|
Being as the previous 36 blocks took like 4 days when the fork happened, we expected a lot of this. Give it a few more blocks to start leveling out, the drop was inevitable, it's still finding itself.
|
|
|
|
|
The download is fine. I'm running that wallet personally on two different machines.
|
|
|
|
|
Not unless you're solo mining. you can add nodes through the debug window in Catcoin-Qt
addnode us.coinium.org add
addnode eu.coinium.org.add
addnode teamcatcoin.com add
|
|
|
|
Anyone on the old block chain will be fighting very high difficulty with very low hashrate... and will be mining coins that will be rejected by every other node because they will be part of different chains. So, no, not going to be an issue.
Envy, the way we're scheduling this is so that the fork block will be the last block of a high diff retarget, so he's right the very next block would be inherently low diff. The factor that makes it irrelevant is that the new wallet must be used, which makes the old chain moot, as it fundamentally changes the coins code. Any coins mined under the old chain AFTER the fork block would be null and void, at least from an exchange perspective. We're looking at doing this so we don't have a low diff history leading into the fork, rather it will take a couple blocks to start adjusting to whatever the new hash rate is, but likely without the multipools as we're starting high and working low. |
|
|
|
Not that I would be excited to see a few hundred more CATs get snatched and dumped into exchanges, and I honestly don't understand enough about the software to know the answer to this (which is why I'm asking), but is it wise to to set the fork so close to the difficulty change? I wondered if it would be better to do the fork in the middle of one of these excessive lulls rather than just before or during the super fast block solves that'll happen once the difficulty drops.
Tim
After the fork, the difficulty will drop after every block, at most at 12% per block (instead of the current 400%drop), based on the previous 36 block times, meaning there will be no instant drop into the 20 or teen difficulties. Once the fork is live, there will not be any more super fast block times unless a LOT of hash hits the network... and even then only for a few minutes. I may not understand the concept of the fork correctly, but is it that there is a way for some people to maintain a blockchain that is still headed for the difficulty drop? If so, there would be a lot of incentive for the people doing this strip mining annoyingness to try and do just that because they can get a bunch of coins on that blockchain. I'm seriously not trying to generate concern, I'm assuming there's a clear answer and I figure the community would actually benefit from having it explained. Tim I think I actually understand where you're going with this. Basically, you're concerned that some douche bag could maintain the old code and reap a shit ton of coins. It's a valid concern, but fortunately as long as all the exchanges update and the pools update those coins would be completely worthless. But I am glad you raised the issue. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Catcoin Fork Status from Etblvu1
3. Algorithm. There have been multiple algorithms proposed for implementing a solution (gravity well, loyalty credit, llacca, and simple moving average with limit). Through a particular decision-making method, a decision was reached to implement the simple moving average with 12% limit as the solution in behalf of the Catcoin community.
This is true, the majority of the group wished to compromise on a relatively simple but ultimately safe and likely effective solution. We develop it easily and test it just as easily, while the other algorithms were far more demanding both time and skill wise. You shouldn't take the simplest. You should take the best one which already proved to work in other coins. Times for alt coins won't become simpler once the scrypt asics get into this game. A moveing average is something that is always delayed. With or without limit you will pay in difficulty everytime a pool-hope jumps in. I rather liked if you considered to fix it right once and for all. Certainly retargeting after each block and averaging is already a lot better than what it is now. But will that hold for the future? I have my doubts. Great, I agree that it's not perfect. So what's your suggestion then? Everybody has been super quick to say the idea isn't perfect. Of course it's not! None of the solutions are! What' I'm not seeing is people lining up out the door with solutions that are fairly straightforward to implement and actually address the problem. I realize an SMA is delayed, but that beats the alternative of having the diff jumpy as shit if we didn't average it out. We arguably could reduce the SMA to 18 or 12 blocks to make the coin more reactive, and the 12% would still provide the smoothing necessary, but for the most part, it's been a small core group of us working on this, and very few ideas that are short-term friendly (ie. not llacca or gravity wells or loyalty credits) and don't fundamentally alter the coin that everybody signed up for! I'm not sure else how to get the community involved in this process rather than simply telling us our ideas suck and not providing anything reasonable as an alternative. It's fucking frustrating. If you guys have a better suggestion then by all means we're all ears, I'd much rather implement a permanent fix. But I have to say this: This coin does not currently have the life left in it to survive what would likely be a several month development/deployment process to properly test some of the more complex solutions. Please for the sake of CAT, either put up some ideas, or support one of the already proposed solutions. Oh, and Etbluv1, I wouldn't even suggest calling what I said baseless, because I can show you 20 or so term length papers you wrote about how your idea was better than everyone else's. To the point that it made a lot of us red in the face to read YET ANOTHER insanely long post. If you want different representation for this coin, be my guest, but I will not stand here and be called a liar in front of everybody, when the majority of the community has supported my position on you in various ways over the past several weeks. I'm aware you hold 40K CAT, which means your motivation in this is almost entirely financial. If you wanna dev this fucking coin, be my guest, but I guarantee you you'll kill it with the ideas you've presented. They are impractical, and more importantly will take too long to implement. Time we don't have currently. Good day, sir. |
|
|
|
Catcoin Fork Status from Etblvu1
Since at least one member of the development team has declared me off of the team for failing to agree with what amounts to the party line, I post here strictly as myself as an interested investor with some knowledge of development processes, but necessarily on behalf of the development team. I do not want to be inflammatory or controversial, and that is not my intent here. I believe Catcoin community members deserve an alternative perspective report on the fork that has been announced or is about to be announced. I will try to present this report in as unbiased a way as I can, so you can make up your own mind what it all means - and hopefully it can proceed in an orderly way.
No offense, but you're really starting to get on my nerves. For the record of the community, Andy (AKA SlimePuppy) has Etbluv1 on ignore in IRC, because he can't seem to understand that his opinion isn't the only one, and repeatedly frustrated Andy to the point that there was no compromise on outcomes. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you are only really interested in implementing your own ideas, and to hell with everyone else. The continuing (REPETITIOUS) discussion (especially re: LLACCA) and time it took to either discredit or disprove your theories has absorbed a TREMENDOUS amount of development time that easily could have been better used elsewhere. This fork would have been done two weeks ago if it wasn't for the constant struggle we've had establishing the fact that there are no perfect solutions, there are only solutions that are complicated or simple. You seem driven to implement the former, and the rest of the team is concerned with the increased risk of gaming the system with more complicated algorithms. Innovative is good, complex is bad. I've had a couple of RL developers look at your ideas and their immediate reaction was (and I quote) "That's bullshit." So take that for what it's worth. 1. Issues. We have been experiencing severe fluctuations in the rate at which new blocks have been generated - most noticeably in hours between confirmations of transactions. This has been a legitimate concern that is behind the current laudable efforts to implement a fix.
I definitely have to agree with you here. 2. Team. The original developer has not been available due to circumstances beyond his control. In the meantime, several individuals have volunteered to take on various development roles, and this work has proceeded without any formal organization to coordinate the efforts - the coordination has been informal and organic.
I disagree with this, though the organization has been someone chaotic at times due to various RL obligations of our team, there are most certainly people filling all of the critical roles. We are not professional developers, and we do this with our free time, holding us to a professional project management standard is both idiotic and inappropriate. We've clearly established who is doing what, and to say otherwise means you've been listening to yourself talk for too long. 3. Algorithm. There have been multiple algorithms proposed for implementing a solution (gravity well, loyalty credit, llacca, and simple moving average with limit). Through a particular decision-making method, a decision was reached to implement the simple moving average with 12% limit as the solution in behalf of the Catcoin community.
This is true, the majority of the group wished to compromise on a relatively simple but ultimately safe and likely effective solution. We develop it easily and test it just as easily, while the other algorithms were far more demanding both time and skill wise. 4. Hard fork. Through the same decision-making method, it has now been decided that a hard fork is imminently being released.
I want to emphasize also, that it is very dangerous for a coin to have a hard fork if the people are not unanimous in their accepting the hard fork, so the best thing to do despite any feelings you may have about the way this fork is being conducted, to accept it anyway for now, use good security steps to protect yourself (always a good idea anyway), and keep the fork unified. We can always work on improving the quality of the build process and if needed, the difficulty adjustment algorithms later. But for the health of the coin, we must remain united and agree on what fork to be on, and do everything possible to avoid the chaos of multiple forks being out there. To this end, I will try to keep my opinions to myself about this entire situation so the fork has the chance to be successful. I may post more robust commentaries once things appear to have stabilized after the fork.
We're well aware you have issues with how the project is being run. Let me clarify a few things from the remaining items on your list, as I do not have all day to comment on them individually. As with previous forks and other coins, the majority of linux users prefer to compile their own nodes and wallets directly, as it is both simple and secure for the user. Saying this is an uncommon practice is an outright fallacy, and you know it. We are planning to have multiple developers (specifically me and Andy for sure) compile the wallet and compare the hashes generated. We don't need extra software or an extra development process just to satisfy your need to make things as complicated as possible. I assure you, I've signed my real name to this project, the last thing I'm going to do is put my reputation in jeopardy with some shady practices. People are welcome to segregate the wallet from others, but you are severely over-blowing the risk here. None of us are here to see catcoin fail, so why would we go out of our way to fuck that up? Now that all of that is out of the way: Development is in its final stages. I personally threw 2MH on the testnet for about 18H last night to see what would happen. Results are available for everyone to see. In the next 48H we will be unifying all our repos and distributing that information to the community for verification. Once that is done we will pick a block number and notify the exchanges and the pools. We will also build the wallets based on this final vetted code. We will verify these builds with two or more developers, and check hashes to ensure everyone is on the same page. Once this is done we will begin the process uf updating the nodes and pools, so when the fork block does come, there are no surprises. We will do our best to assemble the pool operators at fork time to ensure that in the event of a runaway pool, things are controlled as quickly as possible. We will monitor the network for any unintended consequences. We will also begin a PR campaign to bring hash back to the network to try and reduce a possibility of a 51% as much as possible. Further, the fork block will be selected so that it has a already high diff, and the preceding 36 blocks will be high. This was a mistake that was made at the last fork where the diff was set artificially low, and ultimately caused a fork. This high diff method will allow the network to settle out and adapt on it's own, while reducing the risk of a switching pool or high hash user causing issues. We're aware of the mistakes that were made last time, and we've specifically addressed those concerns as best we can. Hopefully I've demonstrated that this process is far more involved and thought out for us than etblvu1 has let on. I'm getting tired of this argument, and equally tired of having to spend an hour writing a post every time he disagrees with something. I am open to further suggestions and ideas from the remainder of the community. |
|
|
|
i think Poolerino is going to cause a fork
Pools
Poolerino: 412 MH/s Catpool.pw: 13.9 MH/s Team Catcoin: 10.5 MH/s Coinium.org: 2.6 MH/s Luckyminers.com: 2.6 MH/s Cryptovalley.com: 0.6 MH/s P2Pool.name: 0.3 MH/s Argakiig.us: 0 MH/s Mintpool.co: 0 MH/s Solidpool.org P2Pool: 0 MH/s
This pool is not mining CAT, it is mining EAC and is erroneously reporting as CAT because they redirected their cat domain to EAC. Once dogeles and mack25 are around I'll get them to update the stats engine and remove those pools |
|
|
|
I'd love to buy back into Cat, but all my money is tied into other coins right now. ¬_¬ If anyone wants to do a straight trade for Klondike, PM me and let me know. I'd love to buy back in, and the buzz around Klondike and the development of the coin means it could be big. I'm holding close to 5k. I can afford to trade 1k. Want back in.  Unlucky, people who sell always miss out its happened so many times but people never learn, even if you had to sell the catcoins to bring some money back in.. just risk it, i did. I still have a nice 25k Catcoins and i was prepared to go down with it if it sunk, I'm not dumping untill catcoin reaches its potential which is $2+ Hey man, It's really good to see you back. I was hoping you wouldn't mind coming in irc to #catcoin-dev, we're trying to get social media all squared away and your site is a big part of our image. Sorry for thedrama before, in hindsight it was unnecessary, we could really use you on our team, Judge. |
|
|
|
|
I just wanted to take a moment to thank all of you for your support on behalf of the dev team. After all the issues we've experienced, and the various bouts emotion and drama, it's really really amazing to have the support of the community behind us as we implement these changes. It allows us to keep pushing forward to try and bring you the best coin in crypto. Thank you, from all of us!
|
|
|
|
that difficulty needs to drop soon. all the big pools are focusing on doge. there will be no one mining this
We're working on addressing that, if you read the last say 30 pages or so.  |
|
|
|
|
Kisa2005 et al,
I think by and large, I've taken the lead position (in terms of representation to the forum, and PR) of restarting CatCoin, with the technical help of many of the other members of the board. I am by no means the new dev, but I feel as though people have looked to me and Andy mostly for answers.
I'd first like to take this opportunity to apologize for the scarcity of my posts the past couple of days. I am getting married in under three weeks, so my attention to RL matters has been necessary during an extremely busy time for me. I have not forgotten about CatCoin, at all, it is in the forefront of my priorities outside of RL.
That being said, SlimePuppy (AKA Andy) has done a very good job of keeping you guys in the loop of our progress. Between him, myself and Zerodrama, we've committed to more regular updates to the forums to ensure everyone is on the same page.
We are pretty much of the belief at this point that KR105 has no further influence on this project, he was reasonably clear that he was done a while back. Our board maintains almost all of the social media resources. Twitter, Facebook, IRC, reddit and the websites belong to us. CatCoinForum does not, and that is a situation I am unsure of how to resolve at the moment. We will be pushing more content out soon, and I will be delegating the majority of this work as I need to spend more time with my RL priorities at least for the time being. The pool owners are on board with our group as well.
Hopefully this clears up any confusion. Another update will be made re: the windows QT wallet later tonight, as it is the last real obstacle to getting this fork vetted and released.
|
|
|
|
|
We're in the process of finalizing the fork, so there may be some speculation on that, but it's jumped a whole lot for one day. Be careful folks, for now I'm not sure what's driving this.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, because coins with instant difficulty re-target are performing so well on the market right now.  Do YOU have a better suggestion? Because I'd really like to hear it. At this point, the network hash is on the verge of total collapse. With a 10 minute block time, it's not really instant anyways, it takes a 6 hour averages and bumps up or down the diff in steps, with a limit to reduce spikes while still allowing the diff to jump 100% in either direction in an hour if necessary. What's your suggestion? Because at this point, no offense but, put up or shut up. We need to start building network hash back, and with how unpredictable that may be off a fork we need the diff to react and stabilize quickly to protect us and our coin from further embarrassment. |
|
|
|
Skimmed through the last 2 pages.. ANOTHER FORK? You're kidding right?
You better read the last 10 pages and you'll see why, this is the second fork. |
|
|
|
So this probably means that the block reward will not be constantly 50 cat per block ?
Isn't the "new technology" just an average of the last n block interval s / 600 multiplied by the current subsidy ? Or something like that ?
I personally am against the modification of the block reward in any way shape or form. I feel that fundamentally alters the coin, no matter how trivial. In my books, block reward and block time are completely off limits. But hey, this coin belongs to the community, so we will do what the community asks. If that includes changing the block reward, so be it, though my gut feeling says that the large percentage of the community will disagree with that action. Some of our team is less concerned than I am about such changes, and it has consumed considerable amounts of our resources time wise discussing this very issue. What does the community think? What do you guys want to see in this coin improvements wise? How far are we willing to go? Are there variables that are absolutely off limits? Personally I'm for maintaining the scrypt bitcoin that this coin was originally marketed on. Sure, the diff re-target is different, but I think that's a fundamental necessity it today's market. I've attached a paper on "Simple Moving Averages" that hozer has found. I'd like you folks to have a look at it. It can be found here: https://www.tradestation.com/education/labs/analysis-concepts/a-comparative-study-of-moving-averagesPersonally speaking, an SMA or SWA provides exactly the behavior I think will solve our issues. Granted this paper is trades based, but the concepts are applicable here. If the diff is appropriate to hash, then we won't see the pools drop in nearly so often because the coin won't be ultra-profitable for short periods of time. Even if they do the coin will recover better, faster and more accurately ensuring our regulars are impacted as little as possible. The rest should fall into place on it's own. It is by far the simplest of our current proposals. I'm firmly of the belief that simple = less issues long term. We can address missing or new functionality later, these diff changes need to happen soon. The biggest issue is the fact that the diff can drop or jump by 400% currently, it needs to step, not jump. If it steps it won't go blowing past where it should be with no hope of stopping. We can add a maximum jump per block or dampener if needed to ensure the diff average doesn't become too steep and overshoot in extreme circumstances. Perhaps 100% per hour is a reasonable number. I'm open to suggestions. |
|
|
|
will the price rise again?
no Says the guy that loads up coinium with what, 40 MHash, every time it's profitable. <3 Not much new to report folks, there was some spirited discussion last night. I didn't get a chance to really look at the test net. My wife's pneumonia is not improvingg and my time has been required elsewhere. Will try to have a look at it today. |
|
|
|
|
WHy is the thread 3 pages shorter all of a sudden?
Edit; make that 5 pages.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
