was ist anders. nun, erstens mal das verfahren um coins zu erzeugen und es gibt keine Maximale Anzahl. Das kann Vorteile haben, kann aber auch nachteile haben ist auf jeden fall anders als BTC.  Dann gibt es auch ein etwas anderes Verfahren die Transaktionen zu überprüfen, das wird, so wie ich das aus dem Anouncement gelesen habe (viel mehr gibt es ja noch nicht) von diesen hatching Nodes gemacht. Die Clients selbst müssen dafür nichts machen. Diese hatching Nodes unterhalten sich dann miteinander ob alles in ordnung ist. Waren das jetzt 2 Kurz genuge sätze Ich sehe es auch als was anderes, ob es eine Eierlegene Wollmilchsau ist, wird man sehen. Immerhin mal kein BTC abklatsch mit nur gering anderen Parametern. Aber so ganz ganz anders ist es meine rmeinung nach auch nicht. transactions werden zu blöcken zusammengefasst die überprüft werden. (das ist ja eigentlich auch BTC ) |
|
|
|
Most interesting is that there are really new ideas!
I understand that in your post (as you wrote) not all can be covered..
But some questions and not only want to ask "tester too, to be an early adapter."
one important (for me) will there a maximum of ENU in your system? I like also to think on one with a non maximum (differnet from bitcoin)..
Also the question if the hatching nodes need to go through all transactions until the first block, will this scale with a large list of transactions (i think in bitcoin, yes wehere we have the ~8 GB Blockchain now..)
I know that this is also need to test so
at least this sound interesting and let us see your effords soon
Thanks for the enthusiasm There is no set cap target of EMU's, so in theory it's unlimited. We've opted for a simple 1 EMU per minute volume target (which will be voted on in hourly intervals, so 60 p/h) which gives a nice, steady yearly volume of around 520k EMU's. Each EMU can be subdivided just like BTC, so granularity isn't a problem. To your verification question, the backward traversal of the chain will be quite quick, even with many millions of transactions in the system as there is only 1 path to get back to the genesis block. Forward traversal from the genesis block is more resource hungry as the ledger grows and we have some ideas to mitigate this over time. That said, as the ledger grows, the amount of work that a hatcher node has had to do to verify that transaction rises, so the proportion of the 80% share allocated to that hatcher will increase, thus they are paid for that work. Ok so no limit in the number of EMU but as they are coming slow also not a problem Will it possible in the future o change this or other key feature of the system like change the crypt algorithm or the time when new EMU will appear? Will there a central system to take care on this or is community related Like btc transactions from an old client may not accept by newer miners because of something so the community of miners can drive th direction of the development. |
|
|
|
|
Most interesting is that there are really new ideas!
I understand that in your post (as you wrote) not all can be covered..
But some questions and not only want to ask "tester too, to be an early adapter."
one important (for me) will there a maximum of ENU in your system? I like also to think on one with a non maximum (differnet from bitcoin)..
Also the question if the hatching nodes need to go through all transactions until the first block, will this scale with a large list of transactions (i think in bitcoin, yes wehere we have the ~8 GB Blockchain now..)
I know that this is also need to test so
at least this sound interesting and let us see your effords soon
|
|
|
|
|
Mann muss ja sogar weiter minen..
Ohne das minen funktioniert das Bitcoin system ja nicht. Dass man im Moment noch aus den 21 Mil. Bitcoins was geschenkt bekommt dafür ist ein Netter Dienst.
"Später" wird dann eben nur noch die Fees die bezahlt werden als lohn gezahlt.
Klar ist das dann evtl nicht mehr so lukrativ zu minen, aber es kann ja auch sein, dass die Transaktionskosten in einem block dann schon so hoch sind dass es sich wieder lohnt...
So lange also Leute mit BTC Zahlen, so lange muss und wird weitergemined.
|
|
|
|
|
Und schon in der überschrift
"da Transaktionen damit nicht zurückzuverfolgen sind"
Da kann man aufhören zu lesen
Geht dann auf dem Niveau weiter. Leider.
Aber immerhin im ORF dann lesen es viele.
|
|
|
|
Was denkt ihr?
Ohne Miner kein Bitcoin...
Es reicht theoretisch wenn es einen einzigen Miner gibt. Dann ist die Diff auf 1 und er generiert die 6 Blocks pro Stunde genau so wie jetzt Tausende von Miner. Ich denke der eine Miner wird sich finden  Wenn es aber wirklich nur noch einen Miner gibt, dann kann der auch wieder unsinn anstellen (51% Attack), das ist also auch nicht so gut aber 3 werden sich schon finden lassen mit annähernd der selben rechenpower |
|
|
|
der SHA251 Hash-Algorithmus "geknackt" wird?
Das ganze Bitcoinnetzwerk ist ja darauf aufgebaut.
Was wäre wenn man dieses SHA251 zurückrechnen kann?
Währe es im Notfall möglich das Bitcoinnetzwerk von z.B SHA251 auf SHA512 oder einen anderen Hash-Algorithmus zu "updaten"?
Schwirrt mir gerade so durch den Kopf ^^
Ich meine das Gavin vor kurzem mal gesagt hat dass wir selbst mit md5(md5) noch sicher wären. Aktuell wird beim minen ja SHA256(SHA256) benutzt. Ist nicht genau das evtl ein Problem? Finde auf die schnelle d keine Kryptoanalyse zu aber bei manchen Kryptofunktionen weicht man die Sicherheit bei einem verdoppeln auf Wie bei ROT13 oder DES. (Ja ich weiß verschlüsselnden Hash aber das Prinzip sollte klar sein) und DES wird mit 3des auch wieder sicher aber hält 3 Fach und nicht doppelt. |
|
|
|
Cool. Wirklich gut gemacht. Eine Sache: Mit der nächsten Version (derzeit im RC) wird die Standard Fee auf 0.0001 runter gesetzt. nicht das der falsche Eindruck entsteht, die seite ist nicht von mir die hat mir "nur" geholfen das zu kapieren. |
|
|
|
|
Nun, die Diff ist ja nur so hoch, weil so viele Mitminen.
Wenn es also keine Miner mehr gibt, dann ist die Diff ja wieder unten, dann lohnt es sich auch für andere wieder mitzuminen.
Also, die Miner wird es wohl immer geben.
|
|
|
|
Anyone mining at bitvolcano please change to port 8336 so we're on the main p2pool.
I've updated to the latest git repo.
i updated my small pool also |
|
|
|
Ok i did not read every new announcement Looks interesting I put it to my watch list |
|
|
|
|
There are now massive forks of the bitcoin idea. Generation a P2P network to check the transactions and give something for the people who check this network.
They only have the "New" idea of implementing a new hash function, a new block target r both of them, new rewards for the mineres..
Many use scrypt to be ASIC proof.. but you can also build scrypt ASIC if you really want and there is the need for this.
But, main intention for this post is:
Why there are no real new ideas?
Something complete different we can work with the internet to pay for things.
Ripple is one in this direction.
So why not stop the forking of the already known technique and search for a new one.
Ok each of these altcoins are kind of useful, they show very often what is not working. Like to low block targets, to low diff, to high diff and so on.
(ok i personally don't have an idea at the moment also, but maybe I can animate some guys to also think completely different and build up something new)
|
|
|
|
Remember to use the latest cpuminer with the -a scrypt-jane option
which is the latest for windows? I tried here one and this is not working. ok, maybe i need also try to setup a compile system here for this |
|
|
|
did I miss something?
Yes, creation of yacoin.conf :F ok I add this also |
|
|
|
I've got all the bugs sorted on my node now, so if you want to mine some YAC on a good solid server then head over to..... --url http://mining.bitvolcano.com:8338--user youryacaddress --pass x Remember to use the latest cpuminer with the -a scrypt-jane option There is a 1% fee. Stats are at http://bitvolcano.com:8338What sort of hardware and software it takes to run the P2Pool anyway, starting with blank dedicated server? I setup a debian 7.0 (with desktop + ssh) then ai do an additional: apt-get -y install build-essential git-core unzip cmake automake libncurses5-dev autoconf libcurl4-openssl-dev pkg-config automake yasm aptitude -r install linux-headers-2.6-$(uname -r|sed 's,[^-]*-[^-]*-,,') fglrx-control fglrx-driver aptitude install firmware-linux-nonfree aptitude install libgl1-mesa-dri apt-get install libwxgtk2.8-dev apt-get install python-zope.interface python-twisted python-twisted-web apt-get install python2.7-dev apt-get install python-twisted aticonfig --initial reboot cd /opt/tar xf /root/bc/AMD-APP-SDK-v2.7-lnx64.tar /opt/Install-AMD-APP.sh as user: mkdir yacoin cd yacoin -> client git clone https://github.com/pocopoco/yacoin EDIT: Fixed the Link, wrong cut&paste cd yacoin cd src make -f makefile.unix # generate the yacoin.conf echo rpcuser=rpc >> ~/.yacoin/yacoin.conf echo rpcpassword=SOMERANDOM >> ~/.yacoin/yacoin.conf echo server=1 >> ~/.yacoin/yacoin.conf # start yacoind ./yacoind -> pool: git clone https://github.com/cctvsmg/yacoin-p2pool su cd yac_scrypt/ python setup.py install as user python ./run_p2pool.py --give-author=1 --net yacoin did I miss something? |
|
|
|
I connected to procrypto's p2pool just fine, so i guess you made a tiny error. Maybe the worker port? This guide has helped me a lot, it's for feathercoin but you'll get the idea: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=182027.0@procrypto: Great, immediately saw my address in the payout list. @ntkrnl: Thanks too! Sent you a tip.  Thanks.. but I did not see an error: (i guess it is a logical one) if I start this cleint, on a machine without a yacoind running, only the client: minerd_scrypt_jane_x64.exe -u USER -p PASS -o http://IP.FROM_My_Node:PORT -t 18 (ip is an intarnal one..) User and Pass are these from the yacoin client.. I see the client connect: every YAY!!! i got this in the logfile of my p2pool: Worker rpc submitted share with hash > target:
2013-05-16 14:16:28.484731 Hash: 68d6fe263ae1d3ffda17daeb213057bb24943886116f902321b0b49a939bcbfb
2013-05-16 14:16:28.484773 Target: fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
so the connection work. But I don't get any share counted. (or do I need to look on another place) |
|
|
|
yes, running fine. now a question. is there any minerd (with scrypt-jane) who can remote connect to the p2pool server already? Or did I do something wrong here in the setup? p2pool "server" is running fine, a local minerd also submitting shares. if i try to submit shares from other clients no share is accepted. If you have link i need to read first, i will do this |
|
|
|
NO, it's a bug. The newest protocol conflicts with the old one, that's why I changed the server to the new version, and changed back again. We must use a new port and a new protocol prefix. I have update the source on github a moment ago. Please download the newest one. https://github.com/cctvsmg/yacoin-p2pool the newest version use a port 8338 like: http://pool.bitcn.org:8338thanks, working better. got 3 connections.. now i need to fix this problem only: 2013-05-16 11:47:33.154302 Worker a submitted share with hash > target:
2013-05-16 11:47:33.154399 Hash: 8b36efed8e932bfa70a1f315a6e071a2ff89b02737d3b3b76dc20d277d595190
2013-05-16 11:47:33.154444 Target: fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
but this has to wait.. |
|
|
|
not sure if this is normal, as I'm not that familar with p2pool right now: utgoing connection to peer 91.235.254.37:9355 established. p2pool version: 1100 'b2de428-dirty'
2013-05-16 10:45:21.310680 Sending 1 shares to 91.235.254.37:9355
2013-05-16 10:45:21.364218 Peer sent entire transaction d569d639cecd98d005c22dc854f2eea8be35ab5c7c6c66dae82338cf136c0afe that was already received
2013-05-16 10:45:21.375079 Lost peer 91.235.254.37:9355 - Connection was closed cleanly.
2013-05-16 10:45:21.375517 > in handle_share_hashes:
2013-05-16 10:45:21.375557 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2013-05-16 10:45:21.375591 > Failure: twisted.internet.error.ConnectionDone: Connection was closed cleanly.
this comes around every 5 seconds.. and another question: if I run on a windwos host a miner minerd_scrypt_jane_x64 i got this: Worker a submitted share with hash > target:
2013-05-16 10:47:14.835635 Hash: 3cdb25c5746ad9ff4a5002b135160be5a0351dc07b9c62bbe853364b20b4f9e8
2013-05-16 10:47:14.835676 Target: fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
is this OK? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
