Topic: [ANN][RIC] Riecoin: constellations POW *CPU* HARD FORK successful, world record - page 127. (Read 685207 times)

btc38 and Poloniex

Time to buy some RIC! Which exchange has the highest volume ?

need a new Miner, then can still live 

so how to difine the death？

Do you believe Riecoin is death? 

As a strategy to increase his profile it isn't that bad of a strategy and might be working.  I recall him being quoted in regards to one of the recent wallet/exchange failures.

--
bsunau7

i wrote this article on why i think its crap


https://cryptocointalk.com/topic/14773-how-to-avoid-scam-coins-and-why-proof-of-developer-is-not-the-answer/



also he was not the first he 'stole' the idea from someone else who actually contacted me on the forum here
in private


i know a little more about mr crypto asian than he /most think i do .....


actually info i found out by accident,


since i respect others privacy even those i have distaste for i will keep it private


it is public knowledge that (not I )) but several have stated they got a higher pod rating for a bribe


you can find these in the scam section of this forum and elsewhere on the web


he is probably fronting for a corporation or working as an informant to the fbi or other government agencie(S)  

there are in reality a few number of people who have the skills necessary to start and maintain a coin network and who understand how it actually works,   such a database would be a valuable item to certain parties,  


especially if they just gave up their information just for the asking (like people give up info to Zuckenberg every day )

lots of people he has rated 5 0f 5 are actually not even real people from my research (again I will not publish this info since I don't want
those involved to know how I am collecting the info)

they are a few people , maybe one or two pretending to be several /multiple people .....


thus the reason (plus others i won't divulge here ) I have such a distaste for this individual and the people he 'works' with


https://twitter.com/CryptoAsian/status/505934099929104384

thier work has accomplished zero , nothing,  
 

I kind of agree: it shouldn't be necessary, however I thought it was something that could only be positive towards respect and credibility, or null if you don't believe it, but I never thought it could work against it... I went to cryptoasian because I think he was the first one that did the verification thing.

that is bullshit too , crypto asian proof of developer ,

code speaks for itself, when it is put on github all changes are there for anyone to evaluate anytime

people who don't understand code should not ever be evaluating it, also giving your real name is not necessary to be respected in the world of cryptocurrency

anyone who gives crypto asian any credability is making a mistake, imo

honestly if i did not like riecoin so much that fact that crypto asian is involved even at a distance makes me not want to be around.

the old wallet worked fine, so does the new one. this is crap

New wallet is as bad as, or as good as, the previous one because nothing changed except the superblock code, which is not being executed and won't be until next week.

If you have crashes, please run using the -debug option and send me the debug.log file after the crash and I'll try to fix it (you may want to anonymize it before sending).

I'm surprised by this. This was in discussion in this thread for a long time and I went ahead because I didn't see any opposition. Some doubts, which are natural, but never strong opposition and a lot of support for the fork.

BTW, that patch you submitted in February is not needed if you compile with gitian, maybe you needed it because you were using the wrong version of boost.

Also, thanks to a little mistake I made, we actually have one more week before the actual fork takes place. This gives everyone more time to update, rendering the "sudden move without notice" point obsolete.

Those of you who want to stay on the old fork would like to keep in mind that most (>99%) of the miners already are on 0.10.2, meaning that you'll be left with a high difficulty.
Now that I think of it, there may be some interest on people who hold RIC to keep the old fork alive and have it accepted on an exchange: they would be allowed to dump their coins from the old fork without affecting their holdings on the new fork.

You have my blessing (if it means anything to anyone), but I won't be supporting both forks (by this I mean fixing bugs and generating new binaries); only the fork that the majority already accepted. Applying new commits from one fork to the other should be very easy though.

Thanks for your support, but my real name is actually Pablo Carbajo, Gatra is a nickname, and I have submitted to Crypto Asian's POD last week. Will publish this soon.

Of course, you should trust the code and not my post. I first thought about doing it near block 160000 and then decided to do it near 156000, but forgot to update the code.

Sorry about this, the fork will be after block 159000. The first block that will actually break the old protocol will be 160704 (this is the first one that satisfies that it's >159000 and also the isInSuperblockInterval condition) and the superblock will be 160848 (the first one >159000 that also isSuperblock).

So, we have one more week.
Only the post where I wrote the block number is wrong. Wallets are compiled using gitian, which ensures that the source in git is the one that gets compiled, so we can be sure that all 0.10.2 binaries are ok.

The original creator goes by a real-life name of Pablo Gatra. And he has decided to move on with general consensus that the improved Riecoin v0.10.2 is for its own best future interest. While you'll be measured by what is done and the consequence of yours own only.

Please don't distance yourself in the fragments of Riecoin past.

i have to admit i never considered not updating ,

i did not expect others stay mining on the original blockchain,

this is such a dam hard coin to mine anyway you would need a lot of cpu power to keep it going

i realize some people may have some advanced miners of which the source is not released, still .... wow

I'm here from the beginning as you may see. And hardforking is a bad practice.

I stay in the original network. Decide for yourself or someone will decide for you.

In the source code it says the fork is after block 159000. See isAfterFork1().
In a previous post Gatra stated that the first block in the new fork is 156672 which doesn't match with the source. Am I overlooking something?

This is very sad when you should be excited about the superblocks for k-tuple prime world records breaking. If you had followed the Riecoin development from the beginning then you should know moving forward by the hardfork is good. And it's a must from certain research prosepctives. I don't think it's in Gatra's intention to abandon your so-called 30% stackholders.

You and the other 30% have absolutely nothing to lose but everything to gain from v0.10.2.

Hmmm? Protocol did not change with superblocks.
You only have to update your wallet.

Also according to the sample seen by the explorer (cf. https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ric/#!network), if more than 70% of the network is on the new version, of those that are not migrated, more than half are on 0.8.7, which should not be used as they do not include the security updates of the latter versions.