[ANN] SpreadCoin | Decentralize Everything (decentralized blockexplorer coming)

[ol92]

I am impressed by the maturity here and the spirit within this communauty : price has declined somewhat during the latter months but this communauty has still a rather positive and constructive attitude (in constrast of a lot of coins in similar situations).
The team who has taken over has done a good job.
Now, I am keeping most of the coins I mined...

[1714597924]

1714597924

[stonehedge]

I am impressed by the maturity here and the spirit within this communauty : price has declined somewhat during the latter months but this communauty has still a rather positive and constructive attitude (in constrast of a lot of coins in similar situations).
The team who has taken over has done a good job.
Now, I am keeping most of the coins I mined...

Thanks for the kind words.

We're really confident that we've got something that is going to make big waves.  We just have to be careful to keep the momentum going.  Price will rise as we reach our more glamorous milestones.

[stonehedge]

Spreadcoin Project Update 5

25/09/2015

An Apology

Sorry for the update delay.  Beer happened.

Development Update

The dev team spent last week working on the following items:

- Finalising and releasing the new wallets.  Thank you to everybody who helped test!
- Working on the web site to incorporate a news and blog section.
- Working on a DNS seeder for the official block explorer.
- Scrutinising the previous planned hard forks in an attempt to understand why they worked but in a slightly unexpected fashion.

Blockchain 2020

As you may be aware, we are running a conference in London on the day of the next Bitcoin block reward halving. During the conference, there will be a live Broadcast of the popular Mad Bitcoins show, with special interviews planned.

http://blockchain2020.com/block-420000/blockchain-2016/

[elbandi]

And we change the protocol behaviour according to if we are greater than > getFirstHardforkBlock(), for example see here:
 https://github.com/spreadcoin/spreadcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1343

Code:

if (nHeight > (int)getFirstHardforkBlock())

}

... then why did it take until block 2202 to come into full effect?  

What caused that behaviour?

See blockexplorer (block 2200) : https://chainz.cryptoid.info/spr/block.dws?2200.htm
See blockexplorer (block 2201) : https://chainz.cryptoid.info/spr/block.dws?2201.htm ----> Blockreward still 66
See blockexplorer (block 2202) : https://chainz.cryptoid.info/spr/block.dws?2202.htm ----> Finally!

Can someone explain why this can happen?
Why didn't it change at block 2201?

Because this nHeight value has the _previous_ block height: https://github.com/spreadcoin/spreadcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2114

case1) current (verifing) block height: 2201, prev block height: 2200, not more than 2200 -> reward 66
case2) current (verifing) block height: 2202, prev block height: 2201, that's more than 2200 -> reward 6

[coins101]

.......

Good to have you around 

[georgem]

Because this nHeight value has the _previous_ block height: https://github.com/spreadcoin/spreadcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2114

case1) current (verifing) block height: 2201, prev block height: 2200, not more than 2200 -> reward 66
case2) current (verifing) block height: 2202, prev block height: 2201, that's more than 2200 -> reward 6

I think you are right, thanks for pointing this out. 

[Halofire]

Because this nHeight value has the _previous_ block height: https://github.com/spreadcoin/spreadcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2114

case1) current (verifing) block height: 2201, prev block height: 2200, not more than 2200 -> reward 66
case2) current (verifing) block height: 2202, prev block height: 2201, that's more than 2200 -> reward 6

I think you are right, thanks for pointing this out.  

It is simpler.

if (nHeight > (int)getFirstHardforkBlock())

Should have read like this:
if (nHeight >= (int)getFirstHardforkBlock())

Then this is right as an explanation (edit: with the current code):
case1) current block height: 2201, prev block height: 2200, not more than 2200 -> reward 66
case2) current block height: 2202, prev block height: 2201, that's more than 2200 -> reward 6

PoBN now?

[coins101]

Banks getting into the Blockchain in a big way - just funding a stupid idea for a 'permissioned ledger'

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/30/wall-street-is-embracing-bitcoin.html

Tim 'I hate Bitcoin' Swanson is now a research director at this new R3 company that the banks are funding to take a look into Blockchains.

http://www.ofnumbers.com/2015/09/29/designing-a-global-fabric-for-finance-g3f/

So?

Well, if Banks are getting into this, then there will be another 10,000 people inside firms and businesses that work on the existing supply chains, e.g lawyers, accountants, technology firms, recruitment agencies, etc., that will want to know how it impacts them and what they should be doing to get up to speed......so, we happen to have a plan to fulfill this educational requirement 

[coins101]

'......roughly 10% of the world's GDP will reside on the bitcoin blockchain by 2027. 10% of today's gdp is 7.5 trillion.....'

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-price-not-headed-toward-300000/

Guess we're gonna need a way to analyse all that data 

[georgem]

if (nHeight > (int)getFirstHardforkBlock())

Should have read like this:
if (nHeight >= (int)getFirstHardforkBlock())

If the code says
if (nHeight > (int)getFirstHardforkBlock())

then it must be read as
if (nHeight > (int)getFirstHardforkBlock())

and NOTHING else.

You can't start reinterpreting things based on shoulda coulda woulda.

The whole confusion I had there for a minute was because the two forks use two different kinds of nHeight.
getFirstHardforkBlock uses pLastBlock->nHeight

while getSecondHardforkBlock works with  pindex->nHeight

Anyway, I should have just researched it 5 minutes longer before posting here, and I would have found the solution myself,
but then we wouldn't be having this nice discussion. 

[georgem]

....

BTW...

did you abandon the Hashrate distribution chart at http://104.36.83.126/spreadcoin/ ?

I am just asking. No problem if you don't want to run it anymore.

[coins101]

Whats happening with the Windows AMD miners?

I guess I'll have to stop some other apps and boot to Linux, unless there is anything out there.....

[Halofire]

if (nHeight > (int)getFirstHardforkBlock())

Should have read like this:
if (nHeight >= (int)getFirstHardforkBlock())

If the code says
if (nHeight > (int)getFirstHardforkBlock())

then it must be read as
if (nHeight > (int)getFirstHardforkBlock())

and NOTHING else.

You can't start reinterpreting things based on shoulda coulda woulda.

The whole confusion I had there for a minute was because the two forks use two different kinds of nHeight.
getFirstHardforkBlock uses pLastBlock->nHeight

while getSecondHardforkBlock works with  pindex->nHeight

Anyway, I should have just researched it 5 minutes longer before posting here, and I would have found the solution myself,
but then we wouldn't be having this nice discussion. 

You asked "why", did I not provide a legitimate reason why? If the ">="code change was implemented before 2200 for the fork @ 2200, then NONE of this convo would be happening. Yes, it's "what if's", but it's truth in this scenario.

Yes, it must be read like that if it's set in stone, but code is not stone. But I see you are treating it as such for this purpose. Okay.

Sorry, but "shoulda coulda woulda" and reinterpretation of code actually works. I helped another coin using this method so please don't invalidate that method of troubleshooting. My experience: "Shoulda added a fix when the fix came out (if we had seen it) and there woulda been a moving blockchain." Haha, but seriously. We implemented the "shoulda fix" and the coin runs fine now once other problems were taken care of.

[stonehedge]

Whats happening with the Windows AMD miners?

I guess I'll have to stop some other apps and boot to Linux, unless there is anything out there.....

The windows AMD miner is on the downloads page on spreadcoin.info

[coins101]

Whats happening with the Windows AMD miners?

I guess I'll have to stop some other apps and boot to Linux, unless there is anything out there.....

The windows AMD miner is on the downloads page on spreadcoin.info

My bad.

I remember some heated discussions about optimized AMD miners, which I thought was related to windows AMD miners. But if that's a load of nonsense then I'll get on with it...

Cheers!

[chrysophylax]

Whats happening with the Windows AMD miners?

I guess I'll have to stop some other apps and boot to Linux, unless there is anything out there.....

The windows AMD miner is on the downloads page on spreadcoin.info

My bad.

I remember some heated discussions about optimized AMD miners, which I thought was related to windows AMD miners. But if that's a load of nonsense then I'll get on with it...

Cheers!

the optimized miners are no nonsense coins101 ..

though i am pretty sure they are ccminer based only ( ccminer-spmod to be exact ) - as im unaware whether there is the amd optimized ones ...

sp is selling the miner - and im amazed he hasnt advertized here for it ...

#crysx

[georgem]

Nearly finished with the news/blog section.

In localhost it works, I just need to make some adjustments on the server.
(Will do so over the weekend)

Stay tuned.

[chrysophylax]

Nearly finished with the news/blog section.

In localhost it works, I just need to make some adjustments on the server.
(Will do so over the weekend)

Stay tuned.

great news ...

#crysx

[dominuspro]

Hey!

I have a few worlds to say about the wallet(Win7). It is great but I would like it even more if it would be shrinkable to a smaller layout. Especially the width.
An additional line showing average on the hashrate/diff charts would be nice.
The wallet prevents minning for some time when transferring coins from the wallet to another address(bittrex). It is not a big problem because I transfer coins rarely(unluckily ) and it lasts for something like 1 minute(maybe less). I don't remember it happening with the old wallet but I'm not 100% sure about that. It could be a normal (expected) behavior waiting a new block to be found...

Those are just my (noobish)personal thoughts and don't want beeing counterproductive in any way.
Keep up the good work!

[georgem]

Hey!

I have a few worlds to say about the wallet(Win7). It is great but I would like it even more if it would be shrinkable to a smaller layout. Especially the width.
An additional line showing average on the hashrate/diff charts would be nice.
The wallet prevents minning for some time when transferring coins from the wallet to another address(bittrex). It is not a big problem because I transfer coins rarely(unluckily ) and it lasts for something like 1 minute(maybe less). I don't remember it happening with the old wallet but I'm not 100% sure about that. It could be a normal (expected) behavior waiting a new block to be found...

Those are just my (noobish)personal thoughts and don't want beeing counterproductive in any way.
Keep up the good work!

That's a great idea, making it shrink to different sizes (widget mode) like a mp3 player or something...

Thanks for your feedback, I will consider it for the next newwallet update.

PS, never heard about the bug you describe... can someone confirm this? or can you make a video showing it in action, dominuspro?