Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - earthbound

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
General Discussion / Re: Why I am no longer supporting Invictus-Innovations
« on: December 31, 2013, 05:19:05 am »
[Quite belated as this may be, nevertheless . . .]

First, a personal note, and then I'll try to back away and take a more neutrally observant tone.

Most of my ProtoShares have now been invested in a Keyhotee Founder ID, and will probably next go towards AngelShares, but dude, for whatever it's worth, yes I see your pain (I hope I even feel it--Lord knows I've had some serious misfortune in my days), but I can't nary do a thing for it. Well, maybe I can throw some shreds of specks of PTS your way. I'd recommend anyone else to do the same (or even send you a lot of PTS, if they can) just to buy back your support :)

Second, there's an underlying silly, prima facae idea here, that if choices made by one (or many) lead anyone else to misfortune, it could only mean the misfortune was intended by the one (and that the one should be regarded guilty unless proven innocent). This position is unreasonable, because it simply discards the self-evident truth that people in general have good will, so that it is usually more reasonable to assume or hope that others meant well, even if they could not always do as well as others hope.

But on balance, it seems to be Invictus is doing a lot of good and creating a lot of value, and if in the mix they make errors (it is safest to assume), doesn't that mean that they are . . . human?

(And, quite topically, not robots?)

Now, that said . . .

I'm astonished. Herein was an argument which both accused of ill-willed manipulation, and in the same breaths, with quite the very same ill-will it accused others of, proposed somehow forcibly excluding others (cloud miners) from a market?

(By "the very same ill-will," I refer to the manifest ill-will toward cloud miners.)

And trying to exclude a whole class of investors wouldn't be ill-willed manipulation?*

And this quite hypocritical proposal, at the same time an aspersion of hypocrisy is thrown out?


Swallowed up as it is in pain, this argument doesn't even see that it proposes exactly the same kind of inequality which it (erroneously) accuses others of deliberately creating.

On the principle of equality, Mr. Lincoln and his supporters were very insightful. I recommend a watch of the film "LINCOLN." Therein is a performance of a venerable Statesman, who argued that the phrase " . . . all men are created equal . . . " should not be taken to mean that all men are equally great. He properly insulted the racist ill logic of a Statesman (whom he opposed), by saying his opponent is proof that all men are not created equal (or in other words, his opponent is a small-minded fool). He argued rather that the phrase speaks of equality before the law, or in other words, it means that the principle of law (and the human rights it defends) should have equal application to all men.

(This argument was evidently one of the influences that led to the abolition of slavery.)

What does this have to do with anything here? Well, an argument which was had here sought to enforce unequal opportunity on others, to recompense for a supposed wrong.

That kind of argument will always beget misery.

The fact is that life is unfair. Men are not created equal (in greatness, and in resources, etc.), but men do have a right to be given equal opportunity. These two facts must logically lead to the conclusion that, assuming a level playing field, those who invest their resources more wisely will come out ahead. It also means that brutal chance may dish a good deal to one and a bad deal to another. In other words, everyone has equal opportunity for either fortune or misfortune--you can never predict what kind of misfortune will befall anyone. It can happen to anyone and everyone.

Where circumstance has dealt misfortune, pointing fingers (seeking to blame anyone--and thereby forming a supposed pretext to create inequality against them--which is vengeful, by the way) isn't going to go anywhere other than somewhere miserable. Granted, misery is a strangely comforting place, because at least a miserable person can safely predict to themselves that they will not so enthusiastically prepare for future opportunities, where they could be exposed to risk and be possibly hurt again.

Serious shit happened to Batman, but he got back up! :)

*And how the hockeysticks would any design even block cloud miners? So not worth it. A system should allow equal access to all participants, regardless of how much or how little power those participants wield. Otherwise, it simply isn't equal. Those who put in greater resources will probably get greater returns, but ideally, those with less resources can get a similar return (proportionally) for their smaller investment. And look around! Just today, someone unleashed a GPU POW miner, which apparently only increases returns four-fold (ish), where previous algorithms were simply decimated by GPUs. If going to all the trouble of designing and open-sourcing an algorithm which, at least, people are having a much harder time "cracking" for an unequal advantage--if that isn't proof of good will, I don't know what is.

MemoryCoin / Re: One pool with almost 100% hashpower
« on: December 31, 2013, 01:00:15 am »
Ok, thanks for letting me know.

I've had no luck contacting him/her on the IRC channel given at the pool; I suppose I have to cut my losses and create a different account (unless/until I hear from them). Rats.

General Discussion / Re: Invictus Innovations - Help Wanted!
« on: December 30, 2013, 05:09:58 am »
Here is my first attempt for a logo/theme for ProtoShares.. Give me some feedback -
P.S. I know this is over.. Just doing it for fun!

What's over? Clueless here :)

I like it. I might discard the ribbon, and maybe make the whole thing look more coin-ish. Maybe with a font that could be minted on to a coin (a more slab or slab-serif font)? OR dramatically depart from that theme, and make it look like non-denominational universal fiat paper (whatever that looks like) and/or company shares.

BTW (@forum/bytemaster), I'm curious:

1) What libraries/tools are required to build Keyhotee on Windows 7, e.g. what version of QT, boost, etc. Going to try to give it a spin.
2) Is/will the development version (and/or the beta) be on a testnet?

MemoryCoin / Re: One pool with almost 100% hashpower
« on: December 29, 2013, 04:11:43 pm »
Join Extasie!
It monitors your miners
Did I mention 0% donation?

Delinquency, I guess that you are the Extasie admin?

I joined your pool, but neglected to write down the PIN for my account, which PIN is necessary to make important account changes. For example, I currently have no donation percent ;) set, and I also don't have any MMC withdrawal address set. Without my PIN, I can't set either of those.

I would reset my PIN myself, but your pool does not yet have any account recovery (e.g. password or PIN reset) mechanism. I hope and believe that adding that feature is on your "To Do" list, which I can only imagine is a long list. I assume the reset mechanism would send out a custom confirmation link to the email address associated with a user's account, which link takes the user to a secure page, where they can reset their password or PIN.

Because my PIN is lost and unrecoverable, a few days ago I sent you an email asking how we could manually reset my PIN, and you haven't replied. Meanwhile, my three attempts to guess my PIN have failed, and your site blocked my account as a consequence.

My forum profile here allows you to email me. Please reactivate my pool account, then hard reset (manually code) my PIN, and email me the new PIN, so that I can log in and change my account settings.

Incidentally, I had also been trying to set a two percent donation to you (from my pool mining). If you solve this problem, you'll not only get that two percent forever, you'll also still have my recommendation for others to join your pool (I'm one of your very early pool users/supporters).


MemoryCoin / Re: - First Memorycoin Pool
« on: December 28, 2013, 04:22:59 am »
uh... nvm, if that is the mining client for the other pool, then maby not... maby the person posted on the wrong thread.?


I'm not entirely certain, but I believe the same miner can (or apparently should be able to) mine at various pools?

I got it to work at a brand-spanking-new other pool with this command:

Code: [Select]
minerd.exe --url --user myUserName.1 --pass x --threads 16
--and it periodically displayed a hash rate, and found a share! :)

I couldn't get it to do any hashing for the pool in subject of this thread. I think it's the pool's fault :/

MemoryCoin / Re: One pool with almost 100% hashpower
« on: December 28, 2013, 02:16:42 am »
Currently there is one pool with almost 100% hashpower. It makes MemoryCoin very unsecure at the moment.

We definitely should do something with it.

Which pool is that? After scouring the web and these forums, I'm aware of three different pools:

I have had no luck trying to get a connection to mine with the first two, but finally just got a miner working with the third.

MemoryCoin / Re: - First Memorycoin Pool
« on: December 28, 2013, 01:48:41 am »
Quote!ydhjharY!SS3CQCt_4OSev2XiaDZ2bnCNf94WHFNN8ZLsSVYp4cw windows 32bit version miner for pool (unstable version)
. . .
It works pretty well.

Rlly? For me, it reads:

Code: [Select]
16 miner threads started, using MMC Momentum Proof-of-Work algorithm.
. . . and offers no further feedback or indication that it is actually mining anything, and my CPU activity meters barely fluctuate at all.

Is it actually doing anything (is it mining)? The command I used to run it was:

Code: [Select]
minerd.exe --url --user MyMMCaddressBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBl -D -P --threads 16

General Discussion / Re: Search Engine, DAC
« on: December 27, 2013, 05:30:23 am »
How to filter out users who would submit links not because they are censored, but because they want inexpensive advertising?

Also, I think maybe that idea would introduce dependency on large vested interests; so that when censorship is finally properly in the hands of users (instead of large vested interests--so that censorship is no longer a problem), the value proposition will collapse?

In other words, I wouldn't want anything correlated with the output of large vested interests.

(I'm taking for granted, incidentally, that everyone censors at least something. No matter what your stripes, there is always something which--if it were universally broadcast and immediately available to everyone--makes you uncomfortable, at least.)

On the other hand, that dependency can be exploited insofar that if an imminent collapse of the value proposition can be reasonably argued, you can first ride the bubble up, and then short the currency as it collapses, to make a killing . . .

General Discussion / Re: Search Engine, DAC
« on: December 27, 2013, 04:56:38 am »
What if Search Engine DAC ("Distributed Autonomous Corporation") was framed thus? Brainstorming here:

The ranking algorithm is set in stone, open-source, and publicly available. (Perhaps the algorithm could evolve with human intervention by way of a stakeholders-elected board of directors and/or development team, with rounds of proposals for changes to the algorithm somehow democratically mediated? How?) The blockchain is the search engine index, perhaps including keyword rankings, reasons for those rankings, and also an index of keyword/key phrases queried over, say, the last ninety days (anything older than 90 days is automatically "pruned" from the blockchain).

"Mining" consists of spidering the web and updating the database, and/or handling user queries. (Updates to the database have to therefore somehow be tied to mining. How?)

I've thought through the possibilities of pegging an incentive to privacy (for example, paying a fee to the network to encrypt a query and the results--paying that fee in any cryptocurrency), but the fact is, anyone can create total privacy surrounding their search queries . . . can't they? If they can't, how could a DAC solve that problem?

OR: users could pay a fee to have no advertisements displayed alongside search results. (This begets a whole other problem, perhaps to be solved by another entity: "Keyword Advertising DAC.")

What Things could happen in your internet experience, Oh Users, which Manned Organizations have no incentive to offer you (for example, because advertisers will pay them more than you will)?

Ask yourselves, Oh Users of the Interwebs: what would you pay to change with your internet experience? Please answer this question! It is very important! :)

Keyhotee / Re: Screen Shot
« on: December 27, 2013, 03:25:37 am »
I see.

I didn't understand your second sentence there.  ???

Keyhotee / Re: Redeeming Keyhotee ID & Angel Shares for Keyhotee Founders
« on: December 26, 2013, 09:05:43 pm »
A word from a properly paranoid person who also happens to have secured a pending founder ID ;)

Keyhotee / Re: Screen Shot
« on: December 26, 2013, 09:03:34 pm »


I'm frankly surprised and a little disappointed to see a screen capture where the profile registration requires that level of real-world information: full name, birthday, and SSN#/Passport#/Driver's License#??

I hope that the only way in which that information is used is as a basis to generate the public/private key pair tied to an identity? And if that is the case, why should the keys necessarily be generated from information which is itself mediated by any nationality? Furthermore, why is the required information given with a bias to the nationality of the United States?

Keyhotee will, I hope and believe, be part of a global information/currency freedom (and security) revolution. I therefore strongly suggest that the information used to create any identity be abstract enough to thoroughly disintermediate the generation of an ID from anything necessarily having to do with any one nationality.

I suggest changing the ID creation mnemonics to three "security questions," and providing a very long list of rather obscure questions which only someone who is not any kind of, uh . . . Superior Sibling . . . :) would know. I also suggest that the name and birthday fields be optional, and that they be labeled "full name OR alias" and "obscure identifying number" (with a suggestion that SSNs, etc. are not obscure enough.)

It should also offer a link to very specific suggested steps for absolutely securing the information provided to generate the ID (e.g. three different digital and three different paper backups, all secured at different physical locations where you can trust them to be absolutely safe), and it should very pointedly demand that this be the case before it will allow the ID to be created. For the paper backups, that should be printouts of the information tied to the id, sent in nondescript envelopes, to three different people or locations (in sufficiently diverse areas of the planet) whom you trust with your life.

(Hint: an internet search for "excellent security questions" offers some really good leads)

I'm also a bit alarmed by the push here in some comments to tie a service which is disintermediated by design into integration with other, mediated services, for "security??"

A good spy can tell you that if any important information of yours is controlled by a third party (in particular companies or organizations), it is not a matter of whether any adversary can cheat or extort to acquire that information, but how motivated and resourceful they are.

If any third party has access to any useful information about you, you should consider that information--and all information which is routed through that party--potentially public, period.

So, at the very least, if this aspect of the design of ID creation goes unchanged, I personally would recommend that anyone creating an ID provide harmlessly false instead of true information, if you want your Keyhotee ID absolutely secured.

Thank you for your work.

General criticism; and please keep in mind that I have this criticism of most ~qt wallets, e.g. the Bitcoin wallet and most other cryptocurrency ~qt clients could improve this way: they could come quite a ways out of "cheat codes" (low accessibility to general users) territory.

IMO, re the protoshares-qt client, it would be best to:
1) Ask users upon first launch if they would like to either generate a wallet (if one is not found) OR load an existing wallet; and if they do the latter, remember the location of that wallet (even if that means a specific setting for that in the conf. file). Included with this (IMO) should be an option to not generate a wallet.
2) By default, warn users if a wallet is unencrypted; point them to how to encrypt it. Include an option to shut off this "nag" warning.
3) Specifically urge users to securely store (write down or keep in an encrypted file, etc.) their password upon encryption (a boogedy-boo warning about losing coins just isn't enough--too many folks probably just wouldn't think "Oh, yeah, I should write that down somewhere, in case I die and my children need to inherit my wealth," etc.)
4) (Along some of the lines you say here) Include links to the most brief/best educational resources about everything PTC possible
(and (5) have a consolidated page with said educational resources. A forum is *not* sufficient for that, IMO. Forums are too much for the people who read cheat codes; less accessible)

A possible issue with the qt client: even though I clicked "mine 3 processes" from the Settings menu, and after a wait, the infotip over the mining icon (in the lower right of the GUI) said it was mining, and gave a collision rate--even after that, when I typed getmininginfo in the console,* it said 0 collisions; but after I typed either "setgenerate true 1" (or maybe it was just "setgenerate true--" I don't know which worked), and then waited and then ran getmininginfo again, it reported a collision rate.

*Your average user is not going to want to touch a console (or even know how); a lot of useful information and functionality could be abstracted from the console (invoke the same functions), but be accessible from the user interface/buttons.

BitShares PTS / Re: "No block source available" error message
« on: November 22, 2013, 05:27:35 am »
How can I launch the protoshares-qt client (on Windows 7) from the command line, and/or from the conf. file, instructing it to generate coins and mine? I run a mining manager that periodically restarts miners and/or reboots the computer; it would be nice to have the client mine automatically at launch.

AND/OR is there a separate command-line miner somewhere which I don't know about, and could use (yes, I could look around--sorry; have looked some but not extensively)?

Also, where/how should I expect any user interface feedback on any results from mining (e.g. will it hopefully eventually "mine" a "coin?")

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]