[ANN][BLC] Blakecoin Blake-256 for GPU/FPGA With Merged Mined Pools Stable Net

[3dcgminer]

Pool is down.
blakecoinpool.org/index.php

[1715064670]

1715064670

[1715064670]

1715064670

[1715064670]

1715064670

[1715064670]

1715064670

[MickGhee]

Any nodes i can add to dl blockchain im not getting any connections

[BlueDragon747]

BLC on Atomic-Trade Promo

List:
BlueDragon747: 1000 BLC
Donations:         383 BLC
MikuCoin:           350 BLC
mogrith:            217 BLC
kramble:            200 BLC
Donations:         249.99 BLC
bzyzny:             500 BLC
hal7:                 386 BLC

              Total: 3085.99 BLC  


sent a pm to kr105 about his pool

[Calhil]

Any nodes i can add to dl blockchain im not getting any connections

Try addnode=95.85.12.119

[mogrith]

addnode=198.199.100.216

Should be up also

Code:

09:20:31

getpeerinfo


09:20:31

[
{
"addr" : "162.243.133.80:8773",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1390583230,
"lastrecv" : 1390582934,
"bytessent" : 6619,
"bytesrecv" : 99622,
"conntime" : 1390582933,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Blake:0.8.9/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 54650,
"banscore" : 0,
"syncnode" : true
},
{
"addr" : "162.243.14.130:8773",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1390583162,
"lastrecv" : 1390583163,
"bytessent" : 9369,
"bytesrecv" : 153731,
"conntime" : 1390582934,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Blake:0.8.9/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 54650,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "146.185.135.24:8773",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1390583230,
"lastrecv" : 1390582940,
"bytessent" : 8706,
"bytesrecv" : 139248,
"conntime" : 1390582934,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Blake:0.8.9/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 54650,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "77.185.11.68:58297",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1390583163,
"lastrecv" : 1390583089,
"bytessent" : 19884,
"bytesrecv" : 225,
"conntime" : 1390583088,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Blake:0.8.8/",
"inbound" : true,
"startingheight" : 54650,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "46.208.183.36:51496",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1390583231,
"lastrecv" : 1390583230,
"bytessent" : 19823,
"bytesrecv" : 225,
"conntime" : 1390583229,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Blake:0.8.9/",
"inbound" : true,
"startingheight" : 54650,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "95.85.12.119:52397",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1390583232,
"lastrecv" : 1390583232,
"bytessent" : 19823,
"bytesrecv" : 170,
"conntime" : 1390583231,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Blake:0.8.9/",
"inbound" : true,
"startingheight" : 54650,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "213.73.98.210:8773",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1390583590,
"lastrecv" : 1390583591,
"bytessent" : 225,
"bytesrecv" : 20273,
"conntime" : 1390583588,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Blake:0.8.9/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 54650,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "72.230.148.202:8773",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1390583605,
"lastrecv" : 1390583614,
"bytessent" : 225,
"bytesrecv" : 20243,
"conntime" : 1390583605,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Blake:0.8.9/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 54650,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "198.199.100.216:8773",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1390583867,
"lastrecv" : 1390583874,
"bytessent" : 225,
"bytesrecv" : 16193,
"conntime" : 1390583866,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Blake:0.8.9/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 54650,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "72.23.74.210:8773",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1390583908,
"lastrecv" : 1390583907,
"bytessent" : 225,
"bytesrecv" : 16223,
"conntime" : 1390583905,
"version" : 70001,
"subver" : "/Blake:0.8.9/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 54650,
"banscore" : 0
}
]

[MikuCoin]

sent another 250 BLC to the fund.

[BlueDragon747]

sent another 250 BLC to the fund.

added to total 

[bzyzny]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blake256 CGMiner 3.7.2
with GPU mining support for pools x64 Linux build
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've compiled this binary on 64bit Linux Mint 15, included necessary files and wrote a readme for it.
If anyone needs a 32bit build or has other questions let me know and I'll try to help.

I used kR105 sources from: https://github.com/kR105/cgminer
Currently I have the archive here, but please mirror it:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/lip4cmm8d62n1gm/cgminer-3.7-blake256.tar.gz

[Prelude63]

Is blakecoinpool.org down? Trying to mine some for the exchange donations and it seems to be having some wallet RPC issue.

[BlueDragon747]

Is blakecoinpool.org down? Trying to mine some for the exchange donations and it seems to be having some wallet RPC issue.

yeah sent a pm to kr105

use my pool: eu1.blakecoin.com

[BlueDragon747]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blake256 CGMiner 3.7.2
with GPU mining support for pools x64 Linux build
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've compiled this binary on 64bit Linux Mint 15, included necessary files and wrote a readme for it.
If anyone needs a 32bit build or has other questions let me know and I'll try to help.

I used kR105 sources from: https://github.com/kR105/cgminer
Currently I have the archive here, but please mirror it:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/lip4cmm8d62n1gm/cgminer-3.7-blake256.tar.gz

I put in on main site as well will update OP and Website too

http://www.blakecoin.org/cgminer-3.7-blake256.tar.gz

thanks for this  

[Prelude63]

Is blakecoinpool.org down? Trying to mine some for the exchange donations and it seems to be having some wallet RPC issue.

yeah sent a pm to kr105

use my pool: eu1.blakecoin.com

You have a pool! Should have ask you in the first place. Wasted the whole night or more running without making any coins. Damn!

[mogrith]

there is another coin that uses blake256 now

***FEDERATION CREDIT RELAUNCH IS NOW***


Federation Credits v2.2.2

Github:

https://github.com/scificryptocoin/Federation-Credits


Windows:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0wumNRRq9LNYWUxRVVNbFBJSW8/edit?usp=sharing

Solo mining right now Pool should be up soon.

UFC will also be on scifi coin exchange opening tomorrow.

[bzyzny]

mogrith, how is this different from blakecoin?

[BlueDragon747]

there is another coin that uses blake256 now

***FEDERATION CREDIT RELAUNCH IS NOW***

I am not sure if those changes to the protocol version will prevent merge mining? and changes to the bnProofOfWorkLimit might effect merged mining

can't just use the merge mine proxy with these changes would need to re-write both the merge mine proxy and the pool software to do both  

its such a shame to divide the hashing power  

[dreamwatcher]

there is another coin that uses blake256 now

***FEDERATION CREDIT RELAUNCH IS NOW***


Federation Credits v2.2.2

Github:

https://github.com/scificryptocoin/Federation-Credits


Windows:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0wumNRRq9LNYWUxRVVNbFBJSW8/edit?usp=sharing

Solo mining right now Pool should be up soon.

UFC will also be on scifi coin exchange opening tomorrow.

I am not sure if those changes to the protocol version will prevent merge mining?

and changes to the bnProofOfWorkLimit might effect merged mining

can't just use the merge mine proxy with these changes would need to re-write both the merge mine proxy and the pool software to do both  

its such a shame to divide the hashing power  

Merged mine coins are still different coins, Protocol versions can always be changed or the merged mining code can just use the appropriate version number when communicating with the merged coin.

The difficulty floor is also not an issue, there are going to be times when the merged coin might have a higher difficulty then the parent coin, merged mining simply stops until the merged coin difficulty drops below the parent coin.

I could not leave the difficulty floor where it was at. The floor in Blakecoin was fine when Blakecoin was CPU only, but there is absolutely no way I could start the new UFC blockchain  that low with GPU/FPGA miners.

During testing, just one of my rigs would totally dominate the network and generate blocks faster then the network could process them. Could you imagine the cries of "instamine" with the starting difficulty Blakecoin had? The floor I have set now will allow the network to go down to 3-4 GH and still maintain the 1 minute target spacing.

In short, nothing I have changed should effect adding merged mining in the future. 

[BlueDragon747]

Merged mine coins are still different coins, Protocol versions can always be changed or the merged mining code can just use the appropriate version number when communicating with the merged coin.

The difficulty floor is also not an issue, there are going to be times when the merged coin might have a higher difficulty then the parent coin, merged mining simply stops until the merged coin difficulty drops below the parent coin.

I could not leave the difficulty floor where it was at. The floor in Blakecoin was fine when Blakecoin was CPU only, but there is absolutely no way I could start the new UFC blockchain  that low with GPU/FPGA miners.

During testing, just one of my rigs would totally dominate the network and generate blocks faster then the network could process them. Could you imagine the cries of "instamine" with the starting difficulty Blakecoin had? The floor I have set now will allow the network to go down to 3-4 GH and still maintain the 1 minute target spacing.

In short, nothing I have changed should effect adding merged mining in the future.  

"In short, nothing I have changed should effect adding merged mining in the future."

I have been working with the pool quite a bit I don't think this is true! it has created the issue that a merged coin will be based on one of the forks not both, you would need to copy some of the function in the pool software to be able to process both chains e.g the address and other bits mentioned (pool only assumes one type of address not a blake-256 for one and sha-256 for another, things like this cannot be changed after without messy hacks!)

"Merged mine coins are still different coins, Protocol versions can always be changed or the merged mining code can just use the appropriate version number when communicating with the merged coin."

I have not seen this do you have example code? did you read the merge mine proxy for eloipool?
https://gitorious.org/~Luke-Jr/bitcoin/luke-jr-bitcoin/blobs/namecoin_mmm/contrib/merged-mine-proxy

"network to go down to 3-4 GH and still maintain the 1 minute target spacing"
the law of large numbers controls target spacing as it is an average of the past random events (block find) with the diff set to create the perfect x time block, you can see an example of this in the all time average of my pool 100.70% so it should have better averages at any diff due to Blake-256

"Could you imagine the cries of "instamine""
yeah I can hear the cries now: static const int64 nSuperBlockCoin = 8000000 * COIN;  
code speaks for itself: https://github.com/scificryptocoin/Federation-Credits/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1083

"merged coin might have a higher difficulty then the parent coin"
this would only happen if you had a slower block time but you state 1 minute? so it should not have a higher diff?

so much for the concept of united/merged compute/mining at this rate Bitcoin will always have the upper hand, Scrypt based coins prove this  

I am sure many of you have seen this motto "United we stand, divided we fall"  

if anyone has a plan for a Blake based coins please contact me before hand and spend just a little longer testing the wallet and we can have merged/standalone coin it does NOT have to be merged only with eloipool merge mine proxy, address and some other small bits need to remain else you need to do some re-writes as the merge mine proxy re-uses the pool functions which have been modified for Blakecoin and as explained above, this hybrid does not use same functions thus it is incompatible without quite a few changes  

[bzyzny]

Yeah its fine if people want to release their own coins (even though there's already a substantial division of efforts), but it would be beneficial to everyone to try to keep compatibility and reduce duplicate effort where possible. All the scrypt coins are in competition with each other, but if we work to keep the Blake based coins united thru merged mining and software compatibility, it will strengthen the community as a whole.

[dreamwatcher]

Merged mine coins are still different coins, Protocol versions can always be changed or the merged mining code can just use the appropriate version number when communicating with the merged coin.

The difficulty floor is also not an issue, there are going to be times when the merged coin might have a higher difficulty then the parent coin, merged mining simply stops until the merged coin difficulty drops below the parent coin.

I could not leave the difficulty floor where it was at. The floor in Blakecoin was fine when Blakecoin was CPU only, but there is absolutely no way I could start the new UFC blockchain  that low with GPU/FPGA miners.

During testing, just one of my rigs would totally dominate the network and generate blocks faster then the network could process them. Could you imagine the cries of "instamine" with the starting difficulty Blakecoin had? The floor I have set now will allow the network to go down to 3-4 GH and still maintain the 1 minute target spacing.

In short, nothing I have changed should effect adding merged mining in the future.  

"In short, nothing I have changed should effect adding merged mining in the future."

I have been working with the pool quite a bit I don't think this is true! it has created the issue that a merged coin will be based on one of the forks not both, you would need to copy some of the function in the pool software to be able to process both chains e.g the address and other bits mentioned (pool only assumes one type of address not a blake-256 for one and sha-256 for another, things like this cannot be changed after without messy hacks!)

"Merged mine coins are still different coins, Protocol versions can always be changed or the merged mining code can just use the appropriate version number when communicating with the merged coin."

I have not seen this do you have example code? did you read the merge mine proxy for eloipool?
https://gitorious.org/~Luke-Jr/bitcoin/luke-jr-bitcoin/blobs/namecoin_mmm/contrib/merged-mine-proxy

"network to go down to 3-4 GH and still maintain the 1 minute target spacing"
the law of large numbers controls target spacing as it is an average of the past random events (block find) with the diff set to create the perfect x time block, you can see an example of this in the all time average of my pool 100.70% so it should have better averages at any diff due to Blake-256

"Could you imagine the cries of "instamine""
yeah I can hear the cries now: static const int64 nSuperBlockCoin = 8000000 * COIN;  
code speaks for itself: https://github.com/scificryptocoin/Federation-Credits/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1083

"merged coin might have a higher difficulty then the parent coin"
this would only happen if you had a slower block time but you state 1 minute? so it should not have a higher diff?

so much for the concept of united/merged compute/mining at this rate Bitcoin will always have the upper hand, Scrypt based coins prove this  

I am sure many of you have seen this motto "United we stand, divided we fall"  

if anyone has a plan for a Blake based coins please contact me before hand and spend just a little longer testing the wallet and we can have merged/standalone coin it does NOT have to be merged only with eloipool merge mine proxy, address and some other small bits need to remain else you need to do some re-writes as the merge mine proxy re-uses the pool functions which have been modified for Blakecoin and as explained above, this hybrid does not use same functions thus it is incompatible without quite a few changes  

WE are just going to agree to disagree. I do not see the issue with merged mining, just because you might have to change some per-written proxy that sounds like it was written to tightly to be practical.

I certainly was not just going to clone Blakecoin and slap the Federation Credit name on it. No coins that want to merge mine should have to do that, it is ridiculous.

As for this:
"Could you imagine the cries of "instamine""
yeah I can hear the cries now: static const int64 nSuperBlockCoin = 8000000 * COIN;  
code speaks for itself: https://github.com/scificryptocoin/Federation-Credits/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1083

That was the pre-mine for redistribution, how about a little research like looking at block 121:

http://ufc.cryptocoinexplorer.com/block/121

You can see the coins were redistributed to the addresses they were in the original chain.

You know what, forget it. I was looking forward to working with you and maybe even making some improvements to the concept of merged mining. However, since you are getting upset about not being able to use some pre-built proxy that I am not even sure would work without modification anyway, I am going to wish you the best of luck. I hope you find somebody who is willing to make an exact clone and change the name only as it appears that is what you are looking for.

No-hard feelings, and I hope Blakecoin will become a big success. It is unfortunate that it appears we are incompatible working together as developers.

[bzyzny]

You know what, forget it. I was looking forward to working with you and maybe even making some improvements to the concept of merged mining. However, since you are getting upset about not being able to use some pre-built proxy that I am not even sure would work without modification anyway, I am going to wish you the best of luck. I hope you find somebody who is willing to make an exact clone and change the name only as it appears that is what you are looking for.

No-hard feelings, and I hope Blakecoin will become a big success. It is unfortunate that it appears we are incompatible working together as developers.

Maybe not my place to butt in here, but for the sake of fostering cooperation and a friendly community, i wish to comment. If you feel we must agree to disagree, so be it, but hopefully there is room to discuss things further before jumping to that conclusion. I'm sure BlueDragon did not intend to come across as overly critical about your methods. Please consider discussing more details so we can try to find solutions that work for all of us.
I'm not sure of the technical details involved with merged mining and pool proxies, etc. however my understanding is that merged mining does not equate to cloning. Correct me if im wrong, but would not the ancillary coin have the freedom to differ from the primary coin? If you consider Blakecoin to be the primary blockchain, then the merge mined coin(s) would use the primary blockchains proof of work as input to generate its own blockchain. They are separate coins entirely, only sharing hashing resources to reduce duplicate effort. As for the pool software (or any other coin related tools), i'm sure there may be a current way to ensure compatibility, but theres also always room for improvement. Obviously it would be ideal to have standardization of interfaces to allow for broad interoperability, but the issue is making an api or platform that provides the flexibility to permit differences between the blake-based coins.

Anyways I could be totally wrong about all that but my main point is simply that working together can be difficult since people can have vastly different opinions, but it's worth giving it a shot at seeing if at least some things can be agreed on, and thats something each of us has to participate in.