If that were the case, I'd be posting this one a monero forrum lol

Thank you for your interest,
Sent a contact request.

https://imgur.com/a/wlA56
A few other people and myself had a cool idea for a Bitcoin use-case project that I am calling "Modern Market." I don't want to disclose sensitive information about the project at the moment, but I am looking for other skilled people out there who are interested in getting involved in a blockchain project (web developers, programmers, anybody with blockchain-related experience, etc). So if you're interested in getting involved, PM me and we can talk.

I'm actually very versed in C++, and I have created my own cryptocurrency, compiled windows wallets, etc.

Issue is, my experience is based on the old 2014 codebase. The new codebase is a far more complicated, complex animal. It is outside the scope of my development skills, and it's much harder to fork than "changing a few lines of code." I recommend you give it a shot and see for yourself.

I need a fork of the relatively newer releases of the Litecoin codebase, with my specifications. Changes include:

• Cryptocurrency name (obviously)
• Retarget times
• Block times
• Block reward
• Max supply
• Premine block on block 2
• Etc.

As the title states, I will pay anybody 500 USD in LTC who is willing to do this for me. Please PM me if interested, and I'll give you more details.

I'm trying to add a pre-mine block to a coin I'm creating for fun, as shown below:

However, when I attempt to compile the following error is returned:

What am I doing wrong?

I made a quick fork of litecoin, changed it up a bit, and successfully created an altcoin to toy around with. Problem is, when I try to run the command:

(funbucks being the name of the currency, lol)

I get the output:

I know that the kvm not loaded warning must be due to the fact that I don't have hardware acceleration enabled, but what concerns me is the "No such file or directory" part. I've run the command so ruby must be installed.

What am I doing wrong?

Edit: After going through the GUI, I did find a file in /usr/lib/ruby/1.91/psych called psych.rb. Why is the terminal telling me that this directory does not exist?

Edit 2: After double checking, it appears that I can only navigate to this directory using the GUI. The 'ruby' folder doesn't come up in the terminal. Wtf?

I can fork the old 2014 codebase, but the new codebase is a bitch.

To qualify for the 250 USD in LTC reward, you must fork it according to my specifications. Please PM me for further details

(Sorry if this post doesn't belong here)

A small team and I are currently developing an idea that we are really excited about, unfortunately I can't go into details, as we have yet to announce our project.

However, as we near our Pre-sale date, we want to start recruiting more personnel to help us develop our product. We currently have a prototype in the works, but we'd like to bring some more, experienced developers into the mix to speed up the process. We are very confident in our idea, and are looking for passionate developers to help us accomplish our dream.

Developers we are looking for include: Blockchain engineers, web developers, iOS developers, Android developers, software engineers, and networking engineers.

All developers hired at this point would be paid in funds from our pre-sale and ICO according to our fund distribution model for our pre-sale + ICO. Nobody on team currently has nor will take any sort of payment until after our project is completely bankrolled. As far as funds go for getting our pre-sale and ICO ready, we are set.

If you're interested, PM me and we can talk from there.

I wanted to clone a cryptocurrency for fun, but a lot of the guides I'm finding are severely outdated. To follow them, I'd have to fork a three year old version of Litecoin so that files like main.cpp haven't been replaced by chainparams.cpp yet. Does anybody know of any recent guides?

I'm trying to fork a coin (for fun of course), and to compile the wallet, the directions I am given are as follows:

---

We now need to change the dependency directory locations

# Dependency library locations can be customized with:
#   BOOST_INCLUDE_PATH, BOOST_LIB_PATH, BDB_INCLUDE_PATH,
#   BDB_LIB_PATH, OPENSSL_INCLUDE_PATH and OPENSSL_LIB_PATH respectively

OBJECTS_DIR = build
MOC_DIR = build
UI_DIR = build

to

# Dependency library locations can be customized with:
#   BOOST_INCLUDE_PATH, BOOST_LIB_PATH, BDB_INCLUDE_PATH,
#   BDB_LIB_PATH, OPENSSL_INCLUDE_PATH and OPENSSL_LIB_PATH respectively
BOOST_LIB_SUFFIX=-mgw49-mt-s-1_55
BOOST_INCLUDE_PATH=C:/deps/boost_1_55_0
BOOST_LIB_PATH=C:/deps/boost_1_55_0/stage/lib
BDB_INCLUDE_PATH=C:/deps/db-4.8.30.NC/build_unix
BDB_LIB_PATH=C:/deps/db-4.8.30.NC/build_unix
OPENSSL_INCLUDE_PATH=C:/deps/openssl-1.0.1j/include
OPENSSL_LIB_PATH=C:/deps/openssl-1.0.1j
MINIUPNPC_INCLUDE_PATH=C:/deps/
MINIUPNPC_LIB_PATH=C:/deps/miniupnpc
QRENCODE_INCLUDE_PATH=C:/deps/qrencode-3.4.4
QRENCODE_LIB_PATH=C:/deps/qrencode-3.4.4/.libs
OBJECTS_DIR = build
MOC_DIR = build
UI_DIR = build

and comment out the genleveldb command

genleveldb.commands = cd $$PWD/src/leveldb && CC=$$QMAKE_CC CXX=$$QMAKE_CXX $(MAKE) OPT=\"$$QMAKE_CXXFLAGS

to

#genleveldb.commands = cd $$PWD/src/leveldb && CC=$$QMAKE_CC CXX=$$QMAKE_CXX $(MAKE) OPT=\"$$QMAKE_CXXFLAGS

and add the flags for a static build.

Add

CONFIG += static
to

CONFIG += thread
CONFIG += static

and

win32:QMAKE_LFLAGS *= -Wl,--large-address-aware

to

win32:QMAKE_LFLAGS *= -Wl,--large-address-aware  -static

---

The issue I am having is that the version I am trying to fork has the bitcoin-qt.pro file in a contrib folder, and the file has much different contents than described by the instructions. I tried looking through the commit history of Litecoin to see if I could find when the old file was deleted and when the new bitcoin-qt.pro was created, but couldn't find anything.

Does anybody know how I can translate these instructions to work with the updated version?

If you're referring to the recent malleability attacks against Bitcoin Cash, those are more of a nuisance affecting an individual than they are subject of a critical bug.

Saying within 4 days that Bitcoin Cash is dead when it's actual been surprisingly stable at it's current price is a bit of a rushed opinion.

It's kind of funny that the file you named your username after no longer exist in the Bitcoin source code. Ever since main.h and main.cpp were sort of replaced (I guess?) by chainparams.cpp/chainparams.h, I don't think anyone's written a decent guide on how to fork Bitcoin to make an altcoin for fun.

ETH doesn't currently sit well with me, since it is developed by a Company instead of a community, which gives Vitalik Buterin a very large amount of power in how the coin's development process goes. That's just my opinion, of course.

I've been seeing a lot of misconceptions about both Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash, so I'd like to explain the differences in the most unbiased way I possibly can to help those out who don't quite understand:

Bitcoin Cash was forked from Bitcoin Core because it's developers disagreed with the upcoming addition of Segregated Witness 2x (SegWit2x). There are many concerns regarding SegWit2x, including signatures are separated, transactions are taken off the chain, etc. However, the biggest concern with SegWit is that it has changed Bitcoin's direction. Instead of Bitcoin on the track to becoming an everyday currency, SegWit puts it on a track to become a sort of 'settlement layer'. This means that Bitcoin Core could end up being primarily used to settle net transfers between banks. Many people oppose this, hence the creation of Bitcoin Cash, which tries to stick with the path set by Satoshi's original vision.

However, the bigger picture as to why many feel that a fork is necessary is because of Blockstream's influence over the Bitcoin Core development team, which has lead to mass censorship and a smaller voice of the community. 

Bitcoin Cash does, of course, have plenty of problems as well. The lack of mining support by bigger bitcoin mining companies means that it currently has a vulnerable infrastructure, although this could easily change in the future. What doesn't look like it will change any time soon, however, will be how Bitcoin Cash is more vulnerable to a malleability attack. SegWit removes the malleability of transactions, giving Bitcoin Core an edge. However, at the end of the day, malleability attacks affect a small amount of individuals, and are more of a nuisance than a very serious vulnerability.

I did say that I would be as unbiased as possible, however, you could probably tell from this post that I lean towards Bitcoin Cash a bit more than I do Bitcoin Core.