Topic: NA - page 184. (Read 893610 times)

Quick update on the Community Advertising #1. 10th of July is the official launch date. Will keep you all updated with statistics.
Questions or anything can go to me directly or just post them here https://community.guldencoin.com/t/community-advertising-1/1096 don't worry about posting in English. We'll just mix it up with them language

It seems even the "official/traditional" money bags want a piece of the digital coins...

http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/07/citibank-is-working-on-its-own-digital-currency-citicoin/#.4ua1ap:1dgx

In a move that should be of no surprise to anyone familiar with the space, Citibank has admitted to running a test platform for digital currencies and is pondering its own solution, CitiCoin.

According to the International Business Times, Citigroup has built its own digital currency based on bitcoin and the blockchain. This, in itself, isn’t very difficult – anyone can create a cryptocurrency in a few seconds with a bit of programming knowledge. But the fact that Citibank, at least in its R&D arm, is looking into the technology is promising.

(...)

In May BitcoinMagazine noticed a line in a Citigroup presentation that should remove any doubt that banks are definitely interested in this technology – and what they think of wild and wooly bitcoin. “Due to the potential benefits, we believe the adoption of Digital Money is inevitable,” they wrote. “While we believe that the use of Digital Money is certain, the future of specific cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin is less clear.”


PS: I support the change of the block reward to make the reward period extend.
PS2: I don't really understand supporters of other coins coming to this thread and asking NLG community not to do what it is better for the community because it will hurt other coins... Why can't they also improve their coins instead of wanting others to remain bad??

What are views about stealth and anonymous coins? Are they really hidden from NSA types, if people started spying on the guldencoin blockchain would it help to have these features.

After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective. While it sounds good on the surface there are some rather complex implementation issues in reality which have become apparent while looking at the code, that we are not satisfied can be solved in a reasonable way, or at least I am not confident I can solve them and I feel it is good to know your limits
I don't want to go into too much technical details but most of the flaws revolve around the fact that 'difficulty' is a somewhat arbitrary measurement, while it can be used to meaningfully compare two blocks from the same algorithm to one another, there is no real relation between the difficulties of two different algorithms. i.e. It is not really meaningful to say that a 500 difficulty Scrypt block is worth more or less than a 500 difficulty Groestl block. While it can be determined with some analysis for a specific moment in time with some work it requires a level of 'perfect information' that is not compatible with a p2p crypto currency type system, and even I as a human cannot tell you for a fact that the answer I give you now will still be the same in say six months time.
I have looked at various proposals to try and solves these issues, and what several coins have done and have found theoretical problems and flaws with all of them.
Putting those issues aside there is then the market related issue as well, which is that if you have e.g. 3 algorithms, your reward for each algorithm is 1/3, this is quite likely to attract 1/3 of the hash power for each algorithm, possible even less so in a way even if we can solve the technical issues it is not necessarily going to help form a security perspective.

This is not to say that multi-algo is 'completely broken' the above are of course theoretical i.e. it is not 100% completely trivial to attack a multi-algo coin, and you would still need a reasonable hash rate for at least  to do so, so I would not begin a complete panic about other coins. Perhaps time will show differently that the worries are unfounded.
However I would not personally use such an important coin as NLG on which to test theories, I can not in good concious recommend anything that is not 100% theoretically air tight.
There are also some 'non ideal' steps that can be taken to help prevent some of the issues which may involve lots of frequent changes to the coin which we do not want... whether other coins will do this or not depends on the coin.


It is my belief that the security would be likely worse or at best 'on par' with a standard single-algo coin, especially after taking the market factors into account, we don't want to implement something we are not 100% happy with, and we are not 100% happy with multi-algo at this point based on the flaws that have been uncovered, and based also on the possibility that there may be further flaws we are missing (Given that multi-algo has a higher complexity than single algo, simplicity is a desirable characteristic where possible)


We do however feel that the current single-algo is also not ideal, unless we can begin to attract far more hash power, so we are keeping a close eye on this while also looking into other options still.
A potential 'PoS' solution is on the cards, it would likely be added as a compliment to the current 'PoW' so we would end up with two algorithms, however again we must first do our homework and ensure we are completely happy with it before we implement it, so I don't want to make any guarantees just yet.
We will of course continue to look into all avenues to see what is best in the end.

MaNI, will this change be done with the release of 0.10?

The change actually ensures that more coins will be available for late adopters instead of all of them being mined in the next year or two (early adopters). So it is the exact opposite of 'screwing late adopters'. It is the standard, lots of coins in first year or two followed by halving's and almost no coins after that which 'screws late adopters'

It is also very over simplistic to say this is about manipulation and I question the motives of anyone who says so.

Due to the messed block targeting Guldencoin was happily producing 'X' coins a day, and the market was happy, the block targeting changes 'fixed' this and we are now producing 'Y' coins a day, it is quite clear that the market preferred 'X' coins a day and that 'Y' is too many as for most of the coins life it has been producing 'X' it can be argued that at this point leaving it at 'Y' would be allowing a large downward manipulation which will benefit nobody except a few rich early adopters.

One needs to consider also the ecosystem of merchants etc. that people have been working very hard to build, and this is more what Guldencoin is about than being some commodity to invest in. If the market continues to be flooded with coins rapidly now and then in a few years the coins completely dry up, nobody is going to spend any more at either point as neither massive increases or decreases is good in a currency that people actually hope to spend, with nobody spending the merchants will slowly start to pull out, everything will slowly unravel, this is nothing to do with a small group of people having 'faith' it is simple market reality. It would be completely silly to throw away all this hard infrastructure work over some silly pretence that some values that were set a year and a half ago were the right ones, when it is quite clear they are not.
A stable reward with a stable price is going to be much better for a merchant infastructure, Guldencoin had previously a stable price for a very long time and this is what allowed it to get where it is now.

The change actually ensures that more coins will be available for late adopters instead of all of them being mined in the next year or two (early adopters). So it is the exact opposite of 'screwing late adopters'. It is the standard, lots of coins in first year or two followed by halving's and almost no coins after that which 'screws late adopters'

It is also very over simplistic to say this is about manipulation and I question the motives of anyone who says so.

Due to the messed block targeting Guldencoin was happily producing 'X' coins a day, and the market was happy, the block targeting changes 'fixed' this and we are now producing 'Y' coins a day, it is quite clear that the market preferred 'X' coins a day and that 'Y' is too many as for most of the coins life it has been producing 'X' it can be argued that at this point leaving it at 'Y' would be allowing a large downward manipulation which will benefit nobody except a few rich early adopters.

One needs to consider also the ecosystem of merchants etc. that people have been working very hard to build, and this is more what Guldencoin is about than being some commodity to invest in. If the market continues to be flooded with coins rapidly now and then in a few years the coins completely dry up, nobody is going to spend any more at either point as neither massive increases or decreases is good in a currency that people actually hope to spend, with nobody spending the merchants will slowly start to pull out, everything will slowly unravel, this is nothing to do with a small group of people having 'faith' it is simple market reality. It would be completely silly to throw away all this hard infrastructure work over some silly pretence that some values that were set a year and a half ago were the right ones, when it is quite clear they are not.
A stable reward with a stable price is going to be much better for a merchant infastructure, Guldencoin had previously a stable price for a very long time and this is what allowed it to get where it is now.

About 50% loss. I was planning to use Nocks this weekend to buy food but decided not to spend the coins as they worthless.  Thanks for the advice. I might buy more to average out my losses and not risk it selling.

We have to accept that we going to have low prices for next 8 years.

+1000 exactly my thoughts!

I was trying to see if that 3500 buy wall was going to stay so pretended that I was leaving and it never got removed. Then I bought more coins. I needed to make sure it wasn't a fake wall.

This isn't an investor-driven change, this is about creating a true useful coin. And what do you care, you've left EFL a few weeks ago?

+1 . Don't change the rewards. It's not fair to some of the dutch investors who went for efl. Guldencoin doesn't need low supply to succeed. Why take the only advantage away efl investors had? If you care about other dutch citizens you won't make this change.

The only manipulation I saw was the large address on bittrex forcing the price down. The announcement caught this person by surprise and they lost over 500k coins, so it wasn't the multipools doing the damage to the price. Find out who the owner of that address is and you have your reason for the price being forced down.

+1