Devcoin

[btc_artist]

Thanks kjlimo. What pool do you use? Or is devcoin.org the only pool (I ask because I can't seem to get the conf. email).

pool.devcoin.org is the only pool to my knowledge.  However, at the market prices, it is likely more profitable to mine other coins (bitcoins/namecoins/i0coins) and simply purchase some Devcoins.

I'd be doing it for the fun, not for profit.

[1714897976]

1714897976

[cablepair]

is the conf email still f'n broken? you got to be kidding me, I fixed it already once! damn man after the holidays I got a whole shit list of things to get done

[kjlimo]

fun is definitely the right mind set.  Although, I mine it from time to time with a very very slight hope of them becoming "the coin" one of these days

Cablepair, sorry to add one additional thing.  It's small, but thought I'd point it out.

There seems to be this amount of DVC stuck in "Unconfirmed."

30990.43808934

I seem to always have some amount in unconfirmed even if it's been 5 days since I've mined on the pool.  Don't know if there's a few blocks that got stuck in unconfirmed world or something.

Is there a website to see who is accepting Devcoin?

Also, is there anyone working on merged mining for devcoin?

[btc_artist]

is the conf email still f'n broken?

It still is for me.

Cablerepair

Nice

[kjlimo]

is the conf email still f'n broken?

It still is for me.

Cablerepair

Nice

oops, fixed, thanks.

[btc_artist]

Mark is making the releases:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/galacticmilieu/files/

Is there a git repository, based on the original bitcoin repository it was forked from? If not, do you know the commit id where it was forked? If not git do you have any version control repository?

<snip> Anyway I have setup a git repository at:

https://github.com/caston/devcoin

Is the official devcoin code in a git repository or another repository somewhere?

[cablepair]

http://www.devcoin.org/?q=node/2

you can download from here for now, its totally temporary devcoin.org site I have not had time to develop yet.

[btc_artist]

http://www.devcoin.org/?q=node/2

you can download from here for now, its totally temporary devcoin.org site I have not had time to develop yet.

Thanks for the download link. 

I was wondering about an actual repository or version control system, since that would foment collaboration and contributions to the project.  Are there any plans to use Github, for example?

[markm]

I think doublec figured out exactly which bitcoin I built from.

I hadn't used github nor git itself before so just grabbed tarball.

Then later a tarball of another newer bitcoin.

Now that bitcoin has included the -qt, I think it is probably best to fork from latest bitcoin, rename to devcoin which I hadn't been able to do in the past but doublec told me how to do it, then start trying to get all the changes we made to turn bitcoin into devcoin back in, this time with git's tracking helping us keep track.

A diff of the current devcoin against the bitcoin version doublec figured out as its origin should ensure we see all the changes that were made so we don't forget something; at first making alt coins was simple and I did it so often I knew offhand the few places one needs to change. But devcoin ended up running around all over the place chasing down all places where cents or minimum fees were mentions and figuring out which of the two to use; then also had a few fixes added latet like the anti dust-spam fee.

I guess its time to go try to actually make this new fork of bitcoin, lets see if I can manage to do that...

EDIT: git@github.com:knotwork/devcoin.git   BUT!!! WARNING!!! IT IS NOT DEVCOIN *YET* !!!

I need to figure how to put a warning on it, I'll start by trying to modify the README and pushing it back. People have to realsie it is really just a recent bitcoin that is about to hopefully get turned into a new latest devcoin.

Ideally we should try to do the fixes in such a way that one doesn't have to run around all over the place to turn bitcoin into devcoin, maybe not go so far as multicoin did where there is an actual runtime configuration file that makes it one type of coin or another, but maybe a compile-time similar concentration of the differences into one handy place where you define the coin type or something. As we will see as we go along with this that the changes are all over the place by now. Especially in the GUI interface where the name of the coin as visible to end-users needs to change.

So we should probably try to make it in a way that pretty much any of the alt chains could easily use the same code just by changing a few key things in a central file. Heck maybe if we do it right we could even get Gavin to pull it back into mainline bitcoin, since if it is done with compile-time defines it should still result in mainline bitcoin when those defines are not set to make it some other type of coin.

-MarkM-

[cablepair]

markm hows merged mining coming along? My Pool is ready to take on world dominance...

[markm]

markm hows merged mining coming along? My Pool is ready to take on world dominance...

I looked at merged mining code and it looked easy enough to add but we never got mining to work in the qt client due to some non thread safe problem that didn't exist in devcoind only in the -qt version. I wasn't sure if merged mining would fall afoul of that.

Plus, I we do not even know yet whether merely trying to use the new bitcoin that includes the -qt will break mining even in the daemon, so I figured we should get an up to date bitcoin-turned-to-devcoin first and make sure it works before trying to put merged mining into it.

Basically doublec wanted to try to add merged mining but I pointed out our code is from a way back when version of bitcoin.

Maybe though he could go ahead with adding merged mining to what we already have, in only the daemon not the -qt version, as if it turns out that bitcoin having brought the -qt into mainline bitcoin already breaks our mining we will end up having to use the old daemon for merged mining.

If anyone can figure out what the threads problem is i nthe qt and how to prevent it from killing mining in the old -qt devcoin, that could be helpful.

-MarkM-

[doublec]

So we should probably try to make it in a way that pretty much any of the alt chains could easily use the same code just by changing a few key things in a central file. Heck maybe if we do it right we could even get Gavin to pull it back into mainline bitcoin, since if it is done with compile-time defines it should still result in mainline bitcoin when those defines are not set to make it some other type of coin.

Namecoin already does this with the 'hooks' classes and files if you're interested.

[doublec]

I guess its time to go try to actually make this new fork of bitcoin, lets see if I can manage to do that...

EDIT: git@github.com:knotwork/devcoin.git   BUT!!! WARNING!!! IT IS NOT DEVCOIN *YET* !!!

Note that the bitcoin master branch contains an experimental change called OP_EVAL that needs a lot of testing before being released. I'm sure the bitcoin devs would love an alt chain to be the guinea pig to test it out but I'm not sure devcoin users want to be that.

The devcoin patch based on bitcoin that I extracted can be used to apply to a recent bitcoin release - or guide the manual changes necessary to be compatible with the existing devcoin chain.

You could also consider basing it on the i0coin changes I made which is a wxwidgets-gui version of bitcoin with cherry-picked patches from the bitcoin tree.

[markm]

So we should probably try to make it in a way that pretty much any of the alt chains could easily use the same code just by changing a few key things in a central file. Heck maybe if we do it right we could even get Gavin to pull it back into mainline bitcoin, since if it is done with compile-time defines it should still result in mainline bitcoin when those defines are not set to make it some other type of coin.

Namecoin already does this with the 'hooks' classes and files if you're interested.

Hmm namecoin is a far more massive change from bitcoin than devcoin is, I had kind of been avoiding looking at namecoin because of that. It's entire transaction system and format is presumably different from all the other chains, all of which really don't change the actual chain much. Hmm.

Can namecoin basically just pull the bitcoin changes to keep up with fixes made by the bitcoin team or are they far too different for that?

I was glad to get away from wxWidgets, I do not relish the idea of going back there.

-MarkM-

[doublec]

Hmm namecoin is a far more massive change from bitcoin than devcoin is, I had kind of been avoiding looking at namecoin because of that. It's entire transaction system and format is presumably different from all the other chains, all of which really don't change the actual chain much. Hmm.

Can namecoin basically just pull the bitcoin changes to keep up with fixes made by the bitcoin team or are they far too different for that?

I was glad to get away from wxWidgets, I do not relish the idea of going back there.

All the namecoin changes are isolated in the namecoin hooks class though. This allows building both bitcoin and namecoin from the same source IIRC.

No, namecoin can't pull bitcoin changes - merging would be involved. This is due to the changes made to add the hooks in the first place. Additionally the change to Qt was fairly invasive and causes merge issues.

For alt coins I prefer the process of reviewing and cherry picking patches/commits from bitcoin so you can be sure you are understanding and getting exactly what you want.

[cablepair]

Hmm namecoin is a far more massive change from bitcoin than devcoin is, I had kind of been avoiding looking at namecoin because of that. It's entire transaction system and format is presumably different from all the other chains, all of which really don't change the actual chain much. Hmm.

Can namecoin basically just pull the bitcoin changes to keep up with fixes made by the bitcoin team or are they far too different for that?

I was glad to get away from wxWidgets, I do not relish the idea of going back there.

All the namecoin changes are isolated in the namecoin hooks class though. This allows building both bitcoin and namecoin from the same source IIRC.

No, namecoin can't pull bitcoin changes - merging would be involved. This is due to the changes made to add the hooks in the first place. Additionally the change to Qt was fairly invasive and causes merge issues.

For alt coins I prefer the process of reviewing and cherry picking patches/commits from bitcoin so you can be sure you are understanding and getting exactly what you want.

doublec: can you get devcoin merged mining compatible? There is a 120 BTC Bounty for it if you can.

[doublec]

doublec: can you get devcoin merged mining compatible? There is a 120 BTC Bounty for it if you can.

Yes, I offered to do it a while back which is where the "where's the source code repository" came from. Note that it's not a 120 BTC bounty for the developer doing merged mining. There's 40 BTC for the developer, 40 BTC for someone who prepares the release and 40 BTC for a pool - I assume that's the first pool that merge mines with it.

[markm]

I have made at least a start at adding merged mining to the currenct devcoind code, which is now referred to as old-devcoind because I already created a clone of current bitcoin that hopes to become the new devcoin and devcoind.

https://github.com/knotwork/old-devcoind

I just tried to compile it using

make -f makefile.fedora15 bitcoind

and it didn't make, giving the following error:

rpc.cpp: At global scope:
rpc.cpp:1887:28: error: ‘getblock’ was not declared in this scope
make: *** [obj/nogui/rpc.o] Error 1

I altered the makefile.unix and makefile.fedora15 but not any of the other makefiles unless some patch did so.

I will push it now before trying to fix this error so other eyes can get at it as it is unlikely I got it right first time (as this error merely begins to hint at...)

-MarkM-

[Unthinkingbit]

Note that it's not a 120 BTC bounty for the developer doing merged mining. There's 40 BTC for the developer, 40 BTC for someone who prepares the release and 40 BTC for a pool - I assume that's the first pool that merge mines with it.

To clarify the merged mining bounty, indeed it is 120 BTC divided by the developers, right now that would be 40 BTC for Doublec, Mark and Cablepair.  Additionally, I'm adding twenty million of my own devcoins to whoever ports the code, so an extra 20 million devcoins for Doublec.


To Doublec:

Since you're developing open source bitcoin related stuff, you qualify for the bitcoin share list:
https://github.com/Unthinkingbit/charity/blob/master/bitcoinshare.html

Everyone on that list gets a devcoin generation share as long as they keep developing.  To get on, just ask and post a devcoin receive address, if you don't have a devcoin address yet you can post a bitcoin address and import your key into devcoin when you want to.


When I posted the bounties for the wiki, exchange and merged mining a few months ago, I didn't know that merged mining would be harder than the rest, so I made the bounties about the same. Since merged mining is harder, if there are no objections, an extra bounty of 12 generation shares divided among the developers when the merged mining rate reaches 10 GH/s will be added.

I know that devcoins aren't worth much now:
https://vircurex.com/

but, when merged mining is working, devcoins will be worth more, and the total bounty would be plenty.

[cablepair]

and my pool is ready to merge mine dvc/nmc/btc as soon as the daemon is compatible