From the first page: Maximum BCC: 63,561,840
Block Time: 60 seconds
Block Reward: Pure POS now!
Difficulty Retarget: Every 10 blocks
POS: 15% (Stake Age - Min: 1 day, Max 180 days) From your daemon: getinfo >> "moneysupply" : 63080332.63962100 The difference between max BCC and current money supply is ~500k coins. The coin has been staking for ~6 months, so that means another 7.5% should be generated by next April? That would more than another 3M coins, right? That would be greater than the maximum number of coins? Is staking done after this year, and network relies on transaction fees only? I don't think the original "dev" was a dev at all, I seem to remember it was just a coingen coin that the "dev" paid someone to hack PoS into, and I'm not sure they did it in a way that the numbers on the ANN page conform to. Besides all the shitty launch and possibly messed up stake implementation, isn't pretty well agreed upon that pure PoS is not secure, and that's why the original PoS coin is actually a PoS/PoW hybrid (PPC) and also why Blackcoin had to move onto PoS 2.0 (whatever that means) and BTSX uses delegated PoS, etc...? |
|
|
|
|
BitcoinNational, why are you buying up this crappy coin with a checkered past? I seem to remember quite a bit of the premine went missing, so only a fraction went out with airdrop, and then there was incorrectly implemented proof-of-stake so that the staking yield was much higher than reported, and I think the max number of coins was also misleading. It's just a complete cluster. If you want BTCtalkcoin, why not just start a new one with an actual fair launch, and maybe that isn't 100% PoS?
|
|
|
|
I think the easiest and least confusing thing to do is just drop the percentages from the pie slices.
The sizes of the pie slices don't look right either, assuming the numbers are right. But who knows which is correct at this point. It's definitely related to the poor estimation of network hashrate from the diff (calculated either as diff/60e6 or diff/(60*1024*1024), in this case the latter). The sum of the pools queried comes out to be greater than the calculated network hashrate; here are the two numbers from a test I just ran: Network hashrate 17.314610274632773
Sum of pools 19.461517835617066 where network hashrate is calculated from diff and sum of pools is just the sum of all the pools self-reported hashrates. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this is. Just report the total network hashrate as the sum of all reporting pools? Figure out a more accurate way to calculate network hashrate from the diff? I'd be glad to hear any suggestions. I see. The self-reported hash rate is probably calculated over a different time window than the network difficulty (likely shorter, since the network difficulty uses 12 hours and that is pretty long for monitoring a pool). You'd likely have to figure out the time window used by the pool software and make your own estimate of the network hash rate based on the sum of block difficulties on the network during that time window. I think what I might do is just get rid of the network hashrate all together, and report a large pool pie chart with the sum of their hashrates and a small pool pie chart with the sum of their hashrates, and if they don't all sum up to the network hashrate...ohwells. That way everything is self-consistent at least. |
|
|
|
I think the easiest and least confusing thing to do is just drop the percentages from the pie slices.
The sizes of the pie slices don't look right either, assuming the numbers are right. But who knows which is correct at this point. It's definitely related to the poor estimation of network hashrate from the diff (calculated either as diff/60e6 or diff/(60*1024*1024), in this case the latter). The sum of the pools queried comes out to be greater than the calculated network hashrate; here are the two numbers from a test I just ran: Network hashrate 17.314610274632773
Sum of pools 19.461517835617066 where network hashrate is calculated from diff and sum of pools is just the sum of all the pools self-reported hashrates. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this is. Just report the total network hashrate as the sum of all reporting pools? Figure out a more accurate way to calculate network hashrate from the diff? I'd be glad to hear any suggestions. |
|
|
|
WTF?!
How does a simple percentage calculation like that get so messed up?
I think it's a combination of two things. One, the percent is calculated automatically by matplotlib and represents the pools % of hash among the large pools shown on that graph, not in relation to the total network hashrate (Edit: nevermind, this should be total network hashrate, I need some coffee, and will think about it more later...). The other thing is that for some reason the node-js pool software uses 1024 instead of 1000 to convert to kilo/mega hash, byte units instead of SI units? I didn't even know this was a thing. I think the easiest and least confusing thing to do is just drop the percentages from the pie slices. Edit2: It seems to be mostly related to a poor estimation of the network hashrate based on the diff. I've been calculation the network hashrate as diff/60e6, and this ends up where the sum of the sum of the pools is greater than this calculated number for network hashrate... |
|
|
|
You have to fix charts, 10MH is not 46% of 17.
This is a good point  I'll try and look at it today or tomorrow and then bug xnbya and PCFil if/when I figure it out... I think maybe it has to do with inaccurate network hash calculated from last pool queried reported diff. Anyway, it still gives a relative idea of where you should/should not send your hashes I think. |
|
|
|
You can always check pool hash distribution here ( http://minexmr.com/pools.html ) and here ( http://xmr.poolto.be/#alternative ). Here is a sample of the big pool distribution from the last 30 min (I think this image should stay up-to-date):  Please support one of these pools (minexmr.com or xmr.poolto.be) or another pool who you think is helping to support the network, not just the pool with the easiest to remember/type domain name  |
|
|
|
This market is in danger of de-listing due to low trade volume and lack of user interest. It may be removed on October 31st unless the average daily trade volume for the last 7 days exceeds 0.2 BTC. From bittrex.com I don't really use them at all, but heard this on their IRC channel, thought some people may be interested. |
|
|
|
My fellow Myrmidons! I feel like we need some marketing. For some reason people are not flocking to Myriad. We need to start talking about Myriad and spread the word.
Are you suggesting we go door-to-door like Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons, my fellow Myridian? Yes =I Put your shoes on and dress warm. I will give all my trick or treaters MYR instead of candy  They'll thank me later. Mebbe give them MYR+candy, otherwise they might just get mad  |
|
|
|
My fellow Myrmidons! I feel like we need some marketing. For some reason people are not flocking to Myriad. We need to start talking about Myriad and spread the word.
Are you suggesting we go door-to-door like Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons, my fellow Myridian? |
|
|
|
Does BBR have different blockchain file for 3 different OS?
I think kind of, yes. I believe it's related to the implementation of the boost serialization library, making them incompatible. Bytecoin has only one block chain. Of course any cryptocurrency has only one blockchain, it's just the format that it is stored in makes it incompatible between posix and windows operating systems. I think this is true of bytecoin as well, although I do know they made some changes so that block chain isn't stored in memory, maybe they changed this as well. |
|
|
|
A couple of questions:
1. Any news from Boris?
2. Any news from Boris?
From his profile page: Last Active: July 12, 2014, 09:59:05 PM I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to come back. Looks like he either lost interest in crypto, or maybe assumed different username. |
|
|
|
Thanks for nice words! Hope you guys get some fat tips You can also come on ##myriadcoin on freenode and beg for some tips from myrbot. |
|
|
|
Hey all. Got the wallet and everything set up, which is funny because thats the more difficult part, but I am having issues with tsiv's cryptonight fork on ccminer for 750ti's. Computers hangs upon starting, and nothing gets done.
I'm worried its a virtual memory thing; I think i remember seeing something about that, but I cannot find it now.
But my specs are
5x 750ti
650w psu
h81 btc pro mobo
4 gb ram
g320 Intel 3 ghz cpu
30 GB ready cache SD
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Windows or Linux? Also, which version of drivers? Maybe when you launch it only use one device (-d 0), to see if you can even get one up and running. |
|
|
|
Does BBR have different blockchain file for 3 different OS?
I think kind of, yes. I believe it's related to the implementation of the boost serialization library, making them incompatible. |
|
|
|
Every time I boot up the miner for Cryptonight, the entire system hangs on "stratum detected new block" I have: 5 PNY 750ti's 4 GB RAM 30 GB ready cache (my concern is that there is not enough VRAM) H81 BTC pro board 650w PSU I have the latest nvidia driver I can mine other algo's on ccminer, this is actually my first experience with ccminer and I like it a ton better than sgminer. Anyone out there experienced this issue? I think that tsiv's cryptonight miner doesn't work with the latest drivers, but I'm not 100% sure, I keep putting off updating... |
|
|
|
i just wonder the network hashrate minergate pool says our pool hashrate is 463khs http://bcn.extremepool.org/ hashrate is 250khs bytecoin.xminingpool.com/ hashrate is 49khs it makes totally 763 khs but network hashrate is 547khs wow someone lies but not sure who  Network hashrate is a trailing indicator that is calculated from the current diff. If a bunch of people jump on and start mining, it takes a little while for diff to catch up, so network hashrate can seem out of whack from the sum of the pools. I think this can seem especially pronounced when the total network hashrate is relatively small and it is being dominated by one pool (minergate). |
|
|
|
Does this really set Monero apart from other anon cryptocurrencies though? Both Monero and other anon cryptocurrencies ultimately do the same thing, transfer value anonymously, unless I'm mistaken. Also, Monero wasn't the first to do this so it doesn't get the advantage of being first like Bitcoin does.
What other coins offer anonymous transactions outside of cryptonotes? All I see are promises to implement something in the future, except for anoncoin, and their implementation seems to getting some pointed critiques. You're correct that Monero wasn't the first, Bytecoin was the first, but they had an effective 80%+ premine, making bitmonero/monero the first fairly launched and de facto first anonymous cryptocurrency, unless I'm mistaken. What about Darkcoin and Stealthcoin? Those are just two off the top of my head but I thought they had managed to achieve anonymity? As someone pointed out above, Darkcoin relies on masternodes to perform mixing. As they said, I don't think this technology has been reviewed by actual cryptographers, and another thing is this semi-centralized system puts forth an attack vector for malicious actors to focus their efforts on. I don't think Stealthcoin has actually implemented any real anonymous transactions. They were talking about using chandran signatures, but that seems to have been shot down by some people as not workable in the form they initially proposed. Actually Supercoin ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=736705.0) managed it. It's kind of a funny & sad story. The technology is there but marketing and communication from the dev side failed completely... Well, its about more than just advanced technology, Supercoin is currently looking for qualified Devs/Team to take over the project.... if on of you guys is interested Based on your link the anonymous send version of Supercoin is still closed source. How can anyone evaluate the technology if the devs are unwilling to show their code? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
