it seems multipool start dump their mined coin now.
their last chance to dump now.
Topic: [ANN][SUPERCOIN]First P2p Decentralized Trustless Anonymous Wallet Coming Soon - page 351. (Read 473524 times)
June 20, 2014, 04:32:05 AM
June 20, 2014, 04:26:55 AM
Supercoin Version 1.2 is a mandatory upgrade,
Do not lose any SUPER coin! Upgrade now.
Download V.1.2: http://www.super-coin.net/SuperCoin12.zip
Download2 V.1.2: https://mega.co.nz/#!EoJAURQZ!Mn-vb1gXBNbdAQzYsqUKIcjq8PXGRsRu15_-L0riQFo
Mac download 1.2: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ifkn9y2rnfeppep/SuperCoin-Qt-MacOSX-v1.2.zip
updated source: https://github.com/supercoinproject/supercoin
June 20, 2014, 04:19:45 AM
So will the first halve today? I was thinking was yesterday, maybe am I wrong? Anyway, that's good
Yes, It's about to happen. (Last 23 PoW blocks before halve) Because multipools sudden increase and drop in supernetwork, block finding was not so effective (miners can't connect the network). For this reason it was little late. June 20, 2014, 04:16:53 AM
So will the first halve today? I was thinking was yesterday, maybe am I wrong? Anyway, that's good
June 20, 2014, 04:13:57 AM
Super was most mined crypto recent hour at wafflepool, i hope this is ending today after the first halve.
June 20, 2014, 04:01:26 AM
Hi to all! If cloackcoin is there, it means that we can do better and better and better. I put my ass on this coin, no doubt! good job dev, keep working in this way!!
Thank you. We aim to be securest and fastest. 
June 20, 2014, 03:53:02 AM
Hi to all! If cloackcoin is there, it means that we can do better and better and better. I put my ass on this coin, no doubt! good job dev, keep working in this way!!
June 20, 2014, 03:50:57 AM
soon for block halve now
>> nHeight = 83100, nPoWHeight = 19161
Last 39 blocks, then we will halve.
June 20, 2014, 03:49:14 AM
Now you can trade SUPER at Coins-E :
https://www.coins-e.com/exchange/SUPER_BTC/?ref=6425523773243392
Site returns 403 to me https://www.coins-e.com/exchange/SUPER_BTC/?ref=6425523773243392
June 20, 2014, 03:14:36 AM
Now you can trade SUPER at Coins-E :
https://www.coins-e.com/exchange/SUPER_BTC/?ref=6425523773243392
https://www.coins-e.com/exchange/SUPER_BTC/?ref=6425523773243392
June 20, 2014, 03:06:27 AM
soon for block halve now
June 20, 2014, 02:52:46 AM
Some Feedback:
1) Why bother with Phase 1? I think what people want is fully decentralized, trustless anonymous coin. The first coin to do it will be very popular. Implementing phase 1 seems to me like it may simply divert a lot of time and energy from achieving phase 2. Not just in terms of initial development but also building out the infrastructure, bug fixes, documentation and support, etc, etc. So if phase 2 is achievable, why not just announce that is the roadmap/goal/plan and go for it? Requiring a trusted third party (phase 1) just does not interest me and probably many others.
2) The document does not seem detailed enough for any third party security researcher to fully grasp the workings and audit the logic. I don't believe any coin will reach full value/potential until that hurdle is cleared.
3) It is unclear if mixing will be a) the only possible way to send, b) the default way to send, c) opt-in way to send. My recommendation for an anonymous coin would be (a). If it is known that everyone is mixing, then mixed transactions do not stand out or look suspicious. There is much more noise, and correspondingly less signal to follow than in an opt-in scenario. (a) would also mean the highest level of fungibility, which is generally considered a useful property of a currency.
4) I did not see defined how a node (phase 2) would know which of its peers can be used for mixing.
1) Why bother with Phase 1? I think what people want is fully decentralized, trustless anonymous coin. The first coin to do it will be very popular. Implementing phase 1 seems to me like it may simply divert a lot of time and energy from achieving phase 2. Not just in terms of initial development but also building out the infrastructure, bug fixes, documentation and support, etc, etc. So if phase 2 is achievable, why not just announce that is the roadmap/goal/plan and go for it? Requiring a trusted third party (phase 1) just does not interest me and probably many others.
2) The document does not seem detailed enough for any third party security researcher to fully grasp the workings and audit the logic. I don't believe any coin will reach full value/potential until that hurdle is cleared.
3) It is unclear if mixing will be a) the only possible way to send, b) the default way to send, c) opt-in way to send. My recommendation for an anonymous coin would be (a). If it is known that everyone is mixing, then mixed transactions do not stand out or look suspicious. There is much more noise, and correspondingly less signal to follow than in an opt-in scenario. (a) would also mean the highest level of fungibility, which is generally considered a useful property of a currency.
4) I did not see defined how a node (phase 2) would know which of its peers can be used for mixing.
If you read dev's previous posts, all the answers are there. For example:
Quote
3) It is unclear if mixing will be a) the only possible way to send, b) the default way to send, c) opt-in way to send.
if you look at the client (anon version), or dev's posts, there is a checkbox for anonymous send in the "send" tab, where you check if you want to send anonymous. If you don't check, it will be normal send. Very simple.
June 20, 2014, 02:46:03 AM
Some Feedback:
1) Why bother with Phase 1? I think what people want is fully decentralized, trustless anonymous coin. The first coin to do it will be very popular. Implementing phase 1 seems to me like it may simply divert a lot of time and energy from achieving phase 2. Not just in terms of initial development but also building out the infrastructure, bug fixes, documentation and support, etc, etc. So if phase 2 is achievable, why not just announce that is the roadmap/goal/plan and go for it? Requiring a trusted third party (phase 1) just does not interest me and probably many others.
2) The document does not seem detailed enough for any third party security researcher to fully grasp the workings and audit the logic. I don't believe any coin will reach full value/potential until that hurdle is cleared.
3) It is unclear if mixing will be a) the only possible way to send, b) the default way to send, c) opt-in way to send. My recommendation for an anonymous coin would be (a). If it is known that everyone is mixing, then mixed transactions do not stand out or look suspicious. There is much more noise, and correspondingly less signal to follow than in an opt-in scenario. (a) would also mean the highest level of fungibility, which is generally considered a useful property of a currency.
4) I did not see defined how a node (phase 2) would know which of its peers can be used for mixing.
Thanks for the feedback. At the next version of the document will include answers for these. 1) Why bother with Phase 1? I think what people want is fully decentralized, trustless anonymous coin. The first coin to do it will be very popular. Implementing phase 1 seems to me like it may simply divert a lot of time and energy from achieving phase 2. Not just in terms of initial development but also building out the infrastructure, bug fixes, documentation and support, etc, etc. So if phase 2 is achievable, why not just announce that is the roadmap/goal/plan and go for it? Requiring a trusted third party (phase 1) just does not interest me and probably many others.
2) The document does not seem detailed enough for any third party security researcher to fully grasp the workings and audit the logic. I don't believe any coin will reach full value/potential until that hurdle is cleared.
3) It is unclear if mixing will be a) the only possible way to send, b) the default way to send, c) opt-in way to send. My recommendation for an anonymous coin would be (a). If it is known that everyone is mixing, then mixed transactions do not stand out or look suspicious. There is much more noise, and correspondingly less signal to follow than in an opt-in scenario. (a) would also mean the highest level of fungibility, which is generally considered a useful property of a currency.
4) I did not see defined how a node (phase 2) would know which of its peers can be used for mixing.
June 20, 2014, 02:39:13 AM
Some Feedback:
1) Why bother with Phase 1? I think what people want is fully decentralized, trustless anonymous coin. The first coin to do it will be very popular. Implementing phase 1 seems to me like it may simply divert a lot of time and energy from achieving phase 2. Not just in terms of initial development but also building out the infrastructure, bug fixes, documentation and support, etc, etc. So if phase 2 is achievable, why not just announce that is the roadmap/goal/plan and go for it? Requiring a trusted third party (phase 1) just does not interest me and probably many others.
2) The document does not seem detailed enough for any third party security researcher to fully grasp the workings and audit the logic. I don't believe any coin will reach full value/potential until that hurdle is cleared.
3) It is unclear if mixing will be a) the only possible way to send, b) the default way to send, c) opt-in way to send. My recommendation for an anonymous coin would be (a). If it is known that everyone is mixing, then mixed transactions do not stand out or look suspicious. There is much more noise, and correspondingly less signal to follow than in an opt-in scenario. (a) would also mean the highest level of fungibility, which is generally considered a useful property of a currency.
4) I did not see defined how a node (phase 2) would know which of its peers can be used for mixing.
1) Why bother with Phase 1? I think what people want is fully decentralized, trustless anonymous coin. The first coin to do it will be very popular. Implementing phase 1 seems to me like it may simply divert a lot of time and energy from achieving phase 2. Not just in terms of initial development but also building out the infrastructure, bug fixes, documentation and support, etc, etc. So if phase 2 is achievable, why not just announce that is the roadmap/goal/plan and go for it? Requiring a trusted third party (phase 1) just does not interest me and probably many others.
2) The document does not seem detailed enough for any third party security researcher to fully grasp the workings and audit the logic. I don't believe any coin will reach full value/potential until that hurdle is cleared.
3) It is unclear if mixing will be a) the only possible way to send, b) the default way to send, c) opt-in way to send. My recommendation for an anonymous coin would be (a). If it is known that everyone is mixing, then mixed transactions do not stand out or look suspicious. There is much more noise, and correspondingly less signal to follow than in an opt-in scenario. (a) would also mean the highest level of fungibility, which is generally considered a useful property of a currency.
4) I did not see defined how a node (phase 2) would know which of its peers can be used for mixing.
June 20, 2014, 02:28:40 AM
SUPER to da MOON!
June 20, 2014, 02:18:10 AM
Feedback welcome: http://www.super-coin.net/SuperCoin-Anon-Whitepaper-FAQ.pdf
We will develop it soon with more content.
We will develop it soon with more content.
Looks nice. If the diagrams we can make better will be great.
June 20, 2014, 02:15:03 AM
Feedback welcome: http://www.super-coin.net/SuperCoin-Anon-Whitepaper-FAQ.pdf
We will develop it soon with more content.
We will develop it soon with more content.
Looks nice. If the diagrams we can make better will be great.
June 20, 2014, 02:05:32 AM
Feedback welcome: http://www.super-coin.net/SuperCoin-Anon-Whitepaper-FAQ.pdf
We will develop it soon with more content.
We will develop it soon with more content.
June 20, 2014, 01:45:43 AM
looks good at this time, price is creeping up...
June 20, 2014, 01:44:04 AM
I expect this one to take of like VOOT did... looks very promising.
This is going to be the next hit!
We are going to be rich!
Jump to: