- NLG is maturing into the coin for micro-transactions(that is wallet to wallet, small, daily use currency)
- reducing the block time to 75sec cuts transaction times by greater than 50%, speeding up transactions
- reducing the block reward to 500NLG maintains the current number of NLG minted per 24hrs
- increases the number of diff increments by 100% per 24hrs, from 576 to 1152
- reduces the number of blocks a high-hash-rate attacking miner/multipool can mint by 80%
- these changes support the community vision of NLG becoming a daily use currency
- the only down side of this proposal is that the block chain storage requirement would double, but still be less than most alt-coins
If lower blocktimes makes it easier to better the algo, also has more benefits and blockreward is adjusted to the blocktime, it looks fine to me to do that. Total coins will stay the same, so defendable. Blocktime has been lower at the start before and is now 2,5 minutes. Don't know why 2,5 minutes was choosen. Can the team say something about that? Maybe it's important in the discussion. These are the things that the simulator should be used for first and should be examined at a later point in time. Good things could be implemented then, things that don't matter could be left out. What's with the push for change, people? Why the need to copy every other coin? At least explain it shortly why we should consider it. Lets keep it simple, do the digishield change so the coin can move forward. Then the simulator can be worked on at the devs own pace, right now the dev isn't able to put in the hours to get the simulator where it needs to be to test to the algorithm change. This is causing major dev lag especially on the iOS Apple Store front. |
|
|
|
|
I will be happy to see a Digishield implementation and the coin can move forward!
|
|
|
|
Any thoughts on formulating a algo action plan? I'll give you a few reasons why we should:  -Fuse After the raise in price Clevermining start 'using' the opportunity again. So there is where price manipulation, besides dedicate mining, can make the shortterm difference in network stability. Seems like some dedicated miners stopped or lowered their hashrate too... But for sure, we need some chance now, we wait far too long, some people lost their interest/patience and walked away from Guldencoin. Most (or at least many) projects are postponed.... etc etc Reading back learns that the Guldencoin team works 100% at new algo. They can use some help too, don't know if someone offered some in the meantime? Also, @Fuse, you mentioned DigiShield. Did /GeertJohan respond to this or is there another agenda? What is the easiest action to stop this CM terror? The easiest option would be digishield but looks like the team want to make sure by creating the simulator, however I feel the simulator was not worked on enough and from Geerts last msg it's as if the team wants others to do the work now which is making it a bit more difficult since it has to be done in GO. Why not just complete the project early next year, do the algo change and then take a break from guldencoin for a month. This needs to be given more urgency so we don't run out of lubrication for clevermining while he ass rapes the coin. |
|
|
|
I'm just happy you're on our side, friend!  I wouldn't concern myself with the dev team not reporting every other day or so, especially around this time for the holidays. Once 2015 rolls around and people get back into the swing of things, then yes. I will say GJ answers questions when he's addressed so I can't really put them down on that. I will continue to do my thing, as will they and yourself. You do make a difference in NLG, just take a break when you feel like this. "Nothing lost, Mr. Christian, nothing lost." So Fuse, let's try it and ask: GJ, can you give us an update on how things are progressing, where things are at, where things will be? We miss youuuuuuuuu!I totally understand about the time of year. I in no way expect people to be here all day and night like I am some times lol... especially during the holidays. When the team is ready to actively discuss the algo change here, I'll be watching. I've had PM convos with /GJ about it, and they were very positive. But they were PMs, and I would love to bring some of that discussion out into the open. I just want to make sure I let them lead it. Like I said, they're steering the ship. So no real rush on making it happen right now... although a DIGI implementation on Xmas would be all I would want this year from Santa  -Fuse I am fine with waiting until around March but I know others will get more impatient before I do. Do not get upset if I end up being right about the time it's taking the devs as I would rather be wrong and pay LTEX his 20 000 NLG. iOS was supposed to happen end of September and now we @ end of December, I know a working version of iOS was made but the algo change has caused mass delays. The algo change itself is being delayed by the simulator and if the simulator is not finished it's a get out of jail free card to keep delaying the algo change. |
|
|
|
|
Clevermining is licking up these prices now. Best lower those buy orders until the algo change is done next year.
|
|
|
|
Good Morning Guldencoin Community! I have some great news to share with you. The early release of the diffsim has just been pushed to GitHub. This version contains a simple hashrate wave simulation and the DGW3 algorithm. The first things on my TODO list are: larger waves simulation and jump pool simulation. A graphical user interface might be added later, especially having something to render graphs would be great. This version is not very user-friendly yet, so expect a bumpy ride. https://github.com/GeertJohan/diffsimI welcome contributions to this project very much! Feedback is welcome here, and in the thread on the official forums: https://forum.guldencoin.com/index.php?topic=707.0Kudos to you, /GJ! If I get some time today to play with it, I'll do some testing. Hey, Investeerder... -Fuse As soon as the simulator can be used against the NLG blockchain with multipool swings, LTEX will get his 20 000 as promised. In other words the simulator needs to be in a state where it's used to determine the new algorithm settings. Well done Geert Johan I am shocked you have a flat release already! |
|
|
|
People have been asking for more feedback from the devs.. I am currently working hard on the difficulty simulator; a tool that allows us to test difficulty re-adjustment algorithms against real-world situations. This tool is very important to make sure our development on the new algo is supported by results. I thought it might be a good idea to share this experience with everyone here.  http://www.twitch.tv/GeertJohanIf you don't like the music: don't hesitate to mute the stream Please also join the Guldencoin chat at http://chat.guldencoin.com/GeertJohan So in my defense you can clearly see the simulator work began on the 24th October(if not before), today is the 10th December. That is 1 and half months through already, So I said 3 - 6 months originally and have opted to be optimistic and gone with a 3 month prediction which is why I stated we over a month away. |
|
|
|
I predict we just over a month away from the algorithm change unless Geert Johan has problems finalizing the simulator. So lets keep buying up the cheap coins clevermining is throwing at us and next year sometime we might have a good algo setup. |
|
|
|
Hi all,
Work on the simulator is progressing great.
The initial version I made used "fake" difficulty values, it worked, but I found that it wasn't accurate enough.
So I've redone a lot of the code, and it's now using real/exact difficulty values: 256-bit unsigned integers, in the same way the satoshi client calculates difficulty.
This makes everything a bit more complicated, but will produce 100% accurate results.
The first releases of the simulator will be binary releases with a limited featureset, it will do default difficulty (bitcoin) and DGW3 and it will have one simulation: small hashrate waves.
Updates will include 'large hashrate waves' and 'jump pool' simulations, and ofcourse the first version of our custom made difficulty re-adjustment algorithm.
At one point the sources will be made available under an open-source license to everyone. If anyone is interested in helping out, please contact me. It's required to have some experience in Go (golang.org).
Cheers!
Thanks for the update /GeertJohan. This is what I was trying to explain to people when working on a project so complex in nature that there will be hurdles to overcome but the end result will be extremely rewarding. How much has the experience taught you personally about how the underlying technical side of the blockchain? I am sure at the end of this you will come out a lot stronger in knowledge of how things work which will make you a top 10 crypto developer imho. |
|
|
|
We did not exclude them because they just take profit of a leak. Same with paying taxes, if there is a way to take profit people will use it.
Also, this is going on for quite a while (a few months) and we're almost at a solution. Some patience is better for now.
Excluding, in what ever way, right now is like running a marathon and quit with only have to go one mile more.
Well off course waiting for the algorithm update is the best solution right now. If think it was a serious solution when this all started. I know from my surroundings some potential investors left Guldencoin because of this. And there will be more who did the same. For me this decreasing price is a great way to buy some more millions, for others it's a sign of an unsteady coin. Most of the potential investors don't even know why the price is as it is right now. Guldencoin also needs to cherish the potential Guldencoin users who don't read websites like these. Who are interested in the philosophy behind Guldencoin but don't have the knowledge (or time) to understand technical problems like this. Best time to buy is now or in 2 months time just before the algo change takes place. Plenty other projects coming to keep more people coming back for more while we down our sorrows on the blockchain. |
|
|
|
This will be very good for Guldencoin as the same rules will apply. |
|
|
|
is there any news about the simulator yet, will it be up and running this week?
Another 2 months or so, but with all these other updates coming in the last week the simulator has taken a back step in focus and also litesires idea of keeping the buys under 400 is working until the algorithm change takes place. So Kudos to the community and users for listening to that advice from litesire. investeerder, please don't talk when you don't know for sure!, this is what separates us from allot of other people. I know you want to see faster progress, so does everybody!. You are welcome here, just don't piss people off, and then say sorry afterwards by giving compliments. Not very productive by the way! I am just trying to lower peoples expectations, not trying to cause FUD. The less pressure the dev /GeertJohan has the better and can release a solid product. |
|
|
|
is there any news about the simulator yet, will it be up and running this week?
Another 2 months or so, but with all these other updates coming in the last week the simulator has taken a back step in focus and also litesires idea of keeping the buys under 400 is working until the algorithm change takes place. So Kudos to the community and users for listening to that advice from litesire. |
|
|
|
Can we get a mod to explain the reasoning behind the post removal?
Not attacking the mods, I'm just curious as to why it would be brought down. Only thing I can think is it would possibly be perceived as "encouraging money laundering", but that's a stretch. But for the post to be removed, paysafecards would need to be a keyword for deletion, the mod would need to follow this thread, or someone would have had to have flagged the post.
Can someone chime in on which it was?
-Fuse
All I know is they not going to be happy when we launch our tier 2 project but everyone in the community we expect to be jumping with joy. See... what I want to know is why will they not be happy? Why would the mods of this forum be against this coin. Am I missing something? -Fuse I would like to know this answer too. I can understand them locking the thread in the in the main section but to actually come into the currencies ANN and do deletes means that the topic was most likely reported. Reported because people involved with other alts don't want their community to notice this coin. I think Guldencoin will face more headwinds with other jealous communities as more innovative services like this come online for the currency. It makes me wonder if people on BTCtalk actually want virtual currencies to thrive or if it's more about protecting what they have. |
|
|
|
2 weeks for the simulator to be built?!?! /GeertJohan must be one hell of a developer. Is it only him working on the simulator? |
|
|
|
Quickfix could be adding a check for low blocktime and increase the banscore with 10. That way clients would disconnect from clever after 10 fast blocks for 1 day because the default ban limit is 100. Easy to implement, dynamic and not centralized.
I would get behind this. You're 100% correct in that this would be an easy implementation. The only thing I would worry about is forked side chains from people not updating their clients. The breakdown looks good now, but before the 130 update, there were a lot of people on old wallets. Of course, you would just ban versions older than the newest as well. Not a bad idea, thsminer. -Fuse I think this (thsminer's idea of banning miners with fast blocks by using the banscore) would cause chain splits and net splits. Imagine that clever is connected to 2 peers: a and b, those 2 peers will block clever after 10 blocks. Clever will then connect to two other peers to relay their blocks: c and d. c,d will relay clevers blocks to a,b. After 10 fast blocks c,d will block clever, but more importantly: a,b will block c,d. This goes on and at the end of the day the network is splitted into several groups of peers and miners are divided accross those, causing multiple chain forks to be mined. Conceptually; the idea of banning a miner after too many fast blocks have been mined would work. But the question is: how to effectively ban while keeping the network safe. (again: proxying is really really simple, and banning blocks of IP's won't really help). Great response /GeertJohan, also good to hear from you again. Do you have a target month for the algorithm change to take place? |
|
|
|
I've been following the discussion the past 24 hours and have some mixed feelings. My effort to push back clever below the 50% failed with the rise of the market price and following clever's hash rate (I assumed they put all their hashing power on NLG in that short time frame).
None of the proposed solutions are ideal, and I change my opinion on the IP banning. While I don't like it, I like all the other suggested solutions less. The pro of this solution is that it is only temporarily, until the new difficulty changing algorithm is in place. Then clever can, IMHO, be unblocked again. The problem is how to get that implemented, IP addresses are not in the block chain, right?
The thing that has been on my mind today is if I should continue buying the hashing power. I can sustain the current level for some time, but if clever increases their hashing power at higher market rate, I can't really follow much (assuming that the renting prise goes down due to higher bitcoin price). Which makes me thing if all this buying hashing power is really worth it. Do others think I should continue, or just stop it (and accept 3 hour block times).
I would suggest PM'ing Guldencoin and /GeertJohan to see which month they think the algorithm will be updated and take things based on that feedback. Make them realize that it's because of the community the blockchain times are doing ok but what happens when the price goes up more, block times will go to 8 hours again because you need more hashing power to even it out. |
|
|
|
Guldencoin, the coin that just keeps on giving but this comes with a warning.
We need to keep the prices low until the algorithm change takes place otherwise clevermining will start dominating the network again, prices don't need to be pushed up because guldencoin value is increasing due to bitcoin prices rising again. I would suggest the person who put the sell wall at 666 to lower it to 575 to keep things stable, always when the price goes up I get scared because you never know if that value can hold if our algorithm can be abused by multipools. Keep Guldencoin trading in the 400s and let bitcoin increase the coins fiat value. It's a win for everyone.
Price manipulation is never the way to handle things. Too many variables and outside influence. Price should come naturally. I bring up IP blocking, and all of a sudden clever's hashrate goes back up a bit. Does anyone else take that as a figurative "fuck you" to Guldencoin? I feel like I'm the only one that is pissed that clever thumbs their nose at us. -Fuse BTC price has gone up so made NLG more valuable, currency is almost top 50 now and over $310k USD marketcap. The bad news is the more valuable we get the more clevermining will dominate, this is another reason why I am pushing for the algorithm change. |
|
|
|
First, Investeerder... enough already. You're sounding like a broken record. Go FUD elsewhere. In fact I would seriously consider paying you to go FUD elsewhere.
Second, thanks for the support, Biomike. Not only for the Criptoe pool, but for the overall network hashrate you have provided for network. If we didn't have members of the community like yourself stepping up and making these choices, Clever would continue to rape this coin.
Which brings me to my last point. Why are we seriously still allowing clever to mine NLG? We have community members spending money to negate their influence on the coin. When someone has cancer, you don't say, "oh, well lets change your diet and see if that helps". No... you go after it aggressively. You nuke the cancer out of existence, and then you change your habits. IP block clevermining. It's not centralizing anything. Quite opposite of that. Clever controls too much of the network without community buy-in. They centralize this coin. It's a cancer that has plagued us for too long, and I honestly don't see why we can't mitigate their effects right now. IP block clever, let the price be what it would without 50% daily sellout, and let's finally move on.
-Fuse
On the bolded parts I agree 100%. Regarding the algorithm change because the community is being put under strain with long block times, if /GeertJohan says he will take another 3-6 months then I will buy some hashing power and support the network but if hes going to be another 2 weeks then we can leave things as is. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
