|
3
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] SMLY- smileycoin - for rewards in education
|
on: July 15, 2019, 11:09:18 AM
|
This is proving very difficult to compile in this Ubuntu 18 VM :/ make[5]: Entering directory '/home/******/****/smileyCoin/src/qt'
CXX libbitcoinqt_a-bitcoin.o
In file included from bitcoin.cpp:223:0:
bitcoin.moc:13:2: error: #error "This file was generated using the moc from 5.9.5. It"
#error "This file was generated using the moc from 5.9.5. It"
^~~~~
bitcoin.moc:14:2: error: #error "cannot be used with the include files from this version of Qt."
#error "cannot be used with the include files from this version of Qt."
^~~~~
bitcoin.moc:15:2: error: #error "(The moc has changed too much.)"
#error "(The moc has changed too much.)"
^~~~~
bitcoin.moc:19:1: error: ‘QT_WARNING_PUSH’ does not name a type; did you mean ‘QT_NO_WARNINGS’?
QT_WARNING_PUSH
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QT_NO_WARNINGS
bitcoin.moc:30:14: error: ‘qt_meta_stringdata_BitcoinCore_t’ does not name a type
static const qt_meta_stringdata_BitcoinCore_t qt_meta_stringdata_BitcoinCore = {
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bitcoin.moc: In static member function ‘static void BitcoinCore::qt_static_metacall(QObject*, QMetaObject::Call, int, void**)’:
bitcoin.moc:96:35: error: ‘IndexOfMethod’ is not a member of ‘QMetaObject’
} else if (_c == QMetaObject::IndexOfMethod) {
^~~~~~~~~~~~~
bitcoin.moc: At global scope:
bitcoin.moc:123:35: error: ‘qt_meta_stringdata_BitcoinCore’ was not declared in this scope
{ &QObject::staticMetaObject, qt_meta_stringdata_BitcoinCore.data,
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bitcoin.moc:123:35: note: suggested alternative: ‘qt_meta_data_BitcoinCore’
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: AUGMENTORS GAME Augmented Reality Mobile Gaming iOS Android Token DTB Databits
|
on: May 01, 2019, 04:10:42 PM
|
I don't get it. Is Counterparty forbidden, or does Bittrex have personal issues with Counterparty developers..? Are they going to delist all Counterparty tokens they have on their exchange, and why would they do it? I understand Counterparty and Omni are a bit out of fashion at the moment, but delisting a token because it is based on a non-fashionable (but still perfectly valid and viable) technology, is pure nonsense. I suppose there may be misunderstanding there.
I believe it is the combination of being an XCP token and low volume; if I understood correctly there is some overhead for exchanges (or maybe just Bittrex) when it comes to XCP and its tokens, which would normally be covered by fees gained from trading volume. I notice they are only charging 5 DTB for a withdrawal. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
