They will be bought as part of the transaction. This is one of the reasons that superNET can be a great benefit for BBR. As BBR's transaction outputs are anonymous there will likely be a large demand from users of other currencies such as NXT, VRC, BTCD ect. They use Teleport to protect them on the way in and BBR takes care of the output.

One issue now is that "Alex Green" is the only one who controls the withdraws and apparently he's gone AWOL.

https://twitter.com/MintPalExchange/status/523939006988701696

Lets hope he's not a complete asshole and he makes sure people get their money back.

Was XMR being traded as a pair during the short run of "v2"? If not then that's a good thing as people were duplicating coins via an exploit and I assume tons of coins were lost that way.

Stand alone staking hardware is actually a pretty good idea. Not bad.

Find an escrow here, make an arrangement with someone to borrow some and also add some additional BTC to cover any losses.

He's been working on development. He's been posting regular updates in the superNET thread on here. Probably best to follow there I think.

Community take overs whether "hostile" or assisted by the original dev(s) are important as a proof of concept for decentralised cryptocurrencies.

The difference here is that moolah was a centralised organization controlled by one person who was not anonymous. SuperNET is intended to be a decentralised organization not controlled by anyone in particular but by its shareholders. While we currently rely on James individually to translate his idea in to code, in the long run superNET is not intended to completely rely on any one individual person.

The concept of a 'real person' is incredibly over rated. Moolah was a 'real company' run by 'real people'. Bluemeanie is a 'real person' who stole one million NXT from the NXT community. The creator(?)/developer of NHZ stole 28 million of the 100 million NHZ community funds and dumped them on Poloniex for himself.

Names are overrated. Actions speak louder than words. Decentralised risk is safer than centralised risk. SuperNET in the process of organizing itself in a decentralised way where both work, money, and incentive is spread out between members of the organization.

You don't think that it's an acceptable trade off to increase usability of the currency though?

Spoetnik, CIYAM is not your average guy here. He's been developing open source software for a long time and has been here a while. I wouldn't expect any sort of pump from integrating this tech. This is more of a long term thing for the future. As people want to use blockchains for more advanced things tech like this will let people do it. And the fact that anyone will be able implement this AT tech is pretty amazing and can only be a good thing for alt currency development.

lol...actually this is the whole point of decentralised cryptocurrency.

Well it's clearly based on the same idea of creating a p2p network of blockchains. Much of the code for superNET is already finished anyway so it's not like it's still in the conceptual stage at this point or anything.

James' superNET is a revolutionary idea in cryptocurrency. It was inevitable that other people would attempt to use that idea. It's not bad thing. I don't understand the attempts to play it down as if the idea behind blockNET isn't based upon the same foundation as James' idea for superNET.

XC also has a clearly defined marking arm which obviously has done a fairly good job of getting the word out through their graphical documentation and media outreach. So I give them kudos for that. That's probably something that needs to be developed with superNET from the business angle. Something will have to be figured out to merge the concept of an open source decentralised organization and a profit seeking business at some point. I believe XC has been run like a business from the start for better or worse, which is a bit different in this community. So over time superNET will have to adapt to the challenges of running a multimillion dollar decentralised organization focused on generating maximum revenue for shareholders. But I'm very optimistic with regards to that because we have a great community of capable people.

It was an honest question. I'm curious about Qora. Odd way to answer someone. I don't know enough about Qora to make a comparison.

Yeah, there's a sweet spot and 12 seconds with the current codebase is almost certainly much to fast. I'd guess 2 minutes is the sweet spot, but I'd like to see some data on that too. There's a limit of how many orphans should be acceptable and how much hash gets wasted in the name of user experience for sure. I do think that number is blow 10 minutes though.

Woah, woah, woah. Xhash is not a scam site. This is simply due to the Bitmark protocol requiring 720 blocks for block maturity.


That's a valid question and worth discussing if you'd like. Not sure now much demand there would be for people to fund the IPM at this point.

Hashing should increase as demand increases though and right now there are multiple projects being worked on that are focused on increasing adoption via marking.

The holy grail for a difficulty algorithm would be one that could restrict supply and lower the difficulty based on price(demand). That way we would get all the benefits that we get now, but without the very slow network. I guess most people think such an algorithm would be too easily exploitable. But maybe one day with DACs or something similar something like that could happen.

In which ways is Qora superior to NXT?

Ethereum is going to attempt 12 second confirmations from what I understand. https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/11/toward-a-12-second-block-time/

Will Bitcoin be able to adapt that technology with our current system or is this something that requires a full rewrite from the ground up?

How could you possibly interpret that statement as "FUD"?

He gave his opinion based on outdated information. It was originally correct, but now it's apparently not.

That's quite the over reaction if I've ever seen one.

As if being a fork of NXT is inherently a bad thing.

Aeon, do you have any connection to Bytecoin or the Cryptonote team?

Is it written from scratch entirely now? I thought it was a fork of NXT with significant changes/additions.

Why start from scratch? NXT has been around almost  a year now and seems pretty solid.

I could see this happening on a large scale in a future dominated by a handful of corporate groups. Like you have your Starbucks card, Walmart card, McDonalds card all bought with BTC at a discount. That is sort of happening already with Gyft. But it kind of breaks down in economies not dominated by a few mega corps. No one wants hundreds of cards. Perhaps that can be solved with small businesses groups creating their own cards or something.