★★DigiByte|极特币★★[DGB]✔ Core v6.16.5.1 - DigiShield, DigiSpeed, Segwit

[Altcoinfanatic]

1. (And I think that 5 times safer from a marketing standpoint is good since we're working with 5 algos - from the most simplistic theoretical vantage point, you need to gain 51% control of 5 algos instead of 1 algo, and that is 5 times safer in spite of the fact that it's not mathematically 5 times when the 5 are considered as one joint value. Correct, or not?

2. Also, the diff of all the algos rises and falls in correlation with one another: if the sha256d diff rises, the diff on the other 4 algos rise correspondingly. Correct, or not?)

Good questions! I will try to answer 2 of them (as how i understand it, or is the community not allowed to answer technical questions? If so, i apologize and will stop answering them)

1.  It was always true that an attacker could attack the coin with just 1 algorithm but they would have needed at least 87% if all algorithms were weighted properly. All algorithms are not weighted properly in Digibyte and thus only 61% on SHA256D is sufficient to attack Digibyte. If these problems get sorted (all algorithms weighted properly) then you an attacker can still attack Digibyte with only 87% with just 1 algorithm. How is that 5 times safer from a marketing standpoint? It is not true that you need to gain 51% control of 5 algos instead of 1 algo. So not correct.

2. No also not correct. This is one of the flaws MaNI was talking about:
I don't want to go into too much technical details but most of the flaws revolve around the fact that 'difficulty' is a somewhat arbitrary measurement, while it can be used to meaningfully compare two blocks from the same algorithm to one another, there is no real relation between the difficulties of two different algorithms. i.e. It is not really meaningful to say that a 500 difficulty Scrypt block is worth more or less than a 500 difficulty Groestl block.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=554412.msg11804113#msg11804113

1. You still need an average of 51% over the 5 algos. From an easy to understand point of view, why is it technically incorrect to say that DGB is 5 times safer then?

2. I'm very interested is seeing how the 5 algos are not weighted correctly.
"As each algorithm controls only 20% of the network, a 51% attacker would need to control an average of 51% of each algorithm to successfully attack the network.  For example, if someone brought in enough ASICs to capture 80% of both SHA256 and Scrypt, which would be very difficult on it’s own, that would still only amount to 32% of the overall network.  The remaining 19% would need to be carved out of the Qubit, Skein, and Groestl algorithms, and there are no ASICs in development for any one of those."

1. That is how multi-pow SHOULD work and how it was intended to be. But the formula used currently does not reflect this. Currently only 61% on SHA256D algorithm is sufficient to attack Digibyte, you dont even need 1% of the other 4 algos. After the pull request of mentalcollatz will be merged (and if it will be merged) this will change to: an attacker with 90% of the SHA256D hashrate and 33% of each of the other 4 algorithms would have insufficient hashpower to mount a 51% attack. So basicly what we know today about multi-pow, it is not true. You dont need an average of 51% over the 5 algos since 61% of SHA256D is enough. So in plain english:
currently: the attacker only need hashrate in only 1 algorithm  
after pull request is merged: the attacker must have some hashrate in all 5 algorithms

2. That is how multi-pow SHOULD work and how it was intended to be. But the formula used currently does not reflect this. In the current implementation there is no real relation between the difficulties of two different algorithms. Right now nodes consider the average sha256d block to contain much more work than any block from any of the other algorithms.

[HR]

Your misconception stems from this fact: the "best" chain is determined not by the number of blocks in the chain, but by the amount of work in the chain.  Right now nodes consider the average sha256d block to contain much more work than any block from any of the other algorithms (due to magic work factors set before asics were common).

This from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_network

"The best chain (black) consists of the longest series of transaction records from the genesis block (green) to the current block or record. Orphaned records (purple) exist outside of the best chain."

suggests that what you are presenting is a major "revelation" that stands the crypto-world on its head and that therefore needs some very serious documentation supported by hard data.

That page just uses non-technical wording.  Bitcoin also uses the "most work" criterion.

Add: BTW, a google search for "magic work factors bitcoin" yields these results:

https://www.google.es/search?q=best+chain+bitcoin&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=upifVdevF4HzUPT5j8AL#q=magic+work+factors+bitcoin

Is your terminology also new?

Work factors only apply to multi-algo coins.

Thanks for that clarification.

One last question for now and then I'll leave this to others who may indeed know more than I do.

"Work" only comes into play when determining which of two simultaneously discovered blocks is added to the blockchain, correct?

Even if the sha256d block contains more work, if block discovery is relatively equal at 20% per algo, how does that change the theoretical percentages necessary for a 51% attack on a multi-algo? Let's say each sha256d block contains more work, but it's still a relative 20% of the total (even if someone control 100% of that 20%) meaning that an incorrect chain could not be created and the attack would not be successful. Let's say that sha256d is worth 100 times more work than any of the other algos, the fact that those blocks are evenly distributed at a 1:5 ratio within the total blockchain would completely mitigate that "superiority", would it not? It's still only one of five.

The only way I see that this could be an issue is if it were possible to get huge strings of blocks discovered by only one algo in particular while the others find nothing, and that doesn't happen with DGB.

[Altcoinfanatic]

Take your 250k money in the hands and place ads for DGB in Greece. That would make at least some sense.
"Send your money in DGB without any restriction"

Good suggestion! We need more marketing! Perhaps the investor withdrawed his investment (took it back because he saw that crypto is not booming anymore)?
Jared, is the $250k investment still intact? And is there a possibility to use some of it for marketing please? Perhaps give some out of it to some trusted members to do marketing because you have so less time? Just a suggestion. We need to help you, i think this way we can help:

give funds out of that $250k to do marketing on: google, facebook, twitter, ads in greece etc etc.

Why use the $250k investment as a marketing gimmick? Is there a link somewhere to read how much has been already used for marketing purposes? If nothing is known about the investment or u do not want to tell anything about it then could we please stop using that as marketing, because people want transparancy.

[HR]

1. (And I think that 5 times safer from a marketing standpoint is good since we're working with 5 algos - from the most simplistic theoretical vantage point, you need to gain 51% control of 5 algos instead of 1 algo, and that is 5 times safer in spite of the fact that it's not mathematically 5 times when the 5 are considered as one joint value. Correct, or not?

2. Also, the diff of all the algos rises and falls in correlation with one another: if the sha256d diff rises, the diff on the other 4 algos rise correspondingly. Correct, or not?)

Good questions! I will try to answer 2 of them (as how i understand it, or is the community not allowed to answer technical questions? If so, i apologize and will stop answering them)

1.  It was always true that an attacker could attack the coin with just 1 algorithm but they would have needed at least 87% if all algorithms were weighted properly. All algorithms are not weighted properly in Digibyte and thus only 61% on SHA256D is sufficient to attack Digibyte. If these problems get sorted (all algorithms weighted properly) then you an attacker can still attack Digibyte with only 87% with just 1 algorithm. How is that 5 times safer from a marketing standpoint? It is not true that you need to gain 51% control of 5 algos instead of 1 algo. So not correct.

2. No also not correct. This is one of the flaws MaNI was talking about:
I don't want to go into too much technical details but most of the flaws revolve around the fact that 'difficulty' is a somewhat arbitrary measurement, while it can be used to meaningfully compare two blocks from the same algorithm to one another, there is no real relation between the difficulties of two different algorithms. i.e. It is not really meaningful to say that a 500 difficulty Scrypt block is worth more or less than a 500 difficulty Groestl block.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=554412.msg11804113#msg11804113

1. You still need an average of 51% over the 5 algos. From an easy to understand point of view, why is it technically incorrect to say that DGB is 5 times safer then?

2. I'm very interested is seeing how the 5 algos are not weighted correctly.
"As each algorithm controls only 20% of the network, a 51% attacker would need to control an average of 51% of each algorithm to successfully attack the network.  For example, if someone brought in enough ASICs to capture 80% of both SHA256 and Scrypt, which would be very difficult on it’s own, that would still only amount to 32% of the overall network.  The remaining 19% would need to be carved out of the Qubit, Skein, and Groestl algorithms, and there are no ASICs in development for any one of those."

1. That is how multi-pow SHOULD work and how it was intended to be. But the formula used currently does not reflect this. Currently only 61% on SHA256D algorithm is sufficient to attack Digibyte, you dont even need 1% of the other 4 algos. After the pull request of mentalcollatz will be merged (and if it will be merged) this will change to: an attacker with 90% of the SHA256D hashrate and 33% of each of the other 4 algorithms would have insufficient hashpower to mount a 51% attack. So basicly what we know today about multi-pow, it is not true. You dont need an average of 51% over the 5 algos since 61% of SHA256D is enough. So in plain english:
currently: the attacker only need hashrate in only 1 algorithm  
after pull request is merged: the attacker must have some hashrate in all 5 algorithms

2. That is how multi-pow SHOULD work and how it was intended to be. But the formula used currently does not reflect this. In the current implementation there is no real relation between the difficulties of two different algorithms. Right now nodes consider the average sha256d block to contain much more work than any block from any of the other algorithms.

Good contributions. All I can say is that this needs to be thoroughly studied and documented with hard data. If you're correct, then we will have made a major improvement. If not, we run the risk of creating a major SNAFU.

Personally, until we have clear substantiated documentation on the subject (this would be a huge milestone that would make many people look like they would have been better off reading C++ for Dummies), I will remain skeptical and adhere to the original analysis and numbers backed by so many extremely experienced and knowledgeable devs. I find it incredible to think that a 51% attact would be possible with only 61% of one algo, except in the hypothetical case I concluded my last post with (and that is, in practice, impossible): The only way I see that this could be an issue is if it were possible to get huge strings of blocks discovered by only one algo in particular while the others find nothing, and that doesn't happen with DGB.

[bogglor]

Does 51% automatically cause a problem, or would the entity with 51% have to put in some sort of logic (a specially coded wallet?) to actively reject blocks from everyone but themselves?

I've always thought the latter, so someone would need to plan this - not just have it happen by chance.

[Altcoinfanatic]

maybe the dev can buy the coins  .

The guys who made the $250k investment can easily pump price to 500 sat without it even causing a dent to them. Why you think a lot of asian miners mining this coin.

Is there any transparancy about the $250k investment? Is it possible to reveal the private investment to 5 honest and trusted DGB people (i would nominate halinyo, HR, tamilee, o0o0 and Verias) with a non-disclosure agreement? I do trust Jared but somewhere i am also afraid that this investment is a fairytale. If it is not real, it does not matter but do not use it as a marketing point. Just be transparant. Please Jared?
I would believe the 5 people i just mentioned.

I would be up for it, however you can trust Jared. Thank you for your trust on me.
I am not sure about the 3k+ nodes. However, that could be possible using some trick.

Cheers.

esotericizm, can you give you best estimate how much usuable nodes we have please?

[Altcoinfanatic]

I will remain skeptical and adhere to the original analysis and numbers backed by so many extremely experienced and knowledgeable devs. I find it incredible to think that a 51% attact would be possible with only 61% of one algo.

To which extremely experienced and knowledgeable devs are you referring to? 8bitcoder (dev of myriadcoin) and Roshan (dev of Saffroncoin) are extremely experienced and they both acknowledged this problem. I know its hard to believe (i had the same) but one must not be blinded and hide for the truth no?

Read this conversation HR:
https://www.reddit.com/r/myriadcoin/comments/2oj7y5/lowhashrate_51_attack_on_myriad_without_timewarp/

especially this part:
https://www.reddit.com/r/myriadcoin/comments/2oj7y5/lowhashrate_51_attack_on_myriad_without_timewarp/cmnonug
https://www.reddit.com/r/myriadcoin/comments/2oj7y5/lowhashrate_51_attack_on_myriad_without_timewarp/cmnr5gd

TLDR: Myriadcoin and Saffroncoin has patched up their code with some workarounds (but still not optimal). Digibyte has not been patched up yet (but will be in digispeed, we hope).

[o0o0]

Going to be honest here yet again. I was a big DGB supporter and held around 106 million DGB but i've dropped my investment by approximately 50%.

I pride myself on transparency and activity as being a factor in my investments. I still believe DGB has a lot of potential but i don't believe there is as much communication and progress to continue to keep my faith at the level it was. Also i find the news lacking... sites are nice gaming wallet nice etc but there isn't enough team and community interaction and briefing. Yes there are deals that can't be released etc but you can report in a round about way to show something is happening. Last i heard was a hard fork to match visa stuff etc and that was due a while ago... its been delayed but not much news on why and when we can expect it. I think the game needs to be stepped up and people kept informed.

The auto miners from mintsy and multipools dumping into dgb is one factor and without buy pressure from adoption its a losing battle. Lets face it. In all honesty we are all here to make money realised in either fiat or believe that DGB can and will be a micro payment device where we will get increased value from our initial investment in the form of goods.

Jared is a good person i believe and has a lot invested but i don't think at present there is enough being done to address the general public and investors individually, This may change but i encourage Jared to introduce his complete programming team and pr team and provide an avenue where they can converse with the public. I also would like to see some kind of regular blog posting or news casts that show whats happening week by week with DGB. Blind faith leads to destruction i've seen it many times in investments and regardless of what i want to believe its mind over heart in this game.

DGB is simply not adopted enough nor does it have the community following of a meme like doge to fight on sells. What it does have is dedicated devs and community but that alone isn't enough to raise the price.

I'll maintain my 60 million DGB investment for the next few months and see if the outlook changes. Please don't take this as a threat its more an open look at how i invest.
For now i've diverted my funds into netcoin. I encourage others to take a look at this.

Netcoin is a lot like DGB except its a POS coin with 100% APR interest until block 940,000 which is around this november and it halves. Netcoin has a twist on Proof of Stake (POS). Its not around having to tweek block sizes to compete... just put all your coins in 1 address and leave the wallet open. every 6 hours (4 times a day) you get a promised stake... after 14 days i can confirm this to be true. The interest rate i think starts at 20% and leads to 100% once you hit 10 million coins... it steps up from 0->10 million.

A nice coin.. if you are the type to keep your wallet closed thats fine too. When you open it you get the missed stake you are owed... you just don't get the compounding effect. Be nice though and leave it open to secure the network.

Diversification is the key to any investment portfolio and i ask you take a look at netcoin but make your own decision. Its sitting on around 330 satoshi at present which is still a good price. I invested and got in around 220-260 satoshi but its still a good price. 1 to 2 million is a nice target... it'll cost around i think 5-6 btc. Returns in time aren't too bad... better than bank interest. If you want more info pm me and i'll take it off topic and have a chat with you.

else google netcoin foundation and open comms in there forums. The devs are great. 0 premine and no foundation member holds more than 7 million coins. The total coin cap is 440.44 million at present i believe.

[DigiByte]

@o0o0 Thank you very much for expressing your honest concerns. And thank you for your suggestions.

We have been planning to start making weekly video blog updates for awhile now so starting early next week everyone can expect the first video update. I will give a general introduction and welcome to beginers and then an overview of the vision of where DigiByte is headed and how best to explain DigiByte to others. As well as a current state of affairs.

I also would like to take the time to answer as many questions as possible. So if you have a question, both technical or business related please post it here so I can review them and include them in the video update.

There is a lot happening in the world right now. Between Greece, the Chinese stock market and a complete overload of debt worldwide there is a huge opportunity for DigiByte right now.

Thanks again to everyone for your honesty, support and passion for this amazing technology.

Cheers,

Jared

[HR]

I will remain skeptical and adhere to the original analysis and numbers backed by so many extremely experienced and knowledgeable devs. I find it incredible to think that a 51% attact would be possible with only 61% of one algo.

To which extremely experienced and knowledgeable devs are you referring to? 8bitcoder (dev of myriadcoin) and Roshan (dev of Saffroncoin) are extremely experienced and they both acknowledged this problem. I know its hard to believe (i had the same) but one must not be blinded and hide for the truth no?

Read this conversation HR:
https://www.reddit.com/r/myriadcoin/comments/2oj7y5/lowhashrate_51_attack_on_myriad_without_timewarp/

especially this part:
https://www.reddit.com/r/myriadcoin/comments/2oj7y5/lowhashrate_51_attack_on_myriad_without_timewarp/cmnonug
https://www.reddit.com/r/myriadcoin/comments/2oj7y5/lowhashrate_51_attack_on_myriad_without_timewarp/cmnr5gd

TLDR: Myriadcoin and Saffroncoin has patched up their code with some workarounds (but still not optimal). Digibyte has not been patched up yet (but will be in digispeed, we hope).

Thanks for that background material - it's very helpful. You and MentalCollatz certainly are two welcomed additions to the community.

Nevertheless, there's still no statistical analysis there to speak of either. Lot's of great coders, "patching" things without really addressing whether or not the need is real. The probabilistic analysis is severely wanting. How in the world can a "coin [be] vulnerable to 51% attacks by attackers with far less than 51% of the network hashpower"? That just leaves my head in a fog. It must have done the same to 8bitcoder as well since he just left it at that and began working on a "patch" (which is understandable for a coder since the mindset is one of terrible dislike for bugs regardless of their impact).

Okay, and we pick things up from there, no real understanding, at least not documented (so far as I know), of what the real statistical ramifications are, but a 51% attack with less than 51% does cast some doubt, to say the least, on what the real possibilities are.

8bitcoder talks early on about the need to build a "side chain" and that the attacker would eventually catch up to the main network. That is practically statistically impossible, if not completely impossible. Does anyone really think a side chain of equal size to the DGB blockchain could be built? If diff were ZERO then a blockchain of equal size in blocks could be theoretically achieved, but with a zero diff, the "work value" would be infinitely inferior. In order to build a side chain of equal value, we'd need Superman to reverse time for us so that we could start at the same point in time. And don't come back at this by saying a forked side chain would work since by the time the attacker were to catch up that "fork" would be long known to be just that.

Of course, everything I'm saying is just off the top of my head, but without any serious statistical analysis on the part of those that say this is a reality - a 51% attack with less than 51%, or even with 61%, as has been said here - what I'm saying holds the same weight (if not more since common sense tells us that less than half is not equal to half).

Common sense tells us that a 51% attack requires a 51% control of the ENTIRE network, not 51% of 20% of the network, unless you're able to stop the other 4 algos from discovering new blocks over a short period of time, something which no-one has ever said is possible (will this be the next shoe to drop?) and something that doesn't happen regardless of how much one individual algo's hashrate spikes.

WarpTimer starts that thread by saying that in "theory it could be carried out on a single CPU." Seriously? What about the diff needed to generate the amount of work necessary in order to be equal to a real SHA256 block generated on the real blockchain? With a single CPU? Come on, where are we drawing our assumptions from, and, more importantly, just how are we validating them?

He even goes on to say that there needs to be a spike in SHA256 diff in order to begin the attack, and the attacker is going to be the block finder with one CPU? 

Let alone try to mine 2 other algos?

As always with the 51% attack, we're back to the need for some serious computational power, and, in this case, the failure of the other algos.

Don't know how to leave you on this other than to say that on this level I don't consider reddit and BCT comments to be anything more than that, comments, and I certainly don't put them into White Paper category, much less documented research.

BTW, do you have a link to where 8bitcoder moved the discussion on github?

[HR]

DGB is simply not adopted enough nor does it have the community following of a meme like doge to fight on sells. What it does have is dedicated devs and community but that alone isn't enough to raise the price.

And there's zero interest in putting together an Investor's Pack either!



What more . . .

. . . bear with me here, I'll be done in a jiff.

Let's add the very curious phenomenon we've seen here in the last few days/weeks to the fact that there's no interest in "selling" DGB to investors.

Let's start that off with a chart.




Does that look like just about the best picture perfect, textbook example, of what is Pump and Dump?

On a chart, the answer is clearly yes.

In spite of all the constant rhetoric about how DGB is not just another P&D shit coin, the reality of the matter from the viewpoint of the market is that, in fact, DGB is just another P&D shit coin. There's no arguing that. It is what it is. The price chart does not lie.

Of course, the Devs can argue that the market is misinterpreting things, and, of course, that argument would be worth something if the Devs were around on a regular basis informing and keeping everyone abreast, or just engaging at very least.

Traders call it the "quiet period" when a Pump and Dump coin falls into a lower volume sideways pattern. They've named it such because the Devs deliberately stay "quiet" so that price will fall even further. This is an essential part of P&D.

You never see new ideas or initiatives during the quiet period - everything positive is quenched, that is unless it is a "positive" that's seen as being trivial by serious investors, of course, since that positive then becomes a double negative.

Any of this sound familiar?

Please don't take this personally, I'm only citing facts, facts that can seriously alter people's perception, and with perception being as important as it is, it's no wonder that everything possible is done to make perception as negative as possible during the "quiet period".

And then we've got this very interesting phenomenon here at DGB central to add to the template: the recent arrivals of people like barabbas, and, finally, the sudden and urgent need to fix a supposedly super critical vulnerability that has been with us for 7 months now, and that for some odd reason has now become paramount, and (not resembling barabbas in any manner other than their recent arrivals) that has been made present by recent arrivals with their newly found strong convictions (which could very well be sincere, but remember, I'm talking about very strict facts and how they can, and do, shape perceptions). Oh, and I almost forgot, the Dev comes out and says, again after 7 months, YES, this is a problem we need to address . . . but has not the time for the mention of long term positives (I've been soliciting a response on the Investor's Pack for a while now with no luck, hum). Can things get any more negative (other than outside observers finally pointing this out)?

Of course, this could all be coincidence . . .

Does anyone believe in coincidence?

o0o0, you made some good points that I'm sure many share, but it might be even graver than you think. I'm not one to say definitively what something is or isn't, nor do I talk about people's motivations or speculate as to whether something is intentional or not, nor do I judge others. On the other hand, I don't have any problems talking about how facts may be perceived, and what the benefits or damage may be, and in this case, the facts of the matter, circumstantial or not, have done great harm to DGB in my opinion, and it will take a lot of doing to bring me back to the thinking that DGB is not just another P&D and keep me from selling into the next pump.

And I, for one, should know better.  

[Bluestreet]

Going to be honest here yet again. I was a big DGB supporter and held around 106 million DGB but i've dropped my investment by approximately 50%.

I pride myself on transparency and activity as being a factor in my investments. I still believe DGB has a lot of potential but i don't believe there is as much communication and progress to continue to keep my faith at the level it was. Also i find the news lacking... sites are nice gaming wallet nice etc but there isn't enough team and community interaction and briefing. Yes there are deals that can't be released etc but you can report in a round about way to show something is happening. Last i heard was a hard fork to match visa stuff etc and that was due a while ago... its been delayed but not much news on why and when we can expect it. I think the game needs to be stepped up and people kept informed.

The auto miners from mintsy and multipools dumping into dgb is one factor and without buy pressure from adoption its a losing battle. Lets face it. In all honesty we are all here to make money realised in either fiat or believe that DGB can and will be a micro payment device where we will get increased value from our initial investment in the form of goods.

Jared is a good person i believe and has a lot invested but i don't think at present there is enough being done to address the general public and investors individually, This may change but i encourage Jared to introduce his complete programming team and pr team and provide an avenue where they can converse with the public. I also would like to see some kind of regular blog posting or news casts that show whats happening week by week with DGB. Blind faith leads to destruction i've seen it many times in investments and regardless of what i want to believe its mind over heart in this game.

DGB is simply not adopted enough nor does it have the community following of a meme like doge to fight on sells. What it does have is dedicated devs and community but that alone isn't enough to raise the price.

I'll maintain my 60 million DGB investment for the next few months and see if the outlook changes. Please don't take this as a threat its more an open look at how i invest.
For now i've diverted my funds into netcoin. I encourage others to take a look at this.

Netcoin is a lot like DGB except its a POS coin with 100% APR interest until block 940,000 which is around this november and it halves. Netcoin has a twist on Proof of Stake (POS). Its not around having to tweek block sizes to compete... just put all your coins in 1 address and leave the wallet open. every 6 hours (4 times a day) you get a promised stake... after 14 days i can confirm this to be true. The interest rate i think starts at 20% and leads to 100% once you hit 10 million coins... it steps up from 0->10 million.

A nice coin.. if you are the type to keep your wallet closed thats fine too. When you open it you get the missed stake you are owed... you just don't get the compounding effect. Be nice though and leave it open to secure the network.

Diversification is the key to any investment portfolio and i ask you take a look at netcoin but make your own decision. Its sitting on around 330 satoshi at present which is still a good price. I invested and got in around 220-260 satoshi but its still a good price. 1 to 2 million is a nice target... it'll cost around i think 5-6 btc. Returns in time aren't too bad... better than bank interest. If you want more info pm me and i'll take it off topic and have a chat with you.

else google netcoin foundation and open comms in there forums. The devs are great. 0 premine and no foundation member holds more than 7 million coins. The total coin cap is 440.44 million at present i believe.

Dgb will have it's time but might take bit longer because of the supply coming onto the market for the time being. I also had a look at noble , net etc but you should really look at Guldencoin. That is a special project and it's not because of the devs but the community is adding some really good stuff but under WaterLooDown they building a seriously good dev team to back that community.

Dgb would be over 2 million usd marketcap if the supply was 10% of what it is now. Also if bitcoin price goes to 1000 usd again high supply coins will suffer regardless of how good they are. This is why it's important for coins like dgb and guldencoin to have it's own fiat pairings.

[MemberCount+1]

And therefore, reduced the supply and the problem is solved. People buy only ~500k DGBs per day. If enough people know DGB, the supply can be raised again.

Do not set yourselves under pressure by the large supply.


The life cycle is not a straight line or curve, you must regulate the market. On the other side are people and not machines. people needs a leader or rules. the coin-"evolution" this is not static process or algorithm. The largest part of the crypto-currencies is chaos, adjustments and rules are not bad!

[HR]

And therefore, reduced the supply and the problem is solved. People buy only ~500k DGBs per day. If enough people know DGB, the supply can be raised again.

Do not set yourselves under pressure by the large supply.


The life cycle is not a straight line or curve, you must regulate the market. On the other side are people and not machines. people needs a leader or rules. the coin-"evolution" this is not static process or algorithm. The largest part of the crypto-currencies is chaos, adjustments and rules are not bad!

I haven't been too keen on cutting the supply, but if there's no will to support a reasonably stable price that incentives participation any other way, this would be it.

Cut the reward by 90%, immediately. Hell, with over 4 billion already in circulation, there's not going to be any shortage any time soon considering current usage.

And when the need arises, that is to say when we're operating at VISA speed and with a justifiable load, we can increase it again.

A reward change is one of the easiest things to do as well, and the "bang for the buck" in terms of price support just might be the best of all possibilities as well.

. . . that is if there is any will at all to really support this coin long term.


CUT IT BY 90%!!

And do it yesterday.


There's just one small problem with that though: miners would disappear and the network would go dry. Devs are f@(ked. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Guess they'll just have to roll up their sleeves like everyone else and start selling this bitch (and defending it too, like its their own - or do you just let anyone come into your home to trash it?).

[MemberCount+1]

Don't reduce supply. Think longterm!

If digital money goes mainstream we need that much coins. And that is the target. So qualm down think longterm and buy your DGB daily.

You forget, DGB is not alone! You win against the other coins, if your own story is successful. And loss is not a good thing/argument. By the way, your dream of $1 or $10 is a illusion. stay realistic.

I had DGB for a long time (8 million) and no profit. Now I trade every day again and make profit with falling prices, because there is no other Option for me. Is it good? No! I'd like to hold DGB only, but it is hopeless in this situation.

The good news is, however, we can not fall under 0sat ... soon...

[CryptoRaver]

Don't reduce supply. Think longterm!

If digital money goes mainstream we need that much coins. And that is the target. So qualm down think longterm and buy your DGB daily.

You forget, DGB is not alone! You win against the other coins, if your own story is successful. And loss is not a good thing/argument. By the way, your dream of $1 or $10 is a illusion. stay realistic.

I had DGB for a long time (8 million) and no profit. Now I trade every day again and make profit with falling prices, because there is no other Option for me. Is it good? No! I'd like to hold DGB only, but it is hopeless in this situation.

The good news is, however, we can not fall under 0sat ... soon...

Would call that his dream it's something what's in the ann and trickett lot of investors to jump in.

But agree with readjustment of the supply...action needed on all fronts.

Everyone is for the same reasons in crypto so act like that is the key.

[HR]

Conversation with MaNI this afternoon.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=554412.msg11844533#msg11844533
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=554412.msg11845200#msg11845200

For those who really care about DigiByte and are willing to defend it.


Add: On second thought, considering that over there I'm a guest whose posts can be deleted, and he can delete his own, and that this is very important for DigiByte, I'm going to re-post them here in their entirety.

I don't want to go into too much technical details but most of the flaws revolve around the fact that 'difficulty' is a somewhat arbitrary measurement, while it can be used to meaningfully compare two blocks from the same algorithm to one another, there is no real relation between the difficulties of two different algorithms. i.e. It is not really meaningful to say that a 500 difficulty Scrypt block is worth more or less than a 500 difficulty Groestl block.

Current diff for DigiByte:

"difficulty_sha256d" : 1252668.67021677,
"difficulty_scrypt" : 30.25224995,
"difficulty_groestl" : 129.23048482,
"difficulty_skein" : 1467.28252719,
"difficulty_qubit" : 40.10777032,

It's not arbitrary and it is adjusted to each algo's network hashrate as is obvious when looking at the stats. The long term average ratio between network hashrate and diff for each algo is 28.64:1 and it fluctuates correspondingly with increases and decreases in the network hashrate.

(The DGB network hashrate is currently running at about 25-30% of long term average so that ratio is also currently below the average.)

Yeah, you are now focusing on a specific word (arbitrary) and ignoring the sentences that come afterwards to explain what I mean by arbitrary, I was not saying that the difficulty targeting is arbitrary, I make it quite clear that the difficulty is fine when used within each individual algorithm, so you have misunderstood.
This is anyway a 'dumbed down' explanation intended for people who don't have the full level of system/code understanding to fully evaluate what is going on, I did make that quite clear because really if I start going into the nitty details here it is just going to confuse people.

I could rebut the above and then we can argue ad infinitum about it, but honestly why, I have a whole list of constructive things I need to do with my very precious limited time. I only posted what I did to state the Guldencoin dev stance on multi and I stand by that stance. We feel the way we do for a reason, it isn't like we are suddenly going to change our minds, we are not 100% confident in multi algo and the instant that happens it would be simply poor form for us to continue to work on it. No forum argument is going to change that, the only way it might change is if someone comes with a formal proof for it, and that's not about to happen, so really why spend energy on it that we can better spend looking for better solutions.

I'm trying to be diplomatic about this, I went out of my way to *not* attack other coins in my explanation, I went to great lengths to point out why even though I feel there may be security issues they aren't necessarily at immediate risk etc. but still people keep trying to drag me into some argument about Digibyte and/or Myriad or something.. So truly I hope you don't think my comment was some attack on Digibyte or something...

Petty little 'fights' between coins is not something that interests me, I'm a builder, I'm here to build things, so really I'm not going to get dragged into this any more especially not here where very few people will understand the details anyway, Digibyte/Myriad are not my concern, I don't have any coins of either or any stake in their future and have very little personal interest in either.

This is the Guldencoin thread lets keep the discussion about Guldencoin, this is the last I have to say on the matter in this thread. - If you want to discuss detailed technical stuff catch me on IRC when I have spare time.

The problem is that you have made a statement that is unsubstantiated and that directly damages other coins and harms other people.

It would have been one thing to say that you don’t like it and want to do something else, but it’s quite another to say that it’s flawed without clearly outlining your reasoning, as technical as it may be.

To do otherwise, to make an unsubstantiated claim that harms others, is tantamount to slander and libel. You tarnish something without reason. It’s defamation.

By the very fact that you have made the claim, you have obligated yourself to detailing the specifics behind that claim. To do otherwise would cast severe doubt on what you’ve said and threaten your reputation.

You simply can’t make this kind of damning declaration without backing it up with hard data.

Now that you’ve made the claim, please detail your findings for what you base your claim on without condescending technical exclusions (meaning all the technical details you are capable of explaining), or be known as someone who we might refer to as a back-stabber (to be nice about it).

Of course, you could always apologize for doing harm to others when you should have just said that personally you didn’t like it . . . that is if you are not able to present a rational explanation for your claim.

Again, you said in that same post (nothing taken out of context here, please don’t try to distract): “After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective.” (emphasis mine)

Please, adequately explain, or do us the favor of retracting that statement in its entirety.

The problem is that you have made a statement that is unsubstantiated and that directly damages other coins and harms other people.
It would have been one thing to say that you don’t like it and want to do something else, but it’s quite another to say that it’s flawed without clearly outlining your reasoning, as technical as it may be.
To do otherwise, to make an unsubstantiated claim that harms others, is tantamount to slander and libel. You tarnish something without reason. It’s defamation.
By the very fact that you have made the claim, you have obligated yourself to detailing the specifics behind that claim. To do otherwise would cast severe doubt on what you’ve said and threaten your reputation.
You simply can’t make this kind of damning declaration without backing it up with hard data.
Now that you’ve made the claim, please detail your findings for what you base your claim on without condescending technical exclusions (meaning all the technical details you are capable of explaining), or be known as someone who we might refer to as a back-stabber (to be nice about it).
Of course, you could always apologize for doing harm to others when you should have just said that personally you didn’t like it . . . that is if you are not able to present a rational explanation for your claim.
Again, you said in that same post (nothing taken out of context here, please don’t try to distract): “After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective.” (emphasis mine)
Please, adequately explain, or do us the favor of retracting that statement in its entirety.

Sorry, but you are mistaken, pay closer attention to the original post.
Pay attention to language used in various places throughout my post:
"we are not satisfied"
"or at least I am not confident"
"it is good to know your limits"
"theoretical problems and flaws" with all of them.
"not necessarily going to help"
"This is not to say that multi-algo is 'completely broken'"
"the above are of course theoretical"
"I would not begin a complete panic about other coins."
"Perhaps time will show differently that the worries are unfounded."
"I would not personally use such an important coin as NLG on which to test theories"
"I can not in good concious recommend anything that is not 100% theoretically air tight."
"It is my belief that..."
"don't want to implement something we are not 100% happy with"
"based also on the possibility that there may be further flaws we are missing"
"It is my feeling that they are not more secure but then that depends on various things."

I went out of my way to show that it is only an opinion (an informed one but one nonetheless), and to as such not say anything overly decisive, if you or other people want to misinterpret what I have said and quote only little tidbits then that is not my problem, I certainly won't revoke my opinion and stand 100% by it, I'm certainly under no obligation to now spend the rest of my life writing detailed reports on other peoples code for them.
A theoretical flaw is enough for me personally to not put any more time into it, if  I were to spend weeks of my life detailing formal proofs of every algorithm I discard I would never get any work done, it is neither my job or responsibility to worry about what other coins do so unless you are offering to pay me for my time providing formal proofs of insecurity would not be worth my time.

Your post is quite frankly very aggressive and demanding, and is now off topic for this the Guldencoin forum, I have replied one last time only to defend myself against your aggression I will not reply to you again. I strongly suggest that you drop this now, if you want to talk about Digibyte go to the Digibyte forum.

Thank you for retracting. We have some people running around these forums saying that the sky is falling and quoting you as one of their main sources. These people can now be corrected.

For the record and to summarize your various statements from above: there is nothing with which to substantiate your claim, and even though you said that you "have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective", you were only expressing a personal opinion that you cannot support with facts and rational argument.

P.S. Don't get me wrong, I did see all those qualifying phrases in you complete post, but since others chose not to pay any attention at all to them, and in interest of getting to the point without distractions, I put the issue to you in the direct, no mistaken, manner in which I did. Nothing personal, I hope you understand, and I'm sure you would have done the same if the roles had been reversed.

Thanks again for the clarification, and, if you don't mind, it would be just as appreciated if you help others on the mistaken trail to recover from their error.

Cheers.

[TamiLee]

I only see Altcoinfanatic is new account so don't take it seriously. HR you got mad at wrong person.

[HR]

Oh my, look how easy it is!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_investor
Go to "Institutional-investor types"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_investor#Institutional-investor_types
Double click on “Endowment fund:” and that takes you to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_endowment
Here, in the “See also” section,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_endowment#See_also
you will find a list of lists for the endowment funds for each type.

List of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment 150+
List of Australian universities by endowment 20
List of Canadian universities by endowment 25+
List of UK universities by endowment 90+
List of wealthiest charitable foundations TOP 35 in the world

That’s 300+ extremely high quality contacts and that’s only for “Endowment fund”!

You’ve still got the following categories:

Hedge fund
Insurance company
Asset manager
Investment company
Investment trust
Mutual fund
Pension fund
Sovereign wealth fund
Unit trust and unit investment trust

And it goes on and on, like this, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_institutional_investors_in_the_United_Kingdom


Do you find yourself saying to yourself that none of these high quality prospects would be interested in DGB?

Get it out of your head what you think they might think and let them decide for themselves.

Send them information that would interest them AND LET THEM DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES!


VERY IMPORTANT NOTE:

The creation of a large contact list is “easy” in the sense that the information is there to be had, but very time consuming on the other hand, and requires either a huge community project where everyone works on a part, or a paid employee to do it in-house. (There is also the possibility of purchasing existing, already compiled, lists.)

The carrying out of a contact campaign itself is a similar story except for the fact that this can’t be purchased (it could be subbed out, but probably at a higher cost than an in-house project of this small in size).

Nothing prohibitive when taken in a $250,000 investment perspective. It's peanuts. In fact, I was thinking about doing it myself, in my name of course, but that’s too much work for what I’ve got time for at this time, and this is not my job anyway. This is a DigiByte job, either corporate or community, one or the other.




@ EPLDCC, nice post over on NLG. Nice touch. They’re not our enemies, even if they might have been erroneously thought to have been if we hadn’t faced things head on. Thanks.

@TamiLee, didn't get angry, got direct, which is called for in that kind of situation - it's a "lets get things cleared up now" attitude, businesslike, and to the point, that can be confused with other things - no worries, everyone's cool ;-)

[o0o0]

And therefore, reduced the supply and the problem is solved. People buy only ~500k DGBs per day. If enough people know DGB, the supply can be raised again.

Do not set yourselves under pressure by the large supply.


The life cycle is not a straight line or curve, you must regulate the market. On the other side are people and not machines. people needs a leader or rules. the coin-"evolution" this is not static process or algorithm. The largest part of the crypto-currencies is chaos, adjustments and rules are not bad!

The problem is NOT solved with reduced supply. You have less coins that are worth more. People either dump or the less coins mined by the auto sell miners are sold at a higher rate. Its an illusion reducing the supply.

More people invested and interested is the solution. This alone is a patch fix...... SERVICES, USE and development is the only way forward.

The miner integrated into the wallet will solve the auto dump issue in a way if more people adopt DGB and the wallet.

The services and use... well i'm shit out of ideas there. My gaming service was going to use DGB as the primary currency but I think for now i'll switch coins. Adoption on the service would mean i'd have to sell a portion to realise fiat for my weekly pay and hold the rest in hopes of it succeeding. Big risk at present. Not to mention if it drives price up through adoption I have to compete with auto miners which i'm not too keen on betting on.