[ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development

[synthgauge]

I am high again.

[1715410534]

1715410534

[1715410534]

1715410534

[Joe_Bauers]

I have new and improved YAC Hats and a promotional price for them. However, I am putting it on hold until 1) I feel more comfortable that any idea of ANY change in the block reward will not occur with YAC ever.

Who said anything about changing the block reward.... ever???

I'm thinking my suggestion of

I'll definitely make an increasing reward YAC clone. Why not? I was just looking for some support, I guess.

Why not be part of the Yacoin dev effort instead?

was not translated very well, so I will be more clear:

Why not be part of the Yacoin dev effort instead?  == Assuming that you have some coding skills to work on another coin, since you seem to have an interest in Yacoin, why not use your presumed talents to assist in the community Yacoin development effort, rather than be like everyone else and start your own pump/dump coin to make a quick profit?

Does that clear things up at all?

[Beave162]

was not translated very well, so I will be more clear:

Why not be part of the Yacoin dev effort instead?  == Assuming that you have some coding skills to work on another coin, since you seem to have an interest in Yacoin, why not use your presumed talents to assist in the community Yacoin development effort, rather than be like everyone else and start your own pump/dump coin to make a quick profit?

Does that clear things up at all?

Joe_Bauers,

I assumed that's what you meant.

I think everyone involved with YAC understands my point about centralized manipulation.

Since the beginning of YACoin, over two years ago, the algorithm hasn't changed, the NFactor schedule hasn't changed, the block rewards haven't changed. It is amazing really considering the drastic impact the NFactor changes had on the marketcap, price in the beginning. That really means a lot to me, and I believe it will mean a lot to potential investors. How many other coins--which have been around over two years, still has an active 'community', and has seen the kinds of lows that YAC has had--can say that? I love that most people here recognize a low (relative) price as a great opportunity to buy and to get involved as opposed to a reason to make fundamental changes. I'll remind people the price is up 6 times what it was only a few months ago.

The future of YACoin is looking very bright to say the least.

[birdvox]

was not translated very well, so I will be more clear:

Why not be part of the Yacoin dev effort instead?  == Assuming that you have some coding skills to work on another coin, since you seem to have an interest in Yacoin, why not use your presumed talents to assist in the community Yacoin development effort, rather than be like everyone else and start your own pump/dump coin to make a quick profit?

Does that clear things up at all?

to begin with, how is yac not a pump and dump? no usefulness whatsoever.
I did give you the solution to your problem, you don't want to hear it.
case closed

[NineEleven]

I send the few coins confirmed to miners found on teh console log

I have manually  calculated  the  proportion and send  then.

Still wue are founding blocks but nomp logs this

2015-07-06 09:50:31 [Pool]      [yacoin] (Thread 4) We thought a block was found but it was rejected by the daemon, share data: {"job":"5","ip":"91.154.39.160","port":3032,"worker":"Y16jSqBD95tCGBWurYfdchFPSy6PKaPWp9","height":1127185,"blockReward":79480000,"difficulty":1,"shareDiff":"79.61784448","blockDiff":63.47096064,"blockDiffActual":0.00096849,"blockHash":"cfdbf925c3c3b2d2b489ea255e044b956181551f484cfa6c4cd0068f73c2f5f8"}



i-m getting crazy whit this

[birdvox]

Guess what!

Bitcoin chain fork. I was just talking about the possibility a few days ago
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1108304.0

Seems like my increasing rewards idea just got a lot better.

[fredeq]

I have to suspend YAC for now, cant find any stats source.
Was scraping grokos explorer, but it went down

[senj]

I send the few coins confirmed to miners found on teh console log

I have manually  calculated  the  proportion and send  then.

Still wue are founding blocks but nomp logs this

2015-07-06 09:50:31 [Pool]      [yacoin] (Thread 4) We thought a block was found but it was rejected by the daemon, share data: {"job":"5","ip":"91.154.39.160","port":3032,"worker":"Y16jSqBD95tCGBWurYfdchFPSy6PKaPWp9","height":1127185,"blockReward":79480000,"difficulty":1,"shareDiff":"79.61784448","blockDiff":63.47096064,"blockDiffActual":0.00096849,"blockHash":"cfdbf925c3c3b2d2b489ea255e044b956181551f484cfa6c4cd0068f73c2f5f8"}

i-m getting crazy whit this

Again, did you check yacoin daemon debug.log?

[NineEleven]

I think i found the pool problem

we found this  block

http://explore.grokonet.com/?txnhash=25ce8378e5cbc99992d1a7ca13bcc5a8ae6bed31f25f5f7ff9e4850a73da9780


00000294ef0b472ba0b306ed7f5840bca810894713baa33d8f8d2836673d6d89





{
    "txid" : "25ce8378e5cbc99992d1a7ca13bcc5a8ae6bed31f25f5f7ff9e4850a73da9780",
    "vin" : [
        {
            "coinbase" : "03013311062f503253482f04ad3e9a550827fffff0000000000d2f6e6f64655374726174756d2f"
        }
    ],
    "vout" : [
        {
            "value" : 78.28780000,
            "n" : 0,
            "scriptPubKey" : {
                "addresses" : [
                    "YLURyDUfPowAgDnvuFnkXA1PxTNPqWQGWU"
                ]
            }
        },
        {
            "value" : 1.19220000,
            "n" : 1,
            "scriptPubKey" : {
                "addresses" : [
                    "YEFnVt3f6YTtYyxEVEJFx2NUNri9UsZGpL"
                ]
            }
        }
    ],
    "blockhash" : "00000294ef0b472ba0b306ed7f5840bca810894713baa33d8f8d2836673d6d89",
    "confirmations" : 297,
    "time" : "07/06/15 08:39:09"
}


as you can see there are two transactions

one to the address and the other to thee fee adress

nopm gives this error

2015-07-06 09:39:24 [Pool]   [yacoin] (Thread 1) We thought a block was found but it was rejected by the daemon, share data: {"job":"11","ip":"10.0.21.233","port":3032,"worker":"YKL5qhpF6e9ZW7HWkD7TpVZ1NAYFstpxmH","height":1127169,"blockReward":79480000,"difficulty":1,"shareDiff":"99.15517014","blockDiff":63.472861184,"blockDiffActual":0.000968519,"blockHash":"cc383a2b2bb74a0800ab038ef9c60fe8f5852ffabd59fae0e0299d96e1ae7857"}


if i read the code correctly

nom is tring to verify a diferent blockhas then the one tat wass accepted

is this possible? how? why?

i receceived both transaction

on the mining wallet

and on my personal wallet ( the fee)

any clues?

[Beave162]

Guess what!

Bitcoin chain fork. I was just talking about the possibility a few days ago
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1108304.0

Glad you pointed that out...

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cfd/psa_f2pool_is_mining_invalid_blocks/

"A large % of the hashing power (not just f2pool) is was "SPV mining" where they mine on top of headers from blocks that they haven't actually verified. They do this because in most cases you earn more money doing it - latency matters a lot and even 1MB blocks take long enough to propagate that you lose a significant amount of money by waiting for full propagation."

Could I say SPV is a blockchain trust issue? Could I say senj's idea to fix it addresses a similar problem? So it seems that even bitcoin, with a 10 minute block time, is (was) vulnerable to the problems that I have previously mentioned regarding time to propagate through the network and selfish mining.

I believe the second issue is the risk of hard forks. The biggest support of scrypt-chacha, in terms of resources, seems to come from Chinese-speaking people. We hope they will monitor yacoin.org. A new wallet can be released here, but nothing really ensures that the exchanges, the miners, the stakers will update their wallets. That is why any discussions, opinions, consensus matters. It is why there needs to be a REALLY good reason for a hard fork.

Luckily, the new wallet has some absolutely amazing features, which will have people wanting to update their wallets for that reason alone. It also helps that YAC has attracted the best and brightest people even in supporting functions: fredeq, Groko looks to have already fixed the explorer. And in case someone didn't already know, fredeq runs the very best mining profitability site in existence whattomine.com. And we already know how amazing feeleep has been operating the long-running pool coinmine.pl. I think most will be all over a new wallet version.

Joe_Bauers, any update to the timeframe of the new wallet release?

[senj]

Yacoin needs several issues fixed. I've already mentioned them to Joe and Groko, ane some bits I've posted here. My hope is to get larger audience onboard.

• Flawed chaintrust calculation
• PoS blocks with small stake posing security risk
• PoW miners ignoring PoS blocks to maximize profits (also happening right now)

During past couple of months I've been analyzing the code, brainstorming and putting together blueprints for a solution.
It can not be done without hard fork, because of both -  first and last issue. Fix for small PoS blocks can be rolled out incrementally.
Currently I am analyzing fix for chaintrust issue, because it underlies solution for others.
I will let you know about details in a day or two.

This will not prevent miner with 51% from capturing the chain, but fix for last issue will force PoW miners to include PoS blocks and fix for first issue should make PoS blocks get higher trust value. Consequently block reorganizations should not get deep as now and stakeholders should get their power back.

Here are two drafts/outlines. Ask if something is not understandable.
And feel free to criticize or better suggest corrections and improvements:

fix trust
fix ignoring PoS blocks

And to those who have hijacked the chain: I am having thoughts about having block range validations hardcoded.
Are you aware that everything you PoW mine can be made nonspendable with next release. You greedy assholes. What are you, a bankers?

[NineEleven]

Sory but NOMP payouts just dont work

its seems a know bug for POW/POS hybryd coins


But i dont give up

move the instalation to MPOS

http://yac.erlog.pt


lte's see if it works
ate leas i can see now the coins on the wallet

[fredeq]

Sory but NOMP payouts just dont work

its seems a know bug for POW/POS hybryd coins


But i dont give up

move the instalation to MPOS

http://yac.erlog.pt


lte's see if it works
ate leas i can see now the coins on the wallet

MPOS is the way to go, good choice
Wish I had a dozen of miners to help you with hashing.

[fredeq]

Takes forever though to get a first share with 2x750ti @ 200h/s.
There should be a way to tweak starting diff.

[NineEleven]

We found 12 blocks

all confirmed and then all orphan

[NineEleven]

Account   Address   Category   Amount   Confirmations   Transaction ID   Time
Default      Orphan   80.31000000   0   abb81bbb...b0f68ad6   07/07/2015 21:59:20
Default      Orphan   80.32000000   0   85ea81d5...086e3c35   07/07/2015 22:05:47
Default      Orphan   80.32000000   0   82cac963...0967fffc   07/07/2015 22:06:06
Default      Orphan   80.32000000   0   b9e272fd...4c619d55   07/07/2015 22:15:34
Default      Orphan   80.31000000   0   b57fb656...b48e44b3   07/07/2015 23:05:06
Default      Orphan   80.33000000   0   e2c9332d...ab8afde7   07/07/2015 23:30:39
Default      Orphan   80.31000000   0   75c56d3c...9d34a5e4   07/07/2015 23:53:21
Default      Orphan   80.33000000   0   0dd06231...ec98f7de   07/08/2015 00:01:44
Default      Orphan   80.33000000   0   86ba11af...5bf9bc46   07/08/2015 00:04:29
Default      Orphan   80.34000000   0   653a433d...8e7653d0   07/08/2015 00:12:17

[old c coder]

Yacoin needs several issues fixed. I've already mentioned them to Joe and Groko, ane some bits I've posted here. My hope is to get larger audience onboard.

• Flawed chaintrust calculation
• PoS blocks with small stake posing security risk
• PoW miners ignoring PoS blocks to maximize profits (also happening right now)

During past couple of months I've been analyzing the code, brainstorming and putting together blueprints for a solution.
It can not be done without hard fork, because of both -  first and last issue. Fix for small PoS blocks can be rolled out incrementally.
Currently I am analyzing fix for chaintrust issue, because it underlies solution for others.
I will let you know about details in a day or two.

This will not prevent miner with 51% from capturing the chain, but fix for last issue will force PoW miners to include PoS blocks and fix for first issue should make PoS blocks get higher trust value. Consequently block reorganizations should not get deep as now and stakeholders should get their power back.

Here are two drafts/outlines. Ask if something is not understandable.
And feel free to criticize or better suggest corrections and improvements:

fix trust
fix ignoring PoS blocks

And to those who have hijacked the chain: I am having thoughts about having block range validations hardcoded.
Are you aware that everything you PoW mine can be made nonspendable with next release. You greedy assholes. What are you, a bankers?

Hello Senj,

Not that I can understand the code , but what if, for some unusual reason, there is not one PoS block broadcast at  some minute(s), just after a PoW block or blocks have been broadcast.  I bolded the area in question above. Will all the miners have to wait for a PoS block?  Do we know that there are enough YACs out there to make a one (or two minute) stream of PoS blocks if all those wallets with YACs were minting?  Just thinking...

And isn't it curious about miners and Bitcoin!  Another well thought out change by those that knew that the miner's were cutting block verification corners for speed (means $).  You would've thought the developers could have predicted this and not let it happen?  Maybe they ain't so bright?  I'm sure that they will have well crafted slippery teflon phrases that offer protection for their hides.  I hear that some miners lost relatively big bucks.  Three blocks, is that 75 BTCs?

Ron

[old c coder]

Hello Senj,

In your http://yacoin.net/NewPreventPosIgnore.htm section you ask:

The later would mean we need to recalculate those values on reorganize (and at some other times perhaps?), therefore it would be more complex to implement.

How about calculating the PoW/PoS or is it the other way, ratio by just counting at startup in the load the guts code (db.cpp -> CTxDB::LoadBlockIndexGuts()), that just plows through the blocks anyway!? There's this cryptic, at least to me, PPC code there anyway, that is:

// ppcoin: build setStakeSeen
                if (pindexNew->IsProofOfStake())
                    setStakeSeen.insert(make_pair(pindexNew->prevoutStake, pindexNew->nStakeTime));

Ron

[senj]

Yacoin needs several issues fixed. I've already mentioned them to Joe and Groko, ane some bits I've posted here. My hope is to get larger audience onboard.

• Flawed chaintrust calculation
• PoS blocks with small stake posing security risk
• PoW miners ignoring PoS blocks to maximize profits (also happening right now)

During past couple of months I've been analyzing the code, brainstorming and putting together blueprints for a solution.
It can not be done without hard fork, because of both -  first and last issue. Fix for small PoS blocks can be rolled out incrementally.
Currently I am analyzing fix for chaintrust issue, because it underlies solution for others.
I will let you know about details in a day or two.

This will not prevent miner with 51% from capturing the chain, but fix for last issue will force PoW miners to include PoS blocks and fix for first issue should make PoS blocks get higher trust value. Consequently block reorganizations should not get deep as now and stakeholders should get their power back.

Here are two drafts/outlines. Ask if something is not understandable.
And feel free to criticize or better suggest corrections and improvements:

fix trust
fix ignoring PoS blocks

And to those who have hijacked the chain: I am having thoughts about having block range validations hardcoded.
Are you aware that everything you PoW mine can be made nonspendable with next release. You greedy assholes. What are you, a bankers?

Hello Senj,

Not that I can understand the code , but what if, for some unusual reason, there is not one PoS block broadcast at  some minute(s), just after a PoW block or blocks have been broadcast.  I bolded the area in question above. Will all the miners have to wait for a PoS block?  Do we know that there are enough YACs out there to make a one (or two minute) stream of PoS blocks if all those wallets with YACs were minting?  Just thinking...

And isn't it curious about miners and Bitcoin!  Another well thought out change by those that knew that the miner's were cutting block verification corners for speed (means $).  You would've thought the developers could have predicted this and not let it happen?  Maybe they ain't so bright?  I'm sure that they will have well crafted slippery teflon phrases that offer protection for their hides.  I hear that some miners lost relatively big bucks.  Three blocks, is that 75 BTCs?

Ron

Here is the idea:
Let's say every 10th block on average is PoS. Once there are 9 PoW blocks one after another, PoW difficulty readjusts to two minute target. If another PoW block comes difficulty adjusts to 3 minutes. And so on. Beave reminded me (good catch Beave) that higher difficulty also affects PoW reward, that means whoever will insist on PoW only chain will have to work harder and also make less profit.
I will need to make refactoring of code - whenever that happens nActualSpacing in GetNextTargetRequired() will need to be set to "min( 60,nActualSpacing )", simulating blocks were max 1 minute apart. We would not want difficulty to drop because PoW blocks were intentionally pushed apart.
Perhaps even GetBlockTrust() will need to take that into account - if one mines PoW only chain too long it's difficulty will skyrocket, but his chaintrust must not.

EDIT - answer2:

In your http://yacoin.net/NewPreventPosIgnore.htm section you ask:

The later would mean we need to recalculate those values on reorganize (and at some other times perhaps?), therefore it would be more complex to implement.

How about calculating the PoW/PoS or is it the other way, ratio by just counting at startup in the load the guts code (db.cpp -> CTxDB::LoadBlockIndexGuts()), that just plows through the blocks anyway!? There's this cryptic, at least to me, PPC code there anyway, that is:

// ppcoin: build setStakeSeen
                if (pindexNew->IsProofOfStake())
                    setStakeSeen.insert(make_pair(pindexNew->prevoutStake, pindexNew->nStakeTime));

Ron

That get's called at startup. You also need to count PoS blocks while being online and minting or receiving new blocks. And what about that big painfull REORGANIZE when all PoS blocks get trashed?

[old c coder]

Yacoin needs several issues fixed. I've already mentioned them to Joe and Groko, ane some bits I've posted here. My hope is to get larger audience onboard.

• Flawed chaintrust calculation
• PoS blocks with small stake posing security risk
• PoW miners ignoring PoS blocks to maximize profits (also happening right now)

During past couple of months I've been analyzing the code, brainstorming and putting together blueprints for a solution.
It can not be done without hard fork, because of both -  first and last issue. Fix for small PoS blocks can be rolled out incrementally.
Currently I am analyzing fix for chaintrust issue, because it underlies solution for others.
I will let you know about details in a day or two.

This will not prevent miner with 51% from capturing the chain, but fix for last issue will force PoW miners to include PoS blocks and fix for first issue should make PoS blocks get higher trust value. Consequently block reorganizations should not get deep as now and stakeholders should get their power back.

Here are two drafts/outlines. Ask if something is not understandable.
And feel free to criticize or better suggest corrections and improvements:

fix trust
fix ignoring PoS blocks
...

...

Here is the idea:
Let's say every 10th block on average is PoS. Once there are 9 PoW blocks one after another, PoW difficulty readjusts to two minute target. If another PoW block comes difficulty adjusts to 3 minutes. And so on. Beave reminded me (good catch Beave) that higher difficulty also affects PoW reward, that means whoever will insist on PoW only chain will have to work harder and also make less profit.
I will need to make refactoring of code - whenever that happens nActualSpacing in GetNextTargetRequired() will need to be set to "min( 60,nActualSpacing )", simulating blocks were max 1 minute apart. We would not want difficulty to drop because PoW blocks were intentionally pushed apart.
Perhaps even GetBlockTrust() will need to take that into account - if one mines PoW only chain too long it's difficulty will skyrocket, but his chaintrust must not.

EDIT - answer2:

In your http://yacoin.net/NewPreventPosIgnore.htm section you ask:

The later would mean we need to recalculate those values on reorganize (and at some other times perhaps?), therefore it would be more complex to implement.

How about calculating the PoW/PoS or is it the other way, ratio by just counting at startup in the load the guts code (db.cpp -> CTxDB::LoadBlockIndexGuts()), that just plows through the blocks anyway!? There's this cryptic, at least to me, PPC code there anyway, that is:

// ppcoin: build setStakeSeen
                if (pindexNew->IsProofOfStake())
                    setStakeSeen.insert(make_pair(pindexNew->prevoutStake, pindexNew->nStakeTime));

Ron

That get's called at startup. You also need to count PoS blocks while being online and minting or receiving new blocks. And what about that big painfull REORGANIZE when all PoS blocks get trashed?

Hello Senj,

I just thought you were interested in the 1,129,123 blocks before Tue Jul 7 23:28:55 2015 EDT?  In addition to what for me will be future blocks.  I must have misunderstood your desire for some past block information?

In any event, when you say above,

Here is the idea:
Let's say every 10th block on average is PoS. Once there are 9 PoW blocks one after another, PoW difficulty readjusts to two minute target. If another PoW block comes difficulty adjusts to 3 minutes. And so on. Beave reminded me (good catch Beave) that higher difficulty also affects PoW reward, that means whoever will insist on PoW only chain will have to work harder and also make less profit.
I will need to make refactoring of code - whenever that happens nActualSpacing in GetNextTargetRequired() will need to be set to "min( 60,nActualSpacing )", simulating blocks were max 1 minute apart. We would not want difficulty to drop because PoW blocks were intentionally pushed apart.
Perhaps even GetBlockTrust() will need to take that into account - if one mines PoW only chain too long it's difficulty will skyrocket, but his chaintrust must not.

The average block period is being adjusted now according to the past actual block periods and the PoW difficulty is in some sense inversely related to the block period.  That is, short past periods get higher difficulty.  At least that is my impression?  This is to "smooth" out the block period "fluctuations" around the desired one minute average.
Now your statement:  PoW difficulty readjusts to two minute target  seems to be at odds with the overall desire of YAC to maintain a one minute average block period?


And the function min( 60,nActualSpacing) can be much less than one minute if nActualSpacing is?

And  We would not want difficulty to drop because PoW blocks were intentionally pushed apart.  Seems to be getting more and more difficult to do this modification, and hence be able to understand the side effects?  It seems one should look for a simpler approach, at least to start with, that won't have so many conflicting effects on the basic operation of the code.

Your first link on chain trust speaks of other coins using the chain length in considering/calculating the chain trust.  And YAC does not!  Perhaps we could take a page from NVC's book?  Isn't that what Joe is trying to do?  In any event,  I have no definition or even a clear idea what the terms chain trust and chain length are in the context above.  I would need good definitions in order to even be able to think about, much less opine on any solutions.

Ron