• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Skaro last won the day on August 9

Skaro had the most liked content!

About Skaro

  • Rank
    Forum Addict
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • FRC
  1. well anyway, it works better if you start with no block chain downloaded (empty chaindata\) then run C:\Users\Reza\AppData\Roaming\Ethereum Wallet\binaries\Geth\unpacked\geth --syncmode "fast" --cache 1024 console. That loads chain much faster. After that, run wallet. I'm not sure how wallet performance will be after that. more info:
  2. But the time is over. And their first declaration was already recorded. i could be completely wrong here. But I value the 'back to basics' thought process to see what exactly is meant or required to happen. After a few ego 'releases' it is actually fun. it seems to me the POW essentially does 3 things: (1) choose a unique person to issue the block; (2) maintaing the 10 min pace (allowing time for transactions to be transmitted accross the network and for people to assemble blocks); (3) third 'to have skin in the game' to not cheat. The second can be achieved by a clock, the first through a lottery, and the third with a deposit. I am purposely not going back to do research here to make sure I am not just being a parrot but creating a reasoning. but I could be wrong, that's the thought excercise. Tonight I will go back to Satoshi's white paper. Oh. The fourth is to ward off DOS attacks. Added later: I think part of the answer to my question is that my scenario uses essentially a usenet. Where as Satoshi says POW is needed to establish a time stamp server on a peer to peer network.
  3. Back to basics. Please endulge me: Why can't something like this work instead of POW? 1) Master clock starts at 0 2) At a special viewing area, a number is randomely chosen and put in a closed "box" and put in central viewing area (but number remains nonvisible). 3) for 10 minutes, nodes compile block. When they are ready to submit, they announce they have a block and submit it with another randomly produced number. 4)At the end of the 10 minutes, the random number is revealed, and the node that submitted closest number wins. A variation is, a node is selected at random to be the 'viewing area' and selects the first random number. This node cannot contribute a block. Oh! And nodes submitting a block submit a fee that will be reimbursed unless their block is bad, then it goes to the winner.
  4. Is there something that can be done so that the blockchain cannot be copied with a hardfork like BCC? It seems to me now, BCC has proven that Bitcoin is not a trustless system. Am I wrong in my perception of this? But I realize I am asking to make a hardfork that won't allow hardfork ...
  5. Perfect. I will use that excuse for the explorer too.
  6. How can that happen? How does the wallet allow you to send more then you have? Demurrage is deducted every block, when you open your wallet. But there is a difference of 1 satoshi. So it's really close.
  7. I would like to help with the testing.
  8. @Mark Friedenbach Yup. I meant 'currency split' as in 'stock split'.
  9. Hi Maaku! Is what you are describing a currency split to bring remaining funds back up to a total supply of 100 million?
  10. Well, that's as official as things get here. We got a majority of 'Yays' agreeing that Option 4 represents the communities choice for ending the foundation. So its done, decided. LET'S DO THIS!
  11. Oh me too. Just updating the wallet for a couple of weeks takes longer that the initial load a month ago. I think this has to do with the denial of service attacks. Apperently there is a 'fast load' method, but I don't think this makes a difference for recent attacks. I too gave up. I will try 'fast load'. We have to figure this out so we can put Ethereum on the exchange. Honestly, I'm not sure how Ethereum can even function right now. I mean, my lap top has 12G of RAM and it can't update the wallet! To me, it's like Rick's animation ^^, a total car wreck.
  12. Thank you. But I already counted you @fedde. We still need one more 'yay' to say this was decided
  13. Since, we are not using rules of order, discussion is still happened while voting on a resolution to move forward. That's fine. But one more 'yay', or synonym of, will make it a majority.
  14. @Fabrizio, regarding the parameters for option 2, I too did ask if @jtimon could maybe share some thoughts on that. And thanks for presenting your ideas too--although I wanted to wrap this up. He has so far clarified: 1)funds to go through miners, not POS; 2) one of the reasons we want to end the Foundation is because no alternative method for distribution was developed by us, so we shouldn't pretend that we will developed one now, 3) the goal is to end the Foundation, not to create another one. So option one represents the maximum time to distribute the funds, option 4 thier complete destruction. I think your suggest kinda falls under (2), we haven't got the basic income up and running yet. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, But it may not materialize. We could reasonably target having a round figure still of say 30 million. I think people reading Freicoin history will think, "they saw a problem and fixed it while still keeping that character of the coin the same." anyway keep discussing, but let's aim to get this wrapped up soon.
  15. Yes, smiley crêpes are considered a synonym for 'yay'.