Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 66 results by Zas
Aright, get this: I followed the protocol that you "pros" created. Pay a dev and launch it. Nobody ever said proof read it and I actually tried but couldn't find anyone and when a dev said, I'm running it and it looks good, that's a test run so why would I doubt him?
For crying outloud, its 98% copy and paste, I wanted a few few features but it was "too ambitious, so I settled for the golden blocks. I thought in was dealing with a pro, why would I proof read it?
So here's my question, who here is a rea full blown programmer? All jokes aside, I've rather enjoyed, in a weird self punishing fashion all the laughs at my expense, but i thought you were all programmers, call me naivé or stupidé.
So can I have a few honest guys please stand up and say, ok, I can program anything and this is my fee? I don't mind paying more if what I get is real programming and not a hack job that is then my fault cause the programmer tested it and stupid me, an economist that can't code 2 lines didn't proof read it.
I wanna see how many can seriously program. I think MarKM is a real deal, I think maybe twoBits is the real deal but I'm not sure and there's gonna be a few more. If I get a set of real features together and they're new, then you guys make anything happen? Can this coin be salvaged if I add a few features to it that originally were "too ambitious"?
I'm asking a serious question - this is part what thisnforumnis about so let's get some honest answers. I got fooled once I don't want to make the same mistake again. If none exist then my only option is to go to the student lab where I went to school and talk to some grad students but who knows if they'll just steal my ideas. Hard to say.
Let's stop the laughter for 5 minutes and get an honest head count please of the real, the very real deals. Doesn't anyone have a bachelor's of science in programming here? Not that it's necessary but it would mean you can program just about anything. Thanks in advance.
And maybe real proven programmers can have a special star put next to their names so newbies know who's who when looking for a proven programmer, it would save people and the community a lot of trouble and in necessary laughter.
Well, let's have it, all real REAL PROGRAMMERS OUT OF THE COSET PLEASE! TIA
For crying outloud, its 98% copy and paste, I wanted a few few features but it was "too ambitious, so I settled for the golden blocks. I thought in was dealing with a pro, why would I proof read it?
So here's my question, who here is a rea full blown programmer? All jokes aside, I've rather enjoyed, in a weird self punishing fashion all the laughs at my expense, but i thought you were all programmers, call me naivé or stupidé.
So can I have a few honest guys please stand up and say, ok, I can program anything and this is my fee? I don't mind paying more if what I get is real programming and not a hack job that is then my fault cause the programmer tested it and stupid me, an economist that can't code 2 lines didn't proof read it.
I wanna see how many can seriously program. I think MarKM is a real deal, I think maybe twoBits is the real deal but I'm not sure and there's gonna be a few more. If I get a set of real features together and they're new, then you guys make anything happen? Can this coin be salvaged if I add a few features to it that originally were "too ambitious"?
I'm asking a serious question - this is part what thisnforumnis about so let's get some honest answers. I got fooled once I don't want to make the same mistake again. If none exist then my only option is to go to the student lab where I went to school and talk to some grad students but who knows if they'll just steal my ideas. Hard to say.
Let's stop the laughter for 5 minutes and get an honest head count please of the real, the very real deals. Doesn't anyone have a bachelor's of science in programming here? Not that it's necessary but it would mean you can program just about anything. Thanks in advance.
And maybe real proven programmers can have a special star put next to their names so newbies know who's who when looking for a proven programmer, it would save people and the community a lot of trouble and in necessary laughter.
Well, let's have it, all real REAL PROGRAMMERS OUT OF THE COSET PLEASE! TIA
A good 99% of the developers here might know their way around the bitcoin software...but frankly that's just about it. If you want a developer you're going to have to stump up something like $8000 for a few months of work. If you're going to pay $20... that's like handing $100 over to a car salesman and saying, "Get me the best car you can give me for that"...it's not his fault that you're going home in a rust bucket.
First and foremost you should always set out your aims and objectives. You need to know exactly what it is you are aiming for and then you need set objectives of how to get there. If you have an idea about what protocol you want to implement or how it works it is not their job to say, "It's too ambitious". It's your job to say, "Well I'll take my money elsewhere, thanks for the tip." Patience is a virtue. The point here about proof reading, is not that you've proof read, but does it do what you wanted it to do? If not, your programmer has wasted their time and your time. It's not his fault that you paid up front in full, it's your fault.
This coin can't be salvaged in the state that it's in. Why? Because it doesn't meet any of the aims that the coin was supposed to meet. It's not really fair to all miners, just the miners who happen to be either very lucky or very early, that's it.
If you have a vision for this coin, you will accept nothing less than the best, but of course, that will have to be either paid for, or you're going to have to get to grips with the programming and testing so that it does exactly what you want it to do.
I wouldn't say lazy devs. I can't fault the programmer at all. He was paid about $20 to throw something together in about an hour or so. Then when it was supposed to be read over, Vlad got antsy, because he wanted his coin now, and he launched it. Even with a team of programming devs, you can't reasonably create a coin with any innovation in a few hours. The entire thing went from concept to launch in around 48 hours. And 40 hours of that were due to him having a hard time contacting a programmer to make it for him.
If Vlad would have given the project even a month, possibly some innovation might have come out, at the very least the code would have been proofread. But then again, his ideas are based on what he semi knows about 2 coins. So I have a feeling any of his other ground breaking ideas have probably already been implemented as well. The funniest thing is he wanted to do this without a programmer. Now he wants to pay someone another $20 to create a pool for his coin, with the statement he gets 50% of all the pool funds. LOL. He thinks we are against him wanting to become rich, but it's funny how he steps all over those that help him, in order to make sure the money is flowing in only his direction.
If Vlad would have given the project even a month, possibly some innovation might have come out, at the very least the code would have been proofread. But then again, his ideas are based on what he semi knows about 2 coins. So I have a feeling any of his other ground breaking ideas have probably already been implemented as well. The funniest thing is he wanted to do this without a programmer. Now he wants to pay someone another $20 to create a pool for his coin, with the statement he gets 50% of all the pool funds. LOL. He thinks we are against him wanting to become rich, but it's funny how he steps all over those that help him, in order to make sure the money is flowing in only his direction.
I completely agree with this. Although it's kind of sad that developers need to be 'paid'...anyone launched a not-for-profit coin yet?
It's actually a given that this coin will fail. Having looked it over again, it now has nothing new to offer except the name. Lazy devs to be perfectly honest have caused the downfall, but nothing we can do about that now.
How about you allow miners to donate instead? That way you're not taking up premine and bounties still get paid. It should be down to the community to pick up the slack. As you've pointed out before, if Nugget doesn't achieve at least that much, was it worth launching in the first place?
Provided that it the 10% + 1% are hard-coded then it remains decentralized.
Secondly. In regards to 10x1MB not being equivalent to 1x10MB.... the reason for this is not because of the protocol itself, but because of the extra energy required to set up these identities. It may not initially seem like much difference but the difference is still there. My analogy may have been a bit off in terms of what I wanted to portray, but you are taking a cut to your maximum processing power when you start dividing up your system. As Vlad has pointed out, 89% is a hefty chunk.
If there is abuse it simply won't matter anyway. The idea isn't equality or that you are rewarded for the exact amount of work that you put in, but that you took part in the first place and attempted to mine. It is true that some will be able to boost their income, but they are not going to be able to get all of that 10%. Lots and lots of others will get a share of that too. The point is, that everyone is rewarded for their contributions not just the big miners who get a huge stonking reward anyway especially later on in the difficulty.
As for Nuggets, I'm wholeheartedly behind it.
Thef, that can happen to 100% of the other coins out there, to some it has happened, yet they have still thrived. What matters is if a coin brings something new to the table, a new way of thinking about something. It won't matter if someone releases a coin that gives 100% of the benefit to the miners, as Vlad pointed out, there are many coins which only give 30% to the miners yet have still got onto the small exchanges without issue. It's up to each miner whether they want to mine it or not. Should it be brought out, I'd be happy to mine it and I hope that a lot of other small miners will also be encouraged.
Secondly. In regards to 10x1MB not being equivalent to 1x10MB.... the reason for this is not because of the protocol itself, but because of the extra energy required to set up these identities. It may not initially seem like much difference but the difference is still there. My analogy may have been a bit off in terms of what I wanted to portray, but you are taking a cut to your maximum processing power when you start dividing up your system. As Vlad has pointed out, 89% is a hefty chunk.
If there is abuse it simply won't matter anyway. The idea isn't equality or that you are rewarded for the exact amount of work that you put in, but that you took part in the first place and attempted to mine. It is true that some will be able to boost their income, but they are not going to be able to get all of that 10%. Lots and lots of others will get a share of that too. The point is, that everyone is rewarded for their contributions not just the big miners who get a huge stonking reward anyway especially later on in the difficulty.
As for Nuggets, I'm wholeheartedly behind it.
Thef, that can happen to 100% of the other coins out there, to some it has happened, yet they have still thrived. What matters is if a coin brings something new to the table, a new way of thinking about something. It won't matter if someone releases a coin that gives 100% of the benefit to the miners, as Vlad pointed out, there are many coins which only give 30% to the miners yet have still got onto the small exchanges without issue. It's up to each miner whether they want to mine it or not. Should it be brought out, I'd be happy to mine it and I hope that a lot of other small miners will also be encouraged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption
Are you aware that PGP uses SHA-2 as it's encryption algorithm.
Quote
In cryptography, encryption is the process of encoding messages (or information) in such a way that eavesdroppers or hackers cannot read it, but that authorized parties can.
Are you aware that PGP uses SHA-2 as it's encryption algorithm.
Beg to differ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2
Where does that say it is an encryption algorithm? It is a hash function, there is a big difference.
Quote from: Wikipedia
SHA-2 is a set of cryptographic hash functions (SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512) designed by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and published in 2001 by the NIST as a U.S. Federal Information Processing Standard. A hash function is an algorithm that transforms (hashes) an arbitrary set of data elements, such as a text file, into a single fixed length value (the hash). The computed hash value may then be used to verify the integrity of copies of the original data without providing any means to derive said original data. This irreversibility means that a hash value may be freely distributed or stored, as it is used for comparative purposes only. SHA stands for Secure Hash Algorithm. SHA-2 includes a significant number of changes from its predecessor, SHA-1. SHA-2 consists of a set of four hash functions with digests that are 224, 256, 384 or 512 bits.
Quote from: Wikipedia
SHA-2 is a set of cryptographic hash functions (SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512) ... ...
A hash function is an algorithm that transforms (hashes)
A hash function is an algorithm that transforms (hashes)
Quote from: Dictionary.reference.com
ryp·tog·ra·phy
[krip-tog-ruh-fee] Show IPA
noun
1.
the science or study of the techniques of secret writing, especially code and cipher systems, methods, and the like. Compare cryptanalysis ( def 2 ) .
2.
the procedures, processes, methods, etc., of making and using secret writing, as codes or ciphers.
3.
anything written in a secret code, cipher, or the like.
[krip-tog-ruh-fee] Show IPA
noun
1.
the science or study of the techniques of secret writing, especially code and cipher systems, methods, and the like. Compare cryptanalysis ( def 2 ) .
2.
the procedures, processes, methods, etc., of making and using secret writing, as codes or ciphers.
3.
anything written in a secret code, cipher, or the like.
Cryptography = Cipher = Encryption.
SHA-2 is a set of encryption hash functions.
A hash function is an algorithm
SHA-2 is an encryption algorithm.
QED.
Edit.
Can't mine Fairbrix ... am using Fedora -_-; Fairbrix uses everything that is specifically not on Fedora apparently.
Bearing in mind I'm stuck with CPU mining. Bitcoins are impossible, Litecoins are impossible, Primecoins too difficult along with a variety of others that I've tried that weren't obviously pump and dumps. Unless I start up my own fork of Bitcoin/Litecoin (of which my programming skills are lacking), there seems to apparently be no way for someone to just hook up and mine for a bit, perhaps get maybe one or two coins and then disappear for a day or two, come back... and so on. Effectively if you don't have a decent i7 processor or running two or three really high high GPU's... there's no way for you to even think about getting involved.
...fairbrix? O.o (It would help if these were actually listed in places where people go looking for cryptocurrencies). I'll take a look through the list and see which ones I can actually get fired up. Links?
I'm not purposely excluding myself (I don't make it easy apparently by a) running linux b) having a rather old computer) but with everyone jumping on GPU's it does leave mining to only those who have lots of money to spend...apparently.
I'd like to actually mine rather than collecting handouts if I can help it.
...fairbrix? O.o (It would help if these were actually listed in places where people go looking for cryptocurrencies). I'll take a look through the list and see which ones I can actually get fired up. Links?
I'm not purposely excluding myself (I don't make it easy apparently by a) running linux b) having a rather old computer) but with everyone jumping on GPU's it does leave mining to only those who have lots of money to spend...apparently.
I'd like to actually mine rather than collecting handouts if I can help it.
Beg to differ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2
*nod nod* Almost completely agreed. Some of us here aren't actually to make a profit as it were but simply to get involved and play around a bit. (Maybe it's just me 
). So I'm not fussed about spending time or electricity so long as I've enjoyed myself >.<;
). So I'm not fussed about spending time or electricity so long as I've enjoyed myself >.<;Point taken Vivi 
Though I'm not actually interested in trading the currency for another currency... I'm more interested in trading the currency for items that are useful to me. That's the difference here. You could pump in as many dollars as you want, but what matters here is the trust that fair value is being transferred efficiently and not how much it is worth compared to a dollar. That's just financial garbage. If I can trade 5 xCoins for a kilo of cheese, that makes the coin valuable to me... instead of having to bring the farmer those eggs that haven't been laid yet.
Though I'm not actually interested in trading the currency for another currency... I'm more interested in trading the currency for items that are useful to me. That's the difference here. You could pump in as many dollars as you want, but what matters here is the trust that fair value is being transferred efficiently and not how much it is worth compared to a dollar. That's just financial garbage. If I can trade 5 xCoins for a kilo of cheese, that makes the coin valuable to me... instead of having to bring the farmer those eggs that haven't been laid yet.
They'd effectively be creating more work for themselves and cutting the over all benefit by reducing the maximum amount of coins. A 10 x 1MB hash won't be able to compete with a 10MB hash, simply because the 10MB is much faster... it's like trying to compare a ferrari to 5 ford transit vans. So if you reduce the maximum range then everyone simply gets a smaller chunk. The key here is, everyone gets a chunk it doesn't matter the size and this means that everyone can take part so long as they have contributed to the mining process.
Mathematically (theoretically at least from my back-of-envelope sums) those who are mining at full pelt 'should' feel better off by mining as much as they can, than they would by splitting into more parts and consuming more energy in order to do so. The bigger the range the better the reward for everyone, so it's in everyone's interest to mine as hard as they can and not just the largest trying to price everyone out by getting the biggest machine because it defeats the entire point of why they're doing it in the first place.
I don't doubt that there will be some who split their computers down into different identities, this will slow down their speed of processing and enable smaller miners to have a better chance as well especially later on. So it's kind of self defeating.
Now...there is another aspect that needs to be answered because mining will eventually become too difficult (I'm hoping a long way in the future) and that's how the transactions are handled/crunched through and the reward mechanism tied into that.
Edit.
After re-reading your statement. If they set up 2 computers of both 10MB hash rates...then yes, they would technically gain a larger portion. However my calculation is shared between the number of users, so the more users the more the decrease in the kickback. With that said, if they're doing more mining why shouldn't they be rewarded? They'd find more reward in the 89% mining reward rather than the 10% kickback.
Mathematically (theoretically at least from my back-of-envelope sums) those who are mining at full pelt 'should' feel better off by mining as much as they can, than they would by splitting into more parts and consuming more energy in order to do so. The bigger the range the better the reward for everyone, so it's in everyone's interest to mine as hard as they can and not just the largest trying to price everyone out by getting the biggest machine because it defeats the entire point of why they're doing it in the first place.
I don't doubt that there will be some who split their computers down into different identities, this will slow down their speed of processing and enable smaller miners to have a better chance as well especially later on. So it's kind of self defeating.
Now...there is another aspect that needs to be answered because mining will eventually become too difficult (I'm hoping a long way in the future) and that's how the transactions are handled/crunched through and the reward mechanism tied into that.
Edit.
After re-reading your statement. If they set up 2 computers of both 10MB hash rates...then yes, they would technically gain a larger portion. However my calculation is shared between the number of users, so the more users the more the decrease in the kickback. With that said, if they're doing more mining why shouldn't they be rewarded? They'd find more reward in the 89% mining reward rather than the 10% kickback.
It wouldn't really help them, they'd actually be better off putting their efforts into mining more. If everyone just creates small identities, then they're going to get small rewards and those those that wish to mine will (should) pull ahead anyway. It's a bit defeatist to just create multiple identities because it isn't as though this money is spawned out of nowhere.
That said...I'm also interested in how this would be managed if at all.
That said...I'm also interested in how this would be managed if at all.
*cough* That doesn't help the rest of us Vivi... i.e the people who can't mine with GPU.
The only think I disagree with primarily and that is that someone has to treat it as a commercial venture. They don't. The more attention, care, time that is paid to a coin will make it successful not how much money you can throw at it, because that is a pump and dump scheme. It's very much like taking a bag full of coppers into a penny arcade. You went into it to have fun...not to be a high stakes gambler and if you play your coins right you could end up walking out with a copper more than you went in.
Rome wasn't built in a night and neither was Bitcoin.
The only think I disagree with primarily and that is that someone has to treat it as a commercial venture. They don't. The more attention, care, time that is paid to a coin will make it successful not how much money you can throw at it, because that is a pump and dump scheme. It's very much like taking a bag full of coppers into a penny arcade. You went into it to have fun...not to be a high stakes gambler and if you play your coins right you could end up walking out with a copper more than you went in.
Rome wasn't built in a night and neither was Bitcoin.
I don't think either of us are against you, it's just that you need to be aware that you're not going to be able to enforce the NDA so you're wasting your time with it so you shouldn't put any faith into it being able to claw back any money in the slightest. I very much doubt that any of the programmers will give you 'real' information anyway.
Now, back to the altcoin... do you have a thread for this altcoin?
Now, back to the altcoin... do you have a thread for this altcoin?
LMAO
A real legally binding NDA is quite an hassle, I wouldn't even consider (any more) signing such a document if you didn't pay up front a substantial amount of money, in advance, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations.
If anyone is going to sign that is either a noob, or someone who wants to cheat you anyway.
The opposite is true too: if anyone asks you to sign an NDA without realising this, is himself a noob or wants to cheat you.
(of course if that NDA is not really legally binding, then it's just wasted paper anyway)
A real legally binding NDA is quite an hassle, I wouldn't even consider (any more) signing such a document if you didn't pay up front a substantial amount of money, in advance, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations.
If anyone is going to sign that is either a noob, or someone who wants to cheat you anyway.
The opposite is true too: if anyone asks you to sign an NDA without realising this, is himself a noob or wants to cheat you.
(of course if that NDA is not really legally binding, then it's just wasted paper anyway)
Fixed! I'm assuming you didn't mean for the double negative amirite?
I also completely agree.
That's a tad harsh. People do whatever is likely to net them the best rewards. In this case, they see bitcoin as somewhere to 'make' money and to do that they need to invest in ASICs. It is not the fault of the miners who are doing everything they can to be the best they can be. It is the fault of the designer for not taking into account Moores law and defending against it. (It's obvious that there was some thought, to tech advances, just not enough).
Scrypt is what has arisen out of this need to help smaller players and the new digital currency will be born eventually. Bitcoin will not, cannot succeed, but it has done its job and carved out the niche the path forward for developers to search after. I don't even think that any digital currency based on Scrypt is going to make the cut either. If anything then it'll be a currency based on SHA-3 that's likely to hit the big time. You'll probably see Bitcoin and a variety of others flounder until the next economical problems arise and then there will be another flurry of activity, that much is obvious.
In the future I hope to see cryptocurrencies that are designed with an extremely wide reach and not just those with high spec computers designed specifically for Bitcoin mining, because that's the whole point and I think...the point behind Scrypt. But even still it's wrong to eject those who are doing the best they can with what they are able to get a hold of. It's just simple capitalism.
Scrypt is what has arisen out of this need to help smaller players and the new digital currency will be born eventually. Bitcoin will not, cannot succeed, but it has done its job and carved out the niche the path forward for developers to search after. I don't even think that any digital currency based on Scrypt is going to make the cut either. If anything then it'll be a currency based on SHA-3 that's likely to hit the big time. You'll probably see Bitcoin and a variety of others flounder until the next economical problems arise and then there will be another flurry of activity, that much is obvious.
In the future I hope to see cryptocurrencies that are designed with an extremely wide reach and not just those with high spec computers designed specifically for Bitcoin mining, because that's the whole point and I think...the point behind Scrypt. But even still it's wrong to eject those who are doing the best they can with what they are able to get a hold of. It's just simple capitalism.