I would like to see a Current Minumum Masternode Cost ticker.
Agreed. You could just sort the table "amount" and get the cheapest or most expensive masternode of that moment immediately.  |
|
|
|
I would like to see a Current Minumum Masternode Cost ticker.
But there will always be a spread between the cheapest and most expensive masternode... so what use is it if you know the current minimum masternode cost? If my prognosis is right, it will fluctuate like crazy, constantly. (contrary to the most expensive masternode that will not fluctuate at all) What if I try to install a masternode for just 50 SPR, and it is alive for only 10 minutes, and shows up in your list,... what meaning will it have to you? What I am trying to say is: An average masternode cost ticker (with % variance) would make much more sense, since you don't want to base your choices on extreme outliers, but rather on the strong support in the middle. Right? |
|
|
|
Could we add something like this? Maybe a few more informations regarding how much percentage of the coin supply is tied in masternodes, etc? Please?  Takes up way too much space. That info could be displayed in a single short text label or %bar somewhere. I just made that in 10 sec, ... Space is negotiable. I care about the info, not how it will look. |
|
|
|
Darkcoin never figured out what symbol to use for a masternode... I see Mr.Spread isn't sure either... well, maybe we can start a poll, or something... A masternode finally needs its own symbol. This is how I depicted a masternode in a recent animation I did:   |
|
|
|
Could we add something like this?  Maybe a few more informations regarding how much percentage of the coin supply is tied in masternodes, etc? Please? |
|
|
|
Here is how GUI for masternodes will look like:  Checkboxes are only for your masternodes, they allow you to start or stop your masternode (of course you will also be able to do it with speadcoin.conf). Other useful information is also shown, e.g. deposit amount and time before next payment for each masternode. Addresses don't start with S because this is testnet. So we will always see ALL masternodes that exist (not just our own ones) in the GUI ? Beautiful! |
|
|
|
Here is how GUI for masternodes will look like: Checkboxes are only for your masternodes, they allow you to start or stop your masternode (of course you will also be able to do it with speadcoin.conf). Other useful information is also shown, e.g. deposit amount and time before next payment for each masternode. Addresses don't start with S because this is testnet. looks very promising. So masternodes will get their own GUI-menu? AWESOME! |
|
|
|
Won't mine SpreadX11.
What is the difference between SpreadX11 and normal X11? Requires each block to be signed with the miner's private key. Aha, I thought there would be a difference in the hashing algorithms? There IS. That is the difference. Alright, I get it. "signing a key" IS the same as "hashing".... |
|
|
|
Won't mine SpreadX11.
What is the difference between SpreadX11 and normal X11? Requires each block to be signed with the miner's private key. Aha, I thought there would be a difference in the hashing algorithms? |
|
|
|
Won't mine SpreadX11.
What is the difference between SpreadX11 and normal X11? |
|
|
|
|
is there something thinkable that could be even more advanced/efficient than an ASIC?
lol, i'm just kidding... puting the algorithm itself in hardwired form is the end of the road, right?
So atleast then this arms race ends.
So maybe we should all welcome ASIC and hope that we get there as soon as possible... maybe every coin has to hope that.
|
|
|
|
Id assume a bot-net would go for large offices/companies, where people would be unaware of the extra pc usage.
Large offices/companies wont have very powerful GPU's if any at all.
It would be easier to organise a CPU botnet than a GPU botnet, because i can farm large amount of CPU power from "large" companies, but with GPU i would have to gather from individuals, which would be harder.
Large offices/companies are probably running a bunch of shitty old Celerons, I don't think it's much of a threat. And any company that happens to have rackfulls of 14 core Xeons is likely to have a sysadmin that just might notice the sudden massive load increase or their atomic weapons simulation or HFT algos grinding suddenly to a halt and various red strobing lights and ear splitting sirens going off. Botnets are more myth than reality in cryptocurrencies. Allow me to disagree We are on i5 for around 3000 machines ...which run in near idle mode most of the time. (idle means I mostly write and read emails and documents with my machine) On my machine, the difference between power consumption in idle mode and power consumption with 100% CPU is 500%. Idle = 30 W, cpu 100% = 150 W. (I included motherboard etc... but NOT screen etc..) So, I believe that your company will really start to worry when suddenly the power bill is 5 times higher. |
|
|
|
Id assume a bot-net would go for large offices/companies, where people would be unaware of the extra pc usage.
Large offices/companies wont have very powerful GPU's if any at all.
It would be easier to organise a CPU botnet than a GPU botnet, because i can farm large amount of CPU power from "large" companies, but with GPU i would have to gather from individuals, which would be harder.
Large offices/companies are probably running a bunch of shitty old Celerons, I don't think it's much of a threat. And any company that happens to have rackfulls of 14 core Xeons is likely to have a sysadmin that just might notice the sudden massive load increase or their atomic weapons simulation or HFT algos grinding suddenly to a halt and various red strobing red lights and ear splitting sirens going off. Botnets are more myth than reality in cryptocurrencies. Of COURSE it's a threat - one shitty Celeron is not, ten thousand matter. I hear you, and you make valid points. But this all reminds me of this guy working at some super computer facility and mining bitcoin with them, when ASICS were already here.Totally useless and stupid, and I think he lost his job when they found out he used the totally inefficient (for SHA-256(SHA-256)) supercomputers to mine bitcoin.  Yes, it's not just about the hashrate it's also about the number of cpus, but... Will such a celeron even do 5 KH at 100%? So 10k of them will result in maybe 50 MH/s? That's a ridiculously low reward for such an operation. |
|
|
|
Anyone think we should put together a community bounty fund for an improved GPU miner?
I'd rather pay for a true CPU only solution. Impossible. What you CAN do, is make GPU simply not worth it. But it's a really stupid idea - botnets will then dominate the hashrate if your coin has any value. EDIT: Shit, what am I saying, I'm better at CPU dev than GPU dev. Disregard my last. Please explain to me why CPU mining is prone to botnet subversion but GPU or ASIC mining is magically not. If it's connected to the internet, it's hackable. CPU/GPU/ASIC makes no damn difference. If an attacker has control of your box, and your mining software, then they have control of your mining hardware too whatever that might be. Exactly. Also what I never understood is.... yeah I understand it's possible that someone makes my pc his bot and makes it spread emails or malware, without me noticing it immediately. Ok, get it. But how is he going to let my pc CPU mine without me noticing the higher temperature, the higher noise the fans are going to make, and the general slowliness that will make me wonder immediately what's going on with my pc? |
|
|
|
Maybe we need a new sub forum on spreadcointalk, something for official merchandising related stuff... Spreadcoin identity, or what's the word I am looking for... Marketing. We don't have a subforum regarding marketing, lol... how could we forget. EDIT: now we have one: http://spreadcointalk.org/index.php?board=16"Everything identity, design and marketing campaign related goes here. Creating awareness thru social media etc" maybe eightspace you can express it in better english? thanks. |
|
|
|
Couldn't we prevent such a thing by simply not allowing the mining of more than one miner/port on the same IP? Should be easy to implement, right?
This should drive the investment cost for whales up quite a bit.
EDIT: No wait, getpeerinfo returns not just IPs from miners, but from wallets. So if we allowed only one wallet per IP we would run into all kinds of problems, like for example, two people in the same LAN wouldn't be able to transact with each other.
Better launch not mineable PoS shitcoin and masturbate on it's non-mineability. Solo-mineable is not the same as non-mineable. ;-) |
|
|
|
I think we should make a page in Spreadcointalk with the vector logo, fonts etc, images etc. for people to use when designing stuff.
Awesome. Can you do that? If you put everything together in a thread, I will put your thread in the "important links" section. I made a PDF file in Illustrator (vector). I want to make a page in SpreadCoinTalk but how can I share this file? (imgur must be .jpg.)  Awesome work. Well, did you register on spreacointalk.org? I can't see your name in the member list. I will give you the ability to add attachments to your posts, since your work seems very media related. PM me at the forum please. |
|
|
|
I typed getpeerinfo and look at the ip's:
60.162.57.53 wth?
60.162.57.53 geo-locates in China. Big surprise there! Lol! And 114.201.55.253 geo-locates in South Korea... Not sure, but I am assuming that each port address is a different QT wallet... How many miners did Mr.Spread limit to each wallet? addr : "114.201.55.253:51345",
addr : "114.201.55.253:52893",
addr : "114.201.55.253:55128",
addr : "114.201.55.253:56951",
addr : "60.162.57.53:16608",
addr : "60.162.57.53:21729",
addr : "60.162.57.53:2593",
addr : "60.162.57.53:2816",
addr : "60.162.57.53:28640",
addr : "60.162.57.53:28672",
addr : "60.162.57.53:30881",
addr : "60.162.57.53:31360",
addr : "60.162.57.53:32387",
addr : "60.162.57.53:3392",
addr : "60.162.57.53:34689",
addr : "60.162.57.53:35936",
addr : "60.162.57.53:37024",
addr : "60.162.57.53:38625",
addr : "60.162.57.53:43009",
addr : "60.162.57.53:43200",
addr : "60.162.57.53:47040",
addr : "60.162.57.53:48832",
addr : "60.162.57.53:51713",
addr : "60.162.57.53:52514",
addr : "60.162.57.53:53664",
addr : "60.162.57.53:54883",
addr : "60.162.57.53:58722",
addr : "60.162.57.53:60419",
addr : "60.162.57.53:61761",
addr : "60.162.57.53:61857",
addr : "60.162.57.53:63104",
addr : "60.162.57.53:7265",
addr : "60.162.57.53:8032",
I would say you just found SPR's biggest two whales! That's a LOT of wallets running on one IP... Couldn't we prevent such a thing by simply not allowing the mining of more than one miner/port on the same IP? Should be easy to implement, right? This should drive the investment cost for whales up quite a bit. EDIT: No wait, getpeerinfo returns not just IPs from miners, but from wallets. So if we allowed only one wallet per IP we would run into all kinds of problems, like for example, two people in the same LAN wouldn't be able to transact with each other. |
|
|
|
Yes. Each round your DRK gets mixed with two other participants, everything signed by the MN handling that round for the three of you.
ok, so With 1 round , 1 masternode and 2 other participants are involved. With 2 rounds, 2 masternodes and 2 other participants are involved. With 8 rounds, 8 masternodes and 16 other participants are involved. And those are always different masternodes and different participants, that haven't been used in the previous rounds of the same session, right? Or is there a probability that the same masternodes/participants will be used within the same session (nr of rounds) ? Is this exclusively random (meaning for the rest of the session we are not going to use the masternode/participants that came up previously) or is it inclusive (meaning we just throw all the dices once more) |
|
|
|
They could only reveal where they routed it to - if there's more than one round, then they can't de-anonymize it totally.
Yes, but once a few bad actors collaborate, they should succeed. What exactly is the definition of a "round" again in darkcoin? By default it says "2 rounds".. does that mean that my mixing will involve 2 randomly chosen masternodes? And when I use 8 rounds it will involve 8 masternodes? That's the general rule, right? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
