Topics created by zerodrama

I’m reading the forum all the time and track the progress :)

yeah but we still a cleanup on isle 5. I imagine everything still points to ‘Bitcoin’ instead of ‘Feathercoin’. The UI updates are nice but as noticed, only the windows exe made it to .9.5, not the master branch. The master branch is still missing the UI changes. There is a lot of cleanup to do with bitcoin branding that was left behind with feathercoin master branch.What work Ive done, Ive lost with recent backup failures. I am in need of GitHub WRITE access. Furthermore we have a FREEDOM issue here that has recently been brought to my attention.

Although Debian and UBUNTU both use SSL, namely OPENSSL, it has one fatal flaw: current implementation is NON-FREE as distributed.

Fedora team have made changes to FREE it, however, these changes remove the code we need to function.(Elliptic curves)

Several Bitcoin-esque projects are affected, as they ALL use openSSL.

Noted HERE: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?p=1581297 and HERE: http://mikeminneman.com/2013/12/getting-dogecoind-to-run-on-centos/

The CentOS pactch doesnt seem to make any changes. However, it is noted that there is further work to be done on HARDENING as noted in this patch:

https://github.com/weex/bitcoind-centos/blob/master/makefile.new. Current version with Fedora is 1.0.1k (pull from 22, 21 sources are broken).

Ive noticed severe DATA LOSS occuring on Debian systems with Jessie. UBUNTU introduces bugs that shouldnt be. I cant use either as a result.Looks like Im rebuilding OPENSSL…EDIT: NO GO. EPIC FAIL. I dunno how to proceed now. Bitcoin team uses a static version of openssl included with thier app, so does litecoin. Perhaps we should follow suit.

ALSO:

Packages for Feathercoin for Fedora(and Im sure others) are missing the qt wallet client.This is a HUGE oversight. We need to include both the daemon AND the client.Please repack.

It’s not a license issue.

It’s a patent issue.

Use it.

And if Certicom does something nasty, start a riot.

Will 0.10.1 fix our issue with core? Could we safely allow people to use the new wallet you spent months creating? The wallet with shapeshift, coinnector, bitmessage, plugin capability, dark transactions…

It can be made into a library easily. It doesn’t depend on any third party components. I’ve nearly finished to rewrite it in the 32-bit and 64-bit x86 assembly. Completely.

Great :) +1

Yeah I know that.

This would be great…The users and the team and all the people together at one place is amazing! I can imagine how lovely the conversation will be! It will boost our morale as well!

Please do it ASAP!

Excited!

I don’t think they even implemented what they said they would yet and it’s been, what, 5 months?

Litecoin did put Doge on a leash, though. Embarrassing.

I know I know. But how serious are we taking our selves?

How important is ftc and is it worth dedicating the next 5 years to assure it can live through great big bang and formation stages of the crypto universe…

We lack funds but they can be achieved. We need a transparent way to provide formal backing and support for the network we are trying to create. I believe a C.I.C could be the way to do this in a manner that compliments the free and open source nature of feathercoin.

Best case scenario for ftc is that we can impliment everything that cuts out the middle man.

Thats what the BC tech was originaly intended for. If you could put it in a few words. It was to cut out the middleman.

Now what we see, is all these private or closed source solutions / platforms been built on / for the btc network.

Exchanges is the best example… They won’t exist in the coming future because everycoin will have one decentralised in their BC. (with maybe the exception of fiat to crypto)

Another example is gaining access to torrents. Link cuts out another middle man.

This is what we need to keep focusing our development on.

Feathercoin. Cutting out the Middleman.

Need a way of programming the nonce while also keeping multiple connections open in the miner. Also it occurs to me multipooling should be done in the miner software.

Welcome back zero. O0

I really like that walk through guide to guiding others. Well written. I think as crypto enthusiasts we all encounter these types of issues and conversations usually start right in the middle of a subject due to media attention. e.g. Mt Gox , Silk Road.

Its a difficult skill to master to be able to take a “Wrong Question” and turn it into a intro to crypto.

I find they don’t mine FTC almost .Scrypt resources quickly switch.

Multipool List:

http://give-me-coins.com/

https://www.multipool.us/

im all synced with 0.8.6.2-beta no issues thanks guys

The energy we put into getting out of the mess prepared for us is energy we don’t put into creating what we want. Once people understand they are losing money with multipools, there will be another scheme.

I propose we keep talking about ideas, but we also realize the multipools have a blind spot. Setting up a multipool is like adopting a polar bear. A bit of a hassle. We can take advantage of their resource and time investment.

We’ll be doing this weekly.

OMG can a 7990 heatsink or fans fit a Sapphire Dual-X 7950?

what exact model do you have?

I mean, I’m sorry for your loss, but this is quite possibly the way to get my 4th card ready for when my motherboard comes back (now down for 5 weeks :()

You have my interest…

I’m all up for progress. I do not fear change.

What do the other devs think?

This seems worth brainstorming.

Let the ultimate experiment continue…

[quote name=“Tuck Fheman” post=“56156” timestamp=“1391127000”]
I’m confused.
[/quote]

That means it’s working.