[ANN][PWC] Project buried

[simichent]

is there any reason i would get a weird block reward 43.80 ?

theres prolly 3.80 PWC fees included in the block. which hash?

abbe9e0cb6a9b7420ddf56da7eb329ba9b17c035911318d0c8ed75b92b28cc4f

[minerapia]

I guess the block is orphaned, as I cant find it.
Tho I got no other explanation than 3.80 PWC of fees. New settings havent even kicked in yet.

[minerapia]

./powercoind getnetworkhashps
4224919

Hope people arent just reaping the last easy blocks, lol
While I was testing in main net, my poor gts8800 (37khs) was alone

[minerapia]

Switchover to new settings is done
Its confirmed that Coins-E is with us.

remember to keep your checkpoints updated

[simichent]

anyone else having high orphan/reject since changover i have had nothing but

[minerapia]

Coin is still suffering from long retarget interval original code had. Actually at the change over nothing really happened except block reward got bigger. First retarget in new settings is at 109680.

EDIT: 0.02 diff with 3Mh/s == stale fest. new code should adapt to network hashrate changes better.

[NWO]

Fantastic work minerapia! You're a really talented dev, you have my full confidence and well wishes in resurrecting PWC.

Thanks, tho I smell a scent of sarcasm here

I meant it. Its the best thing to happen to PWC since the attack, so I hope you are successful.

If you're new to the altcoin section, you probably don't know but Hydroponica is a foul mouthed 30 something year old troll with 9 kids. Don't listen to him and do what everyone else does, ignore.

[minerapia]

Fantastic work minerapia! You're a really talented dev, you have my full confidence and well wishes in resurrecting PWC.

Thanks, tho I smell a scent of sarcasm here

I meant it. Its the best thing to happen to PWC since the attack, so I hope you are successful.

If you're new to the altcoin section, you probably don't know but Hydroponica is a foul mouthed 30 something year old troll with 9 kids. Don't listen to him and do what everyone else does, ignore.

Thanks for the hint I hope I can get something built from this, time will tell.

And blockchains are forked now, old blockchain is longer atm (it has lower diff anyway). I can only hope that majority will hop into new client

[minerapia]

Updated title to enforce things.

[Hydroponica]

Fantastic work minerapia! You're a really talented dev, you have my full confidence and well wishes in resurrecting PWC.

Thanks, tho I smell a scent of sarcasm here

I meant it. Its the best thing to happen to PWC since the attack, so I hope you are successful.

If you're new to the altcoin section, you probably don't know but Hydroponica is a foul mouthed 30 something year old troll with 9 kids. Don't listen to him and do what everyone else does, ignore.

Thanks for the hint I hope I can get something built from this, time will tell.

And blockchains are forked now, old blockchain is longer atm (it has lower diff anyway). I can only hope that majority will hop into new client

Actually, 4 kids. And, if you took the time to read through the PWC thread from NWO, you'd see, he's just butthurt, because I called his scammer ass, on all his lies and bullshit And lets see, who has me on ignore? Oh, thats righ, you, IGotspots, and a slew of GLD supporters. Yeah, I'm ok with that

[minerapia]

Lately I have gone thru alot of logs and hashs/txid, Ill get all of this confirmed after I get blockexplorer running (It's currently adding blockchain into database, and adding 100k+ entries takes some time).
Preliminary analysis from the settings change reads as follows:
During blocks 109500-109680 (Subsidy with new clients changed at 109500, first retarget with new settings was 109680), blockchains with new and old clients forked and merged several times. Fortunatly no fork was long enough to generate possibility of a double spend, accordin to my logs longest one was:

Code:

REORGANIZE: Disconnect 7 blocks; e3c80b289823f910f1ca..f47a9176221c31ee0330
REORGANIZE: Connect 8 blocks; e3c80b289823f910f1ca..235c65d1c0736a264864
REORGANIZE: done
SetBestChain: new best=235c65d1c0736a264864  height=109656  work=63134248907490  date=07/27/13 23:31:34

As the first block in the reorganize is the same that leaves only 6 blocks that actually got disconnected. so worst case is that next block from e3c80b289823f910f1ca has transaction leaving only 5 blocks to confirm that transaction, before the tx gets removed from the blockchain.

anyone else having high orphan/reject since changover i have had nothing but

This issue was real, I just didnt understand hows and whys back then. Now I'm wiser. Problem lies here:

Code:

   if (vtx[0].GetValueOut() > GetBlockValue(pindex->nHeight, nFees)) return false;

For those who are not into coding, basicly this checks if the block we just had from the network doesnt have greater block value than it should have. Now as the old client block subsidy is 40 PWC, its smaller than 60 PWC new one has. So blocks generated by old client got accepted by new one and not vice versa. Before the first retarget, old clients (around 3 Mh/s) had more power behind than the new ones (around 2 Mh/s). This led into situation where old clients constantly over ran blocks generated by new clients. at blockheight 109680 chains finally forked, because the difficulty was different between the clients.
In theory this could happen again if the difficulties would be exactly the same, tho I find that very very unlikely. During the testing phase I obviously didn't get this one covered, I could say some of this is just bad luck as I ran old and new client side-by-side in testnet both having one core each hashing. and old client never got ahead of new client (tho i had smaller variables back then so the difference between subsidy and retarget wasnt as great as it was in the live launch). Still totally my fault not to get this test case covered.

I'm working now on to get the new client into a separate network.

Lesson learned:
- change all variables at the same time.
- make changes depend on time rather than blockheight, as hashrate etc is not easy to predict.

[simichent]

Lately I have gone thru alot of logs and hashs/txid, Ill get all of this confirmed after I get blockexplorer running (It's currently adding blockchain into database, and adding 100k+ entries takes some time).
Preliminary analysis from the settings change reads as follows:
During blocks 109500-109680 (Subsidy with new clients changed at 109500, first retarget with new settings was 109680), blockchains with new and old clients forked and merged several times. Fortunatly no fork was long enough to generate possibility of a double spend, accordin to my logs longest one was:

Code:

REORGANIZE: Disconnect 7 blocks; e3c80b289823f910f1ca..f47a9176221c31ee0330
REORGANIZE: Connect 8 blocks; e3c80b289823f910f1ca..235c65d1c0736a264864
REORGANIZE: done
SetBestChain: new best=235c65d1c0736a264864  height=109656  work=63134248907490  date=07/27/13 23:31:34

As the first block in the reorganize is the same that leaves only 6 blocks that actually got disconnected. so worst case is that next block from e3c80b289823f910f1ca has transaction leaving only 5 blocks to confirm that transaction, before the tx gets removed from the blockchain.

anyone else having high orphan/reject since changover i have had nothing but

This issue was real, I just didnt understand hows and whys back then. Now I'm wiser. Problem lies here:

Code:

   if (vtx[0].GetValueOut() > GetBlockValue(pindex->nHeight, nFees)) return false;

For those who are not into coding, basicly this checks if the block we just had from the network doesnt have greater block value than it should have. Now as the old client block subsidy is 40 PWC, its smaller than 60 PWC new one has. So blocks generated by old client got accepted by new one and not vice versa. Before the first retarget, old clients (around 3 Mh/s) had more power behind than the new ones (around 2 Mh/s). This led into situation where old clients constantly over ran blocks generated by new clients. at blockheight 109680 chains finally forked, because the difficulty was different between the clients.
In theory this could happen again if the difficulties would be exactly the same, tho I find that very very unlikely. During the testing phase I obviously didn't get this one covered, I could say some of this is just bad luck as I ran old and new client side-by-side in testnet both having one core each hashing. and old client never got ahead of new client (tho i had smaller variables back then so the difference between subsidy and retarget wasnt as great as it was in the live launch). Still totally my fault not to get this test case covered.

I'm working now on to get the new client into a separate network.

Lesson learned:
- change all variables at the same time.
- make changes depend on time rather than blockheight, as hashrate etc is not easy to predict.

thanks for the explanation

[minerapia]

pushed quick fix into github, it prevents coins with old value from getting connected to chain. just to be sure that if the difficulties ever match. windows client prolly has to wait until next bigger patch, or atleast tomorrow. too late for me

[minerapia]

I'm currently testing new protocol for the network, it will be implemented in next version, which will be also a mandatory update. This time I'll give you plenty of time to upgrade youre clients. Next version will also implement couple new safety features, after that I'm prolly cleaned the table enough to start adding something lil more innovative to the coin.
Gotta make this coin work first, before talking bout stores and such.
Blockchain explorer is currently in beta, but I prolly need better hardware to run it properly. I've also cloned pushpool and taken preliminary tests with it, tho diff is so low I dont think theres really that much need atm for it.

ps. I wonder when I see another coin with external checkpoints
pps. I also wonder what those miners hashing away in the old chain are bout to do with their coins.

[jasonslow]

Please stop mining the old chain and mine the new one.
pwc.minepool.net, wheretomine.com and coinchoose.com are still on the old chain.

[minerapia]

Yup, dunno what theyre trying to prove mining worthless chain.
meanwhile bout 10 hrs ago we got dropped a hash bomb on us (around atleast 10 Mh/s), leaving diff floating kinda high. they got around 25K PWC in around an hour. Suppose PWC was the most profitable on somebodys algo
Gotta make something more advanced in the retarget algo to minimize effect on regular miners.
I'll include it into next patch aswell. I'll try to fit as much as I can in the next patch as it is planned to be a mandatory update allready.
I know ppl hate updating software, but I wanna develop coin itself rather than adding pictures and logos into the client.

simichent, I forgot to thank you about feedback. Post youre wallet mate (or pm),  I'll compensate (some of) youre loss in mining. I know it won't be much today, but It can be someday

blockexplorer is up, but atm I don't want to make it public. It's too slow even for a single user tbh. If you need something checked pm me (or post here).

It will take me couple days at least to code all of it, couple days more to test it. But I promise you'll see stuff, that you don't see in copy-paste coins.

[minerapia]

I updated the roadmap abit to give you more insight whats going on here. I also PMd admins of PWC related services to consider upgrading. Im not gonna rush things, haste makes waste, or so they say.

[Hippie Tech]

Whoever just joined, is causing alot of rejects. I'm now seeing about 40%.

Is it because of the very low diff ?

HT xD

[minerapia]

Yup, diff is just too low atm. and around 2 Mh/s mining. avg block time is aroun 10 secs atm, so stales are kinda inevitable.
I see lil boost in sell prices for this coin, bids still remains at the bottom.
Today has been a bit quiet, at coin progress. Personal stuff to do, sorry I'm mostly working on now with the diff parameters and ways to implement it. I Prolly need to add some variables to the blocks themselves, but thats not so big issue cos next update is mandatory anyway.

[Hippie Tech]

The previous difficulty was only 288ish and took less than 2 hours with 5-15% rejects.

I believe it might be someone learning to scrypt mine or they're purposely burning off these low diff blocks for whatever reason.