It's not about innovation... it's about merchant/user adoption...
That'll never happen until the massive orphan issues are fixed. 
Topic: [DeM] Deutsche eMark - DEM - cryptocoin SHA256 POS/POW - page 31. (Read 237668 times)
It is very normal that gulden is bigger that emark. Gulden have really innovation. Cant find any innovation here.
It's not about innovation... it's about merchant/user adoption
but if you want innovation, guess you can innovate... or you can only complain?
It is very normal that gulden is bigger that emark. Gulden have really innovation. Cant find any innovation here.
As I sit and dig through the code, attempting to find the specific bugs related to the hundreds of orphan blocks per day, I find myself having to ask:
Quote
Exactly how many different coins was this code copy/pasted from, and were all of them copied before June of 2015?
Emark really only crypto worth real world money. And could really be backed with paper that is already familiar to the germans
Agreed man totally agree.
... lesser people would productively identify and document an issue - post it for everyone to see and discuss - so that the dev's could then address the issue (using clear and precise language as the dev ISN'T a native English speakers).
Clear and precise:- Blockchains should only be reorganized based on a longer valid fork.
- Blockchains should never be reorganized(reorg) based on timestamps.
- Reorgs that don't contain previously confirmed transactions allow for "double spends".
- Anyone that doesn't understand the 3 things above shouldn't be trusted with financial software.
Code:
== BEGIN PLAINTEXT MESSAGE ==
There shouldn't be hundreds of orphans per day based only on the timestamps of shorter chains.
== END PLAINTEXT MESSAGE ==
Signed with eMark address NMEVk78QgXr5pViqJyNgqDmmYAcqMYoGa6:
Hy97WAI43KvhXi4uXCJvBeVoLY/Vyu1jvudVnP537n19dFsUXyuotE9kNR0kEJvH/vv4Ga29NeKKCs2CajCrVv0=
There shouldn't be hundreds of orphans per day based only on the timestamps of shorter chains.
== END PLAINTEXT MESSAGE ==
Signed with eMark address NMEVk78QgXr5pViqJyNgqDmmYAcqMYoGa6:
Hy97WAI43KvhXi4uXCJvBeVoLY/Vyu1jvudVnP537n19dFsUXyuotE9kNR0kEJvH/vv4Ga29NeKKCs2CajCrVv0=
...you're suggesting - or rather insisting - that a double spend is a factor not only here (DEM) but on any blockchain generally? Based upon what?
I might have missed it, but didn't see any logs posted in the last few pages (since you guys started arguing) of this forum. What'cha got?
Since I'm far too lazy to explain it all (and post all of the logs), I'll let the Bitcoin wiki do the talking:Quote
Reorganize
A block chain reorganize (or reorg) happens when one chain becomes longer than the one you are currently working on*. All of the blocks in the old chain that are not in the new one become orphan blocks, and their generations are invalidated... The number of confirmations for transactions may change after a reorg, and transactions that are not in the new chain will become "0/unconfirmed" again. If a transaction in the old chain conflicts with one in the new chain (as a result of double-spending), the old one becomes invalid.
A block chain reorganize (or reorg) happens when one chain becomes longer than the one you are currently working on*. All of the blocks in the old chain that are not in the new one become orphan blocks, and their generations are invalidated... The number of confirmations for transactions may change after a reorg, and transactions that are not in the new chain will become "0/unconfirmed" again. If a transaction in the old chain conflicts with one in the new chain (as a result of double-spending), the old one becomes invalid.
*Or in the case of eMark, "when one chain has an earlier timestamp than the one you are currently working on"
You're clearly the only omnipotent genie in the crowd... lesser people would productively identify and document an issue - post it for everyone to see and discuss - so that the dev's could then address the issue (using clear and precise language as the dev ISN'T a native English speakers).
...you're suggesting - or rather insisting - that a double spend is a factor not only here (DEM) but on any blockchain generally? Based upon what?
I might have missed it, but didn't see any logs posted in the last few pages (since you guys started arguing) of this forum. What'cha got?
Since I'm far too lazy to explain it all (and post all of the logs), I'll let the Bitcoin wiki do the talking:Quote
Reorganize
A block chain reorganize (or reorg) happens when one chain becomes longer than the one you are currently working on*. All of the blocks in the old chain that are not in the new one become orphan blocks, and their generations are invalidated... The number of confirmations for transactions may change after a reorg, and transactions that are not in the new chain will become "0/unconfirmed" again. If a transaction in the old chain conflicts with one in the new chain (as a result of double-spending), the old one becomes invalid.
A block chain reorganize (or reorg) happens when one chain becomes longer than the one you are currently working on*. All of the blocks in the old chain that are not in the new one become orphan blocks, and their generations are invalidated... The number of confirmations for transactions may change after a reorg, and transactions that are not in the new chain will become "0/unconfirmed" again. If a transaction in the old chain conflicts with one in the new chain (as a result of double-spending), the old one becomes invalid.
*Or in the case of eMark, "when one chain has an earlier timestamp than the one you are currently working on"
Nice project!
Bring back our Deutsche Mark!
Bring back our Deutsche Mark!
...you're suggesting - or rather insisting - that a double spend is a factor not only here (DEM) but on any blockchain generally? Based upon what?
- I can read and follow a debug output.
I might have missed it, but didn't see any logs posted in the last few pages (since you guys started arguing) of this forum. What'cha got?
...you're suggesting - or rather insisting - that a double spend is a factor not only here (DEM) but on any blockchain generally? Based upon what?
Based upon:- In certain cases, portions of the blockchain are removed and replaced with a "older" and shorter chain.
- The shorter chain doesn't contain spends verified in the longer chain.
- Some transactions on eMark are in multiple orphaned blocks - thus becoming "unconfirmed" multiple times.
- Coins can be "respent" in the new chain with a different transaction (if the 2nd transaction is in the new chain before the 1st transaction).
- It's been done.
- The basic concept of how a double spend works on eMark is also how "Replace-By-Fee" works in Bitcoin (except Bitcoin doesn't orphan 6 blocks at a time and in Bitcoin the "stuck" transaction just hasn't ever been confirmed, rather than orphaned multiply).
- The greater the number of orphaned blocks at a single time is the greater the likelihood is that a double spend can occur.
- Some transactions on eMark are in multiple orphaned blocks multiple times (I've seen specific transactions be orphaned 9 times before the chain actually moved forward the supposedly safe "10 blocks".
- I can read and follow a debug output.
...No, double spende with entry in blockchain is not possible...
That delusional belief is why eMark will never be anything more than just another pump/dump shitcoin that goes nowhere. But, hey, I'm happy to have another coin permanently on my dumpcoin list. 
If you ever want to make this a viable coin, just know there are people waiting in the wings willing to help dispel your delusions.
Entertaining read but I'm a little confused....or maybe just not reading through the b*tt hurt..., you're suggesting - or rather insisting - that a double spend is a factor not only here (DEM) but on any blockchain generally? Based upon what?
...No, double spende with entry in blockchain is not possible...
That delusional belief is why eMark will never be anything more than just another pump/dump shitcoin that goes nowhere. But, hey, I'm happy to have another coin permanently on my dumpcoin list. If you ever want to make this a viable coin, just know there are people waiting in the wings willing to help dispel your delusions.
Yes, i read this thread every day
@glen, computergenie
Please stop this horrible discusion.
Yes, we have many ophans. But other coins to. Please google blackcoin or peercoin or Novacoin and many ophans.
No, double spende with entry in blockchain is not possible. If some providers think, 6 confirmations is enough, thats not our problem.
I work on V1.4.2 with some features to show txComment in the frontend.
I made my thoughts about the ophan blocks, were the come from. If i have a sollten, i will implement it.
@glen, computergenie
Please stop this horrible discusion.
Yes, we have many ophans. But other coins to. Please google blackcoin or peercoin or Novacoin and many ophans.
No, double spende with entry in blockchain is not possible. If some providers think, 6 confirmations is enough, thats not our problem.
I work on V1.4.2 with some features to show txComment in the frontend.
I made my thoughts about the ophan blocks, were the come from. If i have a sollten, i will implement it.
"44 years, from USA and named ComputerGenie" This is story of your live. Bravo !
*life 
"44 years, from USA and named ComputerGenie" This is story of your life. Bravo !
...And we are waiting that "C...Genie" makes his own ShitCoin ... for sure it will be the best Coin ever made....
Why would I make a new one, when there are so many, like eMark, that are already shit? 
now is good price to buy DEM !
And we are waiting that "C...Genie" makes his own ShitCoin ... for sure it will be the best Coin ever made....
And we are waiting that "C...Genie" makes his own ShitCoin ... for sure it will be the best Coin ever made....
Jump to: