Aahhrg!  |
|
|
|
I'm still working on a solution to find a stable relationship between my dayjob and my favorite hobby (spreadcoin).
Next week on monday (23rd) I'll meet with my most important customer to set my schedule for the rest of the year.
That should clarify lots of things.
Just wanted to say... Everything went well, finances look very good for the rest of the year. Now that everything is set, I'll be able to spend much more time on spreadcoin! How's mr.spread you ask?  He's enjoying life alright! |
|
|
|
The data is held already by nodes.
Only the most recent network data is currently "held" by the nodes, and it is quickly replaced with new data that is coming in all the time, for the reason that you would otherwise create TeraBytes of data if you were to save/hold/keep track of the ever changing network data of just the past few weeks. And imagine you do this for multiple altcoins (some of them with high traffic/volume) simultaneously...? It will be interesting to see what algorithms we (and others) will come up with just to be able to handle the sheer amount of data. |
|
|
|
Crypto and big data is just going to happen. You heard it here first....let's see it here first too This could be really cool as a tool after 12.2, we can make all of the network data available to us in a database, then query locally using MYSQL. https://www.periscopedata.com/ab?source=quantcast&ad=so-300x250Imagine graphing stats like Payments Per hour, Account Creations Per Hour, etc. We can track the activities on the network pretty well with something like this. I think one of the biggest problems of big data will be how to handle and digest those insane amounts of data streams that come in. It's not as easy as it sounds.  Interesting times ahead of us. |
|
|
|
... Hail Hydra.
Well said. It's not up to us to decide like a unified block who we want to be affiliated with. Rather every "node" gets to decide which chain best fits its individual needs. Decentralize everything. |
|
|
|
BTW, now is the opportunity to buy.  That's the spirit I know it's the last thing you want to hear, but... STAY TUNED!  |
|
|
|
BTW, now is the opportunity to buy. |
|
|
|
On paper DASH has an inferior model to SPR because of the proof of bitcoin node plans to create incentivized Bitcoin nodes.
DASH is currently trending towards $10. Someone around here speculated that SPR could be valued at 10% of BTC. The more that DASH trends towards $10 and towards 4,000 Master Nodes the more the estimate of each SPR being worth 10% of BTC shows some credibility.
SPR was my hedge that DASH will never replace Bitcoin. I just can't understand that with such a great opportunity the dev team around here seem happy to let this huge potential slip through their fingers without putting up a fight.
This isn't just about the price of each SPR being worth $45 but the ability of the SPR dev team and the community to influence Bitcoin development because SPR could become so fundamental to the future stability and success of Bitcoin. SPR could be a layer two project for Bitcoin which could attract talented devs to help expand this project. The SPR devs would also be asked to speak at major conferences, if they wanted to, which would be great for this project. Being valued at 10% of BTC might be just the tip of the iceberg.
There are many of us that believe this project has so much potential. When the devs make announcements about updates and releases the price of SPR picks up. When there is silence for weeks and months, the price trends much lower. Confidence is what is missing and that just requires engagement from the devs. I look at this project sometimes and just shake my head in disbelief that such a great opportunity is seemingly being wasted for the sake of better communications that can build a strong community.
Look, I'm the guy who has to develop all those things. Some of them being really hard scientific problems I have to solve. You are the guy who can dream about 10% price of BTC etc, making wild comparisons and assumptions and make them sound like facts and truths. I can't be bothered with that. It is because of guys like you (investors with overblown assumptions) that I was often pressured to make announcements about updates, when in reality it was (and is) just too early for that. It's tricky... All I can say at this point is: Good things are ahead of us, and I'm here to stay and work on Spreadcoin/Servicenodes. I'm still working on a solution to find a stable relationship between my dayjob and my favorite hobby (spreadcoin). Next week on monday (23rd) I'll meet with my most important customer to set my schedule for the rest of the year. That should clarify lots of things. Stay tuned! |
|
|
|
Georgem, how's Mr. Spread? My life feels less than complete without his presence in the forum lol
I'm in the workshop with him right now. I'll provide a few photos later. Too much work! |
|
|
|
100% onwards and upwards.
That's the spirit! This Wright guy is a complete sociopath. |
|
|
|
lol, haha... DOCTOR craig wright. I see... And did you watch the BBC video.... https://youtu.be/dZNtbAFnr-0?t=17sThis "doctor" says monkey-er instead of moniker... This is just....  I'm going to order a ship shipping ship worth of popcorn:  |
|
|
|
Should be very easy to adjust mining software since SpreadX11 (both the X11-part and the Spread anti-pool-mechanism-part) stay exactly the same, just a new byte has to be introduced, and somekind of GUI or CMD input read in so that miners can type in or set their vote. (Or simply let them write in their vote in the conf file, and it will be used from then on.)
Right now I'm creating an experimental build for testnet that will allow us to CPU-mine and set our vote and observe how the percentage changes over time (1440 votes per day).
Should be fun. I hope to have it finished in a few hours.
I'm not a big fan of having to modify miner software especially since some paid for optimized closed source miners which will probably not get updated. Would it be possible for the wallet to add the voting part when a block is found (from via the .conf or something?) while using current mining softwares? I hear you, but we will have to adjust the miner software at some point anyway. Not just because of the mining voting, but because servicenodes themselves will require an adjustment/fork of the blockchain. And whenever something in the blockchain changes, the miners have to be changed too... so this is nothing new. What we can do is reduce the amount of forks to a minimum. When servicenodes go testnet and are successful we will create three new miners (in-wallet-CPU miner, and a GPU miner for AMD, and a GPU one for Nvidia). Any chance for an FPGA miner? Specifically Cairnsmore1 unit bitstreams?  Pretty please with sugar on top?  Sure, if SPR price rises we can hire any expert to fund any crazy project you can come up with, why not. I am barely starting to understand openCL for GPU, and I am also looking at the programming of small devices like the TREZOR. But for everything that goes farther than that we can hire experts at some point. Stay tuned! |
|
|
|
Should be very easy to adjust mining software since SpreadX11 (both the X11-part and the Spread anti-pool-mechanism-part) stay exactly the same, just a new byte has to be introduced, and somekind of GUI or CMD input read in so that miners can type in or set their vote. (Or simply let them write in their vote in the conf file, and it will be used from then on.)
Right now I'm creating an experimental build for testnet that will allow us to CPU-mine and set our vote and observe how the percentage changes over time (1440 votes per day).
Should be fun. I hope to have it finished in a few hours.
I'm not a big fan of having to modify miner software especially since some paid for optimized closed source miners which will probably not get updated. Would it be possible for the wallet to add the voting part when a block is found (from via the .conf or something?) while using current mining softwares? I hear you, but we will have to adjust the miner software at some point anyway. Not just because of the mining voting, but because servicenodes themselves will require an adjustment/fork of the blockchain. And whenever something in the blockchain changes, the miners have to be changed too... so this is nothing new. What we can do is reduce the amount of forks to a minimum. When servicenodes go testnet and are successful we will create three new miners (in-wallet-CPU miner, and a GPU miner for AMD, and a GPU one for Nvidia). |
|
|
|
@georgem: what's the hold up? We were testing a few days ago. Please update with the newest CPU miner and we'll continue the test process. I'm sure I'm not the only person here ready to continue!
I'm on it, I'm on it! maybe i'm just being unlucky lately, but i'm not finding the same amount of blocks as before, and the net is the same all the time, something wrong...
Just bad luck. I can't see anything unusual. |
|
|
|
but I can now concentrate on the experimental build again.
Just got a Dell, nothing special... just reserved for the test whenever you're ready. After that we'll throw some more power at it Thanks man, I really appreciate your help! Woops, and boom goes the dynamite! Legendary Status! |
|
|
|
In any case, it's about time we started a few real world experiments.
Amen to that Just got a brand new laptop ready for this test cycle. Bring it on! Very cool. I had to work until now, but I can now concentrate on the experimental build again. BTW.. What laptop did you get? Also, you really wanna CPU mine with your new laptop? I hope it has a good cooling system?  |
|
|
|
my miner stopped mining, can't restart it... no error messages, just no hash power... probably nobody on the network?
I have 1 miner at home and 1 remote server running all the time now. What peers to you see when you do a getpeerinfo? And what current block nr does your wallet show right now? I was going to say the same. Miner is out of sync since around 14.01 SPR miner time (GMT probably). Looks like someone put some resources on it and forked us off. ASICs already? In any case, it's about time we started a few real world experiments. I have lots of ideas for future experiments, ... And those experiments are also good to test what we thought we already knew. Stay tuned! |
|
|
|
Ok cool, I look forward to playing with the voting tomorrow again Cool, thanks. I'll have an improved version ready for all systems by then. |
|
|
|
yeah, I think we already have atleast 2 forks because of low participation (I've seen one stuck at block 500, and the other at 782), lol
Wait guys, I need to create a new blockchain and spread it over 2 servers and hardcode them into the wallet, or else this might repeat itself.
I might also add a checkpoint or two.
Please stop mining for now.
PS: It's also cool to learn about such things in realworld experiments, so thanks alot to whoever spends a few CPU cycles for this. Awesome!
Shouldn't the clients just use the longest chain they find so the fork wouldn't matter? Just asking I really don't know Ofcourse, ofcourse. No, forget everything I said, I need to use my brain more. It's just a stupid error! There was still an old checkpoint set in the code that expected block nr. 500 to be a certain hash. (goes back to mr. spread) I forgot to remove those checkpoints, aahrg! And that's what created this mess. Wait, I'll look over everything once more, and restart a new chain. |
|
|
|
|
yeah, I think we already have atleast 2 forks because of low participation (I've seen one stuck at block 500, and the other at 782), lol
Wait guys, I need to create a new blockchain and spread it over 2 servers and hardcode them into the wallet, or else this might repeat itself.
I might also add a checkpoint or two.
Please stop mining for now.
PS: It's also cool to learn about such things in realworld experiments, so thanks alot to whoever spends a few CPU cycles for this. Awesome!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
