 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
Happy to answer any questions about this, initial validator launch is going very well and thank you to everyone who has participated thus far in growing our network  |
|
|
|
Congrats on the launch of the new chain. Some great tech underpinning Solana and I really like some of the modifications made particularly the Validator HW requirements. Allows for a lower barrier to entry and more decentralization.
Question on Validators. Does a Validator get a slashing penalty in certain situations like down time or if it violates proof of history? On Solana:
“Validators may be penalized if they violate the network rules and Proof-Of-History. If validator is unresponsive it may lose corresponding rewards with possible algorithmic reduction of active validator's stake, which is earning SOL rewards.”
Thanks, looking forward to the DEX & other developments
Thanks kindly and fantastic question, in our current implementation yes there is some slashing. However it is less than what is in Solana. Very open to your thoughts on how you'd like to see this work. Definitely Proof of History and our TPS care about uptime. How we achieve that, is up to us. The slashing penalty is good for maintaining minimums. Rewards are good for reaching maximums. We are also looking forward to the DEX |
|
|
|
Can you give an estimate on a full roll out of SafeCoin Validators? Testing is ongoing now, correct?
Great question, we're looking at a 7-10 day rollout and we're looking for community feedback on what they want to see in the validators. Obviously, we're putting a lot of work into making them more accessible for people to run. Initial testing has gone well |
|
|
|
Is it possible to gpu mine the new Safecoin (if so where are the details) or is it pos only?
Both are correct The new Safecoin is POS only, however due to its robust design with 100,000+ TPS at sub-second block times, it can utilise GPUs to process these transactions and those operators can earn SAFE for doing so. You can look up Solana Validators for more information on this, we are completing testing and development of our implementation. Two distinct differences: - The hardware requirements will be significantly less than Solana validators
- We have removed any KYC requirements to earn SAFE
|
|
|
|
Welcome to the New SafecoinThe Safecoin project and community have always been focused on putting security first to achieve real adoption in blockchain. In fact we believe that any credible blockchain, De-Fi, dApps solution worth doing should build that solution on a secure foundation because we are ultimately dealing with digital money. In March of 2018, a Komodo-based version of Safecoin was launched which at that time offered some of the most secure and private technology in terms of focus and innovation (ie., dPOW). Late in 2020, we evaluated two things: - Our Remaining Roadmap (most of it had been completed)
- The state of blockchain technology
We discovered that we had one final remaining critical item on our Roadmap, to build a secure and on-chain DEX capable of widespread adoption. Looking across many disruptive technologies that have recently emerged, we saw an opportunity to create a decentralized on-chain platform which functions with similar performance to a centralised exchange while providing a non-custodial and decentralised experience. We also discovered that bitcoin itself no longer had the best finality (time required for a transaction to become irreversible) and could not compete with current technology in terms of speed, performance, and capabilities (lacking turing complete smart contracts). As such, dPOW itself which inherits these properties from bitcoin, also became out-dated for the use cases we sought. After months of research, development, and testing, Safecoin has Re-launched with a 1:1 fair swap to a new chain based on a Solana codebase. Solana achieves record breaking performance through solving fundamental consensus, and thus security issues, around the concept of time in decentralized systems, through Proof of History. It comes as no surprise to us that the world's most performant blockchain reached these achievements through solving security problems. The result is a vastly more secure and performant blockchain:- Sub-second finality (PoH), versus previous 10-60 minute finality (dPOW, limited to finality of bitcoin technology)
- Consensus Timestamped transactions - This solves a major barrier in decentralized systems and is part of a larger conversation. One example of what this does is it eliminates front-running in decentralized exchanges and liquidity pools
- >100,000 TPS, versus ~15 TPS (achieved through multi-threading and many other advancements)
- Secure Rust-based code
- Highly performant WASM and Solidity Smartcontracts
- On-chain Tokens with an ERC20 Ethereum Bridge
We didn't just stop there. We also improved the Solana code as well to provide a "Community Edition" of Solana more suited to worldwide adoption:- We reduced ledger size to ~ 2 TB/Year, from Solana's ~160 TB/Year through improvements in consensus, storage, and compression
- We removed KYC gates from the Solana code as we rightly should. No KYC is required for staking or validators or any other use of the new Safecoin blockchain
- We launched the chain on a completely fair launch proof of work store of value with no IEO, no ICO, no sales of any kind (existing Safecoin ledger)
In doing so, we believe we have introduced the world's most Performant and Decentralized Community blockchain (by making improvements in the feasibility of its decentralization). This is our vision of what real worldwide blockchain adoption looks like. We already have an incredible amount planned, and we are hard at work on SafeSwap, a decentralized on-chain exchange which will operate on top of the new Safecoin in the very near future. Original Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2838370
|
|
|
|
This new coin or coins that had existed before?
"relaunch" might be the proper term. It has existed for a long time, but not heavily advertised (yet) |
|
|
|
Safecoin has launched! Cryptocurrency has come come to advance so quickly, that the concept behind this coin is now one of collaboration. Safecoin starts off as a fork of Bytecoin. However, this is done in a sustainable manner using forknote. This ensures that the development of Safecoin constantly matches that of Bytecoin. Will it always be a clone? No. Launching is just the first step on the roadmap. I will be extending this coin past bytecoin, while still remaining compatible with their development, and updating the coin with their updates. It will have everything bytecoin has, and more. The economy around this coin is also safer, with a guarantee that one Safecoin will always have the value of one Bitcoin. More to come...of course. http://safecoin.org |
|
|
|
.
The GUI wallet work fine with Ubuntu 14.04
Does it compile fine? I can compile it, but the wallet crashes with this: /cryptonote/src/cryptonote_core/Currency.cpp:91: uint64_t cryptonote::Currency::calculateInterest(uint64_t, uint32_t) const: Assertion `m_depositMinTerm <= term && term <= m_depositMaxTerm' failed. |
|
|
|
|
Hey!
Is there a version of Ubuntu or linux that the gui wallet is known to compile well on?
Seems to get pretty cranky on Ubuntu 14.04, and I did upgrade boost to 1.55.
wallet closes unexpectedly. Error over minimum / maximum interest variable.
Time to upgrade to 14.10? Obviously 14.04 won't work natively, as boost 1.54 is the default.
|
|
|
|
Maybe make a new thread for that?
Maybe someone completely unbiased (or as unbiased as possible) needs to start that thread. Unfortunately, that person isn't me. Safecoin isn't just a username. It's a coin (not yet released). And it will be ...... well, let's just say I'd like to see someone start such a thread that has the most minimal bias. That may actually be the problem with this thread, to be honest. |
|
|
|
|
Did this thread Really just ...die out?
|
|
|
|
|
Based on the discussions above I believe bytecoin should be added to this list of the most known anonymous coins.
The only logical alternative I see is removing Dash (very difficult to disqualify bytecoin, without disqualifying Dash on those some qualifiers).
I'm personally more interested in some of the lesser known anonymous coins (but, often, more anonymous).
I hope it's okay if those can be discussed here too.
|
|
|
|
Hilarious warning. The very same applies to the coin itself. If there is no development, BBR will be removed from the crypto scene. Bam! The code behind this coin is too good to abandon. |
|
|
|
|
I liked this thread until the last two pages.
What about Bytecoin? Does it not meet the requirements of most "known" anonymous coins?
Went dead for a year, but extremely active development in 2015 and extremely impressive feature list.
Second-highest market cap of Any anonymous coin (other than Dash).
|
|
|
|
imo cloak hasn't delivered shit yet and you are being polite yet trying to be persistently persuasive with crappymomstyle questioning.
Yes, I am being polite, and I am sorry you see that is a red flag. No, I do not have a vested interest in any of these coins at this point in time. That includes cloak. In fact, I would say that if a coin were to be added to the list at this time, the front-runner would probably be boolberry. I am sorry you had a bad experience with cloak. |
|
|
|
Interesting coin...
But the qtwallet doesn't seem to want to compile, at at least for me. Fairly standard Ubuntu 14.04 setup.
/usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypto.a(dso_dlfcn.o): undefined reference to symbol 'dlclose@@GLIBC_2.2.5'
//lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libdl.so.2: error adding symbols: DSO missing from command line
I haven't gotten this error before. The CMake project should include everything it needs... Can you try with the latest version of CMake? Using 2.8.12.2, standard for Ubuntu 14.04. Thanks though. Would like to have a closer look at this one. I did a fresh install of Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, as discussed. Compile fails, may be more than one reason but one is that libboost1.54 is the default version for Ubuntu 14.04. Was pretty thorough, but ended up with the same original error. I tried upgrading libboost, numerous other things. always comes back to the error above. What if, at the end of CMakeLists.txt (the one in the source directory), you add: set (CMAKE_CXX_LINK_EXECUTABLE "${CMAKE_CXX_LINK_EXECUTABLE} -ldl")Then re-run cmake. Also I have been compiling on Ubnutu 12.04 LTS - if the above does not work can you try a clean install of that? Well I'll be gosh-darned, it compiled with the addition above, thank you! After fresh 14.04, upgraded to liboost1.55: sudo add-apt-repository ppa:boost-latest/ppa
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install libboost1.55-all-dev then installed qt-creator, then: sudo apt-get install git cmake libboost-all-dev libssl-dev libevent-dev libdb++-dev gcc g++ qttools5-dev-tools protobuf-compiler /home/jj/pebblecoin-master/src/qtwallet/walletmodel.cpp: In member function ‘sendCoins’: /usr/include/c++/4.8/ostream:202:29: warning: ‘registrationFee’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] { return _M_insert(__n); } ^ /home/jj/pebblecoin-master/src/qtwallet/walletmodel.cpp:375:12: note: ‘registrationFee’ was declared here qint64 registrationFee; ^ make[4]: Leaving directory `/home/jj/pebblecoin-master/build/release' [100%] Built target qtwallet make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/jj/pebblecoin-master/build/release' make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/jj/pebblecoin-master/build/release' make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/jj/pebblecoin-master/build/release' |
|
|
|
True to your subject heading, then, the focus is on the most known, rather than the most anonymous. Which is interesting, but unfortunate that the two are far from the same thing.
Why don't you make your own thread then? I see nothing wrong with comparing the most known anonymous coins, although it certainly isn't the only way to compare coins or to choose coins to compare. I don't see anything wrong with it either, nor so I see a point to splitting the topic into tow threads. I just wish that the most anonymous coins were more synonymous with the most known "anonymous" coins. ffmad has also alluded to this. I don't think there's much arguement there. Whether some of the other anonymous coins make the "most known" list or not, I feel this is a good home for discussion on them and comparison of them. |
|
|
|
If Dash was 90th on marketcap it wouldn't even be in the comparison, but too many people buy it because of it's "anonymity" feature ... It may be why it needs to be compared to real anon coins.
And you can't compare a pump & dump like Cloakcoin (many many people were burnt on that coin), and a coin like Dash that kept a good value after each pump.
You're right on "digitalnote", comparison should be updated next week.
True to your subject heading, then, the focus is on the most known, rather than the most anonymous. Which is interesting, but unfortunate that the two are far from the same thing. A couple questions: 1. Have you looked at cloakcoin since their dpos3 implementation? IMHO they have evolved far past the "shit coin" stage, but curious as to what impact others thinks this has. http://cloakcoin.com/downloads/posa3wp.pdf2. Is Monero truely anonymous? I am not so sure. More interesting still, some Monero Devs will Admit that the coin isn't fully anonymous, with known solutions, yet none have been implemented. https://lab.getmonero.org/pubs/MRL-0004.pdfBased on this, IMHO, the only Truly anonymous Cryptonote coin (other than the Digitalnote hybrid) is Boolberry. Granted: Boolberry is far less popular, has less value, and there are big questions around future DEV involvement, as you've pointed out. But unfortunately, "well-known" does not necessarily imply true anonymity. |
|
|
|
|
