Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 104 results by jerrybusey
$2 seems extreme but I think DOGE is the only currently existing alt coin to have a chance of going anywhere. Their community has done more work in less time to spread the coin and get it into use than just about any other alt. I think the meme has been tired for some time now but people keep sticking with it since it seems to have some momentum. I'm not holding any DOGE currently, just mining and selling it, but I think it has a better shot at broad usage than even litecoin.
All that said, I don't know if the valuation has the degree of upside that some people hope. I think a realistic best case would be for it to become the internet's preferred tipping and anonymous small transactions currency rather than anything bigger. Even if it reaches that level of ubiquity, we're still talking about a relatively small market. Never in my lifetime will I buy a pack of bacon (Mmmmm) with DOGE or with bitcoin for that matter.
All that said, I don't know if the valuation has the degree of upside that some people hope. I think a realistic best case would be for it to become the internet's preferred tipping and anonymous small transactions currency rather than anything bigger. Even if it reaches that level of ubiquity, we're still talking about a relatively small market. Never in my lifetime will I buy a pack of bacon (Mmmmm) with DOGE or with bitcoin for that matter.
The profitability has been unnaturally high for the past few months due to crypto prices spiking faster than new GPUs could be brought online. We should be getting back to lower profitability and longer investment payoff times fairly soon I think.
Re: [ANN]PLEASE STOP DOING MORE COINS, THATS BAD TO ALT COINS
Yes, all the coins are getting ridiculous, but it is something that just has to run it's course. It's just part of the growing process. I expect it to get worse, before it gets better. Won't surprise me if we have people naming them after themselves byt the end of the month. But soon their will be no hype or excitement that develops around them. Even now, the time that people are hyped about a new clone coin only lasts about 6-8 hours after it's launch, compared to weeks/months of interest that would be generated just a short time ago.
I was thinking of releasing a proof of concept coin with some ideas I've had but I couldn't think of name until now. JerryBuseyCoin! Brilliant suggestion sir.
Re: FairCryptocurrency Committee - FairLaunch Approval - Please Read
ehhh, I suggested the stamp of approval idea a few days ago in another thread =P
great to see something is done to stop all these copy/scam coins ruining the economy!
great to see something is done to stop all these copy/scam coins ruining the economy!
The more I think about this idea the more I like it but I still don't think it will do much on its own to slow down the rate of scam creation. Even if all it does is send a message to outsiders looking in that there are people trying to keep things clean and above board I think it can be helpful to alt community legitimacy in the long run. Image matters.
Also I don't think this is all that conflicting with the crypto-anarchist position since it's a purely voluntary thing. I just hope it doesn't turn into the American Heart Association where any food processor can get a heart healthy label on its junk food in exchange for a healthy donation. I also hope it doesn't end up overly rigid or ideological. That would be the quickest path to irrelevance.
Re: [ANN]PLEASE STOP DOING MORE COINS, THATS BAD TO ALT COINS
Let them be thousands shitty Alts, let the newbies and losers mine this SHIT, therefore less hash rate and low difficulty for REAL coins.
Just my 0,02$
Just my 0,02$
this is true
It dilutes (or redirects into the pockets of coin devs and speculators) the fiat flowing into "real" coins, thus making them less profitable to mine as well. This is a tragedy of the commons situation as others have noted.
It is important to me that the 'Fair Cryptocurrency Committee' or whatever it is eventually called, it should not strictly limit itself to simplistically judging whether a new issue follows particular rules. I will explain why using a concrete example.
I've been working on an alt cryptocurrency, but with some major changes to the usual algorithms. I'm concerned that some deliberate choices made for maximal fairness and for the long-term good of a cryptocurrency, with no intent of personal profit, could disqualify it from being considered a 'fair coin'. Note that these are not the only major changes made; merely those made specifically for the sake of fairness.
Firstly, there will be little or no mining, meaning that maybe 10% of block awards or maybe no block awards at all will be available merely for having compute power. All, or all the rest, will be distributed via proof-of-stake only. For at least 90% of the blocks a smartphone with a permanent Internet connection should have as much chance of getting a block as a ten thousand dollar server.
Secondly, if there is mining, it will not be anything that can be done with ASICs or GPUs. This is because I believe in fairness. These things are two or three orders of magnitude faster, for the money, than non-specialized equipment, and I do not want to support a specialized class of miners. They tend to cause more problems than they are worth, especially when operating en masse, and it is both unfair and counterproductive in my estimation to exclude (by overwhelming) that fraction of the public that uses normal computers from mining. Finally, miners who own specialized equipment are primarily those who are mining for profit only, and who can be expected to simply dump coins as fast as they mine them in order to buy Bitcoin. They represent a drag on a coin's value, not an asset.
Thirdly, I object strongly to any pressure to allow mining pools, if mining is allowed at all. Mining pools in my estimation represent an existential threat to cryptocurrencies; first in terms of centralization, second in terms of logistics by screwing horribly with the difficulty as they jump on and off and overwhelming the probably-small server infrastructure of a fledgling currency, and third in their propensity to attract miners who believe that no other cryptocurrency exists for any reason other than to dump it on the market in order to buy Bitcoin.
Fourth, as is necessary with proof-of-stake, there will be a ridiculously large premine. My intent is to distribute about a million units *WIDELY* (to at least a hundred thousand pubkeys) before even announcing. People who check will mostly discover that they already own the corresponding privkey to at least one of them. Some will own more than one; that is unfair, but can't be helped. To the extent that addresses are held by those who do not participate, the coins that those nonparticipants could otherwise claim will (mostly) eventually be claimed on a random basis by those who do participate. The initial blocks will be created with a script that permits more and more addresses to spend the coinage as time goes on; each month, about ten percent of them will become spendable by an additional existing key, until the distribution is complete or until they have gone through seven keys each. Those who participate will occasionally "inherit" a distribution award from those who do not.
During the first year about 30 thousand coins (that is, three percent of the existing million) will be created. Thereafter each year will see three percent more coins created than the previous year. So, 3 percent long term inflation after the initial distribution. But absolutely no relevance to anything like a 'halving time' or 'ultimate total number of coins' criterion that a committee is likely to come up with. This is specifically to avoid an initial phase of very high rewards, because that would attract pump'n'dumpers rather than people who simply want a currency to use.
Now, I believe that this outlines a plan for a very "fair" cryptocurrency. In fact fairness is one of my *PRIMARY* intents in creating it. But I also believe that because it works differently from the expected model, it is very unlikely to meet any set-in-stone criterion of "fairness" based on the usual set of expectations.
Therefore I ask that whatever else you decide here the committee should remain free to exercise human judgement as to whether a new issue is fair, rather than merely interpreting narrow rules.
I've been working on an alt cryptocurrency, but with some major changes to the usual algorithms. I'm concerned that some deliberate choices made for maximal fairness and for the long-term good of a cryptocurrency, with no intent of personal profit, could disqualify it from being considered a 'fair coin'. Note that these are not the only major changes made; merely those made specifically for the sake of fairness.
Firstly, there will be little or no mining, meaning that maybe 10% of block awards or maybe no block awards at all will be available merely for having compute power. All, or all the rest, will be distributed via proof-of-stake only. For at least 90% of the blocks a smartphone with a permanent Internet connection should have as much chance of getting a block as a ten thousand dollar server.
Secondly, if there is mining, it will not be anything that can be done with ASICs or GPUs. This is because I believe in fairness. These things are two or three orders of magnitude faster, for the money, than non-specialized equipment, and I do not want to support a specialized class of miners. They tend to cause more problems than they are worth, especially when operating en masse, and it is both unfair and counterproductive in my estimation to exclude (by overwhelming) that fraction of the public that uses normal computers from mining. Finally, miners who own specialized equipment are primarily those who are mining for profit only, and who can be expected to simply dump coins as fast as they mine them in order to buy Bitcoin. They represent a drag on a coin's value, not an asset.
Thirdly, I object strongly to any pressure to allow mining pools, if mining is allowed at all. Mining pools in my estimation represent an existential threat to cryptocurrencies; first in terms of centralization, second in terms of logistics by screwing horribly with the difficulty as they jump on and off and overwhelming the probably-small server infrastructure of a fledgling currency, and third in their propensity to attract miners who believe that no other cryptocurrency exists for any reason other than to dump it on the market in order to buy Bitcoin.
Fourth, as is necessary with proof-of-stake, there will be a ridiculously large premine. My intent is to distribute about a million units *WIDELY* (to at least a hundred thousand pubkeys) before even announcing. People who check will mostly discover that they already own the corresponding privkey to at least one of them. Some will own more than one; that is unfair, but can't be helped. To the extent that addresses are held by those who do not participate, the coins that those nonparticipants could otherwise claim will (mostly) eventually be claimed on a random basis by those who do participate. The initial blocks will be created with a script that permits more and more addresses to spend the coinage as time goes on; each month, about ten percent of them will become spendable by an additional existing key, until the distribution is complete or until they have gone through seven keys each. Those who participate will occasionally "inherit" a distribution award from those who do not.
During the first year about 30 thousand coins (that is, three percent of the existing million) will be created. Thereafter each year will see three percent more coins created than the previous year. So, 3 percent long term inflation after the initial distribution. But absolutely no relevance to anything like a 'halving time' or 'ultimate total number of coins' criterion that a committee is likely to come up with. This is specifically to avoid an initial phase of very high rewards, because that would attract pump'n'dumpers rather than people who simply want a currency to use.
Now, I believe that this outlines a plan for a very "fair" cryptocurrency. In fact fairness is one of my *PRIMARY* intents in creating it. But I also believe that because it works differently from the expected model, it is very unlikely to meet any set-in-stone criterion of "fairness" based on the usual set of expectations.
Therefore I ask that whatever else you decide here the committee should remain free to exercise human judgement as to whether a new issue is fair, rather than merely interpreting narrow rules.
I think coins that are relying on a substantially unique code base should be treated somewhat differently than coins which are just copy/paste clones. Otherwise this organization would do more to stiffle innovation than help it. As far as the copy/paste scrypt and sha clones go though there really should be a compelling reason for creating another coin at all, in addition to the other requirements listed. The whole point of currency is to be at least a somewhat universal unit for trade.
That said, I do like the idea of a colbertcoin for publicity purposes IF the developer can get a Colbert endorsement (he started a super PAC so why not this?) AND if the developer has the skills to pull off a decent coin/launch. On the later point, I would hope the dev has enough familiarity with the code to not fork an existing coin with known bugs or other issues (which is a large portion of them).
Re: New coin idea to incorporate cosmology into the blockchain
Some things to think of:
1 - it must be hard to generate one block, but cheap to verify. I doubt that the simulations in this context can be easily verified.
2 - difficulty must be adjustable to keep block rate mostly constant. Of course, you could adjust the simulated time for each unit, don't know how well that would work.
3 - each block must depend on the previous block, i.e. it must not be possible to perform all or part of the hard work before the previous block is known.
I have a gut feeling that most grid computing efforts don't fit these constraints well.
Onkel Paul
1 - it must be hard to generate one block, but cheap to verify. I doubt that the simulations in this context can be easily verified.
2 - difficulty must be adjustable to keep block rate mostly constant. Of course, you could adjust the simulated time for each unit, don't know how well that would work.
3 - each block must depend on the previous block, i.e. it must not be possible to perform all or part of the hard work before the previous block is known.
I have a gut feeling that most grid computing efforts don't fit these constraints well.
Onkel Paul
2 and 3 may be manageable through centralization but then you're out of the bitcoin "family" and into another mess of issues. The need for one way functions- point 1- is where you would really need to work some algorithmic magic to make many types of problems workable if they could be made to work at all.
It's a coin for the normies out there.... 
If this is what it takes to get everyone on the cryptobandwagon I say lets do it... Plus who knows, it may actually be profitable and viable. But also I think it has too many possible coins and we don't know anything else besides the vague description the devs have given us...
If this is what it takes to get everyone on the cryptobandwagon I say lets do it... Plus who knows, it may actually be profitable and viable. But also I think it has too many possible coins and we don't know anything else besides the vague description the devs have given us...
It's just as likely to harm the legitimacy of crypto currency in the minds of normal people as it is to help it. This is introducing people to the ugly underbelly of crypto before they're familiar with the real stuff.
I think ultimately the market will be the arbiter of this. Look at how out of the dozen or more coins to launch over the past couple weeks only a handful have made it to exchanges and only a couple of them have retained any value at all. The coins launched in the past few days are generating almost no interest from investors. Even the most enthusiastic investors seem to be learning to not put money into every piece of shit that comes along. This is good since it's the only way to solve this problem. As long as there is demand for something there will be supply no matter what you try to do. If we get to a state where people are only creating random shit coins for fun with zero expectation of profit, then we'll be in a better place.
If you do decide to start something like this, one suggestion I have is that Github repositories should be started as forks off of whatever coin they're copying. It's so much quicker to evaluate code if I can see exactly the changes that went into it --as well as which code base from which it was derived-- in the easiest way possible. It also makes it much easier to track down bugs that have popped up in certain families of alts. This should be mandatory as far as I'm concerned.
One other idea that I've suggested in a few coins' announcement threads half trolling is to make make transaction records for all premined coins public. It's trivial to export the csv of transactions from the wallet to which coins were premined. This could then be posted on the coin website with references to where all the transactions went. Links to giveaway threads or bounties paid (make sure bounty recipients have posted their addresses publicly) would be sufficient documentation for most purposes. Of course there's little to stop a dev from reneging on promises of transparency but it would make it harder to dump if everyone knew what was happening.
If you do decide to start something like this, one suggestion I have is that Github repositories should be started as forks off of whatever coin they're copying. It's so much quicker to evaluate code if I can see exactly the changes that went into it --as well as which code base from which it was derived-- in the easiest way possible. It also makes it much easier to track down bugs that have popped up in certain families of alts. This should be mandatory as far as I'm concerned.
One other idea that I've suggested in a few coins' announcement threads half trolling is to make make transaction records for all premined coins public. It's trivial to export the csv of transactions from the wallet to which coins were premined. This could then be posted on the coin website with references to where all the transactions went. Links to giveaway threads or bounties paid (make sure bounty recipients have posted their addresses publicly) would be sufficient documentation for most purposes. Of course there's little to stop a dev from reneging on promises of transparency but it would make it harder to dump if everyone knew what was happening.
Re: [ANN][MOON] Mooncoin: You know where it's headed! WE HAVE LIFTOFF!
There's so much on the sell side and so little on the buy side. This coin may hit 1 satoshi in the next day or two. This thing might set a record for fastest delisting of an altcoin.
Please don't use coingen. If you can't even alter and compile the source yourself you have absolutely no business launching a coin, even a joke one... Unless the joke is how horribly incompetent a launch can be but I feel like that's getting old too.
It's a long shot that anyone would bite on this (random forum post) under the best of circumstances but without a CV or something of the sort on your first post I'd be even more shocked if you got even a single actually serious inquiry.
Whats next HitlerCoin(HTC)? sounds good though lol
At least this would have a built in demographic (neo-nazis) who'd be happy to have their own "pure" coin incompetently copy and pasted by aryans (with doge icons in the Qt until the dev figured out how to replaced them). They could also do fuhrercoin (FUC) for the name. The funny thing is that miners of all races would jump on the chance to mine it if they thought they could make a buck.
Re: [ANN][OGC] *OnlineGamingCoin* LAUNCHED !!! Crypto designed for Online Gaming \o/
Be carefull, after installing and configuring the .conf per page 1 dev guidelines my malwarebytes went crazy... log shows:
2014/01/01 17:17:27 -0800 MERLIN IP-BLOCK 219.153.36.203 (Type: outgoing, Port: 22437, Process: onlinegamingcoin-qt.exe)
2014/01/01 17:57:22 -0800 MERLIN IP-BLOCK 59.34.140.220 (Type: outgoing, Port: 24553, Process: onlinegamingcoin-qt.exe)
none of my other wallets trigger malwarebyte errors. There are enough other coins not to risk it....
2014/01/01 17:17:27 -0800 MERLIN IP-BLOCK 219.153.36.203 (Type: outgoing, Port: 22437, Process: onlinegamingcoin-qt.exe)
2014/01/01 17:57:22 -0800 MERLIN IP-BLOCK 59.34.140.220 (Type: outgoing, Port: 24553, Process: onlinegamingcoin-qt.exe)
none of my other wallets trigger malwarebyte errors. There are enough other coins not to risk it....
The first address is one of the public nodes.
Re: [ANN][OGC] *OnlineGamingCoin* LAUNCHED !!! Crypto designed for Online Gaming \o/
over 1000 block and still pays 500. Bug ?
More like typo. It's 500 until 1440 according to source.
Re: [ANN] The First coin of 2014 (AHC) AnHeroCoin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Foamy
Any chance you (including every other future coin developers) could give me the time (frame) of launch in standard UTC time?
I live in Europe, so I am not familiar with these 3 letter things you refer to in the OP. (I am not even sure if that is a joke or not...)
Any chance you (including every other future coin developers) could give me the time (frame) of launch in standard UTC time?
I live in Europe, so I am not familiar with these 3 letter things you refer to in the OP. (I am not even sure if that is a joke or not...)
EST (Eastern Standard Time) is UTC-5 and CST (Central Standard Time) is UTC-6. So it should be dropping within the next 20 minutes unless it misses the window.