No, I do not have it, possibly if there is enough interest, I can try.
Would the fee around 3% be OK ?
I'll give you 5K RIC if you make it open source. |
|
|
|
|
what would be a USD-stable asset? let me guess: bitshares' bitusd?
|
|
|
|
|
what if I'm interested but I can't invest the upfront fee required for becoming a delegate even if you don't know you'll get hired?
|
|
|
|
============================================================================================================= - Just a thought:
Do you know that the Capitalization of an alt-coin is defined by the rank, i.e., (1/rank)^2/k (where k is 3-5 or about 4)? Therefore, Litecoin ( now the 3rd) would have a capitalization of about (1/3)^2/4= 1/36 of Bitcoin.
In this respect, if a coin (should) surpass the Bitcoin (making it the second) in the future, the Bitcoin would only have (1/2)^2/4= 1/16 of the capitalization of this alt-coin and this alt-coin could have 16 times the capitalization of Bitcoin.
For the same reason, if two coins (should) surpass the Bitoin (making it the third), the new "top" coin could have about 36 times of the capitalization of Bitcoin.
................ if the history and this math repeat.
................ Hey, we never knew it could happen.
................ This shows why popularity (and the rank) counts. 
============================================================================================================= where did you get that definition of capitalization? does anybody use it? what for? using rank like that doesn't make much sense to me... |
|
|
|
My answers below, having in mind that peak detection is error prone. For ypool it's easy to measure quantity of miners or shares per second. But it's very hard for the network to measure the block rate with fast response time. The measurements done right now take the last 12hs of blocks, meaning it will get the average of the high/low peaks. If you adjust faster, the adjustments get more erratic because variance plays a higher role in the measurements. what good is getting new miners when the superblock can't even make the full use hashpower at its peak (nevermind the records breaking)?
Getting new miners is always good because it improves the security of the network. The superblock may not always come at the hashrate's peak but it will, eventually. Since it cannot be predicted in time, statistically it should drift until it hits the peaks again. Would you agree improving the odd of finding record breakers by having hashpower used at least by 95% is better than 35% all the time?
Yes, but if it implies the risk of overestimating hashpower and leaving the network without blocks for a long time, then no. So, no. Or do you prefer the current 35% level to climb up at steady rate to reach the current 95% level sometime later and then ask yourself why is it records breaking is so technically tough?
Yes, I'd like that because it would mean we have more miners, and when the time of the superblocks drifts to the peaks we would have much larger records. |
|
|
|
bitaddress, liteaddress, dogeadress, all paper wallets generator.
It's easy to transfer bitcoins form a paper wallet to blockchain wallet. But I can't find the solution for doegecoin and litecoin.
importprivkey RPC call/command is the rescue. Ok. But do you know a free online wallet like blockchain with multi coins? And with the option to deposit coins from a paper wallet? ypool has an online wallet that supports 7 coins: https://wallet.ypool.net/ |
|
|
|
I don't have the big picture what's going on behind the scene. For that it's better for me refrained from asking questions that have adverse implication and responsibility in the Riecoin Project. I won't be pursuing this matter of optimizing the superblock's difficulty over the demographic at ypool any further. I've made my points clear enough
One just needs to wonder how & what sort of parameters were used to estimate the first superblock difficulty before it took off. Had I realized the shortfall of the superblocks timing I'd have warned Gatra but correction is still aplenty. It's just a matter of choice, etc.
The timing is based on block intervals, rather than a set time of day, so the exact time is not set, and will depend on mining power, difficulty adjustement and a bit of random, so day and time will drift over the course of months/years. First super-block was at 19:50, latest was at 22:07, and we had one at 22:30, so it's not a huge drift, but it's a drift. So chances are the dry spell will last a few weeks, until we drift to the next peak. The peaks don't drfit. Suffice to said the current superblock made a poor navigator (more stationary than dynamic motion) towards the peaks as its reference. As casues of the blocks drift versus their standard timing were the factors stated then there should be some algorithm placed (perhaps a self correcting drift) to pinpoint the correct timing for superblock at the peak of hashing power. Since superblock helded as weekly event some database peaks pattern (weekly updated for 1 month of data) built into miners would help guides the drift correction, etc. Just a thought. If some suggestions are not implemented, it's not for lack of will. And some have technical issues that make them undesirable. Instead of refraining from asking questions, I'd like to encourage you to understand the technical details and ask more questions! Hardcoding patters in the client is a security risk: patterns might change, and attackers could use them to inflate difficulty generating a DoS (long time without transaction processing). Difficulty adjustments should be based on block numbers and relatively large amounts of time, otherwise it would be too erratic. It's not an easy problem, and many others had issues with it (even BTC had an off-by-one bug, and don't get me started on KGW). Also remember that everything is probabilistic, no accurate predictions can be made on how long will a block take. For large sets of blocks it gets more accurate but still you can only get a confidence interval. And even if we nailed it on the peak every week, we won't have a record each time: in fact it would be very similar to what is happening now (some weeks are record-breakers, some aren't, but all are above the previous record before Riecoin started). The only way to achieve a new record each week is by getting more miners each week. |
|
|
|
Fair points. My idea: a site that lets reddit users redeem their karma for riecoins. Same could be done for bitcointalk/riecointalk too, more activity = more coins. nice! much better and more effective than a faucet! but they have to mention Riecoin on their posts, otherwise it's not advertising... I'll think about it |
|
|
|
yeah, fuck, let's run a monopoly.... why a healthy competition when you can have only one that rule? bring back the facism!  why? because that's not healthy competition, that's just polluting the scene with useless coins. |
|
|
|
No longer flat-lined!  What is this? The rewards mini-chart in the explorer inflation chart for Riecoin! It used to be flat and utterly boring, and is now starting to show some "beat", thanks to the super-blocks. beautiful! |
|
|
|
A difference by 4 digits from the last superblock. Bearing the irony that latest superblock could had mined at the peak of 7176 instead 5565 miners with new world records well into the easy 7XX - 8XX digits range (and beyond). What's wrong with you Riecoin Project??? C'mon, Christmas just around the corner...  It doesn't work exactly like that: the amount of hashing power at the moment of the superblock influences how long does it take to find it, but not how many digits will it have. The quantity of digits (the difficulty) is decided based on the hashing power during the interval prior to the superblock. And since the superblock is in the middle of an interval, its number of digits depends on the number of active miners in the interval of 432 to 144 blocks (expected to be 18hs to 6hs) before the superblock. It's the mining during that 12hs period that defines the superblock's difficulty. Nothing is wrong! it was kinda expected that after the high of the first record, it would become cold... if the record is broken every week it stops being news after 2 or 3 times... Instead of focusing on superblocks and world records, how about focusing on merchant adoption and distribution to newbies?  I'm afraid we're not ready for merchant adoption: volume is not that high, and merchants would sell and convert to fiat immediately making the price go down. I see Riecoin as a scientific research project that pays with actual coins (instead of just "fun" like those math projects in BOINC), but it's not yet a currency for everyday use. Distribution to newbies OTOH is something we need right now. |
|
|
|
blah blah
let's see this working and then we'll compare it to "legacy" systems.
ahh those jealous guys.. you tried to design such a system and failed? EDIT: i thought you talked about zennet rather ItsNotMe. apologies haha no I just wanted that sterile discussion to end :-) it was a good discussion until ItsNotMe got out of answers.. either he doesnt like decentralization, or crowd funding, or zennet, or myself. PS i edited the comment for you above.. actually he may have a point there... a centralized service would solve many of your challenges, like trust/reputation (moderators could ban bad guys) and all the micropayment thing (buy prepaid credit in btc and then you can pay instantly). Anyway, this time my question specifically is, how do you solve the problem of requiring high speed tx processing? is it with a coin with fast confimation times? have you decided on pow/pos? I'm interested but still have doubts.... also, can anyone enlighten me on why cpushares failed? |
|
|
|
|
Today's superblock is a second place, larger than our first record, smaller than last week's.
At 634 digits, this is from block 168912:
4671972729725352818122941149688795830368998253362115554837276881802333628717174 2452043367864623979884028668499412434355215700282247944506132121797379678999634 3146807090861190738742454232569941618189864683903326675169723070698409551818937 5221050541980536942301602739009515272908437015818063268988005118929691831130381 6089263962841268113114994000626351312774928523795646387116692243361325227122575 2639027031639590677238235001463520528469525508948854951738662011026294236894785 8319697456420704695819068953811745476317893342760661016016020194198635957129742 0634146813414364677014828568287912158992772479977781891115051345113517828553665 37
Thanks and let's keep them coming!
ps: this one took only 52 minutes
|
|
|
|
What if you say anyone can mint the next block, and then pay EVERYONE, EVERY block. Therefore every chain pays the same. Therefore there is no incentive to mine multiple chains.
the incentive to mine multiple chains is not only the payout for finding a block, but the possibility to perform a double spend! This would give you a tiny percentage that you could multiply ALL ACCOUNT balances by to spread the fees proportionally to everyone..
So if the block fees were 1 unit, and the coin had 100 coins in all, every account would increase by 1/100, 1%.
if you give something to everyone, it's the same as doing nothing. Everyone ends up with the same % of the market cap. So this doesn't make much sense. |
|
|
|
I also agree that you need some sort of arbitrary assignment of initial ownership to bootstrap a PoS currency. That is not my focus here.
My point is as follows:
Given the txn rules I defined, the current owners of the majority of clean inputs always control long-run chain selection. Attackers can exploit past input ownership to blacklist current inputs. This reduces the set of clean inputs and therefore reduces attack costs. However, you can never attack soley through past input ownership. Attackers always need current input ownership as well, otherwise their attack will fail.
Does anyone disagree with the bolded statement at this point? Or have we reached consensus on this point?
If we accept these ideas, I will describe a system for removing inputs from the blacklist.
I'm still not convinced... I have problems with the following: 6) If Satoshi x mints a block on one chain at minute x and sends a txn on a fork at a time x-t, where t>=0, then this satoshi is blacklisted.
So if you send and then mint you get blacklisted. But that doesn't cover all the cases. If I get past ownership of coins that never minted, I can use that to mint in a second chain, at least up to the moment were those coins changed ownership. So I used "past input ownership" to create part of a second chain. By jumping thru different past ownerships I can get very close to the present and accumulate more work in my chain to the point that I might not even need current ownership. 7) If Satoshi x mints blocks on multiple chains at minute x, then this satoshi is blacklisted. you say "this satoshi" however there are no satoshis, only ins and outs. You can have colored coins and forbid loss of color, and that would be ok, but unless you color every satoshi (which is not practical), I don't see how you could match one satoshi from one chain to one in another chain. Colored coins can track coins in one chain, but when you have 2 competing forks, it's not that straightforward |
|
|
|
Slashdot also had you featured, and the Riecoin webserver temporarily melted.
yes, after being slashdotted I had to restart the apache service  Great! I'll test it and start advertising it. great news! thanks for sharing it here. I sent the press release to many news sites but not theregister, cool! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
