Topic: Nexus - Pure SHA3 + CPU/GPU + nPoS + 15 Active Innovations + More to Come - page 320. (Read 785514 times)

i have to admit the closed source wallet was (and still is) a concern and posted it on this thread, but well, viz had a point about fearing cut&paste for yet another shit coin...
however it's slowing coming the time to make the code public, as it would take the attention of those that don't trust binary blobs thus new miners... i doubt a stupid cut&paste of this coin would ever get traction at this point...

You tell me, lol?  Trust is a very individual thing.  Personally, I do think Viz is trustworthy; but, even from someone I trust, I don't trust closed-source cryptography.  For others that would never look at or compiled the source code anyway, it might be entirely irrelevant.

I am generally an observer to the community, and this is my first user account here because this is the first time I have actually needed one. I'm glad you brought this to everybody's attention, as I foresaw this as being an issue. By the nature of how this system will work, yes there will need to be a level of trust involved. This trust is beginning to be established at this point in time, now that you raised the question of it. The way we have decided to deal with this issue is ABSOLUTE TRANSPARENCY. When the first channel opens, there will be an archive page started on main website of every single executed trade of SHIT DUMP, and every single executed BTC buy order. This will of course be in real time on the left sidebar of the channels for reference. The second point is I will design the channels to have one deposit address for the channel. This means that you will be able to see every single SHIT that is transfered to the channel, every single SHIT that is transfered to the exchange, and every single SHIT sell order. These numbers can be verified with the automation supplied on archives page, or by your own discretion if independent verification is chosen as the suited means for your veracity.

The trust can only be established over time, with transparency being the best means of expressing it.

let's suppose viz would put together a block explorer by himself, would that be trustful enough?

I agree a block explorer would be nice to see - would be reasonably trivial to put together. However, without source to the wallet, I doubt anyone is going to spend the time to recreate all the hashing etc functions needed.

1). Who manages these funding addresses and why should we trust them. Why not give miners the option to opt-out.

2). How is it possible to trade a worthless coin and still make a profit - defies logic.[/b]

sorry for insisting viz, but wouldn't a block explorer make everything more transparent thus trustful?

Supercomputing,

The traders that exchange their petitioned clone coins into an exchange channel are the ones that are going to profit from the second Decay Equation. There is a check in the Coinbase TX that verifies it goes to one of the proper addresses to prevent block manipulators of just this sort. The same goes for the amount that comes from the Reserves, for it must fall under a specified set of rules.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

AFTER i update to new wallet
 and resync
i im at
109.245.142.48
 ??

please finaly wahat is
conf file and valid
addresses   ?

addnode=69.195.149.114
addnode=204.27.62.234
addnode=69.195.148.42
addnode=204.27.62.242
addnode=69.195.148.34
addnode=204.27.62.226
addnode=62.219.98.129

You are forgetting the Coinshield Channels, and that value per block does not mean higher value overall in exponential decay:

Block 120 (2 hours): 1.09 / 67.07 = [1.6% per block]
Miners: 50*e^(-0.0000011*120)+3 = 52.99
Channels: 10 * e^(-0.00000055 * 120) + 3 = 12.99
Dev: e^(-0.00000059 * 120) + 0.1 = 1.09

Block 525600 (1 year): 0.83 / 42.36 = [1.9% per block]
Miners: 50*e^(-0.0000011*525600)+3 = 31.04
Channels: 10 * e^(-0.00000055 * 525600) + 3 = 10.49
Dev: e^(-0.00000059 * 525600) + 0.1 = 0.83

COIN SUPPLY, 1 YEAR: 28,545,067
Total Mined: 21,801,631 [76% to miners]
Total Channel: 6,231,778 [21% to traders]
Total Dev: 511,658 [1.7% dev]

Block 2628000 (5 year): 0.312 / 11.438 = [2.7% per block]
Miners: 50*e^(-0.0000011*2628000)+3 = 5.776
Channels: 10 * e^(-0.00000055 * 2628000]) + 3 = 5.35
Dev: e^(-0.00000059 * 2628000) + 0.1 = 0.312

COIN SUPPLY, 5 YEARS: 74,341,701
Total Mined: 50,888,959 [68% to miners]
Total Channel: 21,850,548 [29% to traders]
Total Dev: 1,602,194 [2.1% dev]

Block 5256000 (10 year): 0.145 / 6.845 = [2.1% per block]
Miners: 50*e^(-0.0000011*5256000) + 3 = 3.15
Channels: 10 * e^(-0.00000055 * 5256000]) + 3 = 3.55
Dev: e^(-0.00000059 * 5256000) + 0.1 = 0.145

COIN SUPPLY 10 YEARS: 96,156,860
Total Mined: 61,077,806 [63% to miners]
Total Channel: 32,935,024 [34% to traders]
Total Dev: 2,144,030 [2.2% dev]



This graph is from the modeling program I used to design the equations.

EDIT: As you will notice, the channels do increase in [%] over time. This gives them more longevity.

~Videlicet

I'm doing the same now. This time I created a coinshield.conf and added the nodes above. So far I have only 1 connection but it is syncing.

that's what i did...