Has anyone else noticed the huge drop in the price of DRK? Its lost 50% of its value in less than a week. Anyone know why?
You're cherry picking your numbers somewhat eh? DRK spiked to 0.016 for about five minutes, now it's back at 0.011 while BTC is on the up. DRK's US$ value has only dropped about 18% though from that spike top. And whatever way you look at it the price is much higher now than the 0.006 / sub $2 it was at for months. Yes, but the pump of InstantX is all gone. No, it's just started. Once exchanges get their heads around using IX properly, there will be a steady flow of new adopters and then news, and then price rises. Well I will be curious to see how it works and very interested. Its good for spread really. Exchanges and merchants will have already dealt with IX tech and should be able to implement SPR IX no prob. Yes and no. InstantX is temporary. There is a lot of chatter going on about furthering that project. Really? I've missed that.. What are the future plans for IX? And who is talking about changing it? Thx |
|
|
|
Has anyone else noticed the huge drop in the price of DRK? Its lost 50% of its value in less than a week. Anyone know why?
You're cherry picking your numbers somewhat eh? DRK spiked to 0.016 for about five minutes, now it's back at 0.011 while BTC is on the up. DRK's US$ value has only dropped about 18% though from that spike top. And whatever way you look at it the price is much higher now than the 0.006 / sub $2 it was at for months. Yes, but the pump of InstantX is all gone. No, it's just started. Once exchanges get their heads around using IX properly, there will be a steady flow of new adopters and then news, and then price rises. Well I will be curious to see how it works and very interested. Its good for spread really. Exchanges and merchants will have already dealt with IX tech and should be able to implement SPR IX no prob. |
|
|
|
Has anyone else noticed the huge drop in the price of DRK? Its lost 50% of its value in less than a week. Anyone know why?
You're cherry picking your numbers somewhat eh? DRK spiked to 0.016 for about five minutes, now it's back at 0.011 while BTC is on the up. DRK's US$ value has only dropped about 18% though from that spike top. And whatever way you look at it the price is much higher now than the 0.006 / sub $2 it was at for months. Yes, but the pump of InstantX is all gone. No, it's just started. Once exchanges/merchants get their heads around using IX properly, there will be a steady flow of new adopters and then news, and then price rises. |
|
|
|
Has anyone else noticed the huge drop in the price of DRK? Its lost 50% of its value in less than a week. Anyone know why?
You're cherry picking your numbers somewhat eh? DRK spiked to 0.016 for about five minutes, now it's back at 0.011 while BTC is on the up. DRK's US$ value has only dropped about 18% though from that spike top. And whatever way you look at it the price is much higher now than the 0.006 / sub $2 it was at for months.  |
|
|
|
Has anyone else noticed the huge drop in the price of DRK? Its lost 50% of its value in less than a week. Anyone know why?
Maybe due to network issues, "DRK deposits and withdrawals are temporarily disabled due to an issue with the network." - poloniex. I hope SPR MN implementation is better. Darkcoin $2.70 This is $1.70 higher than its previous low, not that long ago. |
|
|
|
Which is why we need a name change. If we call it masternodes then it will look identical to DRK, and even appear that we stole from them.
it IS identical to DRK MasterNodes. Its an identical masternode, coded from scratch, but still the same. And we did borrow it from them, even part of the code. So stop sweeping it under the carpet. Spreadnodes, Smartnodes, Decentralized Masternodes, anything different. Without this it will look like a scam coin.
We will look like a scam coin if we do the same thing, with a shared code base, but a different name. Didn't you read what Mr. Spread just said? Yes, he did say exactly what i said: it is an implementation from scratch of the same thing. From scratch. That is the definition of a new item. Building it from the ground up. Like building a car from the ground up. When that happens you never end up with the same car. Another popular phrase: back to the drawing board. New idea, new name. Edit: This is no different than SpreadX11 or X11. Similar code, but 1 major difference! Well, X11 is a good example. You are saying that my miner and wolf0 optimized miner do not mine X11 because we coded them from the ground up? So my miner should be called G11 and his W11? Why not? |
|
|
|
He then takes the MN code and changes that also.
I don't take and change MN code, masternode implementation in SpreadCoin is my own. Your implementation uses transaction locking, block reward for MN? That's basically DRK MN. But, i know you have changed the code allot, and don't consider it yourself to be "taken". The trolls will not agree. I will say this one more time, I didn't change DarkCoin masternode code, I simply do not use it. Current implementation of SpreadCoin masternodes is very different from DarkCoin, athough DarkCoin is moving in the right direction so it will be less different in the future. I'v never been so happy to be corrected  |
|
|
|
He then takes the MN code and changes that also.
I don't take and change MN code, masternode implementation in SpreadCoin is my own. Your implementation uses transaction locking, block reward for MN? That's basically DRK MN. But, i know you have changed the code allot, and don't consider it yourself to be "taken". The trolls will not agree. |
|
|
|
I enjoy those discussions. I don't even notice the trolls anymore... it's like they have turned into a quiet background noise.... ssssssshhhhhh.... like white noise..... But aren't SPR's masternodes different than DRK's masternodes? It's a little subjective. Again, using a car theme here BTC is a 1.3 1999 diesel engine. DRK is a 2L petrol V6. SPR (if works on realese) is the same engine as DRK but a V8 (reference nodes/competing for a place in the MN chart/fluctuating amount needed for MN) Ofcourse DRK has the Dev to make DRK a V12 But wouldn't it be reasonable to call ours a V8 and not a V6? Ours is different if only slightly improved. If we call both engines a V6 then people will not know the difference. Yes, if it's a V8 then say it's a V8. So if spreadcoin is the first coin to have decentralized MN's, then boast that. Call them, DMN (Decentralized MasterNodes). I completely agree with this. We have many people saying that it is unethical and wrong to do this though. SPR's masternodes are different, for that reason we should call them something else. Decentralized MasterNodes is good, Spreadnodes is good, heck Smartnodes is good. We just need something that makes ours obviously different. If we don't change the name it will trash our marketing. How is that unethical? Evan Duffield built upon litecoin code, changed it dramatically and renamed it to x11 coin. Was that unethical? No. But MrSpread takes DRK's codebase and changes it. He then takes the MN code and changes that also. Thinking about it more, DMN sounds good. We respect darkcoin by keeping MN, but at the same time show's its uniqueness, in that SPR was the first to have decentralized reference nodes. |
|
|
|
I enjoy those discussions. I don't even notice the trolls anymore... it's like they have turned into a quiet background noise.... ssssssshhhhhh.... like white noise..... But aren't SPR's masternodes different than DRK's masternodes? It's a little subjective. Again, using a car theme here BTC is a 1.3 1999 diesel engine. DRK is a 2L petrol V6. SPR (if works on realese) is the same engine as DRK but a V8 (reference nodes/competing for a place in the MN chart/fluctuating amount needed for MN) Ofcourse DRK has the Dev to make DRK a V12 But wouldn't it be reasonable to call ours a V8 and not a V6? Ours is different if only slightly improved. If we call both engines a V6 then people will not know the difference. Yes, if it's a V8 then say it's a V8. So if spreadcoin is the first coin to have decentralized MN's, then boast that. Call them, DMN (Decentralized MasterNodes). |
|
|
|
I enjoy those discussions. I don't even notice the trolls anymore... it's like they have turned into a quiet background noise.... ssssssshhhhhh.... like white noise..... But aren't SPR's masternodes different than DRK's masternodes? It's a little subjective. Again, using a car theme here BTC is a 1.3 1999 diesel engine. DRK is a 2L petrol V6. SPR (if works on realese) is the same engine as DRK but a V8 (reference nodes/competing for a place in the MN chart/fluctuating amount needed for MN) Ofcourse DRK has the Dev to make DRK a V12 |
|
|
|
I have tremendous respect for Evan Duffield and what he has done for Darkcoin and cruptocurrency as a whole. It has been unfortunate to see the way the various communities have lacked professionalism, but it's not that surprising. Frustrating, but not surprising.
I've suggested a wide variety of things for Spreadcoin that haven't been done and I'm ok with that; we don't always get our way, nor should we.
But to rename masternodes and InstantX to something else would be very disrespectful and wrong on many levels. I will not be a part of a coin that acts in such a manner. So yes, you can rename them to whatever you want, but I won't be a part of Spreadcoin anymore if you do. That doesn't mean you guys shouldn't. If you feel it's that important to rename them, go for it. I simply can't be a part of a community that I feel would be lacking ethics.
What? How do you figure in anyway that this community would be disrespecting Evan Duffield or lacking ethics by simply tweaking the names of things they have tweaked? Like you're saying if you rename stuff I'm not going to be a part of this anymore?? That is kind of a little bit ridiculous don't you think MyFarm? I mean I get what you are saying about having the respect for Evan and DarkCoin all together but I believe all people were suggesting is trying to escape the fury of comments regarding SpreadCoin as a DarkCoin copy/paste shitclone coin by taking a stance and saying that if the masternodes and Instantx that Mr. Spread is working on are in anyway different than the way DarkCoin's are that we should rename them such just to separate us from being further deemed as the copy/paste shitclone coin that the people are claiming SpreadCoin to be. We are simply trying to show our respect for Mr. Spread as being just as talented of a Developer as Evan Duffield by doing so. I mean I really hope that something as simple as renaming a few tweak modifications wouldn't make you leave the SpreadCoin community? I still don't understand why you would think though that the community would be lacking ethics in doing so? We have never been disrespectful towards Evan or the DarkCoin community at all and have always stated that Evan was an amazing Developer and that DarkCoin was a terrific coin as well  I view the renaming of a technology like masternodes when they are clearly masternodes to be lacking in ethics. And I won't be a part of that. If/when Mr. Spread continues to innovate masternodes to the point they are no longer masternodes, then name them whatever you want. But they are masternodes right now and Evan Duffield deserves the respect of them being called as much. If you created a new technology and someone took it and renamed it for their benefit, how would you feel? In 2002, Jaguar realesed the S-Type. The S-type was/is a very good car, but was build around Ford Mondeo's Cassie/suspension/engine. The S-type got allot of flack for practically being a Mondeo! The Jag separated it's self from the stigma of being a Mondeo by clearly showing the superiority of the build. Jaguar did not call their car Jaguar Mondeo lol They called it the Jaguar S-type. Yes the S-type used allot of the core features, which make up a Mondeo, but had every right to call it something else. However, i agree with MyFarm and Georgem that if the names are going to change, more innovation must take place first. You see, Jaguar changed much of the mondeo Chasse/Engine to suit their car. |
|
|
|
How profitable is masternodes? Let's say I have masternode with 2000 SPR on it. How much will I get per day or month?
Minimum 30% of one block (around 1.9SPR) per day. Maximum will depended on how many masternodes are active. |
|
|
|
MrSpreads latest messages from spreadcointalk.org. Recently a new idea about how to make pools was suggested, I think it was already discussed sometime before. The idea is that each miner will send collateral equal to the block reward to the pool. Miners then submit shares to the pool as usual, if any miner tries to steal the block reward then pool would use collateral of this miner to pay to other miners and cheating miner will gain nothing.
Stealing
Miners cannot steal coins in this scheme but can pool do this? Obviously pool has collected many collaterals and can just take them all and run away. But what if pool is operated by some publicly known persons, legally registered as an organization in, say, US, would pool operators be able to safely steal your coins without any risk to themselves? The answer is yes and here is how it can be done:
1. Pool operators would spend the block reward and anonymize it. If anonymous transactions are implemented by this time then this can be done directly using SpreadCoin, otherwise they will exchange it to something like Monero and anonymize it there.
2. After that pool operators would claim that miner has stolen the block reward and redistribute miner's collateral to other miners.
3. Nor miner nor pool operators can prove to anyone that they didn't stole the money. External observers will only see that block reward was not redistributed to other miners as usual but they cannot know who has actually stolen it - pool or miner.
This means that pool can safely steal money while miners can falsely accuse pool of stealing their money and such claims cannot be confirmed nor disproved by anyone.
Economy
This scheme assumes that block reward is cheap so that it is not a problem for miner to obtain this amount. This claim is somethat of dubious.
If you can find blocks consistently then you don't need pool and associated risk of stealing your collateral. If you cannot find blocks consistently then collateral is probably exceeding the amount you will ever mine or is close to it, if you can easily just buy such amount why would you bother with mining?
If SpreadCoin price is low then there are less people mining it and solo-mining even for small miners is possible and they don't need pools. Currently even with one GPU you can find 1 block in 1-2 days, with small mining farm you will be able to find blocks regularly. If price is high then collateral is also expensive.
The other aspect is that requirement for such collaterals if massively adopted would move the price up, this would make this collateral not so cheap. But what if the pool doesn't have 100% control over the collateral, but the money is on some kind of multisig address? Something like an "automated escrow" as described in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRPrGuzqjENo party can just run away with the money this way. They both have to fullfill their contract so that the collateral goes back to them. This means, that not only does every miner need to deposit a collateral, but the pool ALSO needs to pay a collateral. The pool will probably even need to match every collateral that every single miner has payed. Let's assume 100 miners in 1 pool. Every miner has to pay a collateral of X, so all miners in sum will pay 100 X. So the pool needs to balance that and add another 100 X. Now all the miners and the pool are equally invested and will both have to lose the same amount when they play foul. Why we do not want pools in the first place? Because they put too many control in a too few hands. If they are cooperating (or were hacked, or one pool controls more than 50%) they can e.g. perform double-spending attack. If you you will design some system where miners should monitor pools for not misbehaving then it would not be bad at all, it may be even good, we will get both protection from possibly malicious pools and consistent payments for miners. I still don't see how what you described will work. |
|
|
|
This solves the problem fairly elegantly I believe. It's still not the ease of running a "standard" pool, and there are additional considerations, like: how popular would a BTC pool be if you had to deposit 25 BTC to mine there (even considering that their wouldn't be any other pools where you didn't have to do this)? Edit2: this plays on the "(which isn't much)" above; what if it was a "lot"?
Edit: tacotime, why wouldn't you send the SPR equivalent of one block reward? BTC would be subject (I believe unnecessarily) to exchange rate volatility.
but more users will probably join a pool than only requires a tiny amount of BTC to join and the amount of risk losing SpreadCoins versus equivalent Bitcoins is probably pretty similar. So to mine on this hypothetical pool, I would need to send the pool a little collateral first? Sounds like a scam, and would steer clear of such a pool. |
|
|
|
How much is the bounty for creating a public pool now?
At least 3500. Terms are, Pool needs to be active for atleast 30days. Anything i missed "myfarm"? Edit, from the FAQ Q. Is it possible to create pools? A. If a pool is created, any miner can steal all of the blocks. Theories have been put forth on ways to get around this such as coding in a collateral system, but none have been created. There is currently a 3500 SPR bounty on the creation of a public pool that successfully runs with no stolen coins for 30 days. |
|
|
|
when are the masternodes coming to mainnet? got 30 addresses filled with coins, waiting to become masternodes Ahhh, that's a good idea. I never thought of doing that before the release, cheers!  |
|
|
|
That make's you a pool operator, using their logic. LMFTFY That makes you a pool operator according to their deliberately disingenuous definition.
It's FUD. There's no logic involved, only wilful misinterpretation. You can make it up --- and they do ... the Daily Mail does it all the time. Cheers Graham This thread is dead, i'm outta here. |
|
|
|
I'm not the best person to explain how noncepool is not a public pool and how SPR disincentivizes public pools.
Maybe if we change (no pools) to (no public pools), this may shut some fuders up.
Precisely. Its not FUD to say there are pools, because there are! However, anybody who understands how SPR works understands that public pools are discouraged and that is the main goal. If SPR drops the no pool claim (because it is outright untrue) and explains clearly the difference between private and public pools and then maybe some of what you call the FUDders will quieten down. Public pools are not safe and "mini private pools" is like solo mining. In other words "private pools" is "public pools" with limited access (members not have to trust each other), but on the market is only "mini private pools" (members must trust each other). So until now SPR is "no pools" in what is called a "pool" by a large acceptance. Its not the same as a private pool that you would find for btc (signup/registration). Noncepool is a private pool for necessity, it could not exist otherwise. This is because MrSpread took steps to disinsentivize public pools, and steer hash more towards solo mining. It worked brilliantly, thelonecruton has shown. |
|
|
|
No need to further argue about "Pool". For example it is possible to have a farm of 500 x GTX980s, does it mean we should not even mention "Decentralization" because it is a possible scenario? No matter what you write, fudders will always fud.
Lets move forward and make SPR better and stronger by the days.
Yes, I completely agree but in the midst of all the madness, issues were not completely ironed out IMO. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
