parishy

There are alot of shit altcoins some are good too tho so i am dying to know how a alt coin should be how many coins POS/POW ? how many POS % How many Reward per Block Algorithym should be distributed through airdrop or not etc.. what you think a altcoins Should look like ? if you were launching a coin , how would you set up your coin ?

It is important for people to know that, not all projects that steal money and disappear are scams and a lot of projects just offer huge bonuses to entice people into investing in their platform. Offering too high bonuses is one of the major reasons why some ICOs fail. Ideally i believe presale bonuses should not be more than 30% and the purpose of presale should be for a project to meet its soft cap, so presale allocations should be capped accordingly. Offering too high bonuses either locked up or not will still cause some form of uncertainty for investors and prompt weak hands to dump. Projects that offers 50, 70 or even 100% bonuses should be a no go area for investors.

well. Lets take as an example Poseidon Foundation, a non-profit organisation that is committed to offset carbon emissions and to achieve so one tool they use is Stellar blockchain. They have their own token called OCEAN that enable users to access platform and also buy carbon credits. You can see how it wouldn't make much sense to just buy and sell coin right away, as this is a project that has a clear goal and can have huge impact globally as climate change is getting worse everyday. as Poseidon Foundation, am sure there are many other like this in different fields, how do you make investors understand that?

Hello...Freinds I think UBEX and Kakushin ICO is it's in the last momentum. UBEX left 6 days whereas Kakushin ICO left 14 days. Any ICO's in your mind which is its last momentum?

On July 30, 2018, DCEX, crypto marketplace, announced that the registration is opened to the first crypto exchange by using XRP as its base currency. The next generation crypto marketplace, DCEX powered by AlphaPoint, a blockchain exchange technology company. Although, clients will not be able to start the trading for a few more weeks.

Hi. I know desktop wallets are safer but I have a question regarding a web wallet. What is the safest way possible of logging in. Please can you rank these in order of safest to least safest. I see four ways of potentially logging in: 1. HTTPS address + Tor browser + Onion address 2. None HTTPS + Tor browser + onion address 3. HTTPS address + Standard browser + Clearnet link 4. HTTPS address + Tor browser + clearnet link

This is purely speculative but with the price of bitcoin being heavily dependent on mining difficulty, what do you see in the future for bitcoin with quantum computing? Will everything convert to a Proof of Stake system? Thoughts?

If you are a Bounty Manager, please don’t run Google Translator to assess the accuracy of translation. I work as a Korean translator on my free time. I realized that many ICOs do not bother to have proofreaders for translation works. Of course, it’s up to ICOs to decide but if you are going to proofread it, please don’t run google translator to assess whether the translation is accurate. There’s nothing more frustrating to translators (beside not getting paid) to have somebody arguing the translation work is not right because it’s different from google translators. Google translators are not always accurate and cannot take various factors such as idioms into account. Thus, if you are serious about the quality of translation, always get a native proofreader. Thanks.

Sorry for this newbie question, but i never was the fully technical interested guy and use cryptos mostly as a USER. So is it in any way possible to connect for example BTC and LTC in one chain? And/Or is it possible to "Deposit" BTC in a chain to release the coin xyz - and on the other side a way to burn these new coins to release the "deposited" BTC again? I really hope u understand what i mean - sorry English is not my passion..

So this is a repost due to not having any replies in Bitcoin discussion. This thread was buried to page 2 within a hour. Looks like people would prefer to spam the same old replies in the mega threads than engage in actual conversations. In Bitcoins early days in fact just over 1 year a major exploit was found and abused by two addresses on the network which were likely controlled by one person although this hasn't been proven or found out to date. The major security vulnerability was first spotted in what I presume was in the code and by Satoshi himself or some other developer on 6 August 2010. To my knowledge this is the only major vulnerability that was discovered in Bitcoins history. I would like to discuss this with the people at Bitcointalk to get a better understanding and some insight on what happened in these 9 days. Here are the main questions: 1. How was the vulnerability spotted and by who? 2. If this was public knowledge why was it only exploited 9 days after? 3. The transaction/exploit was erased from the network how so? 4. Was it discovered who exploited the network and controlled the addresses? I am assuming the vulnerability was first discovered by either Satoshi or another developer that was working on Bitcoin at that time. As far as I'm aware Gavin Andersen wasn't involved in developing Bitcoin directly at this point but was developing for the Bitcoin market. Maybe the vulnerability was discovered by a member of the public? It's odd that knowing there was a vulnerability in the code and was probably public knowledge at the time because of Bitcoin being open source why did it take 9 days for A. Something to be done about it and B. For someone to exploit it. This was very early days for Bitcoin and the exploit was spotted before it was abused. So why risk it and wait until someone does exploit it to actually patch the code? Did it really take 9 days to come up with a solution and it just so happens that it was exploited the same day too. Once the vulnerability was exploited it only took a few hours for it to be patched and the transaction log to be cleared. How did this happen? Surely the coins would of confirmed on the network and because Bitcoin isn't reversible would of stayed on the network? I know that the network would of had to been forked. But was this a hard fork? If so what we are using today could be considered Bitcoin 2.0 and thus the original Bitcoin failed within a year and half due to this exploit. Finally does anyone know what the two addresses were and could link them in this thread? It would be interesting to know who abused the vulnerability and if the addresses have been used since. For anyone who is wondering how the vulnerability worked is transactions were not verified before they were included in the blockchain. Therefore you could send any amount of coin you wanted as it would not check if you had that amount to send. So someone generated 184 billion bitcoins and sent it to two addresses on the network it existed on the network for a brief amount of time. I wish for us to discuss this and provide further insight for not only myself but for the others which maybe don't know too much about the vulnerability and Bitcoin itself. I welcome both technical and non technical discussion.

I never understood why "Satoshi Nakamoto" had to hide for creating Bitcoin. It is nothing more than a programming code. Apparently in the United States and many other countries it is illegal to issue your own currency, but for a long time Bitcoin has not been considered a currency, it simply was not regulated. If the legislation has not changed, how is it possible that new cryptocurrencies are now appearing every day? If a project issues a token to finance its ICO, is not it issuing currency illegally? Now it seems that different countries are beginning to regulate cryptocurrencies, but the criteria differ in each country and even contradict each other jurisdictions, a sentence published by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2015 includes bitcoin within the category of "currencies, bank notes and currencies that are legal means of payment", therefore the Bitcoin is not illegal, which contradicts the criterion of the majority of governments of the European Union and institutions such as the European Central Bank, which do not consider virtual currencies as a means of payment. Can something that is initially illegal be regulated?

There are emerging cryptocoins which don't rely on the 'old' blockchain technology. The most known of them are IOTA and NANO (raiblocks). I have never used these coins so far, but their developers state these coins can provide a lot of improvements and better features than traditional blockchain-based cryptocoins like Bitcoin. For example, faster and cheaper transactions, less energy consumption and so on. So do you think blockchain-based cryptocoins are doomed and the future will be favorable to these emerging technologies?

After doing a bit of research on NAV - it seems AdApps could be the ultimate goal for the libertarian mindset. Ethereum and NEO don't have this anywhere on their roadmap, nor does it look possible at this point in time for either. What other projects look promising that have AdApps on their radar? What positives and negative do you see with AdApps?

Here are some thoughts about crypto and their future. We are now entering a second phase of crypto era: The In-Between. The wild west is slowly coming to an end on one side, and on the other side KYC and countries / governments talking about regulations and even global cooperation to do what they do best tax and track properly. There are still lot's of great opportunities to be made, but also a lot of greed, scams, thieves. Phase 2 is also the bubble phase, when everything gets out of control: too many coins, too many scams, and too much profit for too many people. That would be awesome, but unfortunately, it doesn't work this way. So one way or another, we will get a "crash" that will select the real / good / useful projects over the rest. When the bubble burst, money will reallocate in the strongest coins/tokens. A few giant will emerge, as well as maybe 50 to 100 other interesting projects, and as the time goes, the smaller projects will bet eaten by the giant. The bubble crash will more or less mark the beginning of phase 3 with regulation in place (which will also be made much easier with less coins), and mass adoption. Scams as well as huge return for average Joe will be long gone. Crypto will be legit. Now, blockchain is here to stay. But which coins / tokens will stick around for regulation and main street adoption ? That's the real question. Most of those thousand coins in CMC won't make it. Unfortunately, the way it is going isn't the way most idealist hoped it could be. Bitcoin is great, but it can't be the main currency because of a supply too little and scalability problem (you can't realistically buy a coffee 0,00000015BTC with $10 fees and 15mn transaction time!). However it will most likely stick as a store of value, and maybe as a "bitcoin standard" on exchange (think gold standard but for crypto). Ethereum has the same scalability issue, and it is a DAPP platform, not a currency in the first place so it doesn't seem well adapted, and the supply isn't high enough in my opinion. It's sad to say, but ripple is very well placed to take the lead as the main currency in crypto world (maybe lightning network can prove me wrong). So, the way I see it, we have 4 mains issues to solve if we want to keep the spirit of crypto: 1/ A credible alternate decentralized currency instead of ripple. 2/ Adoption of decentralized exchanges. 3/ Security, with safe wallet, safe network decentralization, and safe encryption with the rise of quantum computer coming. 4/ A way to make POW more environmentally friendly, or to find an alternative as good as POW. What do you think guys ?

http://www.professionalsecurity.co.uk/news/transport/sentence-after-dna-tagging-spray/ https://www.selectadna.co.uk/dna-tagging-spray Missed all this. Is it much in use in other countries? Is there any science behind it?