muf18
|
|
March 20, 2018, 09:30:00 AM Last edit: March 20, 2018, 10:38:27 PM by muf18 |
|
It appeared as unconfirmed instanetly. But 1 conf has taken 8 min.
Guys - I want to ask one more time, is it possible to make it PoS, or hybrid PoW/PoS? I mean it would be also energy efficient at the same time? 60 sec target block is also the fastest it can be? Cant it be 30-45 sec?
I have thought about android wallet, it could show the power of mini-blockchain scheme.
|
|
|
|
david.Bauman
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 0
|
|
March 21, 2018, 10:23:57 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
pallas (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
|
|
March 21, 2018, 10:32:24 AM |
|
What does Komodo have to do with Cryptonite?
|
|
|
|
chrysophylax
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2884
Merit: 1091
--- ChainWorks Industries ---
|
|
March 21, 2018, 12:43:58 PM |
|
What does Komodo have to do with Cryptonite? A promotion on the CryptoNite thread! That's what! #crysx
|
|
|
|
tbearhere
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3206
Merit: 1003
|
|
March 22, 2018, 12:22:53 AM |
|
What does Komodo have to do with Cryptonite? A promotion on the CryptoNite thread! That's what! #crysx So that guy is advertising on pallas's thread. Kick that guy out pallas!
|
|
|
|
e6ug
|
|
March 23, 2018, 04:52:32 AM |
|
What does Komodo have to do with Cryptonite? A promotion on the CryptoNite thread! That's what! #crysx haha that sneaky little bastard It appeared as unconfirmed instanetly. But 1 conf has taken 8 min.
Guys - I want to ask one more time, is it possible to make it PoS, or hybrid PoW/PoS? I mean it would be also energy efficient at the same time? 60 sec target block is also the fastest it can be? Cant it be 30-45 sec?
I have thought about android wallet, it could show the power of mini-blockchain scheme.
android wallet would be cool, but pls do not take away my precious XCN mining!
|
|
|
|
gnasirator
|
|
March 23, 2018, 09:28:28 AM |
|
Personally, I'm in 2 minds about POS vs POW. I love the idea of getting rid of "wasting energy". On the other hand, it's that "wasted" energy that gives the token additional undisputable value and is therefore a great layer of trust, next to the current trade prices on the exchanges. Same effect as with gold. It's expensive to mine, hence it's rare, hence it's valuable. In theory, there should be some market-driven self adjustment happening to how much energy a coin consumes and I think that's what's happening. So POW isn't necessarily bad. Also, there are many voices warning against pure POS as there seem to be some issues with that, too.
I've thought about that topic a while ago, too and my feeling is that a new POW/hybrid POW/POS approach that somehow incentivizes contribution to coin network health might be a good approach. E.g. instead of just having the tokens "at stake", the POW part could be about providing network bandwidth (e.g. forwarding new transactions) or transaction history lookups. I'm not sure yet how to encapsulate these tasks in a way so that it can be verified independently that a node has done it. But it must be possible, SETI@home is somehow verifying processed packages as well. The POS part could stay more or less the same as having tokens at stake I guess.
|
XCN: CJSECkHi7tTTTA1ze9qYRkkUCKfFiF8EEG
|
|
|
pallas (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
|
|
March 23, 2018, 09:45:14 AM |
|
Personally, I'm in 2 minds about POS vs POW. I love the idea of getting rid of "wasting energy". On the other hand, it's that "wasted" energy that gives the token additional undisputable value and is therefore a great layer of trust, next to the current trade prices on the exchanges. Same effect as with gold. It's expensive to mine, hence it's rare, hence it's valuable. In theory, there should be some market-driven self adjustment happening to how much energy a coin consumes and I think that's what's happening. So POW isn't necessarily bad. Also, there are many voices warning against pure POS as there seem to be some issues with that, too.
I've thought about that topic a while ago, too and my feeling is that a new POW/hybrid POW/POS approach that somehow incentivizes contribution to coin network health might be a good approach. E.g. instead of just having the tokens "at stake", the POW part could be about providing network bandwidth (e.g. forwarding new transactions) or transaction history lookups. I'm not sure yet how to encapsulate these tasks in a way so that it can be verified independently that a node has done it. But it must be possible, SETI@home is somehow verifying processed packages as well. The POS part could stay more or less the same as having tokens at stake I guess.
I agree with your comments on POW and POS. Maybe POW is expensive in terms of energy, but it's what makes it work; and let's remember bitcoin is the biggest coin, the first and it still works pretty fine, regardless of all the attacks it got over the years. Hybrid POW/POS could be a nice solution, but I'm not sure it's a good thing to introduce in a coin like XCN: I mean, what if those huge chinese xcn holders start staking? No coins for new users, no coins for small investors. Furthermore, there is a technical problem to solve: miniblockchain is about removing transaction history and keeping a balance sheet of accounts instead, which clashes with the POS concept of "coin age"; since every node needs to verify the stake transactions, they would need to know the coin age and history of those coins. I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that we need to rethink it and adapt to mini-blockchain. About SETI@home, they probably verify the packages in a centralised manner.
|
|
|
|
chrysophylax
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2884
Merit: 1091
--- ChainWorks Industries ---
|
|
March 23, 2018, 12:55:21 PM |
|
Personally, I'm in 2 minds about POS vs POW. I love the idea of getting rid of "wasting energy". On the other hand, it's that "wasted" energy that gives the token additional undisputable value and is therefore a great layer of trust, next to the current trade prices on the exchanges. Same effect as with gold. It's expensive to mine, hence it's rare, hence it's valuable. In theory, there should be some market-driven self adjustment happening to how much energy a coin consumes and I think that's what's happening. So POW isn't necessarily bad. Also, there are many voices warning against pure POS as there seem to be some issues with that, too.
I've thought about that topic a while ago, too and my feeling is that a new POW/hybrid POW/POS approach that somehow incentivizes contribution to coin network health might be a good approach. E.g. instead of just having the tokens "at stake", the POW part could be about providing network bandwidth (e.g. forwarding new transactions) or transaction history lookups. I'm not sure yet how to encapsulate these tasks in a way so that it can be verified independently that a node has done it. But it must be possible, SETI@home is somehow verifying processed packages as well. The POS part could stay more or less the same as having tokens at stake I guess.
I agree with your comments on POW and POS. Maybe POW is expensive in terms of energy, but it's what makes it work; and let's remember bitcoin is the biggest coin, the first and it still works pretty fine, regardless of all the attacks it got over the years. Hybrid POW/POS could be a nice solution, but I'm not sure it's a good thing to introduce in a coin like XCN: I mean, what if those huge chinese xcn holders start staking? No coins for new users, no coins for small investors. Furthermore, there is a technical problem to solve: miniblockchain is about removing transaction history and keeping a balance sheet of accounts instead, which clashes with the POS concept of "coin age"; since every node needs to verify the stake transactions, they would need to know the coin age and history of those coins. I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that we need to rethink it and adapt to mini-blockchain. About SETI@home, they probably verify the packages in a centralised manner. Agreed ... As for SETI - they do. I used to be number one in the Australiasian region for SETI until all the processing started for Crypto #crysx
|
|
|
|
pallas (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
|
|
March 23, 2018, 12:57:22 PM |
|
some pow/pos stuff
some other pow/pos stuff Agreed ... As for SETI - they do. I used to be number one in the Australiasian region for SETI until all the processing started for Crypto #crysx What about the M7 pool? Is it still in the works? May I/we help you in setting it up?
|
|
|
|
chrysophylax
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2884
Merit: 1091
--- ChainWorks Industries ---
|
|
March 23, 2018, 01:08:39 PM |
|
some pow/pos stuff
some other pow/pos stuff Agreed ... As for SETI - they do. I used to be number one in the Australiasian region for SETI until all the processing started for Crypto #crysx What about the M7 pool? Is it still in the works? May I/we help you in setting it up? Well ... The new servers are up and running. The test pool is online but the we are ironing out a couple of issues with the Obsidian installation under Centos 7. It is working in Debian. When this is done, we will test the GRN pool on the new servers, as well as iron our more smaller issues, and test comprehensively before starting to install all the pools on the new system. The new CWI-Pool System is fast! Blazing fast! The servers have been setup such that there should be no lag between communication in the backend (private networking between sevrers) and in the event of any attacks (like DDOS), the frontend will be the only thing affected and mitigated, while the backend Obsidian (stratum), DB and Daemons will remain steadfast with almost no effect on mining. If we can get these smaller issues sorted in the next few days, we will start on the compilation of the daemons and subsequent creation of the pools on the new CWI-InfraStructure. CryptoNite was one of the coins we had issues with compiling under Cetnos 7 x64, so your help will certainly be needed in that area when we get running. In fact, when there is time this week, the compilation of the daemon will begin, and see what errors it spits out. So the answer in short - Yes to both your questions #crysx
|
|
|
|
muf18
|
|
March 23, 2018, 03:15:47 PM |
|
Personally, I'm in 2 minds about POS vs POW. I love the idea of getting rid of "wasting energy". On the other hand, it's that "wasted" energy that gives the token additional undisputable value and is therefore a great layer of trust, next to the current trade prices on the exchanges. Same effect as with gold. It's expensive to mine, hence it's rare, hence it's valuable. In theory, there should be some market-driven self adjustment happening to how much energy a coin consumes and I think that's what's happening. So POW isn't necessarily bad. Also, there are many voices warning against pure POS as there seem to be some issues with that, too.
I've thought about that topic a while ago, too and my feeling is that a new POW/hybrid POW/POS approach that somehow incentivizes contribution to coin network health might be a good approach. E.g. instead of just having the tokens "at stake", the POW part could be about providing network bandwidth (e.g. forwarding new transactions) or transaction history lookups. I'm not sure yet how to encapsulate these tasks in a way so that it can be verified independently that a node has done it. But it must be possible, SETI@home is somehow verifying processed packages as well. The POS part could stay more or less the same as having tokens at stake I guess.
I agree with your comments on POW and POS. Maybe POW is expensive in terms of energy, but it's what makes it work; and let's remember bitcoin is the biggest coin, the first and it still works pretty fine, regardless of all the attacks it got over the years. Hybrid POW/POS could be a nice solution, but I'm not sure it's a good thing to introduce in a coin like XCN: I mean, what if those huge chinese xcn holders start staking? No coins for new users, no coins for small investors. Furthermore, there is a technical problem to solve: miniblockchain is about removing transaction history and keeping a balance sheet of accounts instead, which clashes with the POS concept of "coin age"; since every node needs to verify the stake transactions, they would need to know the coin age and history of those coins. I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that we need to rethink it and adapt to mini-blockchain. About SETI@home, they probably verify the packages in a centralised manner. You know, that PoW, isn't so secure on alts in reality, because they have rather small processing power. Stakers can secure coin, even if it's small, cause it's almost impossible to gather so large supply of coins in one hands. And PoW always have limitation, as we can with Bitcoin - it's unsustainable, and it's getting absurd, when miners flew from one country to another, because they are forbidding them (for a good cause - tremendous energy waste is absurd, for sha256 algorythm, that don't contribute to humanity in anyway, nor it can be really used as a global super computer, because it's not designed so, and calculations of sha256, wouldn't have much usage).
|
|
|
|
pallas (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
|
|
March 23, 2018, 03:45:06 PM |
|
Personally, I'm in 2 minds about POS vs POW. I love the idea of getting rid of "wasting energy". On the other hand, it's that "wasted" energy that gives the token additional undisputable value and is therefore a great layer of trust, next to the current trade prices on the exchanges. Same effect as with gold. It's expensive to mine, hence it's rare, hence it's valuable. In theory, there should be some market-driven self adjustment happening to how much energy a coin consumes and I think that's what's happening. So POW isn't necessarily bad. Also, there are many voices warning against pure POS as there seem to be some issues with that, too.
I've thought about that topic a while ago, too and my feeling is that a new POW/hybrid POW/POS approach that somehow incentivizes contribution to coin network health might be a good approach. E.g. instead of just having the tokens "at stake", the POW part could be about providing network bandwidth (e.g. forwarding new transactions) or transaction history lookups. I'm not sure yet how to encapsulate these tasks in a way so that it can be verified independently that a node has done it. But it must be possible, SETI@home is somehow verifying processed packages as well. The POS part could stay more or less the same as having tokens at stake I guess.
I agree with your comments on POW and POS. Maybe POW is expensive in terms of energy, but it's what makes it work; and let's remember bitcoin is the biggest coin, the first and it still works pretty fine, regardless of all the attacks it got over the years. Hybrid POW/POS could be a nice solution, but I'm not sure it's a good thing to introduce in a coin like XCN: I mean, what if those huge chinese xcn holders start staking? No coins for new users, no coins for small investors. Furthermore, there is a technical problem to solve: miniblockchain is about removing transaction history and keeping a balance sheet of accounts instead, which clashes with the POS concept of "coin age"; since every node needs to verify the stake transactions, they would need to know the coin age and history of those coins. I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that we need to rethink it and adapt to mini-blockchain. About SETI@home, they probably verify the packages in a centralised manner. You know, that PoW, isn't so secure on alts in reality, because they have rather small processing power. Stakers can secure coin, even if it's small, cause it's almost impossible to gather so large supply of coins in one hands. If the coin is small, then getting a large part of it is easy and cheap. Besides, I've never seen a 51% attack on an altcoin yet. It is possible in theory, but making use of it is not easy. For example, if exchanges have 30 confirmations for altcoins, making a successful hashrate attack means having 99% of the hashrate for a long time. Of course I'm not counting those dead coins where you can mine 30 blocks in a few minutes because no one is mining at that moment in time. And PoW always have limitation, as we can with Bitcoin - it's unsustainable, and it's getting absurd, when miners flew from one country to another, because they are forbidding them (for a good cause - tremendous energy waste is absurd, for sha256 algorythm, that don't contribute to humanity in anyway, nor it can be really used as a global super computer, because it's not designed so, and calculations of sha256, wouldn't have much usage).
True, but I don't think that POS is the answer. POW is a waste of energy but it works.
|
|
|
|
muf18
|
|
March 23, 2018, 04:19:12 PM |
|
And PoS doesn't work? I think that scalability wise, PoS or DPoS are much better solution.
|
|
|
|
pallas (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
|
|
March 23, 2018, 04:30:02 PM |
|
And PoS doesn't work? I think that scalability wise, PoS or DPoS are much better solution. I didn't say that PoS doesn't work. PoW vs PoS is a long debate, they both have plus and minus. Let's concentrate on a possible PoS mini-blockchain implementation, or other alternatives.
|
|
|
|
go6ooo1212
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000
quarkchain.io
|
|
March 24, 2018, 09:41:37 AM |
|
@Pallas , would you tell , which source , I could build a linux wallet from , pls...
|
|
|
|
pallas (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
|
|
March 24, 2018, 09:43:16 AM |
|
@Pallas , would you tell , which source , I could build a linux wallet from , pls...
https://github.com/pallas1/Cryptonite
|
|
|
|
poer
|
|
March 26, 2018, 03:12:51 AM |
|
duplicate magi coin
|
..Stake.com.. ▄████████████████████████████████████▄ ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██ ▄████▄ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ▀██▀ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████▄ ██ ██ █████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████▀ ██ ██████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████ ██ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ▀█████████▀ ▄████████████▄ ▀█████████▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███ ██ ██ ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████████████████████████████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄ █ ▄▀▄ █▀▀█▀▄▄ █ █▀█ █ ▐ ▐▌ █ ▄██▄ █ ▌ █ █ ▄██████▄ █ ▌ ▐▌ █ ██████████ █ ▐ █ █ ▐██████████▌ █ ▐ ▐▌ █ ▀▀██████▀▀ █ ▌ █ █ ▄▄▄██▄▄▄ █ ▌▐▌ █ █▐ █ █ █▐▐▌ █ █▐█ ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█▄▄█████████▄▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄█▀ ▐█▌ ▀█▄ ██ ▐█▌ ██ ████▄ ▄█████▄ ▄████ ████████▄███████████▄████████ ███▀ █████████████ ▀███ ██ ███████████ ██ ▀█▄ █████████ ▄█▀ ▀█▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄▄▄█▀ ▀███████ ███████▀ ▀█████▄ ▄█████▀ ▀▀▀███▄▄▄███▀▀▀ ..PLAY NOW..
|
|
|
chrysophylax
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2884
Merit: 1091
--- ChainWorks Industries ---
|
|
March 26, 2018, 03:42:05 AM |
|
duplicate magi coin
How so? #crysx
|
|
|
|
pallas (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
|
|
March 26, 2018, 08:11:49 AM |
|
duplicate magi coin
How so? #crysx some people don't seem to realize that Cryptonite development started in 2013.
|
|
|
|
|