1 ) Working on finding the information regarding the
BRAVO pool. Will have something as soon I have it,
and will post it.
2 ) Working on the Signature Address idea. Setting it
up today and depositing some XCT into it to start it. Be
out by tomorrow, probably.
3 ) Working with Yobit. Can't control the timing on their
end.
4 ) Wallets almost all done, just linking them in the
website. This is time consuming, and our web guy is
a little swamped. Web wallet is done, we're designing
the interface now.
5 ) New pool is up and running in Toronto, Canada.
It's at the bottom of the page. Still working on the
problems with the South Africa pool, can't figure out
why.
Whew. Busy. Mad rush.
William Martens
Founder C-bit
Topic: [XCT] C-Bit - Elegantly Solving Bitcoin's Blocksize Problem [SHA256][POW] - page 46. (Read 66821 times)
March 01, 2016, 02:04:10 PM
March 01, 2016, 12:55:18 PM
Guys its ok. Bank_sy isn't even being that critical but he could stop repeating himself at this point because I don't think a satisfactory explanation as to why he should change his mind is going to pop up, nor is it necessary for you guys to come up with one. You should realize though that from outside perspective he really just wants to find a reason to get involved with your coin and to see it degrade into a sort of argument is probably just because of the forum format, anonymity, etc. So chill on that. Maybe a better explanation of some of the whitepaper things will come in the future.
Now someone answer my question above about the bravo pool please
Now someone answer my question above about the bravo pool please
As for the pool payouts.. if you don't mind me asking are you mining with a sizable amount of power? The block spacing has decreased a lot but if you have enough hash power you should probably be seeing some payments, unless the blocks are just waiting to be confirmed. Since the blocks are actually being solved slightly slower than the target right now, if the pool has 120 confirms or whatever # they chose, you could just be waiting for a while to see those first payments. There's just not much of an interface to look at there so it's difficult to tell.
There is a contact form on the site you can try.
March 01, 2016, 12:54:59 PM
Guys its ok. Bank_sy isn't even being that critical but he could stop repeating himself at this point because I don't think a satisfactory explanation as to why he should change his mind is going to pop up, nor is it necessary for you guys to come up with one. You should realize though that from outside perspective he really just wants to find a reason to get involved with your coin and to see it degrade into a sort of argument is probably just because of the forum format, anonymity, etc. So chill on that. Maybe a better explanation of some of the whitepaper things will come in the future.
Now someone answer my question above about the bravo pool please
Now someone answer my question above about the bravo pool please
how long have you been waiting? you're aware the blockchain needs like 100 confirms before you are paid right?
March 01, 2016, 12:51:28 PM
Guys its ok. Bank_sy isn't even being that critical but he could stop repeating himself at this point because I don't think a satisfactory explanation as to why he should change his mind is going to pop up, nor is it necessary for you guys to come up with one. You should realize though that from outside perspective he really just wants to find a reason to get involved with your coin and to see it degrade into a sort of argument is probably just because of the forum format, anonymity, etc. So chill on that. Maybe a better explanation of some of the whitepaper things will come in the future.
Now someone answer my question above about the bravo pool please
Now someone answer my question above about the bravo pool please
Not 100% accurate but well said.
As jookly said, I am not even being that critical.
In a nut shell I am simply trying to tell everyone this simple reality:
For an altcoin to succeed it needs appeal.
If the only appeal in C-bit is 2MB supply then it is not enough for success.
From what I can see, 2MB blocks that appears to be the only 'innovation' offered by C-bit and I do not think that counts as innovation.
I can agree with that, but appeal comes in many flavors. Look at Dogecoin.. for people outside of the crypto environment this is kind of a joke and somewhat offputting. I mean really make whatever argument you want for Dogecoin sake, but it was essentially born out of an internet meme as a joke and now has a market cap of $25million+
There's no reason that should have ever happened.
March 01, 2016, 12:47:55 PM
Can we all just stop fucking around on the thread here? Individual perceptions of the technological advancements behind the coin DO NOT MATTER. You either like it or you don't. If you see nothing here you are free to go.
If I sat on the forum all day and just spammed the shit out of coins I don't like because they bring nothing new to the table, I'd probably get banned for the sheer amount of posts per day I'd be laying down.
Also development is key, it's unlikely any coin is going to come "right out of the package" and lay a smack down on other coins with its market cap.
If I sat on the forum all day and just spammed the shit out of coins I don't like because they bring nothing new to the table, I'd probably get banned for the sheer amount of posts per day I'd be laying down.
Also development is key, it's unlikely any coin is going to come "right out of the package" and lay a smack down on other coins with its market cap.
Individual's perceptions of tech. advancements may not matter but you know what does? The technological advancements themselves.
I can see you are on the side that thinks that having a 2MB block size = technological advancement.
And where do you see me claiming it is an advancement and not just a parameter tweak? I'm here because there is potential, just like with any other coin launch that isn't half assed. It is a platform to build upon. Obviously the developers are taking it somewhat seriously. Do you think the website and all that other stuff was setup in an hour? It wasn't a simple "[ANN] moonjellycoin" with a dev that barely speaks english and the only thing in the op is a few specs and a wallet download link. At least there was thought put in to this.
By the same basis of tweaking parameters, really there's nothing making Bitcoin special either, other than the fact that there is a ton of fat wallets and developers involved and it was the catalyst for the entire cryptocurrency environment. My point is, for a cryptocurrency to become successful, it doesn't need to come out of the gate claiming to cure cancer, AIDS, world hunger, make space and time travel possible, and change the entire way the world goes about it's business.
You can choose to believe a developers claims or not, but obviously being on bitcointalk you should understand that every investment or decision you make is it at your own risk. This isn't the kids table. We don't need constant reminders to be weary of claims made my people on the internet. If people need to be warned about believing everything they read on the internet (especially here on bitcointalk) then they probably shouldn't be using it.
March 01, 2016, 12:38:59 PM
All,
Lets get back to talking about the signature campaign and how we are going to get ourselves listed on an exchange.
Cheers -
Rekt
Lets get back to talking about the signature campaign and how we are going to get ourselves listed on an exchange.
Cheers -
Rekt
March 01, 2016, 12:28:36 PM
Guys its ok. Bank_sy isn't even being that critical but he could stop repeating himself at this point because I don't think a satisfactory explanation as to why he should change his mind is going to pop up, nor is it necessary for you guys to come up with one. You should realize though that from outside perspective he really just wants to find a reason to get involved with your coin and to see it degrade into a sort of argument is probably just because of the forum format, anonymity, etc. So chill on that. Maybe a better explanation of some of the whitepaper things will come in the future.
Now someone answer my question above about the bravo pool please
Now someone answer my question above about the bravo pool please
Not 100% accurate but well said.
As jookly said, I am not even being that critical.
In a nut shell I am simply trying to tell everyone this simple reality:
For an altcoin to succeed it needs appeal.
If the only appeal in C-bit is 2MB supply then it is not enough for success.
From what I can see, 2MB blocks that appears to be the only 'innovation' offered by C-bit and I do not think that counts as innovation.
March 01, 2016, 12:24:17 PM
Guys its ok. Bank_sy isn't even being that critical but he could stop repeating himself at this point because I don't think a satisfactory explanation as to why he should change his mind is going to pop up, nor is it necessary for you guys to come up with one. You should realize though that from outside perspective he really just wants to find a reason to get involved with your coin and to see it degrade into a sort of argument is probably just because of the forum format, anonymity, etc. So chill on that. Maybe a better explanation of some of the whitepaper things will come in the future.
Now someone answer my question above about the bravo pool please
Now someone answer my question above about the bravo pool please
March 01, 2016, 12:21:41 PM
this man just keep coming back and harassed this and promote eclipse anon, need to take ACTION and report to moderator get him ban
How am I harassing? I am raising valid concerns and they still remain.
Also I never once promoted Eclipse in here, I simply brought up eclipse as an example of a new coin which actually achieves something (fixing the flaw in SDC).
Simple statistics dictates that eclipse is most like just another shitcoin but hey at least it is actually doing something other than 2MB block size lol.
You guys are funny.
March 01, 2016, 12:19:34 PM
this man just keep coming back and harassed this and promote eclipse anon, need to take ACTION and report to moderator get him ban
March 01, 2016, 12:04:31 PM
Can we all just stop fucking around on the thread here? Individual perceptions of the technological advancements behind the coin DO NOT MATTER. You either like it or you don't. If you see nothing here you are free to go.
If I sat on the forum all day and just spammed the shit out of coins I don't like because they bring nothing new to the table, I'd probably get banned for the sheer amount of posts per day I'd be laying down.
Also development is key, it's unlikely any coin is going to come "right out of the package" and lay a smack down on other coins with its market cap.
If I sat on the forum all day and just spammed the shit out of coins I don't like because they bring nothing new to the table, I'd probably get banned for the sheer amount of posts per day I'd be laying down.
Also development is key, it's unlikely any coin is going to come "right out of the package" and lay a smack down on other coins with its market cap.
Individual's perceptions of tech. advancements may not matter but you know what does? The technological advancements themselves.
I can see you are on the side that thinks that having a 2MB block size = technological advancement.
March 01, 2016, 11:59:23 AM
Can we all just stop fucking around on the thread here? Individual perceptions of the technological advancements behind the coin DO NOT MATTER. You either like it or you don't. If you see nothing here you are free to go.
If I sat on the forum all day and just spammed the shit out of coins I don't like because they bring nothing new to the table, I'd probably get banned for the sheer amount of posts per day I'd be laying down.
Also development is key, it's unlikely any coin is going to come "right out of the package" and lay a smack down on other coins with its market cap.
If I sat on the forum all day and just spammed the shit out of coins I don't like because they bring nothing new to the table, I'd probably get banned for the sheer amount of posts per day I'd be laying down.
Also development is key, it's unlikely any coin is going to come "right out of the package" and lay a smack down on other coins with its market cap.
March 01, 2016, 11:53:24 AM
Well friend I think at this leg in the race it is safe to say that you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine but let's just agree to disagree here and move on.
Funny my post was deleted although it only brought up legitimate concerns.
Another big red flag.
Ahem... Lets review something really quick.
First of all -- Why would you bother quoting a shitcoin in a forum full of seasoned traders and developers who understand that Eclipse has nothing special or new to offer either -- This reference point is not doing you any favors and just proved that you are here to troll and waste everyone's time.
If you think I am just here to fud, then you are wrong.
Eclipse is also new but the dev was able to give me a satisfactory answer so I have given my interest/support.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14050894
see?
I am simply trying to find out the same for this coin.
Again to my earlier point - This is not a shitcoin (unlike the particular post you linked) it is simply an improvement to the existing successful bitcoin blockchain and if you took the time to do some research you would understand that there is a huge community backing that supports the increased block size which will ultimately lend a helping hand in C-bits future success.
you are funny. there is absolutely 0 reason to currently think that this is different than any other shitcoin.
only thing worth noting currently is 2MB block size but even that is not a big deal.
I feel like your attempts at providing constructive feedback or "nitpicking" is doing nothing other than pissing people in this thread off and at this point rather than continuing to sit there in your chair and keyboard warrior it up -- stop trying to prove a point and sit there and wait to see whether or not this coin goes somewhere -- if it does GREAT! if not... what did you really lose ?
Much more special than simply changing block size limit and max supply. At least they have solved an actual flaw. I am waiting but I do not see where I am whining. If you think me pointing out the possibility of vaporware is trolling than you need to meet a real troll. Nitpicking is necessary because it is important to be critical of things, especially in the cryptocurrency scene.
I fail to see how there were any smoke and mirrors involved in the developers explanation of how this coin works.. i believe it was clearly spelled out to you and im pretty sure there are no smoke and mirrors at play here. Also in this statement you said yourself you will wait and see what is brought to the table yet you still continue onward to poke at the developer..
I will wait to see what you bring... Seems more like smoke and mirrors to me but please prove me wrong. Will be watching.
See below response.
Copy pasting bitcoin code and changing to 2MB blocksize + supply is not innovation.
I was expecting some actual innovation.
If changing block size and supply count is innovation, then oh gee... bitcointalk is overflowing with innovators... especially the altcoin section.
The only thing that would make C-bit worth anything is if it really was a solution to the current blocksize problem but it is not.
Please do not say C-bit is the solution because it has 2 MB block size already.
On a more realistic note, if you think Bitcoin Core supporters will move to C-bit you are delusional.
Do you have any reason why people would consider C-bit OTHER than the 2 MB block size?
Yes -- You have made it abundantly clear that you possess the capabilities to copy and paste a response to try and continue to backup your argument. Remember -- We all read what you typed the first time there is no reason to reiterate what you had already stated.
I can easily make a copy and paste bitcoin clone and change block size to 2 MB and increase max supply to 210,000,000.
This is all you have achieved so far so please do not say you have 'done anything'.
I repeat, once you actually present something 'noteworthy', then you can continue with your grand claims.
I am simply calling it as I see it. Am I wrong? I did not mine any of this coin because 2MB and 210m supply alone is not appealing enough... not to mention how you are working towards centralization.
Please just do the people who are actually excited about the direction this coin can potentially head; let us be excited. There is no need for you to continue to drag something out that is just going to end in you flaming about some half baked opinion and the rest of us laughing from behind our screens.
Cheers-
Rekt
First of all -- Why would you bother quoting a shitcoin in a forum full of seasoned traders and developers who understand that Eclipse has nothing special or new to offer either -- This reference point is not doing you any favors and just proved that you are here to troll and waste everyone's time.
If you think I am just here to fud, then you are wrong.
Eclipse is also new but the dev was able to give me a satisfactory answer so I have given my interest/support.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14050894
see?
I am simply trying to find out the same for this coin.
Again to my earlier point - This is not a shitcoin (unlike the particular post you linked) it is simply an improvement to the existing successful bitcoin blockchain and if you took the time to do some research you would understand that there is a huge community backing that supports the increased block size which will ultimately lend a helping hand in C-bits future success.
you are funny. there is absolutely 0 reason to currently think that this is different than any other shitcoin.
only thing worth noting currently is 2MB block size but even that is not a big deal.
I feel like your attempts at providing constructive feedback or "nitpicking" is doing nothing other than pissing people in this thread off and at this point rather than continuing to sit there in your chair and keyboard warrior it up -- stop trying to prove a point and sit there and wait to see whether or not this coin goes somewhere -- if it does GREAT! if not... what did you really lose ?
Much more special than simply changing block size limit and max supply. At least they have solved an actual flaw. I am waiting but I do not see where I am whining. If you think me pointing out the possibility of vaporware is trolling than you need to meet a real troll. Nitpicking is necessary because it is important to be critical of things, especially in the cryptocurrency scene.
I fail to see how there were any smoke and mirrors involved in the developers explanation of how this coin works.. i believe it was clearly spelled out to you and im pretty sure there are no smoke and mirrors at play here. Also in this statement you said yourself you will wait and see what is brought to the table yet you still continue onward to poke at the developer..
I will wait to see what you bring... Seems more like smoke and mirrors to me but please prove me wrong. Will be watching.
See below response.
Copy pasting bitcoin code and changing to 2MB blocksize + supply is not innovation.
I was expecting some actual innovation.
If changing block size and supply count is innovation, then oh gee... bitcointalk is overflowing with innovators... especially the altcoin section.
The only thing that would make C-bit worth anything is if it really was a solution to the current blocksize problem but it is not.
Please do not say C-bit is the solution because it has 2 MB block size already.
On a more realistic note, if you think Bitcoin Core supporters will move to C-bit you are delusional.
Do you have any reason why people would consider C-bit OTHER than the 2 MB block size?
Yes -- You have made it abundantly clear that you possess the capabilities to copy and paste a response to try and continue to backup your argument. Remember -- We all read what you typed the first time there is no reason to reiterate what you had already stated.
I can easily make a copy and paste bitcoin clone and change block size to 2 MB and increase max supply to 210,000,000.
This is all you have achieved so far so please do not say you have 'done anything'.
I repeat, once you actually present something 'noteworthy', then you can continue with your grand claims.
I am simply calling it as I see it. Am I wrong? I did not mine any of this coin because 2MB and 210m supply alone is not appealing enough... not to mention how you are working towards centralization.
Please just do the people who are actually excited about the direction this coin can potentially head; let us be excited. There is no need for you to continue to drag something out that is just going to end in you flaming about some half baked opinion and the rest of us laughing from behind our screens.
Cheers-
Rekt
Okay I will address your points.
You are saying it is not shitcoin because of what reason?
If the reason is either
a) supply count or b) 2MB block size
then your reason for C-bit not being a shitcoin is invalid.
The fact that there are many members that support a block size increase in bitcoin does not in any way mean they will somehow end up supporting C-bit.
Having 2 MB does not mean you have the actual support of those looking to increase blocksize.
One of the reasons why there is debate and so much interest about bitcoin blocksize is because it is bitcoin. Blocksizes are currently not worth considering for any other cryptocurrency other than bitcoin.
If you seriously think they will suddenly switch over to C-bit simply because it has 2 MB blocks, then I really have nothing to say other than go get a reality check.
Let me clarify: my concern is this (and it still stands) - what does C-bit have to offer? From what I can see the only things it can offer is a difference in supply count and blocksize already being 2 MB.
This is where my concerns are. Quite frankly, 2MB block sizes and bigger supply is not actually offering anything new.
If the only selling point of C-bit is 2MB blocks then it is doomed.
Bitcoin's block size problem will be resolved, it is simply a matter of when and how, not if.
What then? When bitcoin increases block sizes, what is the selling point of C-bit then?
You can be excited all you want, but also remember to keep a level head.
Do you not know the altcoin scene? Every 10 altcoins, 9.9 of them are scams.
I am just providing a reality check.
I am not saying this is a scam although it does seem suspicious.
I do not know enough yet to make that judgement.
What I can say is this... I am highly doubtful of the coins success due to reasons I mentioned above.
I hope I don't have to make an unmoderated thread for C-bit.
March 01, 2016, 11:50:25 AM
Has anyone been getting payouts from the http://bravo.btc-bit.com/ pool? It seems like I have been on there through quite a few confirmed blocks and shares but haven't received anything at my address. It is probably going to show up right after I type this but I thought I would ask on the off chance that I am either missing something or there is a problem.
maybe there is a minimum i haven't reached yet or something?
maybe there is a minimum i haven't reached yet or something?
March 01, 2016, 02:40:46 AM
Well friend I think at this leg in the race it is safe to say that you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine but let's just agree to disagree here and move on.
March 01, 2016, 01:22:54 AM
Ahem... Lets review something really quick.
First of all -- Why would you bother quoting a shitcoin in a forum full of seasoned traders and developers who understand that Eclipse has nothing special or new to offer either -- This reference point is not doing you any favors and just proved that you are here to troll and waste everyone's time.
If you think I am just here to fud, then you are wrong.
Eclipse is also new but the dev was able to give me a satisfactory answer so I have given my interest/support.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14050894
see?
I am simply trying to find out the same for this coin.
Again to my earlier point - This is not a shitcoin (unlike the particular post you linked) it is simply an improvement to the existing successful bitcoin blockchain and if you took the time to do some research you would understand that there is a huge community backing that supports the increased block size which will ultimately lend a helping hand in C-bits future success.
you are funny. there is absolutely 0 reason to currently think that this is different than any other shitcoin.
only thing worth noting currently is 2MB block size but even that is not a big deal.
I feel like your attempts at providing constructive feedback or "nitpicking" is doing nothing other than pissing people in this thread off and at this point rather than continuing to sit there in your chair and keyboard warrior it up -- stop trying to prove a point and sit there and wait to see whether or not this coin goes somewhere -- if it does GREAT! if not... what did you really lose ?
Much more special than simply changing block size limit and max supply. At least they have solved an actual flaw. I am waiting but I do not see where I am whining. If you think me pointing out the possibility of vaporware is trolling than you need to meet a real troll. Nitpicking is necessary because it is important to be critical of things, especially in the cryptocurrency scene.
I fail to see how there were any smoke and mirrors involved in the developers explanation of how this coin works.. i believe it was clearly spelled out to you and im pretty sure there are no smoke and mirrors at play here. Also in this statement you said yourself you will wait and see what is brought to the table yet you still continue onward to poke at the developer..
I will wait to see what you bring... Seems more like smoke and mirrors to me but please prove me wrong. Will be watching.
See below response.
Copy pasting bitcoin code and changing to 2MB blocksize + supply is not innovation.
I was expecting some actual innovation.
If changing block size and supply count is innovation, then oh gee... bitcointalk is overflowing with innovators... especially the altcoin section.
The only thing that would make C-bit worth anything is if it really was a solution to the current blocksize problem but it is not.
Please do not say C-bit is the solution because it has 2 MB block size already.
On a more realistic note, if you think Bitcoin Core supporters will move to C-bit you are delusional.
Do you have any reason why people would consider C-bit OTHER than the 2 MB block size?
Yes -- You have made it abundantly clear that you possess the capabilities to copy and paste a response to try and continue to backup your argument. Remember -- We all read what you typed the first time there is no reason to reiterate what you had already stated.
I can easily make a copy and paste bitcoin clone and change block size to 2 MB and increase max supply to 210,000,000.
This is all you have achieved so far so please do not say you have 'done anything'.
I repeat, once you actually present something 'noteworthy', then you can continue with your grand claims.
I am simply calling it as I see it. Am I wrong? I did not mine any of this coin because 2MB and 210m supply alone is not appealing enough... not to mention how you are working towards centralization.
Please just do the people who are actually excited about the direction this coin can potentially head; let us be excited. There is no need for you to continue to drag something out that is just going to end in you flaming about some half baked opinion and the rest of us laughing from behind our screens.
Cheers-
Rekt
First of all -- Why would you bother quoting a shitcoin in a forum full of seasoned traders and developers who understand that Eclipse has nothing special or new to offer either -- This reference point is not doing you any favors and just proved that you are here to troll and waste everyone's time.
If you think I am just here to fud, then you are wrong.
Eclipse is also new but the dev was able to give me a satisfactory answer so I have given my interest/support.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14050894
see?
I am simply trying to find out the same for this coin.
Again to my earlier point - This is not a shitcoin (unlike the particular post you linked) it is simply an improvement to the existing successful bitcoin blockchain and if you took the time to do some research you would understand that there is a huge community backing that supports the increased block size which will ultimately lend a helping hand in C-bits future success.
you are funny. there is absolutely 0 reason to currently think that this is different than any other shitcoin.
only thing worth noting currently is 2MB block size but even that is not a big deal.
I feel like your attempts at providing constructive feedback or "nitpicking" is doing nothing other than pissing people in this thread off and at this point rather than continuing to sit there in your chair and keyboard warrior it up -- stop trying to prove a point and sit there and wait to see whether or not this coin goes somewhere -- if it does GREAT! if not... what did you really lose ?
Much more special than simply changing block size limit and max supply. At least they have solved an actual flaw. I am waiting but I do not see where I am whining. If you think me pointing out the possibility of vaporware is trolling than you need to meet a real troll. Nitpicking is necessary because it is important to be critical of things, especially in the cryptocurrency scene.
I fail to see how there were any smoke and mirrors involved in the developers explanation of how this coin works.. i believe it was clearly spelled out to you and im pretty sure there are no smoke and mirrors at play here. Also in this statement you said yourself you will wait and see what is brought to the table yet you still continue onward to poke at the developer..
I will wait to see what you bring... Seems more like smoke and mirrors to me but please prove me wrong. Will be watching.
See below response.
Copy pasting bitcoin code and changing to 2MB blocksize + supply is not innovation.
I was expecting some actual innovation.
If changing block size and supply count is innovation, then oh gee... bitcointalk is overflowing with innovators... especially the altcoin section.
The only thing that would make C-bit worth anything is if it really was a solution to the current blocksize problem but it is not.
Please do not say C-bit is the solution because it has 2 MB block size already.
On a more realistic note, if you think Bitcoin Core supporters will move to C-bit you are delusional.
Do you have any reason why people would consider C-bit OTHER than the 2 MB block size?
Yes -- You have made it abundantly clear that you possess the capabilities to copy and paste a response to try and continue to backup your argument. Remember -- We all read what you typed the first time there is no reason to reiterate what you had already stated.
I can easily make a copy and paste bitcoin clone and change block size to 2 MB and increase max supply to 210,000,000.
This is all you have achieved so far so please do not say you have 'done anything'.
I repeat, once you actually present something 'noteworthy', then you can continue with your grand claims.
I am simply calling it as I see it. Am I wrong? I did not mine any of this coin because 2MB and 210m supply alone is not appealing enough... not to mention how you are working towards centralization.
Please just do the people who are actually excited about the direction this coin can potentially head; let us be excited. There is no need for you to continue to drag something out that is just going to end in you flaming about some half baked opinion and the rest of us laughing from behind our screens.
Cheers-
Rekt
March 01, 2016, 01:02:30 AM
Since launch the current rate average is 3.8 blocks a minute, currently getting 1 every 8 something minutes. nice instamine..
That was the difficulty catching up.. Random miners who saw the launch got the early blocks, not the dev team.
There was a several hour window of time where you could hop on without much power or rent some quick and score quite a bit of XCT. It wasn't as instant as it seems. Those blocks definitely flew though.
See the problem with Bitcointalk threads is there is always someone who wants to be a troll. This coin was not an insta-mine there was a very small window of opportunity to get in when the difficulty was low and as expected due to the SHA algo and the abundance of SHA rigs out there - the difficulty shot up fairly quickly.
It is no one's fault here that you - Mote - Missed out on a golden opportunity.
Cheers-
Rekt
March 01, 2016, 12:49:31 AM
Since launch the current rate average is 3.8 blocks a minute, currently getting 1 every 8 something minutes. nice instamine..
That was the difficulty catching up.. Random miners who saw the launch got the early blocks, not the dev team.
There was a several hour window of time where you could hop on without much power or rent some quick and score quite a bit of XCT. It wasn't as instant as it seems. Those blocks definitely flew though.
March 01, 2016, 12:17:48 AM
Since launch the current rate average is 3.8 blocks a minute, currently getting 1 every 8 something minutes. nice instamine..
February 29, 2016, 11:38:51 PM
If you think I am just here to fud, then you are wrong.
Eclipse is also new but the dev was able to give me a satisfactory answer so I have given my interest/support.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14050894
see?
I am simply trying to find out the same for this coin.
Eclipse is also new but the dev was able to give me a satisfactory answer so I have given my interest/support.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14050894
see?
I am simply trying to find out the same for this coin.
they're just using secp256k1.. what's special about it? just stop whining so much and wait then, if you are "waiting to see what happens" here.. or does waiting involve trolling and nitpicking?
Much more special than simply changing block size limit and max supply. At least they have solved an actual flaw. I am waiting but I do not see where I am whining. If you think me pointing out the possibility of vaporware is trolling than you need to meet a real troll. Nitpicking is necessary because it is important to be critical of things, especially in the cryptocurrency scene.
You just don't get it.
You want a MAJOR contribution ?
C-bit now gets Bitcoin Classic off of Bitcoin Core's back.
If the REAL reason for Bitcoin Classic's argument with Bitcoin
Core is because of the Block size, then here is C-bit, all
ready and presented like a christmas gift.
All they have to do is move in and settle down. It's all
ready for Classic. C-bit IS Bitcoin Core, but with the 2 Meg
block size already baked in. Bitcoin Core no longer needs
to do a Hard Fork, this is the Major innovative item of
C-bit that you don't seem to understand.
Unless the real reason behind Bitcoin Classic is more than
just the block size, it's a perfect fit. If the real reason is
something else, well then, we just exposed it. It might be
the Bitcoin network, the value of Bitcoin, the clients of Bitcoin,
the name of Bitcoin, or the power. Everything then is now
exposed as a smokescreen and a lie. Everyone will be able to
see it all for what it really is. A grab for Bitcoin.
As for your comment about it is so easy that all you have
to do is cut and paste. You know what, you're right. I did
this whole project while sitting on the toilet one night, in about
15 minutes.... the whole damn thing. There, happy ? You win.
William Martens
Founder C-bit
Copy pasting bitcoin code and changing to 2MB blocksize + supply is not innovation.
I was expecting some actual innovation.
If changing block size and supply count is innovation, then oh gee... bitcointalk is overflowing with innovators... especially the altcoin section.
The only thing that would make C-bit worth anything is if it really was a solution to the current blocksize problem but it is not.
Please do not say C-bit is the solution because it has 2 MB block size already.
On a more realistic note, if you think Bitcoin Core supporters will move to C-bit you are delusional.
Do you have any reason why people would consider C-bit OTHER than the 2 MB block size?
I give up on you.
Some people just have a 5th grade education.
Jump to: