i understand what you want to say but the purpose of this post is just recognized the people this is not trust able coin
Maybe so but that's unrelated to misleading statements about the role of MAX_MONEY. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
in Lepen coin provided github source code they mention total supply is 500 Million
MAX_MONEY is not “total supply” but a limit imposed per transaction. As evidenced in the code: gjh@ashpool:/tmp$ git clone https://github.com/LePenCoin/LePenCoin.git
gjh@ashpool:/tmp$ grep -rn MAX_MONEY LePenCoin/
LePenCoin/src/bitcoinrpc.cpp:99: if (dAmount <= 0.0 || dAmount > MAX_MONEY)
LePenCoin/src/main.cpp:499: if (txout.nValue > MAX_MONEY)
LePenCoin/src/main.cpp:550: return MAX_MONEY;
LePenCoin/src/main.cpp:555: nMinFee = MAX_MONEY;
LePenCoin/src/main.h:42:static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 500000000 * COIN;
LePenCoin/src/main.h:48:inline bool MoneyRange(int64_t nValue) { return (nValue >= 0 && nValue <= MAX_MONEY); }
LePenCoin/src/test/data/tx_invalid.json:39:["MAX_MONEY + 1 output"],
LePenCoin/src/test/data/tx_invalid.json:43:["MAX_MONEY output + 1 output"],
LePenCoin/src/test/data/tx_valid.json:54:["MAX_MONEY output"],
LePenCoin/src/test/data/tx_valid.json:58:["MAX_MONEY output + 0 output"],
The GetProofOfWorkReward routine determines the total number of coins emitted: // miner's coin base reward
int64_t GetProofOfWorkReward(int64_t nFees)
{
int64_t nSubsidy = 1 * COIN;
if(pindexBest->nHeight < 10000)
{
nSubsidy = 100000 * COIN;
}
if (fDebug && GetBoolArg("-printcreation"))
printf("GetProofOfWorkReward() : create=%s nSubsidy=%"PRId64"\n", FormatMoney(nSubsidy).c_str(), nSubsidy);
return nSubsidy + nFees;
}
i.e. 1000 * 100000 = 100000000 (+ (1 * forever)) This accords with the value shown by the block explorer. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Staking started after 9 days!!!
Hurrah!! (phew) Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
After 8 days my wallet still not staking
That must be frustrating. Anyone else experiencing this problem? Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Not an issue at this point. Any plan to continue develop this coin in future? Is has a good name and history here.. Not in any conventional sense of the term “development”, no. But ... I'd argue that the history is uninspiring. The emission phase is complete and block reward is basically tx-only. Trading is minimal, wallet is in “maintenance mode” on Yobit and as noted above, delisted from Bleutrade. Also, not a good choice of name by jp OP, there was already a promotion-redeeming “smart electronic coupon” called VCoin, offered by a company registered in HK. They made a trademark application for VCoin in the US last year, might even have been granted by now. VCoin is basically obliged to re-brand completely - like Darknet re-branding to PIVX. Any conventional development would have to acknowledge the unexceptional nature of the technical aspects of the coin and have to be positioned in such a way as to render this aspect relatively insignificant --- the fact that there have been 3000+ launched altcoins testifies to the difficulty of this task. VCoin is a totally blank canvas, the OP abandoned the coin almost as soon as the code was made public. In the complete absence of a “public vision”, I've felt free to adapt the coin to be a public work of art and, working in my own branch, am in the process of decorating it with a few imaginative notions that I conjured up, based on some reading I did into some of the less-frequently considered aspects of a peer-to-peer networked cryptocurrency. It's very much a labour of love. As a public work of art, there is nothing to interest “investors” - which is why it's not an issue that Bleutrade delisted the coin. It's difficult to see how an untraded, emission-complete, tx-only, SHA2-256D coin going to be of much interest to the altcoin mavens of bitcointalk, especially when there are so many other much more promising alternatives. As for the quietude in this thread - I'd rather get on with the art than yak about getting on with the art. If you're interested in art rather than money, PM me and I'll elaborate further. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
but in the CLI wallets it sits at 0.0000 from the beginning. I have set reservebalance to false in the CLI wallet a couple a days ago. Maybe I should wait more?
Are you still seeing this? What are the news regarding OP_RETURN? In the Github repo is still on the move to debug phase...
I've looked at the code, can't see anything obviously amiss, matches ppcoin bit-for-bit AFAICT. More investigation needed. It's an old codebase, not been retrospectively bugfixed. Try pasting this into the RPC console command line (hash is block 0, the genesisblock hash): getblock 00000766be5a4bb74c040b85a98d2ba2b433c5f4c673912b3331ea6f18d61bea true
Yuk. Currently trying to persuade Abe to read Slimcoin blocks and txs, might throw some light on the (assumedly) misparsing. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Curious what you both think about georgem divesting from spreadcoin. I found his justifications a bit thin, but I was wondering what you thought?
Whatever he chooses to do, it's unlikely to make much difference. The dissipation of the critical energy of a group results in a proportional reduction in the volatility of the perceived group consensus. Those who remain committed have been so for two years now (for an arbitrary value of “committed”). Co-incidentally, this thread is turning into a bit of an anniversary reunion. /me waves. Don't think Palm Detroit is still around tho' Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
After how many blocks staking will start? I just turned it on
In case it passed you by: the source has reservebalance=1000000 hard-coded in it to prevent the client from prematurely staking while it is synching. It's a workaround, not a fix. Users must set reservebalance=0 in the config file or on the commandline in order to enable a funded wallet to receive mint-by-proof-of-stake rewards. IME, mint-by-proof-of-stake rewards start appearing 2 - 3 days after staking is enabled. YMMV. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
... official thread.
sigh. Can we tighten up the thinking just a little bit? official (əˈfɪʃəl)
adj
1. of or relating to an office, its administration, or its duration
2. sanctioned by, recognized by, or derived from authority: an official statement.
3. appointed by authority, esp for some special duty
au·thor·i·ty (ə-thôr′ĭ-tē, ə-thŏr′-, ô-)
n. pl. au·thor·i·ties
1.
a. The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
The phrase “official thread” is semantically vacuous, as attested by this very thread and the posts made to it. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I wonder what would happen if, instead of using hashes of torrents, we will store ... whatever. You can build an entire communication protocol on top of the blockchain.
With limitations, yes. Torrent hashes are just low-hanging fruit. See https://github.com/solid/solid for the Really Big Picture(tm). Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
That is a Bleutrade bug, alternatively an autofill bug. I suspect that the field where your email address is, triggers the autofill to enter an email address. Replace your email address in the wallet address field with a valid VCoin wallet address and submit - voila!
Your analysis was spot on. It was an autofill issue. I followed your advice and successfully withdrew my coins. voila! indeed. Thank you. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Wasn't this coin on Bluetrade? Not there anymore. Guess that's a few 1000 less in circulation then.
It was,now and I can't find it I will contact with bleutrade for more info.. For now trading in yobit https://yobit.net/en/trade/VCOIN/BTCYobit's wallet is in maintenance. Bluetrade has it under their delisted currencies. I just raised an issue: VCoin
Apparently delisted without notice whilst I was waiting for a purchase to complete. Now that the purchase has competed, how can I withdraw my coins?
Awaiting a response. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I enjoyed the discussion about Collective Intelligences and I feel it deserves, maybe, a separated thread.
Glad you enjoyed it, point taken. My question this time is: does the Slimcoin blockchain dynamically adjusts difficulty? The desktop version has a graph in which it shows the current difficulty and (I presume) the average. The current difficulty line soared for a few days and it was also scattered (less transactions? less coins generated? less coins mined?) but now is back to its initial level, with more consistency. I also noted that during the high difficulty and scattered line the generated / minted coins were less.
So, is there an algorithm that adjusts the difficulty when there isn't enough supply on the market? Or it's just the fact that some people with big machines entered the blockchain when they saw SLM listed on novaexchange, and then, when they saw the price at just 350 Satoshis they decided to get out?
Any insights will be highly appreciated.
I can't offer any insights, sorry. As far I understand it, all (bitcoin protocol) blockchains dynamically adjust difficulty in an attempt to maintain the desired block minting target spacing, i.e. controlling the emission rate. In Slimcoin's case, the target spacing ( nTargetSpacing) is 90 seconds. From the ANN: Block time is 1.5 minutes (90 seconds)
Difficulty re-targets continuously
Block rewards decrease in value as the difficulty increases
The three-part minting mechanism complicates the calculations, e.g: https://github.com/slimcoin-project/Slimcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1072//Target timespan for PoB is 30 PoW blocks
With Bitcoin/clones, the specification is in the implementation. In consequence, the code is canonical and is the only place where true enlightenment can be gained. The simulation code also offers a glimpse of the complexities: https://github.com/slimcoin-project/Slimcoin/blob/master/simulations/pob_difficulty.pyYou may well be right about the origin of the recent changes in the Slimcoin difficulty. Unfortunately, the situation only affords near-limitless conjecture, we are not in a position even to be able to assess whether is was a result of direct human intervention or a programmed automaton. For best results, Turing tests should be conducted face-to-face and offline. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I would suggest having someone update the core codebase to as latest as possible and then attempting to launch service nodes.
Chaincoin acquired masternodes in its upgrade to 0.9, the most recent Core version that doesn't necessitate a hard fork of the blockchain, c.f. the Bitcoin 0.10 release notes: Because release 0.10.0 makes use of headers-first synchronization and parallel block download (see further), the block files and databases are not backwards-compatible with older versions of Bitcoin Core or other software:
A hard fork creates a forced choice, upgrade to the new client/blockchain / stay with the old client/blockchain. A consensus will become evident but that in itself will not necessarily result in a single blockchain - both old and new chains can exist separately and simultaneously. However, an upgrade to 0.9 falls well short of defunctec's (eminently pragmatic) criterion of “latest as possible” and also misses out on the improvements that the 10-13 versions bring. From a maintenance perspective, going to 0.9 is hardly worth the effort, given the (un-guessable, even) risk of dividing the community --- it cannot be ignored that such a move could result in georgem's miner and blockexplorer work being effectively isolated if he was minded to maintain his insular stance. <digression> This thread has been useful in prompting me to go back and refresh my memory of events. I bailed in late April 2015, eventually observing “in several areas my perceptions are starting to differ sufficiently from (what I perceive to be) the consensus that it basically renders irrelevant any contribution I might make in that context, so I'm opting to keep my own counsel there.” The subtext was: “Nope, that ain't gonna work. Bugger this for a game of soldiers, I'm slinging my hook” (high and low registers, right?) Anyway, I had to check back on coins101's apparent understanding “That's along the lines I was thinking of broadcasting messages” because my model had Mr Spread's description placed in early 2015 with late spring for coins101/georgem's development project for Bitcoin node support. So I had to check - which was useful because in the process of refreshing my memory, I was confronted with a use case discussion that I had completely forgotten about but the content of which later significantly informed my understanding - so props to thelonecrouton and Anothernode for spelling it out - details later .. </digression> There's a raft of 0.10 coins, just search on Github for "Bitcoin Core version 0.10.0 is now available from:"There are markedly fewer 0.11 coins aaand (for completeness) 0.12 and 0.13I can't tell offhand which of the Core versions have overlay networks but there aren't many. I think bitcredits got to 0.12 and had an overlay network, that might be a sensible place in which to start looking. Upgrading that to 0.13 will still be effortful, btw. It would have to be a long running jump and grab to 0.12/0.13 and even then Spreadcoin could end up like iXCoin, all synched up and nowhere to go. Anyway, time to return to the Anothernode/thelonecrouton discussion. I'm not going to re-post the discussion, just the pointers: my post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.msg10973864#msg10973864thelonecrouton's response: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.msg10975747#msg10975747anothernode's refinement: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.msg10976140#msg10976140The key insight is thelonecrouton's “using the MN network as a consensus mechanism for choosing the locus/loci”. It's relevance didn't strike me until I found myself reading: The group is initialized by either a trusted dealer or a set of founding members. The dealer or founding members initialize the group by choosing a group secret key, and computing and publishing the corresponding public parameters in the group certificate. The group secret is shared among the founding member(s) using either Shamir’s threshold secret sharing (TSS) or joint secret sharing (JSS) techniques
Threshold cryptography in P2P and MANETs: The case of access controland I realised that “initialize the group by choosing a group secret key” can be mapped to “a consensus mechanism for choosing the locus/loci” Which brings us smartly to the key question: is the overlay network capable of ephemeral knowledge of a secret and thereby capable of offering trustworthy cryptography? Using an overlay network to mediate threshold cryptography is not a done deal by any means - see Chen and Wu's review of the field: A Survey on Cryptography Applied to
Secure Mobile Ad Hoc Networks and Wireless Sensor Networks (PDF). I just thought I'd chuck that into the mix. Also, coins101 put a lot of effort into detailing the other possibilities for exploiting the advantages of an overlay network, shouldn't be overlooked at this point: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=976031.msg10656234#msg10656234Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
My perspective on peer-to-peer networked cryptocurrencies has changed over the years and it now points me in an entirely different direction.
Broadly, in this direction -> http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Human_Nature.pdf (HUMAN NATURE AND SOCIAL NETWORKS) Author is: http://csreports.aspeninstitute.org/Roundtable-on-Institutional-Innovation/2013/participants/details/7/john-clippingerSociality and command and control
It is important at this point to relate the prior discussion to the fundamental concern of this book: how do you have effective and accountable command and control in a distributed, networked organization? In practical terms, how do you control something over which you do not have direct authority?
The findings summarized in this chapter show that humans have evolved as a social species and have consequently developed highly sophisticated social signaling and enforcement mechanisms that reward and enforce complex forms of cooperative behaviors. The implications for command and control structures are profound.
Instead of having to impose such cooperative mechanisms from above or through formal monitoring and intervention processes, highly sophisticated cooperative behaviors can be evoked by creating a context in which the appropriate social signaling takes place. Once given the appropriate signals and rules, groups can spontaneously self-organize and control themselves.
Moreover, as presented in Chapters Six and Seven, there is evidence that people self-select to identify a social network role to accomplish critical tasks and preserve the integrity of the group
As the behavioral economist Paul Zak (28) has shown in a number of his experiments on trust, subjects do not act to maximize their own self-interest as would be predicted by classic economic theory (the social realist), but engage in trust-building behaviors to develop cooperative strategies.
Such strategies for forming self-synchronizing groups have survived because they have been shown to have enormous survival value. Indeed they are not utopian, but highly pragmatic in ensuring group or species survival.
Cheers Graham Edit: added illustrative quote |
|
|
|
Unless you mean forking SPR is not worthwhile relative to other more up to date coins?
Yes. By the way, I am curious as to your thoughts in regards to the current state of the project, if you have any. If you have some time I would love to hear them.
It's kind of you to invite me to opine but I don't have much to offer, I'm afraid. My initial interest was sparked by Mr Spread's technical appreciation of the domain and his “internal market” solution to the logistics of overlay network membership. Is SpreadCoin implementation based on DarkCoin?
No, this is original implementation.
How is it different from DarkCoin?
In SpreadCoin there are no centralized reference nodes to decide which masternodes should receive payments, it is decided by the network in decentralized maner. In DarkCoin the messages which select masternodes are separate from the blockchain and are distributed independently. This way it is possible that nodes will have different opinion on what masternode should receive next payment. In SpreadCoin all votes for masternodes will be stored in blocks and the payee will be uniquely determined from the previous blocks. Just like you can check that any transaction included in the block is correct by comparing its inputs with outputs in previous blocks you will be able to check that masternode payment is correct by checking previous blocks. Why bitcoin is so reliable? Because all nodes have exactly the same rules how to determine which blockchains are correct and which one is better (required more work) than others, these rules are only depended on blocks themselves, not on the order in which they were received them nor on any other messages which you may or may not receive in time. The network can be unstable in the case of some major event which will break connectivity between nodes but once connectivity between nodes is reestablished all nodes will stick to the same blockchain. The same will apply to SpreadCoin.
How masternodes are elected?
Each node monitor the network and assign scores to each masternode. This scores depend on how well masternodes provide their services, for instant transactions this will be time delay between transaction and its confimation by masternode. Since there may be no transactions and only elected masternodes will confirm transactions there is an empty service - each masternode will broadcast messages signining certain blocks to prove that it is running. Miners will include votes in their blocks. Votes can either be positive (elect not yet elected masternode) or negative (deelect already elected masternode). If masternode has more than 30 positive votes in the last 60 blocks then it is added to the list of elected masternodes. If masternode has more then 30 negative votes in the last 60 blocks then it is removed from the list of elected masternodes. Note that it is possible to determine which masternodes were elected at each particular block.
And in the context of discussions about forking the codebase, perhaps it's also worth noting: What is the state of instant transactions implementation in SpreadCoin?
Most effort was put into developing masternode election/payments mechanism, instant transactions are currently not fully implemented. Although masternodes confirm them there is no logic in place to replace unconfirmed transactions with the confirmed ones in the case of double spending attacks and to reject blocks with conflicting transactions. Note that rejecting blocks based on whether or not it includes transactions which conflict with confirmed instant transactions can lead to forks but this can be solved.
My interest in the solution persists (in the context of a contemporary codebase) but I've lost contact with whatever georgem is working on. Keeping an eye on the relevant bits of bitcointalk is tolerable but I can't afford to extend that to coin-specific external forums. I'm assuming any substantive development will be reported on the main bitcointalk thread ... eventually. Other than that, as far as the rest of the community is concerned, the Spreadcoin project would seem to be effectively suspended until the development process is complete, whenever that may be. This has had the unfortunate knock-on effect of depriving the community of a shared focus for its communication and that in turn has had a deleterious effect on the cohesion of the group. My perspective on peer-to-peer networked cryptocurrencies has changed over the years and it now points me in an entirely different direction. Irrespective of that, there's now a whole bunch of alts with masternodes which emphasises the need for a coherent development vision to drive any separate development strand. Strictly speaking, a fork isn't required, anyone can clone the repos, create another branch and work in that - just as georgem has done with the new-wallet branch. But it wouldn't make sense to do that unless there was some sort of “public vision” to drive the development. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I would support an effort to fork the coin.
From a maintenance perspective, It may be too late for that particular approach. The Spreadcoin codebase is a copy of Darkcoin, itself a copy of Bitcoin 0.8.3. That's mid-June 2013 by my reckoning. The various Bitcoin release notes for 0.9-13 spell out how much change has occurred since then. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
VCoin main chain and explorer are ticking over.
