### CWI-Thread - SpreadCoin Thread | UnOfficial Monitored Thread

[crysx]

Hi crysx.. great that you opened this thread. Maybe copy the original OP page too? Be nice if you did. thx.

Ps Been watch this coin for a long time. Allow me to post a link to the original thread for OP info.

Old Spread coin thread. >  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1045373.0


                       Hash algorithm:SpreadX11
                       Total supply:20 million   
                       Block time:1 minute
                       Block halving:smoothly halved every 4 years
                       Initial block reward:6.66 SPR
                       Port:41678
                       RPC-Port:41677

tanx tbear ...

this is not about taking over the thread - its about handling the crap and false profiles taht deliver the crap to the official thread - so that 'we' can have our discussions without the headache of sifting through pages of bullshit ...

so there wont be a push for the op to be copied and installed here in this thread - unless the community itself wants it to happen ...

ideas like yours are always welcome - and so are the official discussions ...

the colour of skin - or the type of religion - or the people who post here are not the issue ... the issue is the relevance to the project and the progression of it ...

hence the op is VERY raw - and very basic ...

if you all want to change it - let me know ... especially if its overwhelmingly positive towards changing the op to the original op ...

notice the original block reward was 666? ... hehehe - that mr spread! ... where the hell did he go? ... very well planned and executed project ...

#crysx

[gjhiggins]

I would support an effort to fork the coin.

From a maintenance perspective, It may be too late for that particular approach.

The Spreadcoin codebase is a copy of Darkcoin, itself a copy of Bitcoin 0.8.3.

That's mid-June 2013 by my reckoning.

The various Bitcoin release notes for 0.9-13 spell out how much change has occurred since then.

Cheers

Graham

[rhinomonkey]

I would support an effort to fork the coin.

From a maintenance perspective, It may be too late for that particular approach.

The Spreadcoin codebase is a copy of Darkcoin, itself a copy of Bitcoin 0.8.3.

That's mid-June 2013 by my reckoning.

The various Bitcoin release notes for 0.9-13 spell out how much change has occurred since then.

Cheers

Graham

What do you mean by too late? Just it would take too long and would be not worthwhile? Clearly it is technically possible and would just be a matter of finding someone to work on it.

Unless you mean forking SPR is not worthwhile relative to other more up to date coins?

By the way, I am curious as to your thoughts in regards to the current state of the project, if you have any. If you have some time I would love to hear them.

[coins101]

Well I was going to set-up a new moderated thread to get rid of that ISIS twat.

[gjhiggins]

Unless you mean forking SPR is not worthwhile relative to other more up to date coins?

Yes.

By the way, I am curious as to your thoughts in regards to the current state of the project, if you have any. If you have some time I would love to hear them.

It's kind of you to invite me to opine but I don't have much to offer, I'm afraid.

My initial interest was sparked by Mr Spread's technical appreciation of the domain and his “internal market” solution to the logistics of overlay network membership.

Is SpreadCoin implementation based on DarkCoin?
No, this is original implementation.

How is it different from DarkCoin?
In SpreadCoin there are no centralized reference nodes to decide which masternodes should receive payments, it is decided by the network in decentralized maner. In DarkCoin the messages which select masternodes are separate from the blockchain and are distributed independently. This way it is possible that nodes will have different opinion on what masternode should receive next payment. In SpreadCoin all votes for masternodes will be stored in blocks and the payee will be uniquely determined from the previous blocks. Just like you can check that any transaction included in the block is correct by comparing its inputs with outputs in previous blocks you will be able to check that masternode payment is correct by checking previous blocks. Why bitcoin is so reliable? Because all nodes have exactly the same rules how to determine which blockchains are correct and which one is better (required more work) than others, these rules are only depended on blocks themselves, not on the order in which they were received them nor on any other messages which you may or may not receive in time. The network can be unstable in the case of some major event which will break connectivity between nodes but once connectivity between nodes is reestablished all nodes will stick to the same blockchain. The same will apply to SpreadCoin.

How masternodes are elected?
Each node monitor the network and assign scores to each masternode. This scores depend on how well masternodes provide their services, for instant transactions this will be time delay between transaction and its confimation by masternode. Since there may be no transactions and only elected masternodes will confirm transactions there is an empty service - each masternode will broadcast messages signining certain blocks to prove that it is running. Miners will include votes in their blocks. Votes can either be positive (elect not yet elected masternode) or negative (deelect already elected masternode). If masternode has more than 30 positive votes in the last 60 blocks then it is added to the list of elected masternodes. If masternode has more then 30 negative votes in the last 60 blocks then it is removed from the list of elected masternodes. Note that it is possible to determine which masternodes were elected at each particular block.

And in the context of discussions about forking the codebase, perhaps it's also worth noting:

What is the state of instant transactions implementation in SpreadCoin?
Most effort was put into developing masternode election/payments mechanism, instant transactions are currently not fully implemented. Although masternodes confirm them there is no logic in place to replace unconfirmed transactions with the confirmed ones in the case of double spending attacks and to reject blocks with conflicting transactions. Note that rejecting blocks based on whether or not it includes transactions which conflict with confirmed instant transactions can lead to forks but this can be solved.

My interest in the solution persists (in the context of a contemporary codebase) but I've lost contact with whatever georgem is working on. Keeping an eye on the relevant bits of bitcointalk is tolerable but I can't afford to extend that to coin-specific external forums. I'm assuming any substantive development will be reported on the main bitcointalk thread ... eventually. Other than that, as far as the rest of the community is concerned, the Spreadcoin project would seem to be effectively suspended until the development process is complete, whenever that may be. This has had the unfortunate knock-on effect of depriving the community of a shared focus for its communication and that in turn has had a deleterious effect on the cohesion of the group.

My perspective on peer-to-peer networked cryptocurrencies has changed over the years and it now points me in an entirely different direction.

Irrespective of that, there's now a whole bunch of alts with masternodes which emphasises the need for a coherent development vision to drive any separate development strand. Strictly speaking, a fork isn't required, anyone can clone the repos, create another branch and work in that - just as georgem has done with the new-wallet branch. But it wouldn't make sense to do that unless there was some sort of “public vision” to drive  the development.

Cheers

Graham

[coins101]

- each masternode will broadcast messages signining certain blocks to prove that it is running.

That's along the lines I was thinking of broadcasting messages between two different blockchains to prove one is running a full Bitcoin node.  

[gjhiggins]

My perspective on peer-to-peer networked cryptocurrencies has changed over the years and it now points me in an entirely different direction.

Broadly, in this direction -> http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Human_Nature.pdf (HUMAN NATURE AND SOCIAL NETWORKS)

Author is: http://csreports.aspeninstitute.org/Roundtable-on-Institutional-Innovation/2013/participants/details/7/john-clippinger

Sociality and command and control

It is important at this point to relate the prior discussion to the fundamental concern of this book: how do you have effective and accountable command and control in a distributed, networked organization? In practical terms, how do you control something over which you do not have direct authority?

The findings summarized in this chapter show that humans have evolved as a social species and have consequently developed highly sophisticated social signaling and enforcement mechanisms that reward and enforce complex forms of cooperative behaviors. The implications for command and control structures are profound.

Instead of having to impose such cooperative mechanisms from above or through formal monitoring and intervention processes, highly sophisticated cooperative behaviors can be evoked by creating a context in which the appropriate social signaling takes place. Once given the appropriate signals and rules, groups can spontaneously self-organize and control themselves.

Moreover, as presented in Chapters Six and Seven, there is evidence that people self-select to identify a social network role to accomplish critical tasks and preserve the integrity of the group

 As the behavioral economist Paul Zak (28) has shown in a number of his experiments on trust, subjects do not act to maximize their own self-interest as would be predicted by classic economic theory (the social realist), but engage in trust-building behaviors to develop cooperative strategies.

Such strategies for forming self-synchronizing groups have survived because they have been shown to have enormous survival value. Indeed they are not utopian, but highly pragmatic in ensuring group or species survival.

Cheers

Graham

Edit: added illustrative quote

[Nikolaj]

Signed mate

Nice idea

[defunctec]

I would support an effort to fork the coin.

From a maintenance perspective, It may be too late for that particular approach.

The Spreadcoin codebase is a copy of Darkcoin, itself a copy of Bitcoin 0.8.3.

That's mid-June 2013 by my reckoning.

The various Bitcoin release notes for 0.9-13 spell out how much change has occurred since then.

Cheers

Graham

Mr gjhiggins makes an excellent point (as usual).
Spreadcoins codebase is a relic of old. Building a service network on top of this antiquated code is reckless.
Bitcoin core has had several security and preference modifications since 0.8.x.
I would suggest having someone update the core codebase to as latest as possible and then attempting to launch service nodes.

I guarantee once you launch paid full nodes you will need to update core code, this is back asswords.

[gjhiggins]

I would suggest having someone update the core codebase to as latest as possible and then attempting to launch service nodes.

Chaincoin acquired masternodes in its upgrade to 0.9, the most recent Core version that doesn't necessitate a hard fork of the blockchain, c.f. the Bitcoin 0.10 release notes:

Because release 0.10.0 makes use of headers-first synchronization and parallel block download (see further), the block files and databases are not backwards-compatible with older versions of Bitcoin Core or other software:

A hard fork creates a forced choice, upgrade to the new client/blockchain / stay with the old client/blockchain. A consensus will become evident but that in itself will not necessarily result in a single blockchain - both old and new chains can exist separately and simultaneously.

However, an upgrade to 0.9 falls well short of defunctec's (eminently pragmatic) criterion of “latest as possible” and also misses out on the improvements that the 10-13 versions bring. From a maintenance perspective, going to 0.9 is hardly worth the effort, given the (un-guessable, even) risk of dividing the community --- it cannot be ignored that such a move could result in georgem's miner and blockexplorer work being effectively isolated if he was minded to maintain his insular stance.

<digression>
This thread has been useful in prompting me to go back and refresh my memory of events. I bailed in late April 2015, eventually observing “in several areas my perceptions are starting to differ sufficiently from (what I perceive to be) the consensus that it basically renders irrelevant any contribution I might make in that context, so I'm opting to keep my own counsel there.” The subtext was: “Nope, that ain't gonna work. Bugger this for a game of soldiers, I'm slinging my hook” (high and low registers, right?)

Anyway, I had to check back on coins101's apparent understanding “That's along the lines I was thinking of broadcasting messages” because my model had Mr Spread's description placed in early 2015 with late spring for coins101/georgem's development project for Bitcoin node support. So I had to check - which was useful because in the process of refreshing my memory, I was confronted with a use case discussion that I had completely forgotten about but the content of which later significantly informed my understanding - so props to thelonecrouton and Anothernode for spelling it out - details later ..
</digression>

There's a raft of 0.10 coins, just search on Github for "Bitcoin Core version 0.10.0 is now available from:"

There are markedly fewer 0.11 coins aaand (for completeness) 0.12 and 0.13

I can't tell offhand which of the Core versions have overlay networks but there aren't many. I think bitcredits got to 0.12 and had an overlay network, that might be a sensible place in which to start looking. Upgrading that to 0.13 will still be effortful, btw.

It would have to be a long running jump and grab to 0.12/0.13 and even then Spreadcoin could end up like iXCoin, all synched up and nowhere to go.

Anyway, time to return to the Anothernode/thelonecrouton discussion. I'm not going to re-post the discussion, just the pointers:

my post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.msg10973864#msg10973864

thelonecrouton's response: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.msg10975747#msg10975747

anothernode's refinement: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.msg10976140#msg10976140

The key insight is thelonecrouton's “using the MN network as a consensus mechanism for choosing the locus/loci”. It's relevance didn't strike me until I found myself reading:

The group is initialized by either a trusted dealer or a set of founding members. The dealer or founding members initialize the group by choosing a group secret key, and computing and publishing the corresponding public parameters in the group certificate. The group secret is shared among the founding member(s) using either Shamir’s threshold secret sharing (TSS) or joint secret sharing (JSS) techniques

Threshold cryptography in P2P and MANETs: The case of access control

and I realised that “initialize the group by choosing a group secret key” can be mapped to “a consensus mechanism for choosing the locus/loci”

Which brings us smartly to the key question: is the overlay network capable of ephemeral knowledge of a secret and thereby capable of offering trustworthy cryptography?

Using an overlay network to mediate threshold cryptography is not a done deal by any means - see Chen and Wu's review of the field: A Survey on Cryptography Applied to
Secure Mobile Ad Hoc Networks and Wireless Sensor Networks (PDF).

I just thought I'd chuck that into the mix.

Also, coins101 put a lot of effort into detailing the other possibilities for exploiting the advantages of an overlay network, shouldn't be overlooked at this point:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=976031.msg10656234#msg10656234

Cheers

Graham

[crysx]

interesting reading graham ...

i havent yet had too much time to absorb it all - but i think many points ( and ideas ) can be gleaned from it ...

i am currently at thefarm - reworking some of the areas that need to be for it to mine efficiently ... development on thefarm is stalled and i guess mining granite - spreadcoin - or any other coin is at a slight standstill for the time being ...

but i will be back 'home' ( 2500kms away - and away from my partner now for a week ... yes i miss her - im human too ) and will look over - read and reread - and absorb what has been written ...

i will be looking for a dev that will be dedicated and focused on a few things in the CWI ecosystem - of which a few ideas to be implemented ... i wonder is the spreadcoin core should be part of that? ... interesting ...

eitherway - electrician about to come and quote me on  the full rewire for thefarm ... ie - destroy the bank balance again ... ...

i have a lot to catch up on when i get back home ... which will be friday my time ...

#crysx

[georgem]

Guys, I wish to welcome you back in the official thread.

Hope to see you there soon.

Peace!

[crysx]

Guys, I wish to welcome you back in the official thread.

Hope to see you there soon.

Peace!

tanx georgem ...

seems that the trolls have thinned a little out ...

ill keep this open for a while ... if not used - as i mentioned in the op - ill be happy to lock the thread ...

but it will be at the behest of the community ( as i am one also ) ...

eitherway - open discussion and communication is always a justified option for communication ... but trolling is not ... which is the bane of my life ( and many others ) when it comes to educated and open dialogue ... especially when it comes to focus on the subject matter that is important ...

#crysx

[gjhiggins]

... official thread.

sigh. Can we tighten up the thinking just a little bit?

official (əˈfɪʃəl)
adj
1. of or relating to an office, its administration, or its duration
2. sanctioned by, recognized by, or derived from authority: an official statement.
3. appointed by authority, esp for some special duty

au·thor·i·ty  (ə-thôr′ĭ-tē, ə-thŏr′-, ô-)
n. pl. au·thor·i·ties
1.
a. The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.

The phrase “official thread” is semantically vacuous, as attested by this very thread and the posts made to it.

Cheers

Graham

[crysx]

... official thread.

sigh. Can we tighten up the thinking just a little bit?

official (əˈfɪʃəl)
adj
1. of or relating to an office, its administration, or its duration
2. sanctioned by, recognized by, or derived from authority: an official statement.
3. appointed by authority, esp for some special duty

au·thor·i·ty  (ə-thôr′ĭ-tē, ə-thŏr′-, ô-)
n. pl. au·thor·i·ties
1.
a. The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.

The phrase “official thread” is semantically vacuous, as attested by this very thread and the posts made to it.

Cheers

Graham

hehehe ...

im not gay - or even remotely bi or curious - but i could bloody well kiss you graham ...

#crysx

[gjhiggins]

Curious what you both think about georgem divesting from spreadcoin.  I found his justifications a bit thin, but I was wondering what you thought?

Whatever he chooses to do, it's unlikely to make much difference. The dissipation of the critical energy of a group results in a proportional reduction in the volatility of the perceived group consensus. Those who remain committed have been so for two years now (for an arbitrary value of “committed”).

Co-incidentally, this thread is turning into a bit of an anniversary reunion. /me waves. Don't think Palm Detroit is still around tho'

Cheers

Graham

[chrysophylax]

hi all ...

ive finally got my old profile back ...

tanx to cyrus ( bct mod ) and a few others - i now have full access to my old profile ... so will be using this one as much as possible from now on ...

the 'crysx' profile will still be in use - but will be only when necessary - not as my standard ...

a lot to sort out now ...

update ...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1563601.msg17653092#msg17653092 ...

#crysx

[chrysophylax]

hi all ...

just a thought ...

mrspread IS a well known developer going by another profile here on bct ( and other portals ) ... thats one thing for sure ...

who that dev is - is anyones guess! ... but chances are - that spr was a testbed for other things to be implemented into the coin / project he is ACTUALLY working on ... its how a lot of the 'bigger coin' developers work ... which is why a lot of well coded / great idea coins have been abandoned ... not just for the monetary gain - but much more importantly - the code advancement gain WITHOUT ruining the reputation ( and codebase ) of the coins they are actually working on ...

there are much better ways ( and more honest ways ) of doing this - but nothing as as gratifying than successfully developing code that WORKS ... testing it in one coin - then improving it and integrating that code in the coin you are actually working on ...

#crysx

[stonehedge]

Crysx and gjhiggins making incisive posts as usual.  Nice to see gjhiggins acknowledging Coins101's efforts too.  His research has been tireless and I can't wait to see where his ideas end up.

I'm really sad to see georgem turning on even gjhiggins now.  Less than a year ago georgem told me that gjhiggins was one of the few devs he would be happy to collaborate with and spoke with nothing other than respectful words.  I have no idea what has changed.

From various sources I have picked up on a level of paranoia on georgem's part that previous SPR team members are attempting to undermine his project.  It has even got to the point that there is hostility towards the projects that they are now involved with.  The bottom line is that some people had enough, found themselves to be the target of hostility and insults after investing a lot of time and effort and decided they had enough and wanted to work in a more constructive environment. There is no rivalry or ill feeling.  Indeed I believe several of the people in question have large SPR holdings and are still supportive of the project.

I agree with crysx that georgem is developing his ability to deliver whatever his vision is for SPR and could well deliver something amazing but to refuse to share that vision with the community and do things in isolation, indeed insisting on monthly payments to even see a preview wallet seems like a strange approach to me.

From my own point of view, the only thing I would like to understand is why georgem has recently turned on so many people who wished him well? It makes me wonder or worry that all is not well with him.  I really hope that isn't the case.

 

[stonehedge]

Just as an afterhought:

I see no point in me posting on the other SPR thread now.  I'm only there because I'm interested to see what is happening and I don't want to continue to be name called for FUD and Trolling. Its rather tiresome when I feel I'm asking perfectly constructive questions.