CPU miner was never released.
Perhaps not as a standalone optimized CPU miner but the in-wallet miner works fine. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Linux binaries are finally here:
Nice work. Can someone test this please? (both daemon and qt please)
Just to go in the opposite direction - I tested ’em on an existing ubuntu 14 installation that has basically everything installed and both worked. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Do you know if that is like Zennet? They are trying to create a supercomputer out of all of the peers connected to the blockchain. (I think) Sorry, I should have provided more info. I'm trying to brush away the cobwebs and get a clear view of a path to an implementation. The reference is from the bitcoin wiki entry for Contracts which gives some accessible background: Using some of the techniques from example 6 and some very advanced scripting, it becomes possible to build a multi-party lottery with no operator. The exact protocol used is explained in the paper "Secure multiparty computations on Bitcoin".
and the authors of the paper observe: ... drawback of the MPCs is rarely mentioned in the literature as it seems obvious that in most of the real-life applications cryptography cannot be “responsible” for controlling that the users provide the “real” input to the protocol and that they respect the output.
My current focus is on understanding the different approaches to resolving this discontinuity, i.e. formally describing the components, conditions and sequencing of a transaction using the language of the protocol in a way that allows the transaction to be autonomously executed if specified and verifiable conditions are met/not met. I have a feeling that the critical enabling technology for B3 is “dealer-less threshold cryptography”. It's a bit of a holy grail, so that sounds about right in that if it was easy, we'd already be knee-deep in it. Which we ain't, so it isn't. But it's crucial and we ain't got it, so that means not just “not easy” but “damn tough”. gmaxwell nails it: “Without a dealerless protocol I consider threshold signatures to be of fairly little value. If you have a trusted dealer to initially create the key material then you can simply keep the key in that dealer.” If anyone's singing along at home ... the Contracts wiki page naturally leads on to gmaxwell's Zero Knowledge Contingent Payment which covers yet more of the issues (the SCIPR team have indeed open-sourced the code). So no, I don't consider it specifically related to Zennet's approach. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
nor does it have an internal marketplace with a complete CRM-system for merchants & customers integrated.
Could you post a link to the integration source in the repos. It's my bad, but all I can seem to find is this ... #include "form.h"
#include "ui_form.h"
#include <QWidget>
#include <QStackedWidget>
Form::Form(QWidget *parent) :
QWidget(parent),
ui(new Ui::Form)
{
ui->setupUi(this);
/* m_pWebView = new QWebView(this);
m_pWebView->load(QUrl("http://www.google.com"));
m_pWebView->setSizePolicy(QSizePolicy::Fixed, QSizePolicy::Fixed);
*/
}
Form::~Form()
{
delete ui;
// ui->setupUi(this);
// this->webView->load(QUrl("http://chingeling.com/ecommerce"));
}
Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I'm trying to get my head around this auction to get a servicenode concept, or more specifically, how it will work in practice.
Testnet's still operational. Dunno whether there are any mn-test binaries still around but as for Linux: $ git clone https://github.com/spreadcoin/spreadcoin.git
$ cd spreadcoin
$ git checkout mn-test
$ qmake-qt
$ make
$ mkdir $HOME/.spreadtest2coin
$ cat <<EOF > $HOME/.spreadtest2coin/spreadcoin.conf
rpcuser=spreadcoinrpc
rpcpassword=made-up-password
listen=1
server=1
testnet=1
addnode=104.131.246.114:51678
addnode=5.9.56.229:51678
mnstart=1
EOF
$ ./spreadcoin-qt -testnet
Use the Mining tab to start mining - or PM me with your testnet wallet default address for some testnet coins. Wait for confirmation. Send an easy-to-recognise amount (e.g. 911.911911) of nSPR (testnet Spreadcoin) to your wallet's default address. WAIT FOR FULL CONFIRMATION. Check the Masternode tab (the mn-test codebase hails from Masternode times), look for your easy-to-recognise amount or look for an empty checkbox in the nearly-all-blank Control column --- it's just near-impossible to spot at first when scrolling but you'll get your eye in fairly quickly. Tick the checkbox. You have promoted your vanilla node to service node status. You may now return to watching TV (nose-picking optional, I feel). I'll now actually have to double-check that the address of the incumbent at #100 drops off the end when my 911.911911 clears and my node appears in the list. Yup, it did. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
graham ... eloquence is obviously and evidently your strong point ... pity it was never mine  ... Thanks for the kind words. Does it help if I reveal that i) it can take me a couple of days to research and couple of hours to write a post like that and ii) I probably get the most benefit out of the exercise? Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
some service nodes will generate less income for doing the same amount of work at the same expense
That's a creditable starting point. Before we kick off ...
I dunno if everyone's cued in to the fact that the discussion is actually about the management of an overlay network “An overlay network is a computer network, which is built on the top of another network” The idea's been around since forever, there's a literature corpus to be mined for algorithmic insights and a broad appreciation of a range of issues, e.g. Stanford's work on RON (Resilient Overlay Networks), now 15 years old. For a more recent overview of the domain, see “Overlay Networks: Overview, Applications and Challenges” by Galán-Jiménez and Gazo-Cervero in IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL.10 No.12, December 2010, full paper (PDF): http://paper.ijcsns.org/07_book/201012/20101206.pdfAnother pertinent domain is MANET (Mobile Ad-hoc NETworks) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_ad_hoc_network for which threshold cryptography is also a key component. Lastly, looking into the near future (at least 6 months) there's the exotica that may become mundanely relevant as the overlay network application space expands, e.g. Raftopoulou, Petrakis and Tryfonopoulos’ “Rewiring Strategies for Semantic Overlay Networks”: Semantic overlay networks cluster peers that are semantically, thematically or socially close into groups, by means of a rewiring procedure that is periodically executed by each peer. This procedure establishes new connections to similar peers and disregards connections to peers that are dissimilar. Retrieval effectiveness is then improved by exploiting this information at query time (as queries may address clusters of similar peers).
http://users.uop.gr/~praftop/papers/pdf/dapd09-RPT.pdf <- DAPD = “Distributed and Parallel Databases”
Back to “fair” - inverting, to negate the negation and make explicit the assumption, “the same task”: the same task, the same income, the same amount of work, the same expense == fairHave to rule out “the same expense” because it's incalculable in the large: it varies according local energy market conditions. Have to rule out “the same amount of work” because it too is incalculable in the large because it varies with machine cost/performance. So we're left with the only thing we can actually calculate: “the same task”, “the same amount of income” == fair. That's quite egalitarian in principle and, to a degree, viable precisely because it acknowledges that variations in local conditions prevent real costs being compared, so in practice the coin is reduced to necessarily adopting a policy of simplification of modelling the cost of membership of the overlay network. But I think that's where Mr Spread's approach has the edge. By presenting it as an auction, it enables participants' bids to reflect the locally-dependent calculations we cannot make in the large. According to our necessarily narrow definition, it cannot actually be described as less fair/egalitarian but it will certainly be more sustainable in the long term because it better reflects the actual cost of maintaining the overlay network. Just to muddy the waters further, atm I don't see why there should always be one and only one logical overlay network. I can foresee different logical overlay networks supporting different applications offering different cost/benefit tradeoffs and levels of income, so I'd like to see the overlay network membership cost eventually pushed into the specific overlay application rather than resting on a relatively coarse and insensitive assumption that it's a single amount applicable to all overlays irrespective of differences in the complexity/magnitude of the service provided. IIRC (I did read it very quickly) there's some reference to characterisations of differences in node capability / connectivity in the overview ref (above) which will be grist to practical discussions of these overlay network parameters. My sense (as essentially, an outsider) is that Spreadcoin can't afford to be perceived as endorsing/enabling the kind of cynical insider profiteering that Crave seems to have attracted: it is still good money to make watching tv and picking your nose.
That's really going to impress business clients seeking to make use of Spreadcoin's overlay network applications. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Surely the network can only be fair if all masternodes get paid roughly the same amount over a period of time?
If you're not posing a merely rhetorical question, what's the definition of “fair” in this instance? Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
But how to decide where is a final point? When to stop 'to have' and start 'to be'?
What do you think? When will a final countdown begin?
An intriguing insight and an excellent question ... because I've been asking it of myself recently  I'm fortunate enough that I'm not obliged to find an answer because I'm accumulating in order to fund a very deep public faucet, not for personal gain. I have three coins on slow accumulation, 2 @4m coins, 1 @1m currently. All three maintained at 0.00X difficulty by one crontab-controlled mining thread allocating 10m each hour to keep the blockchain alive, balance each night send to local address (the other 3 x 10m slots are devoted to TLC for other coins). However, now that you've raised the issue, I realise that the essential worthlessness of the coins I'm accumulating and the age of the codebase does kind of suggest that the faucet users might be far better served by a new, dedicated coin. The steady migration of well-supported alts to the (new! improved! tx malleability fix!) Bitcoin 0.10 codebase could be argued as starting to create a product differentiation all of its own. I can see the tough-minded making a harsh argument: not on 0.10, then shitcoin. That's enough to prompt me to consider how much it acts to undermine the rationale for a “ninja rebirth” tactic, or (sadly) a deep faucet. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Thanks, updated. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
History is obliged to repeat itself because no-one ever listens: To be perfectly honest, we underestimated the reservations against the fuck word. Most of the major exchanges are US based and we thought people were more open in 2014. We had it all, the initial lol moment, people were digging fuckcoin, but no exchange, no matter how hard we tried, was willing to add fuckcoin with the FUCK symbol. We even heard of refunded BTC "exchange votes" from the community. This is why there was no update on the fuckcoin wallet.
Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
i agree graham ... but how? ...
Good answer, nice to get some mature discussion going ... aaaand I'm glad you asked me that question Where Spreadcoin is now reflects Mr Spread’s original notions (emphasis mine):
I want to make this coin for solo only mining without any pools (mining will be made in a such way that miners will be able to consistently steal money from the pool). With blocks generated every minute even with thousands of miners you will still be able to get block once in several days (if you have average hashing speed). There will be no concentration of mining power in large pools as in Bitcoin and there will be no multipools. We can than advertize it as being more decentralized than Bitcoin. Mining will be more like a lottery which may be more interesting or in contrary distract people form mining (however, if you mine for long time than you don't actualy need any pools).
and
The general idea is ...
Given all this I don't expect that anyone will create a pool. But if someone will then I will modify whatever miner software will be used for it to implement the stealing described above, we may expect that most pool miners will then switch to this cheating version which will make this pool useless.
no real data on what the community actually wants ...
That is true to a large degree and it's possibly the reason that the one-sided nature of the perspective is so easily overlooked. For me, there are several readily-identifiable communities directly involved, usually interdependently but each with their own set of objectives, some of which are in tension with another sector's objectives. There are (broadly) miners, investors, speculators, supporters and merchants. And, as you observe, we're in phase 1, a long way to go before, e.g. Spreadcoin denominates someone's paycheck. Speculators want instability in exchange rates, it's their prime opportunity to earn. Investors typically play the long game looking for consistent stable growth. Merchants hate speculative exchange price instability because it plays merry hell with their prices. Miners are okay with or without stability, just as long as the coin remains profitable to mine. Unfortunately that profitability is at the mercy of exchange rate speculation. atm, supporters don't often have cause to care much about the exchange rate as it has little effect on their intra-currency trading (except for causing wild swings in merchants' prices) but they do need a wide range of engaging opportunities to acquire small amounts of the coin and to disburse small amounts, ditto. For a coin to have any chance of long-term success there must be a balance maintained between the objectives. If any one group gains dominance that's pretty much it for the coin; the dominant group will promote its agenda at the expense of the other groups which will then start haemorrhaging members. There've been around 2160+ altcoins launched so far. The scant number of successes can be counted on one hand, if one is generous about a definition of success. I see this as eloquent testimony that achieving a sustainable balance is nigh-on impossible. so why make something more difficult to mine or accrue?
Bring a necessary balance. ... especially when all that going to happen is what already HAS happened ... and will again ... trade back for fiat by the vast majority ...
Yes, that's typical elsewhere but has been far less so with Spreadcoin. Freedom from the vagaries of overwhelming multipool influence seems to lend a stability to Spreadcoin. I'm aware that, pedantically, the “no pools” phrase has been demonstrated false but a point-scoring attitude sadly fails to acknowledge the essential success of Mr Spread's broad aim in sheltering the coin from megapool influence. fwiw, I believe that's the general perception and why there is so much residual support for the coin; there are only a few people motivated to adopt a pedantic criticism, most others will appreciate the success of the overall aim - “no concentration of mining power in large pools”. There's so little hard data about the community that it's impossible to determine whether this perception of Spreadcoin being a more equitable coin is just that, a perception and no more --- or whether it is a reality (arising from the consensus perception, ofc), in which case there's an emergent brand value, right there. The freedom from multipool influence is undeniably now an actual part of Spreadcoin's historical narrative, part of the heritage of the coin and part of its story (c.f. fallingknife's blueprint). Crucially, the “no large pools” aim is a rare pro-balance influence. It's oblique but ... Spreadcoin is seen as giving the little guy more of a chance because of what “no pools” betokens of the coin. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Think like this... the banks cannot change or adapt fast enough
Not sure I share your confident outlook. http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/04/02/ubs-to-open-blockchain-research-lab-in-london/?mg=id-wsj“Swiss banking giant UBS is to open a technology lab in London to explore how blockchain technology can be used in financial services.
The lab, set to open this month and occupy a dozen desks at Canary Wharf-based fintech accelerator space Level39 – a hub in London for financial technology startups – will bring together technology experts from the bank and the wider fintech community, UBS said.
Lab members and invited guests will experiment with how blockchain — the underlying technology behind bitcoin — can be adapted to process a wide range of financial transactions in a more efficient and cost-effective way, the bank said.
The lab will aim to develop new technologies that deal with industry-wide issues, such as the need to manage and analyze vast amounts of data, or better evaluate risk.
While many in financial services have expressed an interest in the underlying technology behind bitcoin, UBS’s is one of the first banks to go public with their plans. The idea is to get UBS more involved with the fintech crowd in London and open up to external innovation.
The blockchain is the public and decentralized online ledger which verifies transactions in digital currencies such as bitcoin. It is an indelible record, whose authenticity is verified by a network of computer users rather than a centralized authority.
Many have come to believe that this technology can be adapted to record and verify financial transactions, from clearing securities to making cross-border payments.
Last month the U.K. government announced that it would commit £10 million to support research in digital currencies technology, while last September the Bank of England recognized blockchain’s potential, saying that the technology could have “far-reaching” implications.
Speaking to Financial News last October, Oliver Bussmann, group chief information officer at UBS, said the blockchain had the potential “not only change the way we do payments but it will change the whole trading and settlement topic.” He described it as the technology with the biggest potential to disrupt financial services, and trigger “massive” simplification of banking processes and cost structure.
Last year the Swiss lender created a system of working groups, with dedicated funds to come up with innovative technology products.
Commenting on the lab, Bussmann said: “Fostering an open and collaborative environment between banks, start-ups and the investor community is essential to ensure we focus on promoting synergies between us, accelerate innovation opportunities and create real value for the industry.
Over the past year, many banks have backed or launched initiatives to increase their interactions with the fintech start-up ecosystem, as they seek to stay abreast with the rapid changes in technology which threaten their businesses.
Barclays runs a fintech incubator in London and New York and most of the major banks participate in a fintech accelerator program run by Accenture globally, while a number of lenders, including Lloyds Banking Group , back London-based Startupbootcamp FinTech.
Others banks, including HSBC, Santander and BBVA, have also launched corporate venture funds to make equity investments in fintech companies.”
Cheers Graham] |
|
|
|
The network is still operational , so If someone takes it over it recover...
I have a nearly-complete blockchain explorer, ACME: https://minkiz.co/acme and DCN is one of the monitored alts https://minkiz.co/acme/dcn - it's currently registering 16 nodes (which is fairly respectable under the circumstances). FYI, the stealth messaging branch is not yet ready for release. It compiles and runs (after a modicum of type massaging) but there are errors in the functionality. Please note, I'm impelled purely by technical curiosity (which I'm blithely assuming is shared by at least one other subscriber) and not an intention to take over the coin (that'd be a whole different set of considerations, definitely an ecumenical matter). Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
we think that there is a huge gain in the 'pools' system ... it makes it by far an easier system to mine ... especially with those of us that have farms and DONT want to continuously change miners EVERYTIME we decide to mine spr ...
Your argument would probably receive a lot more attention if you could show how your notion supports the community in general rather than the benefits being confined to just one special interest group. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Here is the short of what happened, a few
Thanks for the update, I was beginning to wonder. So you tell me, why should i work alone on such a huge project, with a crowd that only wants to get rich quick
Good question. AFAIK, the only viable and sustainable answer is “Because it’s the future and I want a part of it.” Tell me, after having my name sullied like that , even if i created the altcoin of the century, would it gain any traction?
“Name”? Of a pseudonymous bitcointalk a/c, pfft. “Sullied”!? On bitcointalk? How could you even begin to tell? How do you feel when you see the ideas i expressed being used by other platforms now, how do you think i feel as the originator of some of the base code and general structures?
Depends on how much hard thinking you did earlier. Just because it's on someone's roadmap doesn't mean to say they know how to get there. I'll admit, i dropped the ball a couple of times, but i was always, and still am willing to work
Forgive me for cutting through the social niceties, I'm trying to get to the core. When you write “am willing to work”, does that mean that you might restart the NRS project if you find yourself more favourably disposed or is it actually, definitely, terminated? I think it's also time that you people took stock of how you allowed this to happen and left me to deal with everything alone.
I've tried to be supportive, I assumed the lack of response was either from constraints in real-life or wrestling with motivation. Thanks for clarifying. Here's a tip, my NRS 2.0 node is still up yet it has zero connections, that tells me that your complaints are hollow. Keep your NRS wallet.
Again, I beg forgiveness for directness, the message is a bit mixed. Do I keep my NRS wallet and shove it where the sun don't shine or do I keep my NRS wallet if I know what's good for me? I have the frankenvote branch compiled, even spin it up occasionally. Your Lotto/DAC implementation has been very thought-provoking. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
