 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
[Update: an potential adjustment of block rewards - diff]Initial designWe have to go back to review the initial design. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=735170.msg8755719#msg8755719 Predicted consequence is fair distribution, avoiding big mining farms and maintaining the network hash under a certain level (unlike BTC network keep increasing). It will frustrate mining farms (if existed) when network hashrate is so high that the mining rewarding is at the decline side. Mining XMG is less profitable compared to mining others; only belivers keeping mining will receive the most out of it. Same frustration applies to GPU miners if they existed. According the above image, sorry for big miners, my initial thinking is to exclude the (personal) big hash as much as possible. Since we are initially based on M7, GPU mining is allowed at that time. The situation I am trying to avoid is the GPU farm, that is the reason of using diff-dependent rewards. As to M7M, allowing big hash in network means allowing GPU miners too if they exist. I do believe CPU miners (even with farms) would hate to see GPU farms online, same applied to individual CPU miners. This initial direction must be complied. IssuesNetwork hash keeps increasing; we haven't see the arrival of rewarding peak yet while we already noticed the coming of big miners; Current mining status in two pools: Suprnova Workers: 244
Nonce-Pool Active Workers: 183
total works: 427
Total network hash is about 105 MHps.
It would be conclusive that individual miners have reached saturation, further increase in hash is mostly due to big miners. We haven't got into the 500 XMG/block stage. Provided the general user base won't grow (most likely), what do we expect once net hash hitting a point where gets 500 XMG/block? Solutions1) We intend to get 500 XMG/block into the net, but conditional 2) This is the idea; let's say we have three mining groups Group A - CPU individual miners
Group B - CPU farms
Group C - GPU miners & farms Though we may expect nonexisting of GPU miners, we can't exclude the possibility (individual). This must be taken care of. The most importance of this solution is to maintain the #A: a. Mining hash of #A must remain the same or above during the lifetime of mining. b. Moving the optimum diff to a point where the net hash equals to the hash of #A; optimum diff is where we get maximum rewards.  It will be clear that with the arrival of #B, #A+#B leads to less rewards; Both #A and #B suffers low rewarding. #A is a faith miner and never go way in spite of zero reward or 500 XMG, and what happened to #B. #A is a set of many individual miners; for one who mines with 1 cpu, it won't be much loss if nothing coming out in one or two days (in an extreme case, we can assume at #A+#B rewards is zero). But for #B, since #B is a big farm and running costly, it won't be acceptable for them to mine without any return. We can image the same thing for #A+#B+#C. Obviously, the only way of getting rewards for #B or #C is to lower their hashing power, so that the block rewards are available for mining; it may get them to the same hashing level as #A. If we can go this way, we will will need to select optimum diff and reward-diff pattern. The standard can rely on the mining history so far. Any suggestions are appreciated! Please suggest if this is the way we can go. Am amazed no one has replied to the DEV yet, a shame to see the thread disintegrate into discussions of how much coins are selling for on exchanges already. You guys need to take a long term view not look for instant payouts ! Joe, I like your thinking which is enforcing the original design such that a high overall hash cripples the payouts. There are only two problems I see; 1) This would probably extend your phase 1 POW past the intended 2 months because it will take a while for the CPU farms/botnets to abandon the mining, after all they are doing nicely right now so they don't have much incentive to give up quickly. This means coin rewards will be disbursed more slowly than intended until the mega-miners abandon it. 2) How do you distinguish between (a) a lot more solo miners joining your network as word spreads, and (b) one high hash-rate farm ? If you can identify(2) and don't mind the extra mining duration of (1) then go ahead and tighten the block reward for excessive network hash. I have a few ideas for how to prevent the mega-miners, but unfortunately they would have to be baked into the coin design at the start, your suggestion above is the best I can see at this stage. |
|
|
|
@joelao95
How you define "mining involvement"?
Well what I was trying to suggest was that in a theoretical "fair for everyone scenario" participation should be rewarded rather than the payout being based on the ability to generate the largest hash rate (though greater wealth or other means such as botnet). By "mining involvement" perhaps the act of being connected to the XMG network and mining to a low minimum standard enables more people to gain reward, after all, the excess hashing power people are attempting to achieve in order to get more coins is effectively 'wasted energy'. If there was a way to reward a minimum standard of mining e.g. 5kh+ hashespersec, and there would be little extra reward in generating 100kh+ hashespersec then I suggest it would avoid an 'excess' distribution to those who can afford/bot the extremely high hashrates. In theory this would then leave the coin more in the hands of the community rather than the pump-n-dumpers who just mine to take a quick profit ? Anyway this is just my speculation I will be very interested to see what Joe's idea is :-) How about just take hardware mining out of it entirely.... Let the dev put 100,000 coins on an exchange and sell them for X, then have the remaining distribution of coins be done through proof of stake at a reasonably high % (100% per year at least). That way people get out of it what they put in financially. There is no advantage for those who can access free mining resources and everyone gets the same % reward. Not suggesting that approach for this coin, but it does address the ability for some people to access free mining. The amount raised fro selling the coins could then be used to buy more, propping up the price, and used as part of the PoS distribution. Just a thought  I think if a Bank were to move into cryptocurrency (extremely unlikely !!) this is the way they would do it. Your idea has merit for a coin to have value right off the bat - it is effectively supported by fiat currency and therefore has undisputed 'value'. The only problem I see with this is that once again the people with lots of money would snap up the lions share, and then without a large community to support the coin it would probably die like so many before it? I was trying to theorize a way that you could get lots of people (the community) involved in the coin process (via mining), but in a non-exclusive way (you don't need to own a server farm to get a decent stake), and would still support the minimum hashing needed to maintain the bitchain. There is an argument that people who have paid lots of money for ASICs and large server farms deserve to get more coins, well that is fine - there are already loads of other coins out there that work like this (and from what I can see many have died due to pump-n-dump). I decided to dip my toe into cryptocoin via XMG because I liked the Devs approach, he is definately trying to exclude the huge hash-rate guys grabbing the bulk of the coin and I hope he finds a solution. |
|
|
|
@joelao95
How you define "mining involvement"?
Well what I was trying to suggest was that in a theoretical "fair for everyone scenario" participation should be rewarded rather than the payout being based on the ability to generate the largest hash rate (though greater wealth or other means such as botnet). By "mining involvement" perhaps the act of being connected to the XMG network and mining to a low minimum standard enables more people to gain reward, after all, the excess hashing power people are attempting to achieve in order to get more coins is effectively 'wasted energy'. If there was a way to reward a minimum standard of mining e.g. 5kh+ hashespersec, and there would be little extra reward in generating 100kh+ hashespersec then I suggest it would avoid an 'excess' distribution to those who can afford/bot the extremely high hashrates. In theory this would then leave the coin more in the hands of the community rather than the pump-n-dumpers who just mine to take a quick profit ? Anyway this is just my speculation I will be very interested to see what Joe's idea is :-) |
|
|
|
Rank User Name KH/s XMG/Day 1 MagiSimpson 12,543.37 6,818.602 2 anonymous 12,411.43 6,746.876 3 anonymous 2,849.94 1,549.234 4 test 1,574.61 855.962 ECC... Ok GG this coin is Fked... i stop here mining. http://magi.nonce-pool.comOMG, don't know how those guys are doing it but some of us have barely a few coins to show for 3 days mining. Need to take the "fair distribution" bit off the headline LOL. I freely admit I am new to this cryptocurrency business but it seems to me the 'fairest' way to distribute coins to the most people (thus getting more market penetration) would be to reward based on mining involvement rather than hashing power otherwise someone is going to use their financial leverage to get richer (via renting server groups/ botnet /whatever). i.e. have a simple algo that does not require much power and basically slice the coins up by the amount of time people mined rather than the computing power they mined with ? Would have to come up with some pre-registration account/IP address system to prevent mass account creation but that way 2 people would get roughly the same amount of coin if they mined for the same amount of time and there would not be such a waste of energy resources running server farms? Am sure someone will point out to me that there are loads of holes in my suggestion, but surely there is a way to 'beat the bots' :-) |
|
|
|
Sadly I don't think XMG coin is going to work for us 'little guys'. I have only mined 15 XMG (starting 2 hours after launch) using Windows wallet on an i3.
Reading about the way it was going to be non-GPU and fair for people without expensive rigs or botnets got me excited and encouraged me to try mining for the first time, but as we can see some people seem to have already figured a way around this just before the big rewards come in.
Such a shame as community seems great. I will watch dev commments closely in next few hours to see if any resolution to these problems otherwise I think you are going to lose your intended miners to the usual whales.
Firstly thanks for mining XMG. I've been thinking about this issue all the time since noticed big hash came into net yesterday; even without the GPU issues, MHps big miners are a concern. Look for my posts later today (night EST); I may have something to (partially) solve the concern. Thanks for the feedback Joe, I will hang on in there and look out for tonights post, community feedback seems great so far. Maybe I will switch to the pool mining per the other advice given. |
|
|
|
Sadly I don't think XMG coin is going to work for us 'little guys'. I have only mined 15 XMG (starting 2 hours after launch) using Windows wallet on an i3.
Reading about the way it was going to be non-GPU and fair for people without expensive rigs or botnets got me excited and encouraged me to try mining for the first time, but as we can see some people seem to have already figured a way around this just before the big rewards come in.
Such a shame as community seems great. I will watch dev commments closely in next few hours to see if any resolution to these problems otherwise I think you are going to lose your intended miners to the usual whales.
If you sell your 15 XMG at the current rate, you still get 0.01 BTC Although this is not a lot of money, what other coin will get you that on a single i3 in less than 2 days? There will never be a coin for 'little guys' since the big farms and rented servers will jump on everything that's profitable. Nothing this dev or any other dev can change about that. Thanks for responding. This is my first time mining, its just that I was reading in this thread about how the algo should negate the advantages of all these large rigs and/or botnets. Perhaps I was having unrealistic expectations is 15 XMG about the right ratio for a single i3? Perhaps I should join a pool now the difficulty is so high or will my puny 20k hashrate be negligible there also? |
|
|
|
|
Sadly I don't think XMG coin is going to work for us 'little guys'. I have only mined 15 XMG (starting 2 hours after launch) using Windows wallet on an i3.
Reading about the way it was going to be non-GPU and fair for people without expensive rigs or botnets got me excited and encouraged me to try mining for the first time, but as we can see some people seem to have already figured a way around this just before the big rewards come in.
Such a shame as community seems great. I will watch dev commments closely in next few hours to see if any resolution to these problems otherwise I think you are going to lose your intended miners to the usual whales.
|
|
|
|
Looking for advice : how can I tell if Windows Wallet is actually doing any mining ?
Have been mining well over a day now on 99% CPU and no coins found or any output to indicate processing, I can see a personal and network hash amount if I use 'getmininginfo' and this does change every time I type it, but nowhere in Windows wallet can I find activity output like the Linux guys are posting.
Windows wallet logfile output has not changed since early yesterday. How can I tell if I am actually 'mining' rather than just hashing pointlessly.
if you went into the wallet console and typed setgenerate true 4 you are mining. Thanks for the help, I didn't see any visible change so I guess it was working all along. |
|
|
|
|
Looking for advice : how can I tell if Windows Wallet is actually doing any mining ?
Have been mining well over a day now on 99% CPU and no coins found or any output to indicate processing, I can see a personal and network hash amount if I use 'getmininginfo' and this does change every time I type it, but nowhere in Windows wallet can I find activity output like the Linux guys are posting.
Windows wallet logfile output has not changed since early yesterday. How can I tell if I am actually 'mining' rather than just hashing pointlessly.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, at
20:33:51 "networkhashps" : 891193,
and only 33 mins later ...
21:06:19 "networkhashps" : 23311030,
So, thats all CPU mining then ... How many zeros are missing off the right of the network hash number?
|
|
|
|
|
Total mining noob here, had trouble starting, this coin/wallet is definitely not for complete beginners.
Main problem with windows wallet: downloaded and after digging through thread discovered how to start mining via hidden away command line console (Hint to DEV a nice obvious mining button on front of wallet would have been nice for us beginners!), anyway Wallet would not start mining at all despite following previous posters helpful instructions.
Finally solved by unlocking wallet (it installed locked as default). Once mining started I tried locking it again but it stopped mining - hope that helps anyone else with same problem. Surely this needs a fix as it doesn't seem right to leave wallet unlocked?
If anyone else is feeling helpful can you please explain what the hashrate values signify, I saw one poster said he was out of solo mining because the hashrate was too high - am I wasting my time solo mining with these reported values;
"stakeinterest" : 0.00000031,
"testnet" : false,
"generate" : true,
"genproclimit" : 1,
"hashespersec" : 19771,
"networkhashps" : 748871,
"testnet" : false
Also - how can I see if any coins are being found, the log file isn't very clear what is going on (noob here remember !)
|
|
|
|
|
