Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2017, 12:17:37 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: SmallChange [research-only] [Litecoin based] [15 seconds blocks] [*update now*]  (Read 26187 times)
RichG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434



View Profile
May 14, 2013, 09:06:12 PM
 #381

_igor wanted me to post these things:

Quote from: _igor

Instead of compiling the whole thing, I just changed 4 bytes of the message start in the Balthazar's EXE file and it works.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5vmhBdqYSg_ZTlONzdfYWZCcTA/edit?usp=sharing

Enjoy!

Please repost in the bitcointalk thread, I can't write there yet.

P.S. Just for fun: SMC: SB3nDmZ6ZLGErQzNaBMk11fsX9YUN6FzGm
and
Quote from: _igor

Try it and give a feedback.
0% fee

http://smcp2p.mooo.com:9028

Donations:
BTC: 18PxUmhZqBhWgtM3iETS8NDdPBKs46DRdi
LTC: LfFwq1i5cBmpN3LR6Poabd9jUiXi6UGLck
SMC: SB3nDmZ6ZLGErQzNaBMk11fsX9YUN6FzGm

P.S. please repost on bitcointalk. can't post there yet.

These are from the forum I mentioned above.
1512994657
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512994657

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512994657
Reply with quote  #2

1512994657
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1512994657
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512994657

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512994657
Reply with quote  #2

1512994657
Report to moderator
1512994657
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512994657

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512994657
Reply with quote  #2

1512994657
Report to moderator
lightenup
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 58


View Profile
May 22, 2013, 06:31:08 PM
 #382

Here the data up until about 2 days ago:
https://github.com/bfroemel/smallchange/blob/master/data/20130520/blockstat.dat?raw=true
It includes extinct blocks -- at least the ones I could obtain.

and some visualizations:

https://github.com/bfroemel/smallchange/blob/master/data/20130520/hashratevsdiff.pdf?raw=true

https://github.com/bfroemel/smallchange/blob/master/data/20130520/blockrate.pdf?raw=true

For both plots, I use the block height as 'time' and not real time. Blockrate is only up until block 90 000 (before the switch to the new network magic).

Most interesting are the startup phase (16 000 to 40 0000) and the network fragmentation caused by the network collision (starting at around 92 000) until it is resolved by the switch to the new network magic number (~ 104 000).

As can seen in the blockrate plot, difficulty adjustment has room for some optimization. Each time difficulty went down, people threw their hashing power in and mined as long as difficulty remained low.. causing the diff oscillation of about 72 hours - that's about 2 times the time that is considered for the current difficulty adjustment algorithm.
Interestingly (not visible in the graphs, but the raw data), the extinct/stale block rate (blocks that divert from the main chain) is rather low - even during the times where several blocks were found within the same second/timestamp. That rate peaked during the network collision period.

Quote from: defaced
Also did you change the max blocksize at all, and if so, what is one of the major things you have noticed?

see my argument here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=182430.msg2040013#msg2040013
which basically is: max blocksize remained unchanged, because it only restricts the number of transactions per block. Smallchange pursued the goal to be a microtransaction currency and that means we'd need to support lots of tps.

Overall, the network hash rate has peaked during the period where block rewards started (about 30 MHashes/sec). We are currently at block 136 436 and the current estimated network hashing power has stagnated to 0.25 MHashes/sec which means that this little experiment is basically at its end Wink
-> It's been fun, I've learned a lot - thanks for all. I might work on difficulty adjustment in the midterm future - if anyone wants to try out things with what I started, I am always happy to review/comment on them or take code contributions.

\edit: small error in the blockrate plot: it's not blocks per second, but diff time between two blocks -> should have applied f(x)=1/x .
binaryFate
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330


Still wild and free


View Profile
May 25, 2013, 09:21:13 AM
 #383

Here the data up until about 2 days ago:
https://github.com/bfroemel/smallchange/blob/master/data/20130520/blockstat.dat?raw=true
It includes extinct blocks -- at least the ones I could obtain.

and some visualizations:

https://github.com/bfroemel/smallchange/blob/master/data/20130520/hashratevsdiff.pdf?raw=true

https://github.com/bfroemel/smallchange/blob/master/data/20130520/blockrate.pdf?raw=true

For both plots, I use the block height as 'time' and not real time. Blockrate is only up until block 90 000 (before the switch to the new network magic).

Most interesting are the startup phase (16 000 to 40 0000) and the network fragmentation caused by the network collision (starting at around 92 000) until it is resolved by the switch to the new network magic number (~ 104 000).

As can seen in the blockrate plot, difficulty adjustment has room for some optimization. Each time difficulty went down, people threw their hashing power in and mined as long as difficulty remained low.. causing the diff oscillation of about 72 hours - that's about 2 times the time that is considered for the current difficulty adjustment algorithm.
Interestingly (not visible in the graphs, but the raw data), the extinct/stale block rate (blocks that divert from the main chain) is rather low - even during the times where several blocks were found within the same second/timestamp. That rate peaked during the network collision period.

Quote from: defaced
Also did you change the max blocksize at all, and if so, what is one of the major things you have noticed?

see my argument here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=182430.msg2040013#msg2040013
which basically is: max blocksize remained unchanged, because it only restricts the number of transactions per block. Smallchange pursued the goal to be a microtransaction currency and that means we'd need to support lots of tps.

Overall, the network hash rate has peaked during the period where block rewards started (about 30 MHashes/sec). We are currently at block 136 436 and the current estimated network hashing power has stagnated to 0.25 MHashes/sec which means that this little experiment is basically at its end Wink
-> It's been fun, I've learned a lot - thanks for all. I might work on difficulty adjustment in the midterm future - if anyone wants to try out things with what I started, I am always happy to review/comment on them or take code contributions.

\edit: small error in the blockrate plot: it's not blocks per second, but diff time between two blocks -> should have applied f(x)=1/x .

Thanks a lot for the feedback Smiley
In your opinion, the oscillations are due to a too small hashing network (thus varying a lot when people join or quit it), or are inherent to such a very short block confirmation target, or something else?

Monero's privacy and therefore fungibility are MUCH stronger than Bitcoin's. 
This makes Monero a better candidate to deserve the term "digital cash".
Balthazar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


BTC-e Divine Overlord, ask cryptodevil for details


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2013, 12:15:41 PM
 #384

Don't forget that high blocksize provides an additional latency. If you are maintaining a fast blockchain (like SMC), you should minimize blockchain syncronization latency. Latency could cause chain forks, which will neutralize all benefits of fast chain, because REORGANIZE will be called too frequently. That's why blocksize limit should be adjusted.

novaco.in | EtherMine.ru (65 GH/s, DGM 0.5%) | EtherDig.Net (18GH/s, PPS 1.5%)
฿: 1QJ8RFiRKsJKmY8ZAjxfCUeBZXmjthK4Pk: 4RgnHWtnJWEyMhqhDdazW3Hdr7cx5ybF6i ETH: 0x5B475Febb3018f41d0Ac3C2f1A864bd102ab5a2E
Balthazar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


BTC-e Divine Overlord, ask cryptodevil for details


View Profile WWW
May 26, 2013, 03:23:46 PM
 #385

I see that there are some protocol changes... So, I started rebuild from repository and will publish new win32 builds today. Smiley

novaco.in | EtherMine.ru (65 GH/s, DGM 0.5%) | EtherDig.Net (18GH/s, PPS 1.5%)
฿: 1QJ8RFiRKsJKmY8ZAjxfCUeBZXmjthK4Pk: 4RgnHWtnJWEyMhqhDdazW3Hdr7cx5ybF6i ETH: 0x5B475Febb3018f41d0Ac3C2f1A864bd102ab5a2E
Balthazar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


BTC-e Divine Overlord, ask cryptodevil for details


View Profile WWW
May 26, 2013, 04:35:50 PM
 #386

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4cZ4tPn0KAtS1d1NzRPQWVaTTA/edit?usp=sharing

novaco.in | EtherMine.ru (65 GH/s, DGM 0.5%) | EtherDig.Net (18GH/s, PPS 1.5%)
฿: 1QJ8RFiRKsJKmY8ZAjxfCUeBZXmjthK4Pk: 4RgnHWtnJWEyMhqhDdazW3Hdr7cx5ybF6i ETH: 0x5B475Febb3018f41d0Ac3C2f1A864bd102ab5a2E
muddafudda
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
May 26, 2013, 04:41:35 PM
 #387

I thought this was the dragoncoin thread. My Mistake.

Badman0316
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 579



View Profile
May 28, 2013, 01:35:45 AM
 #388

sounds good

lightenup
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 58


View Profile
May 28, 2013, 11:40:44 AM
 #389

In your opinion, the oscillations are due to a too small hashing network (thus varying a lot when people join or quit it), or are inherent to such a very short block confirmation target, or something else?
I think its the first possible cause you suspected: imo, the oscillation mainly occurred because of the small user base where especially users with relatively high hashing power only contributed when difficulty was low.
Further, I think that problem can be mitigated technically by a more advanced diff/block reward adjustment (or a higher (competing) user base).

Don't forget that high blocksize provides an additional latency. If you are maintaining a fast blockchain (like SMC), you should minimize blockchain syncronization latency. Latency could cause chain forks, which will neutralize all benefits of fast chain, because REORGANIZE will be called too frequently. That's why blocksize limit should be adjusted.
True, but it might be better to further increase the max block size and also increase the target rate a bit if latencies become a problem.. but that's probably better evaluated in a faithful model of smallchange (e.g., Matlab).
Smallchange's main goal is to provide a high transaction per second (tps) rate to be feasible for micro transactions.
ronaldinho_07
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
May 28, 2013, 11:44:55 AM
 #390

wow,so when will you officially release this coin  Roll Eyes
tim13n
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 74



View Profile WWW
May 31, 2013, 08:49:05 PM
 #391

Do you need a cool logo?

-DVC: 1KPwyTfR5ayHnv848fqShtgUcniiZSpCPQ    - DGC: DLJ64Ef7kkwtU7w1bUeHCvPeJGphzaJgDy
RichG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434



View Profile
May 31, 2013, 09:46:29 PM
 #392

We already have one. But, please do make us an alternate.

In fact, we have two:

-The one in smallchange-qt

-and the one on the forum (http://forum.smallchange.tk)
RichG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434



View Profile
June 29, 2013, 08:33:51 PM
 #393

New forum:

www.smcforum.tk

Old site downed by spambots and bad databases.
kaputt
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70



View Profile
July 02, 2013, 12:29:57 AM
 #394

The usual node does not seem to be up. Please add:

172.13.117.105:9030
Balthazar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


BTC-e Divine Overlord, ask cryptodevil for details


View Profile WWW
September 20, 2013, 04:03:51 PM
 #395

Up

novaco.in | EtherMine.ru (65 GH/s, DGM 0.5%) | EtherDig.Net (18GH/s, PPS 1.5%)
฿: 1QJ8RFiRKsJKmY8ZAjxfCUeBZXmjthK4Pk: 4RgnHWtnJWEyMhqhDdazW3Hdr7cx5ybF6i ETH: 0x5B475Febb3018f41d0Ac3C2f1A864bd102ab5a2E
binaryFate
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330


Still wild and free


View Profile
September 20, 2013, 04:05:57 PM
 #396

Is this coin still alive?

Monero's privacy and therefore fungibility are MUCH stronger than Bitcoin's. 
This makes Monero a better candidate to deserve the term "digital cash".
Balthazar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


BTC-e Divine Overlord, ask cryptodevil for details


View Profile WWW
September 20, 2013, 04:08:33 PM
 #397

I have the same question.

novaco.in | EtherMine.ru (65 GH/s, DGM 0.5%) | EtherDig.Net (18GH/s, PPS 1.5%)
฿: 1QJ8RFiRKsJKmY8ZAjxfCUeBZXmjthK4Pk: 4RgnHWtnJWEyMhqhDdazW3Hdr7cx5ybF6i ETH: 0x5B475Febb3018f41d0Ac3C2f1A864bd102ab5a2E
RichG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434



View Profile
September 22, 2013, 06:06:20 AM
 #398

It has been dead since June.
kaputt
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70



View Profile
September 22, 2013, 04:07:44 PM
 #399

For the most part, this coin is inactive, but it is still functional and has two full time nodes.

172.13.117.105:9030
122.99.120.206:60513

There are other nodes at times, but these are the only two that have been constant for over a month.

If you are looking for something to test on, this is a good one.

Difficulty is at 0.00024414 . I haven't seen it lower than that, no mater how slowly the blocks are found.

But yes, it had good activity and interest until around June.
binaryFate
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330


Still wild and free


View Profile
September 22, 2013, 04:10:09 PM
 #400

Whish it'd get more interest, I still have few smc somewhere  Cheesy

Monero's privacy and therefore fungibility are MUCH stronger than Bitcoin's. 
This makes Monero a better candidate to deserve the term "digital cash".
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!