Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 46 results by Becher-Karl
If you are a windows user and want to run the coin, I'd wager it is more straightforward to install linux (e.g., Ubuntu 12.04) in a virtual machine and compile the coin there rather than try to compile a windows binary form the source code (relatively painful, from what everyone says). Virtualbox is free and works fine for this purpose.
With altcoin releases, this has the added benefit of "sandboxing" the new coin in a VM just in case there is harmful code designed to steal your wallets or what not.
With altcoin releases, this has the added benefit of "sandboxing" the new coin in a VM just in case there is harmful code designed to steal your wallets or what not.
+1, you can then just point your miner to the IP address of the VM (the .conf has to be adjusted to accept connections from the host).
It was a simple fix, don't release the addnode= until you had a windows client, in your hands
That's not enough, the client will try to use IRC to find other nodes. It did connect for me without me giving it the addnode-IP.
Sorry,but that doesn't make sense.Should all of the bitcointalk community switch to linux or learn how to compile,just because the OP can't do it?
Yes, I think it would be a good idea to learn to compile, if you want to solo-mine new altcoins on Windows. At least that's what I would do, if I would be running Windows.
Get a decent OS and stop bitching, or learn to compile it yourself! It's your fault using Windows, not the OP's.
Guess its our fault we use windows, not Blizzards, so, we should all compile our own WoW Clients....Like, are you retarded or something?
I wouldn't pay for WoW, but I would be interested in the sources, so great idea!
Yeah, I just don't get the whining. This is probably the 30th coin that has been released in the last week. If you use Windows, why don't you get your build-chain set up? They all derive from the same code-base, so you will only have to do it once.
Should be doable. It's easier with Linux because the dependencies are only one apt-get away, but if all the people that are whining about Windows binaries would just learn to install a few boost dependencies, Qt and a few other libs, their time would be spent much better. For the daemon you don't even need Qt.
Should be doable. It's easier with Linux because the dependencies are only one apt-get away, but if all the people that are whining about Windows binaries would just learn to install a few boost dependencies, Qt and a few other libs, their time would be spent much better. For the daemon you don't even need Qt.
WOW just got a 238 LKY payout. Did we hit a 588 block?
The payout tab only shows a total of 188LKY. Or is that just for the most recent block?
Re: MC2 ("Netcoin"): A cryptocurrency based on a hybrid PoW/PoS system
>> I'm sure MC2/Netcoin's success wouldn't be affected by clones, and I think the devs shouldn't worry about it.
You are sure about it? Why?
...
You are sure about it? Why?
...
I can't be sure, but I'm pretty confident. I believe people will be able to differentiate what is the original and what is a cheap clone, and will support the original. Technically, there may not be much difference between Litecoin and *insert random clone here*, but Litecoin is still the one being successful, while all the clones will probably die in the near future.
Re: MC2 ("Netcoin"): A cryptocurrency based on a hybrid PoW/PoS system
I personally think that it's a rather bad idea to start with a closed source. Many people will want to have a look at the sources before compiling and running the daemon/GUI.
You can't really prevent people from creating forks, they could hack the binary after all. I'm sure MC2/Netcoin's success wouldn't be affected by clones, and I think the devs shouldn't worry about it. It will happen one way or another, but what makes a cryptocurrency successful is the trust people put in it, and I think releasing the sources at launch will lead to more trust.
But that's just my opinion, of course.
You can't really prevent people from creating forks, they could hack the binary after all. I'm sure MC2/Netcoin's success wouldn't be affected by clones, and I think the devs shouldn't worry about it. It will happen one way or another, but what makes a cryptocurrency successful is the trust people put in it, and I think releasing the sources at launch will lead to more trust.
But that's just my opinion, of course.
100ELC sent, in batches of 10, for some reason sending 100 at once didn't work.
My LTC address is LX9oWfTzHAzxDbGD3BbA2r9SKUxAqdQbyB.
This way other traders can check with http://explorer.litecoin.net/
My LTC address is LX9oWfTzHAzxDbGD3BbA2r9SKUxAqdQbyB.
This way other traders can check with http://explorer.litecoin.net/
Hmm... I don't seem to have received them in my client. I traded with Aggrophobia earlier and they got here instantly.
Hopefully you're not on the wrong fork?
Can you paste the output of elacoind getinfo ?
Current block count should be 14879
Fuck, really? My block count is 8947. :/
That sucks, thanks for letting me know!
100ELC sent, in batches of 10, for some reason sending 100 at once didn't work.
My LTC address is LX9oWfTzHAzxDbGD3BbA2r9SKUxAqdQbyB.
This way other traders can check with http://explorer.litecoin.net/
My LTC address is LX9oWfTzHAzxDbGD3BbA2r9SKUxAqdQbyB.
This way other traders can check with http://explorer.litecoin.net/