I wonder if a plot of cumulative empty blocks vs time since previous block would be interesting.

My cat is well trained.  She only pees on things.

In October 2013 HashFast approached me with the idea of giving me engineering information and compensation in exchange for a campaign of posting generally positive things about them.

They mentioned a quota, a minimum number of posts per day.

The basic idea is to accept the block with the highest difficulty instead of the block that is first.  Then, to keep accepting blocks for at least an hour since the 6th previous block.  By difficulty, I mean that I am counting the number of leading 0 bits in the hash.  If there are multiple submitted blocks that match the network difficulty, only the most difficult block is distributed out to peers.

At the end of the 2016 block epoch, calculate the difficulty needed to create the blocks with those difficulties, and use that for the new difficulty setting.

This would prevent hoppers from getting a windfall.  I haven't thought all the way through the ways that difficulty is used in the network, and I haven't completely walked through the way a block passes through the reference client moving peer to peer in the network.

This approach artificially raises the difficulty as soon as hoppers jump on board, then drops it back if they leave.

I'm confused here.

I have been using the reference (Satoshi) client, both the graphic version and the daemon version.  I did not check before posting, but I am pretty sure that I have used watch only addresses for a year or two.

If you just give me money now, I'll promise up front not to return any of it.  I'll even give you a sincere, hand written thank you note.  I'm even willing to take a friend anywhere in the world and send nice pictures if we raise enough funds.

I also have some Batch 2 Avalons.  I can throw in random pictures from them from time to time. 

No fraud, no deception, no lawsuits, no anger.  Way better all the way around.

No, dude.  This is Gavin-bait.

The bad luck is all my fault.  I have been depressed, and when that happens street lights go out when I walk by, and Eligius gets far fewer blocks that it usually does.  The good news is that, when I am in a good mood, the luck increases and lights come back on all over the city.

You can test this by sending 1 or 2 BTC to my address 1LordWontYouBuyMeAMercedezBenz

I think that the coin would be good if the block rate were stable.  I think there are some ways to do that even if ASICs are brought online and back off, but I have not coded up an example.

When the difficulty drops, many hoppers point the ASICs to BTE.  Then, an entire epoch of 2016 are mined in 1 or 2 days, and the difficulty rises high.  The hoppers leave and the steadfasts don't have a lot of hash power.

Search for Maria 2.0.  It was announced weeks in advance of launch, and there is proof in the genesis block that the launch was clean.

Thanks,

That is public, very similar to the problem at hand, and can be tested.

Please give a hijack scenario when the two legitimate transactions are submitted together.

I think you and wizkid could do the following to recover your funds without doing too much damage to the security measures in place.

1.  wizkid creates a transaction but does not submit it.  He sends you the details so that you can make another transaction that spends your funds. 
2.  you create your transaction and submit it to the network, and notify wizkid.
3.  wizkid, or either of you then submit wizkid's transaction to the network.
4.  your funds can't be hijacked by the compromiser because of double spend protections.
5.  of course, you would also pay wizkid a tip in your transaction.
6.  I don't know if eligius will, or can, mine a transaction that is not submitted to the rest of the network, but this would give additional protection.

I apologize, but I don't know where the details of the auction are, and I have not spent much time searching.

Would anyone mind providing a link?

I looked at the EHash.com web page for these chips, and I see a 1 BTC price for 20 chips, delivering 25 GH/s for 0.6 W (worst case)

That turns into 500 GH/s for a batch of 20 chips, and 300W for a batch of 20 chips, without any supporting hardware or other energy losses included.

I dropped those numbers into a mining calculator, and I calculate a return of 0.356 BTC, or a loss of almost 2/3 of the purchase price.

Does anyone have a more optimistic view of these chips?

You keep saying things that I never said.  I did not ever say this was from the goodness of my heart.  It was motivated by the possibility of profit.

In fact, people did withdraw BTC almost every day.  Those people were careful, they probed the block chain.  Make a deposit, then make a withdrawal, then review the withdrawal transaction to see if it was their deposit or a different deposit that funded the withdrawal.

I lost a significant amount in the failure of coinex.  I am frustrated.  I have something like 30,000 BTE that I can't get access to.  Even in my frustration, I do not accuse others of scams.

However, it is simply not your business to demand how I intend to withdraw BTC.  The above can clearly be considered a trade secret by many people, you are out of line to request its disclosure, you are out of line to call my actions a scam if I choose not to disclose, and you are out of line to spread false information.

No.  I never requested a direct payment.  All of my transactions were standard transactions.  Deposits to the exchange, withdrawals from the exchange, and trades on the exchange.
The value that I added was in noticing that DEM was still functional, and announcing the TXiD of funds that were in the hot wallet.

I notice again you are speaking of a scam within a scam, and you are talking about someone who was selling DEM on coinex.  I did post some thoughts on the thread you mentioned above.

I am the person who first announced that the DEM wallet and withdrawals were working as things fell apart at coinex.  I mined DEM and the mining pool statistics were a public record of when funds were deposited to the coinex hot wallet.  I am concerned that I am the person that you are thinking of in your postings.

I posted a link to a DEM block chain explorer, and anyone could look at the transactions and see if funds were still available in the hot wallet, and withdraw in relative safety.  I also moved my mining arrangements and mined BTC directly and purchased DEM on Cryptsy, then deposited to coinex, when that was more profitable than mining directly on coinex.  Again, I provided TXiD information whenever I made a deposit, so that anyone could check before they attempted a withdrawal.

I don't know what part of this process disturbs you, or what element of it you are calling a scam.  I believe that I presented a valuable service to panicked people on coinex who wanted out before it shut down completely, and I believe that your efforts caused many of them to hesitate and you thereby directly caused them harm.

I want to ask you very clearly, am I the person you are posting about?
In addition, I am asking you to clarify how it is a scam to deposit funds to an exchange and, offer them for sale in a limit order, and advertise this effort.

It is likely that I am the person Timelord2067 is referring to in this comment.  If so, there are some things that are distorted beyond truthfulness in his presentation.


Regardless of who he is referring to, these are the actions that I took.

1.  I pointed an Avalon mining rig to mine BTE on coinex before the theft announcement.
2.  Following the announcement that 50% of the funds were replaced, I continued to point my miner at coinex.
3.  Eventually, the BTE pool, wallet, deposits and withdrawals went dark.
4.  I searched and found that the DEM pool, wallet, and withdrawals were still functional.
5.  I pointed my miner to the DEM pool.  I tested withdrawals.
6.  I announced that I could mine and withdraw, and I posted TXiD documentation to the troll box and the bitcointalk forums.
7.  I reasoned that those people who were panicked would welcome the opportunity to trade their coins for DEM and pay a premium price for them.
8.  I reasoned that the TXiD would allow people to verify that the funds were still available in the hot wallet.
9.  I replenished the DEM wallet many times, both through mining in the coinex pool, and also in DEM deposits to my coinex deposit address.
10.  I announced the TXiD that documented these deposits, at first to individuals who registered on my Google survey, and later in the coinex troll box.
11.  In this process, I acquired a BTC balance on coinex, and I allowed interested individuals to withdraw DEM.  I sold through limit orders, and others in the community were free to offer their own DEM at a more attractive price than mine. 
12. I did not sell directly to any individuals, and I did not take any action that required users to trust me.  Everything was documented at the time of announcement.

All of the above actions are completely above-board actions in the alt-coin community.  I mined, sold on the exchange, and attempted to make some profit at a level of risk that was acceptable to me.  All my actions were honorable.  Many people reported in the troll-box that they had successfully withdrawn DEM following my efforts and announcements.

Timelord began a campaign of FUD while the DEM coinex wallet was still working.  I do not understand his motivation.  I don't understand how he has been harmed, or believes he or anyone else could have been harmed.  I believe that by crying scam that he caused some people to hesitate and lose funds when coinex shut down, when they could have cashed out through DEM.  I believe that my actions were directly helpful to others, and gave me the possibility of high return for high risk.

While I don't think it is proper for him to ask for any explanation on how I hoped to profit, I did give such an explanation many times and it is completely inaccurate for him to say otherwise.  My belief was that the exchange would re-open and my trading would turn out to be very profitable.

I would appreciate if Timelord would clarify that he does not mean me when he speaks of a scam within a scam.