Slimcoin | First Proof of Burn currency | Decentralized Web

[muf18]

It means, that SLM on Nova are lost, if they cant fix the problem???

Sorry, I can't speak for Novaexchange so please don't ask.

As I mentioned, they're experiencing a problem with change addresses not behaving in the way they need. Lost change wasn't a problem before but they're under new ownership and it is now, to the extent that they are prepared to delist rather than tolerate the problem.

I can't really conceive how you equate that with "lost".

Cheers

Graham

My question was not specifically related to your post. It was general question if they have problem with wallet. However i dont have anything on Nova, i was just curious

Yea it would be another blow for SLM holders, who didnt withdraw funds. At least 330K SLM is there and probably there is much more than that.

[1713876883]

1713876883

[1713876883]

1713876883

[d5000]

Well, if Nova really decided to block these SLM forever, that would be at least massively unprofessional, so I don't think they'd do that if they want to build confidence as a new player on the exchange market.

I mean to have read that for coins they delist they always gave a withdraw option. If the problem is related to change addresses, there is absolutely no excuse to not letting users withdraw their funds.


A little addition to the post about a "equilibrium PoB burn rate":

There is another option to change the equilibrium apart from PoB block frequency and PoB block reward: the "decay rate" of the "EffectiveBurntCoins" variable (explained at the end of the "ELI5" on the website). I can imagine a slightly faster decay rate could make sense at a first glance; that would mean that people would only burn coins if they see a ROI in the next ~3 months for example (and not in ~1+years like now). It would, however, also mean that the effect to reward long term engagement (first paragraph of the "Advantages" page on the Slimcoin website) would be smaller.

A faster decay rate would also decrease the average burn rate and make attacks on PoB easier*. The slow decay rate has an interesting side-effect: as "old burners" will try to find blocks at least until they make profit, the validator (=people that find blocks) set is pretty stable, and phases when few coins are burnt do not mean less security of PoB blocks.

Overall, I think the current PoB implementation is well thought out: it allows a high burn rate but doesn't make Slimcoin too deflationary to be useful as a currency.

*As the current protocol doesn't allow two PoB blocks in a row, a PoB-only attack can only try a double-spend to "scam" a person which accepts 1-confirmation transactions. As this is unlikely, PoB-only attacks are extremely unlikely, too - but they could be combined with a PoS nothing-at-stake or PoW 51% attack, so the security of PoB blocks has a lot of significance.

[keliokan]

I agree, PoB is well implemented.

A question about the PoS and its effect on the wallet stability.
Is there a way to improve this, the possibility of using just a small amount of the balance to be able to stake without affecting the wallet response is not really great.

K.

Well, if Nova really decided to block these SLM forever, that would be at least massively unprofessional, so I don't think they'd do that if they want to build confidence as a new player on the exchange market.

I mean to have read that for coins they delist they always gave a withdraw option. If the problem is related to change addresses, there is absolutely no excuse to not letting users withdraw their funds.


A little addition to the post about a "equilibrium PoB burn rate":

There is another option to change the equilibrium apart from PoB block frequency and PoB block reward: the "decay rate" of the "EffectiveBurntCoins" variable (explained at the end of the "ELI5" on the website). I can imagine a slightly faster decay rate could make sense at a first glance; that would mean that people would only burn coins if they see a ROI in the next ~3 months for example (and not in ~1+years like now). It would, however, also mean that the effect to reward long term engagement (first paragraph of the "Advantages" page on the Slimcoin website) would be smaller.

A faster decay rate would also decrease the average burn rate and make attacks on PoB easier*. The slow decay rate has an interesting side-effect: as "old burners" will try to find blocks at least until they make profit, the validator (=people that find blocks) set is pretty stable, and phases when few coins are burnt do not mean less security of PoB blocks.

Overall, I think the current PoB implementation is well thought out: it allows a high burn rate but doesn't make Slimcoin too deflationary to be useful as a currency.

*As the current protocol doesn't allow two PoB blocks in a row, a PoB-only attack can only try a double-spend to "scam" a person which accepts 1-confirmation transactions. As this is unlikely, PoB-only attacks are extremely unlikely, too - but they could be combined with a PoS nothing-at-stake or PoW 51% attack, so the security of PoB blocks has a lot of significance.

[gjhiggins]

A question about the PoS and its effect on the wallet stability.
Is there a way to improve this, the possibility of using just a small amount of the balance to be able to stake without affecting the wallet response is not really great.

The problem description is rather vague, you are far more likely to get coherent and relevant responses if you can be more specific in describing the problem.

Cheers

Graham

[muf18]

I agree, PoB is well implemented.

A question about the PoS and its effect on the wallet stability.
Is there a way to improve this, the possibility of using just a small amount of the balance to be able to stake without affecting the wallet response is not really great.

K.

Well, if Nova really decided to block these SLM forever, that would be at least massively unprofessional, so I don't think they'd do that if they want to build confidence as a new player on the exchange market.

I mean to have read that for coins they delist they always gave a withdraw option. If the problem is related to change addresses, there is absolutely no excuse to not letting users withdraw their funds.


A little addition to the post about a "equilibrium PoB burn rate":

There is another option to change the equilibrium apart from PoB block frequency and PoB block reward: the "decay rate" of the "EffectiveBurntCoins" variable (explained at the end of the "ELI5" on the website). I can imagine a slightly faster decay rate could make sense at a first glance; that would mean that people would only burn coins if they see a ROI in the next ~3 months for example (and not in ~1+years like now). It would, however, also mean that the effect to reward long term engagement (first paragraph of the "Advantages" page on the Slimcoin website) would be smaller.

A faster decay rate would also decrease the average burn rate and make attacks on PoB easier*. The slow decay rate has an interesting side-effect: as "old burners" will try to find blocks at least until they make profit, the validator (=people that find blocks) set is pretty stable, and phases when few coins are burnt do not mean less security of PoB blocks.

Overall, I think the current PoB implementation is well thought out: it allows a high burn rate but doesn't make Slimcoin too deflationary to be useful as a currency.

*As the current protocol doesn't allow two PoB blocks in a row, a PoB-only attack can only try a double-spend to "scam" a person which accepts 1-confirmation transactions. As this is unlikely, PoB-only attacks are extremely unlikely, too - but they could be combined with a PoS nothing-at-stake or PoW 51% attack, so the security of PoB blocks has a lot of significance.

It's because of wallet bloat (when you are miner).

If you would move your balance into new wallet - completely new with UTXO bloat - it will stake, without problems, for a long time.

[muf18]

There is problem in network with mining - when using Slimminer, with hashtable 1-3 or 5-6 - I'm getting only 2-4Kh/s instead of 150-160Kh/s with my Ryzen 7 1700.

With hashtable 4, it was gettting 25-75 KH/s (unstable), but now it's the same, as with others.

Slimminer is using only 1-6 threads. It's really strange... I had some timeouts, when solo mining, but now hashing power totally collapsed.

[d5000]

A question about the PoS and its effect on the wallet stability.
Is there a way to improve this, the possibility of using just a small amount of the balance to be able to stake without affecting the wallet response is not really great.

I guess you refer to the fact that the wallet/client is slow when not using "reservebalance"?

The problem seems to be related to the PoW algorithm, so it's not easily "solvable".

Have you tried what is suggested on the Slimcoin website - consolidate your balance into one or a few UTXOs (outputs)? This can be done sending all your balance to another address you own. If it doesn't work because you have too many outputs, then you can try to send several big transactions. It would cost at much a couple of cents in transaction fees ...

A coin control solution would help here - but I remember Graham wrote it wasn't trivial porting the PPC coin control feature to Slimcoin ...

[muf18]

@d5000 - can you check Slimminer, am I the only one with the problem, or everyone has the same problem (under utilization of CPU when mining).

Ok - there is something wrong with above 12-13 threads on miner now. It wasn't a problem 2-3 days ago...

[d5000]

@muf18: I'm currently not on a machine where mining makes much sense, and I've never used slimminer. So it would be better if an experienced miner checks it. If nobody else can help you, i'll check it but it will need some time.

[gavrilo77]

@muf18

You are right for ryzen. I have 1700X and it is the same hash as yours. The other one, Threadripper, is working normal

[muf18]

Strange it's just happened 1-2 days ago.

Lowered thread count to 10 - stable enough to have 120kh/s.

[keliokan]

Yes, i did it and it worked.
Thanks,

K.

A question about the PoS and its effect on the wallet stability.
Is there a way to improve this, the possibility of using just a small amount of the balance to be able to stake without affecting the wallet response is not really great.

I guess you refer to the fact that the wallet/client is slow when not using "reservebalance"?

The problem seems to be related to the PoW algorithm, so it's not easily "solvable".

Have you tried what is suggested on the Slimcoin website - consolidate your balance into one or a few UTXOs (outputs)? This can be done sending all your balance to another address you own. If it doesn't work because you have too many outputs, then you can try to send several big transactions. It would cost at much a couple of cents in transaction fees ...

A coin control solution would help here - but I remember Graham wrote it wasn't trivial porting the PPC coin control feature to Slimcoin ...

[keliokan]

PoS went down a lot 2 days ago,
Could it be related ? It would be really weird...

K.

Strange it's just happened 1-2 days ago.

Lowered thread count to 10 - stable enough to have 120kh/s.

[gavrilo77]

PoS went down a lot 2 days ago,
Could it be related ? It would be really weird...

K.

Strange it's just happened 1-2 days ago.

Lowered thread count to 10 - stable enough to have 120kh/s.

Maybe there is a bug in miner. When i replaced miner with the new .exe started to work normal again

[eddycurrent]

Hello all,

I have also noticed this issue with low hashrates on 1700x ryzen cpus, however the drop in hashrate seems from what have seen so far to be at least somewhat to do with a connection issue as the miners kept loosing connection to the daemon and the daemon itself seemed to become unresponsive. If I will keep looking to see if I can pinpoint anything.

Regards

[keliokan]

I had this problem on a intel cpu, the wallet was used also to stake.
When i stopped to stake, the hashrate went back to normal.

K.

Hello all,

I have also noticed this issue with low hashrates on 1700x ryzen cpus, however the drop in hashrate seems from what have seen so far to be at least somewhat to do with a connection issue as the miners kept loosing connection to the daemon and the daemon itself seemed to become unresponsive. If I will keep looking to see if I can pinpoint anything.

Regards

[cctothemass]

Recently I read the news about Hive mining, "The Hive is an agent-based mining system. Users create “worker bees” which secure the network while earning block rewards for their bee keepers".
Litecoin cash team Scoundrels promote a veiled PoB concept, as something unique, as if they were his discoverers.
I don't understand why so much attention is paid to the scamforks, but "emeralds" like the slimcoin are bypassed. 

[d5000]

As I wrote several times I'm working on a simple publishing tool for Slimweb, and the GUI is now working. The goal is that publishing should be at least as easy as publishing a website on a cheap shared hosting provider. It covers all steps a Web2Web publication needs - only the HTML file must be edited in a third-party editor, but as most know you can even use Word for that.

I finally decided to do it in a wizard-style layout.

Some screenshots:

Welcome screen:


Address selection:


HTML file selection;


Transaction checking dialog:


Torrent file/WebTorrent dialog:


Goodbye screen:


Not very nice, but dead simple.

It is now able to run without the rest of the ACME tools (I've forked the part of Graham's blocknotifybase file I needed into the rpchost.py file, obviously without changing credits/license).

The new repo is here: https://github.com/slimcoin-project/slimweb-publisher

It runs on Linux:

Code:

python3 pubwizard.py [testnet] 

Command line tool:

Code:

python3 inscriber.py CONTENT [ADDRESS]

 Windows may need some tweaking (I've not tested it). Please be careful when testing - this tool creates raw Slimcoin transactions and in theory could thrash your coins! Don't use it with your main Slimcoin wallet (create a test wallet, best on another partition or on a VM).

It may need some "embellishment" still - now it uses the standard Qt theme (depending on your OS). Do someone know a nice Qt5 stylesheet which could be used? Also, a "Slimweb" logo would be fine

[Vitala]

That's amazing (for me) feature. Please, explain, where will be hosted my page - in blockchain or in centralized service? And also, how anybody can see my page?

[muf18]

If you host it via Webtorrent it's in decentralized fashion.