[ANN][EGC] EverGreenCoin | Environmental Green Causes | Full 7% PoS | Foundation

[starmman]

Hmm... This site has the same face as cryptopiler.com... I'm out of it!


jsff77

I wouldn't be surprised if all parts of the thread talking about this investment were removed my a mod in the next 48 hours - that usually happens.

[1713560884]

1713560884

[1713560884]

1713560884

[drofxafm]

Yobit is down at the momment,what a profesional site.

Plenty of larger, very professional sites go offline from time to time. For a small company (which is probably where Yobit and the other exchanges fit)  99% uptime might be expected (and that allows for a few days downtime each year), increasing that to 99.9% you start adding 0's to the end of the bill.

[abyaby123]

Just report this guy with his Cryptiply scam don't quote his post anymore. The second time they try to post there scam is not working anymore. And forget Yobit switch to other exchanges. Yobit is 0 trusted exchange support very slow and fake Volume Coins...

[starmman]

Just report this guy with his Cryptiply scam don't quote his post anymore. The second time they try to post there scam is not working anymore. And forget Yobit switch to other exchanges. Yobit is 0 trusted exchange support very slow and fake Volume Coins...

I'm quite happy to risk Yobit - the difference between ask and buy is quite high compared to most other so making much more on trades there as elsewhere - just have to make sure I dont keep so much capital on the exchange

[abyaby123]

Just report this guy with his Cryptiply scam don't quote his post anymore. The second time they try to post there scam is not working anymore. And forget Yobit switch to other exchanges. Yobit is 0 trusted exchange support very slow and fake Volume Coins...

I'm quite happy to risk Yobit - the difference between ask and buy is quite high compared to most other so making much more on trades there as elsewhere - just have to make sure I dont keep so much capital on the exchange

The gaps of buy and sell are only so high because we don´t recommend to trade on that exchange. If more would stop trading there the gaps would be much bigger till they delist EGC. I am happy to get delisted of every untrusted exchanges. In the future there will be so much trusted exchanges why introducing new crypto member to Yoshit (Yobit).
Hope nobody trade there anymore

[starmman]

The price of EGC is looking good again today for people who want to buy - I managed to pick a few up today. Best day so far since the pump (in USD terms) was Jan 11 when 1 EGC was 1.1c, today the price is 1.3c, this is a good opportunity for more people to get into the market with less risk =)

[Chicago]

Hello,

    Fun fact ::  If you bought 50,000 EGC one year ago today in a USD -> BTC -> EGC transaction and then staked them --

    Today you would have turned your $113.89 investment into approximately $663.43.

    Given:  2/7/2016 EGC Market range 0.00000609 - 0.00000626 BTC (Bittrex)
               2/7/2016 BTC Market range $374.03 - $379.50 (CoinDesk)
               2/7/2017 EGC Market approximation - 0.00001157 BTC (Bittrex)
               2/7/2017 BTC Market approximation - $1061.1788 (Bittrex)

    50,000 EGC w/ 1% annual coinstake and 7% annual staking becomes 54,035 EGC

    Value on 2/7/2016:  50000.0 * (0.00000609 * 374.03) ~= $113.892
    Value on 2/7/2017:  (50000.0 * 1.01 * 1.07) * ( 0.00001157 * 1061.1788 ) ~= $663.433

Best Regards,
-Chicago

[starmman]

Hello,

    Fun fact ::  If you bought 50,000 EGC one year ago today in a USD -> BTC -> EGC transaction and then staked them --

    Today you would have turned your $113.89 investment into approximately $663.43.

    Given:  2/7/2016 EGC Market range 0.00000609 - 0.00000626 BTC (Bittrex)
               2/7/2016 BTC Market range $374.03 - $379.50 (CoinDesk)
               2/7/2017 EGC Market approximation - 0.00001157 BTC (Bittrex)
               2/7/2017 BTC Market approximation - $1061.1788 (Bittrex)

    50,000 EGC w/ 1% annual coinstake and 7% annual staking becomes 54,035 EGC

    Value on 2/7/2016:  50000.0 * (0.00000609 * 374.03) ~= $113.892
    Value on 2/7/2017:  (50000.0 * 1.01 * 1.07) * ( 0.00001157 * 1061.1788 ) ~= $663.433

Best Regards,
-Chicago

Thanks for that  - I like the maths =) I think 2017 will be a good year for EGC, lets see where it takes us. Also, now is a very good time to get on board.

[EverGreenCoin]

Please check your copy of the EverGreenCoin blockchain via the official block explorer, transactions.evergreencoin.org at your earliest convenience. A low peer count at seednodes has indicated some wallets are in an unintentional fork.

On a more promising note, I have been testing code for another hardfork. This code is generating the desired effect and should prevent these unintentional forks from forming. My plan is to big bang and hardfork the network again. If testing continues to be favorable, this will occur this weekend. I have already made exchanges aware of this plan and its possible execution this weekend. Of course, more details to come.

I am away from my desk and out of contact right now and for the next 4 hours. I am at a licensure class to get a license to spread fertilizer on my own property. :/

[starmman]

Please check your copy of the EverGreenCoin blockchain via the official block explorer, transactions.evergreencoin.org at your earliest convenience. A low peer count at seednodes has indicated some wallets are in an unintentional fork.

On a more promising note, I have been testing code for another hardfork. This code is generating the desired effect and should prevent these unintentional forks from forming. My plan is to big bang and hardfork the network again. If testing continues to be favorable, this will occur this weekend. I have already made exchanges aware of this plan and its possible execution this weekend. Of course, more details to come.

I am away from my desk and out of contact right now and for the next 4 hours. I am at a licensure class to get a license to spread fertilizer on my own property. :/

Thanks for the warning, I'll take a look when I get back to my wallet - hopefully I'm still on the main chain - I've been sync'd 24x7 for a while, so fingers crossed =).

[drofxafm]

Please check your copy of the EverGreenCoin blockchain via the official block explorer, transactions.evergreencoin.org at your earliest convenience. A low peer count at seednodes has indicated some wallets are in an unintentional fork.

Looking at my node monitoring, whilst there's a drop in connections (around 1500 UTC) it doesn't look to be as large as previous times when things have gone a bit weird on the network. The last few times I've seen a drop like it's recovered within 24 hours.

On a related note I've been adding some stuff to the Solar Staker web interface that makes it check certain blocks against the explorer and show their status. It's also showing an estimated wallet value in BTC and USD (based on current bittrex rates). I need to tidy how this is displayed a bit but I hope to do that over the next few days and I'll try and post a screenshot once done.

[Chicago]

On a more promising note, I have been testing code for another hardfork. This code is generating the desired effect and should prevent these unintentional forks from forming. My plan is to big bang and hardfork the network again. If testing continues to be favorable, this will occur this weekend. I have already made exchanges aware of this plan and its possible execution this weekend. Of course, more details to come.

Hi Steven,

    Based on the network's adoption of v1.4.2.0 and based on those peers which still run v1.3.0.0, we know it took more than 2.5 weeks to see greater than 50% of the users install v1.4.2.0.

    To ensure a successful launch of the proposed fork, it would be prudent to select a block height at least 2.5 weeks in the future and have the new client trigger the new network rules at the specified height.

    This will permit us to release the new client as soon as the time is right yet also provide enough time to monitor the number of peers who have adopted it so we can spread the message more aggressively if needed.

    Also, what specifically do you mean by "big bang and hardfork"?  I understand hardfork but do not yet see commits describing the big bang reference.
        https://github.com/EverGreenCoinDev/EverGreenCoin/commits/master

Best Regards,
-Chicago

   

[drofxafm]

On a related note I've been adding some stuff to the Solar Staker web interface that makes it check certain blocks against the explorer and show their status. It's also showing an estimated wallet value in BTC and USD (based on current bittrex rates). I need to tidy how this is displayed a bit but I hope to do that over the next few days and I'll try and post a screenshot once done.

As promised some screenshots 

Updated overview page, which now shows the estimated BTC and USD values of the wallet (based on bittrex rates), The current local height (which also links to a local block explorer), as well as the last 5 block checks against the public block explorer (all green as the checks matched, in future these should be orange/red if there's a problem and a warning at the top of the page)


There's also a list of recent transactions which in future will become searchable.


The web interface is currently designed to be fairly similar to the QT wallet although in time they might change as features get added/changed.

[EverGreenCoin]

On a more promising note, I have been testing code for another hardfork. This code is generating the desired effect and should prevent these unintentional forks from forming. My plan is to big bang and hardfork the network again. If testing continues to be favorable, this will occur this weekend. I have already made exchanges aware of this plan and its possible execution this weekend. Of course, more details to come.

Hi Steven,

    Based on the network's adoption of v1.4.2.0 and based on those peers which still run v1.3.0.0, we know it took more than 2.5 weeks to see greater than 50% of the users install v1.4.2.0.

    To ensure a successful launch of the proposed fork, it would be prudent to select a block height at least 2.5 weeks in the future and have the new client trigger the new network rules at the specified height.

    This will permit us to release the new client as soon as the time is right yet also provide enough time to monitor the number of peers who have adopted it so we can spread the message more aggressively if needed.

    Also, what specifically do you mean by "big bang and hardfork"?  I understand hardfork but do not yet see commits describing the big bang reference.
        https://github.com/EverGreenCoinDev/EverGreenCoin/commits/master

Best Regards,
-Chicago

    

Hi Chicago,

We had gone through this in June with the PoW block time hardfork. This is the reason we still find v1.3 wallets and not v1.1 wallets, a protocol upgrade to the network forced the upgrade to v1.3. Selecting a point in time the old protocol version stops, all seednodes are upgraded to the new protocol version, users upgrade to the new protocol version then or in the future, and the blockchain continues. This is what I mean by 'big bang'.

Protocol version cannot be changed while in use. We can't create a condition that says at 'this' block height, start using a new protocol version.  A protocol version upgrade must be 'big bang', all or nothing.

When you think about it, and for reasons like you stated including people's reluctancey to upgrade, 'big bang' is the only proper way to implement a hardfork. The hardfork itself will happen at a later point in time on the new protocol version blockchain and, yes, with the condition test of at 'this' block introduce a new PoS block difficulty mininum. Thus not necessarily slowing down the network, but preventing it from going so fast concensus is not formed before nodes start building on to, what they think is, the correct blockchain height.

We can't have old wallets introducing new blocks that do not meet the new validity rules after the hardfork and we can't have other old wallets verifying those blocks after the hardfork. Big bang (protocol upgrade) is the only way for us to stop that. Also, the source code not being made publically available until that time. I of course can private repo the change and review with any community member that wishes to see them.

Giving forewarning is not beneficial in any other way than letting people know to not to try and move any coins after the time of the big bang until they upgrade. But they will not be able to upgrade until the time of the big bang when new wallets, containing the protocol upgrade and the forthcoming hardfork code, are made available.

People that do not have the time to upgrade, no worries, don't upgrade until you have time. But you will have to resync if you run the old version past the time of the big bang. If you do not run the old version past the time of big bang, you can upgrade at your convenience. But you will not be able to stake or move coins until you do upgrade.

So, why the urgency? The issues are holding the project back and for that I sincerely apologize and wish to change. Not only does it eat away at any time for further development, we are at risk of losing services. It is no secret I have been giving great effort to make EGC user friendly to new comers. The tasks of having to verify blockchains and resyncing defeats those efforts. The sooner we can put them behind us, the better.

[EverGreenCoin]

EverGreenCoin got a mention at a bitcoin meetup in the Netherlands today! A colleague of mine there snapped this picture for me. The topic was the negative environmental effects of cryptocurrency. EverGreenCoin was mentioned as one of the projects realizing and working away from that negative impact.

I am personally very pleased to once again see EverGreenCoin mentioned with honourable projects such as Stanford's Folding@Home and Foldingcoin.

If I collect any other pictures, I will be sure to share them.

[Daedalus27]

EverGreenCoin got a mention at a bitcoin meetup in the Netherlands today! A colleague of mine there snapped this picture for me. The topic was the negative environmental effects of cryptocurrency. EverGreenCoin was mentioned as one of the projects realizing and working away from that negative impact.

I am personally very pleased to once again see EverGreenCoin mentioned with honourable projects such as Stanford's Folding@Home and Foldingcoin.

If I collect any other pictures, I will be sure to share them.

Excellent screen capture. Encouraging 

[Chicago]

We had gone through this in June with the PoW block time hardfork. This is the reason we still find v1.3 wallets and not v1.1 wallets, a protocol upgrade to the network forced the upgrade to v1.3. Selecting a point in time the old protocol version stops, all seednodes are upgraded to the new protocol version, users upgrade to the new protocol version then or in the future, and the blockchain continues. This is what I mean by 'big bang'.

Hi Steven,

    I imagined the commits would include a new minimum PoS difficulty and perhaps a revised implementation of our target spacing rules along with an incremented PROTOCOL_VERSION & MIN_PROTO_VERSION.

    A simulation with the upcoming client release and new network rules where there are several wallets carrying staking balances should produce convincing data to validate the coin parameters.

    Network rules specify the target spacing should be 180 seconds.
    https://github.com/EverGreenCoinDev/EverGreenCoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1052    

    Network rules specify a retarget every 10 blocks.
    https://github.com/EverGreenCoinDev/EverGreenCoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L51

    One harbinger of the Evergreencoin 24-hour DoS bans for "block with too little proof-of-stake" has been when blocks are created too close together.

    I thought a bit about how a simulation might work.
    If there is just one staking node in the simulation, there are limited and very few reasons which may describe why target spacing would not be honored over retargeting windows.
    If there are just one or two staking nodes, there is not enough entropy to simulate the network when the PoS difficulty is at its minimum.
    If there are just enough staking nodes, then a network simulation with sufficient netstakeweight to approximate our current environment will permit the coin parameters to express themselves in the blockchain.

    Preparing a controlled environment for such a simulation would be a big job since there is no single group of Evergreencoin stakeholders, at this point, working together on a TestNet fork of the blockchain to simulate the MainNet environment's historical average netstakeweight in order to evaluate target spacing under the new network rules of the upcoming client release.

    Suppose a controlled environment were prepared with an arbitrary number of coin daemons, where a genesis block is created including a coinbase transaction of 13,239,136 EGC (current MainNet moneysupply).  The newly created EGC would then be divided among the arbitrary number of coin daemons and time passes until nStakeMinAge has occurred (24 hours).  Once the minimum stake age has been achieved, several of the coin daemons are brought online to begin staking and observations are made to evaluate network performance.  The simulation may be incrementally horizontally scaled by increasing the number of online coin daemons carrying a balance.  During the simulation, taking 30% - 70% of the netstakeweight offline to evaluate network performance would approximate real world conditions of our young network.

    What are your thoughts?

Best Regards,
-Chicago
    

[starmman]

EverGreenCoin got a mention at a bitcoin meetup in the Netherlands today! A colleague of mine there snapped this picture for me. The topic was the negative environmental effects of cryptocurrency. EverGreenCoin was mentioned as one of the projects realizing and working away from that negative impact.

I am personally very pleased to once again see EverGreenCoin mentioned with honourable projects such as Stanford's Folding@Home and Foldingcoin.

If I collect any other pictures, I will be sure to share them.

Great to see, thanks for sharing that...

That is significant and impressive - good to see EGC is reaching a wider audience - that can't be bad at all =)

I think EGC has a good future in the long term.

[EverGreenCoin]

We had gone through this in June with the PoW block time hardfork. This is the reason we still find v1.3 wallets and not v1.1 wallets, a protocol upgrade to the network forced the upgrade to v1.3. Selecting a point in time the old protocol version stops, all seednodes are upgraded to the new protocol version, users upgrade to the new protocol version then or in the future, and the blockchain continues. This is what I mean by 'big bang'.

Hi Steven,

    I imagined the commits would include a new minimum PoS difficulty and perhaps a revised implementation of our target spacing rules along with an incremented PROTOCOL_VERSION & MIN_PROTO_VERSION.

    A simulation with the upcoming client release and new network rules where there are several wallets carrying staking balances should produce convincing data to validate the coin parameters.

    Network rules specify the target spacing should be 180 seconds.
    https://github.com/EverGreenCoinDev/EverGreenCoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1052    

    Network rules specify a retarget every 10 blocks.
    https://github.com/EverGreenCoinDev/EverGreenCoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L51

Precisely, a new protocol version and a new minimum protocol version and an additional minimum PoS difficulty to be implemented by an if condition.The old minimum PoS difficulty does stay for blocks prior to the hardfork that is determined by the if condition.

   One harbinger of the Evergreencoin 24-hour DoS bans for "block with too little proof-of-stake" has been when blocks are created too close together.

    I thought a bit about how a simulation might work.
    If there is just one staking node in the simulation, there are limited and very few reasons which may describe why target spacing would not be honored over retargeting windows.
    If there are just one or two staking nodes, there is not enough entropy to simulate the network when the PoS difficulty is at its minimum.
    If there are just enough staking nodes, then a network simulation with sufficient netstakeweight to approximate our current environment will permit the coin parameters to express themselves in the blockchain.

    Preparing a controlled environment for such a simulation would be a big job since there is no single group of Evergreencoin stakeholders, at this point, working together on a TestNet fork of the blockchain to simulate the MainNet environment's historical average netstakeweight in order to evaluate target spacing under the new network rules of the upcoming client release.

    Suppose a controlled environment were prepared with an arbitrary number of coin daemons, where a genesis block is created including a coinbase transaction of 13,239,136 EGC (current MainNet moneysupply).  The newly created EGC would then be divided among the arbitrary number of coin daemons and time passes until nStakeMinAge has occurred (24 hours).  Once the minimum stake age has been achieved, several of the coin daemons are brought online to begin staking and observations are made to evaluate network performance.  The simulation may be incrementally horizontally scaled by increasing the number of online coin daemons carrying a balance.  During the simulation, taking 30% - 70% of the netstakeweight offline to evaluate network performance would approximate real world conditions of our young network.

    What are your thoughts?

Best Regards,
-Chicago
    

I have 5 nodes, one acting as the checkpoint server, all using a recent snapshot of MainNet. They are networked together but removed from the Internet. They are all staking various amounts. Since I can stop any and all wallets from actively staking, allow a considerable amount of time to pass, and then enable staking, I can trigger the hardfork minimum PoS difficulty to be enacted in this test environment reliably. Experimenting with different values does reflect in the results and I have found what I feel is a solid new minimum for PoS difficulty, .015

That is the goal of this hardfork, prevent PoS difficulty from becoming so low that the network is flooded with PoS blocks faster than consensus can be established network wide and forks forming.

[EverGreenCoin]

The network upgrade will not be taking place until next weekend. Reason being, we will not have all hands on deck this weekend and people have expressed they would like more time. This gives us a full week to spread the word and possibly work in other enhancements to the EverGreenCoin wallet.

Of course, we will narrow the time down better this coming week.