Great work guys working together like a team! Looking forward to the implementation. So just to be clear on the plan.. 1.3.1 released Thursday? But hardfork end of January? From announcement JPEG "Guldencoin Wallet 1.3.1 available this Thursday / Digishield / Mandatory Update" What block will the hardfork start?
It will be aimed towards the end of january so everyone has time to update. Thanks guys! |
|
|
|
|
Happy New Year!! All the best in 2015!!
|
|
|
|
For the NLG blockheads  I have started working on charts for our favorite crypto coin blockchain. Just click 'charts' at http://nlgstats.iblogger.org. Every few days a new chart will be added. Avg. difficulty, Avg. network hashrate are next on the todo list. After that maybe some price related charts. If something is wrong or you'd like to see a particular chart, please don't hesitate to drop me a PM. Zooming in on the charts should work by dragging over an area with a mouse or pinching to zoom. Thanks again to those who have offered hosting. Will be moving the site to a proper domain (if ok with the sponsor) in the next few weeks. Happy Holidays! Excited to see what the transactions chart will look like in 2015. --Mark |
|
|
|
Too bad nlgstats is broken, I think the miners are doing very well in their battle against clevermining at the moment, I was hoping nlgstats could confirm that.
fixed. wow criptoe almost 70%!!! |
|
|
|
With regards to clever, the algo change is specifically about profit. We need to limit the period of mining profitability and we need to do it faster than we currently do. It is a profits game for them, so we need to take that away from them.
I like your graphs, but I'm not sure if you're looking at them correctly. The correlation between difficulty and price might be getting skewed, if I'm reading your post correctly. Correct me if I'm wrong(it's 4am and the baby is fussy). The reason you're seeing a direct correlation is because clever is causing it. Clever isn't a traditional miner that stores their coins and spends a little here and there. They instadump their coins for BTC/LTC. I'd suspect you'd see a trailing correlation if you took a closer look. Clever mines a super low series of blocks, and then the price drops shortly after. Price isn't driving difficulty in our case right now, but rather difficulty driving price. Clever mines easy blocks, clever sells easy blocks. If it wasn't for the dedicated miners propping up the nethash, clever would probably own the whole chain and the price would be much lower than it is now. You are 100% correct though that in a free market environment, price would drive difficulty via more dedicated miners. We just aren't in a free market right now.
I would suspect you are correct with the orange/blue observation. The bottom of that graph would be very blue. If you have the time, please chart it. Anyone else could as well. You just need two data sets, one for clever's blocks, and one for everyone else.
-Fuse
Fuse: Very good points I hadn't considered. Thanks. I'm not convinced a traditional miner will be holding a lot of the NLG they obtain, but I very well could be wrong on that. I'm just trying to compare NLG to something like BTC. There are probably studies that estimate what % of BTC mined get converted to fiat. Go get some sleep --Mark |
|
|
|
Wow! awesome new merchants! I love this: "relax in the city accepteert credit cards, Guldencoin, PIN en bij voorkeur contante betalingen." Looks like the schedule for our next trip to Holland is coming together |
|
|
|
Question about effects of hashrate on blockgaps. So we currently have about 5 GigaHash of dedicated mining of NLG.. and theoretically clever can jump in when the difficulty is low with up to 320 GigaHash to mine some quick blocks although last communication from Terk said they were only dedicating 1/8 of their hash power . Based on above, on a test net, if the dedicated steady hashrate is 5MegaHash can we see the same effects that clever has on the chain by jumping in on low blocks with 320MegaHash? I understand the difficulty would be totally different but the behavior of the algorithm would be the same no? Hoping someone can educate me --Mark The problem with the current algo is that it overshoots the "sweet spot" on profitability vs difficulty. Regardless of how much hashrate clever throws at NLG, if that sweet spot is reached faster, and it isn't overshot to the point of our current difficulty swings, we're good. The problem with DGW3 is that it takes longer to retarget to the sweet spot, and then you have 5-10 blocks that are too low in difficulty, so the algorithm overshoots the sweet spot by leaps and bounds. It leaves us in the 1000 difficulty range and we struggle to find the next block. So it takes forever and a day, and then the difficulty plummets way below the sweet spot, rinse/repeat. Hashrate aside, the problem we need to solve is making the difficulty reach that sweet spot without overshooting or taking to long, and then keeping it there. I know I'm beating a dead horse, but our DIGI tests have done that. However, to truly test it's effectiveness, we need a profitability algo like clever uses so we can see the jump in and out. Or a really smart community member that could provide some advanced math on profitability so we could guess at in and out points. -Fuse From my point of view.. yes and no.. see graph below.. The main graph is the difficulty of every block clevermining has solved between August 17th (when clever started with NLG) and October 31st. (old graph). x-axis: block number, y-axis: difficulty. The small graph in the upper right corner is the bittrex NLG price for the same time period.  So when the change was made from KGW to DGW3 (around block 124000) we start seeing clever solve REALLY low difficulty blocks.. because as you point out, DGW3 makes very extreme changes to the difficulty. Here is where I kind of disagree and am hoping others can step in and shed some light. In my opinion, the algorithm should have nothing to do with profitability. The market will determine that. Notice how the MAX difficulty of the blocks clever solves is tightly correlated to the bittrex NLG price? That is no coincidence. The super-low difficulty blocks are just a bonus. The miners are the ones who should be worried about profitability, not the algorithm.. Assuming the new algorithm allows dedicated miners to get their fair share of the rewards (right now clever is robbing them, so they go elsewhere) I would expect miners to come back to NLG. In a fair market (no massive jump pools influences), demand drives price, price drives mining hashrate. IE: If there is demand for the NLG, the price goes up and this will attract new miners to NLG.. thus the hashrate goes up as those miners compete for the coins to sell. I'll try to create another chart soon through december 1.. maybe this time with clever solved blocks as blue, everyone else's solved blocks as orange. I expect to see 2 things. Orange on average will be higher than blue.. and bioMike's efforts over the past month will drastically reduce the difference between the highs and the lows. If we then add a secondary axis charting a block gap moving average, we should see the strong correlation you describe between a tighter difficulty range and lower block gaps. Sorry for the long-winded post. I think I've gotten a little carried away --Mark |
|
|
|
Question about effects of hashrate on blockgaps. So we currently have about 5 GigaHash of dedicated mining of NLG.. and theoretically clever can jump in when the difficulty is low with up to 320 GigaHash to mine some quick blocks although last communication from Terk said they were only dedicating 1/8 of their hash power . Based on above, on a test net, if the dedicated steady hashrate is 5MegaHash can we see the same effects that clever has on the chain by jumping in on low blocks with 320MegaHash? I understand the difficulty would be totally different but the behavior of the algorithm would be the same no? Hoping someone can educate me --Mark |
|
|
|
hmmm... seems to be some new miners on the NLG scene.. anyone want to claim GYcuT85n197Rfb2Jz3sPmQ65B3gsggo5tv? thankfully they are not a jump pool. mining the hard blocks. |
|
|
|
I just want to give a very gracious thanks to all of you who gave well wishes. This is our second daughter. Our first, who is now 4yo, is named Liberty. This baby, born 14:54 pst, was 6lbs 7 oz and 18". Her name is Hope. Mom and the baby are happy and healthy, and dad is exhausted from trying to sleep in these very uncomfortable chairs lol.
Additionally, thanks to everyone again for your understanding with the pool issues today. A special thanks to those that messaged me here and through other sources to let me know that things weren't right.
I'll be home tomorrow, and I'll drop back in and see how things are going.
-Fuse
congrats on the new addition to the family! our 2 kids were born a little closer together so maybe your experience will be different.. but for us, going from 1 kid to 2, the work didn't just double, it seemed to quadruple All the best! |
|
|
|
I just wanted to post this in case anyone hadn't seen it yet.  With more hashpower on the network dedicated to an actual pool, the longest block time is 50% of what it was previously, and the difficulty max has been much less. So there are two points to be noted here. First, more miners do help the network. We knew this all along, and it's a fundamental principle of the blockchain- more miners=more stable chain. Secondly, it proves the effectiveness of multipools against our current DGW3 implementation. The swings in difficulty are too great, and they are causing clever to be able to capitalize on too many low difficulty blocks before shooting the difficulty to the moon. Again, something we all knew. I bring this up because my team has been testing DIGI over the last couple weeks on a testnet. Initial results are very promising. Retargeting is occurring quickly and efficiently. We are seeing very good retargeting when large hashes come and go. We've also found out some other key dynamics that are working against us in some cases. I will let 24Kilo comment on those. However, at this time I am standing behind my initial assertion that DIGI is going to fix this issue. When we get closer to releasing data, we'll provide the charts and darts for community review. -Fuse Looking forward to hearing more about the testnet results. sounds promising! Below is the same table with headers for those of you who don't visit http://nlgstats.iblogger.org regularly. --Mark +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+----------------+
| NLG blocks mined per day | longest block gap of the day | difficulty |
+---------+---------+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+-------------------+-------+--------+
| date | total # | clevermining | hardcoreminers | guldenpool.nl | criptoe.com | block | gap | low | high |
+---------+---------+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+-------------------+-------+--------+
| Nov 27 | 549 | 343 (62.48%) | 6 ( 1.09%) | 59 (10.75%) | 126 (22.95%) | 157991 | 64 minutes | 181 | 1140 |
| Nov 28 | 543 | 398 (73.30%) | 1 ( 0.18%) | 44 ( 8.10%) | 80 (14.73%) | 158568 | 56 minutes | 136 | 1076 |
| Nov 29 | 551 | 348 (63.16%) | 1 ( 0.18%) | 78 (14.16%) | 116 (21.05%) | 159233 | 50 minutes | 225 | 1011 |
| Nov 30 | 554 | 333 (60.11%) | 3 ( 0.54%) | 84 (15.16%) | 129 (23.29%) | 159767 | 55 minutes | 250 | 1387 |
+---------+---------+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+-------------------+-------+--------+
| Dec 01 | 551 | 257 (46.64%) | 3 ( 0.54%) | 112 (20.33%) | 175 (31.76%) | 159899 | 30 minutes | 287 | 783 |
| Dec 02 | 469 | 165 (35.18%) | 1 ( 0.21%) | 122 (26.01%) | 177 (37.74%) | 160665 | 24 minutes | 340 | 760 |
+---------+---------+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+-------------------+-------+--------+
Report generated Tue Dec 2 20:35:11 2014 UTC
|
|
|
|
Service update and new project should be launched within the next 2 weeks. This is besides the other one I mentioned previously which should be done end of December/beginning of Jan.
The tier 2 project will be done early next year (Jan/Feb).
 Don't feel time pressure. Good things to come, I feel it! By the way, network hashrate is climbing last 10 days, with these lower prices atm. Good sign, I think.  Clevermining is still getting over 60% atm. So most hashrate is coming from them I suppose? Also most of the coins mined by them are transferred to this address: GQsUGhJiKTA35ysmVDMsASHPdXWxbDoqoN The balance on this account is growing fast from a few weeks ago ~2,7M to ~4.7M now. Conclusion? They don't sell atm someone else does. And they are investing, holding and waiting for better price I suppose? What you guys think about my thinking? Am I right or very wrong on this one? Jero, Here's my understanding, also could be wrong but I'm pretty confident in this one. GQsUGhJiKTA35ysmVDMsASHPdXWxbDoqoN is just clevermining's bittrex deposit address. Don't view it as clevermining's personal balance on the exchange. Think of it as a part of the exchange's NLG balance. Clevermining started depositing at bittrex on August 17. So if you made some NLG withdrawls from bittrex after that date, bring up those transactions in an NLG block explorer. There is a good chance you'll see inputs to your transactions are from that address. As Frais mentioned, Clevermining has to autosell what they mine to make regular payouts in BTC to their users. So for example, if clever mines 300,000 NLG in the last 24 hours, the 24 hour NLG trading volume will likely be at least 300,000. If the bittrex NLG exchange volume is less than what clever has mined over that 24 hour period, then you could make the argument clever is holding NLG. Best --Mark |
|
|
|
CIG - Can you expand on what you're thinking? There are lots of possibilities to keep clevermining out of mining NLG, problem is none of them are profitable. Although some techniques could help minimize an NLG miner's losses. Are you thinking about a trading bot that would monitor NLG difficulty and sell NLG when necessary to keep the bittrex price just below clevermining's profitability threshold to mine NLG? that would be pretty ambitious considering how quickly the difficulty swings.
If you want a place where you can see for each block solved by clevermining, the difficulty of that block along with the highest bittrex NLG buy rate and quantity at the time the block was solved, that's probably easy enough to host at nlgstats. let me know how you'd want it presented I can whip something up. It would be interesting to try and figure out if clever compares NLG profitability strictly to LTC profitability when making a decision to mine NLG, or also the other alt-coins they are targeting. I assume the latter. The better we reverse engineer clevermining the better we can design an approach to minimize their impact to the coin.
You 're right. Mining isn't profitable. And still it's very important we keep mining. I see possibilities to get close to break-even. All well known hashrentals are offering API's. It's a matter of smart hiring hashpower: at the right time for the lowest price. The right time is when the diff trends to drop below the point where Clever jumps in. The lowest hiring price doesn't need explanation. If we succeed in preventing the diff dropping to low, then we got a double-edged sword. A drop in the diff is always followed by a spike. Thus if we level out the drops, we level out the spikes. Since the dedicated miners are mining the spikes, it is easier (meaning with less power) to mine the spikes. Because Clever is mining only when it's profitable and if we mine just above that point, we can get close to break-even. The price on Bittrex is an important variable. It determines at what diff Clever jumps in. I don't believe in price manipulation on Bittrex. Although it helps if the marketprice is low, in the long run the market trend always wins. I'm not a programmer. Thus I need help on automating the smart hashpower buying. I figured out some game rules. I can explain that to the developer of the bot. An important variable is the difficulty level at which Clever jumps in. Fantastic if you can work on that Markanth. Understood.. definitely an interesting idea to discuss. thanks for the clarification. It's good of you to try and help those who are mining at a loss to keep the block gaps low. My humble point of view: Whether someone is adding a little more hashing power to keep the difficulty just above clever's mining threshold, or someone is selling a few pennies worth of NLG on bittrex to keep the price just below clever's mining threshold, it's essentially accomplishing the same thing.. keeping clever out, thus creating a fair playing field for the dedicated miners. So do we call this difficulty manipulation and everyone gets upset? eventually the person renting the hashing power is going to be selling that newly acquired NLG anyway to cover the hashrate rental costs. A software program that will dynamically keep the balance of NLG price to hashrate ratio just above where clever would jump in by adding additional hashrate to the network is interesting. I'm not sure how responsive and accurate these mining rental apis are.. Other potential factors: - The amount of hashing clever has at it's disposal This changes over time. - The price to hashrate ratio of other alt-coins clever is jumping in and out of. - The price of hashrate rentals I'm on holiday with the family presently, but expect a 'clever watcher' tab at nlgstats over the next few weeks that will attempt to track exactly under which circumstances clevermining will jump in at.. Hope to have the info available by the time the simulator is released so this could help simulate a jump pool's behavior. I'll try to record: - difficulty of block clever solves - highest buy on bittrex (let me know if this is best) - network hashrate as reported on guldenpool.nl? (is there an api for this? I think so) - clever's total hashrate (published hourly, may have to webscrape this one) - a few litecoin profitability stats for comparison (anyone have a good source for this?) |
|
|
|
Wow, this low hashing power of Clevermining is exceptional...
Just played a little. I have added around 1GH hashing power to the network, preventing the diff drops below 400. That worked out fine. Clever didn't lower the hashing power, but Clever will only jump in when the diff is low. At current price (445 @ Bittrex ATM) that diff level is around 400. Last blocks found by Clever: https://explorer.guldencoin.com/#/address/Gf7wGAwJGDLfoHcNCRLKZqpk2EQU5ixA6c(Explore only the received transactions) 2014-11-14 12:39:11 +0100 diff: 357 2014-11-14 12:33:27 +0100 diff: 361 2014-11-14 12:33:23 +0100 diff: 362 2014-11-14 12:07:01 +0100 diff: 366 2014-11-14 12:06:57 +0100 diff: 366 2014-11-14 12:06:44 +0100 diff: 365 2014-11-14 12:06:31 +0100 diff: 362 2014-11-14 12:06:16 +0100 diff: 365 2014-11-14 11:52:35 +0100 diff: 366 2014-11-14 11:19:19 +0100 diff: 354 2014-11-14 11:18:09 +0100 diff: 351 2014-11-14 11:13:08 +0100 diff: 345 Monitoring is time consuming. Are here some python programmers? I see possibilities to make a bot. CIG - Can you expand on what you're thinking? There are lots of possibilities to keep clevermining out of mining NLG, problem is none of them are profitable. Although some techniques could help minimize an NLG miner's losses. Are you thinking about a trading bot that would monitor NLG difficulty and sell NLG when necessary to keep the bittrex price just below clevermining's profitability threshold to mine NLG? that would be pretty ambitious considering how quickly the difficulty swings. If you want a place where you can see for each block solved by clevermining, the difficulty of that block along with the highest bittrex NLG buy rate and quantity at the time the block was solved, that's probably easy enough to host at nlgstats. let me know how you'd want it presented I can whip something up. It would be interesting to try and figure out if clever compares NLG profitability strictly to LTC profitability when making a decision to mine NLG, or also the other alt-coins they are targeting. I assume the latter. The better we reverse engineer clevermining the better we can design an approach to minimize their impact to the coin. |
|
|
|
I really hope Guldencoin regains focus on The Netherlands.
The only road to success is gaining foothold in the Dutch retail industry and among Dutch consumers.
For that, there is no need for other coins joining or supporting, and there is no need for big influences on the Guldencoin development by foreign mining pools.
Guldencoin should be easy to use, easy to mine and easy to acquire for Dutch citizens.
The primary goal should be adoption by the Dutch market soonest possible.
The mining/algorithm discussion has been distracting for too long already.
Out of the box:
Change to M7M CPU mining algorithm so everyone can join mining and the whole miningshare discussion that has dominated the last 50 pages of this thread, is obsolete.
- Magicoin (XMG) dev Joe already kindly offered his help to Guldencoin and knows exactly how to do this, he has already done it with great success.
Start a campaign by distributing NLG to opened wallets in a given time period, wallets with an IP from The Netherlands, limited to 1 wallet per certain IP range
- ask the Miraclecoin (MCL) dev for help and advice; he already did this very successfully.
Interesting ideas. Thanks for sharing. One thing I'd be worried about with CPU mining is malware and botnets. There would now be financial incentive for malware developers to install code on systems to mine crypto via an infected machine's CPU. I heard Andreas Antonopoulos make this point when people were worried about 50% of bitcoin mining coming from 1 pool. --Mark |
|
|
|
For some wondering about the zero's: It is in satoshi so it is the number divided by 100,000,000 to get the number of coins.  Divide by 100,000,000 to get the number of Guldencoins. I chose to do it this way because this makes it a drop-in replacement for systems already using https://blockchain.info/nl/q/totalbc.00000001 in NLG == Satoshi? Guldoshi? Geertoshi? |
|
|
|
That's a lot of 6's in the #4 slot
+------+------------------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+------------------+
| rank | address | total received | total sent | balance | % of total coins |
+------+------------------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+------------------+
| 1 | GLjU6est4NXFri3Rmx2SnA9PzFdYsm1Tcb | 50000000.00000000 | 0.00000000 | 50000000.00000000 | 16.17% |
| 2 | GK3g74iYY5cCHF8AscMgPUBSRV7kicwRR4 | 50000000.00000000 | 0.00000000 | 50000000.00000000 | 16.17% |
| 3 | GYhkHEHFSwjVaq7Bt9Akm9EHDMamiWkPZb | 50000000.00000000 | 0.00000000 | 50000000.00000000 | 16.17% |
| 4 | GV1RV9jgq5oiF9f8mkDuMk2VVR9AQA7wua | 6666666.66666666 | 0.00000000 | 6666666.66666666 | 2.16% |
| 5 | GQSRiLd88A2iRgcJN5514ewS8dPF6oqw77 | 21673114.52601179 | 16375096.52920967 | 5298017.99680212 | 1.71% |
| 6 | GMstsGrx7HSTgZWKQWznR6cpNGeSQkrB8y | 4076000.00000000 | 0.00000000 | 4076000.00000000 | 1.32% |
| 7 | GKUaGEjggB1HExdyWvFpTWQ3iUS1DAw7VC | 3044099.02846496 | 0.00000000 | 3044099.02846496 | 0.98% |
| 8 | GQsUGhJiKTA35ysmVDMsASHPdXWxbDoqoN | 28017054.96779370 | 25146052.42984370 | 2871002.53795000 | 0.93% |
| 9 | GNXiVZfTX21msNsmXsNQfhVv1LPoDZQumU | 2602361.73466093 | 0.00000000 | 2602361.73466093 | 0.84% |
| 10 | Gdrnw5mG9PFz8YMEJQEAH8Hoc8VZkm5mko | 2472496.07911675 | 0.00000000 | 2472496.07911675 | 0.80% |
+------+------------------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+------------------+
|
|
|
|
Any reason they stopped? Price too low? Or just changed address? Or someone asked them friendly?
Clevermining didn't stop. Maybe they reduced their hash rate towards NLG, but the increase in hashing at guldenpool is probably the big difference maker. |
|
|
|
nice work guys! +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+----------------+
| NLG blocks mined per day | longest block gap of the day | difficulty |
+---------+---------+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+-------------------+-------+--------+
| date | total # | clevermining | hardcoreminers | guldenpool.nl | criptoe.com | block | gap | low | high |
+---------+---------+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+-------------------+-------+--------+
| Oct 18 | 526 | 415 (78.90%) | 10 ( 1.90%) | 42 ( 7.98%) | 17 ( 3.23%) | 136145 | 179 minutes | 8 | 891 |
| Oct 19 | 479 | 396 (82.67%) | 17 ( 3.55%) | 10 ( 2.09%) | 3 ( 0.63%) | 136498 | 274 minutes | 5 | 777 |
| Oct 20 | 386 | 307 (79.53%) | 7 ( 1.81%) | 20 ( 5.18%) | 1 ( 0.26%) | 136908 | 526 minutes | 7 | 739 |
| Oct 21 | 548 | 338 (61.68%) | 17 ( 3.10%) | 117 (21.35%) | 11 ( 2.01%) | 137379 | 75 minutes | 98 | 776 |
| Oct 22 | 366 | 143 (39.07%) | 15 ( 4.10%) | 154 (42.08%) | 19 ( 5.19%) | 138076 | 20 minutes | 204 | 475 |
+---------+---------+----------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------+-------------------+-------+--------+
DGW3 implemented September 25. KGW prior
Report generated Wed Oct 22 15:56:22 2014 UTC
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
