Generally Bad Items(tm) Which You Shouldn't Do
* Centralize and/or close source anything. Cyrptocurrency means P2P and open source
I agree with you on everything except sentences above. All important and mission-critical software and hardware on this planet is centralized and closed source. The majority of servers and supercomputers in existence run Free Open Source Software. Open source software is more secure than closed source software |
|
|
|
I see
it's not the at launch/early hashrate i was concerned about, i am more thinking on the long term, gpu mining for many days, weeks, months while everyone else is on cpus.
but maybe it is still quite resistant to gpus being that great even if you can get them to work
This part we don't know yet. At least the developer of Reaper (mtrlt) reported decreases in GPU hash rate roughly proportional to decreases in everyone else's CPU hash rates as N started to increase. It's a little too early to tell what the situation will be when N starts getting high and both GPU's and CPU's are increasingly falling back to external memory (since the TMTO related to lookup gap only improves things to a point, which is why everyone gets faster hash rates on Litecoin with a lookup gap of 2 rather than 4, for example). Future prevalence of GPU mining of YAC is probably going to depend on what exchange rates do, and whether N rises enough to whack GPU hash rates (for anyone that actually did succeed in making a good implementation with decent hash rates) while it is still more profitable to mine other coins with GPU's. Small arms race, perhaps. Right now, I'd bet on buying YAC cheap on Bter if someone is betting YAC will rise significantly in price later on, rather than tying up GPU's that could be mining Litecoin instead. I only implemented OpenCL for YAC at N=32, and haven't bothered trying for other N values. So, unfortunately I don't have good benchmark data for falloff of GPU hash rates as N increases. I've gone on record several times in saying that YAC's N started too low at launch though. I would've started N significantly higher than 32. As a result, I pulled off an FPGA implementation that performed rather well at N=32, but became iffy at N=64 and couldn't be placed'n'routed by the Xilinx tools at all for N=128. You were able to make an FPGA design for Scrypt(N=32,64)? How did it work? |
|
|
|
However I think that scrypt() idea is fundamentally bad. It sounds like it will be another litecoin scrypt() cgminer gpu catastrophe.
I would not be surprised if people, maybe even many people independently, have forked and created their own cgminer in secret which is capable of utilizing GPUs, giving them several order of magnitude advantage over everyone else.
or am i wrong? even the devs seem to say it is possible. simply saying "well the code doesn't work right now" is not going to prevent someone from doing it. and it's much, much faster. if the coin has/had any worth it will be done
Given that the exact hashing algorithm (substitution of chacha20/8 in place of scrypt20/8, and Kekkac512 in place of SHA256) was a surprise to everyone at the coin's launch, there was a period of time where CPU mining would have had to be dominant. The lion's share of YAC was mined during the first day by CPU's. The author of Reaper (whose OpenCL kernel for mining Litecoin was later lifted for cgminer, BTW, so cgminer wasn't the original), mtrlt, reports needing about 13.5 hours of work to get Reaper going with any sort of hash rate that had a noteworthy advantage, and he also reports having had a late start. Probably few people would've been able to implement it faster than the person who wrote the OpenCL kernel just about everyone mining scrypt coins with GPU's is using. So, it's probably reasonable to assume that GPU mining of YAC has a high probability of having been entirely CPU for the first 13.5 hours, with a fair probability it was around day 2 before anyone had a GPU implementation up and running (given that most other people attempting it likely would've taken longer than mtrlt). I did it in 8 hours but ended up with hash rates on a 6950 not much above my dual Xeon E5450 servers, so I didn't bother pursuing GPU mining YAC further. It appears low hash rate results were common among the people that did attempt OpenCL implementations, as most of us aren't as good at optimizing OpenCL in "thinking outside the box" ways like mtrlt. So, just my humble guess is that GPU implementations probably started occurring around day 2, with many poorly optimized versions not giving much advantage over CPU's, so I'd consider those a wash. Until people speak up with more data, we don't know for sure that anyone other than mtrlt managed to achieve significant hash rates for GPU mining of YAC. There could be, and it's also possible there weren't. Time will tell, probably. I've heard it's possible and that at least one forum user had a working implementation after a couple weeks, but AFAIK all of the 23 days since the coin's creation, save for the first hours (and by several people's experiences CPU mining the first 8 hours, it didn't seem like there was anyone GPU mining at that point), it's been more profitable to GPU mine about any other GPU coin rather than YAC.
My GPU's are happily mining LTC, if anyone is curious. And I'm one of the few that have admitted to having a GPU implementation of scrypt+chacha20/8+Keccak512(N,1,1), albeit producing nowhere near the hash rates that mtrlt, the author of Reaper, reported. As I understand it, if YAC's price rises there may a window of GPU mining being profitable, till N increases so much it becomes too memory heavy for GPUs again. I don't have the theoretical knowledge to assess this, though.
Incidentally, exchange price has remained so low for the whole first month that anyone could buy easily as many as the top hasher can mine
+1, I've bought far more YAC than I mined. And I seem to be someone people point at as having mined a lot of YAC (I'm not so sure, I've seen in the YAC block explorer what the people who were CPU mining right from the coin's launch raked in). I see it's not the at launch/early hashrate i was concerned about, i am more thinking on the long term, gpu mining for many days, weeks, months while everyone else is on cpus. but maybe it is still quite resistant to gpus being that great even if you can get them to work |
|
|
|
Distributed p2p domain system:Namecoin -- 2012(?) 2011 - Oldest Altcoin? indeed, i found some more reading on github, updated the dates and order and added the link. i also dropped the premined coin sections - frankly there's too many damn coins to list there. the very few ones that were novel AND premined are listed in their novel section with a disclaimer they were premined and thus dead. BitBar - Scrypt - Hybrid proof-of-work/proof-of-stake and a fast, continuous difficulty and reward calculation.
Scrypt and hybrid PoW/PoS were already implemented prior to Bitbar, i will look if there is a novel method in their diff/reward calc |
|
|
|
Litecoin isn't the "gold standard" for scrypt. Fairbrix was the first non-premined scrypt coin, Litecoin just copied it and changed the name.
updated Coins which use a novel POW:Bitcoin -- 1/3/09 -- SHA256 originator and novel in nearly every regard. Gold standard Tenebrix -- 9/26/11 -- Scrypt originator. Was premined and thus died off. Fairbrix -- 10/2/11 -- Scrypt. Initial launch crippled by bad config. Second launch attacked. These problems led to its demise. Litecoin -- 10/9/11 -- Scrypt Current Gold standard for scrypt and altcoins. Avoided problems of Tenebrix and Fairbrix PPCoin -- 8/19/12 -- Hybrid proof-of-work/proof-of-stake YAC -- 5/5/13 -- SHA3-512 instead of SHA2-256. Cacha replaces Salsa. scrypt(N,1,1), N increases over time. |
|
|
|
Centralized systems are anathema to the purpose of cryptocurrencies. So is closed source software
I understand your point of view, but such philosophical arguments don't affect the success of a coin. It's like saying "don't write closed source software, it's bad", that's not going to change anything. Almost all the currencies currently in use are centralized, and before bitcoin there was some research on p2p currencies with limited degree of centralization, say just for registering new users and exchanging coins for other currency. This was all called "cryptocurrency" as well. I think you are biased by bitcoin here. Nothing is wrong with any reward whatsoever. Reward is just the payment for supporting the network. It may be that if the network grows its value also grows, and there will be no inflation. You're just assuming very simple models here by saying it's bad.
What are you referring to here? I don't think i said "any rewards are bad". But early rewards are a serious problem for coin launches now. To the "inflationary reward" remark. I don't think it's easy to predict what kind of reward will lead to inflation, that's all. What's wrong about deals with the exchanges? I really don't even understand your motivation for that one.
Almost every time i have seen people wanting to get their coin onto an exchange ASAP so they can dump it. They have no interest in using or holding the coin itself. Almost always goes together with the above point for early miners / premining / etc. Yes, but it's this behavior, this attitude which is at fault here. Of course, if the creators don't have any interest in the coin, it's doomed, independently of whether it hits the exchanges. By Inflationary reward i mean literally that the reward for blocks inflates, or goes up over the long term. Not like the 2->4->10->15->20 or whatever progression used for the first few days to combat early / premining. I meant like, if the bitcoin block reward doubled instead of halving. It should either stay the same or decrease. I don't have anything against centralized systems per say, of course most existing institutions and systems are such. but discussion and creation of them is meant for another forum. cyptocurrency as we use it inherently means that it is decentralized and open source. It would be like writing some closed source Open Source Software. contradiction in terms. |
|
|
|
crossposting This is a very bad idea. You have just introduced another litecoin cgminer gpu catastrophe
I would not be surprised if people, maybe even many people independently, have forked and created their own cgminer in secret which is capable of utilizing GPUs, giving them several order of magnitude advantage over everyone else.
Actually, this is already happening. I've seen 3 people posting they have working opencl kernels (two of them had relatively low hashrates, the third one claims to be the dev of the Reaper litecoin gpu miner and has hashrates in the Mh/s range). |
|
|
|
Nothing is wrong with centralization. Centralized systems are much more secure in many ways.
Centralized systems are anathema to the purpose of cryptocurrencies. So is closed source software Nothing is wrong with unbounded number of coins. Indeed it's the bound which is arbitrary and requires justification.
Agreed, removed that from OP. I could add something to the list of coins if there's a novel one that uses inflationary or infinite coins, but i don't know which came first for that. Nothing is wrong with any reward whatsoever. Reward is just the payment for supporting the network. It may be that if the network grows its value also grows, and there will be no inflation. You're just assuming very simple models here by saying it's bad.
What are you referring to here? I don't think i said "any rewards are bad". But early rewards are a serious problem for coin launches now. What's wrong about deals with the exchanges? I really don't even understand your motivation for that one.
Almost every time i have seen people wanting to get their coin onto an exchange ASAP so they can dump it. They have no interest in using or holding the coin itself. Almost always goes together with the above point for early miners / premining / etc. |
|
|
|
Junkcoin introduced the concept of "random" (albeit still deterministic) bonus blocks for miners. I think it deserves an honorable mention for that
Adding |
|
|
|
This is a very bad idea. You have just introduced another litecoin cgminer gpu catastrophe
I would not be surprised if people, maybe even many people independently, have forked and created their own cgminer in secret which is capable of utilizing GPUs, giving them several order of magnitude advantage over everyone else.
Actually, this is already happening. I've seen 3 people posting they have working opencl kernels (two of them had relatively low hashrates, the third one claims to be the dev of the Reaper litecoin gpu miner and has hashrates in the Mh/s range). So.. 174 pages. Surely someone pointed this out and brought it to the dev's attention? |
|
|
|
This is good, this is bad...
That’s just like, your opinion, man. You are trying to enforce all altcoins to be copies of bitcoin. Different hash/encryption algorithm is no innovation, if the base software was any good that could be achieved by changing a single line of code. "Bad" list is mostly just your bad feelings. Edit : Good point, i looked back and removed the 'inflationary / infinite reward' from OP. While i'm sure that the community strongly distlikes these things, and a coin with them will probably fail because of it, it's not as bad as the other things, which i think everyone can agree on should not be in a legit altcoin. But if you're talking about the list in the 2nd post -- i don't say anything there is good or bad. |
|
|
|
How do you not add Freicoin into this >.>
this is very much a work in progress. i'm adding it next ... edit: does anyone have a link to an official bitcointalk on freicoin? I haven't found one thus, just one on the crowdfunding and some other pre-release work. |
|
|
|
YAC's POW innovations: - SHA3 (Keccak512) instead of SHA256
- Chacha instead of Salsa in scrypt
- scrypt(N,1,1) instead of scrypt(1024,1,1)
Interesting, i will add it as novel However I think that scrypt() idea is fundamentally bad. It sounds like it will be another litecoin scrypt() cgminer gpu catastrophe. I would not be surprised if people, maybe even many people independently, have forked and created their own cgminer in secret which is capable of utilizing GPUs, giving them several order of magnitude advantage over everyone else. or am i wrong? even the devs seem to say it is possible. simply saying "well the code doesn't work right now" is not going to prevent someone from doing it. and it's much, much faster. if the coin has/had any worth it will be done |
|
|
|
Hello!
Using scrypt(N, 1, 1) means that only solo cpu mining will work until someone will fork mining pool software or implement GPU miner. All existing miners (cpuminer, cgminer, reaper etc) aren't compatible. Yacoin Qt-wallet or daemon are to be used for mining.
The core idea is that we have to use and to try different hash algos to make cryptofinances more secure and stable.
This is a very bad idea. You have just introduced another litecoin cgminer gpu catastrophe I would not be surprised if people, maybe even many people independently, have forked and created their own cgminer in secret which is capable of utilizing GPUs, giving them several order of magnitude advantage over everyone else. |
|
|
|
You may want to add something about bounties. I personally do not like them due to the somewhat necessary condition of pre-mining but you can decide for yourself.
Which bounties though? I am not as familar with them I mean, anyone can put a bounty down for any purpose. I think if the developer puts a bounty for an exchange this is bad bounty for services which use the coin.. maybe also bad bounty for pools or block explorers or things like that.. maybe not as bad In my opinion, any altcoin launch now needs to use a low reward for the initial day or two of mining to prevent absurd # of coins and to combat the massive sudden influx onto the mining network that all coins get. this means that sure, the developer could put a bounty up, but the only way he would have a bunch of coins is if he legitimately had some 10,20,50 MH/sec running on the network for a day. And that is going to be worth coins and $ no matter what network you have it on. This is what i put at the moment * Low reward at start to offset 'premining' and early hash power consolidation which leads to orphan-mania. Based on how much hash power gets thrown at basically any coin when it launches, you probably cannot combat the orphan rate, but you can minimize the absurdity of how many coins they can farm. Also reduces problem of mining large numbers of coins early to bribe people with bounties unfairly. Bounties should require honest work and hashrates to achieve, just like on a mature network like current BTC/LTC
|
|
|
|
Coins which have actually tried something fundamentally new, for better or worse. In order of their introduction.
Coins which use a novel POW:
Bitcoin - SHA256 originator
Litecoin - Scrypt originator
PPCoin - Proof of Stake
Distributed p2p domain system:
Namecoin
Coins which have used ascending rewards to mitigate premining/early mining of the network:
Nibble
Digicoin
Devcoin & Freicoin both tried something fundamentally new. Those two should be in your list, while Litecoin shouldn't be there. I do not agree. Devcoins and Freicoins are novel but i feel they were going the wrong way. With Devcoins you were pretty much mining for 10% profitability. I would say that Devs deserve some payment for their work but 90%? With Freicoins I feel that the economic philosophy is quite worthless (as the coin) when you need buy something to keep its value. In the beginning there would be virtually nothing to buy and there is no easy way to save money. For the list in the second post, I want to only list coins either with a novel invention, or a coin which used that novel invention and is the popular version of it (like litecoin and scrypt, because TBX was premined for 7.7M coins by Lolcust Feel free to discuss/debate if the novel invention is actually a good,great,bad,awful idea, but i'd like to organize them at least |
|
|
|
Really? I wonder why TBX has died off and LTC has taken its place. Perhaps the faster block time motivated people to use it (not that it is actually inherently better, but people like it.)
Wasn't TBX premined? OP of litecoin thread indicates that. I will also add a list of premined coins |
|
|
|
Coins which have actually tried something fundamentally new, for better or worse. In order of their introduction.
Coins which use a novel POW:
Bitcoin - SHA256 originator
Litecoin - Scrypt originator
PPCoin - Proof of Stake
Distributed p2p domain system:
Namecoin
Coins which have used ascending rewards to mitigate premining/early mining of the network:
Nibble
Digicoin
Devcoin & Freicoin both tried something fundamentally new. Those two should be in your list, while Litecoin shouldn't be there. Devcoin redistributes 90% of block rewards to open source developers which are earmarked by the devcoin developers themselves, right? Freicoin.. what do they do again, take coins from people with them and redistribute? I added tenebrix and a disclaimer to litecoin. also dates & thread links, but i used the OP of their threads, genesis block would be more accurate. if anyone has those i will add. |
|
|
|
Litecoin - Scrypt originator
TBX is scrypt originator, LTC is just a copy. Really? I wonder why TBX has died off and LTC has taken its place. Perhaps the faster block time motivated people to use it (not that it is actually inherently better, but people like it.) ArtForz.. did he have something to do with cgminer getting --scrypt? the name sounds familar i'll edit my post to add TBX and a disclaimer to LTC |
|
|
|
|
digitalcoin launched with an ascending block reward to combat premining.
i dont recall exactly but diff=1 is extremely difficult to mine the genesis block without a massive gpu cluster. i think the developer realized this and created his ascending (something like 4->7->10->13->20[current block reward]) method to accomodate this and mitigate premining.
If anything it deserves to be in "new" and worldcoin should be in "spam"
and the launch on the 20th was announced several days ahead of time, it was not 'sudden'
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
