also as far as merged mining in myriad children is concerned will the original algos only be able to be merged mined via Myriad? it would be preferential for the very long term 10+ years after block rewards are 0 + tx to have the children be merge minable only through myriad and not able to be specifically minable through one of the 5 algos.
(that way if you want to use for example sha256 to get myrchild J you would have to mine the original myriadcoin itself.
additionally the rewards of merge mining myrchild A and B dont have to decrease as you go down the line (shown in the infographic)
you can get the merge mining rewards of 200 for myrchild A and 200 for myrchild B instead of the rewards dissipating having myrchildren going down the line of A1-A2-A3
although this would be fine we need to keep in mind that the original coin (Myriadcoin) should be positioned to have much more incentive to mine and get the merge mining rewards of myrchildren down the lines of
A1 (200) -A2(75) -A3(25)
B1 (200) -B2(75) -B3(25)
C1 (200)
--
Does that make sense to everyone?
Ill also post on reddit for better discussion
I think you could check whether or not the block is being solved with auxPoW or not. If it is mined directly (not through auxPoW) couldn't the block rewards be set to 0 in this circumstance and deterring anyone from mining the coin directly? |
|
|
|
1 more idea to add to the others for devs to consider while coding/discussing viable candidates for the next update. Have difficulty rise max 100% of current difficulty. Having no lookback on difficulty. With block rewards decreased per block proportional to this rise. Ex: Ghash.io comes in and throws in 100ghs on our current 1ghs scrypt hashrate. The difficulty at say 30 would rise to a maximum of 60. Giving a block reward of 0 to, according to the example hashrate flooded in by Ghash, ~99% chance likelyhood to be solved by Ghash. their system would automatically, as it is configured, move on to the next coin. For a malicious attacker who wishes to fork the coin with no regard to block reward, there would be the 5 block in a row limit put in place. This course of action or another similar would have the benefit of immediately deterring MPs and other massive players who switch from coin to coin. Over time MP operators will realize that abusing myriad for a 10x greater reward than normal block time is no longer possible. ------------------ also I did message this to a few of our devs a little while ago ill put it here for reference for anyone who is partaking in the project looks very similar may be useful -Block Rewards: 100 - 25 coins per block based on diff; diff increased, reward decreased https://cryptocointalk.com/topic/11919-specialcoin-spe-information/What happens then if the Multi-Pool still wants to attack and keeps switching back onto Myriadcoin? Say they did this for a day. The whole day they would render Myriadcoin's Scrypt block rewards to 0 for the entire day! |
|
|
|
I read through more of the thread and man, the updates and plans for MYR are really big and some very unique.
The one thing which threw cold water on the whole excitement [and I think this will happen to most new investors looking at MYR] was when I saw the huge inflation of 1,000 MYR per block and the MASSIVE 2 billion Max Cap dilution.
Wow. All these great plans but then you guys inflate and dilute this coin into oblivion.
So I have to ask, is there a plan to significantly cut rhe subsidy and max cap [and soon]? Cause it's no wonder the price keeps dropping hard even though some great developments have been made.
Some top notch coins have already done the equivalent of a stock BuyBack and so far it was well received. I hope the devs here seriously consider this cause it's a shame to see such great planning and execution go unnoticed and ineffective due to the sheer high inflation rate which adds no value and serves absolutely no good purpose but to destroy future value.
I did buy some MYR so I hope it does well. Good luck to the devs, I can see you're working very hard on this coin.
Cheers!
It's all relative man. Obviously 1 MYR won't be the price of 1 Litecoin, but the same investment of 1BTC into both needs MYR to go to about 120 satoshis to double and LTC to go to about 0.02 to double. If you are looking at investments in any other type of way you are doing it completely wrong. Regardless though, thanks for the kind words about the developments. |
|
|
|
Who is buying all the myriad?
Someone dumped over 1M to me on Bittrex at 42 satoshis.  |
|
|
|
|
Electrum problem guys, hold out for a little longer. The Electrum dev is out of town. There might be other guys who can help you if you join the IRC (##myriadcoin of freenode)
|
|
|
|
Hey guys, I come to you from "that other place" where alternative cryptocurrencies roam (yikes, I know...). In short, I'm wondering if someone with the right background could provide me with security analysis/assessment of a coin with a different consensus mechanism than Bitcoin. The scoop: A coin launched back in February called Myriadcoin (if you haven't already noticed my loud signature). It's unique feature is a "multiple proof-of-work" scheme whereby 5 separate algorithms are used to solve blocks rather than the typical 1 algorithm found in Bitcoin, Litecoin, etc. Here's a little more detail: - The five proof of work algorithms are: SHA256d, Scrypt, Skein, Myriad-Groestl, and Qubit.
- Each algorithm has its own independent difficulty.
- Any algorithm can find the next block.
- All the algorithms use the same difficulty adjustment method.
- On average, each algorithm has the same chance of finding the next block.
- Each algorithm aims for a block generation time of 2.5 minutes.
- Over the five algorithms, a block should be found on average every 30 seconds.
- Each of the five algorithms should find 20% of the total blocks over time
Without any proper analysis available to cite, there is disagreement about how much more or less secure this multi-PoW mechanism is from Bitcoin or any other single-PoW (assuming equal hashrates and the algorithms themselves won't be compromised cryptography-wise). We have been operating under the assumption that double-spend attacks would require control close to 100% control of at least 3 algos (as Andreas Aantonopoulos has been quoted as saying). Is this accurate or no? What are the different factors that impact how much control of each algo is needed? If the attacker needs significantly less control of perhaps even fewer algos, what can be changed in the source code to combat this "security hole"? I understand the cost of pulling off an attack is proportional to the overall network hashrate, so while Myriadcoin is still young it is probably still vulnerable and the community is aware of this. Ultimately I guess I'm looking for an answer for these two scenarios: 1) there is significantly large and equivalent hashrates across the 5 algorithms 2) there is a significant imbalance of total hashrates among the 5 algorithms (e.g. three small, two large). Thank you for your time. |
|
|
|
Here's the error I'm getting for Electrum: Exception in thread Thread-6:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "threading.pyc", line 530, in __bootstrap_inner
File "electrum_myr\synchronizer.pyc", line 62, in run
File "electrum_myr\synchronizer.pyc", line 169, in run_interface
File "electrum_myr\wallet.pyc", line 748, in receive_history_callback
File "electrum_myr\wallet.pyc", line 1010, in check_new_history
TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not iterable |
|
|
|
Anyone has issues with the electrum wallet?
Last transaction received was 17th August. 5 transactions on blockexplorer since then but electrum won't receive it although its indicating its fully synced. It stopped at block 508031. Electrum v3
I'm having the same exact issues. Trying to resolve this in the IRC |
|
|
|
I need clarification on this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600658.msg8423637#msg8423637QCN just released a GUI wallet, albeit an alpha version. Why is the dev stringing along a coin for so long if he's a bad guy? Why continue to put effort into a coin that has about 1BTC of total buy orders on bittrex and poloniex combined and has been struggling with "post exchange listing syndrome"? Surely there has to be easier and faster ways to scam people that don't involve so much damn work day after day. If I was the QCN dev and I wanted to scam people, I'd keep cloning cryptonote coins, instamining them, dumping them on exchanges for inflated value, then leave the coin again. I wouldn't waste all my time with this "development" shit months after my coin gets listed. I mean, I could clone coins AND still dev QCN, but why do the extra work? That's part of what scams are right? Getting cash monies for the least amount of work as possible? There was no "development" there. The GUI that was released is the same one (perhaps a newer version, since it appears he supports Windows now), from the same developer, that was released for Monero on June 10: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7235602#msg7235602Thanks to pfo, this is his development! This is exactly what I was talking about a few pages back. Appearance of development. Until they have dumped all their coins (which you won't know), and then they won't bother with even that and the coin will drop to zero. Caution advised, but if you want to play the game of betting on the possibility of pumps as long as they're still around making appearances, it likely is possible to make some money on it, but for the most part you are playing a rigged game. "From the same one from the same developer" So QCN dev = XMR dev? Or who is he then? The QCN developer told you in the quote above. The developer of the GUI is pfo who developed it (as an independent third party) for XMR a few months ago. They apparently made some sort of deal to release it now for QCN. Perhaps you aren't aware that QCN And XMR are both forks of the same CN code, so a wallet for one will work for the other (with minor tweaks). There is no significant QCN development going on. It is caretaking. Ah, right. I overlooked pfo, my apologies. Well, should all QCN be is just a caretaking job, it's a very stupid way to cash out if this is all pointing to a scam. Cashing out now would be painful for them, the price is at its lowest point so far. But you have swayed me a little bit: Either its not a scam as I've thought all along or something more is going on behind the scenes than what we see now. Or the QCN dev is just an idiot. |
|
|
|
I need clarification on this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600658.msg8423637#msg8423637QCN just released a GUI wallet, albeit an alpha version. Why is the dev stringing along a coin for so long if he's a bad guy? Why continue to put effort into a coin that has about 1BTC of total buy orders on bittrex and poloniex combined and has been struggling with "post exchange listing syndrome"? Surely there has to be easier and faster ways to scam people that don't involve so much damn work day after day. If I was the QCN dev and I wanted to scam people, I'd keep cloning cryptonote coins, instamining them, dumping them on exchanges for inflated value, then leave the coin again. I wouldn't waste all my time with this "development" shit months after my coin gets listed. I mean, I could clone coins AND still dev QCN, but why do the extra work? That's part of what scams are right? Getting cash monies for the least amount of work as possible? There was no "development" there. The GUI that was released is the same one (perhaps a newer version, since it appears he supports Windows now), from the same developer, that was released for Monero on June 10: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7235602#msg7235602Thanks to pfo, this is his development! This is exactly what I was talking about a few pages back. Appearance of development. Until they have dumped all their coins (which you won't know), and then they won't bother with even that and the coin will drop to zero. Caution advised, but if you want to play the game of betting on the possibility of pumps as long as they're still around making appearances, it likely is possible to make some money on it, but for the most part you are playing a rigged game. "From the same one from the same developer" So QCN dev = XMR dev? Or who is he then? |
|
|
|
I need clarification on this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600658.msg8423637#msg8423637QCN just released a GUI wallet, albeit an alpha version. Why is the dev stringing along a coin for so long if he's a bad guy? Why continue to put effort into a coin that has about 1BTC of total buy orders on bittrex and poloniex combined and has been struggling with "post exchange listing syndrome"? Surely there has to be easier and faster ways to scam people that don't involve so much damn work day after day. If I was the QCN dev and I wanted to scam people, I'd keep cloning cryptonote coins, instamining them, dumping them on exchanges for inflated value, then leave the coin again. I wouldn't waste all my time with this "development" shit months after my coin gets listed. I mean, I could clone coins AND still dev QCN, but why do the extra work? That's part of what scams are right? Getting cash monies for the least amount of work as possible? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
