Yes, there were errors in the code I submitted.  There are 2 that I can discern from my talks with /GJ today.  The first was the 25% limit that wasn't a 25% limit.  It was a validation check that acted like a limit on our testnet by rejecting blocks on the confirming nodes.  See /GJ's post about this, although all the a/b/c stuff totally lost me.  The second part to that line of code was that if it was added to the network now, it would have cause the chain to not sync properly on a resync.  Essentially the existing blocks higher than a 25% retarget would have been rejected.  So it is my understanding that the results that were shown with the charts were correct because they were valid with a fresh chain on our testnet.  However, they wouldn't have been valid on the main chain.  Had we worked with the existing blockchain data, we would have identified the error immediately.  My team missed it, and I sincerely apologize for it.

I take full responsibility for these errors.  I knew the code wasn't a final draft.  That is why when Rijk asked me to post the git pull, I asked him to have a few pairs of eyes on the code before we did anything.  It's also why, in light of the simulator timeline /GJ presented, I asked that we test against the simulator.  /GJ is currently working on cleaning up the DIGI code.  I have offered to reach out to the DIGI dev in the meantime.  However, /GJ is confident that he will be able to provide a streamlined DIGI solution, so I am going to stand behind that decision.

I'm going to take a step back from NLG for a little bit.  I just need to refocus on what I'm doing.  I'm not cashing out, and I'm not shutting down the pool.  I will continue to sell physical coins and try to figure out ways to make NLG better outside of the blockchain.  I just feel with the animosity over my involvement, and the movement towards finally fixing the algorithm problems, I don't need to be in the forefront for a while.  I'll continue to follow the thread, but I probably won't push for radical changes like I have in the past.  I'm just going to sit back and watch for a while.

Cheers,

Fuse

Hmm, one more problem when Clever gets kicked off the chain... Criptoe will get >50% of the hash rate.

Don't get me wrong... I'm freaking ecstatic lol.  We'll finally take back our chain from CM.  Me this morning:



-Fuse

I'm glad to hear that the DIGI solution is being implemented.  But let me say this- this isn't a win for me.  My team and I just took the time to test the solution we thought would work, and it worked.

The win here belongs to the community.  While everyone might not have the same ideas, we came together and made a decision as a whole.  Sure, I really pressed hard for the decision to favor my team's findings, but we made a decision none the less.

Actions speak louder than words.  Today we spoke.


That being said, I would love people to look over the code to make sure I didn't miss anything.  /GJ will be looking at it, but a second or third set of eyes would be good to make sure we're solid going into the transition.  I know I missed adding a checkpoint in my git pull, but I figured I'd let the devs make the checkpoint additions.  The code, the way I submitted it, was the code used to get the graph results I presented, minus the change from 20% to 25%.  Our results with 25% were very aggressive, but still effective.  I don't have charts for the 25% tests, but I can say that they were similar in movement.  Either way, we're not going to overshoot the sweet spot, and we're not going to drop to a false low.

-Fuse

I'm glad we didn't blow a "Fuse" with all this "Spanning" 

For crying out loud people. Focus on the main issue...  And that is replacing the current broken algo with one that keeps MPs at bay.  

It is currently a real struggle to convince those in charge to move from DGW3 to Digi.  It shouldn't be a struggle as just about anything would be preferable to what we have now, but it is a struggle.  They seem to be coming around but will it be before or after Terk kills the coin?  Time will tell.

So.......  Forget about cpu mining, multi pow mining, etc.  It ain't going to happen.  You are just polluting the thread with "fairies at the bottom of the garden" non-solutions.  NLG will be a scrypt coin for the foreseeable future.  It has built up a devoted base of scrypt miners like myself and a change would mean 99% of current miners would go elsewhere.  That would help the coin? NOT.  

I have had 3 hours of sleep in the past 48 hours and driven over 1000klms delivering produce to the markets... so this post may be insulting and will be blunt... I ask for your consideration and understanding before replying -

1. GJ - his work on the simulator and 'ultimate diff algo' is absolutely of vital importance and should continue. Sadly, the tyranny of time and distance is preventing me from working closely with GJ.

2. - Digishield aka GuldenShield - this implementation should always be looked at as a stop gap to allow GJ the time and breathing space to perfect GuldenShield V2.

3. - I know how a network and blockchain works intimately, I have spent over 12 months as miner studying and testing networks and exploits. I have the knowledge and the resources to test any diff algo at a level usually referred to as brute force.

4. - the response to my radical proposal proves that most of you have not been paying attention to my posts for the past few months. There is huge disparity between the intended use of NLG and the technical specifications of the network. NLG is a blatant copy and paste of LTC, look at the codebase, with the change to single block retargeting.

5. - the strength of NLG lies in the community, it is without peer. The community is why I support NLG completely and I am even bothering to type this post. But NLG could be so much more if we matched the technical specs of the coin to the community vision.

6. - why did I make a radical proposal -

• NLG is maturing into the coin for micro-transactions(that is wallet to wallet, small, daily use currency)
• reducing the block time to 75sec cuts transaction times by greater than 50%, speeding up transactions
• reducing the block reward to 500NLG maintains the current number of NLG minted per 24hrs
• increases the number of diff increments by 100% per 24hrs, from 576 to 1152
• reduces the number of blocks a high-hash-rate attacking miner/multipool can mint by 80%
• these changes support the community vision of NLG becoming a daily use currency
• the only down side of this proposal is that the block chain storage requirement would double, but still be less than most alt-coins

7. - NLG has my 100% support, hash-rate and vision.

8. - I am completely opposed to changing from Scrypt, halving miners rewards over the 24hrs or long-term, or any manipulation attempts to increase the value of NLG by change coin variables. What I am proposing may change the value of NLG, I could care less, but the changes will make NLG a much better coin for the community vision of NLG becoming a daily use currency.

9. - I am content with only changing the diff algo if that is the community decision. The radical proposal is a simple change of a few numbers in a few lines of code and would also make GJ job easier with the diff algo easier. I spoken to Fuse about the variables needed to Digishield if the community want to do something radical and implement my proposal, he can explain

It is time for NLG to take the next steps in becoming the premier alt-coin.

oh well i bought 1 day too early haha

Nothing! Coin is dead!

Can someone insert our impressive mercant list to this thread:?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=273148.0

I'm in Geneva on business and not really able using just iPhone...

Tnx!

Deep sigh 
Leave it to you guys.

Another buy wall to please the dumpers, if there're any left though..

Wallet to donate will be set here soon: http://www.hettafelhuis.nl/ Zeerobje will announce when it is there.

Live stream: http://www.rtvlogo.nl/live/

Als ze deze mix voor een deel draaien dan doneer ik 15k NLG: https://soundcloud.com/sebass-dj-sebass. Alle donaties worden dan verdubbeld aan het eind als er meer donaties komen van de community. We moeten wel echt het adres hebben van het Tafelhuis.

I just thought it was a very funny image of people "looking at the code".
The other assumptions above are all wrong; I am not mad at anyone and everyone can stay in, the more the merrier.
The thing I mentioned before was that Guldencoin should decide the course for Guldencoin itself. And that it should not stray away from its primary focus on the Dutch market.
That is my opinion. And on top of that I do not like people insulting others and accusing others of fud whenever they please. Who are we to judge.

In fact I have purchased multiple products with NLG, am an early adopter of NLG, have informed ny2cafuse early on how you can unleash enormous hashing power which I directed through his criptoe network, was one of the first merchants to accept NLG as a payment option through LitePaid, gave away over 40000 NLG through the guldencoinpuzzel promotion, promoted NLG through facebook, linkedin and twitter, and I hope NLG will become a serious payment option in The Netherlands (and abroad in a second stage).

So I am not bumming anyone. I am a big NLG supporter.
In my view the success of NLG depends on the adoption of the coin by the Dutch population.
The sooner the better, because the momentum is fading. That worries me.

His last dump was from this address: https://explorer.guldencoin.com/#/address/GPxkxJ6EBecW5cJHH9j8h6MYp6UQcoxTPr : Balance = 0

This is possible another address of the dumper: https://explorer.guldencoin.com/#/address/GXhqVVLpNbWMrz7XDbrLRJucUoVmuRHapM  Balance = 500,234.50991506, exactly one half of the dumped Guldencoins from the address above.