 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
if this coin is supposed to stop asic mining, why are there miners with 90megahash speeds in some pools.
if 90mhash is not an asic then i dont know what is
90MH/s is only ~4 GTX 1060s |
|
|
|
Electrum wallet doesn't work properly
It's hard to get sync
It's normal for it to take ~30mins to sync the first time you launch Electrum. |
|
|
|
Sorry for noob question, but I have heard, that main dev of this coin was Poramin Insom, the main dev now of XZC. Is it true?
Yes, he was the lead developer until he left around three years ago. |
|
|
|
BTW the vol. still low..maybe we will get more when we break 15k ..  15k broken, is it from now on that the party will begin? Only the volume that does not please... I'm expecting it can go back to 100k or more we will see this weekend or early next week.. Either way things are looking positive: https://bitinfocharts.com/vertcoin/marketcap-vtc.html |
|
|
|
We are not dead . We are planning on doing a UASF if we can't push SegWit through in the next couple rounds . We also just released a road map. We will announce the info on the UASF in a new blog post soon . Thanks for sticking with us .  Are you using the latest CLTV code? Yes, we rebased from Litecoin v0.8 to Bitcoin v0.13.2. |
|
|
|
VTC has a few things that sets it apart, established PoW coin and it gets decent volume at Asian exchanges Jubi and 19800. it's been undervalued for a long time
However, does anyone know how hard Lyra2Rev2 is to mine with Asic or if it's possible? WHen Scrypt-N came out it was supposed to be impossible to mine with Asic, but after a few years Asics were mining Scrypt-N. Is it a similar situation with Lyra2Rev2?
i would like to know about this as well Lyra2Rev2?? Either way, if ASICs are developed for Lyra2REv2, we fork to a new algorithm as has been the policy since the start. |
|
|
|
Segwit back down to 67% ( proof). Does it need to hold above 75% for some specified length of time, or did it activate the moment that it crossed the 75% threshold. We need 1512 blocks out of this 2016 block period, then it will activate. |
|
|
|
Syscoin already upgraded to Segwit and the market didn't care.
Perhaps the market thinks there's nothing special about it, most altcoins that uses bitcoin code can easily upgrade to segwit. Perhaps the market thinks that adding a scaling solution to a coin that does not need scaling is not a big deal? Sure. Also, hasn't VTC kind of staked its claim as a small scale miner coin by changing the algo? I thought the whole long term strategy of this coin was to play safe and keep out big scale mining operations. Segwit adds functionality that has no relevance to that purpose that i can ascertain. And the fork talk. People would really like to see this coin split into two? You think it has the market cap value to support that and survive? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Vrn miner who refuses to switch has plenty of hash on its own and could very well mine the old chain and sustain it if forced to fork away- is that right? So if the method mentioned earlier to knock him out is successful and he doesn't switch, he would be forked away but continue on? VTC has survived by remaining relevant to small miners and a lack of competition among early coins as many of them have died off. There are only so many coins left from that era. Age=value. Look at NMC. Its not of much use as a crypto, but remains valuable given its age and what it has outlasted. Shouldn't that be the ultimate goal here with VTC? Survival. Forking the coin and adding function it doesn't need (and done by countless newer coins already) seems counter intuitive and adds unnecessary risk for the long term goals. Sorry if this pisses people off. Honestly I'm on the fence, but I do have a lot of concerns. I've also been into VTC from the very start, I'd hate to see one of my favorites do something dangerous soley for the purpose of hoping for some market attention and a pump. Upgrading to the latest Bitcoin Core base though adds a lot more security to the network from upstream fixes. Futhermore, SegWit will allow us to support the Lightning network once it is ready. Finally, a number of the BIPs (including SegWit) fix malleability issues that increase the security of the chain. All of this will allow VTC to outlast a great many coins. Interesting, thanks for the reply. I'm not sure I understand the need for security upgrades, maybe you could elaborate please? If there was a security issue, wouldn't it have been exploited by now on this or countless other coins running similar codes? What security risk is being diminished? My understanding was that even the quantum computer risk can be nullified by using a new wallet address for each transaction... Also, I thought this coin didn't have a scaling problem and therefore doesn't need the lightning network? There are inherent risks to any fork, I don't need to be a coder to understand that. I also have a good sense of markets and trading. From that perspective forking into two chains, in my opinion if it happened, is a bad idea. Sorry but its not convincing to me. I'm looking at cost/benefit. The cost here is a risk of forking into two coins and any inherent risks in the more complicated Segwit code that may not yet have been flushed out. I'm weighing that against the benefit that seems to be adding security upgrades that aren't needed and scaling which isn't needed. So its taking a risk, for no forseeable benefits (with the exception that it would almost certainly cause a short term pump). The nature of a "soft fork" means that there will not be two chains, unlike a hard fork. This is because non-upgraded wallets still understand and follow the newer, upgraded chain. In terms of security, any transaction malleability is a bad thing and SegWit fixes that. Futhermore, general improvements in the Bitcoin Core software make it far more resilient against DoS and eclipse attacks not to mention the massive increase in sync time. Re-basing from Bitcoin Core also allows us to more easily incorporate further improvements in the future. In terms of Lightning, it's true that we don't have a capacity issue (transactions fees are negligible), payment channels are a great innovation in themselves and allow things like cross-chain transactions. |
|
|
|
Syscoin already upgraded to Segwit and the market didn't care.
Perhaps the market thinks there's nothing special about it, most altcoins that uses bitcoin code can easily upgrade to segwit. Perhaps the market thinks that adding a scaling solution to a coin that does not need scaling is not a big deal? Sure. Also, hasn't VTC kind of staked its claim as a small scale miner coin by changing the algo? I thought the whole long term strategy of this coin was to play safe and keep out big scale mining operations. Segwit adds functionality that has no relevance to that purpose that i can ascertain. And the fork talk. People would really like to see this coin split into two? You think it has the market cap value to support that and survive? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Vrn miner who refuses to switch has plenty of hash on its own and could very well mine the old chain and sustain it if forced to fork away- is that right? So if the method mentioned earlier to knock him out is successful and he doesn't switch, he would be forked away but continue on? VTC has survived by remaining relevant to small miners and a lack of competition among early coins as many of them have died off. There are only so many coins left from that era. Age=value. Look at NMC. Its not of much use as a crypto, but remains valuable given its age and what it has outlasted. Shouldn't that be the ultimate goal here with VTC? Survival. Forking the coin and adding function it doesn't need (and done by countless newer coins already) seems counter intuitive and adds unnecessary risk for the long term goals. Sorry if this pisses people off. Honestly I'm on the fence, but I do have a lot of concerns. I've also been into VTC from the very start, I'd hate to see one of my favorites do something dangerous soley for the purpose of hoping for some market attention and a pump. Upgrading to the latest Bitcoin Core base though adds a lot more security to the network from upstream fixes. Futhermore, SegWit will allow us to support the Lightning network once it is ready. Finally, a number of the BIPs (including SegWit) fix malleability issues that increase the security of the chain. All of this will allow VTC to outlast a great many coins. |
|
|
|
There's a 2000 VTC bounty available for helping us upgrade the web wallet to work with the latest Vertcoin wallet version v0.11.0.2. The code is here: https://github.com/dayreiner/vertpunk/ and is written in node.js. Please PM me if you are interested. Does it make more sense to use copay as a starting point? The coinpunk project that it's forked from discontinued development two years ago, and recommends people to use/build something else. I know myriadcoin web wallet is based on copay, and I believe decred as well. I'll look into it. In that case though we would need a conversion tool for vertpunk wallets and get everyone to convert their wallets. |
|
|
|
There's a 2000 VTC bounty available for helping us upgrade the web wallet to work with the latest Vertcoin wallet version v0.11.0.2. The code is here: https://github.com/dayreiner/vertpunk/ and is written in node.js. Please PM me if you are interested. |
|
|
|
When I add up the segwit enabled I come up with 72.97% But the site is only showing around 51% Some of the pools/addresses listed mine both SegWit and non-SegWit blocks. |
|
|
|
@metalicjames
In the future should insert a function that would indicate when there is an update available.
Well old wallets do currently say "errors": "Warning: This version is obsolete, upgrade required!" on their getinfo page and I think also on the main GUI view. |
|
|
|
Why not to lower a threshold to 51%?
If we don't find an anonymous mainer, this process can take years.
Then everyone has to upgrade again, including all exchanges and miners. It's only been a few weeks, and probably the cost to rent hash is not really prohibitively high since entire signaling period are only a day or three. Also old wallets could fork to follow a different (non-upgraded) chain temporarily which would be bad for consensus. |
|
|
|
dev, have u some plans or ways to find this strang anonymous with 24.3%?
We have tried to contact them through multiple means but we've yet to determine their identity. |
|
|
|
During what time you plan to introduce Segwit?
To tell the truth I thought it will occur quicker.
We have introduced SegWit, it's just not activated yet. We need a 75% consensus. You can track the progress here :https://vtconline.org/sf.html Any news from zpool? (6.71% and no segwit) No chance to activate without that unknown 25% miner thought  They use a custom stratum software that is not yet segwit compatible. |
|
|
|
Which one is 32bit and which one is 64bit Windows version? Or what is the difference between these two versions?
1. vertcoin-i686-w64-mingw32.zip
2. vertcoin-x86_64-w64-mingw32.zip
1) is 32bit, 2) is 64bit |
|
|
|
"Please update wallets immediately to avoid losing coins"
I don't understand this part. It's a softfork right?
Are people really losing coins or is it just something to say to make people update?
If that's it, haha pretty creative I guess.
I think it's just hyperbole to get people to update, but maybe miners could get screwed if they don't update? miners will not be forked off of the network. Segwit uses BIP9 versionbits Well with wrong code they hard forked their coin the last time. Everyone had to downgrade. So I'm asking, is this the Segwit with wrong code & just hardfork because YOLO or is it a cool marketing stunt? Well after we reach the 75% threshold the new rules will activate and old version blocks will start to be orphaned, so there is a danger of coin loss if you don't upgrade your wallet. This is the release with the correct code. Softfork means it is backwards compatible with old wallets. So are we hardforking (not compatible with old wallets) instead of softfork now? Old wallets will continue to sync with the chain and be able to issue transactions but newly generated blocks coming from old wallets (ie blocks with nVersion 4 or less) will no longer be accepted as valid after activation. This is the same behavior as Bitcoin/Litecoin. But Bitcoin/Litecoin don't advertise with upgrade now otherwise you will loose coins. What you are saying in ELI5: It is not mandatory to upgrade but recommended. Except for the solo miners and pools. Normal users (non miners) won't be generating new blocks hence they can stay on old wallets. Why do you give them the suggestion that they will loose coins? Well since old wallets don't properly understand the new rules, they are trusting the miners that the chain is valid. Old wallets cannot verify the rules themselves and thus you effectively lose your status as a full node. Thus it opens you up to all kinds of attacks that are possible when you can't fully verify the rules yourself. But yes, objectively speaking it is not mandatory that normal users update, but you potentially risk your coins if you don't. |
|
|
|
|
