000 to convert to kilo/mega hash, byte units instead of SI units? I didn't even know this was a thing.

I think the easiest and least confusing thing to do is just drop the percentages from the pie slices.

Edit2: It seems to be mostly related to a poor estimation of the network hashrate based on the diff. I've been calculation the network hashrate as diff/60e6, and this ends up where the sum of the sum of the pools is greater than this calculated number for network hashrate...

This is a good point I'll try and look at it today or tomorrow and then bug xnbya and PCFil if/when I figure it out...

I think maybe it has to do with inaccurate network hash calculated from last pool queried reported diff. Anyway, it still gives a relative idea of where you should/should not send your hashes I think.

You can always check pool hash distribution here ( http://minexmr.com/pools.html ) and here ( http://xmr.poolto.be/#alternative ). Here is a sample of the big pool distribution from the last 30 min (I think this image should stay up-to-date):



Please support one of these pools (minexmr.com or xmr.poolto.be) or another pool who you think is helping to support the network, not just the pool with the easiest to remember/type domain name

From bittrex.com

I don't really use them at all, but heard this on their IRC channel, thought some people may be interested.

I think I've seen several articles about this happening in Australia recently.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/australia-seizes-360m-from-dormant-bank-accounts-and-all-50-u-s-states-are-doing-this-too

Mebbe give them MYR+candy, otherwise they might just get mad

Are you suggesting we go door-to-door like Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons, my fellow Myridian?

Of course any cryptocurrency has only one blockchain, it's just the format that it is stored in makes it incompatible between posix and windows operating systems. I think this is true of bytecoin as well, although I do know they made some changes so that block chain isn't stored in memory, maybe they changed this as well.

From his profile page:

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to come back. Looks like he either lost interest in crypto, or maybe assumed different username.

Thanks for nice words! Hope you guys get some fat tips

You can also come on ##myriadcoin on freenode and beg for some tips from myrbot.

Windows or Linux? Also, which version of drivers? Maybe when you launch it only use one device (-d 0), to see if you can even get one up and running.

I think kind of, yes. I believe it's related to the implementation of the boost serialization library, making them incompatible.