Calling smart people idiots doesn't really help create a productive culture.

If you want to call whomever is doing it disruptive, then maybe that's fair.

How's it sound if you say "When we removed the 30 second minimum block time, we re-introduced a design problem in the original Satoshi bitcoin that is now being exploited to create alternating long-blocks and short-block periods on bitcoin cash. Our short-term fix has been to re-introduce a 1 second minimum block time, but it should probably be something more like 2-5 minutes minimum between blocks"

If any of you would like to discuss how to further upgrade Catcoin's original minimum block time prototype and fix the problems it created with mining, we might have a solution that would get used by a 'major' coin, and this could be quite profitable for all of us. I prefer open forums, and I'd be happy to discuss more on the unmoderated thread at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1135534.40

Okay that's pretty damned interesting.

So make that two pegged currencies that have failed, one that has recovered, and one that seems to have a proposal that might result in a recovery. But what I currently understand of steem dollars is they are a rather 'soft' peg, depending both on witnesses and relative volatility levels.

Nubits seems to have the 'hardest' peg of the distributed systems, but seems to be brittle if stressed too much. BitUSD looks to be in the middle.

From coinmarketcap, sept 20, 2016:
 Steem Dollars (SBD)
$0.904956 (5.09%)

bitUSD (BITUSD)
$0.982400 (-3.66%)

NuBits (USNBT)
$1.00 (0.57%)

Can you please explain how 'steem dollars' are a pegged currency at a 10% discount to the currency they are supposed to be pegged at? I don't get it.

BitUSD and NuBits have what I consider reasonable pegs. It remains to be seen if Nubits can keep their peg, but they are the only one I know of that had a failure and recovered.

How is the steem dollar (SBD) even remotely relevant? If you want to compare the two, even with the recent (last 6 hours?) free-fall of Nubits prices it's still a pretty good peg to dollars compared to SBD. bitUSD, on the other hand seems to be holding and recovering from BTC price swings pretty well, even if it does have a larger spread that Nubits used to when it was working.

If I have to make a decision about long-term trends on whether it's a good idea to do something like purchase real estate, it would be nice to have a commodity-basket indexed currency to figure out what to do. Fiat has cycles of inflation/deflation/hyperinflation, and if you are going to be in a multinational global business like growing commodities it would be more accurate to calculate your ROI for something (like buying new farm equipment) based on real global business fundamentals, and not whatever the current set of corrupt political machines has their hands on the fiat control clevers.

Funny, as of July 25, the steem dollar price 'peg' (if there ever really was one) looks pretty busted to me.

Fascinating discussion of Hayek money you have here. I'm intentionally not posting anything on discuss.nubits.com because it seems like there's too much emotional and financial investment in NuShares/Nubits/BCexchange to have any sort of clear discussion. (Not that bitcointalk is much better, but at least it's got more diversity of investments).

It also seems that NuBits 'distributed' reserve model is only as good as the liquidity providers and the consensus of the shareholders. If there becomes a financial incentive to break the liquidity scheme, it gets broken, and it appears to have little 'cost' to the attacker(s). Or maybe what we are seeing is an intentional attempt to create a crisis of faith in NuShares. There are lots of other projects that stand to gain if Nu fails, so any attempt to try to place blame is only feeding the crisis of faith which further erodes the project.

I see a comment at https://discuss.nubits.com/t/poll-for-nushareholders-what-is-your-current-sentiment-on-nus-future-updated-version-july-2016/4317/3 saying:


So could the Nubits (and maybe B&C exchange code?) be re-purposed as Hayek money that is 'pegged' to the value of commodities instead of fiat currency? For a month or so the chicago board of trade price of soybeans depended on whether the president of Brazil was going to get impeached. There are lots of farmers whom I suspect would be quite happy to provide lots of liquidity in the form of both local fiat and the commodity they produce if the system is even slightly more transparent than the rather opaque and centralized exchanges all the prices are indexed from right now.

I'd much rather see soybean basis priced as a percentage above or below the 'hayek' median average price of the pegged token.

Nubits is back to $0.88 on bittrex and $0.79 on poloniex, so it looks to me like a recovery is in progress.

You never know if something works until you test it to failure, so this makes for a vote of confidence for Nubits and it's community if the recovery continues.

Are there more issues that are not in this list:
https://bitbucket.org/JordanLeePeershares/bcexchange/issues?q=OS+x

Please update the bitbucket so I can track progress, and estimate how many hours it might take me to solve it.

The fastest way to speed up the MacOSX client release is allocate some cash (or NuBits) to pay a contractor to fix it. It does seem to me that worrying about the 90% network consensus without having a Mac client seems like the priorities are mis-allocated. If you are having trouble with multi-platform support maybe consider building for Linux only and distributing an embedded-linux based Virtualbox VM image so you only have one binary to worry about.

I'd be willing to look into either one of these options at no charge if we can work out a way to add an option to pay dividends in and allow trading with Grantcoin.

To quote Jordan:

To which I would respond with:

Slow the fuck down. No serious exchange unilaterally changes the whole system on 30 days notice. I'm not talking about bitcoin exchanges, which I don't (yet) consider completely serious. I'm talking about exchanges like chicago board of trade, the new york stock exchange, and the dalian exchange.

Okay, maybe the dalian exchange gets capital controls instituted on short notice, but then again I don't trade there.

These are your competitors. If it's been *60* days and still been no substantial growth in the protocol adoption, then maybe its time to consider some of these proposals. If it gets to *90* days then start talking about more drastic things like buying back all 'old' legacy shares and exchanging them for an entirely new blockchain that starts out at protocol version 5.

Relax a little. Contact all the original crowdsale buyers. If you can't contact them because all you have is an email and a bitcoin address, then maybe you might want to consider that running a business with shareholders without having multiple contact methods for your shareholders might be a bad idea.

I'd appreciate this if someone could repost this to the nubits.com form, or let me know if there's a reddit forum. While I do have a business critical need to be able to market commodities using distributed blockchain based exchanges, I don't have the time and the patience to track every single forum.

Or just estimate how much the price would have to go up to acquire enough shares to vote for the upgrade. It might be a good investment. But if you are going to throw out the contract you layed out for 90% consensus for upgrading, then slow down a little, and make sure you know what both the legal and ethical implications of such a change will be.

Most likely, it's just folks who set up the client and forgot about it, or maybe even some that actively sell what they are minting.

What might be the estimated economic cost (in dollars, or nubits) to buy sufficient BKS on the open market to put us over 90%, or is that effectively impossible?

It may also be worth some discussion on if there are attacks that could be conducted on the network to either block an upgrade, or force an upgrade.

At the end of the day though, the code and the concept may be perfectly fine but if you ended up with a subset of BKS shareholders who don't understand what it's really worth to upgrade, the choice of shareholders may be the cause for failure. Plenty of promising startups with good technology have failed because some shareholders don't get it. This problem is worse with more evenly distributed ownership structures like co-ops, and blockchain-based DACs are going to have the same social problems.

There are also plenty of people who might think a distributed blockchain-based DAC that supports trading is a substantial risk to their other investments, and buy shares for no other reason than to block or delay the deployment. All the existing centralized exchanges, for instance, have a financial incentive to block competitors.

Indeed. Low market cap & poorly supported coins are a great way to teach yourself financial cryptography, and get an idea of what some of the scams, hustles, and outright frauds that go on with pretty much anything involving money. The only difference between shitcoins, bitcoins, and dollars are the sophistication of the scams.

Very interesting.

What options are there to distribute dividends with other currencies (say maybe Nubits or something like Grantcoin) while still retaining the network effects? Or will this require a fork, with all the associated dilution.

There also seems to be a risk of financial engineering a 'short' outside the BKS/BKC/etc system in which it becomes profitable to acquire, and then vote against the self-interest of the acquired crypto asset. It is either this, or a lack of patience that seems to be resulting in the long time it's taking to get enough clients upgraded (and voting for) the 4.0 protocol.

Which of the three bitcoin forks do you think I should be buying?

bitcoin-keccak
bitcoin-classic
bitcoin-xt

Looks like Forktacular February is coming to Bitcoin too!

As much as it's fun to poke fun at the tightly controlled message on the censored thread, it doesn't really do a lot of good (unless maybe you feel better afterwards).

The problem is there's apparently some sort of market demand for exploitable coins, and that it must be profitable to create and control a message on a traded coin. It's probably a lot like penny stocks, where you have obvious 'pump and dump' stock promoters that (sometimes) make a lot of money by controlling a message about a stock with low or no obvious value. The promotion creates 'value' out of thin air, because people believe it, and then, just as soon as it came, it goes away.

So that being said, if we have a read of http://tradetheticker.blogspot.com/2014/02/question-how-do-you-find-and-track.html, then the question is how would you trade to take advantage of both the exploitable difficulty adjustment, and the tightly controlled messaging?

So what if we add a catcoin 'payment processor' to https://www.coinffeine.com/

Heck, we could have both 9.1.1 and 9.2.0 forks with active trading..

My suggestion is try and transfer everything you hold on cryptsy to a 9.2.0 wallet, and extract all the coins that still work on the 9.1.1 fork, and leave crytpsy holding the bag with all the coins mined on a botched fork with an exploitable difficulty adjustment.

There are more exchanges than cryptsy in the world, and all it really takes to make catcoin valuable is selling cat food for catcoins. If someone is willing to do that then it would be worth my time to release a new version that integrates the latest bitcoin-core code with a 3 minute minimum block time, and escalating reward after 15 minutes.

This is an interesting read...

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/273

So are there any decent open-source PCB layouts for a BM1384 chip? What if we made a decent design and had it fabricated and built *in the US* from a manufacturer that actually does quality control?

I could see a market for a high-density water-cooled system (maybe including a heat pump) that can do something like hook up to a water heater

cross-posted from the 'new new 9.2' catcoin thread:


It's best, as a developer, to generally assume poor configuration or outdated clients rather than assume you are under attack.
This is *probably* the result of 9.1.1 nodes that got restarted and are trying to download the blockchain. I'm seeing the same problem, so it seems the best solution would be that both forks release new versions.

I can make the problem go away (for me) if I change the PCHmessage after some block (like maybe 46331), but you will still have problems with old 9.1.1 clients (that for all we know are still mining). If you can also change the 'new 9.1.1' catcoin thread to point to **new** binaries you'd also have a better chance at fixing this problem.