[ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development

[alenevaa]

lets increase it...

61 kH/s is not enough too.

Code:

REORGANIZE: Disconnect 59 blocks; 0000025a2bd92a19612a..0000018818e30c75aead
REORGANIZE: Connect 63 blocks; 0000025a2bd92a19612a..0000008ab40e256e8c34
REORGANIZE: done
SetBestChain: new best=0000008ab40e256e8c34  height=1123430  trust=18960539495624  date=07/02/2015 13:28:41

Does somebody know how deep can be reorganization (in terms of block numbers)?

[NineEleven]

I have solo minig whith 7khs

we need ate least 100 khs combined

[NineEleven]

Finally i have 4 blocks confirmed
one has 75 confirmations

has the attack stoped?
 

[Joe_Bauers]

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?

That would mean hard forking yacoin. Would people support it?

A hard fork for 0.4.5 is going to be required no matter what. That source is here: https://github.com/yacoin/yacoin/tree/testing   So, without going overboard, we should do any major changes for that.

I absolutely support all the work and support feeleep has had for YAC over the years, but we also need more pools or large solo miners.

[Beave162]

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?

That would mean hard forking yacoin. Would people support it?

A hard fork for 0.4.5 is going to be required no matter what. That source is here: https://github.com/yacoin/yacoin/tree/testing   So, without going overboard, we should do any major changes for that.

I absolutely support all the work and support feeleep has had for YAC over the years, but we also need more pools or large solo miners.

Again, can some of the 'veterans' weigh in on the issue please?

Joe, birdvox's idea is changing the reward structure, which should not be entertained whatsoever as part of YAC.

feeleep's pool seems to be stable with the block time at 1 min 20 sec, and it has over 73% of the network hashrate at this moment, due to one miner youguqm. I'm sure that will change later today though. I am solo-mining with over 2 khash/s, and I am getting orphans. So basically the pool is the one 'attacking' now.

I can muster over 10 khash/s to the pool as needed, but I would have to monitor the network closely to try to balance, but we know it wouldn't be enough for this unknown 'malicious miner' with enormous hashrates.

The way I see it...

1) It is important to preserve a working pool to allow entry into the market of individuals with say 1 or 2 computers. It will help with decentralization and to simply get more people interested. Along those lines, there really NEEDS to be a more seamless process to encourage newcomers, miners, which is where the Built-In Miner with Autotune, Autodetect would help... https://forum.yacoin.org/index.php?topic=716.0

2) At the same time, a stable pool can have a negative affect on decentralization. Coinmine.pl dominated the network for a long time until recently, and it essentially shut out the other pools YAC used to have. Now there could be a single point of failure if we have just one pool in control of the entire network.

we also need more pools or large solo miners.

I agree, but I just had nearly 5% of the entire network (at 1 min 20 sec block time) solo mining, and I couldn't get a single block confirmed. I think something needs to be done in the code to help the cause--in addition to encouraging more 'anti-malicious' mining power.

[NineEleven]

I have put some 8khs solo mining of course
Still only orphans
If you can put 10khs do it
If we cant outpace the maliciuos miner
Than yacoin will lose the trust of the miners investora everyone, basicaly

[Beave162]

I have put some 8khs solo mining of course
Still only orphans
If you can put 10khs do it
If we cant outpace the maliciuos miner
Than yacoin will lose the trust of the miners investora everyone, basicaly

I just had nearly 5% of the entire network (at 1 min 20 sec block time) solo mining, and I couldn't get a single block confirmed. I think something needs to be done in the code to help the cause--in addition to encouraging more 'anti-malicious' mining power.

[markm]

This might be an ignorant question but just in case it is not... Can PoS blocks cause PoW blocks to get orphaned?

I dug out an old massive-stake wallet of another different coin entirely last night and have been watching in amazement as it chugs out blocks, so wondered if maybe some whale did something like that with Yacoin...

-MarkM-

[Joe_Bauers]

Again, can some of the 'veterans' weigh in on the issue please?

The issue as I see it is, someone with a LOT of resources is mining the shit out of YAC to make a profit.

Joe, birdvox's idea is changing the reward structure, which should not be entertained whatsoever as part of YAC.

If birdvox can come up with a viable solution, AND the community in general supports it, their ideas should at least be entertained.

2) At the same time, a stable pool can have a negative affect on decentralization. Coinmine.pl dominated the network for a long time until recently, and it essentially shut out the other pools YAC used to have. Now there could be a single point of failure if we have just one pool in control of the entire network.

Absolutely agree.  Some people here have seemed to forget that Yacoin is PROOF OF STAKE as well. Everyone that has any coins to stake could help the overall effort by leaving their wallets running and staking!

I agree, but I just had nearly 5% of the entire network (at 1 min 20 sec block time) solo mining, and I couldn't get a single block confirmed. I think something needs to be done in the code to help the cause--in addition to encouraging more 'anti-malicious' mining power.

Not sure what can be done in the code that would prevent someone with more resources than the rest of the network from profiting from their advantage? If this happened with the latest Bitcoin client, the same thing would result.
The way to fix this issue, is to have more pools, more stakers and more miners.

[Beave162]

If birdvox can come up with a viable solution, AND the community in general supports it, their ideas should at least be entertained.

His idea is to reverse the reward structure. I do appreciate his enthusiasm, but it would be an idea for a different coin. Even remotely considering such a change hurts.

Not sure what can be done in the code that would prevent someone with more resources than the rest of the network from profiting from their advantage? If this happened with the latest Bitcoin client, the same thing would result.
The way to fix this issue, is to have more pools, more stakers and more miners.

Thank you, Joe_Bauers. You are definitely a 'veteran' of YACoin. Hopefully, we can get some more opinions as well.

I am concerned about the proof of stake. Just yesterday, I had two inputs at 2000 YAC each that were not accepted. If not a lot of people were staking, shouldn't it be quick and easy for my inputs to stake? And if we had 'maximum' participation in PoS, should PoS not happen every other block? (considering consecutive PoS blocks is not allowed). If PoS was happening every other block then the block time for PoW should be at about 2 minutes correct? (markm, that goes to your question.) I am wondering if the wallet that is tied to this large miner is PoSing and essentially able to 'selfish-mint' in the same way it is 'selfish-mining'.

In regards to the 2-minute block time, there is a good previous discussion here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=232297.40
Bottom line, it would be more than just making it twice as hard or require twice as much hashrate to attack a 1-minute block.

[birdvox]

If birdvox can come up with a viable solution, AND the community in general supports it, their ideas should at least be entertained.

The solution is viable.  Whatever YAC will adopt it or not is another question.

Not sure what can be done in the code that would prevent someone with more resources than the rest of the network from profiting from their advantage? If this happened with the latest Bitcoin client, the same thing would result.
The way to fix this issue, is to have more pools, more stakers and more miners.

More miners, will need better rewards. Hence my solution.
You do need miners for security, as this situation illustrates.
Yes, more coins would seem to hurt somewhat the coin value, but on the other hand, you're not giving them for free, but you are buying security with it. Security has value. I think most altcoins suffer from this problem, and we might see it more and more happening, so a coin that fixes it would then become of interest. We could see this even in bitcoin at some point. Do remember cex.io has most of the hashpower, they could selfish mine themselves.

Beave162 is insane, he thinks somehow people would invest now in mining, and wait 1000 years hoping that the coin value would go up. Or mine just for "fun". Aren't coins about money, not "just fun". Let's be serious here.

[Beave162]

More miners, will need better rewards. Hence my solution.
You do need miners for security, as this situation illustrates.
Yes, more coins would seem to hurt somewhat the coin value, but on the other hand, you're not giving them for free, but you are buying security with it. Security has value. I think most altcoins suffer from this problem, and we might see it more and more happening, so a coin that fixes it would then become of interest. We could see this even in bitcoin at some point. Do remember cex.io has most of the hashpower, they could selfish mine themselves.

Beave162 is insane, he thinks somehow people would invest now in mining, and wait 1000 years hoping that the coin value would go up. Or mine just for "fun". Aren't coins about money, not "just fun". Let's be serious here.

Wow, I am insane for believing a basic principle that EVERY SINGLE coin that is currently in existence subscribes to? --block rewards should diminish over time.

Increasing the rewards doesn't ensure miners come on board. It has happened to YAC actually with NFactor changes. You don't understand that those rewards will lose value because no one would buy that coin. Do you understand that someone has to buy the coin for it to have value whatsoever? We can increase the reward to 1 million YACs and guess what? Those 1 million YACs will be worth 0.0000000000001 total, make sense? Create your own coin and good luck telling people that they should invest in DECLINING technology and DECLINING adoptability.

I'll give you credit for 'outside the box' lol. Thanks a lot, Joe_Bauers. Anyone want to focus on fixing the current issue at hand?

[birdvox]

Wow, I am insane for believing a basic principle that EVERY SINGLE coin that is currently in existence subscribes to? --block rewards should diminish over time.

does this situation not prove it? you're not insane, you just assume the distribution is right, because everyone does it like this. it may have been right for bitcoin, however the rewards there diminished a lot more slowly. and it was the first coin, so it's a completely different setting. however i believe at the moment this can happen to bitcoin at any time. cex.io must have close to 50% if not more, and if so they probably are mining to other addresses as well. they wouldn't advertise if they had it because it would create panic, and they don't want that.

Increasing the rewards doesn't ensure miners come on board.

As I proposed, the rewards would only increase IF the miners come on board. And if they leave, the rewards will decrease back.

It has happened to YAC actually with NFactor changes. You don't understand that those rewards will lose value because no one would buy that coin. Do you understand that someone has to buy the coin for it to have value whatsoever? We can increase the reward to 1 million YACs and guess what? Those 1 million YACs will be worth 0.0000000000001 total, make sense? Create your own coin and good luck telling people that they should invest in DECLINING technology and DECLINING adoptability.

You are square you don't want to listen to anything that's not mainstream. Even when there's a problem.
I would debate with you my view on the market mechanics, but you're not even listening so why bother.

I'll give you credit for 'outside the box' lol.

heh, yes. I never said it wans't
Or that you totally must follow me or anything. I'm just saying this would work and it makes sense. Take it or leave it.

PS:
I said you are insane for expecting miners to mine on a loss. That's what I said. You do see my point, I hope.

[Beave162]

you just assume the distribution is right, because everyone does it like this.

This comment REALLY hits my soft spot. If I ever met you in person, I would buy you a drink. And then proceed to tell you how stupid you are. But I would buy you a drink.

The only thing really hurting mining profitability is this orphan problem. If it is fixed, it will be profitable again to mine even for CPUs believe or not.

[birdvox]

you just assume the distribution is right, because everyone does it like this.

This comment REALLY hits my soft spot. If I ever met you in person, I would buy you a drink. And then proceed to tell you how stupid you are. But I would buy you a drink.

The only thing really hurting mining profitability is this orphan problem. If it is fixed, it will be profitable again to mine even for CPUs believe or not.

dude if the hashrate increases, that already gives lower rewards for each miner. add on top of that the block reward decrease, and you can see this coin makes it impossible to have any serious hashpower, at least at it's current price.

it's only profitable if the hashrate is very low, which is self defeating. not only in theory, but apparently in practice too

It could be secure, as it designed, but this requires the price to keep rocketing to the moon. And by the looks of it it's an overly optimistic assumption. Point being that the coin holders are not doing their job. This coin requires heavy pumps to work, to cover the mining costs at higher hashrates.  If you just hold a coin, and don't pump it, it's gonna be just luck that can give you return on investment. And as a result of this design, and no strong pumps going on, the coin now has the orphan problem. Once again 2 ways to solve this. Pump! Don't just hold. Or increase block rewards. Or just cope with the orphan problem, I guess. There's no other way.

[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.

[Beave162]

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.

Thank you, senj. And thank you for laying out the discussions.

I believe the chaintrust issue is the culprit with my 2000 YAC inputs not being staked? Basically, the malicious miner is building on his PoW blocks and able to ignore my PoS blocks in addition to the other PoW blocks?

I envision the YAC looking like PoW-PoS-PoW-PoS-PoW-PoS pretty solidly in the future if not the very near future. Is that wrong? I see no issue with that. By the way, that would make the PoW block time 2 minutes, right?

[feeleep]

Hi,

The pool is being ddosed now

feeleep

[alenevaa]

The pool is being ddosed now

Q.E.D.

[NineEleven]

I i really like YAC

but this is getting worst every day
Las night i get olnly 4 block confirmed ( i hope lolol)


Stil if the community want i can setup a yac pool
I have a ver fast 10Ge internet connection and a blade cente wehere i can put a VM for this

I'm  avery experienced UNIx admin, but i never install a pool

Do you have have a quick manual for this , i'm using Debian wheezy