CACHECOIN 2.0 - Community integration (Scrypt-Jane - PoW, PoS and PoN)

[CODERsp]

Now, the main thing do not panic, we wait vertoe  

The main blame to DASH was it depends on one person.

[1715688590]

1715688590

[1715688590]

1715688590

[1715688590]

1715688590

[Lay-z]

this needs more hype, dev should hire marketing people

[Yaremi]

R.I.P ?

dump now

[socoban]

Lol, the same story again and again. Takeover and pump&dump. Before this pump started I owned almost 10% of all Cache. I was buying it just in case someone pump it. I was buying it when everyone dumped it. I sold it during first days of pump. I even did not know someone is preparing this scam when I sold it. I am really surprised people are still buying into coins that pumped 100x in few days. All those takeovers, news, big ideas are scams. Why do you think someone will give you money? Why do you think someone will come, let you buy cheap and give you option to earn money based on his work? The pattern is always the same. Scammers buy cheapest deadest coin as much as they can and then create big news, pump it with small money price skyrocket and people get crazy and buy into that crap. I could dump later, I could earn much more, but I don't care. I earned 12+ BTC on those scammers. They had to buy my 10% pretty expensive. And for a single second I did no regret I sold it cheap. There is more than 99% probability coin will dump after such big pump, so not selling is stupid and buying into it is far more stupid.

PS: I am sure, this was not last Cache pump. There is limited amount of coins on Cryptsy and scammers need to scam again and again. Sooner or later they will scam on Cache again.

[yaoxin]

Is block explorer working?

[1qaz]

Is block explorer working?

network right now on 2 chain 

[myagui]

Whoever is still mining on P2Pool is just wasting their hashes. Catcoin.cz is rather obviously the correct chain.

FWIW, I deleted the cachecoin data folder (backing up the wallet), loaded up the old client (found in the original cachecoin release ann), and quickly resync'ed, since remaining on the right chain. In any case, moving funds around is not advisable at a time that the network is forked.

Trolls are as quick to show up as were the pumpers (in earlier circumstances).
I'm confident in Vertoe's leadership for this project, though we're not off to the best start, that's for sure....

[singula]

Did a bit investigation on the fork.
First forked-off block seems to be at height 86210, in the forked-off chain that is:
01af49a8938cc262fb665f10d30a50c4af22ea69c62f0cfb83c9a4d1fde692b5

And .... the commit that seems to be causing the fork is:
f6f40eb18e0d83ca8b322446b5e13a7315786378

Part of that change is:

Code:

-------------------------------- src/main.cpp ---------------------------------
index cd4a2df..2a3a1a2 100644
@@ -476,9 +476,9 @@ bool CTransaction::CheckTransaction() const
         const CTxOut& txout = vout[i];
         if (txout.IsEmpty() && !IsCoinBase() && !IsCoinStake())
             return DoS(100, error("CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : txout empty for user transaction"));
-        // ppcoin: enforce minimum output amount
-        if ((!txout.IsEmpty()) && txout.nValue < MIN_TXOUT_AMOUNT)
-            return DoS(100, error("CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : txout.nValue below minimum"));
+//        // ppcoin: enforce minimum output amount
+//        if ((!txout.IsEmpty()) && txout.nValue < MIN_TXOUT_AMOUNT)
+//            return DoS(100, error("CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : txout.nValue below minimum"));
         if (txout.nValue > MAX_MONEY)
             return DoS(100, error("CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : txout.nValue too high"));
         nValueOut += txout.nValue;
@@ -1018,7 +1018,7 @@ int64 GetProofOfWorkReward(unsigned int nBits)

(MIN_TXOUT_AMOUNT is defined to CENT, ie. 0.01 CACH)

In the offending block, there are two transactions with output value of 0.001 (less than previously allowed minimum), one of them is:

Code:

            "vout" : [
                {
                    "value" : 379.47475000,
                    "n" : 0,
                    "scriptPubKey" : {
                        "asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 26bf018c881577af89d7c62b7562cea99d69c353 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
                        "hex" : "76a91426bf018c881577af89d7c62b7562cea99d69c35388ac",
                        "reqSigs" : 1,
                        "type" : "pubkeyhash",
                        "addresses" : [
                            "CKzm4fTYBKu8juBRafwyRL7XnRc22GUeqk"
                        ]
                    }
                },
                {
                    "value" : 0.00100000,
                    "n" : 1,
                    "scriptPubKey" : {
                        "asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 238fd56da57b1768a7f1ecd1332b6ff254e77b71 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
                        "hex" : "76a914238fd56da57b1768a7f1ecd1332b6ff254e77b7188ac",
                        "reqSigs" : 1,
                        "type" : "pubkeyhash",
                        "addresses" : [
                            "CKhvXVjqEDQgnhoLUpKWhxnV6YzjU4cBZV"
                        ]
                    }
                }
            ]

This TX seems to be invalid according to the old code, but valid according to the new code.

The fix could be putting back that check, or making it conditional (turn it off after block 100K / 200K based on the roadmap)

[jjiimm_64]

Did a bit investigation on the fork.
First forked-off block seems to be at height 86210, in the forked-off chain that is:
01af49a8938cc262fb665f10d30a50c4af22ea69c62f0cfb83c9a4d1fde692b5

And .... the commit that seems to be causing the fork is:
f6f40eb18e0d83ca8b322446b5e13a7315786378

Part of that change is:

Code:

-------------------------------- src/main.cpp ---------------------------------
index cd4a2df..2a3a1a2 100644
@@ -476,9 +476,9 @@ bool CTransaction::CheckTransaction() const
         const CTxOut& txout = vout[i];
         if (txout.IsEmpty() && !IsCoinBase() && !IsCoinStake())
             return DoS(100, error("CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : txout empty for user transaction"));
-        // ppcoin: enforce minimum output amount
-        if ((!txout.IsEmpty()) && txout.nValue < MIN_TXOUT_AMOUNT)
-            return DoS(100, error("CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : txout.nValue below minimum"));
+//        // ppcoin: enforce minimum output amount
+//        if ((!txout.IsEmpty()) && txout.nValue < MIN_TXOUT_AMOUNT)
+//            return DoS(100, error("CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : txout.nValue below minimum"));
         if (txout.nValue > MAX_MONEY)
             return DoS(100, error("CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : txout.nValue too high"));
         nValueOut += txout.nValue;
@@ -1018,7 +1018,7 @@ int64 GetProofOfWorkReward(unsigned int nBits)

(MIN_TXOUT_AMOUNT is defined to CENT, ie. 0.01 CACH)

In the offending block, there are two transactions with output value of 0.001 (less than previously allowed minimum), one of them is:

Code:

            "vout" : [
                {
                    "value" : 379.47475000,
                    "n" : 0,
                    "scriptPubKey" : {
                        "asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 26bf018c881577af89d7c62b7562cea99d69c353 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
                        "hex" : "76a91426bf018c881577af89d7c62b7562cea99d69c35388ac",
                        "reqSigs" : 1,
                        "type" : "pubkeyhash",
                        "addresses" : [
                            "CKzm4fTYBKu8juBRafwyRL7XnRc22GUeqk"
                        ]
                    }
                },
                {
                    "value" : 0.00100000,
                    "n" : 1,
                    "scriptPubKey" : {
                        "asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 238fd56da57b1768a7f1ecd1332b6ff254e77b71 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
                        "hex" : "76a914238fd56da57b1768a7f1ecd1332b6ff254e77b7188ac",
                        "reqSigs" : 1,
                        "type" : "pubkeyhash",
                        "addresses" : [
                            "CKhvXVjqEDQgnhoLUpKWhxnV6YzjU4cBZV"
                        ]
                    }
                }
            ]

This TX seems to be invalid according to the old code, but valid according to the new code.

The fix could be putting back that check, or making it conditional (turn it off after block 100K / 200K based on the roadmap)

Nicely done...  is it possible for you to submit a change to the git? , although I suppose we are still waiting on the whitepaper from vertoe?

[Vlad2Vlad]

Wasn't that white paper supposed to come a long time ago? 

How many more weeks or months until we reach terminal mining?  Maybe that's when we'll finally get something good.

[ltcrstrbrt]

Wasn't that white paper supposed to come a long time ago? 

How many more weeks or months until we reach terminal mining?  Maybe that's when we'll finally get something good.

maybe or maybe not...anyway, i've sold mine..

[myagui]

Did a bit investigation on the fork.
[...]

Very nice singula! BTW: in light of your cache pool history & all, it would be awesome to get you to be a contributor to the new cache repository. I think one of the important points of Vertoe's ann, was that she should not be the sole code author or owner, rather, known community contributors could/should also push code whenever needed or appropriate. Now would be one such time.
I hope things get moving sooner rather than later ^^

Again, great work, and thank you.

[fydel]

Where in the world is vertoe?

[MyFarm]

Where in the world is vertoe?

That's the million CACH question.

[coins101]

I think this is a proof of community integration test 

[Toshiorun]

From cryptsy:

Our wallet is currently offline due to issues with the coin's blockchain.

vertoe could you have a look at this problem? We have multiforks right now.

just sent pm to vertoe

edit

https://i.imgur.com/envHRW5.jpg

https://www.cryptsy.com/pages/status

I hope you know that it is VERY HARD to get hold of vertoe?

such confidence inspiring

[singula]

Did a bit investigation on the fork.
[...]

Very nice singula! BTW: in light of your cache pool history & all, it would be awesome to get you to be a contributor to the new cache repository. I think one of the important points of Vertoe's ann, was that she should not be the sole code author or owner, rather, known community contributors could/should also push code whenever needed or appropriate. Now would be one such time.
I hope things get moving sooner rather than later ^^

Again, great work, and thank you.

I'd be glad to contribute.

I personally also have some ideas that could improve the coin, some of them thought out and waiting to be implemented, tested on testnet and then perhaps added to the main code (like better difficulty retargeting function, aiming to adapt more quickly to hashrate changes, making the coin more resistant against multipools harvesting), some of them ideas that may be nice, but will need to be examined for feasibility and designed before implementing them.

One of them is an idea that core parameters like txfees, difficulty and pos/pow rewards could be controlled by sort of AI calculated within the blockchain (something relatively simple, like reasonably sized Artificial Neural Network or SVM ....). The blockchain provides enough randomness for such algorithm to be deterministic (every node ends up with same results), but not predictable - if some unpredictability is desired. There are still some open questions with that idea - what aspect would the AI try to maximize (coin usage, amount of transactions, hashrate stability?) and whether it would be resilient against abuse (people trying to manipulate the AI for profit, possibly damaging the coin for others)

Some of them may conflict a bit with vertoe's roadmap, though ....

As for the fork fix:
I've updated my fork at github and added the fix in 0.7 branch there:
https://github.com/singula/CACHeCoin.git

I tested the client - with that last fix commit applied, the client synces to the correct fork.
It is compatible with old Kalgecin's client, at least for blocks below 100K, but we are only at block 87427 now, so don't worry

[1qaz]

I think this is a proof of community integration test 

ha ha ha 

 are not so bad 

[coins101]

Fix being looked into

https://github.com/vertoe/cachecoin/commit/e67d13b6c5d3fcb8e42465c8fdc6000b2ca476d6

[coins101]

...Vertoe did say this was his/she's..

If you know Darkcoin, you would know if Vertoe is a he or a she.

lol