Bitcoin Forum
August 17, 2018, 11:21:04 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.2  [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 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 ... 173 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development  (Read 353762 times)
WindMaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 347
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 21, 2013, 09:49:03 PM
 #241

maybe it would be sufficient to just drop "unofficial client fork" from the topic, it might scare a lot of people Smiley

True.  That is now dropped from the topic title.
"This isn't the kind of software where we can leave so many unresolved bugs that we need a tracker for them." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1534548064
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534548064

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534548064
Reply with quote  #2

1534548064
Report to moderator
1534548064
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534548064

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534548064
Reply with quote  #2

1534548064
Report to moderator
1534548064
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534548064

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534548064
Reply with quote  #2

1534548064
Report to moderator
ecliptic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 21, 2013, 11:10:19 PM
 #242

crossposting

This is a very bad idea.  You have just introduced another litecoin cgminer gpu catastrophe

I would not be surprised if people, maybe even many people independently, have forked and created their own cgminer in secret which is capable of utilizing GPUs, giving them several order of magnitude advantage over everyone else.

Actually, this is already happening. I've seen 3 people posting they have working opencl kernels (two of them had relatively low hashrates, the third one claims to be the dev of the Reaper litecoin gpu miner and has hashrates in the Mh/s range).
bitdwarf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250


The cryptocoin watcher


View Profile
May 21, 2013, 11:15:27 PM
 #243

"moneysupply" : 2826236

If anyone is GPU mining, they are definitely not moving much the total supply.

𝖄𝖆𝖈: YF3feU4PNLHrjwa1zV63BcCdWVk5z6DAh5 · 𝕭𝖙𝖈: 12F78M4oaNmyGE5C25ZixarG2Nk6UBEqme
Ɏ: "the altcoin for the everyman, where the sweat on one's brow can be used to cool one's overheating CPU" -- theprofileth
WindMaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 347
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 21, 2013, 11:17:55 PM
 #244

crossposting

This is a very bad idea.  You have just introduced another litecoin cgminer gpu catastrophe

I would not be surprised if people, maybe even many people independently, have forked and created their own cgminer in secret which is capable of utilizing GPUs, giving them several order of magnitude advantage over everyone else.

Actually, this is already happening. I've seen 3 people posting they have working opencl kernels (two of them had relatively low hashrates, the third one claims to be the dev of the Reaper litecoin gpu miner and has hashrates in the Mh/s range).

You're actually crossposting to a thread where this isn't particularly groundbreaking news.  This thread is where the information sairon posted came from, and I believe I'm one of the 3 people sairon refers to as having benchmarked a working OpenCL kernel (which had relatively low hash rates).  Recommend reading more than just the last page of this thread and the official YACoin thread, as this has been discussed to death already (in both threads).
sairon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250


One does not simply mine Bitcoins


View Profile
May 21, 2013, 11:50:22 PM
 #245

Just found this, dunno what it means... Take a look at block #65950. Now look at its timestamp and comapre it with the previous and next blocks. The block #65951 actually references a block from the future (2 hours) as its predecessor. WTF? Huh

Code:
blockNumber,time,target,avgTargetSinceLast,difficulty,hashesToWin,avgIntervalSinceLast,netHashPerSecond
65948,1368947791,4514804921008731308454430435778960213168305865242321266277686968320,4513641497971115828711486814529046024528909146303095102832514587060,5.971,25647196559,171,150022265
65949,1368947926,4516461674132362327428514198696163951811506256528911325690882686976,4514804921112633307813024314283998771971589842941187092551326050290,5.969,25637788514,135,189979234
65950,1368954783,4517581709949210843650566946274525742145464232015577932297087746048,4516461674301031541131425724681672434723711469088240722175479913075,5.967,25631432184,6857,3738922
65951,1368947984,4619111269461582367239859195192825077698022061568762349217099284480,4517581710069151063071590748558847984710411633611607164785871725281,5.836,25068045016,-6799,Infinity
65952,1368948016,4514350157542206014206452060506827664151792081795080735905296678912,4619111269483137401095330193924680793834345357377930282214297105835,5.972,25649780189,32,783376407
65953,1368948106,4513930746712654417744535608400726620712533786813703426975283019776,4514350157549266139778184631237032541778948367955566187930484179163,5.972,25652163432,90,284997558

http://yacexplorer.tk/chain/Yacoin/q/nethash/1/65940/65960

GPG key ID: 5E4F108A || BTC: 1hoardyponb9AMWhyA28DZb5n5g2bRY8v
eule
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672
Merit: 500


View Profile
May 21, 2013, 11:59:16 PM
 #246

netHashPerSecond : Infinity
YAC to the moon!  Cheesy
WindMaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 347
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 22, 2013, 12:01:56 AM
 #247

Just found this, dunno what it means... Take a look at block #65950. Now look at its timestamp and comapre it with the previous and next blocks. The block #65951 actually references a block from the future (2 hours) as its predecessor. WTF? Huh

Code:
blockNumber,time,target,avgTargetSinceLast,difficulty,hashesToWin,avgIntervalSinceLast,netHashPerSecond
65948,1368947791,4514804921008731308454430435778960213168305865242321266277686968320,4513641497971115828711486814529046024528909146303095102832514587060,5.971,25647196559,171,150022265
65949,1368947926,4516461674132362327428514198696163951811506256528911325690882686976,4514804921112633307813024314283998771971589842941187092551326050290,5.969,25637788514,135,189979234
65950,1368954783,4517581709949210843650566946274525742145464232015577932297087746048,4516461674301031541131425724681672434723711469088240722175479913075,5.967,25631432184,6857,3738922
65951,1368947984,4619111269461582367239859195192825077698022061568762349217099284480,4517581710069151063071590748558847984710411633611607164785871725281,5.836,25068045016,-6799,Infinity
65952,1368948016,4514350157542206014206452060506827664151792081795080735905296678912,4619111269483137401095330193924680793834345357377930282214297105835,5.972,25649780189,32,783376407
65953,1368948106,4513930746712654417744535608400726620712533786813703426975283019776,4514350157549266139778184631237032541778948367955566187930484179163,5.972,25652163432,90,284997558

http://yacexplorer.tk/chain/Yacoin/q/nethash/1/65940/65960

Unless I'm mistaken (and I could be, as I have not closely scrutinized that part of the code), the timestamp comes from the time on the computer yacoind is running on when that user successfully mines a block.  There aren't any validity checks to determine that the time on someone's computer is set correctly, I believe the timestamp goes into the block unchecked by anyone else (there isn't anything else to check it against anyway, unless NTP were incorporated into the client or something, rather than relying on the computer's time) and is there just for information purposes.  Unless I'm mistaken, the person who mined block 65950 may just have had their time set incorrectly.
sairon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250


One does not simply mine Bitcoins


View Profile
May 22, 2013, 12:04:58 AM
 #248

Unless I'm mistaken (and I could be, as I have not closely scrutinized that part of the code), the timestamp comes from the time on the computer yacoind is running on when that user successfully mines a block.  There aren't any validity checks to determine that the time on someone's computer is set correctly, I believe the timestamp goes into the block unchecked by anyone else and is there just for information purposes.  Unless I'm mistaken, the person who mined block 65950 may just have had their time set incorrectly.

You're probably right, even https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_timestamp says just this:

Quote
A timestamp is accepted as valid if it is greater than the median timestamp of previous 11 blocks, and less than the network-adjusted time + 2 hours. "Network-adjusted time" is the median of the timestamps returned by all nodes connected to you.

EDIT: But my graphs look ugly now Sad
http://imgur.com/GA5YeBa

GPG key ID: 5E4F108A || BTC: 1hoardyponb9AMWhyA28DZb5n5g2bRY8v
hanzac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 22, 2013, 12:13:25 AM
 #249

Quote
A timestamp is accepted as valid if it is greater than the median timestamp of previous 11 blocks, and less than the network-adjusted time + 2 hours. "Network-adjusted time" is the median of the timestamps returned by all nodes connected to you.

EDIT: But my graphs look ugly now Sad
http://imgur.com/GA5YeBa

If the node can access the "Network-adjusted time", why not using it directly as the block completion time? It doesn't make sense to use the single node's timestamp.

Moreover, I think from the block chain, we can only see the transaction completion time (the block is completed) but without the transaction open time? This information might be needed for the both party of the transaction to check for a time-critical transaction.
sairon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250


One does not simply mine Bitcoins


View Profile
May 22, 2013, 12:19:59 AM
 #250

Difficulty will "think" it took much longer than 60 seconds to find that specific block so it will adjust result downward, a bit.

By 0.131 in this case. Seems like quite a bit when we're talking in numbers less than 6. Cheesy

GPG key ID: 5E4F108A || BTC: 1hoardyponb9AMWhyA28DZb5n5g2bRY8v
hanzac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 22, 2013, 12:28:41 AM
 #251

Difficulty will "think" it took much longer than 60 seconds to find that specific block so it will adjust result downward, a bit.

By 0.131 in this case. Seems like quite a bit when we're talking in numbers less than 6. Cheesy

It seems that the next block took the beneficial:
65953   2013-05-19 07:21:46   2   88.9   5.972   2792270.214184   7.0035   11.0751   29.3145%
65952   2013-05-19 07:20:16   1   18.56   5.972   2792251.664184   7.00252   11.074   29.3174%
65951   2013-05-19 07:19:44   1   18.63   5.836   2792233.104184   7.0022   11.0737   29.3185%
65950   2013-05-19 09:13:03   1   18.549999   5.967   2792214.474184   7.08094   11.1523   29.0875%
65949   2013-05-19 07:18:46   3   40.141702   5.969   2792195.924185   7.00162   11.073   29.3205%
seleme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1001



View Profile
May 22, 2013, 12:35:09 AM
 #252

Some people are indeed bloody creative  Grin

▄█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█▄
▄█▀▄███████████▄▀█▄
▄█▀▄███████████████▄▀█▄
▄█▀▄███████ ██ ████████▄▀█▄
█ ███████▄▄ ▌ ▄▄▄ ▀██████ █
█ █████████ ▌ ████ ██████ █
█ █████████ ▌ ▄▄▄▄ ▀█████ █
█ █████████ ▌ █████ █████ █
█ █████▄▀▀  ▌ ▀▀▀▀ ▄█████ █
▀█▄▀███████ ██ ████████▀▄█▀
▀█▄▀███████████████▀▄█▀
▀█▄▀███████████▀▄█▀
▀█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▀
.JINBI..

merges gold’s investment
holding value
with
blockchain technology
.
...T H E   G O L D E N   I C O...
.────────     WHITEPAPER     ────────.
▄█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█▄
▄█▀▄███████████▄▀█▄
▄█▀▄███████████████▄▀█▄
▄█▀▄███████ ██ ████████▄▀█▄
█ ███████▄▄ ▌ ▄▄▄ ▀██████ █
█ █████████ ▌ ████ ██████ █
█ █████████ ▌ ▄▄▄▄ ▀█████ █
█ █████████ ▌ █████ █████ █
█ █████▄▀▀  ▌ ▀▀▀▀ ▄█████ █
▀█▄▀███████ ██ ████████▀▄█▀
▀█▄▀███████████████▀▄█▀
▀█▄▀███████████▀▄█▀
▀█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▀
WindMaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 347
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 22, 2013, 12:47:25 AM
 #253

Meanwhile, looks like difficulty has now dropped below 4, with still enough hash power that there's little likelihood we'll stall out forever(ish) in excessive difficulty land like certain other {alt|scam}coin launches.

./yacoind getmininginfo
{
    "blocks" : 67785,
    "currentblocksize" : 1000,
    "currentblocktx" : 0,
    "difficulty" : 3.96142507,
    "errors" : "",
    "generate" : true,
    "genproclimit" : 8,
    "hashespersec" : 105300,
    "networkhashps" : 117643499,
    "pooledtx" : 0,
    "testnet" : false,
    "Nfactor" : 7,
    "N" : 256,
    "powreward" : 19.87000000
}
WindMaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 347
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 22, 2013, 04:14:11 AM
 #254

I have calculated the complete schedule of N changes for YACoin out to the last increment, N=30, occurring in the year 2421.  The table is posted in the YACoin technical data on the first page of this thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=206577.msg2162620#msg2162620

I certainly have my own opinion about the way N will change over the coming centuries and how it compares with Moore's Law.  You guys can draw your own conclusions.
tacotime
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 22, 2013, 04:22:47 AM
 #255

YACoin Technical Data
(this post will contain information about the basic parameters of YACoin, including more information on the hashing algorithm which is *not* called scrypt-jane, timeframe for N increases, PoS details when they become known, etc)


The schedule of N changes for YACoin is:

Nfactor   N   Memory   UNIX Time    Date/Time in GMT
4324kB1367991200Wed - 08 May 2013 - 05:33:20 GMT
5648kB1368515488Tue - 14 May 2013 - 07:11:28 GMT
612816kB1368777632Fri - 17 May 2013 - 08:00:32 GMT
725632kB1369039776Mon - 20 May 2013 - 08:49:36 GMT
851264kB1369826208Wed - 29 May 2013 - 11:16:48 GMT
91024128kB1370088352Sat - 01 Jun 2013 - 12:05:52 GMT
102048256kB1372185504Tue - 25 Jun 2013 - 18:38:24 GMT
114096512kB1373234080Sun - 07 Jul 2013 - 21:54:40 GMT
1281921MB1376379808Tue - 13 Aug 2013 - 07:43:28 GMT
13163842MB1380574112Mon - 30 Sep 2013 - 20:48:32 GMT
14327684MB1384768416Mon - 18 Nov 2013 - 09:53:36 GMT
15655368MB1401545632Sat - 31 May 2014 - 14:13:52 GMT
1613107216MB1409934240Fri - 05 Sep 2014 - 16:24:00 GMT
1726214432MB1435100064Tue - 23 Jun 2015 - 22:54:24 GMT
1852428864MB1468654496Sat - 16 Jul 2016 - 07:34:56 GMT
191048576128MB1502208928Tue - 08 Aug 2017 - 16:15:28 GMT
202097152256MB1602872224Fri - 16 Oct 2020 - 18:17:04 GMT
214194304512MB1636426656Tue - 09 Nov 2021 - 02:57:36 GMT
2283886081GB1904862112Mon - 13 May 2030 - 00:21:52 GMT
23167772162GB2173297568Sat - 13 Nov 2038 - 21:46:08 GMT
24335544324GB2441733024Fri - 17 May 2047 - 19:10:24 GMT
25671088648GB3247039392Tue - 22 Nov 2072 - 11:23:12 GMT
2613421772816GB3515474848Mon - 26 May 2081 - 08:47:28 GMT
2726843545632GB5662958496Sat - 14 Jun 2149 - 12:01:36 GMT
2853687091264GB6736700320Tue - 24 Jun 2183 - 01:38:40 GMT
291073741824128GB9957925792Tue - 21 Jul 2285 - 18:29:52 GMT
302147483648256GB14252893088Sat - 28 Aug 2421 - 00:58:08 GMT


N is calculated from Nfactor as follows:
N = 1 << ( Nfactor + 1 )

Solid, within a year hashes will go from MH/s to double digit H/s  Roll Eyes  Network difficulty will drop like crazy and block reward will explode, destroying any value the coin might have had.

Code:
XMR: 44GBHzv6ZyQdJkjqZje6KLZ3xSyN1hBSFAnLP6EAqJtCRVzMzZmeXTC2AHKDS9aEDTRKmo6a6o9r9j86pYfhCWDkKjbtcns
cryptrol
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 638
Merit: 500


View Profile
May 22, 2013, 06:11:15 AM
 #256

Solid, within a year hashes will go from MH/s to double digit H/s  Roll Eyes  Network difficulty will drop like crazy and block reward will explode, destroying any value the coin might have had.

Can you elaborate ? Isn't difficulty supposed to adjust while hashpower goes down ?
Sahtor
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile WWW
May 22, 2013, 06:22:44 AM
 #257

Block reward is based on difficulty and it will increase in the near future. Ofcourse we're already in <20 reward state which I consider to be deflationary. I'd consider 2.8M money supply to be almost static. If reward rises back to 50 or even 90 then we'd be in inflationary times.

All this will even out when more people adopt YAC. More miners will produce higher difficulty and that will lower the reward again.
WindMaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 347
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 22, 2013, 06:47:55 AM
 #258

Solid, within a year hashes will go from MH/s to double digit H/s  Roll Eyes  Network difficulty will drop like crazy and block reward will explode, destroying any value the coin might have had.

While I often agree with a number of the things you've said, I'm worried you're starting to exaggerate.  In the main YACoin thread, today you posted that anyone could've developed a GPU miner days in advance, yet only the original developer (and anyone he tipped off) could've been aware he was going to pull a surprise move and use a different hashing algorithm than anyone was expecting.  Changing from scrypt+salsa20/8+SHA256(1024,1,1) to scrypt+chacha20/8+Keccak512(N,1,1) did turn out to be significantly more than just a copy-paste exercise from the scrypt-jane library source, at least for anything that was going to go faster on GPU's than typical desktop CPU's.

In your comment above, I think your numbers are exaggerated a bit.  I just benchmarked with a Linux build of cpuminer and forced N to various values:

Platform: IBM HS21 blade server, 2x Xeon E5450's (similar combined performance to one i7-2600k).

For N=32 (at coin's launch), hash rate = 358.77 kH/sec
For N=256 (right now), hash rate = 119.25 kH/sec
For N=32768 (in one year), hash rate = 0.606 kH/sec

Both your upper bound (MH/sec) and lower bound (double digit H/sec) are off by an order of magnitude each in the typical CPU hashing performance scenario, so your statement is really off by 2 orders of magnitude overall.

I'm all for pointing out problems with a coin when it's justified.  As you know, on day 1 of the coin launch, I was right there alongside you posting about the probability that GPU implementation was very likely to be possible, and I also posted honest details about my server farm mining, Amazon AWS mining, FPGA implementation at N=32, and the results of my GPU implementation.  You did parade a lot of that info as evidence of premining in the first post of your Superfun Premining thread, even though I started mining a whopping 8.5 hours after launch and I seriously doubt anyone can accuse me of either premining or instamining.  That probably pissed off plenty of people that would like those things to have remained secret, but I believe transparency and honesty is the answer to developing trust and keeping everyone in-the-loop on technical matters.

I think I have yet to sugar-coat anything related to YACoin, however.  When people grill me on the hard questions about whether YACoin is GPU mining resistant at any particular value of N, even though I'm not the original developer and didn't choose the hashing algorithm or starting value of N, and apparently made myself the "YACoin lightning rod" by actually stepping up to improve problems with the code and make it a better coin rather than just complain about it, I'm still right there being perfectly honest and saying "maybe, maybe not, we don't know yet until we see the source code for some of those GPU implementations."  We've had one person post OpenCL source in this thread that was pretty close to a copy-paste from the scrypt-jane library with a few tweaks, and from my analysis, he did get fairly close to a working implementation, but once fixed, the hash rate isn't spectacular.  It's appearing that getting a working OpenCL implementation is not difficult (well, debugging anything on OpenCL is an "adventure"), but getting one that performs much better than CPU's actually does take a fairly good OpenCL skillset (i.e. if mtrlt's posted hash rate numbers are accurate, which they may well be since he was the developer of the Reaper scrypt GPU kernel that cgminer uses too, then he probably sets the mark for skillset needed to correctly optimize for decent hash rates).

So, anyway, when I see exaggerations that are off by 2 orders of magnitude, I'm afraid I'll have to call you out on it (as much as I respect you).  I'd prefer to see you discredit a coin with accurate info, not exaggerations.
feeling2011
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 22
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 22, 2013, 07:33:27 AM
 #259

[YaCoin] Help, I send yacoin to same address in about 22 minutes


The second transaction always: Unconfirmed (0 of 6 confirmations).

The second transaction ID:
Transaction ID: c5dbdf30ca01025970ff4f6da5c6650d121643d332f5102eb1d36b7a22643bf8

Can anyone help me?

thanks.
hanzac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 22, 2013, 08:41:30 AM
 #260

...
I'm all for pointing out problems with a coin when it's justified.  As you know, on day 1 of the coin launch, I was right there alongside you posting about the probability that GPU implementation was very likely to be possible, and I also posted honest details about my server farm mining, Amazon AWS mining, FPGA implementation at N=32, and the results of my GPU implementation.  You did parade a lot of that info as evidence of premining in the first post of your Superfun Premining thread, even though I started mining a whopping 8.5 hours after launch and I seriously doubt anyone can accuse me of either premining or instamining.  That probably pissed off plenty of people that would like those things to have remained secret, but I believe transparency and honesty is the answer to developing trust and keeping everyone in-the-loop on technical matters.
...

TBH, I don't think transparency & honesty is the essence & key for trust. Do you imagine what if some one takes off all his clothes & pants and you then give your precious trust? This is silly and pity.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 ... 173 »
  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!