Since tracing of transactions became the topic of the day, here is a quiz question for you  Let's say we can see the following transaction on the blockchain: Input A 1 BTC, Output Address B 0.6 BTC and C 0.4 BTC. What can be inferred here is that A either sent 0.6 BTC to B (and got the change to C address) OR 0.4 BTC to C (and got the change to B address). Question: Is there a way to find out whether A sent money to B OR C?By looking at just that one transaction, and with no other information (eg. access to historical wallet data - a lot of which can be deduced from just looking at the blockchain - or IP logging etc.) I don't think so. So best send a SWAT team to both locations to be sure. Or is this a wife/mistress mixup? |
|
|
|
What I don't get: What is so bad about pool(s) ?  They defeat the whole point of mining - to make it expensive to compromise a blockchain. A thousand miners all mining on separate machines are a hard target to ovecome, but a thousand miners all mining through one server controlled by one person is not. Pools short-circuit blockchain security. And the constant dumping of multipools acts as constant downward price pressure. |
|
|
|
|
Can we do this again tomorrow?
I'm estimating the fun and games cost someone about 25BTC (a reasonable percentage of which is now in my pocket) and a free two day pass to monstercocks.com for bitman008 for his comedy routine.
|
|
|
|
Increased my SPR holdings 20%. Had to convince wife to let me buy some BTC. Always a shitty task, so on the one hand you FUD trolls can kiss my ass but on the other hand thank you for this cheap SPR which we won't be seeing ever again after 24+ hours when testnet goes live.
JL
It's like being raped by Nigella Lawson in a bathtub pool full of champagne. |
|
|
|
Hold the ranks boys/girls... I was able to get 2600 now. Not too shabby.
Come on, just 6BTC will bring you back up to today's highest price! Surely somebody has 6BTC worth of faith to invest? Have to let the idiots run out of ammo first. |
|
|
|
* BURP * |
|
|
|
|
Why must the Darkcoin blockchain slow to a crawl now?. Two ten bloody minute blocks in a row, thanks a bunch.
|
|
|
|
And there is no reason to think given the obsurdly useful nature of instantx that some wouldn't develop a rather sophisticated POS peice of software that would be compatible with DRK, with NO FEES. Do fat cats like fees?
Nail on head. A POS system is just a user interface tied to an accounting/transaction backend, with some agreements in place between the POS supplier and the POS customer. A user interface tied to an accounting/transaction backend is basically what a wallet and a blockchain are. There already are POS solutions for cryptocurrencies and they will benefit from IX and evolve as market adoption grows, for those that prefer to pay a 3rd party to take care of some of the details for them. And they will be a lot cheaper for companies to use hopefully than existing CC/banking systems. |
|
|
|
If you are willing to be patient and can help a technically challenged guy through some of the steps then I am definitely going to jump in.
The 'proverbial you'...
I for one have never run a masternode and done anything on testnet. I will need a tutorial to start testing. is anyone able to help with a guide that is easy enough for a layman to understand. I know enough to get my miners running and basic network stuff.
If you can download and use a wallet, edit a textfile, cut/paste a few lines, you'll be set. Hell if you can figure out mining, you'll find running a MN easy. Mr Spread will doubtless post some instructions, things might be a little different than with Darkcoin but it should still be a piece of cake. |
|
|
|
Hippie I think you might have a crippled kernel.  |
|
|
|
 Cheers Graham Heh. Nice. |
|
|
|
|
Great news!
I strongly advise anyone who is thinking of running a Spread Masternode to jump in on testnet. You'll learn what you need to for mainnet and help with the development and bughunting. Please help out if you can. It's free to play and you get to noodle with all the upcoming goodies first.
Also, testnet miners, please DO NOT jump in with huge MH/s - it's not needed, it just raises the diff pointlessly, CPU or just one little GPU if you have to is all that's needed. (Mr Spread please correct me if I'm wrong, I know Spread is fundamentally different from Darkcoin in a few ways.)
|
|
|
|
Classic r/bitcoin - Downvote anything from an Altcoin and anything that could hurt their investment. UPVOTE THE HELL OUT OF THIS LINK. I quite enjoy the thought of all those frothing zealots downvoting my post. I have brought anguish unto their souls, and only through suffering does anyone ever truly learn. |
|
|
|
spam
If I was stupid enough to own that much any LTC I would just shoot myself in the head. |
|
|
|
Thank you Aswan! |
|
|
|
Thanks to UdjinM6 we have a more specific MN payments schedule overview : https://github.com/darkcoin/darkcoin/commit/f3710ec4de72d15a83652de1bc8d6d42c1739198(with recalculated dates and also the blocknumbers are mentioned at which the MN payment increase comes into effect) : if(nHeight > 158000) ret += blockValue / 20; // 158000 - 25.0% - 2014-10-24 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)* 1)) ret += blockValue / 20; // 175280 - 30.0% - 2014-11-25 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)* 2)) ret += blockValue / 20; // 192560 - 35.0% - 2014-12-26 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)* 3)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 209840 - 37.5% - 2015-01-26 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)* 4)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 227120 - 40.0% - 2015-02-27 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)* 5)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 244400 - 42.5% - 2015-03-30 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)* 6)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 261680 - 45.0% - 2015-05-01 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)* 7)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 278960 - 47.5% - 2015-06-01 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)* 9)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 313520 - 50.0% - 2015-08-03 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*11)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 348080 - 52.5% - 2015-10-05 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*13)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 382640 - 55.0% - 2015-12-07 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*15)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 417200 - 57.5% - 2016-02-08 if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*17)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 451760 - 60.0% - 2016-04-11 well done UdjinM6 And when did we'll have the 7% anually decrease? Because it seam that we didn't had it yet. Edit: and what is the blockvalue / 20 that become blockvalue / 40 this year? '/20' means a 5% increase, 25%-30%-35%, '/40' means a 2.5% increase, 35%-37.5%-40%... |
|
|
|
No pools and specially no Multipools, keeps the network smaller or at least limits its growth over time, because of this the percentage of the total hashrate you represent will be significant for a longer period of time or maybe forever in the absence of pools.
Where is your evidence of this, or the logic behind your statement? How does the lack of pools limit hashrate? If you mean that big multipools can't mine and instadump, good. Solo mining encourages longer term miners who are more likely to value their mined coins, and less likely to dump them like clockwork twice a day at whatever the bid price happens to be. I'll happily trade the lack of multipools and their constant price supression for a few less temporary GH/s. Such multipools do nothing for blockchain security anyway, like every other pool they just reduce it. |
|
|
|
OK, I will make an effort to respond. What I meant was that having no pools is in no clear way a great solution to the problem it was intending to solve as it creates other avenues of manipulation. Pools allow small miners to come together and compete with large miners. In the absence of pools large mining farms can optimize their operation, mine with an advantage and dump on people easier than in a environment that allows for pooled mining.
In conclusion, there are disadvantages to eliminating pooled mining. It is not a poweful solution to the problem.
Pools have no effect one way or another on the behaviour of larger farmers. How do pools make selling your mined coins easier exactly? What multipools do achieve is a constant downward price pressure as they sell straight into the bids every shift. Pools allow smaller/short term miners a steadier income, but at the expense of concentrating hashpower in the hands of whoever controls any given pool, that's all. |
|
|
|
There is a fundamental difference here that can't be ignored. In that pie chart from SPR that you show the different percentages represent large mining farms or individuals that can take advantage of the absence of pools and monopolize the network from a rewards perspective, these people are getting all the coins, some mining with optimized miners.
In the pie chart from DRK those larger percentages represent a lot of different individuals. Pools were created for a reason it facilitates a larger group of people to come together and mine and compete with large individual miners. By keeping pools away you are only making it easier for large farms to abuse the system, it creates new weaknesses.
A better solution would be to create a better P2Pool system that allows both pools and a better decentralization, which is a novel goal but not quite accomplished by the no pools approach. In my opinion it is just something to sell people on but not a strong differentiator, even a weakness from other aspects.
Big miners earn more, regardless of what is being mined or whether those big miners are mining solo or via a pool. Keeping pools away just keeps pools and their centralised risk away, it does not introduce any new weakness. Your argument is bogus. And p2pool just kicks the can down the road (p2pool does not prevent pooling) while introducing an extra layer of complexity. |
|
|
|
So far, this is nothing more than a glorified clone. The no-pool thing is gimmicky without standing the test of time in terms of whether or not this really will prevent creative pools from mining. Besides, isn't there a miner (or group of miners) that control in excess of 20% of the existing network hash. How is that decentralized? Hmmm...  Further, the current distribution coupled with lack of volume only indicates that when the masternodes do come into play, it's going to remain incredibly centralized with only a handful of parties involved. When you have people owning in excess of 7% of the outstanding coins, you have problems.
There are at least 4 people that I know of who each own more than or close to 7% of all DRK, but only one is left in the rich list as the others have split it up to run Masternodes. Hundreds, each. What was your point again? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
