This is not correct source , This is OLD source based on Bitcoin , Why you lie to people and publish bad code, Wallet on windows is new Bitcoin based source, Please upload correct source, or This is coin a SCAM Hi!
Wow. You're right! I uploaded the wrong version of the source code from 2018 with the wrong hashing algo and even to the wrong github repository address. How embarrassing. Sorry.
Thank you for pointing it out. Again, I really apologize. What a boneheaded move.
I guess now is as good a time as any to reiterate that if anyone finds something that doesn't quite make sense or is functioning improperly, we are happy to compensate them with an XBR bounty so long as they provide their identity and contact information so we can do an AML/KYC check.
I'm happy to send you some XBR as a bounty for seeing this and bringing it to my attention SCAM-detector-X.
Please send your:
- Name
- Contact Information
- bitcoinR wallet address
The error has been corrected and you can now find the correct source code at
https://github.com/fancywarlock/bitcoinRThanks again for taking the time to send a note, and to keep users here on BitcoinTalk safe!
NS
most of your team members don't include XBR project on their portfolio. can you ask them to include this project if they are indeed part of this project? also, why not create a new name for your coin? why use bitcoin in your name, just to attract users because it has bitcoin in it? most projects that are still attaching bitcoin on their name has no confidence that they will make it without it.
also please address below post :
This is not correct source , This is OLD source based on Bitcoin , Why you lie to people and publish bad code, Wallet on windows is new Bitcoin based source, Please upload correct source, or This is coin a SCAM Hi AmoreJaz,
Thanks for the note. I'll respond to each of your points below:
1. The github repository link (
https://github.com/fancywarlock/XBR) has been replaced with
https://github.com/fancywarlock/bitcoinR.
I did make a mistake and published the wrong code to the wrong repository address. I thanked the user via PM and publicly and will happily send a bounty his/her way (if they choose to disclose their identity for AML/KYC) for pointing out my error. It was not a good first look on my part- apologies again to the board.
2. I need to understand your comment about the team members' "portfolios" a bit better please. I am not sure to what exactly you are referring, but I can assure you that they are all very much a part of the bitcoinR project, and all of whom have signed contracts that indicate that we can publicly associate them via our website and other media. Please clarify what you are looking for here and I'll see if I can make it happen.
3. In the early days, our project was
not called bitcoinR; and very much to your point, I wrestled with the idea of calling it any name that derived from "Bitcoin"; however, even a cursory examination of our source code will indicate that we haven't changed a great deal from the original Bitcoin code. Technically, Bitcoin Core and bitcoinR are quite similar with the exception of crypto-economic parameters such as Block Halving, Target Spacing, Target Timed Difficulty Adjustment, Block Halving, # of Transaction confirmations, etc. If you are scientifically inclined, you'll know that you want to change as few variables as possible when conducting an experiment. We even left the money supply the same at 21,000,000; but sped up the block time for two reasons: First to accelerate the timeline of the experiment and the Second, to give regular people a shot at mining XBR while they were quarantined due to COVID-19. So, it really seemed LESS transparent to name our project / experiment something other than bitcoin"X"
since the technology is admittedly derivative. As for the balance of the name, we added the "R" to ensure that we delineated our project and brand from the original, and to (hopefully) indicate our charge which is to operate a Bitcoin-fork in a manner that is consistent with the way a central bank / reserve bank would operate from a quantitative easing/tightening perspective. I could go on, but respectfully, all of this is explained in the whitepaper.
-----
So, in summary: we are trying our very best to make something that will be adopted within the market, but we aren't shilling it or promising units of XBR will be worth anything at all. We are making a level attempt to ensure that we follow all AML/KYC rules in the process. We aren't going to get everything right in the beginning, and maybe we won't get them right at all; but we will be honest and transparent in the process, and hopefully we will have made something that rewards the active participation of others.
Lastly, please understand that not all innovations are of the technical variety, there are economic and procedural innovations as well. The real social experiment of bitcoinR is technical de-centralization paired with an economic centralization that requires a trusted party to stabilize unit value. This is a combination requiring human intervention because we are unaware of a coding algorithm to assimilate, process and assign real world value of items / effort.
So, in this way, the bitcoinR project is a very, very different experiment than was Satoshi's Bitcoin (even while it is technically derivative). In the end, we are not sure that XBR will ever have any value at all and plainly state this on our official website, in the whitepaper and here in the ANN thread. It's for this reason (and others) that we have chosen to release bitcoinR to the mining community instead of continuing our attempt to understand whether or not XBR would be classified as a security if it were sold.
Thanks again for the questions.
NS
Pool
?
Hey Olkah,
Sorry if I didn't make that clear, and further apologies because I might be repeating myself here but the root problem with making the mining pool software available at this point is that it we feel would unfairly concentrate XBR in the hands of very few mining operators.
The good news is that if you have a powerful CPU or a decent GPU, you can mine full blocks yourself.As of right now, the aggregate hashpower is only 198,389.857 Network (KH/s) and the difficulty is <500.
If one were to unearth some "obsolete" BTC GPU or ASICs, that might work surprisingly well; however, we'd prefer that the ASICS weren't deployed for another 30-45 days or so.
NS
Well, yeah. But for now the hashpower is 5.5 billion (5,496,695,624.208 Network (KH/s) and the difficulty is more than 50 million...
So i think the solo mining with CPU already is out of question....
Hey Kalyn,
You are absolutely right. No one here on the team can believe the jump in hashpower and difficulty today.
The hashpower has gone from 198,389 Network (KH/s) to 24,365,170,193 Network (KH/s) in a matter of hours. This is unexpected and unprecedented; certainly not what we were hoping for. We wanted a gradual transition from CPU to GPU and from GPU to ASIC in order to ensure regular people had an opportunity to accumulate XBR. Difficulty is now 159,779,998; the thought of which first delighted us, but then we realized that it is not likely possible to mine a block without a rig.
Tomorrow I'll reach out to a few GPU miners that were having success last week to see when the last time they were able to mine a block.
Its completely different idea from bitcoin or other alt coin.So if govt. regulate it then they can impose anything as they want.won't they take tax ?
Hey Sherriffin-
Thanks. We were looking for an Altcoin like this, we couldn't find one so we built bitcoinR as an experiment.
Governments can and do tax crypto. The bitcoinR network is very transparent and theoretically its movements are easily tracked. We will never sell XBR except through an AML/KYC licensed exchange and encourage our users to do the same. Thus, a government should have the ability to easily discern who buys and sells XBR and can tax them appropriately if they choose to do so.
If users are concerned about this, they should not attempt to trade XBR (or BTC or XRP).
[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]