Hmm, That is strange. Though i seem to have a lower then normal amount of connections on both daemons. As for the new VPS, I hope you are not one of the addresses I am blocking  I applied all the the rules over all the VPS this round. Oh I c. Both of your nodes work, it's just that only ip address works, addnode a host name does not as it's probably a relatively new feature for bitcoin. |
|
|
|
If you experience initial connection issues due to seed node outage, try adding dreamwatcher's old node: ppcoind -addnode=84.200.84.74 ppcoin-qt -addnode=84.200.84.74 or add this line to ppcoin.conf: addnode=84.200.84.74 Seems dreamwatcher's old node works better for me. One can also add the cryptocoinexplorer.com IP address as a node to look for:
addnode=84.200.84.74
I do not restrict the number of connections, so one can almost always connect.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah seed nodes are down. Support ticket filed. Anyone can volunteer as addnode for the new nodes?
|
|
|
|
Okay so last night a few hours after release I got to about 1000 Yac and decided to encrypt my wallet. Upon restart the client just would not mine. I restarted checked everything nothing changed. Here is what I did.. I just created a new user account on my pc called Mining. Closed out of my wallet on my main account and signed on to the new one. I then copyed the yacoin folder onto the new desktop and started it up. It created a new wallet and I let it sync, closed it down and used the exact same .bat from my other account. Fired up perfectly. I got to about 600 Yac on this wallet and encrpted it. Same thing. Created a new user account and wallet and im good to go again. Obviously not a fix but more of a workaround. At least my other 2 are encrypted.
Hope this helps!
My third yacoin wallet lol Y2hXXoN6kPjFuc3QukEW9fT2NSpUpG819i
YAC is a PPC fork. PPC requires that encrypted wallet to be unlocked for minting (including proof-of-work mining). So you either don't encrypt the wallet, or unlock it. It seems that yacoind build is not supplied on windows for the public so unlocking wallet is a bit tricky, so your best bet is don't encrypt the wallet. |
|
|
|
Also I was a bit unsure how PPC revenue should be calculated, are block rates for PoS and PoW created at different rates? I want to know the total growth in market cap for the coin from all sources so I took the numbers from http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency which says blocks are 10 minutes, rewards are 400 and valuation relative to BTC is 0.00225, did I miss the PoS generation and is their a way to measure it? http://dustcoin.com/mining lists a market capitalization for PPCoin so I assume it is possible to get a grand total. If I've made an error and a proper calculation can be provided I will try to see that it's corrected in any future graphs. Thanks Impaler for the excellent work. As for the calculation to ppcoin mining revenue, the simple way is probably just think of 2 blocks per hour, and ignore the stake minting as it's too small compared to proof-of-work. But this is not going to be accurate as the proof-of-work spacing varies heavily. If you need more accuracy, you can count the number of proof-of-work blocks in the last 24 hours, alternatively you can take daily snapshot of the money supply statistics. |
|
|
|
|
Freicoin diff now at 148K, profitability drops to 30%. Expect miners abandon ship enmass.
When is the new diff adjustment going to be implemented?
|
|
|
|
I have long thrown out a mixture of PoW and PoS for security. It doesn't have enough differentiation going for it. That's why ppcoin is designed with pure PoS for security, PoW only for minting. But if tacotime can pull it off I would welcome it. Cunicula has touted such designs for ages, my advice would be getting into a practical engineering mode and do not try for the pie-in-the-sky sort of designs. If your design cannot be completed in one year then I would say just forget it as you can see in a year you already would have 100 more altcoins to compete with. |
|
|
|
Someone posted a very interesting pie-chart on mining revenue:  This isn't directly relevant to ppcoin, as we do not depend on energy consumption for network security. But for all the pure proof-of-work cryptocurrencies, it is critical. Of interest is the LTC vs BTC battle (FTC and CNC are temporary spike of launch). LTC now accounts for 15% mining revenue, vs bitcoin's 65%. Mining revenue is a direct measurement of network security of pure proof-of-work currencies. It appears that bitcoin is losing the battle of domination in the long term, for several reasons that seem to be inevitable. a) bitcoin's inflation rate is much lower than newer altcoins, and future inflation would approach 0 b) to maintain dominance in mining revenue thus network security, it must raise transaction fee to high level, which reduces it's competitiveness as a payment network (dilemma). If my observation is correct, none of the pure proof-of-work cryptocurrency can maintain dominance. It is an important strategic advantage for a different design such as ppcoin. |
|
|
|
If I understood it correctly, the current proposal assumes that the holder of the cold-locked transaction and the owner of the cold wallet are the same entity. In that case the cold key resides within a cold wallet and the mining key resides on the validation node. What happens when people lose access to the mining key, but not the cold key? Should there be a time-out, after which the cold key can be used as mining/spending key?
You shouldn't lose either the cold wallet or the minting wallet, otherwise the balance is lost, as you need the minting key to move the balance to your cold address for spending. But you can share the minting private key with the service provider. Yes a cold-locked transaction is assumed to be solely controlled by one cold address, which is specified in its first output. You can think of the cold key as a savings account, when you receive coins you can move some of your balance to the savings account, this transaction (moving coins to your savings account) would be a cold-locked transaction. If the cold key directly receive some balance from other people that is not via cold-locked transaction, then those coins are not cold-locked despite of belonging to the cold key, and cannot participate in online stake generation if the key stays in cold wallet. |
|
|
|
The question is whether the underlying incentive structure promotes the formation of stake mining pools. Is there a formula for how much % of the money supply has to be stake and what the minimum ppc amount of a stake has to be, in order for it to be executed within e.g. 3 months? Dependent on that equation there may or may not be a need for stake mining pools....
I think some incentive is there if people don't want to run computer 24x7 and would like to earn stake as fast as possible. It doesn't matter whether you mint yourself 24x7 or with a service provider, the rate of generation would stay the same. The size of such service provider needs to be under control otherwise it does pose risk to the network, albeit not permanently as users can withdraw from it once the attack is understood. On the other hand, since there is no risk of losing your balance with the service provider in the cold-locked scenario (providing you can easily verify that your balance is cold-locked properly) then maybe there will be lower barrier of entry to compete as a service provider as it doesn't need to earn users trust at first. |
|
|
|
This is a key piece of the puzzle. There needs to be provision for the outsourcing of this to third-party "stake miners" who will pay you a certain portion of your stake rewards in exchange for being custodians of your stake generation capability without actually having access to your offline cold storage keys. Obviously if you transfer your coins they wouldn't be able to generate stake with them anymore. The fact is that while plenty of geeks don't mind keeping a computer online all the time some of us aren't into running server farms.
There is probably some misunderstanding here. Minting stake is not supposed to be computing intensive and all you need is a typical computer online, no server farm required. |
|
|
|
|
That's normal as it's a random process to generate stake, past 30 days you start with very small probability, reaching full probability at 90 days with respect to your coin amount.
|
|
|
|
This will be interesting to watch. I was contacted by a member of a group that have been working on a CPU only coin for quite some time. Which is why I put the CPU -only project on hold. (I haven't talked to them in a bit , been a hell of a couple of weeks). From what I read and learned, the successful design of a coin of this nature is a bit complex, and there were still a few hurdles to overcome. Dammit, now I have to switch the CPUs in my mining rigs, and I should have bought the 8 core instead of the 6 core for my main PC...  As for the explorer, one thing learned over the past few days, is that I have to be careful about what I add especially with breakneck speed coins are being released. Most of the issues with the new server (and the three new coins) have been due to attacks on the CHNcoin explorer. Hmm, interesting, any more detail on the CPU coin project? Is it related to scrypt or some other hash function, or something else entirely? |
|
|
|
Weekly Update #37 - namecoin managed to wrestle back #3 from us this week, although we are still in a close match.
- Another ppcoin fork called bitbar was released this week. One more fork is in the works by yet another team (due to release tomorrow). Although litecoin still has more forks than us, looks like we are closing in on it. Some people mistakenly credit scrypt proof-of-work to litecoin, in fact the scrypt implementation was done by ArtForz for Tenebrix, an altcoin long went out of fashion.
- A new Tor trading portal called 'The FreeMarket' has announced ppcoin support and is aiming for June release.
- I have published a new simpler proposal to eliminate the risk of stake minting associated with running hot wallet. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=194054.0)
- Jeff Larkin has volunteered to be the maintainer for ppcoin mac osx builds. The first build is ready for testing. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=194692.0)
- Mjbmonetarymetals, detail3, robotrebellion have been busy working on different graphics design on logos and banners.
- Thanks to all the contributing members and let's keep up the good work!
Have fun! |
|
|
|
Good. I welcome the 3rd PPC fork that at least tries something slightly different. Dynamic scrypt parameter was something dreamwatcher wanted to do some time ago, I am sure he would be happy to add to his explorer collections  |
|
|
|
As a potential investor in PPCoin I have a bunch of questions for Sunny. First of all the block generation numbers seem high. Only a few months in and there are already 50% more PPC than BTC 5 years in. Also the block reward is still almost 400. Could you consider planning a moratorium on PoW mined coins to take effect starting say at the end of 2016 or something? This would ensure that the low energy consumption goal for PPC will definitely occur as planned.
Whatever your opinion on that proposal I'd like to see some projections of the amount of PPCoins that will exist under various scenarios. Will there be 100,000,000 by 2020? How many coins will exist before the rate of increase falls to 1.5% annually or less?
What if proof of work mining is unpopular and the difficulty stays low forever? There could be an uncomfortably high rate of inflation.
I'm quite pleased you're looking at the cold storage while still generating stake problem. That's very important for PPC savers.
Hi calian, It's difficult to predit money supply growth because it highly depends on market adoption. But absent of adoption, Moore's Law alone would guarantee the reduction of proof-of-work minting. By 2016, I imagine a lot of miners own a mini-rig kind of machine. So the hash rate would be a lot higher regardless. Currently I would say it's safe to say that ppcoin would track litecoin's money supply for many years. BTW ppcoin already reached lower inflation rate than litecoin. So reaching 100M money supply is going to be a long long long wait, if ever happens. |
|
|
|
FYI, my online stake protection proposal is published for public review: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=194054.0It's an important piece of puzzle to significantly improve stake participation thus further strengthening network security. Some of you have noticed that stake participation rate is low currently on the network, thus falsely concluding that proof-of-stake doesn't work. However to put things in perspective, in the future of bitcoin, let's say bitcoin reached 20M money supply in some future date, and average block pay to miner is now 10BTC per block (subsidy+fees). That would be an annual income of ~500K BTC, a paultry 2.5% of money supply, for the entire mining business to protect the network for a year. However, mining is weaker in the sense, you don't need the 2.5% of bitcoin money supply to launch 51% attack on bitcoin, you just need to rent hashing power for a few days to destroy the credibility of the network, which could potentially cost only 1% of that 2.5%. While if you want to 51% attack on proof-of-stake, at any time you probably need say 5% of money supply to do it, even just for a very short period. When the stake participation rate becomes higher, the cost would become more and more prohibitive. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
