|
I'm waiting on word from mullick about the PoS fix....we'll hold off on the update until later when I get more details about the fix by mullick/Balthazar.
|
|
|
|
This should actually be added to the cryptogenicbulliond <commands>
My two year old laptop has been running nonstop for over a week and its cpu usage is currently at 1%. And it is unlocked and minting. Thanks for the suggestion, I dig it. We'll revamp the conventional way of doing things once we launch some project initiatives by next month. Right now we've got a bit of tunnel vision with these projects. Please bear with us... -Merc |
|
|
|
@MercSuey
Last days as I unlock wallet (windows binary), CPU usage goes to around 50% and client starts reacting very slowly. Few minutes later client is almost not responding and
walletlock command (as a way to stop PoS mining) I need to terminate process. Check it as you make an updated client...
Keep up good work guys.
I sent you a pm to get more details... or email me if you have any extra info that might be helpful: support@CryptogenicBullion.org |
|
|
|
@MercSuey
Last days as I unlock wallet (windows binary), CPU usage goes to around 50% and client starts reacting very slowly. Few minutes later client is almost not responding and
walletlock command (as a way to stop PoS mining) I need to terminate process. Check it as you make an updated client...
Keep up good work guys.
I'll keep an eye on it. Please let me know if there is any change in resource usage with updated client. But I'll start to research this now. -Merc |
|
|
|
I'm getting the error too. It only started after i encrypted my wallet? I restarted and the message was there.
It's fine, we'll update checkpoints with the updated client tonight anyways. |
|
|
|
At what block does reward half again ?
145,001 is first reward at 1.25 Thank you!! Less than 14,970 blocks till CGB reward drops from 2.5 to 1.25!!! Those of you auto-selling right now, should think of that too!!! I'm holding everything, for now. Indeed! We'll be finishing the next client update tonight when I get home. Updated seeder and checkpoints, among other little things... Cheers! -Merc |
|
|
|
I'm getting a warning on my qt client, it says checkpoint is too old, wait for blockchain to download or notify developers. My client is up to date with the blockchain, but the warning still comes up. Even after a restart
My clients don't show any warning. PM me with any changes you may have done, if any. I'll look into it. |
|
|
|
Yeah I emailed flound1129 last night and got a reply, to make sure I got the peers deleted and restarted. I was thinking it was someone trying to introduce false blocks or a false blockchain though, because the orphans were 19 minutes before the accepted block with the same number would be accepted. That just seems way to far ahead of the chain. Plus it was accepting the correct one's just solving the orphans first, so it had to be someone else with the fork.
We're going to try to get some nodes geographically closer to multipool. For whatever reason, multipool is getting peers data a bit later than other pools and it'll run off on its own chain for several blocks before rolling back blocks to get in sync. This is especially true when a sequence of PoS blocks happen. We don't see any issues with other pools. Perhaps this is a network topology issue, who knows? So we will try to help out flound and get some vps nodes near him so that peers data is getting to him with lower latency. But it's clear it's a peers data issue. EDIT: let me be clear that I'm a fan of multipool and I consider them an ally since the 1gh/s hashing they provide can help to counter a malicious hash spike, at least somewhat. So the sooner we get this done the better. |
|
|
|
Guys, Make sure your passwords on Cryptsy are at least 12 characters long and a mix of letters(lower case and upper case), numbers, special chars. The 2fa isn't going to do shit when it's known that the first three characters are alpha and the last three are numeric. I can literally brute force it in seconds. I'm sure there is a locking mechanism for too many failed attempts, but just in case that is bypassed then your only defense is a strong password. So don't lose your password. And do NOT use the same password on another site. Make sure it's unique. Rock on, CB community! -Merc Brute force attack definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_attack |
|
|
|
|
No, you are definitely not the only one thinking along the lines that gpu mining just might not be worth it by year's end.
Hence why CGB has accelerated PoW subsidy halving. And we'll be experimenting in testnet as strictly a PoS blockchain. Yes, there are potential DOS issues with PoS, but we're researching the possibility of different solutions. Because we'd like to get rid of PoW altogether, especially with respect to energy efficiency. This was the plan from the start. We just have to tweak the math (among other things) so we can assure a lower bound on the number and frequency of PoS blocks in the future. And this is exactly why we are marketing CGB as a value preserving/interest bearing 'investment' vehicle, which can be used as a currency. We never once tried to be an all-knowing-all-seeing currency to displace Bitcoin or USD.
In my humble opinion, scrypt-only coins will survive by true supporters willing to take a loss from electricity in order to secure the blockchain. But in general, scrypt-only coins are in trouble.
-Merc
|
|
|
|
|
A couple blocks confirmed and there's 10 confirms on 127,641. So it looks like you're okay now.
|
|
|
|
Multipool getting lots of orphans.. Possible fork?
I sent you an email over an hour ago...YOUR pool is forked. Smalltimeminer and others are fine. |
|
|
|
I'll add a link to my poolside where cryptopcs and crypto nerd is linked
Okay  |
|
|
|
Greetings! Some updates:We welcome coingas.com and cryptosextoys.com to the CGB family! We are also looking forward to picking our partnership winners at year's end, announced here first: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=295534.msg3171405#msg3171405Client update imminent, with checkpoint update, among other things... Marketing update:We decreased our Facebook budget and consequently increased our Google Adwords budget. Google adwords saw record clicks this week, with yesterday breaking the 1000 clicks mark.  Facebook likes continues to be steady at about 100 per day and we're about to reach the 8000 mark.  Subsidy halves in less than two weeks. I thought it'd be sooner but the rate of blocks slowed a bit since my last calculation. Project development continues and we're hard at work to change the paradigm of what it means to be a virtual commodity/currency. More details to follow in the next few weeks. Cheers! -Merc Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cryptogenic-Bullion/134177020124803Follow us on Twitter: @CryptogenicBull Visit us for more info at: http://CryptogenicBullion.org |
|
|
|
Okay, great. My issue is the economic assumptions you have made, based on my own experience in the industry. Isn't it always the 'economic assumptions' that are blamed when a model blows up in the end? But you address it below...and I'll take a closer look at the white paper, thanks for the link. It is an exercise in mechanism design and some theory explained in the paper above. This said, we are making economic assumptions in some cases about the nature of the market pegs and thus are launching a TestNet first to test our ideas. Bounties can create market incentives to break the system if possible. Again, we are not premining nor accepting anyone's money other than our VC partners. The TestNet does not contain real money. So we are basically being attacked for running an experiment with our own money.
Launching it this way seems very necessary, given the assumptions made. This is good. First let's agree this could be better stated
revision: (By the way, my profile is publicly available on the CB website. I wasn't being an internet tough guy at all. Lets view this as an exercise in testing integrity....because this forum can really suck sometimes, and completely new ideas can immediately seem dishonest.) ...be forced to answer my question in public on October 3rd in Atlanta. Second, I agree about scams in this market, which is why from day one we started this process with principles:
(1) Don't premine BitShares
(2) Test everything in the open domain
(3) Build the communication and reputation system first in the event we need to adopt a better exchange model
Point (3) was why I was looking forward to seeing how your project turns out....the industry as a whole needs better exchange model(s). Our goal is to build a prediction market that serves as a decentralized p2p exchange for all cryptocurrencies and an effective way to facilitate fiat to CC transactions. Should the BitShares standard fail, the infrastructure we have built can adopt a different implementation. This is why I take such enormous umbrage to these allegations. They are both misguided and fundamentally dishonest. Our company is trying to build several extremely complex products and we are doing it off of our own money and time in the open domain.
In all honesty, cunicula annoys the shit out of me. But there is still the issue of how well can your testnet experiment stress the model. Just because it passes your tests doesn't mean the potential for extremes is nonexistent. My questions at C3 were going to be with regards to HOW you were going to test/simulate market extremes. And how well will the mining process financially justify (or 'backs' the bitAssets, to use cunicula's verbiage) market action at these extremes. Because lets face it, every model that blew up passed some kind of initial testing. |
|
|
|
I'd suggest you answer cunicula's questions with great care now...or be forced to answer my question in public on October 3rd in Atlanta. First stop propagating the meme:  Second, we shouldn't wait until C3. Please shoot me a pm and I'll send you my skypeID and we can discuss this at length. BitShares has yet to be released as a product. The TestNet has yet to be released. The whitepaper update has yet to be released. And yet we are a ponzi scheme because we propose sharing the inflation produced from coinbase transactions with BitShares holders? Maybe I'm missing his point, but dividends do not come from thin air. They are produced from the mining and transaction process and serve as an incentive to save in the system. In order to preserve a sum zero system, someone has to receive the Bitshares dividends from the units held in collateral for a BitAsset. We made a design decision to pay these to the BitAsset holder. There is still volatility that could result in a BitAsset holder losing money similar to a T-Bill holder losing money. So again, either he doesn't understand our system or he is spreading FUD to promote his own product. Also we don't have a premine, we have invested a massive amount of time in building several derivative technologies like our ID and anonymous communication system and we are planning on releasing a TestNet with fake BitShares to test our economic assumptions first. So where is the fucking Ponzi? Wouldn't it be discovered with the TestNet? How does my company value from a bad product? Everything we do is open sourced. Every idea we generate, we vet in the open domain. This has got to stop. You are moving into the domain of slander and have attacked the work of many passionate people trying to build something innovative and cool while also trying to raise 300k for your own idea, Cunicula. I do not see any mention of mining in cunicula's post, perhaps I missed it... But, is there a system in place to assure no extreme deviation occurs in accumulating bitBTC versus the rate of minting for dividends? In other words, you cannot control the open market activity. But can mining properly correlate with market activity? Is there a white paper with technical details? (By the way, my profile is publicly available on the CB website. I wasn't being an internet tough guy at all. But scams are a common occurrence in the alt coin world, especially lately, and I've lost my patience. Maybe it's just this forum, I don't know.) |
|
|
|
Or when you say someone is forced to cover, are you essentially saying that more capital will flow into the ponzi to prevent the bitBTC from devaluing. And if so what happens when the capital stops flowing in?
Anyways, whatever you plan to do violates basic economic theory of foreign exchange markets.
The additional collateral is put upfront... not after the fact. Margin is called long before there is insufficient collateral. This is not a foreign exchange market, it is a prediction market. It works just like the prediction markets for president, sporting events, etc with the only difference being that it is continuous and the market players have access to far more information. If you understand prediction markets and created a prediction market for the price of BTC vs USD based entirely on 'play money' it would be very accurate and you could accumulate 'play money' by investing wisely in this market. If you replace the 'play money' with a crypto currency then the play money might gain value on its own. You cannot rename your market and expect different economic behavior because of the name change. If you are going to have storable, exchangable units of value, then you are going to have to accept that it is a monetary market. If you are going to offer interest on these storable, exchangable units of value, then you are going to have to accept that this has implications for relative prices. If it turns out I can't store them (because you confiscate them from me when I try [either all or in part]), well that changes things. Once you start confiscating my bitBTC, you have more latitude to achieve other aims. Including a stable peg btw. This is why I keep asking you to answer whether "savers'" bitBTC accounting entries can be involuntarily adjusted in response to price movements. It is kind of important to understand this, no? People would really want to know that you plan to confiscate their BTC before they agree to use your system right? It is kind of fraud if you don't let in on this possibility, isn't it? I have no need to confiscate BitBTC because shorts have financial incentive to cover it or they will lose money. The shorts are the only ones that face a margin call. I'd suggest you answer cunicula's questions with great care now...or be forced to answer my question in public on October 3rd in Atlanta. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
