Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 59 results by jaked
So your target is ~$16M, but you have only 1 proper developer for the core tech?
You didn't even bother to provide his background, or a LinkedIn link, so we could verify his credentials.
The idea is interesting, but the ICO itself smells bad.
You didn't even bother to provide his background, or a LinkedIn link, so we could verify his credentials.
The idea is interesting, but the ICO itself smells bad.
Re: [ANN][ICO][ALLY] The World's First Global Connectivity Platform Pre-ICO Sept 17
Wow, you said so many words, without answering my question.
So simply, you want to raise millions, without bringing any value whatsoever to the end user. If anything, your service would be much harder to purchase.
Out.
So simply, you want to raise millions, without bringing any value whatsoever to the end user. If anything, your service would be much harder to purchase.
Out.
Re: [ANN][ICO][ALLY] The World's First Global Connectivity Platform Pre-ICO Sept 17
Why do you need a new token? Why not allow purchasing with ETH?
ALLY is UTILITY token.
It has service use ability and can be used with any person who hold the token.
First option is definitely Mobile Internet buying ability which EVERYONE need now.
Traveler`s life become so sweet when he has ability to use Internet just after landing hassle free.
Can use maps and navigation applications, find transport, accommodation or even exchange his ALLY coins to local currency in the future and so on.
ALLY Token holders can buy mobile Internet with big discounts so it give them ability to resale the mobile Internet with good profit.
Also ALLY tokens used as a part of Internet voucher management system ledger as a part of whole TripAlly solution.
Sorry, but you didn't answer my question why do you need a new token.
The way I see it, you're a service provider, not very different than ones existing today. If you claim you can offer lower prices or provide better service, cool. Just why not use existing coins?
And for that matter, what makes your company worth anything, is most people pay with fiat anyway? Why would customers want to go through all the trouble of purchasing BTC, then converting it to ALLY, when they can just use Visa to purchase a competing package?
What does a new crypto coin has to offer here that's not possible with existing fiat/crypto ones?
If bitcoin gains so much value in time, it won't make any sense to use it for small transactions.
On the other hand, If we don't see a development about the problem, the price may not climb at all. It's a problematic situation in every way.
On the other hand, If we don't see a development about the problem, the price may not climb at all. It's a problematic situation in every way.
The US $ has gained so much value in time, yet everyone wants to use it for micro transactions.
I don't know if this sub forum is the right place to ask this or not but here it goes, i want to get started in bitcoin/altcoin development, know about how the system works instead of just using it and get to know how transactions work, how miners, wallets and coins are developed. A little information about my background, i have been C++ college courses for a year, data structures, object oriented concepts and the rest. i have also been web developing using node among others for a year, i tried checking out github repos of coins like bitcoin and ethereum but it's a little to big and i don't know where to start. I know you have to start somewhere so if you've been in my shoes a few years ago, how did you get better at it? how did you start? thanks.
Here you go:
https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide
https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook
In the ongoing scaling debate, I wonder why is the discussion focused solely on the block size.
To my understanding, decreasing the difficulty, either statically or dynamically, has the same effect, of increasing the transaction-confirmation rate.
I don't know if such a thing can be done with a soft work, but for those advocating a hard fork, why not a fork that decreases difficulty?
Can anyone enlighten me?
To my understanding, decreasing the difficulty, either statically or dynamically, has the same effect, of increasing the transaction-confirmation rate.
I don't know if such a thing can be done with a soft work, but for those advocating a hard fork, why not a fork that decreases difficulty?
Can anyone enlighten me?
Bitcoin Transaction Capacity could have been increased by a larger block size or a faster blockspeed.
Either would work.
BTC Core is blocking all improvements for 1 reason to push shitwit, and use LN to make BTC into an Offchain Fractional Reserve banking system.
Increasing transaction capacity would allow people to keep their transactions onchain, keeping the transaction capacity pathetic like it is now forces people to use their offchain fractional reserve bullshit. In Short BTC Core makes money by selling BTC out forever to the banking cartels.
So let's, for the sake of argument, assume Core has those malicious motives, and take them out of the picture.
Why is anyone else not proposing solutions based on faster blockspeed? Why don't we have a "BU" with a faster blockspeed, rather than larger block size?
because would lead to more orhpan, there is a reason if the block time on average is 10 min, actuallyi t's better to say 2016 every two weeks
and what you are proposing it's not feasible, it's based on mienr decision, and the mining is done in a way that the more hash you have and the better which eman more diff
this is done to make the network stronger to some various attacks, having the diff low mean less hash, which mean more insecure network
Everything is based on miners's decisions, and hence everything is feasible.
They could agree on a new protocol which reduces difficulty, in exactly the same way they could agree on a new protocol which increases the block size.
A reduced difficulty reduces the security, but if BTC's value decreases due to scaling issues, the network's vulnerability increases as well, as hash power will be lost to other cryptos.
In the ongoing scaling debate, I wonder why is the discussion focused solely on the block size.
To my understanding, decreasing the difficulty, either statically or dynamically, has the same effect, of increasing the transaction-confirmation rate.
I don't know if such a thing can be done with a soft work, but for those advocating a hard fork, why not a fork that decreases difficulty?
Can anyone enlighten me?
To my understanding, decreasing the difficulty, either statically or dynamically, has the same effect, of increasing the transaction-confirmation rate.
I don't know if such a thing can be done with a soft work, but for those advocating a hard fork, why not a fork that decreases difficulty?
Can anyone enlighten me?
Bitcoin Transaction Capacity could have been increased by a larger block size or a faster blockspeed.
Either would work.
BTC Core is blocking all improvements for 1 reason to push shitwit, and use LN to make BTC into an Offchain Fractional Reserve banking system.
Increasing transaction capacity would allow people to keep their transactions onchain, keeping the transaction capacity pathetic like it is now forces people to use their offchain fractional reserve bullshit. In Short BTC Core makes money by selling BTC out forever to the banking cartels.
So let's, for the sake of argument, assume Core has those malicious motives, and take them out of the picture.
Why is anyone else not proposing solutions based on faster blockspeed? Why don't we have a "BU" with a faster blockspeed, rather than larger block size?
In the ongoing scaling debate, I wonder why is the discussion focused solely on the block size.
To my understanding, decreasing the difficulty, either statically or dynamically, has the same effect, of increasing the transaction-confirmation rate.
I don't know if such a thing can be done with a soft work, but for those advocating a hard fork, why not a fork that decreases difficulty?
Can anyone enlighten me?
To my understanding, decreasing the difficulty, either statically or dynamically, has the same effect, of increasing the transaction-confirmation rate.
I don't know if such a thing can be done with a soft work, but for those advocating a hard fork, why not a fork that decreases difficulty?
Can anyone enlighten me?
Well, if you want to compare NXT with ETH, then compare this:
NXT repo:
https://bitbucket.org/JeanLucPicard/nxt/overview
6,446 commits
ETH repos:
https://github.com/ethereum/cpp-ethereum
11,974 commits, 14 releases, 70 contributors.
https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum
6,984 commits, 80 releases, 63 contributors
And the above ETH stats are just for 2 of the many Ethereum projects.
Edit: I fixed the numbers, as I refered to the wrong repo.
NXT repo:
https://bitbucket.org/JeanLucPicard/nxt/overview
6,446 commits
ETH repos:
https://github.com/ethereum/cpp-ethereum
11,974 commits, 14 releases, 70 contributors.
https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum
6,984 commits, 80 releases, 63 contributors
And the above ETH stats are just for 2 of the many Ethereum projects.
Edit: I fixed the numbers, as I refered to the wrong repo.
Re: Can crypto-transaction networks function without a built-in currency?
Decentralized crypto-transaction networks such as Bitcoin, Ripple, Ethereum and pretty much all others all include their own built-in currencies. As far as I can tell they do this for one or more of the following reasons:
1) as a reward for those who provide their computing power to secure the network
2) as a mechanism for paying the transaction fees that help to minimize spam in the network
3) to provide rewards for the founders (who either pre-mined (part of) the currency or who are among the first to mine the currency)
4) to encourage people to start using the network by rewarding them (if the currency appreciates in value) for buying into the currency that needs to be and can only be used on said network
But are there other ways than by creating a built-in currency in which decentralized crypto-transaction networks can solve these problems? I'm particularly interested in alternative ways of solving the first 2 problems (network security & anti-spam).
1) as a reward for those who provide their computing power to secure the network
2) as a mechanism for paying the transaction fees that help to minimize spam in the network
3) to provide rewards for the founders (who either pre-mined (part of) the currency or who are among the first to mine the currency)
4) to encourage people to start using the network by rewarding them (if the currency appreciates in value) for buying into the currency that needs to be and can only be used on said network
But are there other ways than by creating a built-in currency in which decentralized crypto-transaction networks can solve these problems? I'm particularly interested in alternative ways of solving the first 2 problems (network security & anti-spam).
For any network to function, the people running the nodes must be properly incentivized.
Bitcoin has a built-in incentive.
What would your network transact, and what incentive will node-operators have?
מטבע אחד שבולט בחדשנותו הוא Etherum, עם Turing-Complete scripting.
http://ethereum.org/ethereum.html
בעיני זהו השלב ההתפתחותי הבא אחרי ביטקוין.
נותר לצפות ולראות האם למפתחיו יש את העוצמה האינטלקטואלית הנדרשת לפרוייקט שאפתני זה.
http://ethereum.org/ethereum.html
בעיני זהו השלב ההתפתחותי הבא אחרי ביטקוין.
נותר לצפות ולראות האם למפתחיו יש את העוצמה האינטלקטואלית הנדרשת לפרוייקט שאפתני זה.
Re: Idea for a next generation crypto distributed publicly by social network sign up
Multiple signups will be prevented by requiring 2 step google authenticator and ip exclusions. (This will also help with security) If someone wants to have two cell phones with two different ips to create more than one account so be it.
You rely here on Google and ISPs. What prevents them from opening billion fake accounts?
Trust & cryptocurrencies don't mix.
Re: Hashers are not miners, and Bitcoin network doesn't need them.
You're trying to demoralize a perfectly legitimate behavior on part of the "hashers", but this only diverts the discussion from the real issue: the protocol itself.
The protocol was designed to encourage profit seekers, or "hashers", to.. hash.
Satoshi didn't foresee this centralization behavior.
But I can guarantee you, that if he did, he wouldn't seek a moralizing argument, but a technical solution.
The whole point of Bitcoin is to be moral-agnostic, and trust-free. It's a cryptographically secured public ledger, not a charity fund or a society equalizer.
Calling names is pointless. We need technical solutions, not moral preaching.
The protocol was designed to encourage profit seekers, or "hashers", to.. hash.
Satoshi didn't foresee this centralization behavior.
But I can guarantee you, that if he did, he wouldn't seek a moralizing argument, but a technical solution.
The whole point of Bitcoin is to be moral-agnostic, and trust-free. It's a cryptographically secured public ledger, not a charity fund or a society equalizer.
Calling names is pointless. We need technical solutions, not moral preaching.
If bankers had a fraction of the faith/expectations/awareness in BTC as people here do, they'd be very concerned by it.
Fortunately, they don't.
By the time BTC becomes a real threat to them, it'll be too late for them to stop it.
BTW, you can't buy 10,000TH without raising the ASIC/GPU prices significantly.
Even if you develop it silently, your suppliers will raise their prices.
Also, putting additional hash power into the network will raise the difficulty.
Putting up a 51% attack will require much more than $10m.
Fortunately, they don't.
By the time BTC becomes a real threat to them, it'll be too late for them to stop it.
BTW, you can't buy 10,000TH without raising the ASIC/GPU prices significantly.
Even if you develop it silently, your suppliers will raise their prices.
Also, putting additional hash power into the network will raise the difficulty.
Putting up a 51% attack will require much more than $10m.
Re: Bitcoin Decentralization Fund - subsidizing small mining pool operators
We are all interested in preventing 51% and/or 26% attacks.
Let's discuss whether or not it is feasible to subsidize small mining pool operators (those with 5-25% of the mining power) to make it more profitable for miners to switch away from large pools. I am not terribly familiar with the various numbers you'd need to make this calculation, so I invite the community to try to figure this out.
I am sure many of the early adopters would be willing to donate to protect the value of their BTC. This can be a dynamic process, with subsidies scaling up with "centralization alert" level and scaling down as the pool gets closer to the 25% maximum.
I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks.
Let's discuss whether or not it is feasible to subsidize small mining pool operators (those with 5-25% of the mining power) to make it more profitable for miners to switch away from large pools. I am not terribly familiar with the various numbers you'd need to make this calculation, so I invite the community to try to figure this out.
I am sure many of the early adopters would be willing to donate to protect the value of their BTC. This can be a dynamic process, with subsidies scaling up with "centralization alert" level and scaling down as the pool gets closer to the 25% maximum.
I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks.
I'd rather fund research & development to prevent such attacks.
Subsidizing behavior is brittle and temporary. The protocol itself should protect against such attacks.