Thanks for everyone who donated. I will bring spreadcoin.net back online shortly.
So here is description of the feature that I want to implement. Some may like it while some may not.
I want to make this coin for solo only mining without any pools (mining will be made in a such way that miners will be able to consistently steal money from the pool). With blocks generated every minute even with thousands of miners you will still be able to get block once in several days (if you have average hashing speed). There will be no concentration of mining power in large pools as in Bitcoin and there will be no multipools. We can than advertize it as being more decentralized than Bitcoin. Mining will be more like a lottery which may be more interesting or in contrary distract people form mining (however, if you mine for long time than you don't actualy need any pools).
What do you think about this idea?
I already have working implementation but need to polish it in several ways.
Sorry, this one passed me by, didn't scroll up far enough. I think it's most intriguing. With 1500+ altcoins already launched, a genuine and significant USP (unique selling point) is rather valuable --- and, if I don't miss my guess, you have ideas for some other enhancements which would support that uniqueness. So, I was particularly distressed to read about your loss and likely departure because you're one of the few devs with a software engineering background (which I inferred from your reaction of distaste to some of the more yucky baggage that the sequential forks have introduced) and was really pleased to see the community and yourself sorting things out. There are one or two other alts that are also heading in “primary support for soloing” direction, not that I can recall which ones; maybe I can recover that info from text search ... but anyway, they were planning to put in some effort to reconstitute the old “mining” tab page in the wallet, in an updated format with better UI. I presume Qt provides the basic capability of h/w config detection (number of cores, etc) and ofc the old wallets still carry the original implementation which can probably be looted of whatever code's still working and relevant. There does seem to be a bit of a separation now between the novacoin/bottlecaps forks in which *generate has been removed from the RPC API and the peercoin forks which retain it - in that most of the recent PnDs seem to be non-soloable from the wallet, which I guess is in broad favour of the rig rental outfits and mineral pools because it's that extra step of d/loading the miner and running it that puts off the casual adopter. If it wasn't you then it was another coin dev who expressed dissatisfaction with the slow miner built-in to the wallet and intended to replace it with the core of the much speedier standalone miner. I like the idea for its novelty if nothing else and sounds like you may well have a point about decentralization. If you can make in-wallet soloing really easy-peasy, that'd be a big plus for adoption, I'd say. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
- Litecoin (LTC) fork
That's an odd choice, given the availability of the much-improved Bitcoin Core 0.9.x. I'm curious, what features of the LTC codebase make it your 1st choice? Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Now I am going to teach you something if you are not already aware of the distinction. Data driven marketing is a refinement mechanism.
I am familiar with both the distinction and the characterisation but it may be new to others. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Seems you failed to read a few posts
Thanks for responding. Just to avoid any misperceptions, I did read those posts. They, and the “past performance” to which you refer informed my criticism. Your summary of Dogecoin's appeal highlights the amateur approach I was referencing. I don't intend to be offensive, merely precise. I use the term “amateur” as a precise description. An experienced professional would be able to bring to bear a rich set of modelling / analytic tools and a specialist domain terminology. I can assure you that when conducting a re-branding exercise for, e.g. an instantly-recognisable high street FMCG product, your typical int'l bluechip won't make a single move until they've first invested at least an upper-end six-figure sum in the market research / development iterative loop (qualitative and quantitative) and got back an extensive raft of results and trial serializations. I'm pointedly ignoring the proffered media-selected informal voxpops because I just can't bring myself to believe that anyone would be hard-pressed enough to cite them as actual insights, so they must be trolling. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Any other ideas of how to scale a crypto-currency to beyond 10 million users within 3 years or less from launch?
I find it quite distressing to see people flailing around wildly like this. You offer far too vague a problem statement to take seriously at face value, any significant effort to respond would be futile because its substance would simply disappear into the definitional chasms running through your sketchy landscape. Progress in this area is most unlikely to happen without a lot more informed effort being devoted to characterising the users. The most generous phrase I can find to describe the current effort is "hopelessly amateur". It's generous because the ineptitude is an obvious consequence of the influence of a technical community that openly prides itself on its ignorance of psychology, sociology, semiotics, marketing and other disciplines of the “soft sciences”. If you really can't articulate the details of the key factors underlying Dogecoin's undeniable appeal to users then you shouldn't aspire to hold an opinion on the subject. If you think that's a bit brutal, I can offer this adapted quote: “You really have no business creating your own cryptocurrency if you don't understand marketing well enough to figure out how to achieve large-scale adoption without somebody else's help.” A moment's reflection should inform you that each of the cited examples (celeb endorsement, corporate adoption or government takeover) is merely a proxy for “just about anyone with a well-resourced and effective marketing function” (which, you may be astounded to learn, does not equate to “advertising”). Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
According to gjhiggins, it is a ported version of Litecoin with the latest updates (OpenSSL-fix etc.). We would have to ask him for details. Btw: you can then change back the coin-icon to the original one immediately as you like, since the other one is only a suggestion by Graham and he already stated, that he is out of the project, regarding active work on the code. He just wanted to provide a good new starting point for the community, after deaconboogie seemed to be so unreliable.
Precisely so. There has been an unfortunate tendency for (forked/cloned) altcoins to be released with a code repository that (for some unfathomable reason) discards all the prior commit history, i.e. all the sequential detailed changes made to the parent coin, back from its inception right up to the point when it is forked to create the new altcoin. One extremely important consequence of this decision to excise the commit history is that it effectively prevents the newly-forked code from benefiting from any enhancements or bug fixes made to the parent after it was forked. With “normal” git (revision control) practice, you create a fork of the original repository code. The technically accurate term is “fork” but the actual command borrows misleadingly and uselessly from genetics: git clone <repos_url>You can then work completely separately on the forked code (say, making a few improvements or correcting a typo). At the end of the effort, you have a complete copy of the original, plus your changes. Assuming you have write access to the git repository from which you forked the code, you can simply commit the lot to the repos and that's the job done. Typically, unless you're a member of the development team, you won't have write access to a repository, instead you can submit a “pull request” to the repos admin, indicating that you have made specific changes. If your PR is acceptable, git allows the devs to integrate it very, very simply by merging your acceptably-changed copy of the code into the master. But what happens if the original repos content is changed while you're still working? Your copy is now out of date and your PR will be rejected. The standard means of keeping your working copy up to date with changes to the master repository is to pull the changes from the repos and merge them into your copy with git pull; git merge. This is exactly how it could work with, say, Dogecoin and Mooncoin (the latter being a fork of the former). Bugs discovered and fixed in the parent Dogecoin repos could be merged into the Mooncoin code, enhancements and improvements to the Dogecoin code could be propagated to the Mooncoin code fairly simply (with thanks and due consideration) by merging. So, releasing a coin with a repos that cannot be used to merge bugfixes and improvements from the parent coin is a seriously retrograde step and will create a strong reliance on a capable dev who can migrate desirable changes in the Dogecoin code to the Mooncoin code. I'll just vary the binding in the above para: This is exactly how it could work with, say, Litecoin and Mooncoin (the latter being an indirect fork of the former). Bugs discovered and fixed in the parent Litecoin repos could be merged into the Mooncoin code, enhancements and improvements to the Litecoin code could be propagated to the Mooncoin code fairly simply (with thanks and due consideration) by merging. So, releasing a coin with a repos that cannot be used to merge bugfixes and improvements from the parent coin is a seriously retrograde step and will create a strong reliance on a capable dev who can migrate desirable changes in the Litecoin code to the Mooncoin code. Mooncoin was launched as a fork of Litecoin 0.6.3 (as was Dogecoin). In late Feb, the extant Mooncoin 0.6.3 repos was overwritten completely with an upgrade of Mooncoin code to match code in the Litecoin 0.8.6 repos. I took this code-dump and integrated it back in to a fork of Litecoin 0.8.6 with a full commit history: https://github.com/mooncoin-project/mooncoin-landann/commits/mooncoin?page=2The commit history now records in faithful detail, step-by-step, the process of going from recent Litecoin to latest Mooncoin and allows Litecoin upgrades (e.g. 0.8.6 -> 0.8.7) to be straightforwardly merged in to the Mooncoin code. If Mooncoin follows Dogecoin to Bitcoin 0.9.2 (I strongly recommend this), then the above code is irrelevant, it all needs to be done again because there is no straightforward merge path from Litecoin 0.8.x to Bitcoin 0.9.X. However, the 0.8.6 commit history contains all the details of the path that was trodden previously. I considered that to be the most effective contribution I could achieve without actually supplanting the official dev. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Added MountCoin to the 1st post. Have I missed any?  Personally, I find it hard to tell from the OP whether KrakenToken would fall into your category but it does employ CryptoNote tech ... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=750370.0Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Most coins are direct clones of ByteCoin/CryptoNote Reference Coin. The main difference to date is merge mined coins or straight POW coins.
[...]
Retarget and diff adjustment is always 1 - because (I think) all of them adjust diff every block. Confirmation time depends on block time and number of blocks before a transaction is confirmed - just as with BTC/LTC.
Thanks for the characterisation, you saved me several hours of cross-checking. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Useful list, thanks for collating it. Does “max supply” and “block time” basically cover the major difference between these cryptonote coins? Only, I've been collecting metadata, basically sticking to what is typically published (when coin data is published in full). Here's a paste of the python dict that I use: dict(name="", slug="", symbol="",
date_founded="2014-08-00", incept="2014-08", thread=".0",
protocol="bitcoin",
protectionscheme="pow",
distributionscheme="pow",
powscheme="",
description="",
total_coins=1000000,
block_time=60,
confirmations=None,
maturation=None,
block_reward=None,
retarget_time=None,
diff_adjustment=None,
premine=None,
website=None,
source=None,
),
Some of these categories must be specific to the bitcoin protocol because they're never mentioned in [ANN]s for coins using the Cryptonote protocol. I'm looking for 2nd gen correlates to this metadata --- you seem to have a good grip on the tech and as I haven't managed so far to make a single successful translation of the patter in any of the 2gen info sheets, do you have any pointers as to what other features could be used to characterise these different coins? Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
|
The github repository is empty, when will the source code be available?
Cheers
Graham
|
|
|
|
Bad news  I was too careless and lost all my mined spreadcoins. I contacted several data recovery companies and most probably it will be impossible to recover my wallet. Without these spreadcoins I will have no incentive to futher develop and support SpreadCoin. Sorry for wasting your time with this cryptocurrency You have the coding chops, why not suggest the introduction of a per-block tithe (a %) going to a wallet address under your control? If the coin is to have a future, it either needs a development budget or a sizeable community of volunteers. Other than that, if you're dead set on escaping entirely, would you consider handing over control of the resources? Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Ah, OK. I already thought, you'd call a change to prevent ripping off miners by other miners, who are probably "more clever", "inessential" ...
Nope, I had no remit to rock the boat. Couldn't even manage an update to the cosmetics, let alone make a change to the reward schedule  Just in passing ... the proposed change requires a hard fork and that's not something to be rushed. People and pools need time to i) get round to reading the communication, ii) schedule the work, iii) implement the change and iv) confirm the results. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I'll contact Graham (gjhiggins) by PM, too. Maybe he can tell us more on that, too and we can use the wallet, he already forked on GitHub as a basis for this ...?
If deacon boogie isn't available and you're looking to bring in outside help then you should stay with the official release to avoid unnecessarily complicating matters with inessentials. The official release is the one Syntaks helped with, it makes so much more sense to stick with that one. Sorry I can't pitch in, circumstances are preventing it. Cheers, Graham |
|
|
|
Some of these names are real coins. Libertycoin, Flappycoin, and others.  That is correct. Shitcoin is also real, as is PoopCoin, CrapCoin and Wankcoin ... Here's a page showing them all, with logos, protection scheme and pow algo: http://minkiz.co/coin/(144 recent ones to add later today) and a more navigable list of just the names: http://minkiz.co/coin/names/Have fun. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Good stuff. <3 RDF.
Thanks. RDF is proving quite useful, the blockchain is also an acyclic graph and can be spooled straight to RDF. The data on MOTO looks to be very outdated, though. It would be quite an effort to keep this background graph continuously curated. Otherwise it is awesome.
Yes, that's an unfortunate but inevitable problem, the current punishing frequency of altcoin launches isn't helping either. If I can give DOACC enough clout so that it is perceived to have value, there'll be some motivation for coin reps to submit changes to the graph. Quiescent coins don't change, only the active ones do, so it's a relatively small subset and should be manageable. It might even be amenable to partial automation. I've been puzzling for a while over how to model change without unduly complicating the graph. To publish full-on LOD, we should by rights be including explicit provenance and change statements but it eventually dawned on me that the git commit history will handle that. After I've effected these additions, I'll work out an easier approach to using pull requests to communicate updates to the graph and write it up. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Is Bitmark(BTM) in your next batch of 140 you're adding? Just wondering. Thanks.
Bitmark wasn't included, it is now. Thanks for alerting me. Having corresponded a while ago with coinsolidation, I was aware of progress but must've missed the release. Thanks for the kind words. Cheers Graham Edit: corrected mis-recalled pseudonym, sigh. |
|
|
|
Since you seem to be an expert on altcoins, I'm curious as to which ones are currently targeting adoption from people outside the crypto-sphere right now?
Not an expert, I just collected a lot of metadata which occasionally prompts me to ask some obvious questions of prognosticators. ... such as the one you just asked, it's a good question ... The short and honest answer is that I've no real idea. In a small number of instances both intention and action are clear, e.g. DOGE, TIPS, WKC but there's a larger untold number where intention/action is unclear. In essence, there's no reliable way to tell unless the user-base is already slapping you in the face with a fish or the programme is sufficiently extensive as to be unmissable. Is a dedicated subreddit evidence? An FB page? A merchant adoption programme? Without a close inspection of the details, it's impossible to distinguish between actual targeting and the results of merely ensuring that the pre-launch check-boxes for the latest PnD are all apparently ticked. There's nothing in the metadata that would directly signify explicit targeting but perhaps there's an opportunity to derive such. I'll make a note to check. I have yet to put the DOACC dataset through its paces properly. If I've got it right, it'll be a useful resource. F'rinstance, there's a recent bitcointalk thread Sleepers, in which BitcoinNational maintains a list of trading symbols and btctalk thread links. I can extract the trading symbols (by hand, sadly), wrap them in a SPARQL query to retrieves additional data. The query phrasing requires a bit more boilerplate than usual but the core of the query is quite SQL-like (symbols taken from an early post): PREFIX skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#>
PREFIX doacc: <http://purl.org/net/bel-epa/doacc#>
SELECT ?node ?label ?symbol ?incept ?ps ?pow WHERE {
?node skos:prefLabel ?label .
?node doacc:symbol ?symbol .
?node doacc:incept ?incept .
?node doacc:pow ?pows .
?pows skos:prefLabel ?pow .
?node doacc:protection-scheme ?prots .
?prots skos:prefLabel ?ps .
FILTER (str(?symbol) IN ("DGB", "MYR", "SFR", "FCC", "NET", "FLO",
"GLC", "LKY", "PYC", "EMD", "DMD", "CACH", "RT2", "ARK", "TEK",
"HBN", "CAP", "PHS", "BTG", "PXC", "ORB", "LK7", "SMC", "BTC",
"MRY", "SPT", "WAS", "888", "RIC", "GRC", "YAC", "BET", "P$", "MZC",
"XJO", "FFC", "TAK", "BTE", "PLT", "BCC", "BITS", "MAST", "SAT",
"WAS", "AC", "CAIX", "LGD", "DEM", "NEC", "STR", "NOAH", "420"))
} ORDER BY ?label
I can then post this to DOACC's public HTTP API, get the results back in a standard XML format, transform the XML with an XSL stylesheet and get something I can literally paste into this very textarea (edited for brevity and expository clarity): You can check the full results for yourself by copynpasta, dump the above query into the web form that's fronting the SPARQL endpoint on Minkiz: http://minkiz.co/sparql/ In this example, query and results are quite straightforward, more complex queries can be posed, I just need to get a sense of what's worth querying. If I can formulate some hypotheses about relationships I can fish around and see if the results form a consistent pattern. Short block target times might be indicative, biggish number of coins and short transaction confirmations. That'll do for a start. The info is in the metadata (not consistently tho', it depends on what info was originally available, there's nothing to prevent backfilling the data, if the gain in statistical confidence is considered worth the effort). Working on an update atm, another 140-odd coins to add. Cheers Graham Edit, extended examples |
|
|
|
how does Dogecoin fit your definition of “$hitcoin” in this context?
It's a $hitcoin because its' lead developer just took LTC and slapped a dog over the silver coin. And that's the extent of your analysis? Fiat lux. Thank you for the enlightenment. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
