Interesting mining configuration on this coin. Does it work out aside from the initial troubles? |
|
|
|
Dear Luckycoin community,
The Luckycoin is now available as a payment option on Bitscoinshop!
Women's & Men's Clothes | Shoes | Eyeglasses | Perfumes | Phones | Miners | Pipes | Watches | Computers
http://bitscoinshop.com.br/en/
Get Lucky,
Titan
|
|
|
|
|
Hashing got quite competitive on the Luckycoin lately.
The megamultipool.com takes the Luckycoin for a ride now every weekend, for whatever algorithmic reason.
With Litecoin down, the profitability of the Luckycoin is now competitive even with difficulty around 2.
It seems the Luckycoinpool.com site has been taken offline by Cryptsy again.
After similar incidents some weeks ago with the Luckycoinpool.com most miners moved to the new Luckycoin community mining pool pool.luckycoin.cc anyway. I actually expected this move by Cryptsy to come a bit earlier.
Please join the miners on pool.luckycoin.cc!
With the accelerated reward reduction of the Luckycoin and the transition to ASIC miners it will be interesting to see where we will end up towards the end of the year. Mining profitability is quickly heading south, with the whole crypto market under pressure. Getting a good ROI on an ASIC miner at current prices might be tough over the next months.
I think the scrypt ASICs might be even heavily discounted later this summer, if the price erosion on the crypto market continues, and more and more coins move away from scrypt.
I have no intention to move the Luckycoin away from scrypt mining. In the end the miners want to mine and want to get paid a competitive rate. ASICs are much more environmentally friendly due to the lower energy consumption.
The inflation on the Luckycoin is already low, with nearly 85% of all coins mined. The impact of the miners on the market is gradually decreasing. The next mining cycle, 100,000 blocks, will produce about 1.25 million coins with a market value of about $2000 over a period of two months. At the end of the year no one should complain that there wasn't a good chance to pick up some coins.
I am planning a new Luckycoin client release towards the end of August based on the latest Bitcoin code base.
|
|
|
|
is the claim so outrageous. what does checkProofOfWork do exactly?
checkProofOfWork is called with a PoW hash, i.e. GetPoWHash(), and not a sha256 hash. |
|
|
|
the checksum method only validates that a block is a valid sha256 hash less than or equal to the target described in the equation. this means, that at the hashing level there are nothing to verify how a hash was produced, only that it confirms all previous work and contains valid transaction data, satisfying the "Proof of Work" concept.
There is a check for the correct PoW hash in CheckBlock(): // Check proof of work matches claimed amount if (!CheckProofOfWork(GetPoWHash(), nBits)) return DoS(50, error("CheckBlock() : proof of work failed")); I don't see how you can get around this check. Well yes, thats the basics of proof of work. however the problem is, its only verifying a sha 256 hash. not the hashes that produced that hash, so my premise is that you can shortcircuit the entire process and just mine any of these coins with sha 256 ASIC. You might be faster hashing sha256, but the problem at hand is also matching the correct PoW hash. This seems to be a much more demanding problem than calculating the PoW hash itself. |
|
|
|
shhh  r3wt don't let reality get in the way of some good 'innovation' stories  Quoting this, so it doesn't get edited and I can come back later for a story. the checksum method only validates that a block is a valid sha256 hash less than or equal to the target described in the equation. this means, that at the hashing level there are nothing to verify how a hash was produced, only that it confirms all previous work and contains valid transaction data, satisfying the "Proof of Work" concept.
There is a check for the correct PoW hash in CheckBlock(): // Check proof of work matches claimed amount if (!CheckProofOfWork(GetPoWHash(), nBits)) return DoS(50, error("CheckBlock() : proof of work failed")); I don't see how you can get around this check. He says his client can get around this CheckBlock There is no "getting around" the CheckBlock function. The PoW hash is calculated and if it does not match the block is rejected by the network. Emulating the right PoW hash with sha256 hashes is likely a much more complicated problem than simply solving the PoW hash. |
|
|
|
the checksum method only validates that a block is a valid sha256 hash less than or equal to the target described in the equation. this means, that at the hashing level there are nothing to verify how a hash was produced, only that it confirms all previous work and contains valid transaction data, satisfying the "Proof of Work" concept.
There is a check for the correct PoW hash in CheckBlock(): // Check proof of work matches claimed amount if (!CheckProofOfWork(GetPoWHash(), nBits)) return DoS(50, error("CheckBlock() : proof of work failed")); I don't see how you can get around this check. |
|
|
|
I just went trough Cryptonote blockchain paper(Very fast, I will have to to it again more deeply, but I think I understand basics thanks to my Cryptology lessons from my studies.). As far as I understand, almost everything is different. Group keys, Addresses, verification.. Almost nothing is common. How you want to make hybrid solution? Do you want to modify protocol to use all those new features? Or to support both types? Old LKY protocol + new group key signing, with both old and new adresses? I can imagine it can be done, it should not be hard to be able to use 2 different type of transactions, if you solve the problem how to send coins from old address type to new one and back. But I have no idea what is the impact on blockchain. But If you manage to create such hypbrid solution, LKY will be much more expensive than monero;)
A block chain level integration of the two technologies is certainly very difficult with the current code base. We would need an even more general and flexible and configurable crypto framework to build upon. On the other hand it is possible to use exchanges or other trusted entities to transfer coins from one network to another. An exchange address is designated as a coin "sink" on one side. All coins received at that address are exchanged and then sent to the other network. This has already been done for coin relaunches. Here it would be a permanent mechanism to let the coins flow back and forth between the networks. Still, there has to be enough liquidity in the exchange to make it feasible. In this construction the Cryptonote network would act as a giant coin mixer network and as a companion to the Luckycoin network. I think it is complicated. Converting old coins to new coins on relaunch is one time job. Your solution requires some tusted exchange with liquidity all the time. Maybe the solution could be to create new coin - aLKY - anonymous LKY and use Proof of Burn concept. If someone from LKY blockchain sends his coins to 1 well defined public address in LKY blockchain without private key, he burns and destroys his coins. This will be detected by anonymous LKY client and it will create new address in anonymous blockchain with that exact number of coins. The new anonymous address can be specified in that burning transaction as commentary. Same can be done if someone wants to send coins from Anonymous LKY to old LKY blockchain. He can burn anonymous LKY and as a commentary will be new LKY address. This way, the only task is to implement coin burn detection on another blockchain. The drawback is, there will be 2 blockchains required for correct work. LKY will not be able to work without aLKY and vice versa. The cool part is,LKY blockchain will be same as BTC has, and aLKY will have same blockchain as Monero. Problem is, that blockgeneartion will require miners to add detect burned transactions from other blockchain. Mining can be hybrid, some on aLKY some on LKY. Thanks for the hint on the proof of burn strategy. I never really looked into the details of proof of burn. I have been sketching some designs of a flexible crypto framework that would allow to process different block chains. In the end we might get to a point where we can feed different block chains into one wallet and fuse the block chains together. |
|
|
|
I just went trough Cryptonote blockchain paper(Very fast, I will have to to it again more deeply, but I think I understand basics thanks to my Cryptology lessons from my studies.). As far as I understand, almost everything is different. Group keys, Addresses, verification.. Almost nothing is common. How you want to make hybrid solution? Do you want to modify protocol to use all those new features? Or to support both types? Old LKY protocol + new group key signing, with both old and new adresses? I can imagine it can be done, it should not be hard to be able to use 2 different type of transactions, if you solve the problem how to send coins from old address type to new one and back. But I have no idea what is the impact on blockchain. But If you manage to create such hypbrid solution, LKY will be much more expensive than monero;)
A block chain level integration of the two technologies is certainly very difficult with the current code base. We would need an even more general and flexible and configurable crypto framework to build upon. On the other hand it is possible to use exchanges or other trusted entities to transfer coins from one network to another. An exchange address is designated as a coin "sink" on one side. All coins received at that address are exchanged and then sent to the other network. This has already been done for coin relaunches. Here it would be a permanent mechanism to let the coins flow back and forth between the networks. Still, there has to be enough liquidity in the exchange to make it feasible. In this construction the Cryptonote network would act as a giant coin mixer network and as a companion to the Luckycoin network. |
|
|
|
The https://www.megamultipool.com put a lot of hash rate on the Luckycoin network last night and drove up the difficulty. I haven't seen a pool doing this for a while. I have sent them an email for comment. I the mean time the network operation is back to normal. |
|
|
|
Can you implement that kind of anonymity into LKY? If you make LKY anonymous like MRO, the price will 100x in a month. It is hot today. Since LKY is only POW, it is less attractive than other POS, POW/POS coins. Anonymity with old coin history, with full time active DEV are the best reasons to buy all LKT on the market. Let us know. Thank you
I have actually been playing with some ideas in that direction. I even thought about a launch of a Cryptonote type network, but without a link to the current Luckycoin network it would not create much value, imo. What would be interesting is to have these two types share their coins, or at least be able to transfer coins back and forth in a way. Doing some merged mining would be a starting point. I already had a lot of private discussions about the POW/POS topic. My point of view is that a coin with POW + ACP (automatic checkpointing) and an accelerated reward reduction is very similar to a POS coin in the long run. For both types POW mining will be eventually low and the blockchain is secured by other means, i.e. ACP or POS mining. Although I would argue that ACP is safer at that point, because there is no 51% attack on ACP compared to POS. Although owning 51% of the coins and destroying the network is a bit rude. Mining is in a sense smoke and mirrors while the checkpoints are the key. Read this paper for some enlightenment: http://www.links.org/files/decentralised-currencies.pdfI have read the paper, it is too abstract. Is there already something like this implemented? So you can use something what was already implemented somewhere else and tested. Anyway, it sounds like a good idea how to make the currency save for long run. What about anonymity protocol? Are you planning something in near future? The good news are there is a buy support forming on LKY on cryptsy, it seems not only me and you are interested in this coin:) Peercoin was an early spinoff of the ideas presented in the paper. Mining is a means to find temporary consensus, but only checkpoints set things in stone. If you have a quantum computer you could rewrite even the Bitcoin block chain back to the last checkpoint. The checkpointing system has been implemented in the Luckycoin at the end of last year and has kept the coin safe since then. I have been researching the newer anonymity features. I am currently looking into options to link a Cryptonote type block chain with a Bitcoin type block chain. The Bitcoin infrastructure is currently much more advanced compared to Cryptonote, so it is a good idea to look at some hybrid solutions. I am thinking along the lines to have a more anonymous sister network based on Cryptonote technology but link it closely to the current Luckycoin network. As I have outlined before the Luckycoin network will continue to play an essential role in the future. Yes, we have got some good support on Cryptsy. The Luckycoin has seen even a bit less volatility compared to other coins, but generally the coins tend to move with the overall market. Selling pressure from mining is already relatively low and we are halfway through the third mining cycle. |
|
|
|
Is there same simple way how to accept LKY as web payment method? Best would be some JS library with simple include and simple call + some web server to call my callback URL on my server with confirmation. Or at least some service with API, where my server can ask for transaction status. Installing wallet and using wallet software + using blockchain is nightmare for payment acceptance. People need simple way how to accept crypto payments.
Luckycoin is essentially Litecoin/Bitcoin, so there are many options to adapt Bitcoin software. The operator of http://www.blueyvpn.com/ implemented a Luckycoin payment option for his business. You might want to get in touch with him. CoinPayments is another option I am trying to get the Luckycoin listed. While we are on the topic please vote for the Luckycoin to be accepted by CoinPayments.https://www.coinpayments.net/vote |
|
|
|
Can you implement that kind of anonymity into LKY? If you make LKY anonymous like MRO, the price will 100x in a month. It is hot today. Since LKY is only POW, it is less attractive than other POS, POW/POS coins. Anonymity with old coin history, with full time active DEV are the best reasons to buy all LKT on the market. Let us know. Thank you
I have actually been playing with some ideas in that direction. I even thought about a launch of a Cryptonote type network, but without a link to the current Luckycoin network it would not create much value, imo. What would be interesting is to have these two types share their coins, or at least be able to transfer coins back and forth in a way. Doing some merged mining would be a starting point. I already had a lot of private discussions about the POW/POS topic. My point of view is that a coin with POW + ACP (automatic checkpointing) and an accelerated reward reduction is very similar to a POS coin in the long run. For both types POW mining will be eventually low and the blockchain is secured by other means, i.e. ACP or POS mining. Although I would argue that ACP is safer at that point, because there is no 51% attack on ACP compared to POS. Although owning 51% of the coins and destroying the network is a bit rude. Mining is in a sense smoke and mirrors while the checkpoints are the key. Read this paper for some enlightenment: http://www.links.org/files/decentralised-currencies.pdf |
|
|
|
Titan, don't you know who created that 9 BTC sell wall on cryptsy at 880-900 satoshi? I planed to pump LKY when it was 600 satoshi, now it is 370 and falling down. I know, there is not much sell orders, but since there are neither buy orders price will decline and it will be much harder to get LKY some value again. It could be completely different, if that 9 BTC sell wall wasn't there. Pumping cheap coins with such sell walls is impossible, it just makes LKY cheaper and cheaper.
Yes, I have been watching this. The sell orders are not mine for the record. I assume the seller wants to push the price lower and shake out some weak hands, or maybe he simply wants to sell at a certain price. You are right there was an opportunity to get some action two weeks ago, but it didn't get much traction. The whole market is weak, so maybe it is better to take 10BTC and pick up twice as many coins at lower prices. I have been looking into MRO recently for some additional anonymity features. It is an interesting code base. |
|
|
|
Happy Birthday Luckycoin!
The Luckycoin is one year old today!
|
|
|
|
Anyone know what gives with this message in the client?  I don't see any issues on the Luckycoin network. Checkpointing is working normally. It seems your block chain data got corrupted. Please delete your chain data and download a good chain again. Titan |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
