GPU miners may already be at work:

Coupla days ago, Fedora TIPS was also suffering from an acute case of multipoop difficulty syndrome. In their case, the community rallied round and brought some serious hashing to bear and hosed away the remaining blocks in just a few hours, instead of the expected near-interminable several days.

Sure, give the pool operators a little more time to upgrade but the pool I use is reporting the last block found as "184 hours 54 minutes 38 seconds" ago and, as you observe in r/mooncoin, the degree of that delay is causing the wallet to report (what it's been told to be) a synch loss.

In the absence of heavyweight community assistance, there does seem to be a strengthening argument for reducing the collective agony by deploying the KGW as soon as practicable.

edit invisibel notes, on the TIPS experience: "Sorry I made you guys go through that, I should have made it kick in sooner, but I thought we'd get to 51000 by the 6th"

Thanks krecu for you for your clarification.

Thanks to the earlier poster advising me that the KGW is only relevant to scrypt-based hashing, that was next on my stack and you're right, I embarrassed myself by not holding my horses until I understood the details better.

Good luck.

Cheers,

Graham

I guess you didn't get/read my PM. Not an opinion, fact. There's lots of evidence if you're looking.

https://bitcoil.co.il/pool_analysis.pdf

http://organofcorti.blogspot.co.il/

The mooncoin community also knows it as a fact.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MoonCoin/comments/1x2gon/why_does_the_difficulty_on_pools_takes_forever_to/
http://www.reddit.com/r/MoonCoin/comments/1wne3e/official_we_are_working_on_the_muchdemanded/

Are you aware of the above?

Actually, I'm far more concerned by the potential impact on users:



But, it's not quite a no-brainer, see the cut'n'pasteable implementation in the fedoracoin codebase and the comments by the mooncoin developer.

https://github.com/fedoracoin/fedoracoin/commit/9102b387506acb230b65fd463f88119b348d6701

http://www.reddit.com/r/MoonCoin/comments/1wwfco/official_232014_gravity_well_progress_update/

He has my sympathies:

http://www.reddit.com/r/MoonCoin/comments/1x37j1/official_urgent_appeal_we_need_windowsmac_wallet/

And, as krecu has observed, 0 pre-mine means 0 $ in the kittty to fund this kind of thing. And, that's where "just not good enough" starts to come in.

PC-only binaries of demos, using code which has not been committed to the existing public github repos. I think that's misconceived - it's not transparent, it's completely opaque. Has the code been tested? Where's the continuous integration logs? There are alternative ways of demonstrating progress that will serve the community better than punting out preliminary PC binaries.

Punt out the Linux code first, then you've immediately got other, informed eyeballs on the source code. That's a lot of work you must have got through ...

According to my reading of the commit logs, the current QubitCoin source code remains largely unchanged from the original qubitcoin clone (of the lightcoin codebase) which was made at the end of August/beginning of Sept last year:

https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/commit/4be9f4d40ea4bd40cf1c99649f1d613a28bb33e1

To summarise, the Jan 12 release of the Qubitcoins code was developed on a git clone of litecoin's codebase and then augmented by a copy'n'pasta addition of Max Guevara's addition of automatic checkpointing (clearly borrowed by Max from the ppcoin team's original code, the comments reveal all).

https://github.com/MaxGuevara/quark/commit/79c3190f111cd97cfa653c382417499c1614948c

At the time of writing this post, that particular commit is around 3/4 of the way down to the bottom of page 3 of the paginated list litecoin commits.

https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/commits/master-0.8?page=3

If you take a look at the fedoracoins codebase, you can see that their dev team is keeping pace with litecoin fixes/basic_enhancements as well as making some eminently borrowable improvements of their own, which, if applied to the QubitCoin code, would directly benefit the community. That's how it's supposed to work., that's how it works everywhere else I've been and there's nothing special about this project to make it an exception.

So, as far as I can tell, the QubitCoins codebase is about six months behind litecoin/fedoracoin/dogecoin/uncletomcobleyandallcoin, so all those subsequent improvements (key-handling, coincontrol, kgw, qt4+5, greater resistance to attack, et.c) are missing from the QubitCoins codebase.

I'm surprised to have to beat the open source drum here: one enormous advantage of the open-source system is not having to re-invent the wheel and commits with compelling titles such as "Fix QT5 compatibility for Coin Control" are simply gifts from one's colleagues, it would appear churlish to ignore them.

With the aid of the litecoin/fedoracoin teams' changelogs, I've been trying to unpick the strands of the changes so that I can separate out the inapplicable scrypt-based material from the qubithash-based material and have been broadly partitioning it out into different branches.

https://github.com/gjhiggins/QubitCoin

That's my repos. I'm Graham Higgins, btw. If anyone wants to exchange notes, observations, etc, you can email me on gjh@bel-epa.com

https://www.bel-epa.com/gjh/
https://www.ohloh.net/accounts/gjhiggins

Does anyone else see a ludicrous incongruity in using pseudonyms in open source cryptocurrency work? Transparency is as transparency does.

So, given the now rapidly-ageing codebase, I hope you'll forgive me rudely asking a direct question - do you welcome PRs to the repos? What is the procedure for applying for commit privs to the official repos?

Cheers,

Graham

- GRAHAMx5hmAyhznHXg8AfGK7cbDzJyuokU

Given the recent efforts to get Q2C listed on exchanges and significantly raise
its visibility, I'd be interested to know whether the upcoming release includes
an implementation of Kimoto's Gravity Well?


Cheers,

- GRAHAMx5hmAyhznHXg8AfGK7cbDzJyuokU

The explanation of RBPPS, whilst technically accurate, omits some very important information that could help dispel misperceptions.

Here's an explanation that includes it:


the word "orphaned" should be a hyperlink to https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks

While I'm on the topic ...

IMO, we should continue to try and ensure people *actually do* understand that many of the community members are also miners and, with everyone working on the same block of transaction records, it can and does happen that another group finds, processes and submits the block a fraction of a second earlier than "we" did and, when the network collectively tots up who's due what, we get nothing - even though we've spent 10 hours in complete darkness, caked to the eyeballs in dust, doing gruellingly hard physical labour amidst an a ear-splitting racket. Oh, wait, that's coal mining, phew.

The electricity used by a miner's computer is their stake in the game. It can happen, on quite rare occasions, that they get 0 reward for their effort. Mostly though, they get a trickle of qubitcoins back - pretty much exactly as the designer of this particular cryptocurrency intended.

HTH.

- GRAHAMx5hmAyhznHXg8AfGK7cbDzJyuokU