The mining is actually working already by issuing setgenerate true, solo mining. I'd like get pool mining enabled as well. If you are saying little / no difference in performance, I doubt it. PoS mining is hashing with SHA256 which does affect.

I guess this statement is bit harsh; the situation will be the higher the network hash, the more time solo mining finding a block.

This is rather speculative, even btc, but any one believed btc will hit $350 when it was $240; and it will continue rising? 

It will work but it may be less meaningful at the final people will realize. The wallet mining would be less efficient primarily because of cpu consumption by wallet and solo mining:

1) With the present network hash, solo mining would be unlikely, unless we enable pool mining by merging m-cpuminer-qt which is quite feasible.

2) Wallet takes up percentages of cpu, particularly PoS mining enabled as well; the hash of PoS or some things else I'd like to look at to make PoS efficient, however, staking more or less takes more cpu% than no staking.

I think a lightweight wallet with mining is better.

I didn't hit this thought, this is a quick solution. Thanks.

I agree with that, and will talk to people, or any ones who are interested to the development, we can communicate to each other. We had feldenthorne and lightsplasher contributions to the current source repo; people interested to improvements are always welcome.

Mining in the wallet is inefficient but I'd think about it.


What kind of UI you like? I'll look into the speeding at the first place. These features are nice; I'd think about a basic wallet as well as another wallet with rich features as mentioned. 

Thanks for support. I envision my commitment throughout 2016; let's see what we can come up with.

I'm back!

We talked about the wallet for million times, and it's in the to-do list!

Sorry for delay, restarted it now, on the way of back.

This is quite right. I have a desire to adapt the latest bitcoin code to XMG, which, however, is with the lower priority at this moment than what's needs to make changes as to the coin specifications.

Abiky, 111magic, kondiomir, thanks for the compliment, Happy holidays.

Thanks. It seems 80% sure that I will get on the stuffs, once I finalized everything I will get my hand rolling. There are a lot backlog to work out.

Happy to see you are ok Erkallys.


Thanks Bauerj, loved this app.

I'm stuck at airport, back tomorrow.

@all, this is the point #2) and #3) in my post, too lengthy to get the idea.  

I am (super) busy, can't read carefully those posts before mine, and some others. You are of course not ignored; let me pick up points at the weekend.

I just wrote the idea from my point of view (I believed we should hold the baseline); if one doesn't agree / believes those are marginal, feel free to talk.

The recent price variation displays that magi runs the opposite to BTC, unlike those altcoins such as LTC following the same pattern. It is mostly the reason that one may cash out BTC to gain benefits. All altcoins, except those mainstream ones, may not avoid this end. It isn't all about price, but as far as price is concerned, altcoins are more likely pumped high and dumped low. When attention (speculation for example) is shifted off the coin, getting lower price is almost certain. This is awkward but it'll be weird if we talk about rational norms in this land filled with "coins" coming out everyday. A coin with number of coins generated in PoW each day is under the pressure of price lowering; however, diminishing this cause is yet to eliminate the essential reason towards low price. What's matter factoring in this process and stabilizing or pushing the price is wide adoption, by people, though merchants are one of the channels, they are the middle part reaching more people, and mining is the bridge too. In contrast to wide adoption, centralization is obviously the one which needs to be avoided. When cryptocoins are talked in nowadays, decentralisation, which, in certain conditions, is very much a dream, is a need; heading towards a dream directs what's need to be done.

To make magi to be towards a mainstream, legitimate approaches should be followed in my view. What/how those are legitimate? To be frank, I did have naive thinkings and concerns initially on the price; to think of legitmate, we might drop off price factors, or diminish the role of the factors which worry about the price too much. Though people care about the price, one must admit P&D isn't the way we're heading. We can push magi in a formal way. With that in mind, what's happening should not simply cure a symptom, or raise up additional unsettled issues. We may push out technical contributions which are useful in general and are very much needed to this land.

We may hold on a few basic features for magi without compromising for the purpose of curing the things, nor should we eliminate some of them as a remedy to the "brokens". Magi supposes 1) coin distribution among people, 2) low costs in maintaining the network; at the least these two make transformation positively towards the wide adoption. It would be very tough to make a purpose (or sort of) to please the miners. What's need of mining for profits is mostly contrast to the idea, and this isn't the purpose of the way that bitcoin is designed either. Instead how coins are distributed into miners is the crucial process. What's proposed by people in prior posts are not unlikely and doable but we'll need research & verification to make them sounds feasible firmly. In my limited knowledge by far, the following is a to-do list, mostly, which I had ideas coming up time-to-time, so they aren't minutes ideas at this writing. You may not expect perfect solutions which, without more depth research, are barely possible, neither the bitcoin is as well.

Listed are in order of preferences. Don't expect too soon; I am keen to carry on but would not be able to at this time. If one has patience enough, we may see these coming along at some point (I'm not rushing on the coin but more pleased to be with it (plus some personal stuffs as mentioned earlier)).

1) The algo and it'll need a look at possible change in the way how hash is found; however, if the FPGA is supposed to do anything like CPU, nothing special. We'll get the first-hand experience with FPGA or GPU etc for know-how, however. As I pointed out it is nearly impossible to deal with mining farms by any techs, and what needs to be dealt with are their capabilities.

2) Improvement on the difficulty adjustment. The difficulty issue is actually the center of the issues. This will benefit dozen of aspects and thus this improvement is almost a must. The block reward adjustment is based on difficulty; because of its insane variation, difficulty used in the block reward calculation must be averaged out by taking into account many past blocks. For this reason, there is a lag in what's happening in hashrate and what's generated in rewards. A proper adjustment in difficulty will benefit the blocks being generated in an equal time spacing by which we can avoid the 51% attack, and the network is quite secured. Obviously business merchants are pleased by this fact too. The more profound solutions in the difficulty may come out changes in the hash finding. Implementation of this is absolutely a great contribution to this land.

3) A smart adjustment of the reward. I pretty think this is crucial but we need a smart adjustment of the reward to be super responsive. With the improvement of 2), this won't be difficult. There are few situations:

a) big miners are for profits, they will be frustrated by the rewards, and they won't stay long;
b) big miners fire 51% attack, though I suppose the improved block time would resist this to happen, extra works need to be done;
c) big miners abuse the system; for no reasons, they stay. The PoW stops running by i) trivial / zero rewards, ii) shutting down PoW blocks. I need a comprehend thinking on this. Absolutely this would cause critical concerns since generic miners get nothings. These are the remedies:

i) I recalled a post about the idea, one runs a node and gets the rewards; I believe we could implement a thing like masternode or the like; under a (protection) mode, partial of coins turn to the network who run the nodes. I am actually not a fan of enforcing people to have a certain amount of coins to get the right to claim coins but it can be likely.

ii) We have been developing an idea of running cloud mining with the revenue used to buy XMG. I believed a portion of the coins can go to encouraging individual miners. This is yet to be in plan of implementation, and also not a solution of 3).

iii) This might be insane, so weird idea. The magi team build a super miner which comes along and compensates the hashrate because miners' leaving when coming the big miners. This is not a solution of 3).

In my view, the solution to the big miners' abusing is quite passive, and there are no real solutions to that by far to my knowledge. Shutting the PoW down and put the coin in a PoS mode is the way going. This solution is far better than bitcoin, though it is unlikely, but technically if one sets a super miner to control the network, that's the end; if this is not happening to bitcoin, but could happen to other altcoins.

It quite sounds weird by a fact that the big miners takes more than half of the hashrate. When we implement the above, we won't need to worry too much about that, as long as the network is secured. For the business side, it's none of their worries about who is mining, right?

4) This is pretty a plan I mentioned and am actually reluctant to talk it about. I am keen to implement a solar powered miner and make zero mining cost; this is one of the reasons we need PoW and would be great to reach more people. Mining should really go to the casual phase in my view, and should never be taken as a serious business (then I wouldn't order my KnCminer; giving them a chance to abuse or cheat the system), though it is likely a dream, it is a dream I'd like to advocate. Imagining solar powered miners running all over the world 24 hour a day and 7 days a week without interrupts by the costs, no matter how big miners are on or off. You are seeing that one may abuse the system, but I see a fact: coins go to majority hands than minority. Network security isn't an issue once we get improvement on the difficulty; surely security concern should be censored.

5) Any more?




I am thinking the reward reduction as fragilefungi mentioned, however it may not sound a right one way to go. Taking the BTC strategy (it may not sound a standard but it was an example), with 50 BTC/block initially, 7200 BTC in a day, which is little high XMG average amount of 5000 coins in a day. Provided rising in XMG's value over time, we will expect more miners and then reduction in the generated coins (plus yearly reduction see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=735170.msg9991269#msg9991269). Pushing maximum to 5 XMG may frustrates generic miners a lot, though we can hold the price and prevent big miners (they may also abuse the system with no reason), we may reach less people than expected. There exactly exists a balance point, when less coins are being generated in the long run. The mining revenue should be back to similar to level as what is now (suppose) that needs a reduction in the number of miners. If one is to abuse the system without caring about mining, then it's the same end.

Mining to a single address may sound like we make a big premine and distribute into the community as many coins done in the past.


The initial goal is like going towards the full PoS, but I've leaned that to make coins more energetic, we should be PoW/PoS. The original PoS is unsafe as people can fire up attack. Magi's PoS-II is a nice one but can't fully avoid "richer gets rich" which is one of the issues in PoS. For this reason, PoS interest should never go high. For a simple reason, I've seen many PoS coins go to dead end; this issue is very severe at the early stage of coin distribution (low coin value), and yes this will motivate people buying cheap coins, and can easily pile up. It is certain that price is pushed to a higher level, but we won't agree that coins held by few hands is a good sign, right? When few people hold most of coins, they are actually like the big miners; with the higher interest, the worse the situation. I'd not say this is a certain consequence but most likely. Coins going wide adoption which needs more and more people participating and own the coins; coins bough by a few people is really going the opposite. In addition, making people engaging buying as the primary channel to get coins is something. In my view, PoS is better to be an additive, which will take an important role once the PoW is done; while I am little concerning about the inflation by comparing with coins like bitcoin.

I forgot to mention the assumption of coin price. With price rising by 50000 times to be around $500, every one will gain 50000 of profits. Is this a case? No. Following is actually what happened; with the price rising, there will be more miners joining which reduces the amount of coins generated and individual shares as well, mostly ending up the same mining profit as you will get right now, or similar to mining other coins; This is a balance point, so called market.  

By taking a deep looking at above, I believe this won't happen. Let me know any thoughts.


I guess I've covered the most: high interest, low PoW reward. Regarding the big miner, I'd say he is not controlling but prolong the PoW, of course we need an improvement on PoW reward as mentioned.


Actually the coin can't see the network, but only the time spent in finding blocks; so it's not likely to distinguish individuals; but I'll take a look at the possibility.


As some posts pointed out, people can split their hashrate, though we can imagine how difficult it is when speaking of hundreds of miners, I know people can run multiple daemons in one machine. People always have their potentials to do that. But I don't see this is unlikely and I'll take a look at this as well.


I don't see this maters; they are many other coins out there probably with profits better than magi, and I failed to see really making mining profitable in either PoW or PoS is important though it is to some degree (that's the PoW reward adjustment), but we shouldn't make it as #1. Also I believe people mining XMG are not because mining is profitable.


Exactly what I need to look at the difficulty we need to improve, and magi needs a more stable block time.

I must say all posts are appreciated; bit running out of time, must catch up some sleep for early morning tomorrow, bit tough days. ill make some replies/thoughts to the prior posts I haven't yet, but I guess we've spoken many and people wait for fixes. The situation is very much clear to me; my posts seem to reiterate the idea that was there. I guess you all are clear of that. I am running my some own stuffs and have to make it over. This is something.  @Lightsplasher, the post is likely a solution but the actual happening might bring up some other issues, btw the future view on the value is interesting, the issue then is yes but could be likely no (there exists an equilibrium state that is maintained by the number of miners, which is in turn affected by the coin value), I'll post some thoughts.

Thanks for that friend, but I am neither genius, nor smart. )

This is actually what's happening right now. But yes here is more or less an issue with reward adjustment.


The ideal adjustment should be done in a much nice way, and this is exactly where we should make a fix at. For example, whenever a big miner comes in, the reward goes down, and back to normal when he is leaving. Lowering the maximum XMG rewards would make frustration to the big miner, but to all others as well; the consequence will take place throughout at this time I can imagine. The issue is all about people mining with less number of coins generated that causes miners leaving until a new equilibrium is created. 

You're doing good job, mate, bring us Cryptsy, the first thing I'd say, and there are many many others, it's very hard for me to make the list.

No, no, you were wrong, I have enjoyed reading your posts, and appreciate the idea; and I believed others too.

And you don't have to, really.


You guys may have a misunderstanding to each other; what I can see is that each one has tried to come up with an idea or to help magi out in the way he is comfortable with. One must have a sort of way of talking / doing things; I guess this is all about.