I have 1 invite available for someone who wants to join the network.
PM me if you are interested.
Stay safe!
PM me if you are interested.
Stay safe!
Is this invite for free?
Topic: Idena is the first Proof-of-Person Blockchain - page 76. (Read 44019 times)
Is this invite for free?
I have 1 invite available for someone who wants to join the network.
PM me if you are interested.
Stay safe!
PM me if you are interested.
Stay safe!
It would be nice to see Idena listed on Binance exchange...
Community Coin Vote, better sooner than later
https://twitter.com/binance/status/1255356801790468097
Community Coin Vote, better sooner than later
https://twitter.com/binance/status/1255356801790468097
Of course every project dreams to get listed on Binance since is the holy grail of exchanges and it will make some hype, no doubt but still, Idena is in it's infancy we can at least try to get it on a couple of top 50 exchanges before giving a shot for Binance or at lest on 2 exchanges so we can get it on CMC.
Anyway I'll cast my vote (reply to the post). Respect!
It would be nice to see Idena listed on Binance exchange...
Community Coin Vote, better sooner than later
https://twitter.com/binance/status/1255356801790468097
Community Coin Vote, better sooner than later
https://twitter.com/binance/status/1255356801790468097
Qtrade.io is a good exchange, they list many good projects. I used them for my DNA coins.
https://qtrade.io/market/DNA_BTC
there is no other new exchange yet, only Qtrade is the most actively used by many IDENA traders
Thanks for your response, i have other questions, If most of them are miners who are buying Idena coins and what for? Has the idena coin been applied in the real case?
If we can do a bounty campaign that will be good for the community, but the big problem will always people who will have to learn how to do flips and how to pass those flips takes me two try and some of my friends also to get in, I notice that rewards have dropped I wonder what would be the scenario if we have tens of thousand people mining.
Qbtc is a ghost town full of ghost trades aka fake volume. Almost everyone trade/invest DNA on Qtrade.
Jest take those 2 numbers:
1- QBTC wallet - 360k DNA (32 000$) and 240 000$ volume (i guess that's their wallet - https://scan.idena.io/address?address=0x1f96445BE4D941934277CCe0C02D9EA8c9cc02f5) ? Its like every coin that is there change hands 8 times per day...
2 - Qtrade wallet - 2 mln DNA (180 000$) and 2000$ volume. Its like daily volume equal 1% of exchange supply, not 800%.
yeah i mean i feel it too like there's bunch of bot there
i worried about that ~
Since I am human I managed to solve the Short session flips, but the flips are really bad.
You are too subjective, if you thin only 1% of the flips are bad, and the rest 99% are good flips then no comment.
Maybe is there a way to find how many flips are reported and you'll change your opinion. Or not..
I have seen a lot of mining projects with a computer but most of them are shit tokens and it is not worth anything. So Idena is different from the rest of the shit tokens? We should discuss it here so that everyone knows the strengths of the project and jointly develops it. I also want to be one of the people who discovered the first gem in the crypto market. Many thanks for the reply on my post.
There is Qbtc and Qtrade 
Qbtc is a ghost town full of ghost trades aka fake volume. Almost everyone trade/invest DNA on Qtrade.
Jest take those 2 numbers:
1- QBTC wallet - 360k DNA (32 000$) and 240 000$ volume (i guess that's their wallet - https://scan.idena.io/address?address=0x1f96445BE4D941934277CCe0C02D9EA8c9cc02f5) ? Its like every coin that is there change hands 8 times per day...
2 - Qtrade wallet - 2 mln DNA (180 000$) and 2000$ volume. Its like daily volume equal 1% of exchange supply, not 800%.
Not bad, the monthly VPS rental price is still cheap, not bad for passive income, especially if you run more than 1 node. By the way, which Exchanges Idena are already listed?
There is Qbtc and Qtrade
find here https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/idena
OK, so you are saying that only 1.5% are bad flips, I doubt that. Half of them are shit flips, I report more than half in the long session, flips with no relation to the words, flips with words or numbers on the images, even in chinese/japanese or korean, flips with the same image start to end.
Maybe my "super-verifiers" idea was not a good one, at least for you, but we need to try something about.
P.S. I don't care about network growth and decentralization if this is done by bots and/or idiots (the one who makes bad flips).
Maybe my "super-verifiers" idea was not a good one, at least for you, but we need to try something about.
P.S. I don't care about network growth and decentralization if this is done by bots and/or idiots (the one who makes bad flips).
I've calculated it based on 280+ flips that i had during last 13 epoch (long + short)
Out of 288 flips (long and short) I was only 3.5 p. short from max. How much of this was my fault? Maybe 0 maybe 1,2,3. Based on that i assume that ~1% of flips are flips that was bad and passed.
Last 8 validation i could go to telegram and post "ohh my flips was so great. I get 100%" - but people do not do that. Human nature is crying if something goes wrong.
Last 8 validation i could go to telegram and post "ohh my flips was so great. I get 100%" - but people do not do that. Human nature is crying if something goes wrong.
Please don't be offended but if you don't understand half of flips maybe you are shitty in solving flips not flips are shitty?
You know why "super verifier" is bad idea despite all aspect that I've already discussed? Because people will complain that they get shitty flips during pre-validation session and didn't earn 100 % that was possible or lost "super verifier" status. With ~50 "super verifiers" all of them will have to solve 120 flips and flips will have consensus made out of 1 vote! Few shitty or bored "super verifiers" and network might have syrious problem.
https://qtrade.io/market/DNA_BTC
there is no other new exchange yet, only Qtrade is the most actively used by many IDENA traders
Thanks for your response, i have other questions, If most of them are miners who are buying Idena coins and what for? Has the idena coin been applied in the real case?
https://qtrade.io/market/DNA_BTC
there is no other new exchange yet, only Qtrade is the most actively used by many IDENA traders
Thanks for your response, i have other questions, If most of them are miners who are buying Idena coins and what for? Has the idena coin been applied in the real case?
Regarding the bad flips:
Maybe the team can implement a pre-validation flip verification, so the bad flips don't land on the Short session. The long validation can remain the same.
For example some humans apply to become super-verifiers which will verify part of the submitted flips and tag them "good" or "bad" from the already submitted flips (let's say 48h before validation starts) and make a pool from wich the flips will be chosen for the Short session.
Of course the super-verifiers will be rewarded extra for their effort, like master-nodes, if you wish.
Maybe the team can implement a pre-validation flip verification, so the bad flips don't land on the Short session. The long validation can remain the same.
For example some humans apply to become super-verifiers which will verify part of the submitted flips and tag them "good" or "bad" from the already submitted flips (let's say 48h before validation starts) and make a pool from wich the flips will be chosen for the Short session.
Of course the super-verifiers will be rewarded extra for their effort, like master-nodes, if you wish.
Let's kill decentralization to boost good flips ratio from 98.5% top 99%. Is that what you are saying? How many "super-verifiers" you need to try 5700 flips that are created each epoch? How much will you want network to pay to "super-verifiers" for solving 120 flips (considering 50 super-verifiers). You know that it will be deducted from total pool that is designated for all nodes? So most likely you will earn less with 95% score (with bad flips in network) than with 97% score (without bad flips in network). Will it increase network stability? No, it will decrease network safety, because each super-verifiers will know ~120 flips that will be part of short session. Will it decrease decentralization? Yes. Does it have any advantage for network other than less people that are complaining about having bad luck (probability ~1:50)? No.
OK, so you are saying that only 1.5% are bad flips, I doubt that. Half of them are shit flips, I report more than half in the long session, flips with no relation to the words, flips with words or numbers on the images, even in chinese/japanese or korean, flips with the same image start to end.
Maybe my "super-verifiers" idea was not a good one, at least for you, but we need to try something about.
P.S. I don't care about network growth and decentralization if this is done by bots and/or idiots (the one who makes bad flips).
This is a good idea, especially for those who do not have the necessary equipment for mining, or that electricity is expensive. I think this type of mining is called cloud mining, but frankly, I do not know how to verify the reliability of these sites and not be subjected to penetration.
I do agree that decentralization will be lost doing this.
Because 2-3 members complain that they got bad flips we don't have to change the protocol.
The idea of othell wasn't that bad (to fix the bad flips from SS), but is hard to implement and the protocol will have less decentralization.
You're not going to think about it until you become the next victim, you better scroll on the telegram channels early posts and see the many complaints about bad flips and the bad flips school was set up because of those bad flips, it's not really 2 or 3 members, I don't know the actual number, this is a new algo, everyone has their idea how to improve it,
If It's possible that we have a pre-validation about those flips a day before the actual validation what I mean is all those who will validate tomorrow will vote for those flips that should be included in the actual validation the next day, I don't know if this is possible if it's not possible I'm ok with it.
Regarding the bad flips:
Maybe the team can implement a pre-validation flip verification, so the bad flips don't land on the Short session. The long validation can remain the same.
For example some humans apply to become super-verifiers which will verify part of the submitted flips and tag them "good" or "bad" from the already submitted flips (let's say 48h before validation starts) and make a pool from wich the flips will be chosen for the Short session.
Of course the super-verifiers will be rewarded extra for their effort, like master-nodes, if you wish.
Maybe the team can implement a pre-validation flip verification, so the bad flips don't land on the Short session. The long validation can remain the same.
For example some humans apply to become super-verifiers which will verify part of the submitted flips and tag them "good" or "bad" from the already submitted flips (let's say 48h before validation starts) and make a pool from wich the flips will be chosen for the Short session.
Of course the super-verifiers will be rewarded extra for their effort, like master-nodes, if you wish.
Let's kill decentralization to boost good flips ratio from 98.5% top 99%. Is that what you are saying? How many "super-verifiers" you need to try 5700 flips that are created each epoch? How much will you want network to pay to "super-verifiers" for solving 120 flips (considering 50 super-verifiers). You know that it will be deducted from total pool that is designated for all nodes? So most likely you will earn less with 95% score (with bad flips in network) than with 97% score (without bad flips in network). Will it increase network stability? No, it will decrease network safety, because each super-verifiers will know ~120 flips that will be part of short session. Will it decrease decentralization? Yes. Does it have any advantage for network other than less people that are complaining about having bad luck (probability ~1:50)? No.
I do agree that decentralization will be lost doing this.
Because 2-3 members complain that they got bad flips we don't have to change the protocol.
The idea of othell wasn't that bad (to fix the bad flips from SS), but is hard to implement and the protocol will have less decentralization.
Regarding the bad flips:
Maybe the team can implement a pre-validation flip verification, so the bad flips don't land on the Short session. The long validation can remain the same.
For example some humans apply to become super-verifiers which will verify part of the submitted flips and tag them "good" or "bad" from the already submitted flips (let's say 48h before validation starts) and make a pool from wich the flips will be chosen for the Short session.
Of course the super-verifiers will be rewarded extra for their effort, like master-nodes, if you wish.
Maybe the team can implement a pre-validation flip verification, so the bad flips don't land on the Short session. The long validation can remain the same.
For example some humans apply to become super-verifiers which will verify part of the submitted flips and tag them "good" or "bad" from the already submitted flips (let's say 48h before validation starts) and make a pool from wich the flips will be chosen for the Short session.
Of course the super-verifiers will be rewarded extra for their effort, like master-nodes, if you wish.
Let's kill decentralization to boost good flips ratio from 98.5% top 99%. Is that what you are saying? How many "super-verifiers" you need to try 5700 flips that are created each epoch? How much will you want network to pay to "super-verifiers" for solving 120 flips (considering 50 super-verifiers). You know that it will be deducted from total pool that is designated for all nodes? So most likely you will earn less with 95% score (with bad flips in network) than with 97% score (without bad flips in network). Will it increase network stability? No, it will decrease network safety, because each super-verifiers will know ~120 flips that will be part of short session. Will it decrease decentralization? Yes. Does it have any advantage for network other than less people that are complaining about having bad luck (probability ~1:50)? No.
Regarding the bad flips:
Maybe the team can implement a pre-validation flip verification, so the bad flips don't land on the Short session. The long validation can remain the same.
For example some humans apply to become super-verifiers which will verify part of the submitted flips and tag them "good" or "bad" from the already submitted flips (let's say 48h before validation starts) and make a pool from wich the flips will be chosen for the Short session.
Of course the super-verifiers will be rewarded extra for their effort, like master-nodes, if you wish.
Maybe the team can implement a pre-validation flip verification, so the bad flips don't land on the Short session. The long validation can remain the same.
For example some humans apply to become super-verifiers which will verify part of the submitted flips and tag them "good" or "bad" from the already submitted flips (let's say 48h before validation starts) and make a pool from wich the flips will be chosen for the Short session.
Of course the super-verifiers will be rewarded extra for their effort, like master-nodes, if you wish.
Jump to: