[ANN][VRC] VeriCoin Proof of Stake-Time Currency | New Roadmap Released

[CryptoLTD]

Anyone using 2FA on cryptsy and using one of the ticker for prices there is a vulnerability. Go check cryptsy for instructions. I think they want you to change your 2fa.

This is a cryptsy 2FA issue, not VRC. Just a friendly heads up to the community, saw the admins spam it.

Its actually an issue with a Non-Licensesd 3rd party application. There are currently no approved 3rd party apps for cryptsy.

[buy4crypto]

Anyone using 2FA on cryptsy and using one of the ticker for prices there is a vulnerability. Go check cryptsy for instructions. I think they want you to change your 2fa.

This is a cryptsy 2FA issue, not VRC. Just a friendly heads up to the community, saw the admins spam it.

Its actually an issue with a Non-Licensesd 3rd party application. There are currently no approved 3rd party apps for cryptsy.

Ah, okay. I am not to familiar with any of them, just all of a sudden on cryptsy all the admins started spamming. I thought it may have been very important in light of recent events.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[CryptoLTD]

Anyone using 2FA on cryptsy and using one of the ticker for prices there is a vulnerability. Go check cryptsy for instructions. I think they want you to change your 2fa.

This is a cryptsy 2FA issue, not VRC. Just a friendly heads up to the community, saw the admins spam it.

Its actually an issue with a Non-Licensesd 3rd party application. There are currently no approved 3rd party apps for cryptsy.

Ah, okay. I am not to familiar with any of them, just all of a sudden on cryptsy all the admins started spamming. I thought it may have been very important in light of recent events.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Yea i was in there too. Infact, it would be a safe 'Best practice' to never EVER use ANY 3rd party browser apps on a machine involved with crypto, unless you coded it yourself.

[smoothie]

I guess the 3-4 fudders who kept vrc at the top of the forums posting 12 hours straight 5 times a page finally all bought after getting their victims to sell to them.

Was actually very impressive how badly they wanted to buy.  No sane person posts the way smoothie and crew did without needing/wanting to buy a substantial amount.

Why do people assume (and make accusations with no proof) that I wanted to buy a substantial amount of VRC?

FULL DISCLOSURE: I own 0 VRC and will never buy a single one ever.

REASONING: I would not ever want to be a part of the catastrophic effects of a rollback in the future should a massive hack/scam/theft happen related to VRC.

My posting has much to do with pointing out BS and calling things as I see it. If you knew my reputation on this forum you would know what is how I operated from day 1.

Tell me about which part of the rollback is catastrophic.

In the future a merchant could take payment in VRC and a huge hack comes along...rollback...oops VRC gone from your wallet even thought you sold goods.

Please explain to me how this is different from the risk every credit card accepting merchant faces every day.

What risk are you talking about exactly?

Chargeback. More commonly known to those outside the industry as a 'dispute'. Credit cards are weighted in the consumers' favor by a substantial margin, and having a transaction reversed is pretty commonplace.

Selling goods or services for an agreed amount and then having the transaction reversed is pretty much a standard cost of business for any merchant, and occurs far more often than a rollback.

Hell, more counterfeit currency is accepted daily than the total dollar amount of the transactions effected by the rollback.

In other words, why should a merchant be afraid of a loss in a transaction when they already assume far greater risk of loss every day?

You presume all merchants like the fact that they can get a chargeback.

Personally as a merchant myself I dont like chargebacks. I honor what I say I will do and accept only cryptos that have a track record that I trust not to do that.

Your definition of "standard" is not necessarily what people would do as oppose to what they are required to work with.

Just like how we in the US do not have a choice but to use Dollars as the currency for most debts private and public and for payment.

Just because it is a "standard" doesn't make it morally right nor does it mean that it is the way things should be.

Ask any merchant if they like having charge backs. I suspect you will find very few that enjoy getting a chargeback especially if they held up their end of the deal and delivered the goods.

In my scenario it would assume I sent goods to another user for payment in VRC...then a huge VRC scam takes place...then a roll back occurs and I do not have my VRC because of the roll back. Now tell me how that would be a fair/standard situation which is what we are really discussing as opposed to your "every day business" scenario? How?

[CodeHunter]

if people like them were not wasting their time and efforts in here and helping promote and grow BC instead, perhaps that coin wouldn't die the slow death as badly as it is :S

BTW Already sold my last BCs, no hope anymore.

https://i.imgur.com/fLc4G8E.jpg

[smoothie]

I guess the 3-4 fudders who kept vrc at the top of the forums posting 12 hours straight 5 times a page finally all bought after getting their victims to sell to them.

Was actually very impressive how badly they wanted to buy.  No sane person posts the way smoothie and crew did without needing/wanting to buy a substantial amount.

Why do people assume (and make accusations with no proof) that I wanted to buy a substantial amount of VRC?

FULL DISCLOSURE: I own 0 VRC and will never buy a single one ever.

REASONING: I would not ever want to be a part of the catastrophic effects of a rollback in the future should a massive hack/scam/theft happen related to VRC.

My posting has much to do with pointing out BS and calling things as I see it. If you knew my reputation on this forum you would know what is how I operated from day 1.

Frankly my dear, nobody gives a fuck here... Or anywhere.

Really? That's why I keep getting accused of trying to manipulate the VRC price? LOL

Far from it that no one gives a crap about it. It is the exact opposite as there is at least 5 posts accusing me of VRC price manipulation.

[MikeMike]

I guess the 3-4 fudders who kept vrc at the top of the forums posting 12 hours straight 5 times a page finally all bought after getting their victims to sell to them.

Was actually very impressive how badly they wanted to buy.  No sane person posts the way smoothie and crew did without needing/wanting to buy a substantial amount.

Why do people assume (and make accusations with no proof) that I wanted to buy a substantial amount of VRC?

FULL DISCLOSURE: I own 0 VRC and will never buy a single one ever.

REASONING: I would not ever want to be a part of the catastrophic effects of a rollback in the future should a massive hack/scam/theft happen related to VRC.

My posting has much to do with pointing out BS and calling things as I see it. If you knew my reputation on this forum you would know what is how I operated from day 1.

Tell me about which part of the rollback is catastrophic.

In the future a merchant could take payment in VRC and a huge hack comes along...rollback...oops VRC gone from your wallet even thought you sold goods.

Please explain to me how this is different from the risk every credit card accepting merchant faces every day.

What risk are you talking about exactly?

Chargeback. More commonly known to those outside the industry as a 'dispute'. Credit cards are weighted in the consumers' favor by a substantial margin, and having a transaction reversed is pretty commonplace.

Selling goods or services for an agreed amount and then having the transaction reversed is pretty much a standard cost of business for any merchant, and occurs far more often than a rollback.

Hell, more counterfeit currency is accepted daily than the total dollar amount of the transactions effected by the rollback.

In other words, why should a merchant be afraid of a loss in a transaction when they already assume far greater risk of loss every day?

You presume all merchants like the fact that they can get a chargeback.

Personally as a merchant myself I dont like chargebacks. I honor what I say I will do and accept only cryptos that have a track record that I trust not to do that.

Your definition of "standard" is not necessarily what people would do as oppose to what they are required to work with.

Just like how we in the US do not have a choice but to use Dollars as the currency for most debts private and public and for payment.

Just because it is a "standard" doesn't make it morally right nor does it mean that it is the way things should be.

Ask any merchant if they like having charge backs. I suspect you will find very few that enjoy getting a chargeback especially if they held up their end of the deal and delivered the goods.

In my scenario it would assume I sent goods to another user for payment in VRC...then a huge VRC scam takes place...then a roll back occurs and I do not have my VRC because of the roll back. Now tell me how that would be a fair/standard situation which is what we are really discussing as opposed to your "every day business" scenario? How?

Could you please try a bit harder.

There are so many holes in NEARLY ALL your arguments and Logic it makes you look incompetent.

[bitsterr]

You all realize the trolls keep coming back because you reply to them right?
Don't feed the trolls. Ignore them and they will go away.
The coin didnt dump and they are mad about it.
Ignore them!

[smoothie]

As harsh as it sounds...mintpal should go out of business and users who got coins lost due to the hack should suffer the loss or at least attempt to get what they can recover from mint pal without the Ben Bernanke move the VRC developers made.

This is not what has happened but it has set a precedent for the future.

The devs themselves said this will not happen again, and if should the coin fail/die because of this same type of situation happen, then so be it (see their developers hangout video, they address your concerns/thoughts of this being a trend they are starting).   The situation they were in had not happened to any coin previously, now that it has happened, all Proof of Stake coins as well as their relationships with exchanges *should* change, if not, we could definitely see any PoS coin, including Vericoin, fail.

I noticed in the 'news' today Ghash has put a cap/limit on what hashing power they will have (see http://www.coindesk.com/ghash-commits-40-hashrate-cap-bitcoin-mining-summit/ ), exchanges should do the same for Proof of Stake coins, only allow so much supply of any given coin to their exchange.

Simple: Words are cheap.

So next time they will change the standard of rollbacks? lol brilliant.

Now you can say they have a double standard. Awesome.

[majeis]

You all realize the trolls keep coming back because you reply to them right?
Don't feed the trolls. Ignore them and they will go away.
The coin didnt dump and they are mad about it.
Ignore them!

If the trolls want to keep the thread permanently bumped to the top of the forum, then that's their own stupidity.

[BitcoinPorn]

As harsh as it sounds...mintpal should go out of business and users who got coins lost due to the hack should suffer the loss or at least attempt to get what they can recover from mint pal without the Ben Bernanke move the VRC developers made.

This is not what has happened but it has set a precedent for the future.

The devs themselves said this will not happen again, and if should the coin fail/die because of this same type of situation happen, then so be it (see their developers hangout video, they address your concerns/thoughts of this being a trend they are starting).   The situation they were in had not happened to any coin previously, now that it has happened, all Proof of Stake coins as well as their relationships with exchanges *should* change, if not, we could definitely see any PoS coin, including Vericoin, fail.

I noticed in the 'news' today Ghash has put a cap/limit on what hashing power they will have (see http://www.coindesk.com/ghash-commits-40-hashrate-cap-bitcoin-mining-summit/ ), exchanges should do the same for Proof of Stake coins, only allow so much supply of any given coin to their exchange.

I like this solution. Its a hint to what the dev's where saying last night to in the hangout.

Good to see ghash.io taking proper steps to secure bitcoin. They fully understand they could be a target and compromised at some point. This was a wakeup call to all of crypto. Everyone is lucky it was done with ethics on the vericoin end, and not some shady anon dev who tried to set the precedent. They set the bar high for sure.

I think it was sort of mentioned in the last google hangout, but each exchange should have a listing of what percentage of coins they are holding for PoS based coins.   Whether or not they choose to put a cap/limit on what percentage they will hold in their exchange, it should be a more public/easily readable number that is listed on their site so at least the users can at the least make the decision if they want to use that exchange or not.    A cap/limit would be the optimal solution.  And you figure the exchanges would want to be down with this idea so they don't make themselves a target.

[smoothie]

Honestly I cannot understand why people keep answering scum like Bobsurplus, or trying to reason with people like smoothie and their army of alts.

After ignoring them for more than a week this thread has become so much better

It's been less than a week for me and it makes a world of difference browsing the thread.   Though smoothie I have to vouch just has his opinions on how he sees things, while overall he obviously wants Vericoin to fail and basically has said as much, he doesn't do it with shit posts with no content or large meme images.   It's sometimes good to hear other opinions on things imo.

My current ignore list:
SkyValeey
Bobsurplus
keshuker
mrkavasaki
ItsNotMe
CodeHunter

Thanks at least it appears there is one reasonable person here who at least we can agree to disagree maturely and not have to go "oh look I am ignoring you!" in an attempt to garner attention.

Seriously I could give two shits if the rest of you ignore me. I'm not here to please everyone and kiss ass. I call it as I see it. If you don't like it...please cry more.

[Isokoira]

You all realize the trolls keep coming back because you reply to them right?
Don't feed the trolls. Ignore them and they will go away.
The coin didnt dump and they are mad about it.
Ignore them!

If the trolls want to keep the thread permanently bumped to the top of the forum, then that's their own stupidity.

+1

Keeping us on top, they must love us sooo much they have nothing better to do than stay with us on a daily basis, sometimes several hours a day.  I feel so warm and fuzzy inside knowing we have our dear Smoothie here to keep us company.  Of course I have my ignore set so can't really see what crap is coming out but at least I know he/she is there like a faithful dog. 

[pnosker]

FYI: To those claiming we made a poor decision to roll back-

Navajocoin rolled back their blockchain BECAUSE someone 51% attacked. Both Bittrex and Bter were attacked, it looks like. Now they will likely be delisted from several exchanges and the coin is inches away from death.

We specifically rolled back to prevent the possibility for a 51% attack by an illicit group. This action likely saved VeriCoin from what would have been imminent death.

Please take some time to read about Navajocoin's predicament. They did it without telling anyone about it. We were as open as we could possibly be. VeriCoin has not been 51% attacked, Navajo was.

[buy4crypto]

FYI: To those claiming we made a poor decision to roll back-

Navajocoin rolled back their blockchain BECAUSE someone 51% attacked. Both Bittrex and Bter were attacked, it looks like. Now they will likely be delisted from several exchanges and the coin is inches away from death.

We specifically rolled back to prevent the possibility for a 51% attack by an illicit group. This action likely saved VeriCoin from what would have been imminent death.

Please take some time to read about Navajocoin's predicament. They did it without telling anyone about it. We were as open as we could possibly be. VeriCoin has not been 51% attacked, Navajo was.

You showed great ethics and morals in your early hours after the event. You did anything a responsible, civil person would. You guys don't get enough praise. Doug, David, You, and the Doge developer who came to the aid. A big 2 thumbs up!

Now we have to start figuring out the bigger picture of how to stop these attacks from bringing down crypto.

[Slipknot79]

2 days  yo.

[smoothie]

I guess the 3-4 fudders who kept vrc at the top of the forums posting 12 hours straight 5 times a page finally all bought after getting their victims to sell to them.

Was actually very impressive how badly they wanted to buy.  No sane person posts the way smoothie and crew did without needing/wanting to buy a substantial amount.

Why do people assume (and make accusations with no proof) that I wanted to buy a substantial amount of VRC?

FULL DISCLOSURE: I own 0 VRC and will never buy a single one ever.

REASONING: I would not ever want to be a part of the catastrophic effects of a rollback in the future should a massive hack/scam/theft happen related to VRC.

My posting has much to do with pointing out BS and calling things as I see it. If you knew my reputation on this forum you would know what is how I operated from day 1.

Tell me about which part of the rollback is catastrophic.

In the future a merchant could take payment in VRC and a huge hack comes along...rollback...oops VRC gone from your wallet even thought you sold goods.

Please explain to me how this is different from the risk every credit card accepting merchant faces every day.

What risk are you talking about exactly?

Chargeback. More commonly known to those outside the industry as a 'dispute'. Credit cards are weighted in the consumers' favor by a substantial margin, and having a transaction reversed is pretty commonplace.

Selling goods or services for an agreed amount and then having the transaction reversed is pretty much a standard cost of business for any merchant, and occurs far more often than a rollback.

Hell, more counterfeit currency is accepted daily than the total dollar amount of the transactions effected by the rollback.

In other words, why should a merchant be afraid of a loss in a transaction when they already assume far greater risk of loss every day?

You presume all merchants like the fact that they can get a chargeback.

Personally as a merchant myself I dont like chargebacks. I honor what I say I will do and accept only cryptos that have a track record that I trust not to do that.

Your definition of "standard" is not necessarily what people would do as oppose to what they are required to work with.

Just like how we in the US do not have a choice but to use Dollars as the currency for most debts private and public and for payment.

Just because it is a "standard" doesn't make it morally right nor does it mean that it is the way things should be.

Ask any merchant if they like having charge backs. I suspect you will find very few that enjoy getting a chargeback especially if they held up their end of the deal and delivered the goods.

In my scenario it would assume I sent goods to another user for payment in VRC...then a huge VRC scam takes place...then a roll back occurs and I do not have my VRC because of the roll back. Now tell me how that would be a fair/standard situation which is what we are really discussing as opposed to your "every day business" scenario? How?

Could you please try a bit harder.

There are so many holes in NEARLY ALL your arguments and Logic it makes you look incompetent.

Okay well let's just be vague and not actually address what I wrote. If there are so many holes why did you not point them all out?

You look incompetent for not being able to debate properly. Nice try but not wasting time with you. lol 

[smoothie]

FYI: To those claiming we made a poor decision to roll back-

Navajocoin rolled back their blockchain BECAUSE someone 51% attacked. Both Bittrex and Bter were attacked, it looks like. Now they will likely be delisted from several exchanges and the coin is inches away from death.

We specifically rolled back to prevent the possibility for a 51% attack by an illicit group. This action likely saved VeriCoin from what would have been imminent death.

Please take some time to read about Navajocoin's predicament. They did it without telling anyone about it. We were as open as we could possibly be. VeriCoin has not been 51% attacked, Navajo was.

I could of swore the reason you rolled it back was because people lost money as well.

Let's not leave that part out, Mr. Bernanke.

On your point about Navajocoin...if they did that oh well I guess they are no different. Let's not play the card where you justify your actions by comparing and contrasting by bringing up another coin that did not tell anyone in an attempt to shield (divert attention) from the obvious part where you played as central monetary planner.

[CodeHunter]

FYI: To those claiming we made a poor decision to roll back-

Navajocoin rolled back their blockchain BECAUSE someone 51% attacked. Both Bittrex and Bter were attacked, it looks like. Now they will likely be delisted from several exchanges and the coin is inches away from death.

We specifically rolled back to prevent the possibility for a 51% attack by an illicit group. This action likely saved VeriCoin from what would have been imminent death.

Please take some time to read about Navajocoin's predicament. They did it without telling anyone about it. We were as open as we could possibly be. VeriCoin has not been 51% attacked, Navajo was.

I could of swore the reason you rolled it back was because people lost money as well.

Let's not leave that part out, Mr. Bernanke.

On your point about Navajocoin...if they did that oh well I guess they are no different. Let's not play the card where you justify your actions by comparing and contrasting by bringing up another coin that did not tell anyone in an attempt to shield (divert attention) from the obvious part where you played as central monetary planner.

https://i.imgur.com/FPPNoQe.jpg

[tgbc00]

Mac:
We recommend deleting any current VeriCoin application if you have one.  Also delete everything but wallet.dat from user/library/applicationsupport/vericoin. Now put these two files in that directory as well: http://www.vericoin.info/downloads/vericoin.conf http://www.vericoin.info/downloads/bootstrap.dat.
Right click on "vericoin.conf.txt" and go to Get Info, now change the extension from "vericoin.conf.txt" to "vericoin.conf".  Open up the new VeriCoin install and you will sit at the splash screen for 30-60 minutes while the whole blockchain loads up.

Hello!  I need some help.  Thanks in advance.  

I can't get my new wallet to sync.  I'm using OSX.  I did the instructions posted here and what is posted on vericoin.info.  I even tried putting the VeriCoin-Qt.app file in the /Users/myusername/Library/Application Support/VeriCoin folder.  I'm getting the following message.


ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=50ebe17d8a31da8376c0
Loaded 108767 blocks from external file in 1461717ms
Loading addresses...
ERROR: CAddrman::Read() : open failed
Invalid or missing peers.dat; recreating
Loaded 0 addresses from peers.dat  0ms
mapBlockIndex.size() = 108724
nBestHeight = 107679
setKeyPool.size() = 100
mapWallet.size() = 11
mapAddressBook.size() = 1
ThreadDNSAddressSeed started
Loading addresses from DNS seeds (could take a while)
ThreadIRCSeed exited
ThreadSocketHandler started
ThreadOpenAddedConnections started
ThreadOpenConnections started
ThreadMessageHandler started
ThreadStakeMinter started
Flushed 0 addresses to peers.dat  1ms
Done loading
refreshWallet
Added 1 addresses from ::: 0 tried, 1 new
trying connection 107.170.140.210:58685 lastseen=80.8hrs
connect() failed after select(): Connection refused
trying connection 107.170.140.210:58685 lastseen=362659.1hrs
connect() failed after select(): Connection refused
trying connection 107.170.140.210:58685 lastseen=80.8hrs