Bitcoin Forum
October 27, 2020, 03:31:30 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 [98] 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Slimcoin | First Proof of Burn currency | Decentralized Web  (Read 132783 times)
blockhash7
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 16
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 03, 2018, 04:02:22 PM
 #1941

Quote

Yes, these are the implications of decentralization.

So it looks like our development resources are quite limited. So Graham, what do you suggest - should we aim at updating Slimcoin's code to modern Bitcoin code? And if yes, how?
1603812690
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603812690

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603812690
Reply with quote  #2

1603812690
Report to moderator
1603812690
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603812690

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603812690
Reply with quote  #2

1603812690
Report to moderator
1603812690
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603812690

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603812690
Reply with quote  #2

1603812690
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
gavrilo77
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 804
Merit: 501



View Profile
January 03, 2018, 05:28:14 PM
 #1942

Is Coinsmarket down?
muf18
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 310


View Profile
January 03, 2018, 07:30:33 PM
Last edit: January 04, 2018, 12:37:36 AM by muf18
 #1943

Yeah, it's gone down, because it has to scale, as they say for couple of hours.

I want some of you, to help me with reddit, 4chan, twitter, fb campaign, if you could write to me, to help be more visible in social media.

I'm going to do more of marketing effort, but would be glad, if you will help me.


Also signature campaign. For anyone wearing signature like mine, I can give 100SLM for 2 weeks for full members, 50SLM for normal members and 25 for new accounts.
d5000
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2618
Merit: 2056


Decentralization Maximalist


View Profile
January 03, 2018, 09:33:33 PM
 #1944

To everybody that's testing web2web:

I've begun to sync the RDF blockchain automatically. The solution for reorgs is still not implemented, so as a workaround I'm syncing until the 100thst block before the current blockheight. That means that after you add a new inscription to the blockchain, it will appear about 1-2 hours later in the web2web gateway. (It's not using blocknotify still but a cronjob).

I think that reorgs of more than 100 blocks should occur not very frequently. If somebody has data about that, they're welcome, because if I could set the limit lower (blockheight - 20 blocks, for example) then the waiting time would be much shorter.

The implementation of the final solution (the way suggested by Graham) is not really difficult, only the way how the orphan blocks are deleted from the RDF chain (it's a TDB database) is something I still have to "interiorize" myself with.

I'm working also to provide, instead of the whole blockchain, a RDF graph that provides only the blocks which cointain OP_RETURN transactions. This would drastically reduce the size of the data set (there are less than 5 OP_RETURN tx as of now) and improve performance - even if it will obviously grow after web2web is used more. That's still not "the final solution"; the ideal would be to show only the OP_RETURN data and the associated addresses, without other outputs/transactions, but for that a new ontology scheme would have to be created and the SPARQL query would have to be modified.

On another database I will provide the burn address balance in realtime, so I can set up a service to provide the "circulating supply" like demanded by Coinmarketcap. This dataset would be larger than the OP_RETURN set but also significantly smaller than the whole blockchain.

muf18
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 310


View Profile
January 04, 2018, 11:42:39 AM
 #1945

For me web2web was only displaying torrent hash, for Europe it didnt work, I guess.

Btw. I thought about be more 'transparent', to include basic info about core contributors, maybe not a team, but decentralized core contributors to project, like @gjhiggins, @d5000, @ksdme, maybe me, I can post my details about me, Kilari I think so too, I dont know if Graham would want. As I say, I dont say to be team, but main development is revolved around those people, if anyone would contribute I would add him.
d5000
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2618
Merit: 2056


Decentralization Maximalist


View Profile
January 04, 2018, 05:08:17 PM
 #1946

For me web2web was only displaying torrent hash, for Europe it didnt work, I guess.
You're right, I have a sharing issue with the torrent of the test site when I share it from the server (I hope to solve it today or tomorrow, may be a firewall issue). I had also an issue with the cronjob that updates Fuseki earlier today, so unfortunately there's still no correct real-time updating.

Quote
Btw. I thought about be more 'transparent', to include basic info about core contributors, maybe not a team, but decentralized core contributors to project, like @gjhiggins, @d5000, @ksdme, maybe me, I can post my details about me, Kilari I think so too, I dont know if Graham would want. As I say, I dont say to be team, but main development is revolved around those people, if anyone would contribute I would add him.
I'm not really interested in that and I don't think it's necessary for "transparency", as Slimcoin is not an ICO project nor a business or a coin where "devs" need to justify a premine. Development can be followed totally transparently at Github. A short section on the About site of the website listing some of the contributors, without details and with pseudonyms for those who want, would be OK, however.

muf18
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 310


View Profile
January 04, 2018, 05:42:14 PM
Last edit: January 04, 2018, 06:54:47 PM by muf18
 #1947

Yeah, about us, would at least make some light, to those, who don't go to github.

I'll try to make some of it in weekend. For now I'm reorganising reddit.

Reddit reorganized, check now: https://www.reddit.com/r/slimcoin/

For now, I would like to come to chat maybe too like discord and telegram.
muf18
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 310


View Profile
January 04, 2018, 09:59:59 PM
 #1948

I'm going to write medium article about Slimcoin's economy basing information on our website. Would you write something too? @ksdme probably would write about his work on PoC of Slimpedia and w2w attachment.
gjhiggins
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974
Merit: 1138



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2018, 11:18:01 AM
 #1949

I will be interested in seeing how this plays out ...

https://www.ssb.texas.gov/sites/default/files/BitConnect_ENF-18-CDO-1754.pdf

(Texas Securities Board issues Emergency Cease and Desist against BitConnect using some very interesting accusations.)

Cheers

Graham
gjhiggins
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974
Merit: 1138



View Profile WWW
January 05, 2018, 01:35:39 PM
 #1950

should we aim at updating Slimcoin's code to modern Bitcoin code
AIUI, the optimization of the protocol structure (from block templates to header templates) that was introduced in Bitcoin Core 0.10 resulted in the disappearance from the protocol of some information that was key to the stake calculations performed by PoS coins. So, until someone publishes a general solution, the upgrade path for nearly all Bitcoin protocol PoS alts is capped at Core 0.9.

To my current knowledge, there are only three exceptions: PIVX, Navcoin and Spectre. I don't know much about Spectre, I only found out about it while assembling this response. I can't argue with Max Guevara's opinion of PIVX, so that's not a solution - and anyway it's a Dash clone so that pins it to a variant of Core 0.11. Navcoin is a clone of 0.13 with some elements of 0.14 back-ported.

I've been investigating the possibility of removing the proprietary anon stuff from Navcoin and cross-referencing it back against Bitcoin Core 0.13 to create it as a vanilla PoS 0.13 to use as a new base for Beecoin. It's basically complete afaict (all the expected tests pass), I just need to work out how to kickstart a PoS coin.

I wouldn't bother mentioning it except for the fact that the Navcoin clone retained the original proof-of-work code and so a plain PoS version with the PoW re-enabled might be a potential candidate for a future Bitcoin Core implementation of Slimcoin.

Such an implementation would require a re-write of the Slimcoin PoW, PoS, PoB code and the emission control routines to use contemporary Bitcoin Core objects and methods, i.e. pretty much the creation of a new coin --- so it might as well be launched as one (from the perspective of whoever's grafting away on the code) - because it's going to involve a lot of technically demanding work.

Cheers

Graham

muf18
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 310


View Profile
January 05, 2018, 03:51:51 PM
 #1951

Yeah, I think you told, me sometime ago, that to update codebase it would mean to create a new coin.

Even tho, I thought it wouldn't be possible with a hard fork? Or copy balances to the new chain?

I think it's something to think of, on the foreseable future. What about going with peercoin development path?
They have in future plans upgrade to newer codebase than 0.8, as I have seen.

d5000
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2618
Merit: 2056


Decentralization Maximalist


View Profile
January 05, 2018, 09:25:32 PM
 #1952

The Fuseki instance is now finally working correctly, so it's usually 100 blocks behind the Slimcoin blockchain. I haven't solved the seeding problem of the test site though (I could seed it from my personal computer, there it seems to work, but it would be offline half of the day then ...). So for testing, it's maybe better if anybody uses his/her own test inscriptions/sites for web2web.

I'm going to write medium article about Slimcoin's economy basing information on our website. Would you write something too? @ksdme probably would write about his work on PoC of Slimpedia and w2w attachment.
You mean the economic consequences of "Proof of burn" (e.g. long-term-investment incentive, speculations about a "stabilizing effect", "users control supply" etc.), right? I can write something, but please give me some time Wink

Even tho, I thought it wouldn't be possible with a hard fork? Or copy balances to the new chain?
A hard fork would be possible, but the problem is that there must be a client that includes both protocols (old and new), so at least one stable group switches "together" to the new chain.
The snapshot -> new genesis block approach (like Bitcoin Gold did it with Bitcoin) would be surely much simpler technically (for the developers), but has its own flaws - all services (exchanges etc.) would have to stop working and reimplement the new chain, and there would be a time where Slimcoin would be "sleeping" (between the snapshot and the blockchain start). That doesn't mean it's impossible, but it must be carefully planned.

Quote
What about going with peercoin development path?
That would also be my proposal, it would be the path with less pressure for developers.

@gjhiggins: Thank you again for your insights. And for the link to the Bitconnect case. I think it's a shame for the crypto community that such a coin is placed that high in terms of "market capitalization", but it illustrates the greed that's governing the scene these times.

muf18
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 310


View Profile
January 05, 2018, 09:55:30 PM
 #1953

It's not only bitconnect, tho.

There are several cryptos right now, which I pressurably think are scams or get-rich quick schemes for developers.

Thanks, for your info @d5000, can you provide link for it ? Is it the same as it was?

Coinsmarkets is down (again...), so I hope yobit, will list us.
d5000
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2618
Merit: 2056


Decentralization Maximalist


View Profile
January 06, 2018, 12:53:34 AM
 #1954

It's not only bitconnect, tho. There are several cryptos right now, which I pressurably think are scams or get-rich quick schemes for developers.
Yep, pre-mined coins, many ICOS, Tron - the "vedette" of the week -  is also a very, very suspicious case (they copied part of another whitepaper for their "decentralized web", and their model would not provide much more than what would be possible with our web2web Wink ) ... But I think Bitconnect is one of the worst of all with their HYIP (to not use the "P" word) scheme ...

Quote
Thanks, for your info @d5000, can you provide link for it ? Is it the same as it was?
Yes. Until I fixed the seeding issue you (and all other people that want to test web2web) should do the following:

- code a HTML site (a text file with "Hello World" or something similar is enough, however). It must be, for now, one single page, but it can contain inline CSS, SVG and encoded images, and maybe even use external stylesheets from an openly accessible web server.
- add it to WebTorrent (download here) and seed it
- copy the magnet link in WebTorrent and remove all trackers (so only the magnet://btih:infohash part stays there)
- open the Slimcoin client & wait until it syncs
- "inscribe" the magnet link to the blockchain.
- copy the SLM address from where you sent the transaction that inscribed the shortened magnet link
- open https://d5000.github.io/web2web/gateway.html
- and paste the SLM address there.

Obviously, that is still pretty complicated; I have some ideas how this could be done in 1 or 2 steps with a very simple tool, but first the Fuseki server must be stabilized and the seeding problem solved.

Once the most significant problems are solved, I'll change the headline of the OP of this thread and include "Test the decentralized web!" or similar Wink

eddycurrent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 61
Merit: 3


View Profile
January 06, 2018, 10:44:40 AM
 #1955

Hello all,

New binarys for armhf(V7) are available. The rest will be available in the next week or so. I am still working on the automated cross compile system.

Regarding the future of Slimcoin, I would be in favour of developing it as a cryptocurrency separate from other codebases such as Bitcoin's and Peercoin's to allow more flexibility in what features are available, however I am aware that this may not be viable as this would require much more development work. I am starting to have a look at the codebase, to see if I can update the wallet's interface and make the wallet more responsive.

Regards


muf18
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 310


View Profile
January 06, 2018, 02:51:10 PM
Last edit: January 06, 2018, 04:48:44 PM by muf18
 #1956

@eddycurrent - yeah, thanks for your help, would be good to see wallet, faster loading times.

Btw. @ksdme tested BDB 5.X version, and it speeds up only a little bit ~10%.

Edit: If SPV wallet aka Electrum-like is possible?
Or is it a problem like here described? https://www.reddit.com/r/blackcoin/comments/2e0d7m/lightweight_spv_clients_for_blackcoin_or_other_pos/

Btw. Bitcoin Core 0.15 still uses BDB4.8, as default lib.
d5000
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2618
Merit: 2056


Decentralization Maximalist


View Profile
January 06, 2018, 05:29:54 PM
 #1957

Edit: If SPV wallet aka Electrum-like is possible?
Or is it a problem like here described? https://www.reddit.com/r/blackcoin/comments/2e0d7m/lightweight_spv_clients_for_blackcoin_or_other_pos/
Good find. I didn't know about that problem.

However, maybe the solution is in this phrase:
Quote
Decentralized checkpoints would solve this to some extend because then only the blocks after the last checkpoint would be required to verify a new block.
If this is true (I have some doubts, because the stake "comes" from earlier transactions as well), as Slimcoin has Proof of Work blocks relatively regularly, one would have to check the blocks until the last Proof of Work block; however, a "reorg limit" would be more secure and deterministic.

NXT and its successor Ardor have a light client mode, but these currencies aren't based on the UTXO model (they're account-based, like Ethereum).

muf18
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 310


View Profile
January 06, 2018, 05:33:43 PM
 #1958

I didn't know about this, either I didn't asked also, but Satoshi 0.5 client, means, that our client codebase is dated back to...

https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.5.0

21 Nov 2011? That's a hell of a time.
d5000
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2618
Merit: 2056


Decentralization Maximalist


View Profile
January 06, 2018, 06:32:32 PM
 #1959

I didn't know about this, either I didn't asked also, but Satoshi 0.5 client, means, that our client codebase is dated back to...

https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.5.0

21 Nov 2011? That's a hell of a time.
It's almost as old as that, but not completely Wink As far as I know, the current Slimcoin client is based on Peercoin 0.5, which is itself based on Bitcoin 0.6 (30 March 2012, when Peercoin was released that was the newest version) with some additions from newer versions.

So the "Satoshi-xxx" version string refers to the Peercoin version, in the case of Slimcoin (or the Slimcoin version; I think Graham's plan was to follow Peercoin's version numbering scheme).

blockhash7
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 16
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 07, 2018, 04:45:45 PM
 #1960

Graham, d5000, muf18, thank you very much for your insights and your thoughts about the future development of Slimcoin. Very interesting!

Until now, I didn‘t realize that SPV wallets are impossible to implement for UTXO blockchains with proof of stake. But unfortunately it makes perfect sense. Too bad, because if adoption of Slimcoin grows, people would expect a „slim“ lightweight wallet of „Slim“-coin.

Thinking about it, even worse, probably SPV wallets are also impossible to implement for UTXO blockchains with proof of burn like Slimcoin, right? You need the history of all burn transactions to verify a block. Is that correct?

Summarizing, what you’ve said about updating Slimcoin‘s code, we will either be capped at core v0.9 or face a lot of development work which equals the creation of a new coin by forking the codebase of an existing codebase, right?

So unless we accept to live with the codebase of v0.9 we would have to create a new coin. I personally wouldn‘t mind this, if it involves some mechanism to migrate Slimcoin‘s balances to the new coin (think „airdrop for Slimcoin holders“). At this time we don’t really have to bother about existing exchanges that already list Slimcoin.

If we go that route, I would suggest to pick a new coin as codebase, that is actively developed and could be easily modified to include Slimcoin‘s proof-of-burn mechanism and the web2web code. A codebase that would allow for lightweight wallets would be even better (but probably that’s not possible).

Any thoughts?
Pages: « 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 [98] 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!