Hmm. Seems like the network is really stressed. Too much transactions "clogged"?
Its because you are loosing miners left and right. No miners means no transactions processed, at a difficulty of over 46 billion, and a value of only 200 to 230 bucks, its just not profitable to mine bitcoin. All your small miners you guys think are worthless are now mining other coins and flipping them for bigger profits, all the big mining compuonds are bogged down with huge difficulties. This is because the big compounds have no idea what they are doing as far as securing the network, all they care about is making X amount of dollars for solving X amount of blocks so they can pay the electric and have enough left over to fuel their yacht. The small miners are needed a lot more than this community would liek to give them credit for actually, at this point with sometimes 2 hour confirms on bitcoin transaction the bottom line is, you need more computing power, and its just not worth it to mine Bitcoins right now. the amount of miners has nothing to do with the amount of transactions that can be processed. more miners = more security: no more and no less (though if miners are leaving the diff is lowering and blocktimes raise which lowers the tps a little. but i dont see this as a problem right now) |
|
|
|
as long as he does not prepare a dump with it i am fine  (just kidding) Nah, I dump sometimes when I'm in need of USD, but it's rare now  I hope to use this coin in future. I even have a cold wallet storage, just waiting for a good GUI wallet to come out so I can move all on it and save behind the 7 sea's was just a joke implying that superristant would sell our coins....but it seems he has paid now. i do the same; strong xmr believer here... (though i dont care about ui) |
|
|
|
In bear market holding is the worst strategy. It is the only assured way to lose money.
i dont think this is a bear market any more (maybe shortterm but not mid- or longterm) |
|
|
|
Development of marketing materials, new website - gomonero.com, anticipation of DB release. So what's up with price bump recently?
And big money is coming into the game now via Risto Risto actually said there might be a dump coming.... He is expecting 0.013 price range. I am afraid it might go even lower.  I am obviously not dumping. But the markets sometimes behave so that when it's clear that it is not going higher in the immediate term, they sell off, sometimes viciously. It's anybody's guess how realistic it is to wish for the triple low. I am not counting on that  IMHO the only safe strategy atm is holding and buy dips (at least thats what i continue to do - btw thanks risto: i am in the green now) |
|
|
|
That's all easily moved over. The point is that when the user's password is hashed in the old DB. We aren't going to just copy that over, the user will need to access a link and that link needs to be sent over securely. Email is the best option right now.
why not? if you use a different hash algo you may just have a flag which recalcutes after first login |
|
|
|
Today is going even more  And balance is growing without payments. Fixing soon? i second this. please give us a rough estimate maybe it's for a pump purpose?  as long as he does not prepare a dump with it i am fine (just kidding) |
|
|
|
Today is going even more And balance is growing without payments. Fixing soon? i second this. please give us a rough estimate |
|
|
|
I think this thread should be locked and tono Any site that makes profit isn't a scam! Justice had 20000(20k) Profit! Is Just-Dice a scam?
you should read the other 999dice-scam threads also. but you are right: this thread should probably be locked |
|
|
|
Thanks for the votes. Would be great to hear your reasons?
Do you think artificially lowering the number of total coins unfairly favours early adopters? Would this stop you investing?
Yes. Yes. In addition such action would be considered as sign of a pump and dump. imagine how scammy this scheme gets if they would also add something that gives out interest when people hoard coins! now the instaminers can slowly offload (drk i am looking at you) i think that if a coin is published some features should not change or it is like betraying your investors. this includes pow or pos, max coins, time between blocks - everything which changes the money supply or the way coins are generated should be kept fixed (i dont think block size matters though). if a dev really wants to make a few changes he should just fork his own coin into a new one and initialize it with the blockchain from his original coin. that way his investors can decide which route to follow. |
|
|
|
|
Fallout 1 and SimCity4 (ok... not THAT old)
|
|
|
|
How much Monero was presumed lost on Mintpal?
124 896 XMR, all recovered:) congratulations and thank you very much that you did this! (even though i never used mintpal) quite interesting that not that much xmr was there: maybe we (as a community) have learned that we need to control the private keys ourselves? would be nice... |
|
|
|
We also need to testrun a permanent 1MB cap altcoin. We haven't got one of those yet.
which is false Sorry I was unaware of one. Can you post a link to this altcoin? for simulation/proof of concept just start an altcoin with tiny blocklimit and see how it pans out or alternatively use Bitcoin. So far Bitcoin and various altcoins with 1mb blocklimit have been working flawless for years, so i don't know what you actually ask for. i guess he asks for a test how the hole economy would react if the 1mb blocklimit is reached. would be interesting: but you want to test this with our precious bitcoin. i prefer to avoid it as i think it will be dangerous and self-destructing for bitcoin |
|
|
|
gavincoin does not exist. bitbeans seems like the usual altcoin scam. looking forward to a working bitcoin with new blocksizes |
|
|
|
profite site Update
Profit 2428.5075519 BTC (Site)
Profit 172096536.86718464 Doge (Site)
Profit 1883.01899528 LTC (Site)
Are you gonna do this all the time? Dont you get bored of wasting your time? You lost in a casino and you think its a scam oh you again... the newbie who does nothing else than defend 999dice - i wonder why |
|
|
|
Except that Darkwallet transactions can be deanonymized, and there's likely nothing they can do to fix it.
what does drk do which darkwallet is unable to adopt? please dont say MN: - darkwallet could adopt a MN like concept if they want (using the dw wallet itself as a kind of MN is just the first possibilty which comes to my mind) - i see the MN concept as a not-yet-proven fail - i think mn is invented with the only intention to get all people to hoard coins so the instaminers may drop them more safely although i dont like Amir because of bitcoinca stuff i think he is way(!) more competent as a developer than Eduffield |
|
|
|
the one which contains most work and follows the protocol specification of my client (changed blocksize would be another protocol)
If we get the fork (Original Bitcoin VS Gavincoin) then both will follow the protocol specs but one of them will have higher cumulative difficulty. only as long as their isnt a block bigger than allowed by the current protocol definition - as i said: blocksize is part of the protocol spec. |
|
|
|
mining has nothing to do with checkpoints. they are a relict which is no longer needed excapt for fasten up an initial sync.
when bitcoin forks every miner who uses the new software is mining on the new chaing and every miner on the old one is mining the old chain.
so no assumption needed: its all mathematic nothing more
How will you know which blockchain to download if you don't know which of the 2 is the correct one? the one which contains most work and follows the protocol specification of my client (changed blocksize would be another protocol) |
|
|
|
1. We can identify work done for Bitcoin
Not an assumption, this is provably true, the math involved is not capable of lying. Each block is built on the previous, they only "fit" into the blockchain if they are built on a block that already exists (along with other constraints.. must be a valid block, must be at least n difficulty, must have a valid coinbase transaction, etc). Ultimately, all of these blocks are built on top of Bitcoin's unique genesis block which is set in stone in the source code of bitcoin-core and you can identify work done for Bitcoin because it can be mathematically proven that each and every block in the blockchain is built on top of Bitcoin's unique genesis block. There is no way a Namecoin block, for example, can become part of the Bitcoin blockchain (or vice-versa) because it's built on top of the wrong blockchain and genesis block. There's also no way the Namecoin blockchain could replace Bitcoin's or vice-versa for the same reason. Pretty much the only way to replace the whole Bitcoin blockchain would be to start over from the genesis block with more computing power than has been put into mining so far and eventually catch up to and pass the real blockchain (at which point, your chain becomes the real blockchain). In practice it's much harder than it seems, not only do you need a great deal more computing power than all the ASICs on the market at the moment, you also have certain checkpoint blocks which are set in stone in the bitcoin core source code and those block hashes also have to match known values.. so you'd also effectively have to break SHA256 unless you're just starting from the most recent checkpoint (a lot easier, but there still aren't enough ASICs on the market for this to be a realistic attack) Imagine that Bitcoin is forked into 2 branches: 1 MB and 20 MB. Now we have a fragment where all blocks are identical. If the latest checkpoint is below the fork then we see that assumption #1 is required. mining has nothing to do with checkpoints. they are a relict which is no longer needed excapt for fasten up an initial sync. when bitcoin forks every miner who uses the new software is mining on the new chaing and every miner on the old one is mining the old chain. so no assumption needed: its all mathematic nothing more |
|
|
|
So we have 3 assumptions:
1. We can identify work done for Bitcoin
2. We can communicate with other participants
3. Attacker doesn't have too much hashing power
Is it enough?
point 1 isnt an assumption as it is proven through mathematics (in case you think its an assumption please add that 1+1=2 keeps true as well - it is also needed . we will always need some kind of calculator: humans are just too slow bandwidth and latency is also interesting as it defines bitcoins upper bound |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
