It makes sense if the collateral is volatile. Then borrowers pay interest to buy leverage. They can borrow stablecoin, use it to buy more volatile stuff (Eth or token that is accepted as collateral) and then borrow even more. So 200% of collateral becomes actually 1:1.

If market goes up, borrowers get all their now much more valuable collateral back.

If the market crashes really hard, lenders have to bear the tail risk. Perhaps they supplied stablecoin and get back token that is now worthless.

For borrowers this is like a guaranteed stop. Remember, in traditional stock market, or FX market there is never a guaranteed stop, at least not for retail customers. In case of a flash crash, if you're leveraged, a broker will liquidate you at the cruelest possible price, and then may try to foreclose your home to get its money back. Not so in Defi, and this is seriously cool.

And as technology advances, crypto is getting more advanced too, scaleable and such. While gold stays the same, but gold mining technology improves and the million(s) of metric tonnes that are uneconomic to extract now may become cheaper to get in the future.

Not many large holders of crypto will spontaneously decide to buy gold instead. but the other way around it seems possible. With every year, crypto is less new and less unproven. In 20 years, gold is a relic, this time for real.

I'm pretty sure the BTC on the Counterwallet DEX exchange is just a token with the name 'BTC' and not actual BTC.

Trading of BTC in the web UI version of Counterwallet was once possible but later it was disabled (github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterwallet/issues/560). BTC/XCP trading wasn't as simple as trading XCP assets, basically because XCP has no power over BTC and someone thought it would be too confusing for users.

The authors of this paper don't really try to convert the bandwidth reported by nodes into a network consensus. Rather they need trusted nodes as central authority.

They write "by using a starting vector that contains a small set of trusted nodes" and "if all the trusted nodes are honest, the consensus vector will put limited weight on the malicious nodes.". Then perform “liar detection.” Nothing is said about incentives for acknowledging that peers did in fact report their measurements and so on. The implementation would be just a network for some purpose where the nodes get, by the owners of trusted nodes, rewarded for bandwidth, but it wouldn't be a cryptocurrency.

In practice they can refuse to do business with you, but can't freeze tokens on ether or bitcoin/omni blockchain.
If you own the privkey, you can trade the token on any exchange.

Actually they can freeze individual USDT through a hardfork of the underlying coin or protocol. Omni made a hardfork once when 30 million Tethers got stolen,
that's where the "Quarantined USDT" on their transparency page come from. But it's not a threat to the average user.

The bot that is active in OpenTrade MC/BTC market is pretty cool, but it doesn't trade enough size to be useful, only a few cents worth of coins every few minutes.

Claims of being hacked and having lost Btc are just too easy to make. If the story was an attempt to manipulate prices, then this would also explain facepalm worthy press coverage like Cointelegraph's "Bitcoin Cash faces slow death after 30m hack".

In case of The Bitcoin Bounty Hunt, it's probably not the game itself that runs on the Lightning network, but a LN wallet is included with the game. So that a LN transaction can happen when a player takes a crate or kills or is killed.

Wallets created with different (I used v0.7 and v0.14) versions of the precompiled binaries in Windows can be used with Bitcoin Core made with --with-incompatible-bdb in Ubuntu 14.04, 16.04 and 18.04. At least I didn't encounter any obvious problem.

But it's potential incompatibility, risk that some wallet functions may not work. And risk that a wallet can't be opened with future versions.

If BTC is moved first, to an address that you control (e.g. other address in same wallet),
then both should be safe.

In the worst case, the BTG has moved together with BTC due to lack of replay protection. Waste of fee but you still own both.

The state of Huc is like a chicken and egg problem.
Single new players coming in and play, or trying to, wouldn't help at the moment.
Perhaps organizing an event with some (>5, and can't be mostly noobs) people play together and take the map by surprise.
The fancy after action report would be good PR for Huc.

The "alternative gameplay" from
http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/topic,24077.0.html
is now online as a second testnet. It goes into "testnet2" subfolder and thus doesn't step on the toes of mainnet or official testnet.

The "make Huntercoin like a DAO" idea
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=435170.msg19602642#msg19602642
is also included.

everything that is not like in old-school Huntercoin is decribed in
github.com/wiggi/huntercoin-testnet2/blob/master/Gamerules_testnet2.txt


Source:
https://github.com/wiggi/huntercoin-testnet2
unlike official testnet, it uses port 18396 and the daemon must be started with
./huntercoind -daemon -server -port=18396


Windows build:
https://mega.nz/#!bV0yQZiI!Jc4AY-v4RpkkrdBXREwbpfvGsJlGRz5LD_DFHEHlLfE
(this is only for testnet2, don't overwrite other executables with it)

in huntercoin.conf (ok when it's just in testnet2\huntercoin.conf)


Btw, even with this player friendly system people won't play every day with their immortal hunters, so you can park them for free.

And because it not only makes casual players and pro farmers equal but also stops tx spam, it would scale very well, imo about 200k active players plus much more "parked" characters that wait for their players to return and play again is possible using only low-tech. Mostly needs regular checkpoints for the gamestate, at which gamestate data can be fetched from peers or loaded from file. And a larger map plus a better map viewer. Then to play would cost only a coin or so.

The ads would be cheap but the hunters for zero cost playing expensive. It would be sustainable if coins for free hunters come from the game itself. And/or if there are very few free hunters per day and clicking one of the ads is like a free lottery, not a guaranteed hunter.

OP lists me as one of the devs, but this project is no longer the same as it was back then, and I now prefer to merely watch from the sidelines.

Thinking about http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/topic,24079.msg30692.html#msg30692

... it would mean that gamefund has steady income once again (imo if not at least 2 or 3 coins per block, the proposed rule change would have not much effect)

This could be used to make Huntercoin like a DAO (coin holders being the owner) with an universal bounty- and voting system. Easiest to do all in gamestate
(but only if spectators can be spawned with arbitrary amount of coins, can live forever but must pay upkeep for spam protection, and get rewarded if they're good citizens and vote)

It would require some new Json fields and gamestate variables so that every hunter can propose granting a bounty, and to vote about any one issue (and state the reasons), and offer to pay an amount of HUC as fee (for spam protection).

Every e.g. 10000 blocks, the network chooses the proposal with the highest fee, its data is moved from the hunter's playerstate to "global" gamestate (kept there for 10000 more blocks), and the fee is paid (amount transferred from hunter to gamefund)

Then the spectators can vote (thats why they need to be spawned with arbitrary amount of coins, these coins == weight of the vote), and after 10000 more blocks result is final and the network would transfer the bounty (if any, amount transferred from gamefund to hunter)

This system is very flexible, for example HUC owners could collectively and officially promise to pay coins after something is done, or (if proposals can be canceled only after some time) the pledged amount (i.e. as fee) is basically frozen coins that can be unfrozen through vote by HUC holders, perhaps useful in case a single person is tasked to handle a larger amount on behalf of the holders. It doesn't need an executive branch, just "sharecoin holders" and "workers".

And the resurge (in terms of x times googled per day) was on the day when an almost 100% price spike happened, with 24h volume higher than market cap. Everything would be easier if google trends had predictive power

Bitshares has ok volume for USD and CNY pegged assets, but not for a gold backed one.

The problem with Ripple is that the value of anything (except XRP itself) is at the mercy of some company that in most cases has no legal obligation to by that token back even if they sold it as "dollar" or "gold".

Unless one or many of these are developed in total secrecy, this would be the closest thing to Huc2.0 that exists, it's far from finished though:

Some pics: http://forum.huntercoin.org/index.php/topic,24077.0.html

Testnet in box with description of game rules:
https://mega.nz/#!CA5iRSCQ!omJpbIAt5kow59IXhpy9wpL-cJOxE2o6qcEgzK8J_IQ

To try out, copy the "hunttest to C:\ and start the shortcuts "huntercoin-qt.exe - 1" and "huntercoin-qt.exe - 2 - scrypt", then click "Help",
"Debug window", "Console", and type
setgenerate true 1

Just watch, it's almost a living world simulation. Movement works still like in the old Qt (select hunter, click on map, hit "Go" button)
but in many cases (to and from the battlefield) it will be delayed, so that players don't have to be glued at the screen.

Imo the basic idea of Huntercoin is that every person (who ownes a PC and has online access) can mine coins on their desktop
only by applying normal human common sense. So I'm trying to make strategical thinking more important (as opposed to available time to play, luck, or rich-get-richer). This is of course not easy.

PMs with feedback are very welcome

Very possible that the Huntercoin finally sees an influx of solo players, playing for 10§-50$ per day. This can be done now by manually controlling hunters if you're dedicated and have lots of time. But it still takes an organized group of players to conquer big parts of the map and make 1k per day, this is the biggest roadblock for the game (i.e. potential solo players being discouraged by lack of other solo players).

Perhaps not only disconnected but negatively correlated. ETH (and XRP) falling means BTC dominance in percent going up, and some investors think along the lines of "if Btc ever loses its top position then all trust in crypto is lost". A price correction of some over-inflated altcoins makes the market look more sane and less bubbly.