I was actually thinking I should buy my own altcoin if it got too weak, yet I wouldn't want to be the only person buying it.
That's the way I feel about Yacoin at the moment. I woud say one actual problem of altcoins is that you could burn your self hard on them. Especially if when I realize how much these btc could buy me now. There hasn't been a real altcoin bubble yet, but if too many people lost too much on alts they might stick just to BTC. Bitcoin had a nice crash from 30$, but there wasn't many lives destryed back then and everyone sticking to the plan got out nicely. Altcoins will be different on that one. |
|
|
|
HI all, regarding the splitting of wallets into smaller sizes, would a 10,000 YAC deposit ...
It wouldn't generate more rewards but far more blocks. It wouldn't be a good idea. As Sairon suggested a rouge player could troll miners by delaying the update of his POS and kill their now ophran blocks. Having more adresses could prevent or do such thing. For me it currently makes no sense to POS at the moment so having a few thousand adresses ready if they could be useful for preventing so that is someting I'm currently thinking about. The problem with that is not so much the miners, it's the lost transactions and trouble this could cause. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin will never add strong anonymity. Disagree? If it's something that an economic majority of users want, it will be added. If the current core devs won't add it, then someone else will make a version that does include it and the user base will upgrade to their branch. Wrong, but you also have have just black-white thinking there. What about some people like strawberry and some like choco. There is no point in arguning that there will be just one flavour and with different flavours in crypto we won't eat >95% bitcoin. I have the feeling we are turning in circles here. What are the poins you agree on? |
|
|
|
then the altcoin has to be appreciating faster than Bitcoin, else there will be a pernicious downward spiral.
That doesn't make sense at all ... I don't see why something has to be rising in order to speculate in something. Actually I'd rather like to speculate in something that got far less worth than it used to be than in something that got far more worth than it used to be. My profits depend on the %increase and my investment size, not on the actual value on the price tag. This realization seems to indicate there can only be one coin that survives, unless there is some reason to hold the coin other than its relative rate of appreciation. Back in the early 90s, there were probably tens of thousands of individual bulletin board services. Most towns had several, and there were about half a dozen national ones in the US alone. Each one was its own walled garden, with little to no communication between them. In the late 90s as flat-rate ISPs began to enter the market, all the walled gardens got steamrollered by the Internet's network effect. A tiny, statistically-insignificant minority of geeks prefer the walled gardens, while the rest of the population like having a single email address that works everywere. It will be the same with cryptocurrencies. There will be one winner that achieves mainstream adoption, and a few toys currencies and that are kept alive by the few people who enjoy running them as a hobby and using them as testnets for new features. That doesn't make sense either. Just because better tec replaces good one doesn't suggest we will all use just the better tec and not lets say 2 better ones equally ... A better example for arguing your way of thinking would be on BluRay vs HD DVD. Here your argumentation would work, but thats wrong either. Just take a look at DVD vs BluRay vs HD DVD and you see the dilemma. It will never be just BluRay. Even if we wouldn't use DVDs anymore there would be a new format out by then so it will be Blu vs new disk. The networkeffect killed HD, that's true, but it could only do that because it was cheaper to use just one than 2 practical identical tecs. First of all is BTC to f.e. PPC not similiar in that kind of way (POS rewards) and it is actually better to use more than one crypto. Any feature that is so heavily demanded will be added to Bitcoin, because that is the most economically valuable solution.
Dream on. It would be impossible to f.e. add at least some POS blocks to Bitcoin although it would be economically better. |
|
|
|
Even if a new alt-coin emerged that was vastly superior to bitcoin in EVERY SINGLE ONE of its original goals, joe-public, investors and many service providers would probably feel no massive urge to switch.
If the altcoin has sufficient demand (not even any where near Bitcoin) to generate a liquid exchange, then the altcoin can be converted on the fly to pay those who accept only Bitcoin. So an altcoin doesn't need ANYONE to switch from Bitcoin, it only needs to grab a small percent of the market of new users. Bitcoin only has 350,000 users. There is a long way to go to 7 billion. The key though is the altcoin needs to present something truly useful that Bitcoin can't copy. So it has staying power.Agreed. I think the bold statement is the main reason why todays serious altcoins are here to stay (and justify a rise vs BTC) The consenus required to do a hardfork is impossible to reach for anything other than fixing threating security problems for anything that actually changes someting. POS is unreachable for bitcoin and a true improvement over it. For everything else there would be an oposition against it and so prevents innovation on BTC itself. People tend to forget that there is a difference between innvation on crypto and innovation on bitcoin. It doesn't matter that something was initially written for bitcoin since it can't be bitcoin exclusively. Bitcoin can't keep her innovation for itself, but also can't grap new innovation from the other cryptos. The first crypto to buy is bitcoin, but some of the newcomers might see a feature, I think it will be POS and especially POS rewards, that is nice to have. I expect some of them to move on to altcoins, the % of is up to you, but that's basically the thing that matters. Even if you don't belive in this there still will be a few idiots, lets say n% of them that want to become early adopters (as we are 350k/worldpop wouldn't be damm early) and they can be that rather on alts. The % is still up to you. The massive urge to sell BTC for altcoins wouldn't come from the actual benefits for individuals from the altcoins features. It would come from possible profits and saving profits. It's always a bad idea to have all wealth in one thing, so it might be a good idea to move some % into different altcoins. Just to be save, and maby that altcoin will grow faster than bitcoin and there is no practical difference in using as payment. A smaller crypto can easier double your wealth than a big one, so my point is about marketcapitalisation. Look up the % that all serious altcoins MC have compared to bitcoin and compare it with your estimated % on my previous points ... |
|
|
|
Quite easy.  Wouldn't that be better to do with CC from one single adress? |
|
|
|
Also, it's quite easy to supress PoW entirely if any large YAC holder wanted to do so - just hold onto your coins and when you see a PoW block on the network, ignore it and quickly make one PoS block linking to the previous block (not the new PoW block). The other peers will happily orphan the PoW block. You will need to make some code changes to your client first, but it's not that difficult and IMHO worth it for the lulz. Just imagine all the YAC pools getting nothing but orphans.  Now I hope you see the futility of PoW mining a coin that has PoS. So hashrate/N changes/whatever is not an issue for YAC in the long run (when there are many coins participating in proof of stake). Don't get me bad ideas ... Actually it does piss me off that people can now buy YACs so much cheaper than I had paid. I wouldn't even have to actually fight many POWs since I ask the miners for a little donation. It would be a shame if something happend to your block. Since I would still kill a lot of blocks there would be far less supply for the exchanges. In fact I can't stop people from selling cheap at the exchanges, but if I punish all miners for to low prices I can somewhat stabilize the market. I do have the coins, the money to buy significant on the exchanges to prevent a panic and my morals ain't that good either. On a total different subject, how can I automatically split up a big wallet into a few small ones. Let's say about 10.000 adresses? |
|
|
|
|
You have to sign the message to get coins here. No valid signature, no coins!
|
|
|
|
|
4th transaction sent:
6a889246368af1ef5253b55d3faab3e47433dd46539bfa6ff5bf7728bbb44c57
If you haven't recived any coins you havent signed the message.
You have to sign the message to get coins here. No valid signature, no coins!
|
|
|
|
I'm envisioning the ability for one to input YACoin hashrate (the best and smartest way may mean people will have to start mining at least for a couple minutes to truly know this information), and then reverse calculate for LiteCoin or even input LiteCoin hashrate.
Genius. ^^ This would be the simplest and most accurate method to implement (although it will require users to test their mining speed for both scrypt variants). Would you really set up a full miner incl. blockchain just to test wheter an unknown coin with a micro MC is profitable at the current n-factor?! Since we already need benchmarks for some of the most common GPU rigs wouldn't it be far better to modify a small miner to benchmark a system for all n-changes <20? Nobody would run such a software if it weren't from the original hub (or in the client) and a little faucet for submitting your results would be very motivating to some. |
|
|
|
Well, it's a nice idea and I'm all for it, but there is a slight problem.
I belive your math is correct, but too inaccurate to use it for comparisons. The real problem here is rather the normalizing of the YAC hashrate. Different GPUs yield different hashrates, that's nothing new, but everyone knows it's rate for LTC so that's no problem if you compare LTC like coins. For YAC it is different since it depends far more on the memory than on the GPU. The 1/(0.5*NF-9) is a good approximation when it hasn't run out of memory, but most card already have begun to show first effects of running out of memory. The decrease factor for an n-changes is ~0.5 with enough memory and <0.25 when memory isn't sufficient anymore. If someone buys cards for mining they usually buy some with just enough RAM for mining LTC. These cards already ran out of memory and got hit by the last n-change. If we consider this data to be correct for a while ...
It isn't even accurate for the current n-factor, so how could we consider that for the future ... We would piss off a lot of people by promising 400% although most of them couldn't possibly reach that. We have to use benchmarked decrease factors and list the profitability per cardtype. I'd say the best is to use profitability with decreasefactor 0.5(n-9) with asterix and link to a more detailed site with the benchmarks. I belive there are some cards that would be very profitable on YAC, but we must not upset people with cards not suitable. |
|
|
|
|
Great idea.
I'm also supporting this idea with 5kYAC for a comparison of mining profitability with YAC. Doesn't matter to me if based on YAC or just if puts it into comparison.
|
|
|
|
I thought YAC died months ago...
Nope, it lost some of it's marketcap, but it's very alive. YAC got a lot of unique properties that make it hard to compare with other scriptcoins. The network hashrate f.e. is so low because the algorithm gets harder with time. A HD6990 that started with 10Mh/s in May is now well below 50kh/s ... If you don't know that it would seem that a decline to 1/200th total hashpower was a sign of death, but that 'd be just the normal decrease due to n-changes. |
|
|
|
Gimme some YAC
Y4P1vntbQogefM9MsfKeyCeDh1ktxcRvig
Gimme some YAC
YP9hVTnyNp7Xy3G944nKCohDAB3j53fZoX
I really hate to repeat myself every post, but You haven't signed the message as required for this bounty. No sig no coins.I know I can't expect people to read the first post, but it's just riddiculous to not even look at previous ones. |
|
|
|
Gimme some YAC
YF8t5zgtVFPXZzSem5HRmQBVDyQFi2FbLk
Thank you:)
You haven't signed the message as required for this bounty. No sig no coins. |
|
|
|
Speaking of bounty. I am willing to offer a bounty (10k YAC) for a site like coinchoose.com for YaCoin mining profitability, except it compares YaCoin to other coins as well as just the YaCoin clones. Any thoughts?
A whole site might be asked to much, but if some can calculate these infos for YAC they sure would love to copy/past them. If they don't want to do that someone could simply paste their infos and add YAC to the list. Why do you want to promote the YACurrency clones aswell? If they want to get there they should have to do the work themselves ...  Make an adress with your 10kYAC and post it here on the forum. If people trust you and want to support your bounty I think we could raise more money for this. If someone takes the time to work on a bounty he shouldn't have to search the forum for hints where to get the promised coins. |
|
|
|
Also has anyone notice the huge number of PoS on the Blockchain? I', sure that is all related to N change.
Where did you get that info from? It would be cool to see chart to see how much coins were in POS at any given time* ... People can enable POS minting whenever they want, so the n-change could have reminded/motivated them to unlock their wallets. The n-change itself doesn't effect POS. * 500YAC bounty for this as .csv plus a bonus of 1.5kYAC for online and updating like yacexplorer.tk/graphs.htm or yacoinstats.tk Already claimed by Sairon 9955f1d6d3325fc06e24f6f78b8eb92396a7e457d8fb4cf8c568cb39ef391733 |
|
|
|
|
3rd transaction sent:
230e1c83a0919b64c1468be4eaead74e28965b865e4c837485b6ed51b4a93a0d 15YAC each sent
879511d09712a50731d48a188d263487ab58d6dbbbeb09d2d1069ca6ca4695ab 1YAC each
I forgot to enable CC, so you guys got +1YAC. I want to have all adresses here recive coins from the same adress.
|
|
|
|
Yes, but apparently not as badly as the GPU. Unless there are better settings, as of right now my GPU took a 75% hit (66 to 17 kh/s), but my CPU only took a 40% hit (from 2.5 to 1.5 kh/s).
That's interresting. I don't have a benchmark for your card, but I assume it will behave alike the one from the yacexplorer benchmade previously. It seems that the hashrate decrease is accelerating, while CPU always looses less than GPU. The next step for the CPU there was a 75% decrease for CPU so it's not so unlikely YAC will be a CPU coin in the future. Can someone run a new benchmark for me on GPU? The 0 hash/s for n=12 on yacexplorer seem to be a bit off ... |
|
|
|
In addition, I also want to say thank-you to St.Bit for taking the time (and giving away his own coins) to help promote YAC. I hope the following donation helps you continue your efforts.
Thank you. At the current rate this should fund my giveaway thread it for quite a while. EDIT: yacexplorer.tk is down |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
