Arcurus

Yes we would need a hardfork to provide a sustainable budget. I'm all for it since years.

Hi Rik, yes we don't need donation matching, we could distribute the coins directly to people. The donation matching was just a workaround with the current issuing. I don't think airdrops are a good solution, they don't solve any problem in a sustainable way. I would prefer to give people a steady amount of coins per time period. This would encourage long term use of the coin and long term fair money distribution.

Bounty sounds good.

great to have you! Best is to coordinate directly with fedde, he has the overview and the direct contact also to maaku.

looks quite good, only few addresses have some less than 0,1% difference

why you need if statements? The historic balance when an transaction happened could be calculated with the block height of that time the transaction was included or? Where can i see what is in circulation right now?

Great! I never thought so be so happy about a zero balance

this address for example has a negative balance: http://freicoin.info/address/1LjKPSa7J9KyWFv7pWka2iUaLj6c29rtb Maybe the explorer dosent calculate the transaction fees right?

i checked them, but the thing is, the wallet uses many addresses but displays only one amount, so i can only check if the total amount is right

Thx to fedde we have now: https://freiexchange.com/login

I guess the best is to look in the code how maaku implemented it.

the wallet just displays. When coins are moved then the coins are destroyed. Otherwise it will blow the blockcain.

two i guess freiexchange and virco is back online

doesnt the demurrage look like some kind of fee? I guess you can clear the full balance, but you cannot use all of the balance.

i guess there are many addresses like that, just clicked one some blocks with transactions and found some addresses with negative balances, so i guess there a lot more out there.

I just saw the address in one of the blocks, but i will check my balances if they are correct displayed. Yes the amount column of an transaction should stay without demurrage. At that time it was that much Freicoins. Just the balance of an address should display demurrage.

thx for coding the block explorer with demurrage! Just saw one thing, the balance of an address seems to be sometimes negative.... http://freicoin.info/address/1CvPQJiUypsARMQajjVcNfq5erxaJHNhy2

news to proof of stake from an turing award winner: http://www.coindesk.com/scalable-blockchain-consensus-turing-award-winner-thinks-hes-got-solution

great. thx!

Enough is enough! ECB is stealing our name: they made ¨freecoin¨ https://bravenewcoin.com/news/eu-parliament-states-virtual-currencies-cannot-be-anonymous/

Hi Sarko, to 1) lol yea the thermodynamics ... it's both the thermodynamics / work securing the chain, and the right to include a transaction to 2) attempt yes, success most likely not long.... by the way, also here dahs pow algorithm sound more promising than script mining. to 3) confirmations currently is pow, therefore see 1) thermodynamics . The balance is known? yes and no. No because it is not known to 100% if the balance stays like it is, because currently longer pow chain can undo the balance. And not necessarily 100% of the nodes agree on the same balance. And yes,

its really sad currently in Bitcoin, it seems that the main mining hardware provider doesnt like core and now tries to make a bitcoin fork with bitcoin unlimited. Its really sad, that they block segwit, which would increase the blocksize 2 fold. It's also really sad, that the core developer still don't have coded or even described an way beyond the current 1 mb limit as promised to the miners. I more and more see no good reason for proof of work other than a coin distribution and the simplicity of it. But the problem is with time one single company will more and more dominate th

Nice post about mining power accumulation in Bitcoin: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@dantheman/who-really-controls-bitcoin

UPDATE: old nodes that are not aware of an higher existing tier can just continue to validate transactions as they always did. Updated nodes, that are aware of an higher tier, but do not have enough resources to be a full node on a higher tier, could if they want take part in the active enforcement of higher tear transactions in the following way: - they could download the full or a part of the current balances (unspent set) from higher tier nodes and block transactions / blocks that are not valid according to that - if they dont have the current balances they could ask higher t

Hi all, here is a draft how we could use an multi tier blockchain that allows high transaction processing without compromising decentralisation. As always feels welcome to give feedback, Arcurus This proposal is based on this proposal, so good to read this first: How could a multi tier block chain look like: - the normal block would be called zero tier block - a block in the next tier is called tier one block - a block in the next tier after tier one is called tier two block - each tier block references the next tier - higher tie