What ”facts”? Look closely and you'll find that the hysterical shrieks are from sockpuppets conducting a tactical FUD campaign.


Cheers

Graham

Thanks for the report.

I've added this as an issue: https://github.com/gjhiggins/SLIMCoin/issues/1, so's I don't forget.

Cheers

Graham

I think we can do better than that ...

I've configured Travis CI to track changes to https://github.com/gjhiggins/SLIMCoin. The continuous integration script clones and compiles the coin afresh, each time the code repository receives a commit or a push. Currently, the vanilla “slimcoin” branch Qt and CLI apps are both compiling successfully:

https://travis-ci.org/gjhiggins/SLIMCoin


(I've got plans to extend the CI coverage to include executing the (rather limited) test suite.)

Cheers

Graham

I do apologise, for some reason I missed your post.

Mea culpa. I managed to add a fragment of the diffplot code to the vanilla wallet.

Fixed in commit 61c7314, along with a couple of other header declaration omissions. I can confirm that the vanilla wallet compiles without problems on Ubuntu 14.04 at least.

Cheers

Graham

Probably a minor issue. In the interim, I've set up a temporary instance, serving direct off''ve our server:

http://acme.bel-epa.com/chains

Cheers

Graham

Nope, nowhere near enough money at stake. No, the real danger is that the approach proves basically successful and then gets adopted by other cryptocurrencies, in particular Bitcoin.

Cheers

Graham

“No pools” is accurate enough to convey the main idea.

A simplistic view of how the world “should” work in the opinion of a pseudonymous poster is not a compelling reason to change the OP.

I've no idea where you get your “should” from, it's rather naively unrealistic in the context of a bitcointalk thread.

Cheers

Graham

Well, quite. Finally someone nails the key issue. The FUD posters want to redefine the term “pool” into private/public. It's being used by them as a spoiling tactic but there is a stronger argument to be made for the “No pools” statement:

The principles underpinning cryptocurrency are complex and technical. This technical complexity is often (ab)used to mislead those with a shallow understanding of the principles. Spreadcoin's technical solution for rendering conventional poolmining uneconomic can be abused by unscrupulous operators to lure those with shallow models into joining pools and mining coins that are subsequently stolen from them by the means explicitly enabled in the solution.

As a consequence, the tl;dr message cannot be anything other than the simplistic: “No pools”. It needs to make people think twice about any offer of commercial or private syndicated mining of SPR.


Cheers

Graham

LMFTFY


It's FUD. There's no logic involved, only wilful misinterpretation. You can make it up --- and they do ... the Daily Mail does it all the time.

Cheers

Graham

No need, they're choosing to be deliberately disingenuous. It's a child's negotiating tactic, an attempt to create feelings of guilt in others. The fud is from a trader's sockpuppets, relentlessly pushing his/her agenda. The complaints are bogus, as is the claimed misunderstanding. People aren't that dense, unless they've a mind to be.

The term “mining pool” (or “mineral pool” as Google so charmingly translates the equivalent Chinese phrase) is both informal and a poor analogy (unless rig cooling technology has gotten super-serious recently). A more accurate and appropriate term would be “syndicate” but that level of language precision would be anomalous in the altcoin domain, largely characterised by: “Once I couldn't even spell ‘engineer’, now I are one.”

Cheers

Graham

No, there's no technical basis for your suggestion. I can see how you, a non-native English language speaker, may have picked up on other people being deliberately disingenuous but there's no dissembling or misrepresentation to be addressed. The obvious meaning is the correct one.

It is always possible to construct alternative semantic interpretations of statements in English and in this instance it's a matter of people deliberately choosing to misinterpret in order to disrupt the thread in pursuit of their own agenda.

Cheers

Graham

Thanks for the straw man, it burned merrily. One of your premises is incorrect: “the current approach of being a Darkcoin clone and nothing more”. A simple check of the codebase informs me that the coins differ by more than just the parameters, so you're wrong about that. You may have strong opinions about whether the difference is insubstantial or unimportant but describing it as “nothing more” is hyperbole masquerading as fact. You appear to have let your commitment to DRK distort your assessment (quite substantially, see below)


Dogecoin is a clone of Bells, that seems to have worked.

Cheers

Graham

I guess it depends on your expectations. The threads on this forum hold many instances of concerted attempts to damage coins by persistently promulgating lies and innuendo as though they were truths. The attempt being conducted here is plain for everyone to see, the attackers even helpfully mark out their fabrications using font colour and size.

The altcoin section of Bitcointalk has lost a massive amount of relevance in the last few months. It must be clear to any even half-competent altcoin dev that bct is now irretrievably hag-ridden by amateur and semi-pro time-wasters and any new altcoin with serious plans for the future just has to run its own separate forum in order to allow ordinary day-to-day logistics communications to happen, let alone hold sensible and useful public discussions about aspects of coin development.

Spreadcoin will benefit from the attention; despite the visual impact of the font face and colour (hello mods?) the attackers' claims are structurally weak and difficult to communicate simply. When externally reported, they will come across as: Spreadcoin has i) a mature, receptive and respected dev who has strong support from the community, ii) a putative anti-pool tactic designed to favour the little guy and iii) been the subject of a concerted and very noticeable fud campaign. All positive points, easily supported.

Look at it this way - do you really think that the sockpuppets here will still be posting the same lies in another couple of months time? They can't afford to draw that much attention to Spreadcoin, it'd be self-defeating.

As ever, try not to feed the trolls. The ignore button is a feature explicitly designed for exactly such circumstances, do please use it because if you do not and you end up feeding these trolls, that's tantamount to indulging yourself at the expense of everyone else.

The only effective tactic in these circumstances is to conduct conversations as normal, ignoring posts from sockpuppets - it's not as if they're hard to spot, after all.

Cheers

Graham

Lol, try telling that to the devs of 2000+ other altcoins. You've no more handle on answers than anyone else and in no better position to be able to tell good answers from bad at this stage of the development.

But enough is enough, you're clearly biased and your argumentativeness betrays your purpose, another one for the ignore list.

Cheers

Graham

None of that is insurmountable and it's a common pattern, c.f. Dogecoin. Darkcoin is not a special case.


Cheers

Graham

If the Darkcoin codebase was cloned and the app renamed, addressing the negative connotations, its improved potential for adoption would make it an even stronger competitor to Bitcoin and so would gain your endorsement?

Cheers

Graham

Kibbitzer here, not familiar with the term, would be grateful for a pointer.


Cheers

Graham

I've been doing some integration work on the quiet. I intended to do more testing before announcing the results of my efforts but contemporaneity trumps caution.

I've been hacking around with the PPCoin git repos and (with a bit of judicious conflict resolution) have been able to retrofit SLIMCoin as a branch , thereby recruiting the full PPCoin commit history as the base for “John Smith’s” SLM initial commit and subsequent commit history.

I was able to merge all the way up to the latest commit of the standard PPCoin master (not the more extensive “develop” branch tho' which is a shame because it integrates the 0.8.6 codebase, leveldb, coincontrol and all).

I've also integrated all the contributions from the recent changes in the three extant forks

TBH, I'm mainly interested in getting a better understanding of the PoB element of SLIMCoin and (for me, at least) a coherent, detailed commit history is essential.

The exercise has made the SLIMCoin codebase much more amenable to inspection with a 3-way diff tool such as meld and (for instance), when compared with the original PPCoin codebase, better reveals the PoB-related code.

Whilst I was engaged, I spruced up the graphics and added a couple of features to assist with my analysis; an in-wallet block explorer and a difficulty plot.

At the moment, the repos is under my personal GitHub a/c and I've taken the liberty of adding the other forkers as collaborators:

https://github.com/gjhiggins/SLIMCoin




* The master, develop and sunny branches are contemporary PPCoin.
* The primary branch for SLIMCoin work is slimcoin.
* prerelease has all feature.* merged in for one-stop convenience.


N.B. I've barely begun to test the code, in the interim please consider it as an inspection device.


Overview page with diffplot:




* I chose to roll with the PPCoin switch to protocol v4, hence the spurious 0.4 upgrade deadline warning.
* I've only just begun to investigate the plunges in diff, they're probably PoS blocks.
* If they are, then I'm tempted to call it a “feature” as it usefully indicates PoS/PoW proportion.


Block browser page:



HTH

Cheers

Graham

Deja vu Dept

Pyongyangcoin launched and consumed a couple of weeks ago:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920537.0

All done and dusted here, kthxbye.

Cheers

Graham

Hey, no fair, you took my turn!

I am not budding here, ponce-paul is three, easy to be thrifty, for hatpins don't call an udder.

Damn, I just love Python for this kind of thing

Cheers

Graham