Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 803 results by dasource
Said individual has a history of saying he will do something and never going through with it
I certainly am not going to be holding my breath for any conclusive evidence of his claim.
That aside, this is the most excited I have been about Bitcoins future in a long time.
Onwards and upwards!
Apologies in advance Afrikoin since its off-topic!
Anyone who still thinks SegWit is any good needs to read this: How do SegWit and FlexTrans compare?
There is no reason to choose SegWit over Flexible Transactions.
There need only be ONE reason. That reason is the BU developers are amateur coders and should not be within a hundred miles of any production code. End of conversation.Quote
More incompetant rubbish
There is no reason to choose SegWit over Flexible Transactions.
I should add that there is a slack channel, a private one that's been going on for the past 8 weeks. Craight Wright, from nChain, suspected to be one of the Satoshi team, has poked holes at SegWit, and there is a plan underway to hard fork. This has not been mentioned anywhere publicly on media. But to me, it seems like the kind of event that could trigger an unexpected downturn. And its the only case, a black swan event, where i could see such a huge drop.
I'd like to ask that how many people of those who dumped their coins on news release had patience to watch this video from last summer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUuk3W4tSzo
Ryno states already on that video that Silk Road isn't a target of Shadow market and there will be some kind of censorship. It seems that dark market hype was created by those people who were dissappointed on news release. But yeah what I understood from Friday is that legally devs has to say that they are doing utmost to censor dark market items, but what can day do, if users decide to vote for allowing dark market items as market is decentralized.
If something is dissappointing, it's slow progress on stuff where we can actually witness the progression. But I don't mind, if SAME PROJECT continues under a new name and get's some funding. But I'd like to see statement that those SDC's collected for swap won't be used under any circumstances. That would be fair for users donating.
Ryno states already on that video that Silk Road isn't a target of Shadow market and there will be some kind of censorship. It seems that dark market hype was created by those people who were dissappointed on news release. But yeah what I understood from Friday is that legally devs has to say that they are doing utmost to censor dark market items, but what can day do, if users decide to vote for allowing dark market items as market is decentralized.
If something is dissappointing, it's slow progress on stuff where we can actually witness the progression. But I don't mind, if SAME PROJECT continues under a new name and get's some funding. But I'd like to see statement that those SDC's collected for swap won't be used under any circumstances. That would be fair for users donating.
Here are the addresses where SDC and BTC are sent:
Anyone can follow up on those, as you definitely should.
For reference
Can we go over the swap process again, at least link to it here? In these long threads of support/FUD it's hard to find this kind
of info.
of info.
Sure, here : https://www.reddit.com/r/Particl/comments/605sdp/can_you_walk_me_through_the_process_start_to/
They should really prolong this bonus a few days. The wallet takes a long time to sync right now. That would show more fairness.
If you folks need any other assistance, jump onto slack or riot. All details at https://particl.io/
I have to admit the rules on this fundraising are not very clear. Can someone shed some light on this?
Example:
I have 100 SDC, I send them to the address generated on the dashboard and get 1:1 credit of PART. Ok this part is clear.
What about the BTC? Can I send 1000$ worth of bitcoin? Or just 0.15 $ worth of bitcoin per SDC? In this case 100 SDC -> 100 x 0.15 $ = 15$ worth of bitcoin??
Is the 0.15 $ bitcoin bonus in any way connected to the amount of SDC already deposited?
This is really not clear...
Edit: The way it reads right now on the FAQ is like this:
I can send 100000 SDC for example, receive 100000 PART. Then send 0.15 $ of bitcoin (0.0001489 BTC atm) and get 15000 PART.
That is just ridiculous...
Example:
I have 100 SDC, I send them to the address generated on the dashboard and get 1:1 credit of PART. Ok this part is clear.
What about the BTC? Can I send 1000$ worth of bitcoin? Or just 0.15 $ worth of bitcoin per SDC? In this case 100 SDC -> 100 x 0.15 $ = 15$ worth of bitcoin??
Is the 0.15 $ bitcoin bonus in any way connected to the amount of SDC already deposited?
This is really not clear...
Edit: The way it reads right now on the FAQ is like this:
Quote
For every 1 SDC you donate you will receive credit for 1 Particl. For the first 5 days, if you choose to additionally donate $0.15 worth of Bitcoin you will receive 15% bonus credit in Particl.
I can send 100000 SDC for example, receive 100000 PART. Then send 0.15 $ of bitcoin (0.0001489 BTC atm) and get 15000 PART.
That is just ridiculous...
If you have 100 SDC ... first send in your 100SDC. That covers you for 1:1 SWAP so 100 SDC = 100 PART
Once deposited and the transaction shows up in the portal, you will get a 24hour counter to send X BTC PREMIUM for 15% of the 100 SDC i.e. 15 PART for $15 (first five days, after which this will change depending on variable based on market price). The choice to take the premium is yours and expires after 24 hours.
Hope that makes it clear.
Let me correct you. The "thin" mode in Umbra has been disabled due to upgrade to PoSv3 ... It was not a priority and thus will be redesigned inline with PoSv3 in the coming months.
I have followed this discussion and wanted to add that one of your own @kewde stated when I spoke to him about the code, that the 'thin' mode in SDC was broken:
And I just told you the reason. When we upgraded to PoSv3 we decided that there was a much better way to have "thin mode" nodes inline with our future design plans and thus it will not be upgraded as part of PoSv3 but instead later.
How do I run the wallet in lite mode?
I checked the box "thin mode" under the options tab, then I restarted the wallet. This didn't work though, and now the wallet is stuck syncing at 0% and no transactions are coming in.
I checked the box "thin mode" under the options tab, then I restarted the wallet. This didn't work though, and now the wallet is stuck syncing at 0% and no transactions are coming in.
Whether its thin or tight, it would not run. Could the thinness of SDC wallet change the fact that substandard quality of gui interface poses a treat to stability of SDC price. If u stay here any longer u will get fed with UMBRA hype and involuntarily coerced into buying of this shit on the open market which u cant feel happy with.
Has this been run through google translate or am I talking to a bot?
Your point is to try and attack one of the most beautifully crafted cryto GUI available?
Please post pictures of the Umbra wallet and give us your critique
The 'thin' wallet of SDC doesn't work.
Let me correct you. The "thin" mode in Umbra has been disabled due to upgrade to PoSv3 ... It was not a priority and thus will be redesigned inline with PoSv3 in the coming months.
You didn't answer the question though. How do you prove that you sent X SDC to stealth address: smY.....................xx if the intended recipient denies having received the payment. There is no trace of the stealth address in the block explorer to refer back to and not in your wallet transactions either. This is a genuine question. Is this why exchanges like Poloniex only uses 'normal' deposit addresses for SDC and not stealth? Because if there was a dispute you can't prove the transactions as it's unlinked. That is the point isn't it? So, with XMR there is a key that can be used / payment ID that can be shared for the purpose of audit so that a dispute can be settled between the seller / buyer.
https://imgur.com/gQlj9Oy
It's not FUD but a genuine question. How do you prove that you sent to a certain stealth address? I suggest that you can't prove it, hence the exchanges uses 'normal' addresses and so you will need to use 'normal' addresses for trade as well for transparency as there is no audit system with a peyment ID as is the case with XMR.
So, the trust-less system isn't trust-less after all if you use stealth addresses, you will need to trust the recipient not to lie and say he didn't receive the payment.
https://imgur.com/gQlj9Oy
It's not FUD but a genuine question. How do you prove that you sent to a certain stealth address? I suggest that you can't prove it, hence the exchanges uses 'normal' addresses and so you will need to use 'normal' addresses for trade as well for transparency as there is no audit system with a peyment ID as is the case with XMR.
So, the trust-less system isn't trust-less after all if you use stealth addresses, you will need to trust the recipient not to lie and say he didn't receive the payment.
You would imagine it would be obvious since the technology is known as "Dual [key] Stealth Addresses" .. i.e. dual simply referring to the pairs of spend and view/scan keys.
Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
LMAO!
nothing funny about that gif, looks like some deaths happened there
looks horrific indeed ... ouch
The problem is that Spectrecoin has successfully advanced on SDC and they are just about ready to run the whole thing under Tor as SDC has not managed to do yet. Have a look, I think that SDC is in a panic as they all of a sudden realise that they have competition in Spectrecoin. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=745352.11820
Wow yes very advanced. I mean comon I am so jealous at the amazing advancement.
FACT : You can run Shadow on Tor since Shadow 0.1 (yeah that was like 2.5 years ago)
I think these guys are drowning.... nothing to see here...
Bye bye then. Dont make us jealous that you have 4BTC in your ICO coffers!
Shadowcash DOES NOT run under Tor.
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/sdc/#!network
It's a joke, you think you are secure because it says Tor and I2P in the wallet but in reality they can't even be bothered to tell you it's a future feature....scam all the way!!!
Stay away
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/sdc/#!network
It's a joke, you think you are secure because it says Tor and I2P in the wallet but in reality they can't even be bothered to tell you it's a future feature....scam all the way!!!
Stay away
It would take someone with an IQ of < 30 to work out that TOR works just fine with Shadow. Guess your a numnut!
It's great to see such brainwashed bag holders who can't get to terms with the idea that they can challenged. You think the market is going to work? Not a chance...Look at Syscoin, a disaster but with a clever market...It's been done before and failed. Been there, done that. Don't waste your time.
Oh the irony ... "clever" you say? by the records you have set on fire so far that does not sound very clever to me at all.
dadon: no! you have to set it up yourself mate, the buttons will be one push tor on off in future release and i2p latter on
But thats what I mean, Spectrecoin got this and will build Tor into the wallet so it's secure all the time
i2p is better than tor
Then why is not been built into Shadowcash yet?
By now I would be generally pointing you in the direction of a working fork of Shadow and I2P but we are past that point. I would not want to confuse that small fragile thing further.
Thanks for the entertainment, see you around!
Anyone else finding that there are very few connections on SDC network.
My node (up 24/7) has 6 connections. Same server running bitcoind (average form 100 to 125 connections), blackcoin (average from 90 to 125 connections).
I am not behind a NAT, direct public IP on the server.
Block explorer also showing only 22 connections: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/sdc/#!network
I am not saying that anything is wrong, I just find it strange that such a big market coin has so few nodes running.
My node (up 24/7) has 6 connections. Same server running bitcoind (average form 100 to 125 connections), blackcoin (average from 90 to 125 connections).
I am not behind a NAT, direct public IP on the server.
Block explorer also showing only 22 connections: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/sdc/#!network
I am not saying that anything is wrong, I just find it strange that such a big market coin has so few nodes running.
If you are behind NAT you are limited to "outbound" peers only i.e. 16 MAX on Shadow/Blk and 8 MAX on Bitcoin (unless you are using upnp)
If you have public IP and correct firewall policy you will start to see "inbound" peers ... You can see from this explorer server that it is connected to over ~110 right now and can observe as much as ~200 daily ( http://explorer.shadow.cash/nodes/ )
Stopping the client, removing peers.dat and restarting should get you back into the game. Most of my nodes (and I run a dozen or so have over 70 peers).
Hi, tnx for the hint. I deleted the peers.dat, shortly after restarting the daemon I am up to 17 connections and climbing fast.
Strange thing though, I dont get it why that would happen. I am running shadowcash node for a year now, never had problems before.
Did the peers.dat get so crowded with dead nodes over time it stopped adding new ones?
Anyway, its fine now
Yes, during the last price discovery I witnessed over 600 new clients go live (individual IPs). When these users go offline they leave dead peers in the peers.dat file. It should filter them out and it can take a little time. Quickest fix is what I suggested.
Anyone else finding that there are very few connections on SDC network.
My node (up 24/7) has 6 connections. Same server running bitcoind (average form 100 to 125 connections), blackcoin (average from 90 to 125 connections).
I am not behind a NAT, direct public IP on the server.
Block explorer also showing only 22 connections: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/sdc/#!network
I am not saying that anything is wrong, I just find it strange that such a big market coin has so few nodes running.
16 here broMy node (up 24/7) has 6 connections. Same server running bitcoind (average form 100 to 125 connections), blackcoin (average from 90 to 125 connections).
I am not behind a NAT, direct public IP on the server.
Block explorer also showing only 22 connections: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/sdc/#!network
I am not saying that anything is wrong, I just find it strange that such a big market coin has so few nodes running.
16 is still not that much
Possible that there are plenty nodes running over tor?
This is a PoS coin largely controlled by a very small number of people. It is centralized and I am not surprised to hear there are so few peers
Apart from your logic is flawed!
I have shown there is over 110 peers (active on a single server) of which a large % are inbound peers i.e. clients ... If you took a moment to observe you would notice on any given day you can see ~200-300 different clients ...
Now of course, this is the part you tell me that "the small number of people who control this centralized PoS coin" have setup hundred of wallets to make it look like there are more clients than there are :p
Seems to be doing just fine to me.
Anyone else finding that there are very few connections on SDC network.
My node (up 24/7) has 6 connections. Same server running bitcoind (average form 100 to 125 connections), blackcoin (average from 90 to 125 connections).
I am not behind a NAT, direct public IP on the server.
Block explorer also showing only 22 connections: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/sdc/#!network
I am not saying that anything is wrong, I just find it strange that such a big market coin has so few nodes running.
My node (up 24/7) has 6 connections. Same server running bitcoind (average form 100 to 125 connections), blackcoin (average from 90 to 125 connections).
I am not behind a NAT, direct public IP on the server.
Block explorer also showing only 22 connections: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/sdc/#!network
I am not saying that anything is wrong, I just find it strange that such a big market coin has so few nodes running.
If you are behind NAT you are limited to "outbound" peers only i.e. 16 MAX on Shadow/Blk and 8 MAX on Bitcoin (unless you are using upnp)
If you have public IP and correct firewall policy you will start to see "inbound" peers ... You can see from this explorer server that it is connected to over ~110 right now and can observe as much as ~200 daily ( http://explorer.shadow.cash/nodes/ )
Stopping the client, removing peers.dat and restarting should get you back into the game. Most of my nodes (and I run a dozen or so have over 70 peers).