I'd guess transaction fees?
What is a transaction?
lol.
I'll pay you 50 LQC for a new 7970
now *that* would be a transaction.
Topic: [RELEASE] Liquidcoin (Speculation based) - page 4. (Read 29233 times)
What is a transaction?
lol.
I'll pay you 50 LQC for a new 7970
now *that* would be a transaction.
I'm buying liquidcoins for 0.00005 BTC per coin. If you want to sell - just PM me.
Anyone know how long it should take a block at about 8 khash/s? Been running this for hours with no luck.
~7.5 hours/block
Anyone know how long it should take a block at about 8 khash/s? Been running this for hours with no luck.
~7.5 hours/block 
I'd guess transaction fees?
What is a transaction?
Anyone know how long it should take a block at about 8 khash/s? Been running this for hours with no luck.
block reward graph
can you guys host those windows binaries somewhere else? The site is not accessible from China (where I happen to be at the moment), you are missing out the possibility of a huge crowd of miners and users.
So even after the LTC TX spam fiasco someone release an alt-coin w/ same vulnerability?
I mean I thought in theory the point of alt-coins is to be a learning environment. If scam-coins aren't going to patch the mistakes of prior scam-coins then they aren't even make a token effort to innovate.
Won't get any disagreement from me, lazy coin creator is lazy... but hey, at least he fixed it when I pointed it out to him. I mean I thought in theory the point of alt-coins is to be a learning environment. If scam-coins aren't going to patch the mistakes of prior scam-coins then they aren't even make a token effort to innovate.
Well I think the whole announce and launch within same day "fad" has something to do with it. Satoshi took almost a year from his initial paper to genesis block and received significant feedback over that time period.
So even after the LTC TX spam fiasco someone release an alt-coin w/ same vulnerability?
I mean I thought in theory the point of alt-coins is to be a learning environment. If scam-coins aren't going to patch the mistakes of prior scam-coins then they aren't even make a token effort to innovate.
Won't get any disagreement from me, lazy coin creator is lazy... but hey, at least he fixed it when I pointed it out to him. I mean I thought in theory the point of alt-coins is to be a learning environment. If scam-coins aren't going to patch the mistakes of prior scam-coins then they aren't even make a token effort to innovate.
Thank you!
Also, new update out. It's HIGHLY reccomended you update to v4 or latest github because we added some checkpoints, increased the initial DL of the blockchain, applied a performance fix and changed the fees to a somewhat better value. http://www.mediafire.com/?hv0e5qjlgkpzlzb
Also, new update out. It's HIGHLY reccomended you update to v4 or latest github because we added some checkpoints, increased the initial DL of the blockchain, applied a performance fix and changed the fees to a somewhat better value. http://www.mediafire.com/?hv0e5qjlgkpzlzb
What fees?
Default transaction fee was increased from 0.0005/kB to 0.1/kB.
Seems to still use standard BTC rules for which tx don't require a fee.
See LTC TX spam fiasco for the reason.
So even after the LTC TX spam fiasco someone release an alt-coin w/ same vulnerability?
I mean I thought in theory the point of alt-coins is to be a learning environment. If scam-coins aren't going to patch the mistakes of prior scam-coins then they aren't even make a token effort to innovate.
Thank you!
Also, new update out. It's HIGHLY reccomended you update to v4 or latest github because we added some checkpoints, increased the initial DL of the blockchain, applied a performance fix and changed the fees to a somewhat better value. http://www.mediafire.com/?hv0e5qjlgkpzlzb
Also, new update out. It's HIGHLY reccomended you update to v4 or latest github because we added some checkpoints, increased the initial DL of the blockchain, applied a performance fix and changed the fees to a somewhat better value. http://www.mediafire.com/?hv0e5qjlgkpzlzb
What fees?
Default transaction fee was increased from 0.0005/kB to 0.1/kB.
Seems to still use standard BTC rules for which tx don't require a fee.
See LTC TX spam fiasco for the reason.
I'd guess transaction fees?
Thank you!
Also, new update out. It's HIGHLY reccomended you update to v4 or latest github because we added some checkpoints, increased the initial DL of the blockchain, applied a performance fix and changed the fees to a somewhat better value. http://www.mediafire.com/?hv0e5qjlgkpzlzb
Also, new update out. It's HIGHLY reccomended you update to v4 or latest github because we added some checkpoints, increased the initial DL of the blockchain, applied a performance fix and changed the fees to a somewhat better value. http://www.mediafire.com/?hv0e5qjlgkpzlzb
What fees?
Thank you!
Also, new update out. It's HIGHLY reccomended you update to v4 or latest github because we added some checkpoints, increased the initial DL of the blockchain, applied a performance fix and changed the fees to a somewhat better value. http://www.mediafire.com/?hv0e5qjlgkpzlzb
Also, new update out. It's HIGHLY reccomended you update to v4 or latest github because we added some checkpoints, increased the initial DL of the blockchain, applied a performance fix and changed the fees to a somewhat better value. http://www.mediafire.com/?hv0e5qjlgkpzlzb
Yeah but that is the nerfed down pretend-scrypt used by litecoin, right? Deliberately toned down so botnets can use it. Because using a proper version of scrypt would make people whose machine have been infected by botnets notice something is being processed.
So basically there still aren't any alt-coins using a proper full scrypt, they are all just fakes set up for botnets to deploy.
Hey, I guess it could be interesting to continue discussing your theory here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scrypt-based-coins-any-proof-that-this-algorithm-is-realy-good-55314 So basically there still aren't any alt-coins using a proper full scrypt, they are all just fakes set up for botnets to deploy.
There is also a weird thread started by Come-from-Beyond, where he seems to claim that he is already able to set arbitrary hash rate per GHz in his miner (maybe still within some reasonable range), supposedly by exploiting some flaw in scrypt implementation with 1024, 1, 1 parameters: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/core-bus-cache-what-is-more-important-for-mining-55670I closed my researches in this direction. The final result i got was: Scrypt is good, but [1024, 1, 1] was a bad choice. If some other coin use other parameters for Scrypt then everything should be OK.
Yeah but that is the nerfed down pretend-scrypt used by litecoin, right? Deliberately toned down so botnets can use it. Because using a proper version of scrypt would make people whose machine have been infected by botnets notice something is being processed.
So basically there still aren't any alt-coins using a proper full scrypt, they are all just fakes set up for botnets to deploy.
Hey, I guess it could be interesting to continue discussing your theory here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scrypt-based-coins-any-proof-that-this-algorithm-is-realy-good-55314 So basically there still aren't any alt-coins using a proper full scrypt, they are all just fakes set up for botnets to deploy.
There is also a weird thread started by Come-from-Beyond, where he seems to claim that he is already able to set arbitrary hash rate per GHz in his miner (maybe still within some reasonable range), supposedly by exploiting some flaw in scrypt implementation with 1024, 1, 1 parameters: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/core-bus-cache-what-is-more-important-for-mining-55670 On one of my computers, the client won't connect to the network at all. Left it for a while, still 0 connections to the network.
Tried forwarding port 3737 ? Also make sure it isn't stopped by a firewall.
On one of my computers, the client won't connect to the network at all. Left it for a while, still 0 connections to the network.
Jump to: