Bitcoin Forum

note - topic locked.  (see last msg in thread) - note: bake-off still "on".


I and apparently many others want to know which cryptocurrency is the fastest. So I am offering to do this bake-off.  Specifically, with a given isolated 20-node testnet setup, and for 100 minutes, I want to know which crypto can clear the most payment transactions.

All contestants have until Monday 0700 UTC October December 26th to submit their entry.

Each entry must contain:

• The node software and associated files for this test.
• "A" Instructions to setup each node.
• "B" Instructions for getting all nodes in sync and ready for the test.
• "C" Instructions for auto-generating payment transactions during the test.
• "D" Instructions for manual payments I will do during the test.
• "E" Instructions for troubleshooting common issues/error that nodes might encounter...such as after a cold boot of the OS.
• "F" Instructions for after the test to count the number of successful payments that cleared on this 20-node network.
• "G" Instructions to test any other features desired.
• Your contact email address or PM name.
• Your attestation that the software is free to share, that it contains no malware, and that the software is the same as what the crypto community is using currently, except for changes you detail here (e.g., any performance tweaks).
• 0.2 BTC Entry Fee and a pay-back BTC address. (The winner gets back his/her entry fee.) Pay to 1C6nd36KSm6sqAhjEFqd91nNpJkq4sVEUL.  PM me links to the entry items and the BTC timestamp of payment.

For each entry, I will run the test three times, one per day, for 100 minutes each, following the instructions provided. I'll email/PM the contact with any questions/issues/results I encounter. Any revisions to the software or instructions are welcome up until the end of the third test. At that point, I'll share the three results of his/her tests privately, in case he/she wishes to withdrawal his/her entry from the public report.

My public report will be made Nov Jan 1st 0700 UTC. It will describe all three results of each entry not withdrawn and any special observations I made. I will post a link to the instructions and files provided, so others can run the tests themselves should they want, though no guarantee the sync will work as that could be controlled by the contestant.

All 20 nodes will be globally-scattered Linux Ubuntu 14.04 x64, 2 CPUs, 2 GB RAM, 40 GB SSD, 3 TB Transfer

For each test, I will:
1. Restore the 20 nodes to baseline I'll use identically for all tests.
2. I will follow "A" and "B" instructions to bring all 20 nodes up and synced into the testnet. (Special P2P server access will be permitted outward from my 20-node net to allow initiation of the 20 nodes and get them into sync if needed...but only prior to the start of the test.)
3. When synced, I'll start the test by blocking all testnet traffic not between the 20 nodes. (crypto must not depend on special servers, other than to get started).
4. I'll run the "C" instructions on all 20 nodes.
5. Also during the 100 minute test, I'll randomly cold boot each server and follow appropriate "E" instructions to bring nodes back in sync with my set of 20 nodes...then resume "C" instructions.
6. Also, at random times, I'll do "D" instructions from various nodes to verify monies can still be moved around without long delays.
7. I'll also do "G" instructions during the 100 minute tests.
8. After the 100-minute test, I'll perform the "F" instructions to count the successful transactions sent over the 20-node network.
9. All during and after each test, when I have questions or results to share privately, I'll email/PM them to the contestant.

May the best crypto win.

If this goes well, I expect to repeat this bake-off in a few months or more - and even to broaden the scope to include other tests as wanted by the community.

note: thread is self-moderated to rule out non-productive or unrelated noise.  Also, I am expecting eMunie to win, but I will try to not let that affect my bake-off results.  BitShares claims 100K TPS with caveats.  Others expressed an interest in challenging eMunie's claim to be fastest.  This will hopefully help the discussion by doing an apples-to-apples bake-off.

a few points for clarification added 2015-10-09:

• The tests are meant to be using test currency on a test P2P network.  I don't plan to connect to anything production.  If the test can work by tapping into an existing testnet long enough to get synced, that would be fine.
• I want to charge 0.2 BTC to only get serious entrants.  I am happy to donate any excess (beyond my costs to the hosting company and the winner's fee) to the winner.
• I do plan to take many screenshots as I go through the testing, and plan to document exactly what I do so others can verify I was not biased, hopefully.

Additional clarifications added 2015-10-11:

• I define one "payment transaction" as: one wallet paying another in the simple sense.  Additional activity for associated fees, preparing the payment so it can be spent by the receiver, or splitting payment into parts ... should all just counted as part of the one payment transaction.  E.g., buying a cup of coffee = 1 payment transaction (even if miners take a portion, a randomizer service is involved, or behind the scenes lots of activity happens in sub-transactions).
• The baseline configuration I reset nodes to for each test is what I get using this doc starting from the OS I get from Digital Ocean:  https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-install-and-configure-vnc-on-ubuntu-14-04 (https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-install-and-configure-vnc-on-ubuntu-14-04)  If I need to install other "assumed" items, please provide the instructions.
• During the 100-minute test, with the random shutdowns I'll purposely perform, I will make sure on average the node software will be allowed to run (and I'll be doing the "E" and "C" instructions as fast as I can) 75% of the time.   In other words, 25% of the available time the nodes will be not running the node software.  While some of that 75% uptime will be re-syncing per the "E" instructions, hopefully the syncing will be quick so "C" instructions can crank out new transactions ASAP.  If the new transactions at best will reach, for example, 11.1 per second per node, and if syncing is near instantaneous (for the sake of this calculation), the best score you'd possibly get is 11.1 * 60 * 75 * 20 = ~ 1 million.

Results (coming Nov Jan 1st): TBD.

There's no such thing as an apples to apples comparison with Emunie.  Emunie uses a steady state network with a ledger and no blockchain.  This means if the network blows up, everyone is screwed.  Systems utilizing blockchains are far easier to recover from problems.

You can't compare blockchain coins to a coin that doesn't utilize one at all.  There's really no such thing as a fatal error in a blockchain system.  This is why Satoshi chose to use it.  The records will always be there from the past no matter what happens in the short term.  Saying Emunie is an apples to apples comparison is like calling non-volatile + volatile memory the same thing.

Unfortunately I'm too swamped getting a beta ready to engage this now, but we need to have a conversation soon about this supposed "blowing up" you keep posting in various threads.

I'll be sure to grab your attention when I'm able so we can discuss and resolve once and for all, either way :)

As for your comments about the test, I suppose you consider a race between a petrol powered car and a electric one invalid too?

BTW: We're in...of course...if anyone wants to step up and isnt a bit scared :)

This is really going to be an interesting thread . I'll be keeping tabs on it for sure .

I don't think you can really argue it that way.  The blockchain system objectively has more redundancy.

You can't claim that without comparing the two test subjects in a controlled test.  As the redundancy factor can be effected by a number of real world variables.

the fastest crypto is vanilla coin.
The only one with zero time transactions and without the use of masternodes

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=977245.0

He means load, transactions per second, not confirmation times.

Yea, I don't know a whole lot about Vanillacoin, but I'm pretty sure it's just taking a Bitcoin 0 conf transaction and using a locking mechanism (which may or may not have security issues) to just visually credit your account faster.  The transactions all still have to be put in a block if you're using a blockchain system...you didn't just gain infinite TPS from nothing.  All PoS systems that don't die will eventually switch to deterministic block validation anyway, thus making that 0 time thing irrelevant.

The general idea of coming up with a way to benchmark these things is excellent and the OP is a worthy effort to get started.
Thanks for that effort.

Hopefully somebody can set up such a test using our code base.

Unfortunately we're launching two real-time blockchains this month (BitShares and PeerTracks' MUSE) so we're a bit busy.

But we'll be keeping tabs on how this goes.

Thanks
Stan

Seeing as most of the speculation regarding this topic is between eMunie and Bitshares, I'm sure the OP would make an exception and perhaps alter the test dates to suit you should you want to participate but unable due to your current workload.

I do want to make the dates fit most developers' schedules - yet not drag out the race for too long.  I propose moving the dates out 2 months - with a winner announced Jan 1st, 2016.  That way we can give BitShares after their busy October/November, and others who are close to ready but not quite there, time to put together a tuned product they'd like to enter into the bake-off.

I will update the thread OP tomorrow if folks generally agree that seems appropriate.

p.s.  Yes, I was thinking "fastest" not in terms of confirmation time, but "capacity" to handle the most sustained TPS on its P2P network so that a crypto could be measured for its ability to go mainstream and not end up collapsing under its own success or having to become centralized (like BTC is expected to do even without going mainstream).  I appreciate the chance to clarify that.

Will 2400 tps @ < 5 sec confirm times do you?

If you can wait a week we can increase that claim to 5000+ tps in our next beta test...is that enough?

Oh you want more?  Ok....leave that with us...already working on it :)

Apologies, I guess that came over a bit arrogant...I'm going to blame a 6am bedtime and enthusiasm :)  I just mean that over the past week or so, both projects have been doing stress testing and posting results, which has sparked interest in both.

In fact, I have no idea what Ripple is capable of doing tps wise, care to enlighten?

good point - people need a payment to clear quickly and confidently just as much as high TPS capacity.  I plan to note "observed confirmation times" as part of the results but I don't know how to measure confidence levels.  I think that requires detailed knowledge of the risks of double-spends for each specific crypto....which will be up to experts and code reviewers.

I welcome all cryptos - even BTC if they want to compete.  The test plan I think makes it hard on centralized cryptos in that I will be making all 20 nodes run the same software and turning each of them off at times in case they are somehow special compared to the others.  I really look forward to seeing which cryptos can handle the failure conditions and still run fast and safe.

A really noble effort.

Underwriter's Labs for Crypto is born!

I'd like to see this happen.......gentlemen, start your engines !

http://i59.tinypic.com/30usqra.jpg

Vanillacoin does use a locking mechanism but it's not just visual. It's designed such that your coins are re-spendable as well. With regard to the mention of a potential security issue, there was a beta phase with a 2k vnl bounty (or somewhere around that amount) for anybody that was able to successfully exploit the network, which was not claimed. So while I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not possible, it hasn't happened yet.

You must be confusing ZeroTime with instantX because your missing allot here and barely touching the basics of the technology. Also "visually crediting" is inaccurate, it is a core layer consensus based confirmation. I often perform ~5100 TPS stress tests with no back-log. I see no reason to switch to deterministic block validation since this is well under capacity. 8)

Thank you for your support.

Describe the differences between instantX and zerotime from an attack cost perspective?

Well, he did start the sentence with so it's again just the usual jumping on the 22nd thread and stating the same without doing research.

who needs research when we can just assume willy nilly...

You mean like all the VNL shills assume that zerotime is actually safe ?
It very well may be, I'm not saying it's not. It's just it seems to me that most people who follow VNL aren't all that well versed and just believe whatever john-connor throws at them.

That's generally true for most bitcointalk members, not only for the followers of XY project and it also has nothing to do with the current topic. The starting point here was r0ach and his statement which he started with him admitting that he didn't even research it thus your argument is just as invalid as in a past thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1170906.msg12358760#msg12358760) where you stated Poloniex doesn't do code audits just because your coin was never audited.

Let's stay on-topic though.

A clear sock puppet account wakes up and wants to do a neutral test.  Sure...... that doesn't look suspicious at all.

I have no coin. If you are refering to the only project I was ever involved in then you're wrong because that was audited by poloniex which is where i had the information from (as I told you in the other thread).

You can say that about every coin and every community because people believe to what developers say. But you can check vnl's code and try to hack it. Apparently - easier said than done.
Your post proves how easy it is to manipulate people. Why anyone should believe you, or me? I would rather believe a skilled person, who can deliever the technology(and it works), rather than some random guy at forum who can't programm.

Indeed you can. I just used VNL as an example because binarygangster seemed to be supportive of it.
I would rather believe a skilled person as well. How do you recognise such a skilled person on this forum ?

Your definition of 'manipulate' is broken.

I'd like to inject a real speedster to the conversation. A bit coin merge mined coin.

You told me what I'm saying is not accurate because your project/code was only scanned for malware, read back the thread mate :)

All I said was, that I'm assuming that they're only scanning for malware because that's what someone from poloniex told me. They also told me that because they sometimes can't scan for maleware they run those in VMs (which wouldn't protect against faulty algo now would it ?). I didn't state it as fact.
I'm still of that opinion btw. Let's just agree to disagree and move on. K mate ?  :)

On this forum? It's a reasonable thing to not listen to people on this forum. But when the new ANN topic pops out and you are an investor you are going to make a decision - you are in or out. And when you saw a lot of Legendary and Hero Members spamming other coins topics, trying to hurt other coins because they have their own agenda you can't really trust no one. If I see the dev who delivered innovative, one of a kind tech, who should I trust? The developer or some random guy(even with a legendary rank) at the forum? If this tech was reviewed and clearly works very well it's a no-brainer.

But ok, I don't want to argue, because it's off-topic. Let the best crypto win.

From another thread, relevant here.

So who is winning so far?

Could we get a tally of claimed tps
And a tally of tested tps for projects?

The bake-off hasn't started yet, so there are no "official" results from the OP.

We had a beta test about a week ago where we achieved a 2400 tps peak - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1191535.0  Theres another beta scheduled soon, and amongst other things we'll be doing further load testing with high throughput, we should see 5000 tps peaks and 500 tps sustained easily.

Bitshares have done some stress testing too over the last week or so, IIRC they achieved a peak of ~1200+ tps but ran into some issues they need to solve - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18684.0.html - I've no idea what Bitshares can reliably sustain though, as they've dialed the test net back to concentrate on functionality testing.

Other than that, there isn't much else that has done stress tests in a verifiable environment.  Lots of claims of x thousand tps from developers and project supporters, but nothing to back up these claims really other than hear say and developer lab testing.

Besides the sarcasm, any thoughts on easy ways to make my test fairer?  I think I'll add a step where I try to measure peak performance - maybe after the three 100-minute tests assuming all nodes are still in sync.  Also, I am thinking I should run the network after the third test and after the peak test for 24 hours - or until the network breaks (3 of 20 nodes fall out of sync for more than an hour) - to test that capacity.  Anything else I should add to the main 100-minute tests?

BTW, I'm "wingspan" on the eMunie forum...if you wish to see my history of posts there, and pic. I live in the Pacific timezone not too far from Seattle.

I thought it was sarcasm.  I really don't know you.  When you said: "e-munie - faster than the fastest crypto on the planet!" I figured the misspelling of eMunie and the hyperbole was a sign you didn't like it.  That's all.

For what its worth your comment warmed my heart :)

I will postpone the October testing by 2 months - so those needing time can still participate.  Thanks - good luck preparing your crypto.  I'll update the OP, now, to reflect the delay.

even though there are two more months, if people would like to have me test early and then re-test later, I'd be happy to test your crypto exactly as I would in December - and I'll publish those early results if you like how you do.  That might encourage others to keep tuning their system...knowing what they are up against.

I'm not sure why there's so much rush to test Emunie vs other cryptos.  Hughes should be required to actually release it first before any of this discussion happens.  Like I said earlier, ledger/balance sheet vs blockchains are not really an apples to apples comparison either.  The thing also has to exist in the wild for a while so people can diagnose if the system is functional in the real world.  It will then take months or years for people to discover all the miscellaneous vulnerabilities such as Bitcoin faced like faking shares, selfish mining, etc.

Since there is no real finite resource at play here (stake or PoW hash power), the simple act of modifying the client might open big holes.

Who made you law maker around here? The same should be said for other cryptos too then, as theres much discussion regarding various aspects of those before they are released, but I don't see you complaining there.


Why?  If both provide a public record, are secure, provide consensus, what exactly is the difference?


Oh come on, like this doesn't apply to all software, crypto or not.  The presence of POW, POS, POI, or whatever else is completely irrelevant!

The big difference between having a chain and having no chain is that there is no recognisable ordering of transactions in a chainless system, the 'current state' is all that matters. With a chain, you can see the ordering, which makes validating the state a lot easier.

However, I believe emunie does have a chain, so this probably isn't relevant?

Is there any such system in crypto land that really doesn't have any sort of chain ?
Does a ledger (and I beliebe that's what emunie is using) not count as a chain ?

OK, I'm going to clear something up, as r0ach's dis-information and assumptions about how our ledger is structured even before I've finished writing the public docs to explain it seem to be causing some confusion.

Legend:  Circle = Genesis, Box = Transaction/Block

First we had a good old block chain:

http://emunie.com/images/diagrams/ledger%20chain.png

We scrapped block chains in Aug of 2013 for what we called "block trees"

http://emunie.com/images/diagrams/ledger%20tree.png

They were themselves scrapped in Dec 2014 for "transaction channels"

http://emunie.com/images/diagrams/ledger%20channels.png

As you can see in all cases, every transaction links to a previous one, in the same manner that a block does in a chain.  Previous transactions can easily be audited and are public.

These diagrams are from documentation I'm currently working on regarding our ledger design that will explain all the concepts and will put this "eMunie doesn't keep any historic information" argument to bed if this post doesn't.

So, in eMunie, instead of nodes being blocks, you have nodes being 1 transaction only.  Instead of a chain of nodes, you have tree-like channels.   Still a ledger. Still tracks publicly the order of transactions.  Still allows state recovery just like blockchains.  OK, sounds intriguing.  Apples-to-Apples testing still possible.  Anyone disagree?

Yeah pretty much, its kind of a hybrid.

There is a balance sheet ledger too that runs along side, but that has to verify against the current transaction ledger (and vice versa).

In the channeled implementation, its not really a chain nor a tree but more of a mid-way point between the two (trains or chees? lol).  The chains are allowed to fork out, but only on branches one link long.  Transactions are assigned a "transactional period", subsequent transactions must link to only one transaction in the previous transactional period as per a set requirements.

So this thread is really a bitshares, vanilla, emunie circle jerk.

Op grow so balls, the original idea of a speed test is good, your execution of it sucks. Why not start some testing already.

I'm happy for OP to do some testing of eMunie next week with the next beta.

As for the circle jerk, get some other cryptos to step up, then it won't be will it?  Or the OP could start testing released cryptos that have made speed claims I guess.

Lets see, reading through the thread I am mistaken. There is a forth entrant, though ignored.

Geist geld. I don't know what it is but it looks old.



Edit. If people dont like what i'm saying then win this account from me.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1203783.msg12636241#msg12636241

It's all about money. He is not going to start testing untill there will be some contestants. But it's pretty obvious it is going to be a circle jerk, there is nothing bad about it. Some cryptos are obviously faster than the other ones, that's why there will only be few contestants(if any, but that's because of entry fee). On the other hand this is probably a lot of work so there should be a reward for the tester.

Ah ok. The op was never serious about testing then. If he wanted then he could test geist geld today.

Sounds like a lame attempt to get some free btc



Edit. Op should do an ipo,  give me money thingy

OP said he wants 0.2BTC für a test. IMHO That amount is ok for the kind of setup he described and the transactions fees he has to pay.

Then tell the geist geld devs, or ask the community to chip in.  0.2BTC is fair IMO, costs of hardware to rent/buy to do the tests, electricity use, time spent setting the tests up, managing them etc...

If you dont trust the OP, then have him make a multi-sig wallet with all the developers as co-signers.

And how do we know if op is qualified to do testing or will even do it correct?

A panel is needed. So the op doesnt just pick favorites from all the grandstanding in this thread already.

Tests need to be run by mult people, and youtubed for fairness.

Providing he presents the test results including the data from the tests, then anyone can verify the results....that is the beauty of crypto, block chains etc...  So its impossible for him to "pick" his favorite and say that one won.

As for him doing the tests wrong, feel free to reproduce the tests yourself to adjudicate :)

I don't imaging anyone is going to take these results as defacto, or chose a technology for a project without doing further testing themselves.

Ultimately I see this test as a means to have a bit of fun, spur some rivalry, competitiveness and allocate bragging rights at best.  I welcome it, especially as this community has frankly grown quite stale, boring and has become far too serious for its own good.  

Everyone complains about bankers, yet all that happens around here is the same thing, endless threads on what coin is going to make the most fiat, whos scamming who, and generally a complete focus entirely on profit.  Where did the passion go?

Well then you better get back to coding emunie then.

Lets hope your project is as fast as you reply. Unless of course you convince the op to move the tests back many months again cause how long now have you been talking shit about your "speedy" "working" project?

Ahh here cometh the trash talk :) Better go to specsavers and get some new glasses!

I've got an idea, kids.

Why don't we do this on a larger scale, and more in the real world ?
Someone (preferably not me) set up a conference, invite all the leading cryptos to send a team to fight it out, both on their own rigs, and on an in-house LAN.
Add a speaker programme and some panels, invite lots of mainstream press, call it the Crypto Olympics, make a proper 2 or 3 day event of it.

I don't care how its done tbh, I just wanna have some fun amongst all the seriousness :)

Conferences are fun, mostly. But, yeah, I'm dragging this a bit off-topic.
Having said that.....I've been thinking about putting together a crypto-conference under the Nxt Foundation banner.
Open to all crypto's and projects.... (though all non-Nxt attendees will have to wear orange jumpsuits, obviously.  ;D)

Still, getting a conference together requires a certain amount of lead time......

a few points for clarification I'll add to the OP:

The tests are meant to be using test currency on a test P2P network.  I don't plan to connect to anything production.  If the test can work by tapping into an existing testnet long enough to get synced, that would be fine.

I want to charge 0.2 BTC to only get serious entrants.  I am happy to donate any excess (beyond my costs to the hosting company and the winner's fee) to the winner.

I do plan to take many screenshots as I go through the testing, and plan to document exactly what I do so others can verify I was not biased, hopefully.

-cheers.

p.s.  I have not rec'd any confirmations yet of folks willing to enter the bake-off (other than Fuserleer's).  

I'll ask the boys.....think we can just about afford 0.2 BTC from our budget.
So put NXT down as a 'maybe'

Great idea!!

Most crypto agnostics here who aren't priests in any particular crypto religion just want to see good coins, platforms & developers well supported, so a Crypto Olympics to help the cream float to the top would be really cool ... and FUN!!

The problem, as I already stated, is that speed is irrelevant until you can show the system functions in the wild without imploding from one of it's own flaws, being exploited to death, or showing it doesn't have deficiencies that a regular blockchain doesn't.  The original poster made the thread under the guise of being a non-biased 3rd party, yet it's blatantly obvious it's an Emunie sock puppet account trying to do something like increase IPO payout.  Dan isn't stupid and has a good chance of possibly creating something viable, but trying to insult people's intelligence by having obvious shills like "peachy" and this guy posting and pretending to be non-biased observers doesn't help.

So part Olympics, part beauty pageant/bodybuilding pose off, part chat show .... an alt coin conference including all the main contenders of late 2015 would do the whole cryptosphere a ton of good, including bitcoin. I think that's what EvilDave was suggesting.

I support ALL the 'real' crypto projects, and I know I'll be an early adopter in any of the successful ones that go global ... all of us here on this forum will be if we stick around, so friendly competition and rivalry is good if it helps separate the wheat from the chaff. It might not provide conclusive proof but it's better than nothing, and it's better that marketing type 'claims'

I am tired of the name calling and childish zealotry, but even that's OK if it's done with humor. What I don't like are scams, and opponents and rivals using the prevalence of them to FUD legitimate alt coin projects. For some people on this forum that's all they do, and at a conference those people would be exposed as fools, assuming they were up to attending ... I'd go to a conference to watch that!

As one of the emunie founders, i can tell you straight up that you are wrong.

Wingspan DOES have an emunie forum account. He's a beta tester along with alot more people on our own forum. You can even find info and pictures of Wingspan. A little googling around and you will find its an account that has ZERO to do with Dan. Please bury the hatchet gentlemen.

However, emunie IS interested in doing some 1 to 1 testing with other crypto to prove how far its come. In the past week, we've seen performance claims being way overinflated on a "real" testnet. All it does is it hurts the cryptocommunity - it implodes from the inside. What emunie offers is nothing more than a proof that the claims of 2500 tps peak - evidenced by both screenshots and direct video capture - are all attainable on hardware that can easily be sourced for a test like this. We use regular PC hardware - no asics or server grade hardware needed.

As it seems, the resistance towards this - hopefully fair - test is that it will show just how overinflated some claim are. Investors should demand these tests before they invest their money - else its just the old hype before launch, underdeliver and subsequent dump on exchanges. Everybody looses out - money and trust.

I never said Dan and Wingspan are the same person.  I said Wingspan made this thread with the intent to just hardcore shill for Emunie with no regard to doing an actual non-biased test.  As for the other issue, I was probably the first person to read Dan's high level overview blog of Emunie and the entire theme of it was balance sheets vs input/output blockchains.  Now he's saying that is not the case and it's not a balance sheet or ledger, but something different.  It's too hard to even discuss this thing if the goal posts are always up in the air or vaguely described.

He said I'm incorrectly describing the system.  What do you expect?  One second we got blocks, next second we got some type of DAG tree, then we got hatchers, then we don't have hatchers, what the hell is a hatcher anyway?  How long until Evan Duffield randomly forks Darkcoin and renames them to Darkhatchers?

The OP clearly stated in the initial post that he was biased towards eMunie, everyone around here has some sort of bias or allegiance to some project.  Whether it be Bitcoin, Nxt, BitShares, Vanilla or whatever else the current flavor of the month is, just because there is bias, that doesn't mean that individual can't perform a valid test....believe it or not, some of us on here are mature enough to leave bias at the door in certain situations.

I really thought you had more intelligence and integrity than resorting to accusations of sock puppet/shill accounts to "win" your argument.  Disappointing.

I don't believe I ever said balance sheets, usually I refer to is as balance tracking....if I did post balance sheets in a response to one of the 100s of questions anywhere, then thats my bad.

You are incorrectly describing the system, and stating it as "fact" in some of your negative posting.  I've repeatedly stated that I'm working on the documentation that will describe it accurately and that forum posts hastily constructed to answer a question may have errors or wrong terminology.  

On one hand you are stating its too difficult to understand without documentation, the next you are posting in threads that eMunie is going to blow up, that its not comparable to block chains or anything of the sort.  How can you make these claims when you have stated you don't fully understand the system yet because I haven't presented all the documentation?  I'm beginning to get the feeling this is more of a witch-hunt rather than a real desire to understand and dissect.

Further more, these changes you are talking of have been progress over 2 years or more, hardly sudden changes.

Of course it's a witch hunt.  Anything with an IPO is going to be under 10x more suspicion than a coin you can mine.  I mean come on, do you know who you're talking to here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=443196.0

I'm a "shill" now?  Gee, what did I ever do to turn your crank?  You don't hear me squawking about how you are an obvious Bitshares shill do you? 

I was trying to keep the topic fun and entertaining (as crypto should be), but alas some have lost site of the original intent and focus for why they joined this fight years ago.  I have "sampled" the crypto appetizer menu for years, but I keep coming back to the one that is most fair, easiest to understand (for a relatively non-technical person) and (most importantly) has an elastic monetary supply model (which is the ONLY one that will succeed as a true currency per the Quantity Theory of Money).

Here's hoping we can move past the petty name calling and get to something more meaningful.

Peachy, you may be the most classic textbook definition of a shill ever created.  You don't post very often, and the only time you do post over an entire year is specifically talking about one thing, Emunie.  You don't post about Bitcoin, you don't post about economics, you don't post about politics, you don't post about other coins, you only post about Emunie.  Your posts also seem to be coordinated to within minutes of every Dan post like you're his sister or girlfriend or something living in the same house...

Please do not try and insult people's intelligence here and pretend that you aren't pushing a flat out propaganda campaign.



I clearly stated in the following post that due to every coin having probabilistic security models open to black swan events, there would likely be 3-5 top coins with no coin having a monopoly and Bitshares + Emunie were the two current most likely candidates besides BTC:  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171109.0

There is more uncertainty surrounding Emunie than Bitshares though, so of course Bitshares is the current safest/best choice.  Due to the way the Emunie monetary system works, early adopters are probably likely to make more money in Bitshares as well.

I disagree, Peachy isn't a classic shill coz he doesn't go looking for trouble on other coin threads. He's a classic minion, henchman, attack dog, No. 1 ... right-hand-man to Fuserleer. You might not like him, or agree with him, but's he's a higher order forum life-form than a 'shill'

Shills are pro-active in their cause whereas Peachy is always reactive, and only when eMunie or Fuserleer gets attacked as you mentioned yourself. There's a difference, and that's why Peachy's post count is low and almost 100% related to defending eMunie against attacks.


edit:

I assume I will get categorized as the same from you (shill, henchman, cheerleader) but a few things to point out. I have seen quite a few different crypto solutions since January 2012 (before hearing of eMunie in June 2013) and I can say with confidence that I feel eMunie is the only one that I have come across that addresses all of the flaws of BTC AND has ability to scale to be a mainstream solution for the public or your average non-technical consumer. It will hold a public IPO after the product is 90% complete and close to launch versus hold an IPO and start development from scratch.

eMunie really redefines mining in general to instead of that you are rewarded fairly for participating or running services for the network (distributing ledger, chat service, mail service, profile service, ratings service, decentralized marketplace) Someone that joins eMunie years down the road will have a clear path to participate and be rewarded with eMunie in addition to earning interest on their balance. I like to think of it as a hybrid between POS and POW for the end user.

I also do not post very frequently with Senior level member still as I approach my 4th year here shortly. For many people in this forum part of the fun is evaluating the best solution and have probably ran a wallet for hundreds of different coins. The current environment is more like horse racing than anything else. We all are betting on different horses here. In my case I am picking a Perfecta of eMunie for the Win and maid safe to come in second. Those two projects have something in common in that they are both carry themselves with integrity, years of dedication, and an attitude of designing the product in the best way without cutting corners. Personally I would like to see the two of them work together and think they would make a good combination. This is why it can take years, especially in the case of eMunie with 1 developer.

I have enjoyed keeping up on the other solutions out there.  I also paid the 10 protoshares back in the day to get a preferred ID in Bitshares in 2014, at the time I guess I got bored with that and the workaround needing to resync the blockchain to get it moving again. In the eMunie testing has it ever got stuck on various beta's sure. many times. But that is the difference it is not released to the public and would not without extensive testing to make sure that will not happen. Our current test network just hit 2.4 million transactions without getting stuck. That is the type of testing BTS should do before they release. Some of the other coins I have looked into are Burst, (proof of capacity based) it has lasted over a year and it is unique and why it had my interest. It was fun to learn, fun to mine, and enjoyable way to pass the time. Does it have the ability to compete with other solutions...no, not at all but fun none the less. Also tested Storj, potential exists there too but just prefer maidsafe myself. I have tested ETH mining out and hard to believe they are on a live network. It does not seem all that fair to give the tech guru an advantage to mine it now without simple GUI available and a year later with Serenity release be full POS coin where the average user must "buy in" to use it. I do give credit to Bitshares over ETH in that regard of just having a Windows wallet available originally.

The point is that many of us here do look for the BEST solution and willing to give each of them a chance. It is a great idea on this OP to spur some competition and pass the time, why not. It would only be one factor that people may use in their evaluation of different solutions. I am happy to see the focus in the alt coin section sort of evolve toward the more unique solutions in general away from the copy/paste coins. eMunie, BTS, VNL, XMR, DASH all have their thriving community of users. Let the all around best solution win. (achieve a level equal to or above BTC) that should be the overall goal here for all of them.

Additional clarifications I've added to the OP:

• I define one "payment transaction" as: one wallet paying another in the simple sense.  Additional activity for associated fees, preparing the payment so it can be spent by the receiver, or splitting payment into parts ... should all just counted as part of the one payment transaction.  E.g., buying a cup of coffee = 1 payment transaction (even if miners take a portion, a randomizer service is involved, or behind the scenes lots of activity happens in sub-transactions).
• The baseline configuration I reset nodes to for each test is what I get using this doc starting from the OS I get from Digital Ocean:  https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-install-and-configure-vnc-on-ubuntu-14-04 (https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-install-and-configure-vnc-on-ubuntu-14-04)  If I need to install other "assumed" items, please provide the instructions.

-cheers.

And it's the (lack of) camaraderie such as this being the principal reason why I don't post over here very often. 

Also, some of us do have a life (and job) outside of this place and don't have the luxury of time required to graduate up to school-yard bully.  If you enjoy that position then good for you.  I have better things to do with my time.

However, if someone over here is claiming it's raining outside in my neighborhood and I stick my head out the window and see the sun is clearly shining then I guess in your view you'd call me a shill/henchman/naysayer/global-warming-denier. 

I only spout what I know as fact based on what I've seen and tested with my own eyes.  However, you seem to assume it's raining based on any hint of water on the windows and will beat down anyone that claims otherwise. 

As for being a supporter of eMunie, well anyone with a 2nd grade reading level would see that I've had that in my signature line since day one ("eMunie: The future of money") so I can't quite comprehend how this is supposedly some master conspiracy you think you've uncovered when it's been that way for years. 

I am excited about eMunie and what it can bring to the table.
That does not mean that I'm wearing blinkers.
If Ethereum, Bitshares, NXT or any other project turns out to be beneficial to my requirements, then for sure I will positively buy into those projects as well.
But for now eMunie has shown me that it is going to be the best project to fulfill my requirements as a future financial package.
I shall keep myself enlightened to other projects all the time.

The upcoming bake-off is one I look forward to with joy and curiosity. My competitive soul is triggered :) Shall be fun indeed ;)

added another bullet on the OP:

• During the 100-minute test, with the random shutdowns I'll purposely perform, I will make sure on average the node software will be allowed to run (and I'll be doing the "E" and "C" instructions as fast as I can) 75% of the time.   In other words, 25% of the available time the nodes will be not running the node software.  While some of that 75% uptime will be re-syncing per the "E" instructions, hopefully the syncing will be quick so "C" instructions can crank out new transactions ASAP.  If the new transactions at best will reach, for example, 11.1 per second per node, and if syncing is near instantaneous (for the sake of this calculation), the best score you'd possibly get is 11.1 * 60 * 75 * 20 = ~ 1 million.

Peachy, what are you smoking?  Emunie might have fundamentals, maybe it won't, we won't know until it's released.  What we do know is, every single post you've ever made on this forum has been done for no reason other than to try and hype Emunie.  For any camaraderie to exist, you would have to of talked about some other topic at some point time besides trying to enrich yourself by getting others to use Emunie.  You're like one of those people that knocks on doors at 6am trying to convert you to some religion, like a Jehovah's witness.  What is there to have camaraderie about?  It would be different if you ever made a single post about some kind of other topic, but you haven't.

This is a classic example of how any currency, whether it's fiat, gold, silver, anything, is all a pyramid scheme.  You have to try and con other people into using it to have value.  Like telling people gold is valuable when it's mostly just a useless lump of metal.  The other option is providing some kind of utility not found in the currency they already use.  The problem there is, there are now many currencies that offer benefits like this with things like decentralized exchanges, hedging in smart coins/prediction markets, etc.  The problem with Emunie in this regard, is that due to the way the monetary system works, you would make less money being an Emunie early adopter than something like a Bitcoin or Bitshares early adopter.

It's like telling people to use Freicoin instead of Bitcoin.  You're telling people to act irrationally when they could make more money supporting something else when the main benefactor is just going to be the guy who issues the IPO. This is one of the things that bothers me about Emunie.  In a prisoner's dilema scenario where everyone's goal is to maximize profit from investment, there's probably not going to be any prisoners choosing Emunie over another viable Bitcoin competitor.

For scalability, Emunie and Bitshares can both get the job done in displacing Bitcoin, but people will simply make more money supporting Bitshares.  Emunie also seems difficult to function as a native currency that's not pegged to dollars or something else as well from this Fuserleer quote:

@r0ach

You appear to have an opinion, and judge anyone and anything, which obviously is your choice, but please wait with judging eMunie before it is even finished and out as a beta.
Once it is, and you have given it a good spin, well then you can rightfully judge it ;)
Before that - all your elaborate talking points about it will mostly be hypothetical.
Granted, some of your talk may be correct, based on what @Fuserleer has disclosed in public, but eMunie is still evolving so not everything is set in stone yet.

I'm sure we are all aware that folks who are involved with eMunie, or any other similar project for that matter, are not so ignorant to think eMunie is the only valid one out there.
There may be other projects competing for that.
In the end the decision will be up to the consumers and the 'masses' who will be using it in their daily life.
The crypto community in here are, mostly, all biased towards their preferred flavour which they coincidentially bumped into, and then 'defend' it at all costs, which sometimes are a bit out of tune imo.
It's hard, or impossible, to please and agree with so many talented and stubborn personalities in here :D

Sometimes I'd wish to meet many of you folks in here in real life - hey - it might turn out that the ones I dislike most from what they write in here, would be someones that I would converse well with person to person.
An almost anonymous avatar is not really a good way to know each other, but then again it's not a 'find-your-perfect-partner' forum ;)

I've said this over and over from day one, that it has never been intended that eMunie makes everyone tons of fiat and provides a crazy a ROI.  The intention is that eMunie allows you to truly step away from fiat if you wish, or use it as a true alternative, and any ROI is a side effect of that and growth.

Isn't that supposed to be the true end goal here?

Agree with r0ach here, the contest has 0 sense if a closed source non-released project can take part in it, which has 0 days runtime in a normal enviroment. No offense, the project can be 100% legit, but that doesn't change the point.

Emunie wont work, bts for the win

Very eloquently put and your arguments make a lot of sense. Thanks!

So basically....these arguments attempting to justify why eMunie should not be allowed to participate, simply paints a picture that everyone is running scared, even though its just meant to be for a bit of fun.

If that was not the case, then a large portion of all those developers who ever made claims about the speed of their crypto wouldn't care about eMunie still being in development, closed source, or whatever other weak justification for disallowing entry, so long as the results were fair and verifiable (which they would be).

In that case, eMunie will withdraw from the competition....we don't need to take part anymore :)

PS...Dont forget that I believe CFB was also planning on entering his in-development, non-released crypto....

Thats not a post count. Got way more than that

I'm trying to measure with this bake-off just the first one of 14 attributes of a good crypto.  I understand it isn't measuring the best overall crypto.  Please don't assume any crypto can't be the best based on present development or code review status.  We each pick a favorite - but the more objective data, the better.  And having a little fun, doesn't hurt, either.

IMO, here are 14 attributes that make a good crypto candidate trying to go mainstream:

• Has (or designed to have) the technical capacity to replace all fiat transactions (sustain 100K TPS) whenever needed.
• Is 100% decentralized. It can not be controlled except by the majority of the public.
• Has (or designed to have) a stable price and one's savings are safe from being devalued.
• Has (or plans to have) good marketing.  Has cool characteristics that might appeal to billions.
• Is secure (supports 2FA, etc).
• Is easy (like a debit card).
• Is cheap to use (nearly free).
• Does not waste energy or resources.
• Is as private/anonymous as a user wants.
• Fair distribution opportunities - no insider advantage before nor after launch. Everyone is rewarded in proportion for the work performed and the money risked.
• Has endured long-running global tests.
• All code has undergone (and will continue to undergo) thorough code review (by trusted third parties) before going into production.
• Is well documented.
• Is flexible, modular, or has promise in helping society in new ways not yet invented.

Of course having the following additional attributes help - but impossible for new cryptos - takes time:

• Has a large network effect behind it - a large ecosystem - lots of merchants, infrastructure.
• Has proven security where years have gone by without a major core breach.

-cheers.

You can't be serious mate, proving something in crypto with closed source software/client?

And you even try to taunt people when being asked to release first and compete after.

There are other developers that expressed interest to take part with unfinished projects....I don't see them getting asked to not participate, so how else do you expect these arguments to get viewed?

It doesn't matter if its closed source or not, the ledger is public so the results can be verified in this particular test case as its sheer volume of transactions.

Edit: In fact in this particular instance, I would argue that closed source is BETTER and FAIRER, as the OP could not modify any participating client to under/over perform depending on any bias he may have.

This is assuming there are no malicious lines of code to secretly send your bitcoin or other alt coins to the developers address who created the binaries you are running.

Closed source when dealing with crypto is a very bad idea no matter which way you spin it.

EXCEPT being closed source means that no one can independently verify how your 'results' were achieved hence, useless. I can make an app that spews out a bunch of bs too.

release the client dan or else all you and crew are doing is cluttering up these already cluttered shit forums.

I'm locking this thread - it appears the same arguments are being discussed without progress.... and some folks are actually against honest participation.

I'll still run the bake-off (assuming I get more than 1 entry), and everything in the OP still applies, but we don't need this thread to stay open for that.

-cheers,
- Wingspan.