i hope my buy order at 2000 satoshi get filled
Topic: [ANN][CRYPT] CryptCoin x11 + PoS | P2P Anonymity | 0% Premine | Commander - page 308. (Read 512674 times)
June 07, 2014, 12:43:22 PM
nice article!
i hope my buy order at 2000 satoshi get filled
i hope my buy order at 2000 satoshi get filled
June 07, 2014, 12:32:16 PM
bought 13 CRYPT coins for 1.70$, and 1.70$ I got from free coins obtained online (wanted to record it somewhere) maybe I just bought, well.. got for free, a car 
(in the future)
(in the future) June 07, 2014, 12:16:13 PM
Indeed, a pump followed by a panic buy. Look at the top 10 rich list for this coin, they own 64%.
most of those top 5 are probably miner pool and exchanges
CRY Article: http://www.coinssource.com/cryptcoin-end-transaction-fees/
June 07, 2014, 12:13:25 PM
Indeed, a pump followed by a panic buy. Look at the top 10 rich list for this coin, they own 64%.
June 07, 2014, 12:04:24 PM
Why the prize is so low 
a pump is always followed by a dump ...
June 07, 2014, 12:01:23 PM
Why the prize is so low
June 07, 2014, 09:08:57 AM
No. Just stop trolling. That will be fine.
June 07, 2014, 08:36:57 AM
From my reading of the whitepaper, it appears the recipient wallet must be online (i.e. running the wallet software) in order to receive coins anonymously. If so, this isn't a workable anonymity solution. Can the dev please clarify?
In order for the transaction to take place, in this initial draft, the wallet has to come online and give "directions" to the sender regarding the destination addresses. The "trigger message" will be valid for some time before it times out. I am testing various scenarios on how to make it work with the best possible (to my knowledge) way.Now, whether it's workable or not, I guess one must weight the pros and cons. As another developer said (and he's right all the way): there are no true passwords, nor true encryption. Everything can be broken with enough computational power.
So I make myself this question: who do I trust to deliver my coins?
As I said previously, it's a matter of preference. Also, I'm sure that more ideas will come from this, as there's always room for improvement to every design
An implementation where the recipient wallet needs to be online is basically useless in practice. For all the self-congratulatory language in the whitepaper and condescending references to other anon solutions, you don't even realise that you're not solving the same problem.
Your troll detector needs calibration. I'm offering a genuine criticism of the implementation. How about responding to the content of my criticism, instead of a four word dismissal that amounts to baseless ad-hominem?
June 07, 2014, 08:30:51 AM
From my reading of the whitepaper, it appears the recipient wallet must be online (i.e. running the wallet software) in order to receive coins anonymously. If so, this isn't a workable anonymity solution. Can the dev please clarify?
In order for the transaction to take place, in this initial draft, the wallet has to come online and give "directions" to the sender regarding the destination addresses. The "trigger message" will be valid for some time before it times out. I am testing various scenarios on how to make it work with the best possible (to my knowledge) way.Now, whether it's workable or not, I guess one must weight the pros and cons. As another developer said (and he's right all the way): there are no true passwords, nor true encryption. Everything can be broken with enough computational power.
So I make myself this question: who do I trust to deliver my coins?
As I said previously, it's a matter of preference. Also, I'm sure that more ideas will come from this, as there's always room for improvement to every design
An implementation where the recipient wallet needs to be online is basically useless in practice. For all the self-congratulatory language in the whitepaper and condescending references to other anon solutions, you don't even realise that you're not solving the same problem.
June 07, 2014, 08:26:25 AM
From my reading of the whitepaper, it appears the recipient wallet must be online (i.e. running the wallet software) in order to receive coins anonymously. If so, this isn't a workable anonymity solution. Can the dev please clarify?
In order for the transaction to take place, in this initial draft, the wallet has to come online and give "directions" to the sender regarding the destination addresses. The "trigger message" will be valid for some time before it times out. I am testing various scenarios on how to make it work with the best possible (to my knowledge) way.Now, whether it's workable or not, I guess one must weight the pros and cons. As another developer said (and he's right all the way): there are no true passwords, nor true encryption. Everything can be broken with enough computational power.
So I make myself this question: who do I trust to deliver my coins?
As I said previously, it's a matter of preference. Also, I'm sure that more ideas will come from this, as there's always room for improvement to every design
An implementation where the recipient wallet needs to be online is basically useless in practice. For all the self-congratulatory language in the whitepaper and condescending references to other anon solutions, you don't even realise that you're not solving the same problem.
June 07, 2014, 06:53:12 AM
You guys have my support...soon CRY will see 400k sats trading range... 
June 07, 2014, 05:45:28 AM
dumbass dumper.
June 07, 2014, 04:48:12 AM
what's up dev team, how things going? everybody's fine?
June 07, 2014, 03:59:37 AM
Nice buy walls on bittrex, without sell walls.
June 06, 2014, 11:43:42 PM
Thank you for the paper. At least you released something. I hope it works out. Keep the faith.
June 06, 2014, 10:02:28 PM
I'll be reading the whitepaper soon, but does anyone have any comments on how it compares to other approaches? A list of pros/cons/uncertainties would be helpful.
June 06, 2014, 09:32:53 PM
ETA on anon?
June 06, 2014, 09:02:38 PM
this would be a good coin,i will in
June 06, 2014, 07:03:28 PM
TY!
June 06, 2014, 07:02:40 PM
When is POS?
Staking since May 31st. Jump to: