 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »
|
Anyone could make a windows miner?
Please!
God all these windows users always crying about someone spoonfeeding them stuff. Its a good thing for you people feel bad for windows users and compile stuff for you. One thing that's for sure nobody compiles the windows binaries actually uses windows as their OS. |
|
|
|
There's no point for a private key if everybody has it. It'd be the same as if there's no key at all. Then the question is: should a node just blindly trust whatever block other nodes give them? That seems like a bad idea to me.
Why does it have to be a single signature, why can't it be the signature that just won the block so each time the signer would change? So you want people to trust the miner when he says he made a legit block? No conflict of interest there at all... What are you talking about? Any node can claim a winning block and then other nodes will reject if it's not actually valid so what is difference to do it for verifying previous hashes. In this case the winning node is also at risk of losing his full block reward. |
|
|
|
I think in the end you will still have to invent a way for the nodes to trust each other so as to be sure about what is valid and what is invalid. I'm not sure this is possible by re-using the keypair that is used for signing/verifying the hashes, unless I am missing something here...
Why not? Well, I'm not saying it can't be used for node verification. But which nodes would have the authority to ban other nodes for distributing hashes with invalid signatures? 1) If you go ahead with a centralized infrastructure with 10-20 signing nodes (only those have the private key), then this problem is solved, as long as those signing nodes can be fully protected. Seems like this would already work as-is, sunny would just have to run more nodes with the private key or give the private key to other people. 2) On the contrary, if you go ahead with a decentralized infrastructure, aka distribute the private key to all clients & nodes so they are all signing nodes, a client can still verify the signed hashes using the relevant public key and tell if the node is distributing valid hashes or not. Problem in this case is which nodes would have the authority to ban invalid nodes. As I see it, you need a second layer of trust or a type of voting system, with which a node gets banned if it gets 10 negative votes from clients or something like that. There's no point for a private key if everybody has it. It'd be the same as if there's no key at all. Then the question is: should a node just blindly trust whatever block other nodes give them? That seems like a bad idea to me. Why does it have to be a single signature, why can't it be the signature that just won the block so each time the signer would change? |
|
|
|
I think in the end you will still have to invent a way for the nodes to trust each other so as to be sure about what is valid and what is invalid. I'm not sure this is possible by re-using the keypair that is used for signing/verifying the hashes, unless I am missing something here...
Why not? Well, I'm not saying it can't be used for node verification. But which nodes would have the authority to ban other nodes for distributing hashes with invalid signatures? 1) If you go ahead with a centralized infrastructure with 10-20 signing nodes (only those have the private key), then this problem is solved, as long as those signing nodes can be fully protected. 2) On the contrary, if you go ahead with a decentralized infrastructure, aka distribute the private key to all clients & nodes so they are all signing nodes, a client can still verify the signed hashes using the relevant public key and tell if the node is distributing valid hashes or not. Problem in this case is which nodes would have the authority to ban invalid nodes. As I see it, you need a second layer of trust or a type of voting system, with which a node gets banned if it gets 10 negative votes from clients or something like that. Let's say the node with the winning block is the signer of verifying the previous hashes. When the node attempts to relay the information not only is his winning block invalid because the signature for verifying the hashes are invalid but also by default all nodes receiving invalid info will be default block the IP address of any node trying to send or relay invalid hashes. Am I missing something? |
|
|
|
And could someone bring me a ShinyCoin Wallet?
Can't find a place to download
win 64
Its on the opening post ... Windows binaries |
|
|
|
I think in the end you will still have to invent a way for the nodes to trust each other so as to be sure about what is valid and what is invalid. I'm not sure this is possible by re-using the keypair that is used for signing/verifying the hashes, unless I am missing something here...
Why not? |
|
|
|
The solution I found is to assign a hash-signing private key. The node who owns this key verifies that the ramhog hash for a particular block is accurate, and then signs it. Any node that trusts that key uses the signed hash instead of computing it itself. All nodes propagate these signed hashes so that they are easily accessible.
Some quick questions. Sorry if I am missing something here: Is there one hash-signing private key shared by all nodes (A) or each node generates its own priv key (B) or is there a single node with the capability to sign (the only node with the priv key) (C)? In case A: What would happen if someone infected the network with many nodes using a different priv key? In case B: Shouldn't there be a web of trust for all those priv/pub keypairs? I guess this web of trust should be built outside of the p2p network. Each node should sign the public keys of the nodes it trusts. In case C: Doesn't such a centralized infrastructure make the network vulnerable to ddos attacks? After reading more carefully, I think there is one node with signing capability (has the priv key). Making it decentralized would be complicated. Here is a quick idea how it could be possible. We would have to utilize two keypais, one used to verify hash signatures and another used to verify nodes. So: Keypair A privA: (not secret, shared by all nodes, used to sign hashes) pubA: (not secret, shared by all nodes and clients, used to verify hash signatures created by privA) Keypair B privB: (TOP SECRET, used to sign the pubA of nodes OFFLINE) pubB: (not secret, shared by all nodes and clients, used to verify signed pubAs) So, before a hash is accepted by a client as trusted, the chain of verifications would be: 1. client uses public key B (pubB) to verify the signature on public key A (pubA) of the node, which has been created by private key B (privB). => Success -> node is a trusted node of the network. In other words, the node's pubA is verified as authentic. 2. client uses public key A (pubA) to verify the hash signature created by private key A (privA) => Success -> hash is trusted The big problem is where private key B should be hidden safely. This key is the root of all trust in the network. Anyway, just an idea. Written quite fast. I hope I haven't written anything stupid. Corrections are welcome. The hash signing can happen anywhere (unknown to an attacker) and there can be more than one hash signing node using the same privkey to sign, so DDoS doesn't seem to be the issue. If you're going to have an algorithm that takes forever to verify and now you're taking shortcuts something has to be relied upon to verify for you. Maybe have all the active nodes sign, and have the nodes instant-ban a node that signs something invalid. The default ban times on shiny are very harsh so someone would need many unique IP addresses to even mildly annoy the network for a very short period of time. It would be better if there was a financial penalty for signing something invalid but I'm not sure how something like that can be implemented. Maybe each block the winner gets to sign, and forfeits his block reward (and gets banned) if his hash verification is invalid. |
|
|
|
|
Oh primer devalues coins and annoys their devs for a living. Not surprised.
|
|
|
|
|
How about everyone on this thread yell at primer to cheer sunny up.
|
|
|
|
Lets say i have 8000 shinys in my wallet, all mined over a week ago. What is the PoS reward when i hit a block ?
There is no proof of stake yet, starts much later. |
|
|
|
{
"blocks" : 1677,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.00003282,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : true,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespermin" : 0,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false
}
how come the diff is still so low? You are joking right ? I have not hit a single block in hours (690 hashes/m) Everyone should understand now that anything primer types in this thread is designed to discourage others from mining. I'd bet my left testicle he's lying about not getting a block in however long. I don't have too much hash power (nothing close to 690h/m) and it hasn't been bad. Primer is a greedy mother f***er and doesn't understand that if you have all the coins its not worth anything, and that its better for as many people as possible to mine. |
|
|
|
i had mined for two days, get nothing just cost my money  That's why a pool would be nice, but I don't think all the bugs have been worked out yet. |
|
|
|
How do I join pool? Had wallet open for more than a day now, no blocks.
Before primer propagandizes you into not wanting to mine just download standalone miner (link at top) and ask sandor111 how to point your hash power there. The hash power on network is climbing so its getting tough. |
|
|
|
Difficulty is now 0.00002723, almost x3 what it was couple hours ago. All time high.
EDIT : "difficulty" : 0.00003277
Primer are you seruously still trying to convince people not to mine? |
|
|
|
Still no blocks on that pool... Has the miner been fixed?
says they have. I hope it for this time - I will give this coin one more try and point a few machines on the pool today. I wasted much hash last weekend in non working combinations to mine this shiny shine. The hash power of network must be high. I have a lot of computers pointed and only got two blocks in last 24 hours. Would be nice if someone did the conversion between difficulty and avg hash power. |
|
|
|
What happened to all that Dev is an idiot, coin is DOA, you're out like 50x blah blah blah now you must've spent thousands on amazon servers and value coin pretty friggin high. Can you explain your propaganda campaign?
WTS 37,000 20BTC So why don't you just admit you were doing your best to get everyone not to mine? |
|
|
|
WTS 15,000 Shinys for 12BTC
keep dreaming, nobody will buy at that price. Shiny is the new Monero, what i am offering is a bargain. why would anyone buy this coin ? what can I do with it ? i need to go to the RAM store just to run a wallet  and it was closed at friday and saturday I will pay 0.5 BTC for your 15000 shiny PM me WTS 30,000 for 15BTC What happened to all that Dev is an idiot, coin is DOA, you're out like 50x blah blah blah now you must've spent thousands on amazon servers and value coin pretty friggin high. Can you explain your propaganda campaign? |
|
|
|
Thanks for your reply and your work. I suggest you take your time with this feature as it has to be secure and well implemented and release when you think it's ready. PS: Amazon will love this coin!  Will? Haha Amazon already loves it |
|
|
|
WTS 15,000 Shinys for 12BTC
keep dreaming, nobody will buy at that price. Shiny is the new Monero, what i am offering is a bargain. why would anyone buy this coin ? what can I do with it ? i need to go to the RAM store just to run a wallet and it was closed at friday and saturday I will pay 0.5 BTC for your 15000 shiny PM me |
|
|
|
At least 15G of memory! Meaning: Most people can not participate
Where shiny future
Where is your plan
Shiny future lol |
|
|
|
|
