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

[coins101]

@Vertoe

A couple of feature ideas:

* If you are going to take on anonymous transactions, ie take on Darkcoin / DASH / XMR / Zerocash, name change would be necessary, IMO.

* Having spent some time looking at torrent & crypto projects, this area looks like it has great potential to drive mainstream adoption and could also use a good anon currency alongside it, but the development work needs a good dev team to attack it professionally (e.g cache team).



Whatever the future brings, I'll hodl on to my stack and provide any support requested.

[1714489784]

1714489784

[1714489784]

1714489784

[1714489784]

1714489784

[1714489784]

1714489784

[AizenSou]

@vertoe:

Have you (or will you) consider making PoN rely on some other element, such as transaction data or some signing with the generating address private key, instead of IP addresses? IIRC, both Spreadcoin and Ziftrcoin use similar schemes to promote decentralization (more nodes), and I can see all sorts of potential hazards of using IP addresses.

Finally, will PoN operation have any balance requirements at all? (node must hold at least X amount of coins to generate blocks)

Cheers

Good question. It would be nice if the community could choose the number of CACHE for one node

[MyFarm]

I'd also love to know if the PON will require collateral and if so, how much.

Thanks Vertoe.

[Kuriso]

Original wallet has an error that the transaction was rejected.  Do I need to import the old wallet with the link provided on the OP?

-- Update --

After downloading and syncing the new wallet, the rejected test transactions from above show valid but after 3 confirms they are still not showing up on cryptsy.  I sent a new test from the new wallet and that one is not showing up either.

Less than 4 hours to sync this new wallet which was pretty fast but transactions are extremely slow.

[mind808crime]

I did some business with Vertoe and her Dark nodes back in the day.  She was professional and honest.  I'm in.

[Kuriso]

Original wallet has an error that the transaction was rejected.  Do I need to import the old wallet with the link provided on the OP?

-- Update --

After downloading and syncing the new wallet, the rejected test transactions from above show valid but after 3 confirms they are still not showing up on cryptsy.  I sent a new test from the new wallet and that one is not showing up either.

Less than 4 hours to sync this new wallet which was pretty fast but transactions are extremely slow.

Wallet shows that my 3 test transactions have 21 confirms but they are still not showing up at cryptsy.  

[fydel]

Wallet shows that my 3 test transactions have 21 confirms but they are still not showing up at cryptsy.  

I think it is a problem on craptsy's side. Try to contact their support.

[vertoe]

@vertoe:

Have you (or will you) consider making PoN rely on some other element, such as transaction data or some signing with the generating address private key, instead of IP addresses? IIRC, both Spreadcoin and Ziftrcoin use similar schemes to promote decentralization (more nodes), and I can see all sorts of potential hazards of using IP addresses.

Finally, will PoN operation have any balance requirements at all? (node must hold at least X amount of coins to generate blocks)

Cheers

@myagui The PoN blocks will be generated by IP only. These blocks will of cause also contain coinbase transactions.

As PoN and PoS are alternating the next block will be PoS and here the PoN block is required - and verified again by the network. The node IP's are public anyway (P2P network!), I see no problem with using them to mine.

[vertoe]

I'd also love to know if the PON will require collateral and if so, how much.

Thanks Vertoe.

@MyFarm PoN requires no collateral except that your node must be running. There is no need for having a balance at stake for PoN to work.

[myagui]

@myagui The PoN blocks will be generated by IP only. These blocks will of cause also contain coinbase transactions.

As PoN and PoS are alternating the next block will be PoS and here the PoN block is required - and verified again by the network. The node IP's are public anyway (P2P network!), I see no problem with using them to mine.

A couple of problems I had in mind, just the high level description, are that:
 - by embedding the IP address of the mining node, any node with significant mining power becomes a well advertised target, for however long it maintains the same IP. I don't think we'd be exposing any information that was not previously available in other altcoin designs, but in effect, the blockchain itself becomes a resilient archive of past miner locations (IPs).
 - as the latest PoN block verification requires a connection to the node that generated the block, network resiliency can be easily impacted, or otherwise cause disturbances to nodes running on domestic (aka, crappy) internet connections, which are many times limited to a very small number of active connections. When Node A mines a PoN block, it will be spammed with connections from every other network participant (who is trying to validate the block).

I'm not saying that the current approach is good or bad, just that - to me - it introduces some concerns since this is an entirely new feature, and with any new feature, there's a good chunk of unknown stuff (performance, security, scalability, etc...).

Cheers

[kaene]

I'd also love to know if the PON will require collateral and if so, how much.

Thanks Vertoe.

@MyFarm PoN requires no collateral except that your node must be running. There is no need for having a balance at stake for PoN to work.

I'm not sure about the details, but without collateral this could become a candy for botnet owners, this approach might be undesirable. I would prefer nodes to require collateral, it also ensures certain level of quality.

[Stenull]

Of course it's going down
Nice to see you around Sy! All good?

[AizenSou]

Of course it's going down
Nice to see you around Sy! All good?

The new client from vertoe caused a fork. The p2pool is on the wrong chain right now. I guess that's the reason of the dump.

[myagui]

Of course it's going down
Nice to see you around Sy! All good?

The new client from vertoe caused a fork. The p2pool is on the wrong chain right now. I guess that's the reason of the dump.

Oh wow, was that 5% of all CACHE in a single dump? Fork it...

[jjiimm_64]

Of course it's going down
Nice to see you around Sy! All good?

The new client from vertoe caused a fork. The p2pool is on the wrong chain right now. I guess that's the reason of the dump.

17:58:45

getblockhash 86296


17:58:48

d090c60aa5266935a081810e0a7b6ac924c5334a8c9549efd272964750204c91

[AizenSou]

Of course it's going down
Nice to see you around Sy! All good?

The new client from vertoe caused a fork. The p2pool is on the wrong chain right now. I guess that's the reason of the dump.

17:58:45

getblockhash 86296


17:58:48

d090c60aa5266935a081810e0a7b6ac924c5334a8c9549efd272964750204c91

You're in the right chain (with cryptsy, singula's pool and almost everyone).

I don't know when the fork started ( I'm trying to find it now), but I'm pretty sure that block 86172 with new client is in wrong chain.
getblockhash 86172
Wrong chain with new client:
0000001742d7304253947edaf9dc2db1a257cacb20a363c2d7a9eaf18fd4fb09

Right chain:
00000004143e947a7be78e14b0723ff4ad921094f1778de7e9092f609c5d5e02

vertoe where are you now ??

[myagui]

@AizenSou:

I have the new client from Vertoe, and going by the block hashes you posted, I am on the right chain. Also, I don't see that any of the updates that Vertoe did to the standard client would be prone to cause a fork. Not that I understand much about this though...

I think the problem is strictly related with P2Pool, which had not been working until Vertoe picked it up. P2Pool had some issue before, of which I do not know the details. Looks as though the fixes to bring P2Pool back online, either had some gremlin planted, or there is additional fixing to be done...

[AizenSou]

@AizenSou:

I have the new client from Vertoe, and going by the block hashes you posted, I am on the right chain. Also, I don't see that any of the updates that Vertoe did to the standard client would be prone to cause a fork. Not that I understand much about this though...

I think the problem is strictly related with P2Pool, which had not been working until Vertoe picked it up. P2Pool had some issue before, of which I do not know the details. Looks as though the fixes to bring P2Pool back online, either had some gremlin planted, or there is additional fixing to be done...

Hey myagui.

Thank for your report. Actually vertoe changed a lot of things in the code which could cause a hard fork like setting the max coin and stopping the PoW after block 100k. Another friend of mine used the new client and he's on the wrong chain too. It's not the fault of the p2pool IMHO. It's very strange.

[myagui]

Hey myagui.

Thank for your report. Actually vertoe changed a lot of things in the code which could cause a hard fork like setting the max coin and stopping the PoW after block 100k. Another friend of mine used the new client and he's on the wrong chain too. It's not the fault of the p2pool IMHO. It's very strange.

@AizenSou:

Update: while for block 86172 I was on the right chain, I checked a more recent block just now, and I found that I am on the wrong chain now (I'm taking the official block explorer as the reference, as it appears to be on the right chain). That said, I'm changing my #1 on the suspect list, to be the updated client.  

I'd expect that we are well isolated from all of the hardfork stuff, as there should be a simple conditional statement ( if block height < 100.000 ) that keeps us going on the same codebase as before, up until block 100K. But I understand issues happen, and it might be a lot more complicated than what I was making it out to be  

  

[Kuriso]

There's an issue somewhere.  My test transactions from this new wallet still hadn't posted to craptsy.  Just checked the explorer and they are not showing up on there.


Status: 93 confirmations
Date: 5/27/2015 23:14
To: Craptsy CKhvXVjqEDQgnhoLUpKWhxnV6YzjU4cBZV
Debit: -0.001 CACH
Transaction fee: -0.01 CACH
Net amount: -0.011 CACH
Transaction ID: 4ee261022ac653966da8019f2d2903b34991f602969e5940ae7ecd5d910ab511

Status: 93 confirmations
Date: 5/27/2015 21:25
To: Craptsy CKhvXVjqEDQgnhoLUpKWhxnV6YzjU4cBZV
Debit: -0.01 CACH
Transaction fee: -0.01 CACH
Net amount: -0.02 CACH
Transaction ID: 46531b186022ac7b86c21e41caaa97895a81478fef9bc9d444a5b09a4c6d4dce

Status: 93 confirmations
Date: 5/27/2015 21:25
To: Craptsy CKhvXVjqEDQgnhoLUpKWhxnV6YzjU4cBZV
Debit: -0.001 CACH
Transaction fee: -0.01 CACH
Net amount: -0.011 CACH
Transaction ID: ff7deb0c551015c44678b31c741e75aeef23cc9a1acb209823d84f71e3125727


Wallet is on block 86302 as of May 29, 2015, 02:35:59 AM (time posted on the forum header)