Topic: [ANN][CRW] CROWN (SHA256) | Platform | Governance | Systemnodes | Masternodes | - page 185. (Read 317079 times)

thanks for this.
before i was not much intrested in this coin.
but after few days i join campaign,especially when i saw thread about it,i like it.
hope i will get some good profit.

I see your Video Crowncoin VPS Tutorial there's is very clearly Thanks so much mate..I'll add to my blog too Please allowing me to do or Copy pasta

Crowncoin VPS Tutorial

Its out, click the green text to watch the video.

Good job on the progress!

I have tried sending a tx some hours ago which still is unconfirmed. How can I fix this? Which block explorer is most up to date?

I have sent it through the 0.9.2 64bit Windows wallet which I installed on the 9th of August.

EDIT: also, my wallet does not seem to sync, also it shows 6 active connections. Could it have something to do with this?

yes the coin is going much better especially because of their signature campaign and it will increase more in price so the lucky will be those who will buy them now.

Throne VPS Tutorial video is being uploaded, it'll be up in about two hours.

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/crowncoin/

i like green 
market cap and price is rising.
you should buy some crowncoin now.

what are price prediction of crown??

i think 30k in 2 month....

plz i ned cheap coins... don't buy all

I'm sorry but it's against the rules to post deposit addresses on the forum. Please remove it when you can.

The Hive notices that you, Mr. Stone, do not seem to think that the POW protocol is a sustainable one and thus needs an update. There seem to be plausible arguments against POW. However, we have yet to see you state any detailed arguments against POS. We know one of them -- susceptibility to 51% attacks. What are some other issues that you see with POS?

Separately, won't coins that are POW just be able to switch their consensus protocol if it becomes a problem?

~ The Hive ~

Sorry, couldn't resist quoting this  


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/quiggin-bitcoins-are-a-waste-of-energy/6827940

Here's a very interesting article about Ethereum Casper, probably the highest profile attempt to supersede Proof of Work using collateral based consensus.  The end product is still a form of Proof of Stake though.

https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/08/01/introducing-casper-friendly-ghost/

Some common criticisms that I have gathered from t'internet (Thanks to Herman Schoenfeld)

No longer P2P - Casper fundamentally changes the network topology from a Peer-2-Peer (P2P) network where all peers participate in the protocol equally to a "distributed Client-Server" network where one class of peers (validators) have special privileges over another class of peers (nodes) within the protocol itself. This is a fundamental difference from PoW and impacts security and redundancy. First of all, it's not "nuke proof" like the Internet was supposed to be (whether real or legislative nukes). Similarly, like Client-Server the Casper-driven Ethereum network suffers from a single point of failure problem (it's 250 points in casper). Suppose that during a staking period that all the validators happen to be geo-located within the same jursidiction (e.g. the EU). Suppose that this jurisdiction then passes laws to outright (or effectively) ban Ethereum due to it's challenge to banking/economic status quo. Those validators will shutdown overnight and the network will be permanently down. This is a realistic scenario. Note with PoW, this can't happen since new miners can easily spring up outside that jurisdiction and the network can resume where it left off.

Violates protocol neutrality - In a P2P network, all peers participate equally in terms of the protocol. For example, in Bitcoin distinctions between nodes, miners, lightweight clients are independent of the protocol. At any one time any node/miner/lightweight peer can freely convert to any other without impacting any other peer. Not so with Casper. Validators are effectively bound to their status, ordinary nodes cannot independently elevate their status, and worst of all, ordinary peers are forced to accept the status of validator peers. There might be a tonne of attack vectors lurking inside here.

Introduces stakeholder risk-coupling - In PoW, a miner who mints a bad block does not affect the profitability of a miner who mints good blocks. Not so in Casper. The bad actions of one validator can influence the profitability of a good validator. Casper adds economic disincentives to mitigate these scenarios and stop bad validators from minting bad blocks, but this approach assumes that bad validators are rational economic actors. What if a validator is compromised by a hacker or shutdown by a Government? What if a validator is infected with malware? In these real-world scenarios, validators may not act rationally. As a result, other validators (and the network itself) will not be protected.

Stakeholders batton-passing problem - Another coupling issue with Casper is that new validators must be approved by a suitable set of old validators. This is fundamentally different to PoW where miners can begin/cease mining independently of each other (0-coupling). Have the implications of this been researched. What attack vectors can exploit this?

BitTorrent analogy - Just think, if all the entertainment industry had to do was capture 250 peers to take down the entire BitTorrent network permanently, do you think BitTorrent would be around today? If Ethereum really does challenge the status quo, how hard will it be to take down the 250 validators? UPDATE A sustained DDOS attack on the validators could realistically achieve this.

If you want to read the full discussion between Schoenfeld and Ethereum staff, here's the link.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4euiut/fundamental_problems_with_casper/

We see that you are quite the pleb. Your people seem to have a stark lack of Crown.... also known as zero.

Have you considered taking out a loan to buy Crown?

~ The Hive ~

Hello my fellow coin people. My friend recently introduced me to this great coin and I think this could be the start of something great. The problem is I'm a pro Bulgarian peasant and have no money so I would much appreciate some generous donations from you kind hearted people. If you find it in your hear to support an innocent poor Bulgarian I will be forever grateful.

[CRW] deposite address:
13cTKBVDXphxjPeUsKjvtuXc78oLc7w7FB

This is a personal prject, not tied to core team in any way

It was most likely an arranged buy on the exchange between 2 users. I personally didn't even see the order myself.

Yeah agreed I also thanks for the transparency about coin holdings


Wait seem i missed something here what was a large buy on the exchange did you mean another whale ? sorry..I just want to learn more about CrownCoin and invest some BTC to CrownCoin

The Hive is grateful for the transparency about coin holdings. This community will do far better with open communications than without.

We also see that there was a large buy on the exchange. This time it wasn't our 3 bitcoin....

~ The Hive ~

I'm working hard on an idea I have for a crypto based gambling system.

Ofcourse I wouldn't dishonor the Crown and build it for another coin, the first coin to be added will be Crown.

I'd just like to know, is there any demand for a betting game, on which you can use CRW to bet and is strongly related to Crown?

I guess the issue isn't entirely about whether we trust CCK to use his stack responsibly, the community needs to feel comfortable with that too.

For what its worth, I have literally no concerns about 10% of the current coin supply being owned by the longest running team member with another 3% being controlled by him. The fact the coins haven't moved in so long hints towards him playing the long game.