Bitcoin testnet get coins for madden 16
But you could also put more detail into the game. In madden mobile 16 on the backs of elites there was reasons why they were elite, in legends they had specific collectibles and in campus heroes they had specifics to why they were so good. Seriously I hate this and pack odds. Training is garbage too it has ruined the game. We need a way to remove training points.
Also where are all the limited time cards? Especially year round legends I really miss. That is just a small list as I could go on and on but I won't. Thanks for starting this thread and allowing us to voice concerns and make suggestions and fixes. I don't want my post to be too long, so I'll try to be succinct. Issue 1 - Communication: The most prevalent issue, the lack of communication and customer relations from the Madden team, be it for large scale issues or the smallest announcements is really bad and needs significant improvement.
I am not referring to the customer service team which is its own elephant. Hire someone who handles social media announcements and have them use Twitter for everything.
Whenever there is a set of players released, a glitch, a question that everyone is asking that only EA can answer, they should be on it. Daily engagement with the user base will go a huge way to mending the anger and distrust that many feel towards EA as apathetic and even devious. Issue 2 - Confusion: Along the same theme as communication for problems that occur, explanation regarding the fundamentals and features of the game could use dramatic improvements. Users on sites like Muthead are left no choice on a daily basis than to speculate and theorize how things work.
Again, use of social media is the key here. Instead of all the independent YouTubers trying to get subscribers and spreading speculation and fake news, why not have more official YouTube channels directly from EA that go through the s of various features of the game?
Again, this is not so much about educating the user base as it is about a continued effort at community engagement. Issue 3 - Gameplay and Events: Madden Mobile has refreshed over the years but the gameplay and event structure has remained relatively static. I don't expect this to change much for this season, but this is a top priority for many going into the offseason.
It's stale and, in the case of the gameplay, just plain bad. It also often tends to render the stats of the players useless. I don't think anyone is expecting all that much given that it's a mobile game, but some effort put into new ways players can engage with each other would be helpful.
Why has there never been an H2H where you play defensive drives instead of offense for example? And please, please, please enough with using the events from the mini-games in the opening of for other purposes. Issue 4 - The Auction House: Changing the AH mid-season to control cheating had unintended consequences. There is a large portion of the player base that uses the AH to make money to improve their team. Removing the human element from the AH literally took the life out of the game for many, and they quit.
This is really a solution for August , but put back the human controlled AH and focus the efforts on ensuring coin buying stays out of the game. Issue 5 - Training: The addition of training as an alternate to improving ones team was quite interesting to me anyway.
However it feels as if it wasn't adequately thought through and tested over time leading to scenarios in the 2nd half of the season where people don't know if they should train someone or not. As such, it feels broken at this time. For August I think tiered training up to 5 levels or 10 levels max would be an improvement. Additionally, there are so many rules and variations depending on which program you're trying to train. This seems needless to me.
Why have legend TP rates or Top be different from others? Why have training bonuses that don't apply to Rising Stars cards. Why have some players cuttable and others not? For the 2nd half of , I'd like to see more elite "Level Up" collectibles enter the game like the turducken through weekend tourneys, events, promos etc.
This would be a nice way to stimulate teams and prefer that to complicating the game more by adding playoff players that either offer more TP or cost less to train why complicate things further? On a side note, not related to EA, I think it's important that the community users also takes responsibility for their role in exploiting the game to their advantage.
While some are out and out cheaters, using bots and other hacks to exploit the game, others are opportunistic and figure there's nothing wrong with buying coins to get what you need. It provided a year-over-year unfair advantage to "launder" coins back and forth through MHC, which in turn helped to exacerbate the coin buying fiasco. I'm also totally fine with the idea of banning those with farming accounts.
I really hope all these things we're saying don't fall on deaf ears. I hope that the devs take it seriously and actually implement changes that will actually make the game better. First, let me say I love the premise of this game. MM16 was addictive of the highest order. MM17, less so, but still very solid. Let me go through some things that are some repeats, maybe some original ideas, as I haven't read the entire thread:.
There have just been too many times where things did NOT work as they were supposed to at release. Even if they use Gamechangers to Beta test or something. I'm sure something could be done to make sure that releases are better handled. The Google Log in. While that wasn't just EA's fault, this left alot of customers in the dark. And it was EA's fault in the sense that they had to have known ahead of time, and could have warned us, instead of the day it happened.
Give us a week to easily attach the account to another log in And why haven't they added in Origin as a log in method yet?
This leads me to, communication. I'm a long time player of EA games. I played Ultima Online years ago, and remember constant interaction with designers and programmers in message boards and newsgroups.
Players were rarely in the dark who wanted to be engaged with the game. That's not happening now, and yet communication should be even easier with social media. We should be made much more aware of changes to the game than we are. There also should be EA-produced Wikis that state exactly what is what in the game. There are issues with gamplay. From impossible trucks Looking at you OK drill , to inexplicable drops, something needs improvement here. Also play selection needs improvement. There are only a handful of viable running plays, and few with lead blockers.
Far too many run out of shotgun. There also should be more noticeable improvements when you improve various positions looking at you O-line. Which leads to, training. There are two schools of thought here that need balance. On my main team, I hate training.
That team I like to improve with various cards through the year. And training makes cards all "feel" and play the same basically. Takes a great deal of the joy of upgrading away. Why improve one card with another card when it's technically a step down though sure, will bounce back a bit once you "feed" one to the other.
It's a mental thing. The flip side is that training IS great for theme teams. If you want a theme team of all Saints mine or other teams, you can now field a viable team. That was much harder to do before. I think though, that overall, training hasn't been handled well.
I feel that far too many teams are ignored by EA. There should be an overarching plan to the season, along with plans to upgrade programs throughout. This was a problem with last year too.
This year, during the peak of the season, we had dead Mondays and Wednesdays. Add to that, due to training, the players released weren't of great variety or quality either. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, coin making. The AH bot has killed a great deal of interest for me. I have cards that I cannot get rid of. I can't figure it out. And I'm a decent player. Others probably do better than me, good for them.
My favorite time Also the time I spent the most money, mind you was MM16, when I could build sets and sell what I built for a bit of profit. I also haven't seen many mention some of the actual positives and yes, there are some this year. While gameplay issues sometimes make me want to hurl my phone this weekend for instance , this has been a GREAT addition.
Adds something very fun to the game that I look forward to every week. Now, I know there are times when people get matched up against outmatched teams, but there are huge improvements there.
The 30 minute intervals, the shorter time so am able to start a new match every day at the same time , and also, HUGE, is the lack of benching of players to find a match. All have been great additions. Live events during the games. Man, I loved this. I stayed glued to the TV with my phone in hand, frantically trying to get as many events in as I could. This was a fun yet tiring! Was very sorry to see it gone for the playoffs. A couple of final things. I have unused MHC. But I'm not fretting over it.
And EA isn't going to balance out the game that much for F2P guys. They want people to spend money. So we need to come up with ways to help them make money but still keep the game as player friendly as possible. I'd be up for a subscription based program that allows more a free market with auctionable items.
To me, their sledgehammer approach to the coin buying issue, was dreadful. They ruined far more than they fixed with their "fixes". Please return the AH back to normal, or allow us to be able to sell our cards for reasonable prices. Without these changes, MM18 may be my last season. I'm not even going to talk about the gameplay. There are some major issues with EA regarding communication. Keep in mind, people actually spend real money in this game. AH caps, AH bot takeover, are not communicated in a clear manner from EA nor their Twitter account which they promote Not sure if Muthead or EA deserves the blame on that.
Overarching all these issues, I think EA shows gross negligence when they promote new content from the game or oooooooo a gamechangers tourney!!! WHILE disregarding the common users' complaints. Ties in weekend tournament play should give back the tickets. With the toss and pray for win the only strategy it makes players like me not want to participate after a couple of ties because it just wastes tickets.
Also, can we add a dive for the pylon move near the goal line Diving for the pylon has become a normal thing to do when watching the live game and Id like to be able to in the game.
Curse Help Register Sign In. EA - Talk to your customers, even better, listen to them! Right the gameplay side of this game has been garbage for at least two years. Focus on nailing the roster construction parts if you DGAF about improving gameplay. I had planned out my coinmaking strategy around being super efficient with the way I cashed in on my Legends collectibles and that plan went to hell once the AH bot cut all the Legends players prices. If you guy look through the forums like you you means EA not the person I'm quoting or the moderators that started the thread say you do and take the communities concerns seriously, most of these problems would be fixed within hours.
Last edited by lawyersindc: Rollback Post to Revision RollBack. Technical Issues These are things like broken events, broken rewards, games shutting down, etc. Zero interest in communication or customer service This is an old EA staple. Gameplay I think its mostly okay, others will disagree, but I dont think this is whats causing the problems. MrFitPhilly I do not have a kik or instagram associated with that name, so do not do any deals with someone under that title.
What you are doing is great for the community!! Thanks for doing this Legend! If the new AH model must stay, I would propose a few possibilities: Bitcoin is a great example of this. Perfectly untraceable e-Cash would definitely fit that bill. In the long run, this is good news for everyone. Identities are the hash of your public key.
The block chain is really computed using a Merkle tree for efficiency reasons. Did I mention you should read the paper? The inputs are still standard bitcoins. Instead, the transaction contains the coin data. When you say 40kb do you mean kilobit, or kilobyte? Usually lower case b is used for bit, but in this context bytes would be more common. Are there measures to avoid correlations between the amounts minted and spent? So they're all the same or there are a small number of denominations, say powers of 2 or 10, and within a denomination they're all the same.
This means there's no way to correlate Bitcoin value from Mint to Spend, because all transactions have the same value. Of course, if I see you Mint a certain number of zerocoins, then spend them all at the same time… that would be a giveaway. It's possible to create zerocoins with variable denominations, but there are privacy risks as you point out. Does this solution rely on scanning the entire block chain to prevent a double spend?
Have you considered how much load this would introduce if deployed widely? This design would work on a Bitcoin clone just as well. Why not deploy it on one of the smaller cryptocurrencies Litecoin or Bitcoin testnet or create a new one for the purpose? You'd get to demonstrate whether it works without risk to Bitcoin.
You mint zero coins in fixed denominations. So everyone agrees that we have a 1btc zerocoin, a. The exact denominations don't matter so much and will most definitely include fractional sizes. The important thing is that everyone agrees which sizes are valid.
This is a serious flaw. All past transactions can be revealed with knowledge of p,q. How can i trust the developers to destroy the p,q? I looked the paper and noticed: How exactly can it be implemented in p2p network like bitcoin? I registered the domain zeroco. Was planning to develop a lightweight bitcoin client.
Oh well, back to finding a name for my project. Maybe you said it, do the 40 kB relate to the mint or the spend, and if it is on the spend side, do the 40 kB really need to be stored in the block chain or can it purge after a safe number of blocks?
The accumulator does not have access to the per-coin trapdoor skc necessary to spend an arbitrary zerocoin. If the ledger is accurate, then it doesn't matter. The accumulator is a once-in-a-while bookkeeping exercise made to turn O N into amortized O 1 when spending zerocoins.
Fortunately, these don't appear to be fatal flaws, since the action of the accumulator can be verified. I'm a little confused about the scalability of the spending side. The paper says that spending must:. Even though accumulators can be updated incrementally, the updates for the full accumulator A and an arbitrary witness will be different, so the accumulator-checkpointers can't precompute anything of use for public use. For an attacker able to inject a high volume but otherwise fully legitimate set of zerocoin transactions into the blockchain at arbitrary intervals, this could lead to a couple attacks against zerocoin users:.
After further reading, you're not entirely off the mark. This would then allow for forged spends, since it would be further possible to make a validly-checking spend proof based on a coin that doesn't exist.
While this would break zerocoin, I still am not convinced that it de-anonymizes previous spends. I think you have to beat the zero-knowledge proof to do that. Okay, each bitcoin is worth a fair amount. But, bitcoin is easily divisible to 8 places.
For zerocoin, it can't be divisible. So, we need to fix it to a lower number. Also, it is bad to have multiple zerocoin chains. This gives you less security as a whole for each one more usage more anonymity. For Zerocoin, it can't be too small also. Transactions will still cost transaction fees. So, the denomination can't be too small. Also, lots of work, time, and space is needed to verify transactions.
This will not be a microtx currency and it can't be too small. This will be for when you spend the zerocoin. They don't disappear from the ledger. Zerocoins are random claims on bitcoins that breaks the transaction chain, thereby making them untraceable. That's not a great idea either. In a situation like this, some people will have processing bottlenecks, some people will have networking bottlenecks. There isn't really a correct tradeoff here. It doesn't help your cause when one of the zerocoin developers goes on record as saying that a backdoor could be added to assist governments in tracking where coins are sent.
Knowing the factorization of N does allow you to spend every minted zerocoin you could spend even more, but you'd exhaust the pool of escrowed bitcoins. There are techniques for creating accumulators that don't let anyone actually know N. Even if the factorization of N is known, the zero knowledge proof output by Spend … is still a zero knowledge proof that only reveals the serial number. You are still anonymous. Why do you need to use the complex double exponentiation in your ZKP? I thought maybe you wanted to show some structure in S, but it's just a random value.
Pedersen commitments can be proven very simply, without cut and choose. The witness can be updated incrementally, as long as the zerocoin user sees all the transactions. He would have to keep a running update of each of all of his outstanding zerocoin transaction's witnesses. This would require one exponentiation for each outstanding zerocoin transaction, whenever a new zerocoin transaction came in.
As long as he is running a full node, in Bitcoin parlence, he sees every transaction. Are we sure additional privacy is desirable?
It makes it easier to commit crimes using bitcoin… think child porn, human trafficking, contract killing, terrorism, illegal arms sales. There are crypto schemes by which a P2P network can generate an RSA modulus such that they all would have to collude to know the factorization. If there is at least one honest participant, the secret is safe. They aren't especially efficient, but it would only have to be run once.
Of course, future generations would have to trust that their ancestors were honest. As far as the Sander paper, trust can be minimized by seeding a random number generator from a public headline. The real problem with this approach is that it generates ridiculously large RSA moduli. One example they give in their paper is 40, bits! We could do a simple proof for the spend if we could safely reveal the raw coin which is just a Pedersen commitment.
But since that's the same coin we minted, doing so would make spend trivially linkable to the mint. Instead, we prove that a commitment to a coin was accumulated. Then we have to prove we know the serial number of the committed coin. This requires the double discrete exponentiation ZPK. Believe me, we wish it didn't.
We have some ideas for more efficient techniques, but as of right now its the best we got. When you make a zerocoin, there is a trace of what btc went into it. When you spend a zerocoin, we only know that such a zerocoin existed, and that it hasn't been spent before, and so we don't know which zerocoin was just spent, even if there is a trace of the btc that come out of the spending transaction.
If it works that way, this is pretty good. Its nice to know that btc came from zerocoin because it gives you deniability if the source is persecutable, and then implicates you for aiding and abedding that source.
Can you transfer a zerocoin… that is can you verify that an unspent zerocoin exists without spending it? Hey guys, if you are in the UK and want a cheap and efficient way of transferring money to trade on the bitcoin exchanges, I made this guide.
I'd be interested in a compare-and-contrast with Stefan Brands' system. It would be interesting to see how the blockchain would deal with such an increase in size.
But the concept of true anonymity is very worthwhile and would add a lot of value to bitcoin by removing the need to trust individuals who run mixers. An 'honest', open source protocol like you're proposing that does this would be great! How does this protect from checking the zerocoin withdrawals against the entire zerocoin spend history to see when it becomes valid?
If zerocoin spends can't be withdrawn if the blockchain is reversed back to a previous point, before the zerocoin was spent, then doesn't that mean you can link the withdrawal to the spend?
Am I missing something important here? Haven't read the PDF yet, but I will soon. If it's discussed there, then I'm mostly wondering why this haven't been mentioned already here as well. After a second look, it seems like the published zero-knowledge proof specifically refers to a group of zerocoins, and only can be verified against that group as specified.
There's some points that aren't covered, but as for the technical information I think this may be some of the most accurate information I've read. I may use some of your information on my own blog, http: Nice article, this looks like some pretty clever work, but I'd love to know more about how the zero-proofs are performed. The trick of it I'm missing is that she can't reveal which coin she's identifying, or the anonymity breaks down as Ian Miers posted. The commit value has to be published with my transaction so that there will be a unique coin only I can spend.
Since we assume the network is mistrusted, the transaction and the commit value two are tied together forever. Other people make coins. Some magic happens here where I proove I have the key without giving away my commit value or encryption key.
If I give either one away, I can be identified. The SN will be recorded for all time in the Spend transaction block chain.
So in the end, the network will never know which coin I was spending. They'll always know how many are still valid, but not which ones to remove from the valid group to simplify future validations.
It might be better to build an scrypt based altcoin based on the premise of total anonymity, rather than attempting to get people to accept a modified version of one they're already running. Bitcoin transaction chain — protect value and it becames value. You can have different addresses in order to receive payments.
Why does this have to be incorparated into all bitcoin clients? Why can't it be an addon? Just create your own ledger which only refers to certain hashes in the bitcoin chain…. Actually I was going to say everyone could indeed only use Zerocoins, but now I've realised that's probably not true.
Surely if your claim to any specific Zerocoin is your knowledge of a serial number, then it would be impossible to safely sell a Zerocoin, since the buying party couldn't force you to forget the serial number. I was going to say there would be practical, technical performance reasons to only use Zerocoins when anonymity was required. And Squeakneb is surely right! Bitcoin is also still up for manipulation like a junior penny stock.