Terracoin is ALLIIIIIVEEEE

[hiddenvalleyranch]

with current net hashrate, it will take quite some time to get to next big diff adjustment & get a usable coin back (18 blocks remaining?) 

It took about 12hrs for my transaction to go through, but it did go through.

[MaGNeT]

with current net hashrate, it will take quite some time to get to next big diff adjustment & get a usable coin back (18 blocks remaining?) 

It took about 12hrs for my transaction to go through, but it did go through.

Same for me, tried to get them to BTC-E and after 12 hours finally it's confirmed.

[celkaris]

if only half of the TRC traders were effectively mining it we probably never ran into those hashrate/diff problems

[hiddenvalleyranch]

with current net hashrate, it will take quite some time to get to next big diff adjustment & get a usable coin back (18 blocks remaining?) 

It took about 12hrs for my transaction to go through, but it did go through.

Same for me, tried to get them to BTC-E and after 12 hours finally it's confirmed.

And after the price drops about 25% . Still made a handsome profit though.

[crazy_rabbit]

I ended up selling it, the price is pretty high now and with the instability I don't see how it will last. I will just keep BTC right now and maybe consider getting back into TRC once all these problems go away.

Ah, but the speculative profit potential is linked to the inherent risk, no?

[hiddenvalleyranch]

I ended up selling it, the price is pretty high now and with the instability I don't see how it will last. I will just keep BTC right now and maybe consider getting back into TRC once all these problems go away.

Ah, but the speculative profit potential is linked to the inherent risk, no?

Too much risk for me.

[BeeCee1]

quote from terracoin-announce ml :

Subject:     [Terracoin-announce] build 0.1.3-29 available

This update will bring back a shorter period used in difficulty
computation, until a better algorithm is implemented, making the network
resilient to the huge hashrate spikes we recently saw.

So this means that there is going to be another mandatory update sometime in the near future with yet another difficulty adjustment algorithm?

[crazy_rabbit]

quote from terracoin-announce ml :

Subject:     [Terracoin-announce] build 0.1.3-29 available

This update will bring back a shorter period used in difficulty
computation, until a better algorithm is implemented, making the network
resilient to the huge hashrate spikes we recently saw.

So this means that there is going to be another mandatory update sometime in the near future with yet another difficulty adjustment algorithm?

Yeah but there would have been another update when bitcoin gets updated anyway, so relax. Bitcoin isn't even 1.0 version yet. It's annoying, yes, no doubt, but it's a work in progress.

[Arbitrageur]

come find new blocks... I've been stuck since 7 hours waiting for confirmations

[BeeCee1]

While i do support terracoin i think the issue of someone poining asics at the network and thrus forcing up the difficulty of a reletively new coin shows a major flaw in most alt-coin designs - using the same algorythm as bitcoin, imho any alt coin that wants to stand the test of time and actually be taken seriously is going to need a difference algo - take litecoin as the perfect example, different algo and it's followed the same mining evolution as bitcoin.

I agree.  History has now shown that starting an alt coin that uses the same hashing algorithm as an existing, strong, coin is a bad choice.  We now have had several examples of this.

The first was Namecoin, where the difficulty went way up then mining power left and it was stuck for several months at super-high difficulty.

The next was CoildCoin (CLC).  It had merged-mining right from the start in an attempt to have a higher hashrate. However, Luke-Jr (who controled the Elgius pool at the time) set the pool to merge-mine it and not allow anyone elses blocks or allow any transactions in his blocks.  Since Elgius had a much higher hashrate then the rest of the network, he was successful and the network stalled.

For Terracoin (TRC) a single person with a bitcoin ASIC starts mining and causes the difficulty to fluctuate wildly (first difficulty calculation method) or causes it to go up and stay up (second difficulty calculation method).  That person had over 50% of the hashpower and could have done much more damage (and still can if they want to).  They could mine their blocks exclusively, ignoreing any blocks found by anyone else, thus getting all the block rewards, excluding others transactions, and doing double spends at will.

re-using the same hashing algorithm sounds like a good idea, it takes less effort, you don't have to worry about introducing new bugs, and you can take advantage of all the optimized software/hardware to get your hashrate up.  However, an attacker has access to the same software/hardware that you do, may already have a lot of it, and, often has a vested interest in a different coin succeeding so have a reason to use those resources to attack a new chain.

This is certainly true for sha256 and is mostly likely true for scrypt now (if not, certainly when scrypt fpga's come out it will by).

[VforVictory]

While i do support terracoin i think the issue of someone poining asics at the network and thrus forcing up the difficulty of a reletively new coin shows a major flaw in most alt-coin designs - using the same algorythm as bitcoin, imho any alt coin that wants to stand the test of time and actually be taken seriously is going to need a difference algo - take litecoin as the perfect example, different algo and it's followed the same mining evolution as bitcoin.

I agree.  History has now shown that starting an alt coin that uses the same hashing algorithm as an existing, strong, coin is a bad choice.  We now have had several examples of this.

The first was Namecoin, where the difficulty went way up then mining power left and it was stuck for several months at super-high difficulty.

The next was CoildCoin (CLC).  It had merged-mining right from the start in an attempt to have a higher hashrate. However, Luke-Jr (who controled the Elgius pool at the time) set the pool to merge-mine it and not allow anyone elses blocks or allow any transactions in his blocks.  Since Elgius had a much higher hashrate then the rest of the network, he was successful and the network stalled.

For Terracoin (TRC) a single person with a bitcoin ASIC starts mining and causes the difficulty to fluctuate wildly (first difficulty calculation method) or causes it to go up and stay up (second difficulty calculation method).  That person had over 50% of the hashpower and could have done much more damage (and still can if they want to).  They could mine their blocks exclusively, ignoreing any blocks found by anyone else, thus getting all the block rewards, excluding others transactions, and doing double spends at will.

re-using the same hashing algorithm sounds like a good idea, it takes less effort, you don't have to worry about introducing new bugs, and you can take advantage of all the optimized software/hardware to get your hashrate up.  However, an attacker has access to the same software/hardware that you do, may already have a lot of it, and, often has a vested interest in a different coin succeeding so have a reason to use those resources to attack a new chain.

This is certainly true for sha256 and is mostly likely true for scrypt now (if not, certainly when scrypt fpga's come out it will by).

Not quite true for Scypt, or NovaCoin would be dead.

[crazy_rabbit]

While i do support terracoin i think the issue of someone poining asics at the network and thrus forcing up the difficulty of a reletively new coin shows a major flaw in most alt-coin designs - using the same algorythm as bitcoin, imho any alt coin that wants to stand the test of time and actually be taken seriously is going to need a difference algo - take litecoin as the perfect example, different algo and it's followed the same mining evolution as bitcoin.

I agree.  History has now shown that starting an alt coin that uses the same hashing algorithm as an existing, strong, coin is a bad choice.  We now have had several examples of this.

The first was Namecoin, where the difficulty went way up then mining power left and it was stuck for several months at super-high difficulty.

The next was CoildCoin (CLC).  It had merged-mining right from the start in an attempt to have a higher hashrate. However, Luke-Jr (who controled the Elgius pool at the time) set the pool to merge-mine it and not allow anyone elses blocks or allow any transactions in his blocks.  Since Elgius had a much higher hashrate then the rest of the network, he was successful and the network stalled.

For Terracoin (TRC) a single person with a bitcoin ASIC starts mining and causes the difficulty to fluctuate wildly (first difficulty calculation method) or causes it to go up and stay up (second difficulty calculation method).  That person had over 50% of the hashpower and could have done much more damage (and still can if they want to).  They could mine their blocks exclusively, ignoreing any blocks found by anyone else, thus getting all the block rewards, excluding others transactions, and doing double spends at will.

re-using the same hashing algorithm sounds like a good idea, it takes less effort, you don't have to worry about introducing new bugs, and you can take advantage of all the optimized software/hardware to get your hashrate up.  However, an attacker has access to the same software/hardware that you do, may already have a lot of it, and, often has a vested interest in a different coin succeeding so have a reason to use those resources to attack a new chain.

This is certainly true for sha256 and is mostly likely true for scrypt now (if not, certainly when scrypt fpga's come out it will by).

the problem isn't the algo, sha256 or Scrypt, the problem in this case is figuring out how to start a new coin in a 'coin aware' environment. Bitcoin started before anyone understood it, Litecoin in a sense too entered into a much quieter crypto market. Enterning now takes a heck of a lot more. Give it time. These things work themselves out.

[No_2]

So I'm clear can someone explain the TRC "ASIC incident" to which so many of you refer.

Thanks,

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

TF:  Difficulty is a value in the blocks themselves, only a new block and set the difficulty for the next block.  By definition nothing in the block-chain can change without a block being made.  The only way to do what your describing would be to patch the client to make it intentionally over-ride the block-chain and accept that over-ride as valid.

ah. Okay. Other suggestions? Besides BFL shipping ASICS and me finally getting one?

No, testnet does it already, it just assumes the difficulty is 1 if there has being no new blocks found in the past 24 hours or so (iirc)

[psybits]

Can someone (or a lot of people) please mine TRC I've had a deposit into BTC-e hung up on 4 confirms for 10 hours...

[VforVictory]

Can someone (or a lot of people) please mine TRC I've had a deposit into BTC-e hung up on 4 confirms for 10 hours...

Considering the rounds are taking seven+ hours to complete, yeah... I don't think anyone will see TRC soon.

[psybits]

Can someone (or a lot of people) please mine TRC I've had a deposit into BTC-e hung up on 4 confirms for 10 hours...

Considering the rounds are taking seven+ hours to complete, yeah... I don't think anyone will see TRC soon.

I'm over it

[Peleus]

While i do support terracoin i think the issue of someone poining asics at the network and thrus forcing up the difficulty of a reletively new coin shows a major flaw in most alt-coin designs - using the same algorythm as bitcoin, imho any alt coin that wants to stand the test of time and actually be taken seriously is going to need a difference algo - take litecoin as the perfect example, different algo and it's followed the same mining evolution as bitcoin.

I agree.  History has now shown that starting an alt coin that uses the same hashing algorithm as an existing, strong, coin is a bad choice.  We now have had several examples of this.

The first was Namecoin, where the difficulty went way up then mining power left and it was stuck for several months at super-high difficulty.

The next was CoildCoin (CLC).  It had merged-mining right from the start in an attempt to have a higher hashrate. However, Luke-Jr (who controled the Elgius pool at the time) set the pool to merge-mine it and not allow anyone elses blocks or allow any transactions in his blocks.  Since Elgius had a much higher hashrate then the rest of the network, he was successful and the network stalled.

For Terracoin (TRC) a single person with a bitcoin ASIC starts mining and causes the difficulty to fluctuate wildly (first difficulty calculation method) or causes it to go up and stay up (second difficulty calculation method).  That person had over 50% of the hashpower and could have done much more damage (and still can if they want to).  They could mine their blocks exclusively, ignoreing any blocks found by anyone else, thus getting all the block rewards, excluding others transactions, and doing double spends at will.

re-using the same hashing algorithm sounds like a good idea, it takes less effort, you don't have to worry about introducing new bugs, and you can take advantage of all the optimized software/hardware to get your hashrate up.  However, an attacker has access to the same software/hardware that you do, may already have a lot of it, and, often has a vested interest in a different coin succeeding so have a reason to use those resources to attack a new chain.

This is certainly true for sha256 and is mostly likely true for scrypt now (if not, certainly when scrypt fpga's come out it will by).

the problem isn't the algo, sha256 or Scrypt, the problem in this case is figuring out how to start a new coin in a 'coin aware' environment. Bitcoin started before anyone understood it, Litecoin in a sense too entered into a much quieter crypto market. Enterning now takes a heck of a lot more. Give it time. These things work themselves out.

Keep in mind I mean this respectfully since obviously you've done more then 99.999% of people here for crypto currency, regardless if I disagree.

The problem is definitely the algo. I know you eventually want ASIC's but you need to build up the network hash rate to a point where it doesn't massively change it. That's why CPU > GPU > FPGA > ASIC works well as it's a gradual increase. It's also the natural progression of $ investment. I assure you, you can use the most obscure algorithm and people will build ASICs for it once the dollar value makes sense for doing so. The thing is - this will only occur when the network and corresponding hashrate is sufficiently mature.  Jumping on the SHA256 bandwagon means that more cost effective powerful technologies (ASICs) can dump on your chain whenever it's profitable killing you because you haven't had time to mature the coin yet.

Secondly, you shouldn't be counting on the same algo as a method of enticing people into your coin, simply because it's a 'coin aware' environment. You should be focusing on some actual significant differences in the coin, with better features etc. If there is no difference between say BTC and altcoinX why the hell should there be another one? It just dilutes the cryptocoin market for no gain. If your coin is actually superior, with better features, people will come regardless of the algorithm. There is zero reason to use SHA256.

[psybits]

Everyone mine TRC!

It is on BTC-e now and has a good exchange rate - and is normally a lightning fast coin!

[BitzMD]

So in summary what is the consensus, will the stalled coins be confirmed anytime soon?