Official Anoncoin chat thread (including history)

[SmokingSkull]

Yeah! I'm pretty sure if these Problems were fixed we get higher Volume on Cryptsy : )

@Meeh - do you know by know which source you use in reference to the new Core?

[meeh]

It seems that Cryptsy still have problem for withdrawing ANC. To withdrawal 3000 ANC I had to do 10 successive withdrawals.

Only 1921 ANC have arrived now, four of the ten transactions sent were not included in a block yet (but I see them as unconfirmed in my ANC-qt).

It seems the transactions are alot of small inputs and this increase the fee tremendously!

Here is an example of one of such transaction:
http://ancblockchain.com/tx/7ede9c1d53fb78ba4e16140a1389eee22ea7afd2df2ed9d7fc93c8b663ae90d6

I requested  547.27272638 ANC but got only 136.7956816 ANC from 375 inputs with a fee of 0.59 ANC (cryptsy paid the fee, I paid 0.03 ANC fee)

In total I paid 0.3 ANC in fee (ten times 0.03 ANC) to withdraw the 3000 ANC, the process of withdrawing took hours because I had to do it ten times and right now 4 transactions are still not confirmed.


Please Cryptsy can you do something to not have such a big number of < 1 anc inputs?? This become impossible to trade at you exchange if you do nothing about those hundreds of small inputs.

Hello everyone,

Im currently investigating an issue with our ANC wallet where the blockchain isnt picking up the majority of our send transactions. We apologize it took us so long to spot the issue. But we are working hard on correcting it and getting the unconfirmed transactions pushed to the blockchain

Some of them get confirmed after a simple restart of the daemon but others do not/ Ill keep everyone informed when I find the solution

Thank you for your patience

UPDATE:

I think it comes down to transaction sizes. Our daemon is sending transactions that are too large to be accpeted into the chain. Im basing this on the fact that all unconfirmed send transactions have unusually high fees paid. Our default Txfee is .01 ANC and the mean over the last 1000 transactions is 0.10169169169169 which is why our withdrawal fee is set to .1 ANC

Code:

anoncoind listtransactions "" 1000 | grep -A 1 -B 4 '"confirmations" : 0,' | grep fee
        "fee" : -0.82000000,
        "fee" : -0.90000000,
        "fee" : -0.98000000,
        "fee" : -0.65000000,
        "fee" : -0.69000000,
        "fee" : -0.72000000,
        "fee" : -0.74000000,
        "fee" : -0.76000000,
        "fee" : -0.77000000,
        "fee" : -0.81000000,
        "fee" : -1.00000000,
        "fee" : -0.68000000,
        "fee" : -0.72000000,
        "fee" : -0.73000000,
        "fee" : -0.74000000,
        "fee" : -0.74000000,
        "fee" : -0.74000000,
        "fee" : -0.75000000,
        "fee" : -0.75000000,
        "fee" : -0.75000000,
        "fee" : -0.75000000,
        "fee" : -0.75000000,
        "fee" : -0.75000000,
        "fee" : -0.75000000,
        "fee" : -0.75000000,
        "fee" : -0.76000000,
        "fee" : -0.76000000,
        "fee" : -0.77000000,
        "fee" : -0.77000000,
        "fee" : -0.77000000,
        "fee" : -0.78000000,
        "fee" : -0.79000000,
        "fee" : -0.85000000,
        "fee" : -0.96000000,
        "fee" : -0.64000000,
        "fee" : -0.66000000,
        "fee" : -0.67000000,
        "fee" : -0.69000000,
        "fee" : -0.71000000,
        "fee" : -0.72000000,
        "fee" : -0.73000000,
        "fee" : -0.74000000,
        "fee" : -0.75000000,
        "fee" : -0.77000000,
        "fee" : -0.79000000,
        "fee" : -0.84000000,
        "fee" : -0.87000000,
        "fee" : -0.92000000,
        "fee" : -0.95000000,
        "fee" : -0.98000000,
        "fee" : -0.63000000,
        "fee" : -0.64000000,
        "fee" : -0.65000000,
        "fee" : -0.66000000,
        "fee" : -0.68000000,
        "fee" : -0.68000000,
        "fee" : -0.69000000,
        "fee" : -0.70000000,
        "fee" : -0.71000000,
        "fee" : -0.71000000,
        "fee" : -0.72000000,
        "fee" : -0.73000000,
        "fee" : -0.74000000,
        "fee" : -0.74000000,
        "fee" : -0.74000000,
        "fee" : -0.74000000,
        "fee" : -0.74000000,
        "fee" : -0.75000000,
        "fee" : -0.75000000,
        "fee" : -0.75000000,
        "fee" : -0.75000000,
        "fee" : -0.76000000,
        "fee" : -0.78000000,
        "fee" : -0.80000000,
        "fee" : -0.83000000,
        "fee" : -0.88000000,
        "fee" : -0.92000000,
        "fee" : -0.99000000,
        "fee" : -0.98000000,
        "fee" : -0.97000000,
        "fee" : -0.87000000,
        "fee" : -0.81000000,
        "fee" : -0.86000000,

Our daemon is up to date so ill be going over the source to see if I can find anything that would cause this

Anyone else with the following problems with ANC?  My multipool operator sent earned ANC to me on August 18 at 2:01AM CDT, was not received and posted to my wallet until August 21 at 13:58 CDT.  The multipool operator states:  "The transaction hasn't been included in a block yet.  It should make it into a block eventually and be confirmed.  I have no control over this.  It's been an ongoing issue with the ANC network for a few weeks now."  That would seem to be a very strong negative against this coin.

Yes I have the same problem with huge transaction from several small inputs from Cryptsy, the transactions refuse to be included in blocks.

Meeh, K1773R, can this be solved ? Cryptsy, what is this dust?

Thanks

Can someone send me the debug.log file please? Also make sure debug=1 when trying to send. Try it and post the debug.log

[meeh]

The good news!!

https://sigterm.no/blog/112/

Could you please add rss to your blog?

It's on my todo list, I will fix it. But ANC needs some love first

[TheKoziTwo]

The good news!!

https://sigterm.no/blog/112/

Could you please add rss to your blog?

It's on my todo list, I will fix it. But ANC needs some love first

What about this: "For Norwegians with Android phones, today will be a great day. I'll get back to it later "

[SmokingSkull]

The good news!!

https://sigterm.no/blog/112/

Could you please add rss to your blog?

It's on my todo list, I will fix it. But ANC needs some love first

What about this: "For Norwegians with Android phones, today will be a great day. I'll get back to it later "

Have a look on Twitter : ) ...

Well, I2p for Android released.. on GPlay : ) great step forward for mobilephones.

[meeh]

The good news!!

https://sigterm.no/blog/112/

Could you please add rss to your blog?

It's on my todo list, I will fix it. But ANC needs some love first

What about this: "For Norwegians with Android phones, today will be a great day. I'll get back to it later "

Have a look on Twitter : ) ...

Well, I2p for Android released.. on GPlay : ) great step forward for mobilephones.

Also been talking with developers wrt Anoncoin on Android, working version not far away. But more on that @ Monday, Privacy Solutions weekly news.

[meeh]

Say your opinion!

A hypothetical question that does not necessarily have any ulterior motive; If Anoncoin switched hashing algorithm, what type of hashing algorithm would you liked to see then?

[entertheabyss]

Say your opinion!

A hypothetical question that does not necessarily have any ulterior motive; If Anoncoin switched hashing algorithm, what type of hashing algorithm would you liked to see then?

a cpu only algo

[lunokhod2]

Say your opinion!

A hypothetical question that does not necessarily have any ulterior motive; If Anoncoin switched hashing algorithm, what type of hashing algorithm would you liked to see then?

a cpu only algo

Agreed, CPU only. 1 CPU, 1 vote.

[SmokingSkull]

Say your opinion!

A hypothetical question that does not necessarily have any ulterior motive; If Anoncoin switched hashing algorithm, what type of hashing algorithm would you liked to see then?

Not quite sure... I'd say CPU only BUT ... in the end the hashing Algo won't change much, right? Mostly the price would be influenced by this.
If we would be able to mine more ANC with cheaper gadgets ... or more ANC with more expensive ones, the price will fluctuate in the beginning.

  why not let ANC stay the way it is? but well yeah, I prefer CPU ... simply cuz I got a bad GPU

[SmokingSkull]

@meeh - man you are doing really great work and I always imagine you sitting 24/7 in front of the pc writing code and doing some programming.

Always wondered how we as some amateur ppl can help you out and I come to no conclusion 

[Apraksin]

Hmmm, I will say cpu.

[SmokingSkull]

The good news!!

https://sigterm.no/blog/112/

Could you please add rss to your blog?

It's on my todo list, I will fix it. But ANC needs some love first

What about this: "For Norwegians with Android phones, today will be a great day. I'll get back to it later "

Have a look on Twitter : ) ...

Well, I2p for Android released.. on GPlay : ) great step forward for mobilephones.

Also been talking with developers wrt Anoncoin on Android, working version not far away. But more on that @ Monday, Privacy Solutions weekly news.

Hm, hope It's not "HashEngineering". I think by now many many Android Wallets for Android do not have the most important option of all ... to Encrypt the wallet.
By now they offer NFC or URLs or loading Blockchain via Bluetooth ... who uses that? I would easily exchange these features for a Passwort protected wallet file on Android.

We all know that most people don't have their phones secures and people other people can simply access phones from a few meters away


That would be a feature we can brag about and can advertise the wallet with.

[matthewh3]

Say your opinion!

A hypothetical question that does not necessarily have any ulterior motive; If Anoncoin switched hashing algorithm, what type of hashing algorithm would you liked to see then?

Not quite sure... I'd say CPU only BUT ... in the end the hashing Algo won't change much, right? Mostly the price would be influenced by this.
If we would be able to mine more ANC with cheaper gadgets ... or more ANC with more expensive ones, the price will fluctuate in the beginning.

  why not let ANC stay the way it is? but well yeah, I prefer CPU ... simply cuz I got a bad GPU

The only CPU hashing algorithm that is truly CPU biased (at the moment) is the Cryptonight algorithm that Monero uses.  Being so CPU biased does leave it open to most of the hashed coins going to botnets.  Going to Cryptonight and usuing AuxPoW with Monero is a good option in my opinion as Anoncoin and Monero have already partnered up on the I2p work - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CryptoNight - with the latest smartphones getting 64bit ARM processors then it may eventually become possible for anyone with a smartphone to earn some ANC (while charging) and earn a stake in the network easily.  Although the more CPU biased a coin is then the more profitable it is for botnets to hash.
Other good options include the new NeoScrypt that Feathercoin is looking at.  Which seems like it will be GPU biased eventually which should help keep the botnets a bit further away from owning all the hashed coins - www.feathercoin.com/neo-scrypt-press-release.pdf - Or the Lyra2 algo that Vertcoin is moving too looks like it should be GPU biased - https://vertcoin.org/pow-algorithm-upgrade-lyra2
My favorite option though is a myriad of those three algo's and possible more while also utilizing AuxPoW with the respective coins.  As the AuxPoW will greatly increase the hashrate of each chain therefore making it a lot more secure from attack.  Also using a myriad scheme then an attacker would need to control more than one chain.  If that idea entails more work than the devs have time for.  Then my next favorite option would be AuxPoW with Myriadcoin itself.  Then my next favorite option is AuxPoW with either Vertcoin, Feathercoin or Monero and in that order of preference.  As the Vertcoin devs has stated they will always do whatever is possible to avoid ASIC centralisation.  While Monero with Cryptonight opens up the doors to botnets although does have advantages too that anyone with a CPU can hash it.
All the options I suggest avoid the centralisation of ASIC's (for now).  While if you was to use a myriad scheme plus AuxPoW with each respective coin then the network would become very secure from attack.

[niteglider]

Say your opinion!

A hypothetical question that does not necessarily have any ulterior motive; If Anoncoin switched hashing algorithm, what type of hashing algorithm would you liked to see then?

Just to explore the hypothetical, what would be the reason for switching the hashing algorithm?

[gostrol]

I agree with matthewh3 on the multi-algo merge mining with myriadcoin like explained here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=725991.0

Different algo can be put like scrypt/Myr groestl/skein/VTC algo/cryptonight with different amount of reward.

Although I have to disagree cryptonight is CPU only, Claymore GPU miner for instance give 474 H/s for an R9 280x (50% efficiency)... although ofc it is not the huge improvement that other algo sees and its only double from a good CPU.

I agree with the cryptonight algo for CPU one

my 2c

Say your opinion!

A hypothetical question that does not necessarily have any ulterior motive; If Anoncoin switched hashing algorithm, what type of hashing algorithm would you liked to see then?

Not quite sure... I'd say CPU only BUT ... in the end the hashing Algo won't change much, right? Mostly the price would be influenced by this.
If we would be able to mine more ANC with cheaper gadgets ... or more ANC with more expensive ones, the price will fluctuate in the beginning.

  why not let ANC stay the way it is? but well yeah, I prefer CPU ... simply cuz I got a bad GPU

The only CPU hashing algorithm that is truly CPU biased (at the moment) is the Cryptonight algorithm that Monero uses.  Being so CPU biased does leave it open to most of the hashed coins going to botnets.  Going to Cryptonight and usuing AuxPoW with Monero is a good option in my opinion as Anoncoin and Monero have already partnered up on the I2p work - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CryptoNight - with the latest smartphones getting 64bit ARM processors then it may eventually become possible for anyone with a smartphone to earn some ANC (while charging) and earn a stake in the network easily.  Although the more CPU biased a coin is then the more profitable it is for botnets to hash.
Other good options include the new NeoScrypt that Feathercoin is looking at.  Which seems like it will be GPU biased eventually which should help keep the botnets a bit further away from owning all the hashed coins - www.feathercoin.com/neo-scrypt-press-release.pdf - Or the Lyra2 algo that Vertcoin is moving too looks like it should be GPU biased - https://vertcoin.org/pow-algorithm-upgrade-lyra2
My favorite option though is a myriad of those three algo's and possible more while also utilizing AuxPoW with the respective coins.  As the AuxPoW will greatly increase the hashrate of each chain therefore making it a lot more secure from attack.  Also using a myriad scheme then an attacker would need to control more than one chain.  If that idea entails more work than the devs have time for.  Then my next favorite option would be AuxPoW with Myriadcoin itself.  Then my next favorite option is AuxPoW with either Vertcoin, Feathercoin or Monero and in that order of preference.  As the Vertcoin devs has stated they will always do whatever is possible to avoid ASIC centralisation.  While Monero with Cryptonight opens up the doors to botnets although does have advantages too that anyone with a CPU can hash it.
All the options I suggest avoid the centralisation of ASIC's (for now).  While if you was to use a myriad scheme plus AuxPoW with each respective coin then the network would become very secure from attack.

[matthewh3]

Say your opinion!

A hypothetical question that does not necessarily have any ulterior motive; If Anoncoin switched hashing algorithm, what type of hashing algorithm would you liked to see then?

Just to explore the hypothetical, what would be the reason for switching the hashing algorithm?

As they use Scrypt and their network hashrate is relatively dangerously low.  Dogecoin whose network hashrate was relatively massive compared to Anoncoin has already decided to use AuxPoW (merge-mine) with Litecoin to combat that same problem.  Unless Anoncoin changes its hashing algorithm quickly.  Then a lone single Scrypt ASIC miner could easily pull off a 51% attack on Anoncoin just for LoLZ or even destroy the coin completely.  I suppose the easiest option would be to copy Dogecoin's move and AuxPoW with Litecoin.  Although that then opens up the dilemma of ASIC centralisation, but it would probably strengthen the Anoncoin network the most out of any option.  AuxPoW with Myriadcoin is my favorite option.  Followed by AuxPoW with Vertcoin as they're committed to stopping their coin to succumb to ASIC's.

[matthewh3]

Although I have to disagree cryptonight is CPU only, Claymore GPU miner for instance give 474 H/s for an R9 280x (50% efficiency)... although ofc it is not the huge improvement that other algo sees and its only double from a good CPU.

I agree with the cryptonight algo for CPU one

my 2c

Say your opinion!

A hypothetical question that does not necessarily have any ulterior motive; If Anoncoin switched hashing algorithm, what type of hashing algorithm would you liked to see then?

An Atom C2750 can get 53H/s on four out of eight threads on 20W TDP processor.  If the CPU's L2 cache could be doubled then it'd probably get ~100H/s at < 30W TDP.

[meeh]

Thanks for all the feedback!! 

It's soon time to move away from i2psam now, and over to libi2p btw, more tomorrow @ PS weekly

[entertheabyss]

Thanks for all the feedback!!  

It's soon time to move away from i2psam now, and over to libi2p btw, more tomorrow @ PS weekly

Excellent! I look forwards to direct i2p integration.