lol okay you must be joking right? If this gets popular namecoin would become unusable very quickly. Time to raise spam fees I think  Although seriously I have been talking about supporting database usage in ppcoin for a while. Now you just made me think twice about current transaction fee model to regulate the demand on block chain storage. |
|
|
|
Yes, but at the same time people can lead dishonest discussions of design decisions to spread uncertainty about new or different ideas. For example here where gmaxwell spreads uncertainty about ripple. Or this thread where I make a dishonest argument against PPCoin to see why Sunny King made some decisions which the Bitcoin developers think is a bad idea. Or the quoted post where the lead developer of Bitcoin spreads uncertainty against an altcoin attempting to fix its problems. Anyways, congratulations Sunny King. I hope whatever you did fixes the problems you were having. Hmm interesting Okay so you sound like you are okay with the difficulty adjustment formula now. Well if freicoin is interested in adopting it my offer to help still stand. |
|
|
|
... or not. There's a difference between "unfixed vulnerabilities" and "half-baked design."
I think big decisions that affect the fundamentals of the design should be discussed in the open (see the current Bitcoin debate over raising the block size limit).
It's a whole gray area I am not really interested debating about this. You make judgement on bitcoin what should be discussed in the open what needs to be kept under wrap until it's patched, I make my judgement on ppcoin. Meanwhile, let's focus on getting the real work done. |
|
|
|
|
Note: if your wallet contains more than a couple thousand transactions, when you are redownloading block chain the Qt UI might appear locked up. This is a known issue due to the heavy-lifting of wallet scanning I believe but it's not really locked up and still doing the work. Just leave it to finish the redownload of block chain, or you can use command line getinfo to check its progress (getinfo response will be slower also in this situation).
If you have really huge/fragmented wallet causing redownload to be really slow, another option might be to redownload block chain with an empty wallet, then stop ppcoin and replace the empty wallet with real wallet backup.
|
|
|
|
Convince us your ideas have merit. Months and many long threads involving many types of experts took place on the idea of proof of stake for example before any coder considered the idea well enough discussed to be worth having a try at implementing it (and its maybe even now still controversial whether they chose the boest version of it to implement...)
-MarkM-
Sorry to break your bubble ppcoin design has nothing to do with 'Months and many long threads involving many types of experts took place on the idea of proof of stake for example before any coder considered the idea well enough discussed to be worth having a try at implementing it'. It is designed entirely independent from your so-called experts. I didn't find out about these discussions on bitcointalk until our design is mostly completed and those discussions are not deep to me at all, and our design is not 'chosen from the best version' of your experts. Stop trying to take credit where it's not due, okay? |
|
|
|
To be honest, I'm not sure why you are forcing people to look only at the code as opposed to publicly disclosing your algorithm. Satoshi didn't have a problem with disclosing his...not sure why you would...but okay have it your way.
To be honest with you I already did quite a bit extra work writing comments in the code to help readers. As a developer I have a lot of different priorities you need to understand. If you mean writing another white paper for this currently I have no plan of doing it. My next focus is in supporting database usage in ppcoin. But I will follow up with short explanations if there is enough interest in discussing the new algorithm. |
|
|
|
Thanks, that should clear things up. Although I don't quite follow you on "security concerns". It seems that your understanding of cryptology got things backwards - at least from my perspective.
Not really, we just have different perspectives. As the maintainer of ppcoin I have obligations to not talk about unfixed vulnerabilities freely. It's a cryptocurrency in production, not just a research project that no investor loss would be involved. If you ask Gavin about his position on this matter he likely would have to tell you the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
Smoothie, there is nothing to hide. I already discussed in my weekly updates thread a couple of weeks ago the general outline of it. If you are interested in studying it why don't you get started with the source code and then post intelligent questions in my disclosure thread for discussion?
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. Surely you have already touched upon the reasons of what you refer to as 'opaque' development, mostly, due to lack of resources, secondly, for security concerns. I only have time to discuss the design with trusted peers before release. I hope you can understand that there is lot of work involved and it's not trivial work to even understand the design and its intricacies. There is no separate document, I have put some comments into the source code, it's not long at all, only about 400 lines in kernel.cpp and some of it is preexisting code in v0.2. Interested parties can take time to look at it, and discuss it maybe in my disclosure thread. I'll try to answer some of the questions along the way.
|
|
|
|
Official release build is now available http://www.ppcoin.org/ (via sourceforge) What's in 0.3.0 release: - Stake generation protocol upgrade (protocol switch March 20th)
- Qt UI support
- Fix compatibility with vanitygen (note: private keys dumped in v0.2 is no longer importable into v0.3.0, must dump again from v0.3.0 client)
- Miscellaneous bug fixes and improvements
The protocol upgrade in 0.3.0 includes a new algorithm to derive proof-of-stake hash modifier, the entity that scrambles computation for stake owners, which replaces the current proof-of-stake difficulty used as modifier in 0.2 protocol. The design was started late September last year, when I first began to realize the issues with using difficulty as modifier. Honorary mention also goes to Jutarul, who independently discovered and verified an issue with using difficulty as modifier and published on bitcointalk in December last year, while successfully executed a demo attack on the block chain. Other changes in the protocol include starting hash weight from 0 at the 30-day mininum age, and requirement that coinstake timestamp must equal block timestamp. Overall 0.3 protocol should significantly strengthen the proof-of-stake protection and resolve the current known vulnerabilities. Upgrade instructions: Upgrade is required before Wednesday March 20th. Nodes that have not upgraded before this deadline will disconnect from the main ppcoin network (hard fork). To upgrade: 1) Before upgrade, you must first backup your wallet: ppcoind backupwallet <destination_backup_wallet_name>2) Note down your balance/stake/newmint amounts. Shutdown ppcoin ppcoind stop3) Inside your wallet directory, remove all files and subdirectories except for leaving wallet.dat and ppcoin.conf in place. 4) Download 0.3.0 and unpack/install. 5) Start up ppcoind/ppcoin-qt normally. 6) Use getinfo/about to confirm your ppcoind/ppcoin-qt version is now 'v0.3.0ppc-beta' 7) You should see block chain is being downloaded again. Please note during redownload of block chain your balance will be shown initially as 0 and change as block chain is being downloaded. This is expected. When block chain download completes your balance/stake/newmint should return to the same value before the upgrade. My sincere appreciation to co-contributors of 0.3.0 release: - Robert VanHazinga of Hartland PC (dreamwatcher) for the vanitygen compatibility fix
- Jutarul for demonstrating stake generation vulnerability
- EskimoBob for reporting issue fixed in 0.3.0
Cheers and have fun! |
|
|
|
I fired up bitparkings ppcoin exchange cold storage wallet to top up the exchange hot wallet and immediately found 85 POS blocks consecutively in a few minutes. Wow.
This is one of the issues hopefully addressed by the new protocol. As difficulty rises there would be more coins under active hashing thus increasing protection of the network. |
|
|
|
Weekly Update #26 - v0.3 release is under final validation and release builds are being prepared.
- Qt UI begins support in v0.3.
- Release is expected to be published in the next few days. This is a mandatory upgrade release and deadline for upgrade is scheduled for March 20th.
- This week the first ppcoin fork known as novacoin has been released. The network hash rate of novacoin rose quickly, it's difficulty peaked over 10. Despite the controversy surrounding its release and the subsequent DDoS attack on btc-e, market response seems quite enthusiastic. Please note I am not involved in novacoin in any way, but I am happy to see other developers valuing ppcoin design and forking from it.
- Recently we have also seen another project known as ripple released, with its own currency called 'Ripple' or XRP. The design of XRP also attempts to eliminate energy consumption to secure a cryptocurrency, however the design choices are very different, with different properties regarding the level of decentralization. Even though I am yet to be convinced that the technicals are sound I will keep an eye on this interesting new development.
Have fun! |
|
|
|
|
Several other things to take note:
1) Each coinbase output must have value >= 0.01 coin, p2pool needs to be aware of it otherwise block could get rejected.
2) If coinbase size is greater than 1KB then it needs to pay 0.01 fee per additional KB, otherwise block could get rejected.
3) Make sure all the transaction timestamps not to exceed block timestamp (throw out those tx with larger timestamps) or block could get rejected.
|
|
|
|
Good job!  |
|
|
|
It seems that current SignBlock implementation can't handle hashed public keys
Right. The node that publishes the block must write its public key into the output[0] of coinbase. I am not familiar with what p2pool throws into output[0] of coinbase. I used to see some unknown data there on block explorers. One way is to overwrite output[0] with a pay-to-public-key output in getmemorypool, then sign the block again. However I am under the impression that p2pool is using output[0] for some specific purpose. |
|
|
|
Balthazar is working on p2pool support and asked me about getmemorypool problems. Here is a patch needed to make it work I think (not tested yet), in addition to making p2pool aware of ppcoin's transaction format: diff --git a/src/bitcoinrpc.cpp b/src/bitcoinrpc.cpp
index 4e17221..1ea6334 100644
--- a/src/bitcoinrpc.cpp
+++ b/src/bitcoinrpc.cpp
@@ -1994,7 +1994,12 @@ Value getmemorypool(const Array& params, bool fHelp)
CBlock pblock;
ssBlock >> pblock;
- return ProcessBlock(NULL, &pblock);
+ static CReserveKey reservekey(pwalletMain);
+
+ if (!pblock.SignBlock(*pwalletMain))
+ throw JSONRPCError(-100, "Unable to sign block, wallet locked?");
+
+ return CheckWork(&pblock, *pwalletMain, reservekey);
}
}
|
|
|
|
What I still don't understand is why we have LTC/FRC, NVC/FRC, PPC/FRC TRC/FRC but not BTC/FRC nor NMC/FRC.
Being that the more widely traded currency of them all is BTC, wouldn't it make sense that BTC/FRC had more volume than say...LTC/FRC ??
Maybe it's just me. Btc, nmc and frc are the only proof of work currencies I have ever owned and I can't trade to frc from any of the other two. I don't own nmc anymore, but it's a strange coincidence.
Please, someone tell me what I'm missing.
This is probably mugen's way of beta testing a new altcoin. BTC is not directly exchanged first so any problem is likely limited to altcoins pairs. He did this for TRC as well. Don't worry I think he will add BTC/FRC pair soon enough. |
|
|
|
Thanks Fuzzy you are always so diligent  Keep the good work up! |
|
|
|
There are no talk about delisting. By 'destroy' I mean sending it to address with invalid public key. It will be done publicly. Ah I see. This must be your own decision right? With such loss would you still have motivation to continue the project? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
