anybody has nVidia miner working on linux? I get request failed http error 401 and json_rpc_call failed
Make sure your wallet is fully synced and unlocked. |
|
|
|
questions about the daemon's that are down on Elbereth's page ( https://drk.mn/masternodes.html) : I assume they are servers that seem to monitor.. something ? What exactly are they and how vulnarable are they ? (right now 2 deamons seem to be down.. are they ddos ? or just down ?). What would happen if all 4 daemons would be down at the same time ? They are just that - running daemons (wallets basically, maybe but not necessarily Masternodes) from which elbereth's scripts extract all (most anyway) of the information that is displayed on his site. The world will not come to an end if they all stop, if that's what you are worried about, the data displayed on the site will just not get updated. |
|
|
|
Hey Darkcoin Masternode owners, I have set up a VNC through SSH to my VPS and I am not sure what happens when I close the connection.
First I close the VNC connection by clicking the X and then the SSH. Does the VPS still run the wallet when you do this or does it pause it or something?
Anything you have started on your VPS instance should keep running after you close the connection. VNC is a lot of overhead and faffing about though, it's far easier to just ssh in. You wont need any GUI crap running on your Masternode. |
|
|
|
We should have a day where everyone goes into Cryptsy/Bitfinex/etc and doubles their sell orders price. Would that even work?  It's a pretty interesting thought experiment. I`m in, but how to convince bots ?  Wouldn't bots just follow the lead of humans? You can program them to do anything you want, it depends on what your goal is (and occasionally what the exchange API allows) and how much money you have to burn. You need two teams though, one on each side of the order book, and they work best if they can communicate with each other and the mothership. Or so I've heard. |
|
|
|
Thinking on more. The higher the marketcap of spreadcoin you would think the higher barrier to entry into spreadnodes. Say SPR marketcap is $1,000,000,000 - 10,000,000 SPR supply - 1 SPR = $100 The demand for tiny transactions like 0.005($0.50) will be huge. We will need masternodes that have like 0.01spr in them to mix only 0.001 denominations. We will also need MN's that have hundreds of SPR for larger transactions. But the masternode network will have to select a node which can handle the transaction size and pay accordingly. Say you(as a MN operator) only want to denominate 0.001 transactions, you only receive a tiny mining fee because of the small transaction, but the masternode only costs you 0.1SPR($10). If you store more coins in a wallet and a big fat whale wants to denominate/send a large amount of coins he pays the large node relative to the transaction size (Much more than the 0.001 transaction MN would get paid). So i can see it being very easy for new people to enter the market for as little as $10 if the market cap was $1 bil. Depending how many decimal places a masternode can denominate down to, it could theoretically cost penny's to operate a MN! This will create a huge market place of price discovery as people try to figure out the maximum amount of coins to leave in a wallet! For example, i leave 5spr in a MN but only denominate/process 0.001 transactions. If the MN is profitable enough to justify having 6spr in their, then someone will do it and boot me off. Taking coins out of the system, making my coins more valuable, by the way. But if it become's unprofitable for me to hold 6 coins in one MN to only denominate 0.001 transactions i will withdraw 1-2spr to become more profitable elsewhere, but by me doing this i reduce the barrier to entry. Does that make sense to anybody? Because i know how bad i am at dicribing something  That's not how Masternodes work. Your collateral does not ever get mixed/used, it sits safely in your own wallet, preferably not even online. Well actually it lives on the distributed blockchain and your wallet is just the gateway to it, but still. Whatever amount of collateral is required, it has nothing to do with mixing. Masternodes just co-ordinate and sign transactions for Darksend, and will act as consensus locks for InstantX transactions. |
|
|
|
But nothing is more restrictive than a fixed barrier to entry, don't you agree?
Nothing except a constantly rising barrier.  Nothing fuels the competition more than having the amount of AVAILABLE SEATS restricted. Imagine a small village with two bakeries. Obviously the amount of breads that will be consumed by this village is limited. Those two bakeries are already in competition, but they are lazy. Now if a new bakery enters the village and does a better job than the others, then this bakery will steal a big chunk of the market share of the competition. And he deserves it. But why does darkcoin think it's a good idea to open 1000s (unlimited amounts) of bakeries in this village? That does NOTHING for competition. It's like letting everyone open a bakery (without reservation) and have the taxpayer pay for them, it's ridiculous! Yes, everyone is allowed to start as a bakery, but the market will quickly and fiercely tell you if a) you are doing a good job, and b) if you are even NEEDED. Again, we don't know yet what the best MAX AMOUNT of masternodes for Spreadcoin is going to be. But the premise of having masternodes fight it out among themselves regarding how much they are willing to pay for a seat is BRILLIANT. It always boggled my mind that with darkcoin you just make an initial investment, and can then see how your money grows. What is this wallstreet? The only competition is whoever has the deepest pockets. |
|
|
|
And now let's make a more difficult example:
An early adopter whale is a little wiser and has 1 Million SPR in his control. (which already the distribution shows is impossible, but let's just continue.)
So what he does is, he creates 1000 MNs with 1000 SPR each. He's a darkcoiner gone Spreadcoin obviously.
Now if I am a newcomer, what can I do to enter the game?
Well, obviously I just have to invest 1001 or more SPR to take over one of the whales seats.
All other newcomers can do the same: they just have to invest just 1 SPR more than ANY SEAT they desire to overtake, and they can reduce any lower ranks by one!
Always kicking the last one out of the game, and reducing everyone below them 1 rank.
----
Probably the best way how you can setup your mutiple nodes will be to SPREAD them over multiple ranks.
Have one of them be very expensive, e.g. 5000 SPR, the next one 4500 SPR, then 4000 SPR, 3500 SPR, etc...
But still, all this will just server for you to have a little bit more security against losing your seat.
But you will NEVER be able to restrict newcomers from entering the market, and this is brilliant.
It is f*&%#@g brilliant! Or we are bat shit crazy? Only the implementation and time will tell  You're nuts. With rising prices and dwindling supply that 1 extra SPR is going to cost you ever more dearly. Dynamic pricing is going to restrict newcomers entering the market, that's all it's going to achieve - the opposite of your stated goal of decentralisation. Regular folk will take one look at how Spread's dynamic MN pricing favours the rich and walk away laughing. After all the hard work done so far to get the only truly decentralised PoW currency up and running you want to throw it away by handing half the block reward to the whales on a plate. Guess what, you can cut a pretty good deal with a provider if you want to rent 100 VPS instances... It's a vicious feedback loop for the small guy and the small guy is going to take his money elsewhere. Still waiting for an answer to, "what advantages does this bring?" that doesn't involve nebulous blather about free markets... Introducing another mechanism for the rich to profit at the expense of the poor is not a cunning plan for Spread. But if I haven't convinced anyone yet I'm never going to... |
|
|
|
Wait wait, your saying dynamic is for the rich but static is not?
Imagine this
Darkcoins MarketCap = $9,000,000,000. The cost of a DRk MN at this marketcap? around $340,000... Hey, poor people see you can just set a DRK MN up with your $340,000.
But you say SPR's method "favers the rich".
Edit: By the way, I'm pulling the dollar figures out my backside, but are not far off.
Yes it favours the rich, because my DRK MNs can't be bought out from underneath me. With dynamic pricing my SPR MNs could be, repeatedly, by anyone with a few SPR more than me, so I may not even bother to begin with. At least with DRK you can pool together with others and own a MN share. Nobody is going to go to the trouble though with SPR if it can be taken away by the next passing whale with deeper pockets than you and your partners. Again i understand that you can be "taken out", but this will only happen to the opportunist's who seek as many MN's as they can with there current holdings. So at the start someone will be able to make a masternode with 1spr, but someone can knock him off by having 2spr. Is that bad, no. What about someone with 500spr in a MN? Well to be kicked from the network (at 3000 total slots in the list) there would need to be around 1.5million spr alocated to MN's. To have 51% of the MN's you would need around 750,000 spr. Say 7 people had 51% of the coin supply between them (100,000spr each) and created MN's with those coins, its still not a monopoly. 7 heavily financially invested individuals, yes please. So why not call it a 500 SPR requirement and a 3000 MN cap and leave it at that? What advantage does dynamic pricing bring? |
|
|
|
Wait wait, your saying dynamic is for the rich but static is not?
Imagine this
Darkcoins MarketCap = $9,000,000,000. The cost of a DRk MN at this marketcap? around $340,000... Hey, poor people see you can just set a DRK MN up with your $340,000.
But you say SPR's method "favers the rich".
Edit: By the way, I'm pulling the dollar figures out my backside, but are not far off.
Yes it favours the rich, because my DRK MNs can't be bought out from underneath me. With dynamic pricing my SPR MNs could be, repeatedly, by anyone with a few SPR more than me, so I may not even bother to begin with. At least with DRK you can pool together with others and own a MN share. Nobody is going to go to the trouble though with SPR if it can be taken away by the next passing whale (or government agency) with deeper pockets than you and your partners. |
|
|
|
How can you centralize 3000 MN's?
Because a comparatively few people will end up running all of them. You'll have a situation as bad as a handful of people controlling other PoW coins' hashrate via their centralised pools. For a few people to control this network we are talking hundred's of thousands of spr(with current supply), and in years to come million's. Utoh on darkcoin thread has over 100 MN's 100,000 DRK! And he still is only 1/16th of the entire DRK MN network. It's unrealistic for a small group to have enough coins between them to build a monopoly, as shown above. It all comes down to how many MN's MrSpread set's as the maximum. You are right about my calculations but solidify's my argument. With 5 million spr you can only fund 3000 MN's with 1666 SPR, making your monopoly even weaker than i thought.
I still have no idea what your point is here, sorry.  And Mr Spread was talking about a hard limit on the max number anyway. I will keep trying. MrSpread sets the maximum amount of MN's to 3000. So there are 3000 available slots on the MN network. Me and 5 other people own 40% of the current supply 600,000SPR. We try to gain 50% of the MN network with our 600,000SPR and find out we can only fund 1500 MN's with 400SPR. I understand your points, but you must understand that to gain a monopoly over this system is to own over 50% of the currency, which is ridicules. Would love to hear MrSpread's opinions on this matter. That was clearer, thank you, but I still think a dynamic requirement is a bad idea and offers no advantages over a fixed requirement, only disadvantages. There are 5 people that I know for certain have over 100 Darkcoin Masternodes each. That's a minor issue though because of the n-of-m subsetting that Masternodes operate on. The real problem with dymanic pricing is that a richer party can always drive out a poorer party. However unlikely you think this might be it shouldn't be a possibility at all as it will inevitably lead to centralisation in the hands of a few. The whole of human history shows us that this is what always happens. With fixed MN price I will always have my MNs. Nobody can buy them out from under me. With dynamic pricing I could lose them at any time to someone with more resources, and I would have to be constantly spending time and money to recover my position. I can set up a Masternode as quickly as anyone on Earth, I have it all scripted, it's easy, but it takes time. After a while, after having been repeatedly outbid, I'm just not going to bother any more, I'm going to say fuck it and lose interest, while the richer folk proceed to monopolise the whole show. Dynamic pricing favours the rich few at the expense of everyone else and consequently diminishes decentralisation. Add in the fact that with dynamic pricing there is going to be hard limit on the allowed number of MNs and it's going to rapidly result in a centralised monopoly. |
|
|
|
How can you centralize 3000 MN's?
Because a comparatively few people will end up running all of them. You'll have a situation as bad as a handful of people controlling other PoW coins' hashrate via their centralised pools. You are right about my calculations but solidify's my argument. With 5 million spr you can only fund 3000 MN's with 1666 SPR, making your monopoly even weaker than i thought.
I still have no idea what your point is here, sorry. And Mr Spread was talking about a hard limit on the max number anyway. If the coin become's centralized it will lose value and become less profitable for the "monopoly" rendering it financially nonviable.
Uh huh, miners who mine via pools render the whole value proposition of a 'decentralised' cryptocurrency worthless, but it doesn't stop them doing it. |
|
|
|
The requirement to run a DM (decentralized Masternode) will start at 1 SPR if I understood Mr.Spread correctly. Because it is not necessary to set a minimum deposit price, much like it is not necessary to set a maximum deposit price.It will be decided by the free market, much like bitcoin's difficulty is decided by the free market. ONLY a maximum number of DMs must be defined. Now let me ask you, since you say only the richest SPR holders will be able to afford DMs: Who makes it EASIER to run a DM/MN? Spreadcoin with a dynamic Deposit Requirement starting at 1 SPR, (letting the free market decide) or Darkcoin who has a FIX Deposit Requirement of 1000 DRK? (Cutting out 99% of all investors from the start!!!) Good luck with your 1000 1-SPR Masternodes costing you $5000/month and earning you nothing because everyone else is going to be bidding the requirement up to the max. |
|
|
|
I'm not seeing any advantage to having a dynamic MN collateral requirement.
I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.
Plus it adds code overhead to monitor and enforce the whole thing.
Just call it 1000SPR and have done with it, let market forces sort the rest out without things being weighted massively in favour of whoever holds the most SPR, which is all that a dynamic requirement is going to achieve.
A 1000SPR collateral would give a maximum theoretical number right now of 1500 MNs, which we know from DRK is not too many.
If decentralisation is the goal, implement some code to reject new MN's from certain IP ranges beyond a set % to prevent 75% of people just using Amazon, Vultr, OVH... or even better, come up with a way of allowing MNs to have dynamic IPs so people can run them on their home connections too.
If the max amount of MN was set to 2000? One person holding 5 MILLION SPR! could only fund 3000 MN with 2500 SPR, very weak in my opinion. This guy would be bitch slapped about all day long. I understood the individual words, but put together... not so much. I have no idea what you are talking about. :p "the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out." Say MrSpread set's the max amount of MN's to 3000. A big holder with 5 million spr can only fund 3000 MN's with 2500SPR. This makes his "monopoly" on the MN network weak and the majority of his MN's WILL be kicked from the list, allowing others to participate (decentralization). Any help? There are only 1.5 million SPR right now. (And 3000 * 2500 = 7500000, but that's beside the point.) A dynamic collateral requirement just limits the number of people who can potentially run a MN. With a fixed requirement, those who wish to earn more can do so by setting up another MN, without limiting the ability of anyone else to do so. This will lead to awful centralisation, I guarantee it. |
|
|
|
I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.
Wrong. Here's the explanation why: With darkcoin, the biggest holders get to monopolize the MN market very easily. Nobody can challenge them. Who already has MN can very easily create MORE MNs. The earnings of his already existing MNs help him buy the next MNs, etc... But with spreadcoin, new investors can simply look up how much SPR the weakest DM has, and simply invest 1 SPR more to shut the weakest one down, and become the new weakest link. (but this new weakest link is now 1 SPR stronger!)It is brilliant that such a thing is made possible with spreadcoin. Because what just happened: The new guy increased the sum of all money in all DMs by 1 SPR. So this creates a constant tendency to increase the cost of deposit for a DM, which in turn makes the amount of DMs decrease but only temporarily, because newcomers are waiting at the door, ready to enter..., so there is is a constant TURNOVER (because not every DM owner will want to keep up with the constant deposit increase) It is horrific that darkcoin does NOT allow newcomers to enter the market AND DRIVE THE DEPOSIT PRICE UP, because that's the only thing that truly DISCOURAGES THE HORDING of DM/MN. (in effect kicking lazy DM/MN owners out of the game) This is so brilliant, I am going to create a few animations soon to show what will potentially happen, and what the different scenarios are. You are drawing exactly the wrong conclusions from your own argument. Only the richest SPR holders will be able to afford Masternodes. Everyone else will be priced out with an ever-diminishing hope of ever owning one as the price rises. This is a terrible idea. |
|
|
|
I'm not seeing any advantage to having a dynamic MN collateral requirement.
I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.
Plus it adds code overhead to monitor and enforce the whole thing.
Just call it 1000SPR and have done with it, let market forces sort the rest out without things being weighted massively in favour of whoever holds the most SPR, which is all that a dynamic requirement is going to achieve.
A 1000SPR collateral would give a maximum theoretical number right now of 1500 MNs, which we know from DRK is not too many.
If decentralisation is the goal, implement some code to reject new MN's from certain IP ranges beyond a set % to prevent 75% of people just using Amazon, Vultr, OVH... or even better, come up with a way of allowing MNs to have dynamic IPs so people can run them on their home connections too.
If the max amount of MN was set to 2000? One person holding 5 MILLION SPR! could only fund 3000 MN with 2500 SPR, very weak in my opinion. This guy would be bitch slapped about all day long. I understood the individual words, but put together... not so much. I have no idea what you are talking about. And your maths is broken. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not seeing any advantage to having a dynamic MN collateral requirement.
I can tell you right now what will happen: the biggest holders will monoplise the MN 'allowance' and lock everyone else out.
Plus it adds code overhead to monitor and enforce the whole thing.
Just call it 1000SPR and have done with it, let market forces sort the rest out without things being weighted massively in favour of whoever holds the most SPR, which is all that a dynamic requirement is going to achieve.
A 1000SPR collateral would give a maximum theoretical number right now of 1500 MNs, which we know from DRK is not too many.
If decentralisation is the goal, implement some code to reject new MN's from certain IP ranges beyond a set % to prevent 75% of people just using Amazon, Vultr, OVH... or even better, come up with a way of allowing MNs to have dynamic IPs so people can run them on their home connections too.
|
|
|
|
Spread Simple Wallet v1:  |
|
|
|
Is there a way to check the wallet to see your GPU hash rate? This is also my first solo and want to make sure I am not wasting hash. Ran 24 hours with dual 280x and have not found anything yet.
Surely sgminer shows you the GPU hashrate? The wallet will only show you your CPU hashrate if you are CPU mining. |
|
|
|
Does anyone else have issues with keeping their MN online? I have to issue a masternode start several times a day. Just trying to see if it's just me or a common thing lately.
Nope, mine are very stable with the latest release. I think I've had to restart one daemon once since v24. More likely an issue with your VPS provider or your own setup - double and triple check your local/remote darkcoin.conf files. |
|
|
|
I'll go ALL IN when spreadcoin gets its encrypted in-wallet messaging system. I WANT IT SO MUCH!
Oh? I'd be interested in your use case, i.e. “why?” fwiw, I'm playing around with an experimental Spreadcoin wallet with some additions: gussied-up icons, Bellacoin's diff history chart, Banksycoin's in-wallet IRC and [Talk|Chat]coin's encrypted messaging (the latter working only on testnet thus far). As with the in-wallet block explorer, the in-wallet chat is accessed via menu (the penultimate item: "Chat Window")  and presented in a separate window:  leading to the (by now fairly standard) in-wallet IRC messaging:  I originally submitted an exploratory PR, adding Bella's difficulty chart to the overview page, Mr Spread thought it'd be better placed on the mining page, here's the candidate:  Alert readers will have noted the appearance of a “Trade” option, again adapted from an existing in-wallet trading implementation. It's fairly primitive, limited to Bittrex and I haven't had chance to check its functioning as yet but now that SPR is listed on BIttrex, it seems to be working largely as expected:  Finally, an adoption of the Talkcoin/Chatcoin encrypted in-wallet messaging --- very early days for this, I've only just decanted the code and it only works on the testnet atm:  It's important to note that these are merely “suck it and see” experiments with no particular ambition to be included in an “official” release (whatever that might be in a p2p context), largely because so many of these nice ideas ultimately prove to be more trouble than they're worth and there's no substitute for actually getting your hands dirty and having a go at finding out. Neither the Trade tab nor the in-wallet encrypted messaging is yet fit to be seen in public so they remain unpublished for the time being ... but gussied-up icons, a diffplot and an IRC chat window are basically just cosmetic (a fork is not required) so if you fancy joining in with the experiment, you can check out and compile the cpuminer1.2.trial branch: https://github.com/gjhiggins/spreadcoin/tree/cpuminer1.2.trialCheers Graham Edit: not last, penultimateGreat work/ideas! I agree that the mining diff chart should be in the mining page. I also agree with you that having everything but the kitchen sink in-wallet is not necessarily useful, but one thing I found to be useful myself was the ability to specify send amounts in for example $ instead of DRK, as I did here:  It just gets the current mid price (in this case from bitfinex) and does a quick convert. It might also be useful to have your balance total displayed in $/EUR/£ whatever... simple and doesn't take up much space...? I don't speak c++ sadly so all I can do with the official wallet is give it a paintjob.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
