Bitcoin Forum
August 16, 2018, 06:17:58 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 ... 69 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] FedoraCoin (TiPS) - New Dev team: Fedoracoin Foundation  (Read 80403 times)
psycodad
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 759
Merit: 506



View Profile
May 20, 2016, 03:26:46 PM
 #141

Hello everyone,

I would like to bring everyone's attention here. We have suffered two large fork recently, and now it's really time to bring the topic here and would like get everyone's opinion. So we can move forward, because this can happened again.

Here are the opinions that we can work on.

1. Keep current algorithm, increase security, adding more nodes and checkpoints.
2. Use POW+POS
3. Merged mining
4. Update algorithm, like Scrypt-N, X15, etc.

Worst case hard fork may needed.

Please contribute your opinions. Or if you have better opinions, bring it. So we can make a better FedoraCoin together.

I apologize if this post manifests my complete ignorance, but feeling still being a n00b in cryptocurrencies I have a few question regarding the proposed measures above and I hope to receive answers that allow me to improve my knowledge:

Re: 1.
Checkpoints are fine, but they always reference a point in the past before or at best when the wallet/src was released. Given the fork doesn't go back further than the checkpoint it is my understanding that a checkpoint helps nothing to prevent a fork from happening (except speeding up synching from scratch), is this assumption completely off? Though TIPS needs newer checkpoints for the getchainvalue function to work halfway performant, I don't believe it helps protecting from forks like the ones we saw.

I estimate the current TIPS network to something around 60-80 nodes. How many nodes more would you think would be needed and how do you think this can keep a fork like the one we experienced from happening?

Re: 2.
A POS/POW hybrid certainly serves as good protection against a 51% POW attack, however if you look at the richlist you will see that the top 2 wallets have >40% of the total supply. Assuming that never all supply will be staking and assuming those two wallets will stake, they can easily outgrow a majority of staking weight. I really have no clue if my suspicion here holds any ground, but I hope an experienced person with better skills can enlighten us.

Re: 3.
That seems to me like the best option to avoid a fork when enough pools join and merge mine TIPS. If I look at DOGE right now, it has ~900Gh - I guess that's much  harder to attack than the current ~40Gh that TIPS has (or much less when it forked). However I am pretty sure it would move price of TIPS downwards when there is no more hard cost associated with mining TIPS.

Re: 4.
Could you explain how changing the mining algo would protect TIPS from an attack/fork? What exactly are you trying to achieve with an algo swap? You realize that you sound here like the takeover dev that also appeared out of nowhere suddenly and wanted to change the algo? May I ask if you are in any way affiliated with the SHA256 takeover-dev ?

I agree though that the coin needs an update, my opinion from digging through code is that it will get problematic to use - to say the least - once # 1,664,000 is reached.

I will highly appreciate if you can take the time to address my naive questions and help me toward a better understanding of how cryptocurrencies work.


Protestatio facto contraria non valet.
1534400278
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534400278

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534400278
Reply with quote  #2

1534400278
Report to moderator
1534400278
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534400278

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534400278
Reply with quote  #2

1534400278
Report to moderator
1534400278
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534400278

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534400278
Reply with quote  #2

1534400278
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1534400278
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534400278

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534400278
Reply with quote  #2

1534400278
Report to moderator
1534400278
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534400278

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534400278
Reply with quote  #2

1534400278
Report to moderator
myc066
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 155
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 20, 2016, 05:24:04 PM
 #142

Hello everyone,

I would like to bring everyone's attention here. We have suffered two large fork recently, and now it's really time to bring the topic here and would like get everyone's opinion. So we can move forward, because this can happened again.

Here are the opinions that we can work on.

1. Keep current algorithm, increase security, adding more nodes and checkpoints.
2. Use POW+POS
3. Merged mining
4. Update algorithm, like Scrypt-N, X15, etc.

Worst case hard fork may needed.

Please contribute your opinions. Or if you have better opinions, bring it. So we can make a better FedoraCoin together.

I apologize if this post manifests my complete ignorance, but feeling still being a n00b in cryptocurrencies I have a few question regarding the proposed measures above and I hope to receive answers that allow me to improve my knowledge:

Re: 1.
Checkpoints are fine, but they always reference a point in the past before or at best when the wallet/src was released. Given the fork doesn't go back further than the checkpoint it is my understanding that a checkpoint helps nothing to prevent a fork from happening (except speeding up synching from scratch), is this assumption completely off? Though TIPS needs newer checkpoints for the getchainvalue function to work halfway performant, I don't believe it helps protecting from forks like the ones we saw.

I estimate the current TIPS network to something around 60-80 nodes. How many nodes more would you think would be needed and how do you think this can keep a fork like the one we experienced from happening?

Re: 2.
A POS/POW hybrid certainly serves as good protection against a 51% POW attack, however if you look at the richlist you will see that the top 2 wallets have >40% of the total supply. Assuming that never all supply will be staking and assuming those two wallets will stake, they can easily outgrow a majority of staking weight. I really have no clue if my suspicion here holds any ground, but I hope an experienced person with better skills can enlighten us.

Re: 3.
That seems to me like the best option to avoid a fork when enough pools join and merge mine TIPS. If I look at DOGE right now, it has ~900Gh - I guess that's much  harder to attack than the current ~40Gh that TIPS has (or much less when it forked). However I am pretty sure it would move price of TIPS downwards when there is no more hard cost associated with mining TIPS.

Re: 4.
Could you explain how changing the mining algo would protect TIPS from an attack/fork? What exactly are you trying to achieve with an algo swap? You realize that you sound here like the takeover dev that also appeared out of nowhere suddenly and wanted to change the algo? May I ask if you are in any way affiliated with the SHA256 takeover-dev ?

I agree though that the coin needs an update, my opinion from digging through code is that it will get problematic to use - to say the least - once # 1,664,000 is reached.

I will highly appreciate if you can take the time to address my naive questions and help me toward a better understanding of how cryptocurrencies work.


Merged mining ,much  harder to attack,But effect value ,Such as doge,Alone mining is required.Tips daily mining value is close to Doge now,If keep alone mining,Tips value will exceep doge in the future
Fedoracoin(TIPS)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 21, 2016, 04:58:55 AM
 #143

Hello everyone,

I would like to bring everyone's attention here. We have suffered two large fork recently, and now it's really time to bring the topic here and would like get everyone's opinion. So we can move forward, because this can happened again.

Here are the opinions that we can work on.

1. Keep current algorithm, increase security, adding more nodes and checkpoints.
2. Use POW+POS
3. Merged mining
4. Update algorithm, like Scrypt-N, X15, etc.

Worst case hard fork may needed.

Please contribute your opinions. Or if you have better opinions, bring it. So we can make a better FedoraCoin together.

I apologize if this post manifests my complete ignorance, but feeling still being a n00b in cryptocurrencies I have a few question regarding the proposed measures above and I hope to receive answers that allow me to improve my knowledge:

Re: 1.
Checkpoints are fine, but they always reference a point in the past before or at best when the wallet/src was released. Given the fork doesn't go back further than the checkpoint it is my understanding that a checkpoint helps nothing to prevent a fork from happening (except speeding up synching from scratch), is this assumption completely off? Though TIPS needs newer checkpoints for the getchainvalue function to work halfway performant, I don't believe it helps protecting from forks like the ones we saw.

I estimate the current TIPS network to something around 60-80 nodes. How many nodes more would you think would be needed and how do you think this can keep a fork like the one we experienced from happening?

Re: 2.
A POS/POW hybrid certainly serves as good protection against a 51% POW attack, however if you look at the richlist you will see that the top 2 wallets have >40% of the total supply. Assuming that never all supply will be staking and assuming those two wallets will stake, they can easily outgrow a majority of staking weight. I really have no clue if my suspicion here holds any ground, but I hope an experienced person with better skills can enlighten us.

Re: 3.
That seems to me like the best option to avoid a fork when enough pools join and merge mine TIPS. If I look at DOGE right now, it has ~900Gh - I guess that's much  harder to attack than the current ~40Gh that TIPS has (or much less when it forked). However I am pretty sure it would move price of TIPS downwards when there is no more hard cost associated with mining TIPS.

Re: 4.
Could you explain how changing the mining algo would protect TIPS from an attack/fork? What exactly are you trying to achieve with an algo swap? You realize that you sound here like the takeover dev that also appeared out of nowhere suddenly and wanted to change the algo? May I ask if you are in any way affiliated with the SHA256 takeover-dev ?

I agree though that the coin needs an update, my opinion from digging through code is that it will get problematic to use - to say the least - once # 1,664,000 is reached.

I will highly appreciate if you can take the time to address my naive questions and help me toward a better understanding of how cryptocurrencies work.




It’s okay if you do not agree with me, but I just need to solve these problems as soon as possible. It seems the dev team do not start doing anything related to this yet, so I just bring the topic, so everyone can discuss what the best opinion is.

1.   You assumption is correct, but we need more than that. Need to fix vulnerabilities, we can add checkpoint periodically for those nodes. We can adopt new methods, two idea about checkpoints are very interesting and we can think about it. .
Cross checkpoint: http://www.bytestamp.net/c/what 
advanced checkpointing: http://www.coindesk.com/feathercoin-secures-block-chain-advanced-check-pointing/

Also we can try this Two Phase POW method.
A paper can be found here: http://fmt.cs.utwente.nl/files/sprojects/268.pdf
2.   Read this paper, it will answer your concern and you can learn. http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/452.pdf
3.   True, agree.
4.   I do agree this is the worst and bad idea, but technically it can, because the old massive fork may not have the same hashing power anymore. 
And for the recorded, I have no relation with the swap team you mention, I am only list what I can think of, people can discussion what they think.

And yes, I jump from nowhere, and I think I do not need you a permission to talk here. You sounds like very aggressive, but it’s fine. If one day, president jump here and make a statement, you will say the same thing, that he jump from nowhere.

If we want to keep a thing running longer, we need also adopting and learn new things and try to apply those good ones. 

My opinion is we can try 1 first (current best opinion), but do need do good research and technical improvement. Then, we can try 2. (POW+POS) if 1 is not doing well. 3. Maybe later? I am not sure.  4. Seems bad though, we can ignore it. And for the record, again, you do not need to agree with me.

This is the primary issue, and need to be solve first (as soon as possible), for people who hold those coins, it will not worth a cent, if it's not on any exchanging platform. And for those platform perform well, they do need secure. So we can make this coin more popular, otherwise, if we do everything slow and wait and ignore, it will toward the death at the end.


myc066
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 155
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 21, 2016, 05:49:42 AM
 #144

Hello everyone,

I would like to bring everyone's attention here. We have suffered two large fork recently, and now it's really time to bring the topic here and would like get everyone's opinion. So we can move forward, because this can happened again.

Here are the opinions that we can work on.

1. Keep current algorithm, increase security, adding more nodes and checkpoints.
2. Use POW+POS
3. Merged mining
4. Update algorithm, like Scrypt-N, X15, etc.

Worst case hard fork may needed.

Please contribute your opinions. Or if you have better opinions, bring it. So we can make a better FedoraCoin together.

I apologize if this post manifests my complete ignorance, but feeling still being a n00b in cryptocurrencies I have a few question regarding the proposed measures above and I hope to receive answers that allow me to improve my knowledge:

Re: 1.
Checkpoints are fine, but they always reference a point in the past before or at best when the wallet/src was released. Given the fork doesn't go back further than the checkpoint it is my understanding that a checkpoint helps nothing to prevent a fork from happening (except speeding up synching from scratch), is this assumption completely off? Though TIPS needs newer checkpoints for the getchainvalue function to work halfway performant, I don't believe it helps protecting from forks like the ones we saw.

I estimate the current TIPS network to something around 60-80 nodes. How many nodes more would you think would be needed and how do you think this can keep a fork like the one we experienced from happening?

Re: 2.
A POS/POW hybrid certainly serves as good protection against a 51% POW attack, however if you look at the richlist you will see that the top 2 wallets have >40% of the total supply. Assuming that never all supply will be staking and assuming those two wallets will stake, they can easily outgrow a majority of staking weight. I really have no clue if my suspicion here holds any ground, but I hope an experienced person with better skills can enlighten us.

Re: 3.
That seems to me like the best option to avoid a fork when enough pools join and merge mine TIPS. If I look at DOGE right now, it has ~900Gh - I guess that's much  harder to attack than the current ~40Gh that TIPS has (or much less when it forked). However I am pretty sure it would move price of TIPS downwards when there is no more hard cost associated with mining TIPS.

Re: 4.
Could you explain how changing the mining algo would protect TIPS from an attack/fork? What exactly are you trying to achieve with an algo swap? You realize that you sound here like the takeover dev that also appeared out of nowhere suddenly and wanted to change the algo? May I ask if you are in any way affiliated with the SHA256 takeover-dev ?

I agree though that the coin needs an update, my opinion from digging through code is that it will get problematic to use - to say the least - once # 1,664,000 is reached.

I will highly appreciate if you can take the time to address my naive questions and help me toward a better understanding of how cryptocurrencies work.




It’s okay if you do not agree with me, but I just need to solve these problems as soon as possible. It seems the dev team do not start doing anything related to this yet, so I just bring the topic, so everyone can discuss what the best opinion is.

1.   You assumption is correct, but we need more than that. Need to fix vulnerabilities, we can add checkpoint periodically for those nodes. We can adopt new methods, two idea about checkpoints are very interesting and we can think about it. .
Cross checkpoint: http://www.bytestamp.net/c/what 
advanced checkpointing: http://www.coindesk.com/feathercoin-secures-block-chain-advanced-check-pointing/

Also we can try this Two Phase POW method.
A paper can be found here: http://fmt.cs.utwente.nl/files/sprojects/268.pdf
2.   Read this paper, it will answer your concern and you can learn. http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/452.pdf
3.   True, agree.
4.   I do agree this is the worst and bad idea, but technically it can, because the old massive fork may not have the same hashing power anymore. 
And for the recorded, I have no relation with the swap team you mention, I am only list what I can think of, people can discussion what they think.

And yes, I jump from nowhere, and I think I do not need you a permission to talk here. You sounds like very aggressive, but it’s fine. If one day, president jump here and make a statement, you will say the same thing, that he jump from nowhere.

If we want to keep a thing running longer, we need also adopting and learn new things and try to apply those good ones. 

My opinion is we can try 1 first (current best opinion), but do need do good research and technical improvement. Then, we can try 2. (POW+POS) if 1 is not doing well. 3. Maybe later? I am not sure.  4. Seems bad though, we can ignore it. And for the record, again, you do not need to agree with me.

This is the primary issue, and need to be solve first (as soon as possible), for people who hold those coins, it will not worth a cent, if it's not on any exchanging platform. And for those platform perform well, they do need secure. So we can make this coin more popular, otherwise, if we do everything slow and wait and ignore, it will toward the death at the end.



Other question,Who can update?No dev,Dev disappeared since 2013
Fedoracoin(TIPS)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 21, 2016, 07:35:22 AM
 #145

Hello everyone,

I would like to bring everyone's attention here. We have suffered two large fork recently, and now it's really time to bring the topic here and would like get everyone's opinion. So we can move forward, because this can happened again.

Here are the opinions that we can work on.

1. Keep current algorithm, increase security, adding more nodes and checkpoints.
2. Use POW+POS
3. Merged mining
4. Update algorithm, like Scrypt-N, X15, etc.

Worst case hard fork may needed.

Please contribute your opinions. Or if you have better opinions, bring it. So we can make a better FedoraCoin together.

I apologize if this post manifests my complete ignorance, but feeling still being a n00b in cryptocurrencies I have a few question regarding the proposed measures above and I hope to receive answers that allow me to improve my knowledge:

Re: 1.
Checkpoints are fine, but they always reference a point in the past before or at best when the wallet/src was released. Given the fork doesn't go back further than the checkpoint it is my understanding that a checkpoint helps nothing to prevent a fork from happening (except speeding up synching from scratch), is this assumption completely off? Though TIPS needs newer checkpoints for the getchainvalue function to work halfway performant, I don't believe it helps protecting from forks like the ones we saw.

I estimate the current TIPS network to something around 60-80 nodes. How many nodes more would you think would be needed and how do you think this can keep a fork like the one we experienced from happening?

Re: 2.
A POS/POW hybrid certainly serves as good protection against a 51% POW attack, however if you look at the richlist you will see that the top 2 wallets have >40% of the total supply. Assuming that never all supply will be staking and assuming those two wallets will stake, they can easily outgrow a majority of staking weight. I really have no clue if my suspicion here holds any ground, but I hope an experienced person with better skills can enlighten us.

Re: 3.
That seems to me like the best option to avoid a fork when enough pools join and merge mine TIPS. If I look at DOGE right now, it has ~900Gh - I guess that's much  harder to attack than the current ~40Gh that TIPS has (or much less when it forked). However I am pretty sure it would move price of TIPS downwards when there is no more hard cost associated with mining TIPS.

Re: 4.
Could you explain how changing the mining algo would protect TIPS from an attack/fork? What exactly are you trying to achieve with an algo swap? You realize that you sound here like the takeover dev that also appeared out of nowhere suddenly and wanted to change the algo? May I ask if you are in any way affiliated with the SHA256 takeover-dev ?

I agree though that the coin needs an update, my opinion from digging through code is that it will get problematic to use - to say the least - once # 1,664,000 is reached.

I will highly appreciate if you can take the time to address my naive questions and help me toward a better understanding of how cryptocurrencies work.




It’s okay if you do not agree with me, but I just need to solve these problems as soon as possible. It seems the dev team do not start doing anything related to this yet, so I just bring the topic, so everyone can discuss what the best opinion is.

1.   You assumption is correct, but we need more than that. Need to fix vulnerabilities, we can add checkpoint periodically for those nodes. We can adopt new methods, two idea about checkpoints are very interesting and we can think about it. .
Cross checkpoint: http://www.bytestamp.net/c/what 
advanced checkpointing: http://www.coindesk.com/feathercoin-secures-block-chain-advanced-check-pointing/

Also we can try this Two Phase POW method.
A paper can be found here: http://fmt.cs.utwente.nl/files/sprojects/268.pdf
2.   Read this paper, it will answer your concern and you can learn. http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/452.pdf
3.   True, agree.
4.   I do agree this is the worst and bad idea, but technically it can, because the old massive fork may not have the same hashing power anymore. 
And for the recorded, I have no relation with the swap team you mention, I am only list what I can think of, people can discussion what they think.

And yes, I jump from nowhere, and I think I do not need you a permission to talk here. You sounds like very aggressive, but it’s fine. If one day, president jump here and make a statement, you will say the same thing, that he jump from nowhere.

If we want to keep a thing running longer, we need also adopting and learn new things and try to apply those good ones. 

My opinion is we can try 1 first (current best opinion), but do need do good research and technical improvement. Then, we can try 2. (POW+POS) if 1 is not doing well. 3. Maybe later? I am not sure.  4. Seems bad though, we can ignore it. And for the record, again, you do not need to agree with me.

This is the primary issue, and need to be solve first (as soon as possible), for people who hold those coins, it will not worth a cent, if it's not on any exchanging platform. And for those platform perform well, they do need secure. So we can make this coin more popular, otherwise, if we do everything slow and wait and ignore, it will toward the death at the end.



Other question,Who can update?No dev,Dev disappeared since 2013

I was hoping current "dev" can handle this quickly, but it seems not the case for now. We may need someone with professional experience to do this, I am not sure how well the current 'dev' can handle this, and what they plan to do next, they seems not announce any plan since the fork happen.
psycodad
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 759
Merit: 506



View Profile
May 21, 2016, 09:04:53 AM
 #146

Hello everyone,

I would like to bring everyone's attention here. We have suffered two large fork recently, and now it's really time to bring the topic here and would like get everyone's opinion. So we can move forward, because this can happened again.

Here are the opinions that we can work on.

1. Keep current algorithm, increase security, adding more nodes and checkpoints.
2. Use POW+POS
3. Merged mining
4. Update algorithm, like Scrypt-N, X15, etc.

Worst case hard fork may needed.

Please contribute your opinions. Or if you have better opinions, bring it. So we can make a better FedoraCoin together.

I apologize if this post manifests my complete ignorance, but feeling still being a n00b in cryptocurrencies I have a few question regarding the proposed measures above and I hope to receive answers that allow me to improve my knowledge:

Re: 1.
Checkpoints are fine, but they always reference a point in the past before or at best when the wallet/src was released. Given the fork doesn't go back further than the checkpoint it is my understanding that a checkpoint helps nothing to prevent a fork from happening (except speeding up synching from scratch), is this assumption completely off? Though TIPS needs newer checkpoints for the getchainvalue function to work halfway performant, I don't believe it helps protecting from forks like the ones we saw.

I estimate the current TIPS network to something around 60-80 nodes. How many nodes more would you think would be needed and how do you think this can keep a fork like the one we experienced from happening?

Re: 2.
A POS/POW hybrid certainly serves as good protection against a 51% POW attack, however if you look at the richlist you will see that the top 2 wallets have >40% of the total supply. Assuming that never all supply will be staking and assuming those two wallets will stake, they can easily outgrow a majority of staking weight. I really have no clue if my suspicion here holds any ground, but I hope an experienced person with better skills can enlighten us.

Re: 3.
That seems to me like the best option to avoid a fork when enough pools join and merge mine TIPS. If I look at DOGE right now, it has ~900Gh - I guess that's much  harder to attack than the current ~40Gh that TIPS has (or much less when it forked). However I am pretty sure it would move price of TIPS downwards when there is no more hard cost associated with mining TIPS.

Re: 4.
Could you explain how changing the mining algo would protect TIPS from an attack/fork? What exactly are you trying to achieve with an algo swap? You realize that you sound here like the takeover dev that also appeared out of nowhere suddenly and wanted to change the algo? May I ask if you are in any way affiliated with the SHA256 takeover-dev ?

I agree though that the coin needs an update, my opinion from digging through code is that it will get problematic to use - to say the least - once # 1,664,000 is reached.

I will highly appreciate if you can take the time to address my naive questions and help me toward a better understanding of how cryptocurrencies work.




It’s okay if you do not agree with me, but I just need to solve these problems as soon as possible. It seems the dev team do not start doing anything related to this yet, so I just bring the topic, so everyone can discuss what the best opinion is.

1.   You assumption is correct, but we need more than that. Need to fix vulnerabilities, we can add checkpoint periodically for those nodes. We can adopt new methods, two idea about checkpoints are very interesting and we can think about it. .
Cross checkpoint: http://www.bytestamp.net/c/what 
advanced checkpointing: http://www.coindesk.com/feathercoin-secures-block-chain-advanced-check-pointing/

Can you elaborate on the vulnerabilities that exist or are you refering to the 51% problem solely here?

You have valid points here, but you realize that in both proposed methodes there is single entity deciding what gets a checkpoint which is somewhat against the spirit of a decentralized currency? How would be decided who will be running i.e. the checkpointing master and would you all trust this person to do the right thing (tm) ?

Are there running implementations of coins that use bytestamp so we could look at how it is done in the code? If yes, am I right that these just ask the website of bytestamp for a checkpoint or do they have to run the datacoin core too for this?


Also we can try this Two Phase POW method.
A paper can be found here: http://fmt.cs.utwente.nl/files/sprojects/268.pdf
2.   Read this paper, it will answer your concern and you can learn. http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/452.pdf

I am sorry, that paper was a bit hard to read and I only glanced over it, but as you quoted it as answer to my concerns that >40% are in top two wallets I quote from the conclusion of the paper:
Quote
To monopolize the block creation process, an attacker needs to control a substantial fraction of the
total amount of coins that have been generated thus far

The point I was trying to make is that POW/POS hybrid strongly relies on the fact that there is a fair distribution of coins among holders. With two wallets having > 40% my opinion is that we have to rely on those two wallet to act in honesty.

3.   True, agree.
4.   I do agree this is the worst and bad idea, but technically it can, because the old massive fork may not have the same hashing power anymore. 
And for the recorded, I have no relation with the swap team you mention, I am only list what I can think of, people can discussion what they think.
Thank you for answering that question. If you have taken the time to read up the posts that led us here, you should probably understand why a newly created account called Fedoracoin raises some suspicions. In this harmful and scammy environment people can only rely on the reputation of a nick and as you seem to be experienced and knowledgeable person you have to understand that people suspect you to be the takeover dev. I'll give you the benefit of doubt though.

And yes, I jump from nowhere, and I think I do not need you a permission to talk here. You sounds like very aggressive, but it’s fine. If one day, president jump here and make a statement, you will say the same thing, that he jump from nowhere.

Well, can you point out where my questions and concerns that I wrote in the kindest possible manner were aggressive? I asked you politely if you where affiliated with the takeover dev and you denied which I for now take as your word. I really do not hope any "presidentes" pop up here, it's a scammy enough place already..

If we want to keep a thing running longer, we need also adopting and learn new things and try to apply those good ones. 

My opinion is we can try 1 first (current best opinion), but do need do good research and technical improvement. Then, we can try 2. (POW+POS) if 1 is not doing well. 3. Maybe later? I am not sure.  4. Seems bad though, we can ignore it. And for the record, again, you do not need to agree with me.

This is the primary issue, and need to be solve first (as soon as possible), for people who hold those coins, it will not worth a cent, if it's not on any exchanging platform. And for those platform perform well, they do need secure. So we can make this coin more popular, otherwise, if we do everything slow and wait and ignore, it will toward the death at the end.

Thank you for permitting me my own biased views and oppinions, you are certainly entitled to the same and if my reply does read somewhere like you would need my or someonelse permission to speak up here, that's pure nonsense and I sincerely apologize for that.

Protestatio facto contraria non valet.
psycodad
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 759
Merit: 506



View Profile
May 21, 2016, 11:24:15 AM
 #147


Other question,Who can update?No dev,Dev disappeared since 2013

I was hoping current "dev" can handle this quickly, but it seems not the case for now. We may need someone with professional experience to do this, I am not sure how well the current 'dev' can handle this, and what they plan to do next, they seems not announce any plan since the fork happen.

Let me take this chance to set straight what my position/role is here as I feel like being confused for "the dev" or "dev" :

I like TIPS and it has been good to me at times in the past, that was reason enough for me to offer my support to bring TIPS on a new exchange (namely Alcurex and Cryptopia) when BTER was announcing to swap to SHA256 TIPS. That's what I do with every opensource project that is good to me, or teaches me something - I try to give something back within my possibilites. I live under the impression that's how the open source ecosystem is supposed to work. Since contributing people are a rather rare element on earth this was probably qualification enough to invite me to the dev-teams slack. I have offered there the little insight and knowledge I had and I refunded halibits loss from my pocket since a) he is a honest guy and doesn't deserve to make loss especially since he listed TIPS on Alcurex without any upfront payment and b) it was within my possibilities to keep halibit from delisting TIPS.

That's all about it - I am not "dev" and certainly not "the dev", I do regard myself as a supporter or active community member - not more! I do not claim and have not claimed any more rights or weight than any other holder, miner or node maintainer in the TIPS community. I am absolutely sure that if you are willing to contribute, code, money, insight or just support the guys (teillagory, testbug and metamorphin) will be more than happy to welcome you on board. I actually hope my post inspires them to invite you to join and contribute your ideas and your code.

It is a fact that you will need a professional coder for the plans you have, maybe that can be you? You sound like you have lot of experience or are maybe the experienced pro dev that is missing here. Elsewise this community probably will need to cough up some BTC for this professional dev you are looking for or convince one of the goodwilling pros to do it for the warm fuzzy feeling in the belly that you get when you do good things for free. I can't say if that person exists, but I wish sincerely good luck with finding him or her.

I really hope you or somebody else will take the torch and become the much needed leader to bring TIPS to a new level and implement/code the changes you propose. I already thank you for that great effort and time you are willing to invest for the benefit of us all here.


Protestatio facto contraria non valet.
testbug
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 758
Merit: 500


poolinat0r.com - OP


View Profile
May 21, 2016, 06:45:48 PM
 #148


                                                                               





TIPS INFO

Fedoracoin are a digitally based cryptocurrency similar to other digital currencies such as bitcoin, litecoin and dogecoin. Fedoracoin is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency, meaning it uses public-key cryptography which operates on a decentralized network of computers. When a user pays with Fedoracoin, they request that a public log of transactions, known as the blockchain, updates itself with the new ownership of the coins. These transactions are securely conducted and verified by this decentralized network of computers across the world.

Fedoracoin is based on Dogecoin with parts from StableCoin. This means that it processes transactions more quickly, more fedoracoins will be created, and they can be mined, or created, more efficiently by CPUs and GPUs rather than specialized equipment.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Join us right now!
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

TIPS EXCHANGES


Cryptopia
••••••••••••••••••
Alcurex
••••••••••••••••••
Bter
••••••••••••••••••


Bitbi9
••••••••••••••••••


Novaexchange
••••••••••••••••••


TIPS WALLETS

         

* Click here or on this image to download the current blockchain. This avoids a synchronization time too long. After download copy the file to the destination directory of fedoracoin wallet.


TIPS STATEMENT

On the bitcointalk forum is a ilegal takeover attempt on TIPS/Fedoracoin.
We are doing everything we can to prevent scammers to act against members and interests Fedoracoin community.
The original TIPS/Fedoracoin source code use since the begin scrypt algorithm only. If you have any questions about this subject, contact us.
            TIPS SPECIFICATIONS

• Algorithm : Scrypt
• Max coins : 500,000,000,000
• Block time : 60 seconds
• Difficulty retarget : 10 minutes  
• KGW algorythm : Yes
• Premine : 3 blocks as test

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Click here to see Github source code
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••




TIPS REWARDS

Number of blocks
••••••••••••••••••••••••
0 - 51,999
52,000 - 103,999
104,000 - 207,999
208,000 - 415,999
416,000 - 831,999
832,000 - 1,663,999  
+1,664,000

Reward block
••••••••••••••••••••
0-5,000,000 TIPS
0-2,500,000 TIPS
0-1,250,000 TIPS
0-625,000 TIPS
0-312,500 TIPS
0-156,250 TIPS
50,000 TIPS


TIPS NODES

Quote
addnode=157.161.128.55
addnode=162.243.210.240
addnode=5.255.66.44
addnode=121.41.6.161
addnode=87.98.182.171
addnode=195.169.203.83
addnode=75.175.72.22
addnode=83.217.145.16

TIPS EXPLORERS

   

TIPS POOLS

fedora.poolto.be          SmarterHash
Multipool.us                Cryptopia
1337pool

Last updated @ April 25, 2016, 07:22:58 PM


Don't forget to add http://bitcoinpool.us to your pools list.

Has been added, thank you Smiley
Fedoracoin(TIPS)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 21, 2016, 09:55:41 PM
 #149


Other question,Who can update?No dev,Dev disappeared since 2013

I was hoping current "dev" can handle this quickly, but it seems not the case for now. We may need someone with professional experience to do this, I am not sure how well the current 'dev' can handle this, and what they plan to do next, they seems not announce any plan since the fork happen.

Let me take this chance to set straight what my position/role is here as I feel like being confused for "the dev" or "dev" :

I like TIPS and it has been good to me at times in the past, that was reason enough for me to offer my support to bring TIPS on a new exchange (namely Alcurex and Cryptopia) when BTER was announcing to swap to SHA256 TIPS. That's what I do with every opensource project that is good to me, or teaches me something - I try to give something back within my possibilites. I live under the impression that's how the open source ecosystem is supposed to work. Since contributing people are a rather rare element on earth this was probably qualification enough to invite me to the dev-teams slack. I have offered there the little insight and knowledge I had and I refunded halibits loss from my pocket since a) he is a honest guy and doesn't deserve to make loss especially since he listed TIPS on Alcurex without any upfront payment and b) it was within my possibilities to keep halibit from delisting TIPS.

That's all about it - I am not "dev" and certainly not "the dev", I do regard myself as a supporter or active community member - not more! I do not claim and have not claimed any more rights or weight than any other holder, miner or node maintainer in the TIPS community. I am absolutely sure that if you are willing to contribute, code, money, insight or just support the guys (teillagory, testbug and metamorphin) will be more than happy to welcome you on board. I actually hope my post inspires them to invite you to join and contribute your ideas and your code.

It is a fact that you will need a professional coder for the plans you have, maybe that can be you? You sound like you have lot of experience or are maybe the experienced pro dev that is missing here. Elsewise this community probably will need to cough up some BTC for this professional dev you are looking for or convince one of the goodwilling pros to do it for the warm fuzzy feeling in the belly that you get when you do good things for free. I can't say if that person exists, but I wish sincerely good luck with finding him or her.

I really hope you or somebody else will take the torch and become the much needed leader to bring TIPS to a new level and implement/code the changes you propose. I already thank you for that great effort and time you are willing to invest for the benefit of us all here.




Thank you for clear explanation here. I am here because I am also a supporter, if nothing happened, I may just be quiet. But now, we really need to do some work, I am glad that testbug team actually did some good things such as the blockexplorer, but we should primary focus on update the wallet first. I do not want to claim  how well I can do. But I definitely can provide support in someway. I PM testbug, but seems he/she is not interested to talk with me, but in case he/she changed his mind, he can still contact me. And since there is no "real" dev, we should all have the rights to vote what next we want to do, not one person decide everything. There are a lot more things we need to do, if we really want this coin grow.
testbug
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 758
Merit: 500


poolinat0r.com - OP


View Profile
May 22, 2016, 09:44:04 AM
 #150


Other question,Who can update?No dev,Dev disappeared since 2013

I was hoping current "dev" can handle this quickly, but it seems not the case for now. We may need someone with professional experience to do this, I am not sure how well the current 'dev' can handle this, and what they plan to do next, they seems not announce any plan since the fork happen.

Let me take this chance to set straight what my position/role is here as I feel like being confused for "the dev" or "dev" :

I like TIPS and it has been good to me at times in the past, that was reason enough for me to offer my support to bring TIPS on a new exchange (namely Alcurex and Cryptopia) when BTER was announcing to swap to SHA256 TIPS. That's what I do with every opensource project that is good to me, or teaches me something - I try to give something back within my possibilites. I live under the impression that's how the open source ecosystem is supposed to work. Since contributing people are a rather rare element on earth this was probably qualification enough to invite me to the dev-teams slack. I have offered there the little insight and knowledge I had and I refunded halibits loss from my pocket since a) he is a honest guy and doesn't deserve to make loss especially since he listed TIPS on Alcurex without any upfront payment and b) it was within my possibilities to keep halibit from delisting TIPS.

That's all about it - I am not "dev" and certainly not "the dev", I do regard myself as a supporter or active community member - not more! I do not claim and have not claimed any more rights or weight than any other holder, miner or node maintainer in the TIPS community. I am absolutely sure that if you are willing to contribute, code, money, insight or just support the guys (teillagory, testbug and metamorphin) will be more than happy to welcome you on board. I actually hope my post inspires them to invite you to join and contribute your ideas and your code.

It is a fact that you will need a professional coder for the plans you have, maybe that can be you? You sound like you have lot of experience or are maybe the experienced pro dev that is missing here. Elsewise this community probably will need to cough up some BTC for this professional dev you are looking for or convince one of the goodwilling pros to do it for the warm fuzzy feeling in the belly that you get when you do good things for free. I can't say if that person exists, but I wish sincerely good luck with finding him or her.

I really hope you or somebody else will take the torch and become the much needed leader to bring TIPS to a new level and implement/code the changes you propose. I already thank you for that great effort and time you are willing to invest for the benefit of us all here.




Thank you for clear explanation here. I am here because I am also a supporter, if nothing happened, I may just be quiet. But now, we really need to do some work, I am glad that testbug team actually did some good things such as the blockexplorer, but we should primary focus on update the wallet first. I do not want to claim  how well I can do. But I definitely can provide support in someway. I PM testbug, but seems he/she is not interested to talk with me, but in case he/she changed his mind, he can still contact me. And since there is no "real" dev, we should all have the rights to vote what next we want to do, not one person decide everything. There are a lot more things we need to do, if we really want this coin grow.

PM has been sent Wink
I agree we musst change sth. for getting more stability. Let's see how many users will post here and share their thoughts.
See:

Further development, please be a part of it and post your feelings

We are thinking about a change of PoW only. But of course we wan to discuss this with the community first.
With a change from PoW only to a PoW/PoS with PoS rewards and PoW like it is right now attacks/forks wont happen so easy again.
What do you think about a PoW/PoS conversion?

We will need some time to discuss this, please post your feelings about a change like that.
This change will not come out of no where, and if anyone is posting a "new wallet" DON'T download it, we will post it here and link it to the website at www.fedoracoin.xyz
CECVW
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 961
Merit: 1000


View Profile
May 22, 2016, 12:46:50 PM
 #151

I like what I'm seeing - nicely done!!

Thank you Smiley

I received a message from cryptsy:
They are not sure when they will reopen TIPS/Altcoin withdrawalls again, but they are doing sth with the back end of cryptsy.com

Thanks for that, please keep us inform as I have all my TIPS there.

Great job!

⏲⏳⏲⏳⏲     WIRELESS COIN     ⏲⏳⏲⏳⏲
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
⏲  FORUM THREADGITHUBTWITTERSLACK 1 #time-travellers-yet/#wlcSLACK 2 #21_tickets/#wlc  ⏲
myc066
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 155
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 22, 2016, 02:35:56 PM
 #152


Other question,Who can update?No dev,Dev disappeared since 2013

I was hoping current "dev" can handle this quickly, but it seems not the case for now. We may need someone with professional experience to do this, I am not sure how well the current 'dev' can handle this, and what they plan to do next, they seems not announce any plan since the fork happen.

Let me take this chance to set straight what my position/role is here as I feel like being confused for "the dev" or "dev" :

I like TIPS and it has been good to me at times in the past, that was reason enough for me to offer my support to bring TIPS on a new exchange (namely Alcurex and Cryptopia) when BTER was announcing to swap to SHA256 TIPS. That's what I do with every opensource project that is good to me, or teaches me something - I try to give something back within my possibilites. I live under the impression that's how the open source ecosystem is supposed to work. Since contributing people are a rather rare element on earth this was probably qualification enough to invite me to the dev-teams slack. I have offered there the little insight and knowledge I had and I refunded halibits loss from my pocket since a) he is a honest guy and doesn't deserve to make loss especially since he listed TIPS on Alcurex without any upfront payment and b) it was within my possibilities to keep halibit from delisting TIPS.

That's all about it - I am not "dev" and certainly not "the dev", I do regard myself as a supporter or active community member - not more! I do not claim and have not claimed any more rights or weight than any other holder, miner or node maintainer in the TIPS community. I am absolutely sure that if you are willing to contribute, code, money, insight or just support the guys (teillagory, testbug and metamorphin) will be more than happy to welcome you on board. I actually hope my post inspires them to invite you to join and contribute your ideas and your code.

It is a fact that you will need a professional coder for the plans you have, maybe that can be you? You sound like you have lot of experience or are maybe the experienced pro dev that is missing here. Elsewise this community probably will need to cough up some BTC for this professional dev you are looking for or convince one of the goodwilling pros to do it for the warm fuzzy feeling in the belly that you get when you do good things for free. I can't say if that person exists, but I wish sincerely good luck with finding him or her.

I really hope you or somebody else will take the torch and become the much needed leader to bring TIPS to a new level and implement/code the changes you propose. I already thank you for that great effort and time you are willing to invest for the benefit of us all here.




Thank you for clear explanation here. I am here because I am also a supporter, if nothing happened, I may just be quiet. But now, we really need to do some work, I am glad that testbug team actually did some good things such as the blockexplorer, but we should primary focus on update the wallet first. I do not want to claim  how well I can do. But I definitely can provide support in someway. I PM testbug, but seems he/she is not interested to talk with me, but in case he/she changed his mind, he can still contact me. And since there is no "real" dev, we should all have the rights to vote what next we want to do, not one person decide everything. There are a lot more things we need to do, if we really want this coin grow.

PM has been sent Wink
I agree we musst change sth. for getting more stability. Let's see how many users will post here and share their thoughts.
See:

Further development, please be a part of it and post your feelings

We are thinking about a change of PoW only. But of course we wan to discuss this with the community first.
With a change from PoW only to a PoW/PoS with PoS rewards and PoW like it is right now attacks/forks wont happen so easy again.
What do you think about a PoW/PoS conversion?

We will need some time to discuss this, please post your feelings about a change like that.
This change will not come out of no where, and if anyone is posting a "new wallet" DON'T download it, we will post it here and link it to the website at www.fedoracoin.xyz
Can not change pow !  Because POS,POS+POW equal low value
beliomir
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 100



View Profile
May 22, 2016, 08:09:45 PM
 #153

Sorry to disturb you!

But we are mining fedora coin.

And the wallet doesn't Sync!

Can you give us somes new addnodes?

But i'll try to use somes nodes you have written!

Thank's for helping us!

DCCDistributed Credit Chain
    Empower Credit, Enable Finance   
GithubFacebookMedium ‹‹‹dcc.finance››› RedditTwitterTelegram
Fedoracoin(TIPS)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 22, 2016, 08:27:28 PM
 #154

Sorry to disturb you!

But we are mining fedora coin.

And the wallet doesn't Sync!

Can you give us somes new addnodes?

But i'll try to use somes nodes you have written!

Thank's for helping us!

These should get you start.

addnode=157.161.128.55
addnode=162.243.210.240
addnode=5.255.66.44
addnode=121.41.6.161
addnode=87.98.182.171
addnode=195.169.203.83
addnode=75.175.72.22
addnode=83.217.145.16
addnode=1.180.115.42
addnode=1.180.127.34
addnode=1.204.205.190
addnode=101.201.44.98
addnode=103.253.43.162
addnode=106.18.236.121
addnode=107.178.109.224
addnode=110.102.31.124
addnode=111.202.79.11
addnode=113.224.106.107
addnode=113.225.190.58
addnode=113.238.194.55
addnode=115.195.98.0
addnode=115.249.113.161
addnode=115.28.42.60
addnode=116.114.20.99
addnode=118.212.34.186
addnode=118.240.102.196
addnode=119.32.198.152
addnode=120.27.198.28
addnode=121.41.6.161
addnode=121.56.176.123
addnode=122.234.17.150
addnode=122.88.21.127
addnode=122.94.239.244
addnode=123.184.164.230
addnode=123.191.87.22
addnode=124.163.209.205
addnode=124.92.78.105
addnode=124.92.87.177
addnode=128.199.148.87
addnode=139.196.230.81
addnode=139.214.116.243
addnode=146.199.169.254
addnode=148.251.19.213
addnode=151.16.156.41
addnode=162.243.210.240
addnode=162.255.117.105
addnode=163.158.195.2
addnode=167.160.36.126
addnode=169.237.118.11
addnode=172.77.155.251
addnode=172.93.110.218
addnode=174.78.200.194
addnode=175.149.155.55
addnode=175.15.206.2
addnode=175.168.97.109
addnode=178.140.25.85
addnode=182.200.142.136
addnode=182.200.247.232
addnode=182.200.39.61
addnode=183.167.195.116
addnode=183.69.222.67
addnode=183.69.223.146
addnode=188.226.194.191
addnode=192.99.13.67
addnode=192.99.241.164
addnode=192.99.62.23
addnode=192.99.8.126
addnode=209.188.18.52
addnode=212.65.7.40
addnode=218.95.60.50
addnode=221.181.214.226
addnode=222.161.208.11
addnode=223.100.0.116
addnode=223.101.73.82
addnode=223.158.205.124
addnode=223.255.20.148
addnode=223.73.119.211
addnode=24.125.85.28
addnode=27.189.200.150
addnode=27.189.204.154
addnode=36.78.46.24
addnode=39.169.114.4
addnode=46.254.11.158
addnode=46.55.194.23
addnode=49.70.187.149
addnode=5.135.108.204
addnode=50.142.213.254
addnode=50.72.139.239
addnode=59.54.120.60
addnode=61.166.207.37
addnode=68.101.63.60
addnode=69.85.95.101
addnode=71.177.147.44
addnode=71.222.61.146
addnode=72.186.22.189
addnode=73.66.169.235
addnode=74.207.243.85
addnode=78.209.19.92
addnode=78.63.158.220
addnode=78.70.226.125
addnode=79.131.12.15
addnode=80.145.155.185
addnode=80.145.158.170
addnode=80.98.68.110
addnode=82.196.15.75
addnode=84.107.174.140
addnode=84.241.146.26
addnode=85.214.125.73
addnode=85.239.131.22
addnode=85.25.44.119
addnode=86.198.52.77
addnode=88.15.242.11
addnode=88.206.187.1
addnode=88.75.157.62
addnode=90.32.33.219
addnode=90.79.92.58
addnode=91.153.109.149
addnode=94.167.83.54
addnode=95.222.28.243
addnode=96.252.143.147
addnode=96.41.46.191
addnode=98.115.147.74
dinozavrik
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 23
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 22, 2016, 10:43:06 PM
 #155

Hi Guys, what the reason to keep the same algoritm? Scrypt was used to prevent using ASIC, when we have scrypt ASIC IMHO it perfect time to chenge algorytm, so much more miners will mine TIPS.
myc066
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 155
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 23, 2016, 01:04:57 AM
 #156

Hi Guys, what the reason to keep the same algoritm? Scrypt was used to prevent using ASIC, when we have scrypt ASIC IMHO it perfect time to chenge algorytm, so much more miners will mine TIPS.
Except doge Merged mining,Tip is second Scrypt coin now,We can not lost supporter ,miner,Keep scrypt algorytm,Beneficial to tip value.I think the top 10 tips owner will do something for tips,Such as update,We need wait.
AltcoinScamfinder
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 500


View Profile
May 23, 2016, 01:18:04 AM
 #157

Wow, reviving shitcoin for easy money in pump and dump sure is popular these days.

FOR RENT.
Fedoracoin(TIPS)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 23, 2016, 07:58:52 AM
 #158

Quote
1.   You assumption is correct, but we need more than that. Need to fix vulnerabilities, we can add checkpoint periodically for those nodes. We can adopt new methods, two idea about checkpoints are very interesting and we can think about it. .
Cross checkpoint: http://www.bytestamp.net/c/what  
advanced checkpointing: http://www.coindesk.com/feathercoin-secures-block-chain-advanced-check-pointing/


Can you elaborate on the vulnerabilities that exist or are you refering to the 51% problem solely here?
51% is one issue, the other one some of user may not notice that when transaction is over 2B tips wallet may stuck and sometime it will generate an extremely high transaction fees, and this cannot traced from blockexplorer. (not sure there are others, but it's two years old wallet.)

Quote
You have valid points here, but you realize that in both proposed methodes there is single entity deciding what gets a checkpoint which is somewhat against the spirit of a decentralized currency? How would be decided who will be running i.e. the checkpointing master and would you all trust this person to do the right thing (tm) ?
True and not true. it always has some centralized thing and this can goes back to original dev team, as well. I believe they hold these nodes at the beginning.

Quote
Are there running implementations of coins that use bytestamp so we could look at how it is done in the code? If yes, am I right that these just ask the website of bytestamp for a checkpoint or do they have to run the datacoin core too for this?
I think you are right, but I am not sure, I am just saying this maybe a good idea to apply later on, which may need some research.

But thank you for contribute your opinions.
dinozavrik
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 23
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 23, 2016, 05:10:26 PM
 #159

Hi Guys, what the reason to keep the same algoritm? Scrypt was used to prevent using ASIC, when we have scrypt ASIC IMHO it perfect time to chenge algorytm, so much more miners will mine TIPS.
Except doge Merged mining,Tip is second Scrypt coin now,We can not lost supporter ,miner,Keep scrypt algorytm,Beneficial to tip value.I think the top 10 tips owner will do something for tips,Such as update,We need wait.
I'm not telling about DOGE, the is other algos which can be mined by GPUs only. Don't we forget that it's should be distributed network? How many people can mine reasonable amount of TIPS now? Top 100 TIPS wallets has 97% of all tips, and now, without any posibility of mining it it will not change. How many billions coins stolen by Cryptsy?
myc066
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 155
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 23, 2016, 11:38:37 PM
 #160

Hi Guys, what the reason to keep the same algoritm? Scrypt was used to prevent using ASIC, when we have scrypt ASIC IMHO it perfect time to chenge algorytm, so much more miners will mine TIPS.
Except doge Merged mining,Tip is second Scrypt coin now,We can not lost supporter ,miner,Keep scrypt algorytm,Beneficial to tip value.I think the top 10 tips owner will do something for tips,Such as update,We need wait.
I'm not telling about DOGE, the is other algos which can be mined by GPUs only. Don't we forget that it's should be distributed network? How many people can mine reasonable amount of TIPS now? Top 100 TIPS wallets has 97% of all tips, and now, without any posibility of mining it it will not change. How many billions coins stolen by Cryptsy?
"How many people can mine reasonable amount of TIPS now"
You are right,It also happen in Btc,Ltc ,Anyone can updata tips wallet ,Fork it.
But i think,Tips update ,Will decide by top 100 tips owners,Why tip high value,Top 10 buy more ,And remain
Tip exchange, alcurex,28 days deposite time,cryptopia will close it.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 ... 69 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!