Why don't you diminish the amount paid for finding a block ?
Let's say:
1.8 - Block Finder
1.8 - BANK
1.8 - RESERVE
12.6 - BN
If someone want to mine with 100 GPU's and want to find all blocks, let it be. If it's worth for him ...
The chain would be at the mercy of the big miner, who apart from double-spending attacks etc. could halt the chain at will by adding/subtracting large amounts of hash. |
|
|
|
For the bitcoin network, this now nearly impossible as andreas antonopoulos points out that the cost alone is more than 60% of the worlds' nations would ever spend on any single line item on their budgets. For smaller networks this remains a major problem though as it becomes more feasible to attack in this manner but in the same 2 minutes, andreas antonopoulos then states....say you successfully attack and disrupt the chain... a two minute patch and new checkpoint would immediately lay waste to all the work and investment you put into disrupting the chain. And any item you attempt to enforce on the users by way of having the most hash would be forked out too. Hard forks are not just for repair and upgrades, they are a tool available to developers (the nuke option) to deal with malicious actors.
AA's argument would be valid if everyone solo-mined, but he seems to have conveniently forgotten that mining pools, which are publicly known or easily discoverable entities, make compromising large percentages of the total hash less costly in direct proportion to how much hash is funnelled through them... 4/5+ orders of magnitude less costly in the case of the biggest pools, of which there are a small number. Cheapest attack I can think of: a single phone call from an alphabet agency to the pool hosting companies (via proxy jurisdictional buddy if required) and the plug gets pulled. 30% of the BTC network wiped out in 60 seconds at a cost of $0.01. How many plugs would need to be pulled to take out 90%+ of the BTC network? Not that many... not terminal perhaps, but a glaring vulnerability. |
|
|
|
If it will be made compulsory, in case of using cold wallet VPS, how will be treated BN local wallet, from which actual VPS BN wallet was started ?
If I will ocassionally mine on those local BN wallets just to mine some block at proper time, will it be ok or I'm just giving you some loophole ?
I don't think it should affect hot/cold setups at all - to the network the daemon running on the VPS *is* the BN, the cold wallet is just used to start/stop it. Only the dameon that *is* the BN will be allowed to mine. I'm trying to be honest, but changing this rules to compulsory makes a lot of difference for me, and what about idea of making Bigger Banknodes, this could resolve some problems if it would be 250k BCR for BBN, and I would not be the only one happy from it. Even if it happen then it would increase costs of running it 5-10 times, don't wanna even think about mining on all BNs permanently, it would increase costs 25-50 times ! Or anyone can suggests some reliable and reasonably cheap VPS services with 30 cores (1-2 for server and pure BN working, rest for BN mining) , 30GB Ram, 40GB SSD/HDD) , checked already on win and linux in both my case BN uses 1GB of Ram not 750MB like in your case, and you can't use all cores for BN mining permanently and to work it stable, you said that we are early adopters but there's a few of us and will be a lot more soon. I know that hack is ready with his rigs, sorry I'm not ....  I'm also waiting to be able to set up a smaller number of higher-collateral BNs, I just don't have the time currently to admin a large number of smaller ones. My current VPS providers will kick me off if I'm running a core 100% 24/7 so I'll be running my BNs on my own boxes at my own locations. Another option might be to find a company that allows you to plug your own box(es) into their datacentre? They aren't going to care if you fry your own hardware. |
|
|
|
Exactly !
So, from 53 BN's active, at most 53- 28 + 1 = 26 are mining.
So if you impose a limit that one BN can mine only one time @ 53/2 = aprox. 26 blocks, that is at limit. What if from the rest of 26 active BN's, there are another 3-4 BN's that are not mining? We STOP !
Same scenario could be theoretical possible if you limit @5 ... or other numbers.
BN mining could be made compulsory? If the limit was 1 in n blocks, you'd only need n BNs to get the chain moving again after an update - no big deal. eg. 'banknode start' would automatically call 'setgenerate true 1' I would have no problem with this. I suppose there would need to be some sort of check by the network to verify that a BN was actually mining, to prevent modified clients NOP'ing the setgenerate call? |
|
|
|
Thanks for the tip on windows....can't seem to figure out why though... i'll have to spin up a vm and try getting a build/test environ for it .
I think the problem goes from opening the addresses (eg. https://blockchain.info) in curl. Opening a website address in windows has to pass through windows policies/IE security policies ... and so on. In linux, you don't have such limitations ... Surely in Windows, these sites still work...? Why would the OS allow a browser to display the http request result but not pass it to something else? I realise this may be a silly question.  Maybe the Win client needs to register with Windows... "Hello OS, I am actually a browser, give me the html!" |
|
|
|
my 1$ a day is ADDING TO THE VALUE
No it isn't, unless you can find a bigger fool to sell to. This is called a Ponzi scheme. If I build two identical houses, using all the same materials, but for the second house, instead of using my usual suppliers and contractors, I instead choose to pay 100000X more to some other suppliers and contractors for exactly the same thing - does that make the second house worth 100000X more when I come to sell it? Obviously not. In the analogue world, production costs can and do affect price, if I'd built the second house out of higher quality materials and the workmanship on everything was better, it would be worth more, but here it's just 1's and 0's. 1's and 0's are free, pretending that because you wasted money making yours, they should somehow be more valuable than anyone else's is nonsense. What you are doing right now is preventing value being added to BCR. It's all good though, we need to make this robust against such behaviour. but this is exactly what is wrong with the world... we don't like what that guy is doing, oh just make a rule against it!
Righteous outrage of the entitled! |
|
|
|
One strange thing i'd like users to confirm for me : bidtracker/final.dat is showing zero values only in windows ? While linux users have accurate numbers?
My (linux) final.dat looks like this right now: 1NFPKQdfigWdfGwZmhSZKomvoUYvJWUqW9,100000.000000
1ASJQ7SE84sgQketS2kQCTQLV3DJesYnLh,4000000.000000
1PEWVhJaaLYuhT8Nor4gVjKn9rDiCWJJEk,1000000.000000
1KgKG9SWSTUCqaC7kmaBFL87EUCsE7ot38,100000.000000
1ASJQ7SE84sgQketS2kQCTQLV3DJesYnLh,1000000.000000
1FkwyC42xdHHw3QEVgUfJg8ihVUfbxKaJB,1200000.000000
LS18wropMM8VwT8YFiEZJE7LK8UdZVXXyE,1235.300000
XyHvWG9iAhtmk31gMymsfdhuC1DQg1Sr8K,10534.380000
XvwiNgZctKuiKCvnbFy2z3fBUqfWAyqNTb,105343.800000
XmKJ7KmtrQr1E3dgvcbjbDVyZngRpH9aSg,105343.800000
It is not accurate though, have made two bids with DASH since the ones shown, from XmKJ7KmtrQr1E3dgvcbjbDVyZngRpH9aSg: heh, I was going to post a link but you can just click the DASH bidding address in-wallet... Anyway user X is suggesting that we do limit mining consecutive blocks but allow any user to mine , seeing as he says he has free electricity and as a result can afford to mine.
Thoughts?
User X is a mooching schmuck, his parents/landlord/employer are paying for that electricity, nothing is free. |
|
|
|
hmmm so you don't want ANY mining? the security is based on how much it will cost to break it, never forget that...
I am the one mining the blocks, well, some of them.... no superblocks yet? how many will that have? plus banknode only mining won't stop me.... all you have to do is have it hash 0's on superblock, unless you have highest bid... that could end up locking the network as i plan to keep it like this...
doesntmatter
p.s. i can hook the old pts miner to it just fine...lol, and a old yam pts miner too...lol
12 hours ago i had 90% of the network... now about 25%...
good to see that others want bcr too!
the hash is only costing a dollar a day.... WOOT!
Pretty well sums up why PoW is such a terrible idea. |
|
|
|
I think they need to update to 17.2 |
|
|
|
I plan to make a public offer to any communities who whose coins lack a dev or, coins that have strong communities but no direction. The offer will be as follows :-
Our bidding process will be expanded with a secondary system that lists all accepted and interested coins, essentially we would encourage them to burn their coins and be allocated new coins on our chain. As it stands we have a 6 000 000 BCR fund that has remained untouched since the very first day , over the months there has never been any real use for it and now that we have moved to backing our coin with assets..it seems an unnecessary item. Rather than burn the coins or use them/sell whatever, i think it's a great opportunity to expand the BCR community while at the same time possibly draining value from other coins and adding it to our own.
We would of course have stringent requirements for a coin to qualify and include as much oversight as we can. I think that the potential increase in community size and subsequent interest in ideas like bidding, BN mining could have some serious benefits for all.
Thoughts ?
Very interesting idea, it would surely expand the BCR community. Just replying without much thought but the first thing that comes to mind is: wouldn't create more value for the 'guest coin' seeing its supply diminished? and less value for current BCR holders 'shares'? Well, in essence that depends on the status of that coin, there are coins that are literally dying off due to scandals, lack of developers(pump dump and run) , or just lack direction. After stringent assessment, we would have a list of viable coins, after which when the bidding is done, we allocate them BCR. Their bids would in turn be dumped on the hold outs who chose not to join us...so no... those coins would not gain value...rather depending on % interest and buy support, they would lose value. Many of these have active members who actually contribute to the discussions and in some cases offer related services that accept the coin. The idea is to turn that attention here, because if we expand the community the pool of possible bidders expands...and the backed price has more potential to rise. We would gain 1) more member (hopefully productive ones) 2) value off the BTC made from dumping on the hold outs 3) larger pool of potential BN owners and bidders. Most of them would gain 1) steady community (strength in numbers) 2) active continuous development 3) Direction 4) multiple revenue streams from within our system and 5) Access to all the tech and ideas we plunder from the coins who opt in(if there actually was anything useful beyond cloning). This is a community decision and i'd really appreciate input fro as any as possible. I initially wrote a long post describing exactly how I could trivially game this to my own profit while also, if I wished, mininising any real asset gain BCR would accrue. Luckly reason assaulted me and I deleted it for fear of giving other muppets ideas. We're dealing with very illiquid markets and there are botters out there with far more ammo than me. Conversely I could merrily screw with those wishing to offload their currency onto us at a far better rate than they would get on the open market. tl;dr - The idea seems wide open to abuse. One way or another we would be subsidising bagholder exits with no guarantee of any benefit worth the cost. In my humble opinion anyway. |
|
|
|
Don't forget all the ones listed in-wallet on the banknodes page. Does it only show the nodes running the latest protocol version by default? After any leeway time to upgrade, yes it should do, anything else should get dropped. |
|
|
|
Do I have to 'setgenerate true' on my nodes at all? I did anyways but not sure if I should. been getting my 6 coin payments though.
Not needed or worthwhile right now, total net hash is high, BN-only mining isn't live yet - unless you want to test how shirty your VPS provider gets with 100% CPU usage. getmininginfo
{
"blocks" : 207360,
"currentblocksize" : 0,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.00000116,
"errors" : "",
"genproclimit" : -1,
"networkhashps" : 73,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false,
"chain" : "main",
"generate" : false,
"hashespermin" : 0
}
|
|
|
|
Started/closed multiple times without any issues, working fine on Windows 8.1 x64 and Windows 10 x64!  Are there any other nodes available? Synchronising is taking forever now. So far I used: addnode=146.90.136.80 Click on Nodelist https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bcr/#!networkThank you! For those wondering, here's the full list of active nodes on the latest protocol (70011): addnode=104.154.35.53 addnode=104.154.62.20 addnode=104.197.114.123 addnode=104.197.25.255 addnode=104.197.41.48 addnode=104.197.42.233 addnode=104.197.97.93 addnode=104.238.186.50 addnode=109.93.108.75 addnode=121.73.87.155 addnode=130.211.134.141 addnode=146.90.136.80 addnode=162.222.182.149 addnode=188.193.114.167 addnode=46.9.115.145 addnode=50.155.205.187 addnode=62.194.60.156 addnode=82.211.1.181 addnode=91.230.123.101 addnode=91.230.123.11 Don't forget all the ones listed in-wallet on the banknodes page. |
|
|
|
Yeah, it's a miner using a external miner ergo getblocktemplate. Still need a day or two to craft a rule that blocks those types permanently, i thought i had it, but it was incomplete so i just patched the internal miner and other fixes while i re-visit the rule. Mining, once again demonstrating itself to be a liability, and the fundamental reason that cryptofiat has to date achieved so little. |
|
|
|
Blockchain is working just fine, sent over a thousand txes in the last half dozen blocks. Paid 0.0001 each time too, lucky miners...  |
|
|
|
Added a splash more styling to the bids page.  |
|
|
|
but do not see bid + back or anything like that.?
I haven't submitted the pull request for the bid&back page yet as I haven't coded the redeem bit, might submit it anyway just to confirm that the rest works on Win as expected. |
|
|
|
@ thelonecrouton You are saying it doesn't matter if my BN will have Intel i7 cores, Atom or Pi ? Hashrate matters or not. EDIT: BN mining is a great, unconventional but simple idea, hope it would be ballanced a little better or some options would be given, without it there will be no additional hashrate. I get what you are saying but Dash might be not a good example, it has highly centralized mining, right now coinmine.pl has 61 % of all hashrate https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/#!extraction which could be effect of many users unconsciously mining with their rigs, having trojan installed from pirated GTAV or another infected game https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg12360005#msg12360005@cisahasa Declare yourself clearly, you want to help, fuck up BCR blockchain (I don't believe in coincidence) , seeking for some attention or just want to to be ignored like now. Yes, please use the lowest power CPU you can. As I said there's no point throwing more at mining because your BN wont be able to mine consecutive blocks... There doesn't need to be any additional hashrate. The less the better, as long as it's relatively stable and doesn't swing wildly. One attack vector I see is someone running a BN and adding/suntracting large amounts of hashpower, it could screw things up a bit as the momentum algo seems to overdo the diff adjustment, leading to lengthy blocks. You're right, DASH is slightly atypical, but I was vaguely familiar with the numbers so that's what I went with. I'm with you re: cisahasa, no idea if he's making threats or what he wants...  |
|
|
|
Let's be honest it impossible to mine right now on all your BNs when you got more then 8 and you're using 1 even powerful VPS.
1 BN mining uses 1GB Ram and 1 CPU core, I'm trying to use for some time 2 BNs mining on 2 core CPU with 2 GB Ram and 4Gb Swap, both cores are fully used, but still I don't see any 4.05 BCR fees incoming. (bitcredit-cli setgenerate true 1 , 1 core per 1 BN) this is cold BN on VPS
So I'm using also few home hot BNs wallets (not the same as these 2 on cold VPS) and these works, 4.05 BCR are incoming for every BN. I know that all should work on 1 machine but it would be too much expensive and we are not escaping from "backing hot air" this way ...
If in future banknode=1 will mean setgenerate true without giving any option, then we will be again backing a hot air, VPS sellers will be very happy instead of ASIC makers.
BTW. how it will work, Intel Atom core will be enough to start mining the same way as Intel i5 just giving smaller hashrate, how about roseberry ?
100 Pi2 Banknodes would be 20x more decentralised than almost any other PoW currency. As for hot air, yes it's not perfect, but right now DASH for example has about 80GH/s chundering away, which is what, equivalent to about 40000 Ti750's or something ludicrous? 40000 * 30W = 1.2 Megawatts. And that's not counting the rest of the system, all the less power-efficient AMD cards, CPUs etc - 3+ Megawatts is probably closer to the truth. 3MW @ $0.10/kW/h = $7200/day. Miners get 1300 DASH/day which is currently worth about $3000. So unless you're getting your power at under $0.05/kW you're not even breaking even on DASH mining. "But I get electricity for free!" - Uh huh, someone has to pay for it you freeloading oaf.  Dog alone knows what the actual power consumption of the Bitcoin network is, ASICs or not I bet it's orders of magnitude worse than DASH. Some basic Googling puts it at >200MW. 100 Pi's at <1W each seems rather more sensible... BCR can beat every other PoW currency in actual decentralisation for the cost of running a couple of light bulbs. Think about that hideously expensive energy delta as money going into backing BCR instead. And yes, because BNs will not be allowed to mine consecutive blocks, a low power ARM device would be just fine, there's no point wasting any more energy. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
