It will be a huge mistake if we change the name away from masternode. Block. Blockchain. Masternode. These are terms everyone knows. Should we call the blockchain a Spreadchain while we're at it?
PLEASE do not change the name of a technology everyone already knows. While Mr. Spread rewrote masternode code, the idea behind it is still the same. They're masternodes.
If you change the name you're going to be explaining what a fucking Spreadnode is 400x a day.
We want to differentiate from darkcoin, not bitcoin.  What if I told you that masternode is a horrible name for a cryptocurrency that stands for decentralization? Everybody understands "blockchain", it makes sense, it's a chain of blocks. D'uh. Everybody understands "miner", they are mining for coins like a miner in a goldmine. But masternode? What exactly is so "master" about them? Who are they the master of?  I never understood that. I think if we call our nodes something like ServerNodes then it is much more self-explanatory, right? Servernode has the exact same problem of masternodes. Servers are centralization points, so servernode does not fit a decentralized coin either. And then, why differentiate from DRK? it is established technology SPR is improving upon. "differentiating" from it in name only while keeping the similarities in functionality is just to sweep the dirt under the carpet. |
|
|
|
It will be a huge mistake if we change the name away from masternode. Block. Blockchain. Masternode. These are terms everyone knows. Should we call the blockchain a Spreadchain while we're at it?
PLEASE do not change the name of a technology everyone already knows. While Mr. Spread rewrote masternode code, the idea behind it is still the same. They're masternodes. Evan Duffield deserves the respect of not renaming his technology AND we will be causing ourselves headaches as well.
If you change the name you're going to be explaining what a fucking Spreadnode is 400x a day.
InstantX is also a known technology that works over the masternodes. DO NOT change the name!
Let's see if Mr. Spread decides to do anon and if he does, how he implements it before we discuss name changes there.
PLEASE put the name changes to rest for now.
completelly agreed. Just not sure if InstantX really applies to SPR. Is it the same technology, or at leats a similar one to deserve the same name? |
|
|
|
FastSpread
SpreadAway
SpreadIt
MultiSpread even though it sounds like some kind of butter lmfao I don't really think we should "rename" masternodes. The term has already been coined, and it applies to an idea, not a specific implementation of the idea. InstantX OTH might be renamed, since it does apply to a specific implementation. Unless SPR implementation is similar enough to use the same name, of course. |
|
|
|
can someone share their hash speed with AMD hd7850?
AFAIK wolf0 binaries do not work on 7850, so the speed on those is still the same. |
|
|
|
Damn! I'm shocked what I see here. I've been out of GPU mining lately, but getting 6mh/s + with 280x got me thinking. I was getting 3,15 mh/s max  can someone pls help me how to get started (again)? I see there should be .bin file replaced? do I have to rename .bin in some specific name or...? this miner is a compiled version that already includes the bins. You need just run it on a compatible machine. If you want to build it from source, download the source from the same place where binaries are available (see OP). The generated executable will include the bin. No need to rename it, replace it or anything. Please be aware of this warning from the OP: WARNING: This is not a free (as in beer) version. This version of the miner mines 2% of the time as a donation fee to the developer. |
|
|
|
Is there any CPU miner for spreadcoin? Standalone version?
I asked that already. Nope, at least not public Why would you want one at this point with the difficulty? botnets, VPS operators that steal processing power, sysdamins of several hundreds of machines that want to use their spare CPU time to mine, etc. There are a thousand reasons, some legit, some not. But i'd say that anyone interested in using CPU should probably look for a coin more profitable on CPU. Currently any GPU miners for spreadcoin are close to 100 times faster than CPU miners. |
|
|
|
There is a bounty of 3500SPR to break the no pool. Whoever has solid idea of how it can be done should try it out. Is a cycle that things are being built, being broken and then being built again. The MN codes that Mr. Spread is building is from scratch and not clone. Let him focus on that and someone else can try to break the no pool.
Well, I mean, ~1 BTC isn't much motivation for someone to actually go out and make a pool; talk, however, is cheap. Well, if someone actually makes it, and it works, he will profit from the pools fees, or whatever the means he chooses to make his profit. So that's not only the 1 BTC he will be after. |
|
|
|
Please forgive for being the last to catch on... But if we all appreciate the fact that the "no pools" aspect has served this coin well so far with decentralized mining and expulsion rate, can someone please tell me why we would bother trying to figure out how to pool mine it? Good point. Until now SPR is "no pool", if someone will make a public pool then perhaps SPR will find a way to avoid this. Precisely, there is no sign that SPR's decentralization is under threat yet. The world is moving forward everyday and there are so many more new things that can be implemented. It is best to leave "pool" issue as side note for the moment. Let Mr. Spread concentrate on implementing his version of MN and Instant Tx. Can't wait to participate in the next test. Well, i still think that no pools is much more important than masternodes, and that we need to think in advance in order to protect this feature, so trying to break it will tell us its weaknesses and allow us to improve on it and make it less likely to be broken. Constantly discussing it and thinking of ways someone might use to circumvent it and fixing it in advance (or at least having the solution figured out before the circumvention really happens, so it can be implemented and deployed quickly) is the best way to keep it secure. |
|
|
|
So, for a pool, I think what you would do is just have people send the BTC equivalent of one block's reward to the pool (which isn't much), then if the miner's steal the reward, the pool still retains their deposit so net miner gain is 0. You would have the miners themselves mine to their own pubkeyhashes, and you'd submit partial solutions to these blocks to the pool itself. When the miner gets a block, they would be given n many blocks to get the coinbase from their block to the pool to redistribute to the other miners. If they didn't return the reward to the pool, the pool would then just take their deposit and ban them.
So, I don't think there's a big issue with pooling, just a slightly more complicated implementation. There's a small associated cost with joining a pool, but it's not really much.
coinbase mature is 120 blocks, pool have to wait that time, before spend the block reward. a big miner can mine more blocks during this time, so every miner sould pay a bigger guarantee (60 spr for 10 blocks, 120spr for 20 block guarantee), do you think they will do this? Probably, yeah. Considering 100 SPR is only $6 USD and assuming that that majority of miners probably have a cheeseburger worth of funds to spare, it should be fine. I mean, reward is like 6.66 SPR, *= 120 blocks (worst case, extremely unlikely) is ~800 SPR. But if you have enough to get 100% of the network's blocks, why would you be on a pool? More likely case is that a big miner gets maybe 20% of the network... That's a deposit of ~160 SPR to prevent a large loss. you have to account for variance. There is a non-zero probability (sorry, i missed that class so i can't say exactly how much) that the miner with 20% of the hashrate gets 120 blocks in a row. If that happens and he steals, then your collateral wont cover it. |
|
|
|
So, for a pool, I think what you would do is just have people send the BTC equivalent of one block's reward to the pool (which isn't much), then if the miner's steal the reward, the pool still retains their deposit so net miner gain is 0. You would have the miners themselves mine to their own pubkeyhashes, and you'd submit partial solutions to these blocks to the pool itself. When the miner gets a block, they would be given n many blocks to get the coinbase from their block to the pool to redistribute to the other miners. If they didn't return the reward to the pool, the pool would then just take their deposit and ban them.
So, I don't think there's a big issue with pooling, just a slightly more complicated implementation. There's a small associated cost with joining a pool, but it's not really much.
You need 120 confirmations before spending the money, so your guy can steal 120 private keys in this meantime. Sou you should have a deposito for at least 120 * 6.66 = 799.2 SPR |
|
|
|
Maybe that is really the reason for all the FUDing in the other thread, some ruthless pool operators plan on running away with miners money
Nope, nowhere near enough money at stake. No, the real danger is that the approach proves basically successful and then gets adopted by other cryptocurrencies, in particular Bitcoin. Cheers Graham I agree. The Bitcoin pooled mining / cloud mining / ASIC manufacturer ecosystem is big business (in the context of cryptocurrencies anyway  ) and they don't want their income threatened by an approach that returns mining to it's original purpose. Spread's model doesn't do or claim to do - nor should it try - anything about large individual hashpower, but it certainly makes it a lot harder for middlemen to leech profits from the whole enterprise. You can make money with Spread if that is your goal, but to do so you need to actually support the currency with a longer term commitment than people to whom the word 'commitment' is an alien concept have the attention span for. Yes, as i said in the other thread, pools act like "cartels", controlling the flow of money without controlling the actual production (mining). What we are eliminating here is the cartels (that are commonly considered a bad thing in free market systems), not the big players (those are considered ok in any free market system). In the context of cryptocurrencies, cartels are even worse than in a regular market, since they need only control of 51% of the hashrate to control the whole market. |
|
|
|
What's you're definition of a pool?
Well, quite. Finally someone nails the key issue. The FUD posters want to redefine the term “pool” into private/public. It's being used by them as a spoiling tactic but there is a stronger argument to be made for the “No pools” statement: The principles underpinning cryptocurrency are complex and technical. This technical complexity is often (ab)used to mislead those with a shallow understanding of the principles. Spreadcoin's technical solution for rendering conventional poolmining uneconomic can be abused by unscrupulous operators to lure those with shallow models into joining pools and mining coins that are subsequently stolen from them by the means explicitly enabled in the solution. As a consequence, the tl;dr message cannot be anything other than the simplistic: “No pools”. It needs to make people think twice about any offer of commercial or private syndicated mining of SPR. Cheers Graham You can avoid the "what is a pool?" dilema by changing "no pools" to "solo mining only", since "private" pools are analogous to solo mining. But they would probably make a fuss about the wording anyhow. If you really want to make sure that everything is covered, keep the "no pool" in the title and just bellow it throw an explanation of what "no pools" means. Somethink like: [ANN] SpreadCoin | True Decentralization (No Pools**) | Testing New Masternodes
** By "no pools", we mean that pools are economically unprofitable since any miner can steal the mined coins (link to FAQ or whitepaper). There is no way to avoid anyone setting up a pool, but they will be constantly loosing money. So please, do not post claims of "i made a pool and proved you wrong": you are misinterpreting the meaning of "no pools", as explained above. |
|
|
|
Also, a true solo only coin would make it much more difficult for these large farms to come in and rape the coin.
So what you want is not to get rid of pools, but of large farms. In my opinion, this is bad, really bad. Borderline communist even. In capitalism, you try to avoid cartels and monopolies, not to forcefully redistribute riches in a "fair" way. In this context, pools are cartels that concentrate the hash power they do not own and put the whole market at risk! As with cartels, they do not control the money itself, but they have the power to decide who gets it. That's the bad thing about pools, if you believe in free markets, of course! You must be lost. I want a true solo only coin that can't be mined on pools. There is no way that you can keep large farms from mining coins with their hardware. But a true solo coin would make it so they couldn't point all their hash at one place. This is what you guys do, deflect and discredit. You are now trying to change the narrative and say that I'm not trying to get rid of pools but large farms. You then follow up with your propaganda and insert communism into the mix. Anything that you can do to change the narrative and and redirect the argument to discredit me. Go ahead and keep attacking me I don't care. The more you attack the more you reveal yourself. The method Mr. Spread used is the best you can come up with - at least without redesigning the whole PoW system. It has to be so anyone can mine, and if anyone can get work and submit work, multiple machines can. If you prohibit this in the daemon, someone will build a better daemon. What cannot be circumvented without a hard fork and everyone using a different client is the fact you must be able to spend the coinbase transaction to mine a Spread block. You are correct. This drama could have been ended with three words. Yes Pools Exist That's all that had to be said. Instead they went into denial mode. That showed that they were not being truthful. It's that simple. It's too bad all this drama had to happen because these guys would not simply admit that a pool existed. As with everything it's the cover up that causes the problem. It's the same with politics, business, and most other activities. Once they decided to double down and deny that a pool existed when in fact it did their credibility was shot. I'm sorry, but i haven't read the thread with the same eyes as you. I have seen several people explaining that yes, there are pools, but they did not defeat the purpose of decentralization since anyone of the mines could steal the profits from the pool, so they would never be able to grow. And then some people with big red letters started spamming like mad and all went to hell. I myself wrote several explanations about the pool thing, about the wild conspiracy theory againts wolf0 and about the "lost wallet" episode. Haven't seen anyone denying those things, only pissed off because "big red letters" would not stop repeating the same thing over and over, despite they all having being already addressed. |
|
|
|
Also, a true solo only coin would make it much more difficult for these large farms to come in and rape the coin.
So what you want is not to get rid of pools, but of large farms. In my opinion, this is bad, really bad. Borderline communist even. In capitalism, you try to avoid cartels and monopolies, not to forcefully redistribute riches in a "fair" way. In this context, pools are cartels that concentrate the hash power they do not own and put the whole market at risk! As with cartels, they do not control the money itself, but they have the power to decide who gets it. That's the bad thing about pools, if you believe in free markets, of course! You must be lost. I want a true solo only coin that can't be mined on pools. There is no way that you can keep large farms from mining coins with their hardware. But a true solo coin would make it so they couldn't point all their hash at one place. This is what you guys do, deflect and discredit. You are now trying to change the narrative and say that I'm not trying to get rid of pools but large farms. You then follow up with your propaganda and insert communism into the mix. Anything that you can do to change the narrative and and redirect the argument to discredit me. Go ahead and keep attacking me I don't care. The more you attack the more you reveal yourself. sorry, but acting like a victim here is not helping. I am not changing the narrative, simply i am explaining that you are looking for the wrong feature in this coin, and that the feature you are seeking are not in the spirit of free market economy. Please be aware that i am NOT one of the ones calling you FUDer or accusing you of anything, so you have NO REASON to be this aggressive in your answers. Now, re-read the post and you will see that there is no attack in it! it's a simple explanation about why pools are bad. I might have misunderstood your post. But I think you misunderstood me as well. I'll just leave it at that. It's been a long day. Drama here on the forums, had a cat give a litter of kittens, and the house across the street raided by the police. It's been one eventful day. Time for a couple of cold ones. cheers! And take good care of the kittens  We can continue the debate tomorrow, over a beer! |
|
|
|
pool-mining confirmed ,without doubt.
yes. And as stated before, this does not contradict the white-paper for this coin. So, no news here. |
|
|
|
Also, a true solo only coin would make it much more difficult for these large farms to come in and rape the coin.
So what you want is not to get rid of pools, but of large farms. In my opinion, this is bad, really bad. Borderline communist even. In capitalism, you try to avoid cartels and monopolies, not to forcefully redistribute riches in a "fair" way. In this context, pools are cartels that concentrate the hash power they do not own and put the whole market at risk! As with cartels, they do not control the money itself, but they have the power to decide who gets it. That's the bad thing about pools, if you believe in free markets, of course! You must be lost. I want a true solo only coin that can't be mined on pools. There is no way that you can keep large farms from mining coins with their hardware. But a true solo coin would make it so they couldn't point all their hash at one place. This is what you guys do, deflect and discredit. You are now trying to change the narrative and say that I'm not trying to get rid of pools but large farms. You then follow up with your propaganda and insert communism into the mix. Anything that you can do to change the narrative and and redirect the argument to discredit me. Go ahead and keep attacking me I don't care. The more you attack the more you reveal yourself. sorry, but acting like a victim here is not helping. I am not changing the narrative, simply i am explaining that you are looking for the wrong feature in this coin, and that the feature you are seeking are not in the spirit of free market economy. Please be aware that i am NOT one of the ones calling you FUDer or accusing you of anything, so you have NO REASON to be this aggressive in your answers. Now, re-read the post and you will see that there is no attack in it! it's a simple explanation about why pools are bad. |
|
|
|
I'm thinking of buying the optimized miner, making it public, and relaunching this coin with the miner available for everyone at launch.
The first order of business is making sure that it is solo only. And as far as I am concerned that should have been priority number one before myfarm got here and pushed his ponzinodes on everyone. I believe that a solo only coin is a winner. Something that anyone can mine and everyone has an equal chance to get coins. That was what I thought this coin was but then that changed and it got hijacked and turned into just another pump and dump by mrfarm after he bought up a huge percentage of available spreadcoin and then got the optimized miner for him and his buddies. His obvious pump and dump scheme was the last straw.
Anyone that wants to get involved and contribute let me know. We can get together on skype or pm me and work out details. The original concept of this coin was great. Unfortunately that greatness got overtaken by greed.
Lets make a real cryptocurrency for everyone where everyone is equal. Well at least as equal as can be. Nothing is ever going to be perfect but we can try.
Let me know.
Thanks
I hereby dub thee, "Aequitas Coin". Tip : Pools will become obsolete if/when the coin becomes the pool. "Communist Coin" might be a better name! But hey, that's your coin, call it whatever you want! |
|
|
|
The pool only has a few members in it. Owned by who? I'm going to guess that everyone in the pool is owned by the same person. (Because he can't steal from himself) Therefore the coin still remains deeply decentralized because pools like this could pop up everywhere! Meaning that only individual mining farms would be apart of the pool. (By the way creating your own pool would be entirely realistic for someone who owned a bitcoin farm)
Doesn't matter. The coin was marketed as solo only and pools exist. Now that isn't the entire issue. And it was an issue that could have been addressed and even overcome. The issue is the campaign that was launched to deny the fact and attack those that brought the issue to light. When you have the main people behind a coin denying the truth, lying, and using any means they can to suppress it then that tells you something about those people. It's sleazy and I've seen it done by these same people before. They'll get whatever btc they can out of the people that fall for their scheme and when they can't get anymore btc they move on. The architect of this is well known and has done the same thing before with numerous coins. Someone needs to stand up and call these guys out. If that has to be me then so be it. But I'll be damned if I'm going to just sit back and watch this crap go on without saying anything. I don't care if it costs me financially. I'll make that loss up by going to sleep at night knowing that I still have my integrity. Also, a true solo only coin would make it much more difficult for these large farms to come in and rape the coin. Spreadnodes, I think you've just got some serious beef with MyFarm, and you're using whatever you can to attack him. I don't know if he's this horrible person you say - but constantly bitching about the pool thing is simply being a pedantic cunt. Spreadcoin has the whitepaper, detailing exactly how it deters pools. Obviously, it cannot stop independent machines from hashing to one daemon and splitting the profit - but it achieves what it meant to, that is, discouraging the infestation of pools on a large scale like other coins. EDIT: I gotta say, though - MyFarm is just a little too eagerly invested in the coin, to me. I trust the fact more than so-called whitepaper. that's a problem, because the so called "fact" does not contradict the white paper nor the purpose of the coin. This is what people do not get! This is not a "communist" coin with equal share for everyone. This is a free market coin with a system to avoid cartels. If you read the white paper, you'd see that the system does allow for small pools if, and only if, everyone trusts everyone. So, you can believe in the facts AND in the white-paper, since they do not contradict each other! |
|
|
|
Also, a true solo only coin would make it much more difficult for these large farms to come in and rape the coin.
So what you want is not to get rid of pools, but of large farms. In my opinion, this is bad, really bad. Borderline communist even. In capitalism, you try to avoid cartels and monopolies, not to forcefully redistribute riches in a "fair" way. In this context, pools are cartels that concentrate the hash power they do not own and put the whole market at risk! As with cartels, they do not control the money itself, but they have the power to decide who gets it. That's the bad thing about pools, if you believe in free markets, of course! |
|
|
|
I think the translations of announcement should change the link of the original announcement for this one. What is the opnion of you? I apologize, but I'm not quite sure what you mean. Could you please elaborate? He means that there are several threads for spreadcoin on the subforums for other languages (he maintains the one in Portuguese, AFAIK, and there are others in russian, greek, etc...). He's is asking if the maintainers of those translated threads should update the links so they pint to this thread instead of the non-moderated one. I think that yes, he should update the links on the translated threads he maintains. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
