All proposals for changing difficulty algorithm fall in to one of the two following categories: 1. Lower Production Cost to keep a fast chain. (Fast Difficulty Retarget, KGW, DGW) + Blocks are found faster. - Blocks cost less to find, so chain is weaker. - Constant / surplus supply - Coins cost less to produce, market prices reduce. 2. Lower Production Cost and Block Reward relative to each other. + Blocks are found faster. - Blocks cost less to find, so chain is weaker. - Transaction require more confirmations to be safe, nullifying the effects. 6 confirmations in 1 hour vs 60 confirmations in 1 hour = 1 hour of waiting. - Exploitable by setting extremely high difficulty, making mining exponentially more unprofitable. This led us to the conclusion, that we cannot change the difficulty algorithm. So we looked at what else can be changed, which left 2 variables: how often the difficulty changes, and how much it can change by. Please be assured that the new algorithm is simply the old algorithm with it's upper and lower bounds constrained a little, and with an interim difficulty change. It is the least change we can make, and should serve to dampen the extreme effects we've seen. It does not change any of the fundamental properties of the currency, and it does not incur any of the negative effects listed above. The current configuration allows Bitmark to change difficulty by +/- 4x over 720 blocks, with 1 difficulty change. With those extreme bounds always being hit. The new configuration would allow Bitmark to change difficulty by +/- 2x over 360 blocks. This still equates to bounds of +/- 4x per 720 blocks, it just adds an extra change in the middle, reducing the likelihood of those extreme bounds being hit, and increasing the likelihood of equilibrium being found. Any time frame on the proposed algo change? Surely before the next diff change or it will be next year (at this rate) until you get another chance!
Sooner rather than later. The change would not come in to effect until 360 blocks after the difficulty next changes (to low diff). To get to that magic block where the difficulty "corrected" we'd need miners to incur the cost of mining blocks which were expensive to mine (about 200 of them), the reward would be 360 blocks which were very cheap to mine, followed by the cycle broken. We're not proposing to change Bitmark's difficulty algorithm, we're proposing to place some tolerable boundaries on it's fluctuation and giving it a chance to find equilibrium. |
|
|
|
|
We have implemented an alternative difficulty algorithm on a test coin named zmark.
The new algo changes difficulty twice as frequently, and reduces the maximum change from 4x to 2x. This should serve to dampen the effects of the low/high difficulty cycle, allowing the network and market to find equilibrium quicker, thereby keeping supply limited to some degree when demand is low, but without letting the network get too slow.
Historically Bitmark difficulty swings between ~500 and ~2000, +/- 4x, whilst the ideal difficulty is usually around 1000 for a performant network based on average market price through a difficulty cycle. The proposed change would mean the difficulty would change 500 -> 1000 -> 2000, and the network effect should be that the diff will hover around where it should be with +/- 50% variance, never reaching the extreme 500 and 2000 swing.
Once we have the results of testing, and if they are positive, we will discuss the tradeoff here and vote as a community as to whether to change it or not.
|
|
|
|
I downloaded the new 0.9.4 wallet and but I'm not able to able to sync to the network as I get the message 'No Block Source Available' and the blockchain is not downloading. How do I get this issue fixed?
I will investigate this, perhaps a misconfigured DNS seeder on our side. Please leave the client open, after a few minutes it should time out and connect to one of the master seed nodes to get peers. If all else fails, as a temporary measure entering addnode vps.bitmark.co onetry in the console (Help -> Debug Window -> Console) should get you going. I'll update once the issue is found and fixed. |
|
|
|
I'll set it to resync later on today which will remove the duplicate. Complete |
|
|
|
What's going on here? http://bitmark.co:3000/Are there two block 46541s? I'm trying to sync new wallet but it stops at that block. Just a nuance after updating Insight, it's pulled in the same block twice; note: same hash. I'll set it to resync later on today which will remove the duplicate. Regarding synchronizing the new wallet, if it's at the same block height then it is synchronized, although the time past since the last block found (slow network!) may lead the UI to indicate it's not synchronized, when it in fact is. |
|
|
|
UpdateBitmark 0.9.4 is released, full builds for Linux, Windows, and OSX can be found on v0.9.4 ReleasePfennig 0.9.4 is on GitHub. Pfennig 0.9.4 with KGW Support is also on GitHub. Bitcore 0.10.3 is ready to use and available here. Insight, and Insight APIYou can also find a new bitmark-seeder on GitHub. All master nodes have been updated, as has the official block explorer. The network now has active DNS Seeds which all prior releases, and this release, will use with immediate effect. The next release of Bitmark will be 0.10 in late March, or as soon as a suitable new difficulty algorithm has been identified, implemented, and tested.
|
|
|
|
|
Pfennig 0.9.4 is released. There is also a branch with KGW support.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Medic.
Specific skills we could utilize quickly are (in no particular order): C++, Javascript, HTML/CSS, Go.
|
|
|
|
well - everyone certainly has abandoned it now - good idea - bad implementation.
I still have some hope, and am glad supply is slowed whilst demand and development have been slow. As they pick back up hopefully this will reflect on the network. Same implementation as BTC, if anybody feels it's really wrong then working on patches or proposals and submitting them to Bitcoin / Litecoin / Bitmark would be the thing to do. Thanks! |
|
|
|
LOL - I hope the new wallet fixes this. I have coins mined back around Xmas of last year and they only have about 130 confirmations - with the current wallet it looks like it will be late August before they're confirmed....
seriously - this is laughable...
The Bitmark chain was configured to penalize inconsistent profit driven indirect mining of BTC. In other words if the diff drops and price rises, and everybody greedly jumps on to mine the coin then abandons the network, the penalty is that the coins mined are not released until after the difficulty changes again. This nullifies incorrect "profitability" calculations. Net effect is that if mining stays roughly consistent or varies slightly then people get their rewards fairly and timely, if they try to game the system by profit switching then they get rewards tied up until either price and demand rise 4x to meet the target network, or difficulty finally retargets, or indeed mining becomes steady and fair. |
|
|
|
Because sitting and waiting for one person to do everything is pretty nooby... I always thought getting back packed was worse than losing.
Just trying to get an idea of where the project is and do appreciate all the time people volunteer.  By the way, I try to help by providing Bitmark support on services such as coinwallet.co & blocktree.io - but I admit I have pulled bitmark from miningpool.co as too many people not familiar with the difficulty problem would come and waste half a day mining with no reward and complain. Sorry if that is too 'nooby' for you. Also, the block explorer http://cryptexplorer.com/chain/Bitmark listed in the OP is not working. And the other http://bitmark.co:3000/ behaves strangely sometimes, often not showing any blocks. Welcome to add http://www.blocktree.io/e/BTM (graph is a bit bare as no block has been found for over 24 hours  ) Thank you. Cryptexplorer removed. Blocktree.io added. The network production cost and price on market have almost equalized, on the next difficulty retarget the network should become measurably more healthy. Bitmark 0.9.4 is preparing for release this week. |
|
|
|
|
I'd like to stress that the Bitmark difficulty issue is common to Bitmark, Bitcoin and Litecoin. The solution being worked on, kindly and voluntarily, by leathan and dbkeys is a common to all of these coins and may or may not have a technical solution. Many people including myself view it as a social issue rather than technical, or more accurately a trade off where other factors such as supply constraint and network security are given precedence over transaction confirmation time.
We are grateful for their hard work, however long it takes, and value their focus on getting alternatives right, tested, and reviewed before promoting something with unknown trade offs which are seen as detrimental or bigger issues.
Thank you dbkeys and leathan.
|
|
|
|
What are the very next steps here?
Organize and get people working on different parts of the project. I'm working on that right now. The plan in short, is to "stub" out the three major component systems in github with documentation, then have the working code added by myself, paid team members, and whoever wishes to join in and commit some work. A process which will start imminently. Otherwise I will simply work on endless revisions, prototypes, second guess myself, and we'll never have anything delivered. By stubbing out the frame of the project and filling it in, I, and we, are committed to a set path forward, and the documentation allows anybody to contribute without me being a bottleneck. |
|
|
|
Hey guys, my wallet is not syncing. Any ideas: what's the last add node list? Thanks.
It's likely synchronised, when does it say last block was received? The network is painfully slow at the moment which triggers the wallet UI to say it's some hours behind the network, when in fact it's not. You can verify by checking the block height in your client, and comparing to the last block on the explorer. If it is a network sync issue, simply close and reopen your client and it should connect to one of the master seed nodes and resolve the problem. having the same issue Status: 0/unconfirmed Date: 10.01.15 11:41 To: bYfrFVkB8Trk28PQyE7AxHx8jMeTBAXLZe Debit: -1600.00 BTM Net amount: -1600.00 BTM Transaction ID: b4c5098bb6b11630d2058372acf24d14205cd9360396d6917180d4dd7a210cac-000 has not synced for 3 days note the wallet was from 0.9.2 but I used 0.9.3 to send Client just says unconfirmed as do the block explorers. I didnt intentionally set a 0 fee or anything. Nothing urgent, I can wait a week or so and see if it clears itself up This came thru but I have the same issue from 12 hours ago, with 3 blocks mined in that time: Status: 0/unconfirmed Date: 18.01.15 11:37 To: bYfrFVkB8Trk28PQyE7AxHx8jMeTBAXLZe Debit: -4500.00 BTM Net amount: -4500.00 BTM Transaction ID: e4cc7dfc5b5d8304f287113e1244b23a0626845d26be29f6406fbb219eca37d8-000 Any ideas why? There's no technical reason why it shouldn't have been confirmed in earlier blocks. I'll take a look later today and try to see which pool mined the 3 blocks, and consult them as to whether they may be selectively omitting transactions. |
|
|
|
|
I have overheard several people say that they do not like the name "GamersCoin", and that as gamers, it puts them off.
After thinking about this a while, I would like to suggest "GameCredits" as a suitable, descriptive, alternative. This would allow the retention of the currency code GMC.
Several domain extensions, such as .net and .co are available for this.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
If anybody would like to build anything for, or based on the project, and is currently blocked, please let me know by email on mark@bitmark.co as you can, preferably before the weekend. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Good work, glad to see GMC getting more well deserved attention, and to see you working together with other projects. I suspect 2015 will see big things for you. |
|
|
|
|
That is sad, effective communication would have helped, I apologize. I was in communication almost daily with a few members of the project, however that was not relayed, and we, or I, did not have a project wide communication process in place.
It is also sad that the progression of a shared concept is so dependant on one person, a DAC is the goal, but not yet the reality. This is the way things are, and will be for a time to come, I hope that some confidence can be renewed, and that the concept itself will one day be the primary thing by which the project's merit is judged.
|
|
|
|
seriously, what happened to consolidation?
he posted 3 times at least saying he'd offer to fix it.
then disappeared.
come on dude!
I am here, for reference here was my last post on the topic: UpdateI have spoken further with Ritchie, his strong preference goes to having a new wallet based on a proven codebase. Even if the specific issue is patched, OctoCoin as it stands is based on a nearly year old unmaintained pre-aux doge client called Inutoshi. Many bugs have been found, and improvements made to major code bases since then, it can be considered legacy. This could be saved. But it will take a lot of input and thinking outside the box. The state of Octo is zero.
So the questions are as follows:
Where do you take Octo from here as far as function and branding? Without 8 apps, does the name Octo still hold value? I know some have said that 888 is lucky, China, etc. and that's a great point. But what will the coin bring to make it stand out? How can you relate that to 888? Also, what if we jack the blockchain and they come after us for their logo, etc.? I mean that's a possibility.
What do you do about a fork? I do believe we have enough asics to jack the blockchain.
What do you do about the wallet addresses with the devs premine?
I would encourage you to discuss these points further. From an outsiders perspective you have two redeeming features: 1) Community 2) Brand (888) Forget about coin/qt features, and concentrate on uses. Every coin needs a purpose, a reason to validate it's existence, find this, then create or modify apps and software which will allow it to be used for that purpose. If you concede that it does not have a (non profit making) purpose, then consider moving on. If a new OctoCoin were created, it may be feasible to organize a pre-mine and burn, where people could opt-in to the new OctoCoin by burning their balance at bittrex. After the burn period was over, an equivalently sized pre-mine could be distributed to those who opted in; thereby replacing old coin with new, and invalidating any previous dev's holdings. Please discuss how to take this forward, as opposed to ways to move the overriding problem to somebody else by getting the coin enabled at bittrex and dumping, that doesn't help anybody and is quite unfair. Apportioning blame is also human nature, but we know it's not conducive to building a positive future. Merging communities and abandoning the currency is also a possibility. There are other active coins and some good developers around such as defaced, btcdrak, jl777, crypto_zoidberg, bitcoin devs, dogecoin devs, to name just a few. Additionally there are projects such as Kora which may soon be merging in communities to create a large starfish community where all folded in projects receive a fair portion of a group-wide currency. Crypto is fractured, anybody concerned with longevity or who sees crypto as having a strong future, may be best placed to consolidate their communities around or in to high(er) quality projects with proven activity. Honestly, try to determine if this is a community of ill fortuned bag holders, or if you have active productive members who can create or sponsor software, business, apps, and respective marketing - without those things no amount of branding, good will, or coin development will help the bigger situation. I sincerely hope this conveys as positive, and will watch and contribute thoughts or code where warranted. Many Regards, Mark Clarification: if I help with code, donations after any release would always be welcomed, but don't worry about raising a bounty or escrow, I offered help to a community and a friend, I did not take on a freelance project or bounty assignment. The short version is: decide as a community how you want to move forward with a plan for longevity, and if you get one and commit, let me know and I'll help you form a plan to get a new codebase together and working. A fix of the current codebase is not deemed as acceptable by bittrex to re-enable the coin. A new codebase just so that people can dump their coins on to other unsuspecting bah holders is not acceptable to me. Get a decent plan together, somebody to maintain long term, and I will gladly help technically revive the coin. |
|
|
|
Hey guys, my wallet is not syncing. Any ideas: what's the last add node list? Thanks.
It's likely synchronised, when does it say last block was received? The network is painfully slow at the moment which triggers the wallet UI to say it's some hours behind the network, when in fact it's not. You can verify by checking the block height in your client, and comparing to the last block on the explorer. If it is a network sync issue, simply close and reopen your client and it should connect to one of the master seed nodes and resolve the problem. having the same issue Status: 0/unconfirmed Date: 10.01.15 11:41 To: bYfrFVkB8Trk28PQyE7AxHx8jMeTBAXLZe Debit: -1600.00 BTM Net amount: -1600.00 BTM Transaction ID: b4c5098bb6b11630d2058372acf24d14205cd9360396d6917180d4dd7a210cac-000 has not synced for 3 days note the wallet was from 0.9.2 but I used 0.9.3 to send Client just says unconfirmed as do the block explorers. I didnt intentionally set a 0 fee or anything. Nothing urgent, I can wait a week or so and see if it clears itself up On consulting the transaction memory pool I see the following transactions as unconfirmed and waiting to be mined in a block: "0315e56c2d467169607a96162028b943850250a725cac19fce83580bdd193c0b",
"04c2a8e22df39099488a66eec9f007879b6e95058c96b634bfa2b3e1d59486b5",
"0c68d9ac9b70e04e8cb2fb89724feadad90f4814f96230278b14c14559bb52b0",
"0d3a6ba62eceabc77f9960e09332b7709d036f3d58a1b3ce7151ddbaa9f5ce63",
"0f1d71a4e5b9f5f6e5565c1179d88c58723b1c865e3f512cbedc7099a063fbc2",
"15449acf1bef4ba5e08295ff58552d2a10a0f5ac3f8d61fe768646fdd732a036",
"1bcfcff0fca1403d20506663cf76f7f41f3d02ed4393441f302dcaf9cf29b09d",
"28b04a2897534d9306323e1df207c19316c5b7646782be142b896ba54170b5de",
"56c3f0a4572e197ed4dd5cdcf4e98e0c52b69d0dd2fb10c041ba69c737744a90",
"5e9dd4b1ff13ca6a0c26941fff2a55da197374a70d29782f13acd926ec10d8e0",
"5fbaa242bc19d211617bb2cd1dafe8b1bfe90d7a60c2aba3419c2d6c73dfa250",
"640b83585c4e02a5af3ce69d7eeb006a73ad2eef52aba76ce87a102536ff5197",
"6987ebe301f9ecf90659c2a888a1445a51f85f6b5c491ecf6ef785066b5979bd",
"755d0a5f3c4d7669cfc6ec7a98fba96b4ba9eec4670fae1cec86412015b09f08",
"7852b1d4d7115de45fc785ad56614f6ba72c68ab1775a663165087bef754bfe9",
"7b11e37d3b6b61856f731069c9b0727b17830bb53dd3943b4f708742f612ea39",
"7d83d743652b1146b27230b166bb01a08b61415393c3ca34bb61f658aafda119",
"82fb2be6f0fad3638054756d07d62efe4b2a71f654bda3fec7b7ee3b3da28ec1",
"9765e10351144c4f8ffa1b891f837e8280fa90149fa8d07f17afb6bf48fb44a2",
"adb83ca666f735673952f498854916712e171ccfe3a274594485c6f7de65a393",
"b4c5098bb6b11630d2058372acf24d14205cd9360396d6917180d4dd7a210cac",
"c45d5f8ed8c5d3d8f8791506e3a1764b88c5ac7474e51d892428854840c5d3b4",
"d08532bbeecc2b1d983d8b98bb418e9def799fd45d2ab48d009b129782ef633d",
"d7c508a0cd24364ef55523d8a06465112ae50f43f406cc43c5915b01a22341e4",
"e48c62a1f545f87ae59ebf3b5a5b4d39a7a92eb7c9d2b5f43a94d75fcd111e05",
"f8ca94c9a12858803fdee389f075fa39c8c5d7c495881a01061b9594f6f2adeb"
These transactions, which include your own melvster, are known by the network, and will be mined in the next block or so, provided that the pools which have miners present have not been configured in such a way as to mine empty blocks. If anybody has trouble getting connections to the network, open a console (help menu in bitmark-qt) and enter addnode bitmark.co onetry |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
+1
