https://github.com/knotwork/old-devcoind/blob/master/src/main.cpp Lines 649 through 658: int64 static GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64 nFees)
{
//int64 nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;
int64 nSubsidy = initialSubsidy;
// Subsidy is cut in half every 4 years
// nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 210000);
return nSubsidy + nFees;
}
You presumably are pointing at static const int64 MAX_MONEY = 21000000000 * COIN; However the code at no point ever adds up all the transactions of all the blocks. MAX_MONEY is merely the largest single amount it allows in individual calculations such as total of inputs of a transaction or total of outputs of a transaction or something like that. -MarkM-
|
|
|
|
Put all this together, and I feel like we would need some rich folks to fund it (which is stupid expensive for anyone), or we should be focusing on transactions fees carrying the incentive, since they are already part of the network (or somehow create out-of-band non-BTC incentives...)
Merged-mined chains are out-of-band to some extent, though admittedly not totally out of band. The fact that merged mining is not totally unrelated to and independent of bitcoin (at least not yet, though RUCoin seems to have tried to separate I suspect it was simply being too lazy to put the full merged mining code in that led them there not a policy of trying to be the primary chain deliberately) might be a good thing. We are projecting into some nebulous future, but a future in which bitcoins matter, so there are many possibilities. It seems a waste of hashing power NOT to merged-mine as many chains as you can come up with some clever plan for. Make your own blockchain currency kits could be marketed, encouraging youths everywhere to set one up for their local Junior Chamber of Commerce and use it in school to teach economics and mathematics and psychology and gosh knows what else while also being able to use it instead of "gold star on your report card" and so on - motivational stuff. Miners could also start refusing to accept transactions of less than a bitNicKeL into the main blockchain, insisting that such puny amounts instead use the bitNicKels blockchain. There would be leverage here if hitherto bitNicKeLs had not had enough hashing securing them to be able to withstand a 51% attack by the miners who hitherto had not seen fit to add bitNicKeLs into their merged chains mix. Anticipation of each huge pool adding it to their mix might even cause the fiat value of bitNicKeLs to rise, but if bitNicKeLs might possibly be see-able as being a twenty per bitcoin kind of coin instead of being merely a coin valued about the same as an actually made of nickel old time nickel of the fiat world, then heck, do the math, if a bitcoin is twenty bitNicKeLs and bitNicKeLs are going up in value, shouldn't bitcoins also be going up in value? If a bunch of large heavily-invested corporations such as major pools and major exchanges indicate they certainly do not plan to buy any bitNicKeLs for any more than 1/20 of a bitcoin each, well, who are you going to believe? The naysayers who are determined to prove the megacorps cannot "fix" or "peg" the price of bitNicKeLs by pushing their price up above that "cap"? Etc... Its a Drama. Tune in next BTC block-reward-drop for the next exciting episode... -MarkM- EDIT: oops, I forgot to even mention things like hey we are megapools lets incorporate and each have a blockchain for our shares so people can trade them too... EDIT 2: GRouPcoin and DeVCoin both have fixed block-rewards. Any others? |
|
|
|
|
I don't know, maybe I mis-understood the whole gas-station thing.
If I picked up a bunch of inventory back when my bitcoins were worth USD $30 each, I ought to be able to undercut other dealers of that type of inventory right now by quite a bit.
On the other hand if I bought inventory now while my bitcoins fetch far less than that, I wouldn't want to be stuck with such expensive inventory when inventory prices go back down (aka bitcoins go back up). Thus, I'd be (and in fact I am) wary of buying inventory right now.
(I include inventories of USD, CAD, and similar pieces of paper or cheap metal in that too of course.)
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
I can understand the desire to sell inventory for far far more than you paid for it, gas (petrol) stations used to love doing that for example.
But isn't it considered to be more "reasonable" to average the vost of your inventory as you buy it, so when you get it cheap, the price you charge for it after your retail (or whatever) markup is lower, passing on the savings to the customers?
And similarly, if you buy a batch that costs more, the average cost went up, and that too ends up being passed on to customers?
If that actually is a reasonable practice, then you should not need to know what bitcoins are selling for on some market somewhere when you sell some of your inventory, all you need to know is how many bitcoins that inventory cost you and your retail markup.
Obviously whoever is stuck with those two famous pizzas in their inventory might find fault with such an approach, but luckily in that particular case they problem ate that "loss" already...
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
Being a fork of bitcoin, most of job is to import its improvements, and add support for mining gui with capability of p2p.
I disagree, merchant acceptance can't be ported over from bitcoin by pressing the "import" button. That is a huge part of the success of a currency. How many people accept it as a medium of exchange. Great, where is your list of products and services you offer? Maybe once people see what you already have covered they'll be inspired to fill in the gaps... -MarkM- |
|
|
|
Okay, I have made a version that has merged mining enabled. I based it on GRouPcoin code, so it also includes the BIP-30 patch. It is at https://sourceforge.net/projects/galacticmilieu/upload/RUCoin/If you don't get connections, make sure you have incoming port (default is 8883) open and private message me your IP address and I will add you with -addnode. -MarkM- EDIT: Oops, minor glitch, I forgot to change its aux-chain=ID to 0x0007. Done now and re-uploaded. |
|
|
|
|
Is there any incentive for the monopolist to reveal even the existence of a monopoly let alone who/where/which people and/or rigs and/or sites constitute the monopoly?
If there is any truth in the suggestion(s) that people would not like knowing there is a monopoly, why tell them?
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
I have applied the BIP-30 patch to groupcoin, latest source code is at https://sourceforge.net/projects/galacticmilieu/files/GRouPcoin/It seems we never did get around to applying the merged mining (as aux chain) patches to groupcoin-qt so currently wxWidgets is the only GUI available, it is right in there with the groupcoind in the groupcoin-09-Mar-2012.tgz archive. -MarkM- |
|
|
|
Sounds like they "enabled" one-sided merged-mining simply by hacking the next-gen Bitcoin. It is pretty trivial, just change the visible to user occurences of the word bitcoin, optionally, if you happen to care at all about such cosmetics, its the hardest part of the whole hack so why bother, and change the handshake bytes (if they even bothered to do that or even realised such a thing exists) and the IRC channel (and optionally IRCserver/network), the genesis block, the genesis block hash check asserts, and the default port numbers. I have done it umpteen times in the process of prototyping and testing Britcoin, Botcoin, Canadian Digital Notes, CZech Bitcash, GMC, GRF, UNS and so on and so on. Since bitcoin still only has one-sided merged mining, they inherited that. They didn't bother to apply the merged mining patches used to make namecoin, devcoin, groupcoin, ixcoin, botcoin, britcoin, etc etc etc able to be auxiliary chains. As civilisations calling themselves Russians have been reported/encountered in the Galactic Milieu I don't see a puny two million premine as much of a problem, most nations pre-mine all their coins, I guess in Freeciv terms the government type of these Russians might be "Communism", it seems very socialist of them to kindly share most of the coins with others instead of hoarding the whole lot in their "central bank". Unfortunately only having such a small amount of their currency in their own hands would somewhat restrict their ability to buy into all the other nations' currencies on the kind of scale the other nations have been accustomed to but hey, maybe they can spin it as the other nations being capitalist pigs not real democracies at all... One might as well start one's hacking from the very latest Bitcoin code, so as to include the BIP-30 security fix for example. I wonder if multicoin is that up to date, maybe multicoin would be the easiest way to get up and running? -MarkM- |
|
|
|
|
Merged mining might help too, maybe hundreds or thousands of blockchains that in these early years were helped along by Bitcoin possibly more, in some estimations/opinions, than they in these early years help bitcoin, will get a chance to return the favour by continuing to retain bitcoin as the primary chain that nearly everyone merged-mining, no matter which other chains they choose to merged-mine, has in common?
That could be a useful commons to all of them!
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
Darn, get ripped off dot com is taken. Well not to worry, tell you what I can do, you'll love this, I can implement " the flipist method", and variants I might as well call Flippist Methods" as some of the bots in my
Battle of the Bots project. By investing in such bots you can lose assets programmatically, by willy nilly throwing them into almost anything at random, but, and here of course is the kicker, the delicious thrill that makes it all worthwhile... you could even actually fluke out and make a profit, especially if you can offload shares in a Flippancy (Flip'n'see) bot to some other lucky punter... -MarkM- |
|
|
|
|
Bell Labs, eh? Well that tears it right there. Even Apple and Microsoft know Bell Labs doesn't give anything away for free...
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
It is just a link about the Open Transactions software itself, I could have linked to the GitHub site where people can get its source code or even various compiled packages for various platforms. For *this* thread's purposes though it is probably *good* that all that stuff the link points at is crazy-complicated, because simply by investing in the bots that *this* thread is actually about people won't need to manually trade so won't need to care about all the details of the trading platform that people manually trading on it might want or need to know. The link mostly just documents that there actually is such a thing as an Open Transactions server and that it does offer some different features from some of the exchanges people have become accustomed to. The main point is it does not charge commission/percentage on trades. So by all means let us put aside the details of the exchange on which these bots are to trade, it is some Martian server on some Martian planet but fortunately for us and our bots it turns out commission/percentage fees on trades are not the Martian custom. So lets get back to the bots. They might not even need to be scripts, at least initially they might be able to just be a list of "personality characteristics", like "Hours,MACD,24,50,9" or "Days,SMA,10,21" or "Days,EMA,10,21". Even just simple lists like that though would probably be more legible if written in shell-script form, like #
# Hourly MACD, fast 24, slow 50, target 9"
#
Strategy=MACD
Period=Hourly
FastAverage=24
SlowAverage=50
TargetAverage=9
-MarkM- |
|
|
|
An interesting feature of the markets functionality of the Open Transactions server is its lack of support for commission (percentage) based fees. Instead, it can be configured to charge each "nym" (pseudonym, a pseudonymous identity) usage points. It is quite primitive currently, charging one usage point per underlying API (Application Progam Interface) call performed on behalf of that nym. Possibly this structure might discourage bots from doing pathetically trivial-value trades by making each trade cost a minimum amount, while only minimally discouraging trades valuable enough that the usage points cost is trivial compared to the value traded. It also however means that asking over and over again what is currently happening also has a cost, since that also uses API calls. Actual trades might well end up costing much less than the cost of polling the server as to how the markets are faring. This state of affairs seems to me to be quite good for a Battle of the Bots scenario that I would like to run, because I am thinking of running bots under a shared environment in which I will run, at regular intervals, first a data acquisition and formatting routine and then a population of bots. The usage points cost of acquiring the market data will thus be shared across a whole population of bots who share that environment. This seems quite advantageous for the bots who get to be part of that environment, however there is likely to be a trade-off in the actual computation(s) available to the bots. Basically I do not want to run a whole bunch of very CPU-intensive bots, rather I want to pre-compute a whole bunch of indicators so that each bot can be pretty much just a few if-then statements or a case-statement that ends up issuing and/or cancelling some offers on one or more markets based on the values of the provided indicators. To do this nicely of course means first deciding what indicators to initially provide. Anyone wanting to use others can run scripts themselves on their own machines and use simple Open Transactions client scripts at their end to get the raw market data and place their trades. I would like to keep the bot scripts as simple as possible. I am even thinking of having each bot be just a snippet of bash script, or maybe a bash function. But that is mostly because to me it is nice and simple to use bash scripts to determine what commands to run, which leads to thinking it might be simpler to import a bot's code directly into my script than to fire up some external interpreter to run it. I certainly want to be able to very easily see "at a glance" that a given bot does not do any looping (or does very minimal, non-recursive looping) and that it does not execute any suspicious, dangerous, or very resource-consuming commands. I would like to start off with a few very simple very classic strategies, tried and true strategies people are willing to bet on, because I would like these bots to be able to themselves serve as stocks/shares in which they and others can invest. Thus the more bots in the population, the more assets there will be for them to exercise their strategies upon. That is the basic concept. The rest will likely just be details of implementation... -MarkM- |
|
|
|
Hey guys! I'm an IT administrator for a medium sized manufactoring company. Currently, I'm achieving around 150 MH/s by CPU Mining on all PCs in the company Is there a command line GPU Miner available that trys all available methods (cuda, opencl, etc) to mine, then exits if none work? I just want all (usable) pcs to run at 0 agression and mine with their GPUs for my pockets benefit  You claim to be the IT admin yet you do not know which machines have a GPU nor, if they do, what kind of GPU they have? (tl;dr You're incompetent as well as crooked?) -MarkM- |
|
|
|
|
With an initial shared-wafer run it seems unlikely one would get enough units to be able to aim immediately at replacing everyone's household furnaces with ASIC bitcoin-miners or including a miner unit into every rack everywhere to help offset the high operating costs of secure, controlled-environment rack-hosting or just selling one units each to every bitcoin miner who can swing a lease or loan.
You lot maybe shouldn't be trying to discourage select clientele from snapping up premium-priced units but, rather, be urging them on while looking forward to the full wafer or multiple wafer runs the wonderful early adopter angels will be enabling by their magnanimous gesture of taking the initial run's produce so the world can move on to some real production scales that might maybe show us before too long just how cheap ASIC based appliances can be once they start pouring out at full production into a ready market able to absorb almost any number of them.
Of course if these are not the full blown type of ASIC but the structured ones or something hopefully there will also be R&D overhead for a full blown implementation also to take into account once the R&D that went into this one is accounted for.
So yes, buy these quick, be the first on your block to have the latest and greatest thing in bitcoin mining! Snap up this six month or less window during which you'll be among the few in operation and the block reward is still unhalved! Have months of amortisation already under your belt when everyone and their dog has one and GPU mining becomes just a toy for the litecoin folk to play with!
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
Sigh.
How fortunate we are to have the benefit of the cogent and illuminating clarifications and explanations of a Real Economist. If you'd bothered to respond when I tried to consult you privately about such theories I maybe wouldn't've resorted to bringing it to the public and they would thus have been deprived of your expert professional insight / opinion / evaluation. -MarkM- |
|
|
|
|
Oh I thought it was one of the CPU ones. Well then I meant the others, I cant even remember their names, wasn't one of them by the same guy who did GiestGeld? That is probably how I thought it was one of them.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
Check out for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundell%E2%80%93Fleming_modelFrom such theories it looks as if one ought to be able to help the exchange rate of a currency by increasing "its interest rate". Thus maybe the various alt chains could compete among themselves trying to provide higher interest rates? Bonds issuance or something like that? I think that is part of why the finance oriented players in the Galactic Milieu have been pushing so hard to have stock-and-bond-etc markets implemented, they figure such markets should be helpful in the "convince other nations your nation's currency is worth something" aspects of the game... Maybe DeVCorp and/or GRouPcorp can test such theories if one or both of them can succeed in causing the value of their shares to grow, thereby in effect providing, in the form of the rising value of shares denominated in a currency, some semblance of an "interest rate of that currency"... -MarkM- |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
