Also note that user-submitted binaries can't be inspected by the dev team to ensure they match the code in the repo... anything could be compiled in there, and without a disassembler and a lot of time/experience in that field on your hands...

That's why I always tested, checksummed, and signed the checksums on my builds (with the private key that matches the pub key in the repo).  And my lack of a working recent mac is why a mac build was never published.

Strictly opinion here, but even though I am no longer a part of the dev team, I'd still like to consider myself a part of the community.

I don't believe adding extraneous features (bloat) to the core client (wallet) is going to add any real value to the coin or the codebase in the long run.  I'm still of the opinion that an application should do one thing and do it well instead of cramming a thousand plus features that become nearly impossible to maintain.  I feel that if trading is integrated, it should be done as a feature of the platform and not specifically the wallet.

This is something that could (and probably should) be implemented as a module.  In my less-than-humble opinion, the main problem with the software as it is now is that it tries to do too much and is very disorganized in its structure and control flow (not inherently LTCD's fault, this is an artifact of bitcoin core).  

Essentially my opinion can be summed up by this metaphor: before you build a new room, you should first clean the rest of the house.  You'd be surprised how much space you already have.

Thank you.

For everyone else:

Out of respect for the developers, as my work on 2.0 architecture is no longer directly related to LTCD, I would request that further discussion regarding the tech be handled elsewhere other than this thread as my architecture may or may not be used in the development of LTCD pending review and discussion by the development team.  If you have questions about the design or architecture that I am proposing, they should be addressed toward me and in PM.  

This is subject to change depending on any decisions made by the LTCD team in the future.

Good luck, everyone.

Not sure how useful this will be, but I thought I might drop this here to see how many people I can get thinking about this.

This was the layer diagram I was basing the 2.0 impmentation on.  I have several additional architectural diagrams that I'd be willing to share with the development team when and if our schedules align to allow it and if they are still interested.


Notably missing from this (admittedly old) diagram are the auditing service (read: block explorer, though the two are not quite the same thing) and the dependency between the transaction queue and the ledger service.  Omissions such as these are what have delayed my progress in updating the whitepaper with more correct descriptions of the architecture.

Some information on what you're seeing here:

The client layer describes client applications that help you manage (or generate) funds.  There is the wallet, which facilitates generating new transactions as well as displaying balances allocated to a given private key, as well as a special type of account (where the funds are not directly spendable) that facilitates generating what could be described as PoS blocks, though the moniker is not completely accurate in the case of the component model.  Also contained in the client layer is the "scribe", which performs duties similar to what you would call "mining" or PoW blocks.  The scribe's job is slightly different from a miner, however.  I will not get into the intricacies of how any of the components work, but its basic job is to transcribe a list of transactions along with a valid nonce into a block of a particular structure, format, and set of validating algorithm parameters (defined by the infrastructure layer).

The service directories layer manage the p2p aspects of the system and are responsible for handing data of various formats between the various services that make the network function.  Consider it the business logic of the system as it manages the p2p network, is responsible for concensus, and overall gives precedence to whichever chain it deems valid (based on a set of rules defined within the infrastructure layer.)  It then directs clients to the needed services based on the task that they wish to accomplish (whether it be sending money or transcribing blocks, or even simply auditing the chain).

The backend layer is responsible for maintaining the global list of pending transactions as well as the ledger itself.  Pending transactions with no confirmations (ie. not yet included within a block) are managed by the transaction queue and are eventually given to a scribe to be dealt with accordingly.  Once a given transaction has reached maturity, it is committed to the ledger and removed from the tx queue.  This is where the ledger daemon/server handles the actual storage of the blockchain.

Given this architecture, the requirement for maintaining a copy of the ledger becomes completely optional for a given user.  All wallets are thin clients by default.  A ledger has no ownership of coins and a server containing nothing but a ledger has no risk of having a wallet stolen or compromised.  Proof of work and proof of stake work hand in hand with a scribe to create and generate blocks which can be stored in a variety of formats depending on a particular ledger implementation (provided it follows the protocol specification) and IPC is as viable a communications layer as is RPC. 

With such an architecture, the codebase isn't stored as a large monolithic amalgam of routines and classes to form a complete application.  Instead, each client or service acts independently of all others, and a simple wallet update will not require a restart of a given ledger daemon.  That said, an update of a ledger daemon will not require stopping and restarting a wallet.  Scribes can keep working even with the local ledger (if you choose to run a ledger) offline.  Pools can happen entirely on the p2p network, and at no point are you required to run ALL of the services yourself just to use the currency.

This is about as detailed as I intend to get regarding the 2.0 architecture that I have devised in a public setting until after I have spoken with the development team regarding what they want to do with it (if anything) .  Suffice it to say, it is not a simple task.  It cannot be implemented in a short time frame to any degree of quality, and will almost definitely require that the majority of the codebase be rewritten from scratch.

I hope this has been enlightening for some of the less patient among you.  I am not currently involved with the development team for LTCD, and if they choose to implement my architecture, that decision lies squarely with them (and I assume still the community at large).  But rest assured, impatience and harsh criticisms of the developers will not likely get you there any faster.

The LTCD team has my full support and trust to ensure a bright future for LTCD as a whole.

So many things to address here.  As I cannot speak for anyone other than myself, I will only address questions that I can answer objectively.

(Also note, I realize I am quoting a post made by the new lead developer, but I am primarily addressing the same questions he addressed and only where it will add to the discussion.)


We're not talking about some short 5-10 page document.  We're talking about a 50+ page technical specification.  I have no objections to making it available, but it will go through official channels and I will not release it directly to the public.  That responsibility will lie in the hands of the new development team who will have the final say-so regarding its validity and weight.


Yes, my work is significantly different from anything appearing in the currently available source tree, and until the new dev team has a chance to look over the Gen 2 whitepaper, the extents of these differences aren't known by anyone other than myself.  This would make it extremely difficult for someone else to implement.  This is the main reason I am still volunteering access to the gen 2 paper.


Indeed, I am willing to assist as much as my time will allow, even if only on a consulting basis.  That said, my time is increasingly short as of late.


To the contrary, I feel no offense at the issue whatsoever.  My reasons for leaving the team were not due to issues with other members.  As stated in this thread, I have had personal issues as well as time constraints with my day job(s) that have required me to focus my attention elsewhere.


I would not be opposed to this, however, I do have a lot of things in my day-to-day life which are the priority at the moment, and I do not feel that it is in the best interests of the LTCD community to needlessly wait for updates while I get my affairs in order.  In the meantime, I feel that LTCD's codebase and community are in more than capable hands with the new team.



This question seems to me that someone never understood (no matter how many times I reiterated) that I was never in this for money.  I was in it to advance the tech.  I don't see why I alone should be the benefactor.  Redesigning the architecture is still one of my goals, but my priorities lie elsewhere at the moment, and I feel this team is, again, more than capable of implementing my architecture given access to the proper documentation.


This statement is a bit of an inaccuracy.  I was never "hired help".  I was always a volunteer.  I was never paid for my work and never asked for compensation of any kind  (aside from the original bounty for a linux wallet which was never received.)  If you go back and re-read the first few pages of this thread, you can see the story of how I joined unfold for yourself.



The new team has this well in hand.  I have their contact information and will make contact as soon as I have something to give them.  I cannot be rushed in the matter, but I have not given up on LTCD, the 2.0 architecture, or the community in general.  And I certainly have faith in the new dev team to have both the skills needed as well as the time required to make advancement a reality.

Just sent some information to Ghost55.  I don't like the accusations that are apparently being tossed around, but there isn't a lot that I can do about it.  Suffice it to say that I will not be working with the old development team in any capacity in the future.  If I can lend any advice, information, or help in any other capacity, let me know, just remember that I don't have a lot of time with which to dedicate to a large project.

I'd even be willing to clean up and submit the design/whitepaper for the work I had done regarding the 2.0 port, as I no longer have any plans to finalize it and would leave it to the new developers to decide what to do with it.

Thanks to everyone for the birthday wishes.  I've been extremely busy lately, but I'll try my best to be a bit more active here.

Due to repeated DDoS attacks and continued abuse of the only active DNS seed node, I've disabled it for now.

This is why we can't have nice things.  *grumbles*

Sure thing.  Honestly, I'm glad that you're interested, as you were already on my short list of ideal testers.  Once I've spoken with the team regarding this round of closed testing, we'll be in contact. 

Thanks.

Question, which may be followed by an announcement over the next few days (depending on what the team has to say about it) -- How many of you are running the LitecoinDark daemon (not the QT wallet) in a Windows environment? (litecoindarkd.exe).

I've made some incredible advancements over the past few days which I have not yet ported to GCC or Clang/LLVM and may be interested in a closed beta pre-alpha.

Let me know here, or send a PM to Xircom if you are interested.  I want to make sure this goes through the proper channels.

I just got home from work (day job, etc).  I have agreed to do an interview, however, I will need to discuss which questions I am able to answer with the rest of the dev team before it happens.  I don't worry about the tech being "stolen".  That said, I am still extremely limited on what I am able to discuss openly not for fear of "stolen tech", but because implementation details are subject to change at least until the 2.0 Whitepaper is released.

Once again, Xircom is the PR manager for the team, and for the most part he should be the one being interviewed, though I can see why any journalist would want to hear directly from the programmer.  Keep in mind though, that we are a team.  Not just the dev team, but the community is a part of this team as well.  While I may be the one that writes the code that the "team" wants, I don't make the decisions.  In that, I'm investing my time and hard work into this project, just as many of you have invested your time, effort, and money.

Once I have had the chance to meet with the team and discuss what questions are absolutely off limits (I already have a pretty good idea what I cannot answer) then I will contact you via PM to schedule something proper.

Thanks.

All I do is write code.  I don't manage the forum, so I cannot help with this.

http://www.richlist.eu/litecoindark/stats

Note the version.  The richlist is out of date.  When you processed the withdrawal from cryptsy, they had not yet updated.  Your transaction was broadcast onto the old fork.  Cryptsy should be able to take care of this for you.

Agreed.  I should probably address some of these questions.  I'll start at the beginning.


The whitepaper states that a heavily modified DarkSend would be implemented.  Whether this could be considered a "final" anon feature or not is hard to say.  Anonymity modules first need a fully-designed API with which to conform.  Keep in mind that we're not talking about bitcoin here.  We need to keep the code out of core and easily interchangeable with additional anonymous send modules.  DarkSend is simply one possible implementation.  The module itself should be allowed to define the parameters that our DarkSend clone would use and as such, transaction fees for anonymous sends could be something that would be easily changed in the future -- Read: when we get there.


As I stated in our conversation via PM, I don't understand how you're arriving at the conclusion that the coin would be mined out quickly.  Until/Unless the minimum reward in implemented, we will continue halving at regular intervals and MAX_MONEY will still be reached.  Eventually.  That parameter was not changed when nSubsidy was adjusted.  Even without a minimum reward this will extend mining time.  We do not measure total number of coins based on the number of halvings or based on block reward.  We measure total number of coins based on the define for MAX_MONEY.  That is the only parameter.  As we are introducing fewer coins per block, we have extended the mining period.

That said, the plan is to move to a minimum reward value at some arbitrary point in the future, however, once MAX_MONEY has been reached, that reward will be zero (tx fees only). That follows bitcoin / litecoin's design almost exactly.

This also has nothing to do with PoS.  The minting/staking algorithm I have been working on does not take MAX_MONEY into account.


Nearly all bitcoin clones have some form of tx fees implemented.  As we were forked from litecoin, we have tx fees already implemented.  Send a transaction with a low enough priority and you'll quickly see that.

You bring up a good point here though, Masternodes (as defined by DarkSend) are paid via "voting process" at every new block issued.  One node is paid per block, if I understand the spec correctly.  20% of each Darkcoin block goes to the masternodes instead of the miner.  This has nothing to do with transaction fees unless, of course, a given block contains transactions sent with fees.


This is similar to my initial suggestion.  Our final implementation is not yet set in stone, and it's hard to call anything "final" as we are building these implementations as modules that can be interchangeable.

I don't understand how having another group competing for fees is a bad thing.  The transaction fees should belong to whomever created the block, no matter the process for the block's generation.


I don't feel that you're off base at all.  You've raised perfectly valid questions, so I'm taking my time to try to address them individually.


I don't think we've ever said anything about going "pure" PoS.  However, stake values can (often are) still based on what we still refer to as interest rates.  Personally, I'd be happy with 0% and the only reward coming from transaction fees included in the blocks that are minted.  That way inflation would be a non-issue, and I don't like the idea of destroying tx fees to combat it.

0% isn't likely to sit well with anyone else, though.  That's why decisions are made by the community.

Also, masternodes don't generate blocks.  They mix coins.


Actually, in darkcoin the 1000 DRK requirement for running a masternode is used entirely for the purposes of discouraging additional masternodes.  They tend to generate a lot of traffic (and also give some incentive for people to hold coins.)

I'm not 100% happy with masternodes as our "only" anon feature, and as such I have additional modules planned for 2.0.  With that said, much of 2.0's design is based around separating the individual components of running a node (not masternode, the same as any LTCD wallet.)  When the whitepaper for 2.0 is released, this will make more sense.  What I can say to attempt to shed some light on the subject is this:  The LTCD 2.0 "wallet" is a separate application from the one that hosts the LTCD 2.0 blockchain.  In fact, the "ledger daemon" has complete capability to host "multiple" blockchains, each with their own chain parameters.  It could theoretically host and distribute bitcoin's blockchain allowing you to use LTCD 2.0 as an alternative wallet to bitcoin proper.  That said, it would require a module to be written to add the hosted chain (the ledger) to the daemon.

The ledger daemon is also not responsible for distributing work / transaction lists.  It simply listens for submitted blocks, verifies their contents, and broadcasts the block to the p2p network.  It hosts blockchains.  Nothing more, nothing less.

There are other applications being built for LTCD 2.0.  Most of these operate outside the blockchain and on separate p2p networks.  However, almost all of them connect to the p2p directory to locate services.  For instance, if you wanted a local copy of the blockchain, run your own ledgerd.  If you wanted a thin wallet only, don't run the ledgerd.  If a local ledger isn't found, the wallet prompts you to connect to the p2p network to get a list of ledger services from the network.

Keep in mind, the information I've just given you is not yet finalized, is subject to change, and has not been finished.  It is strictly hearsay until the 2.0 whitepaper is released.


Again, no reason why we can't implement multiple anonymity modules.  This is one I have been watching closely as well.


We have a lot of work ahead of us.  I don't see any harm in the community discussing PoS percentages early before we put it to an actual vote.


I'd say "something new" would be the most accurate description.  Details as soon as I'm comfortable releasing them.

^ +1. 

Let us know.

This week?  Not likely.  I do plan to have a minor update that I'm hoping to have ready by the end of the week, but no promises.  PoS isn't far away, most of the code is in place in my local repository, but pushing out hard fork after hard fork without any time in between is a terrible idea.  The only reason we've done so has been to address problems with the 1.0 codebase and specs that became apparent when the coin was hammered by multipools.

The OSX wallet has been requested several times, and I keep stating (and will continue stating) the same thing.  To the immediate left of me is my (broken) mac which I have simply not had time to repair.  I'm responding to this message from my primary development machine (linux) which I have only just managed to finish rebuilding.  Up until this point I've been developing on a glorified tablet/all-in-one computer due to the urgency of certain fixes and the community's unyielding demand for updates.

Warning: The following rant is strictly my opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of the rest of the LitecoinDark team.  Under no circumstances should it be taken as an "official" stance of any real standing.

The crypto world confuses me.  It seems to be full of "investors" (many, if not most, of whom consider a "long-term" investment to be measured in days or weeks as opposed to months or years.)  In the software development industry, software undergoes extensive code review, unit testing, some standardized release schedule, and even then after every single line of changed code is reviewed, any given build is tested for weeks before it is released.  This is how quality control works.

In crypto, we don't get that luxury a lot of the time.  It seems that I can't even get a week of development time to fix a critical issue (for example the previous update lowering the block reward) before the cries of "implement the next feature!" overwhelm me.  This is why I stopped being quite so active in the forums. 

It has been known for a while that once coin rewards dropped and we lost the multipools that we would lose a lot of network hashrate.  This is why Proof-of-Stake is highly desirable.  That said, this is a major change.  It isn't going to happen overnight.  It's coming.  It's next in line, even.  But it isn't going to be immediate.

Everyone is constantly asking for the "status" of a given feature.  The CPU from the build server has barely had time to cool from the last release build, lol.  I understand that people have money "invested" in LTCD, but remember that I do not follow the markets, and I am not paid for my work on LTCD.  My time is 100% my own.  I want to see LTCD succeed, as much if not more than any of you.  This is why I "invest" my time as heavily as I do.  That said, so far LTCD's development has bought me a really good cup of coffee (thank you to whomever donated that by the way) and a small bit of fuel in my vehicle.  I'm sure you can appreciate that I have bills to pay as well, which is why instead of "fixing my mac so I can build an OSX wallet" I've spent my day UVW unwrapping, texturing, rigging, and animating character models for another project I've been working on.

I don't want anyone to get the sense that I am not thankful for this community, that simply isn't the case.  I enjoy working on LTCD and in crypto in general.  But it does not pay my bills, and unless something major happens, it won't any time soon.  Until it does, I can only work in my spare time.

With all of that said, I am brought to the next point: Creating a bounty for an OSX build.  I both really like and really dislike this idea.  First of all, it eases my own burden by allowing a community member to compile (and be rewarded for his/her efforts), however, it does not give us the opportunity to review the code used in the compile.  There is no way of verifying that the code compiled is identical to the code in the github.  Therefore, I cannot in good conscious sign and verify a community-built binary without seriously putting it through its paces with a disassembler -- if I had time for this, I'd have time to build the binary myself, and then some.


TL;DR

• PoS: Next on the list.  Not this week.
• The community is welcome to build an OSX wallet, but we couldn't accept it as official.

It has just come to my attention that we have received emails asking if there are no more features coming prior to the 2.0 release.  This is not the case.  Honestly I have no idea why people feel some need to make assumptions like this when nothing has been said regarding it.

I am still working on the 1.x codebase, and am still implementing features from the official roadmap and whitepaper.  We are not abandoning the 1.x codebase, and have never said anything to indicate that this might be true.

2.0 is still a long way off!  I've merely stated that I'm not going to continue posting a new wallet once per week.  By slowing down, I mean to say that while I've been spending 12+ hours per day focusing on LTCD code, I cannot continue to do so.  As someone who is working as volunteer I cannot afford to spend so much time on the project.  I still plan to work on it, most likely doing at least some work every day, just not half of every day.

Remember, I'm not getting paid for this.  Yet another reason that I care not what the market is doing.

What I can say about the 2nd generation features is simple.  

The LTCD 2.0 branch is based on a complete redesign of blockchain-based currency.  It has been forked directly from a project which I have been working on independently since before LitecoinDark was ever even an idea.  Everything about the wallet, protocol -- even the blockchain itself has been redesigned to meet a new development paradigm.

I will not give specifics about the 2.0 branch or any of the 2nd generation features until I have finished the 2.0 whitepaper (something I had never intended to release as anything more than a case study or proof of concept until after I joined this team), however, by definition, since it shares almost (possibly even zero) code with bitcoin/litecoin/etc and was written from the ground-up addressing some of the issues with 1st gen blockchain currencies, it is no doubt 2nd generation.

In all honesty, LTCD 2.0 shares zero code with LTCD 1.x.  Everything has been re-imagined.  Mining, staking -- RPC/IPC connectivity, external dependencies, build systems, update procedures -- everything.

So I'm sure you can understand why we have not and will not release any specifics until the whitepaper is ready to be published.

What I can give you, however, is this:


Nothing special.  Except that it's "transcribing" into a "ledger" via IPC/BC-API (through a dynamically-linked library connecting to a ledger daemon implementation.)

This particular scribe implementation is written in C#.  This particular ledger daemon, C++.

But don't expect 2.0 in the near future.  As I said before, I'm slowing down my pace because I have other priorities that need attention as well. (Family/Work/Life, etc.)

Edit: I also said previously not to even bother giving place to claims that I make regarding progress.  If you want to know what's going on, watch the code over the coming months.  LTCD isn't even 2 months old yet.  Please, be patient.

What's encouraging about that is that the volume in LTCD of those buys is several times greater than the total number of LTCD that will ever exist.  What's discouraging is that the order for that number is as low as 1 satoshi.  This is why I don't market.  It makes no sense.

Then you might have bigger concerns at hand.