[ANN] Catcoin - Scrypt meow!

[zerodrama]

15 million coins total
128 retarget time
5 coins per block
1 minute per block
Coin saved and anyone holding coins pre fork will profit heavily.

Specs based on the value from the year 2140 are ridiculous. Quantitative vudu.

The fact that it won't be bitcoin will be its saving grace.

Then what's the point? There is no reason for it to exist without the Bitcoin specs. There are over 100 of these coins with only some differences and pretty much it's the communities behind them that make them worthwhile.

The dynamic cap that you say you will be "adding" wouldn't function properly.

It checks if difficulty is way too high and drops the retarget. This is independent of the retarget. When the emergency is over, it brings it back toward 2016.

There are literally zero scenarios where a BTC clone will be a success in this new generation of altcoins.

Bitcoin is owned in majority by feds and the people behind it whine about non-commercial uses. It's dead as far as innovation and the community in Bitcoin is literally the least inspired I have ever seen.

No one besides maybe a couple of delusional people want BTC specs, which is why no one ever launched a direct clone. If we did things your way, everyone would end up losing, the coin would die, and I will have 5 BTC less in my portfolio, so I am eternally thankful that you arent part of the dev team. Spec balancing is important and lately we have seen every extreme end of the spectrum.

At least you're honest about your priorities. I can respect that, to a point.

Ultra fast coins like quickcoin, nutcoin, and even dogecoin all have shown that too fast doesnt work and they are just dump coins. Ultra slow coins like Diamond and Catcoin also have shown that these do not work. There needs to be a balance, which is exactly what my specs are, the speed of a fast coin, with the scarcity of a slow coin. Its either this or an eventual death. Until you come to realize that, I'd have to say that your input is a liability.

The scarcity you are talking about is delusional. It's an entirely different coin for one. I'll be happy to release LeoCoin if it'll make you happy. I'll need to do more research for that.

Scarcity for something that just started is literally a scam.

Also you can NEVER balance against coin hopping miners who do nothing but dump. They have no creative input and they create communities resistant to creativity. As long as the default activity of most miners is to dump, then the default nature of every coin is to fail. Let those miners grow up and buy things or set up shops. They're nothing but a curse.

[Maverick69]

I agree that a permanent and systematic fix to the difficulty retarget issue could be helpful. But I do not think speeding up the rate of oscillations is the way to do it. Such oscillations are damaging no matter if they happen in 3 month cycles, or 3 hour cycles. It gives the miner-dumpers the opportunity to gain ongoing access to cheap Catcoins, and if we want the coins to prosper, the "cheap coin phase" should never occur!

I have developed a method which would accomplish putting and end to these damaging difficulty oscillations once and for all, and I am here putting it in slightly different terms, because my earlier description may not have been entirely clear or precise:

Imagine that when you find a solution during specific conditions (say the difficulty level has increased by more than 30% over the last difficulty level), you receive the normal 50 CATs. But in addition, you also receive 50 Loyalty Credits which you can think of as special purpose coins (it would show up as a separate balance in the QT wallet). These credits are good during the next (easier) difficulty level but expire after that. When you mine a block during this easy difficulty level, 50 loyalty credits are destroyed and you get 50 CATs of reward. If you did not earn any Loyalty Credits, you would only receive 25 CATs. At the end of that easy difficulty era, any remaining Loyalty Credits expire and get zeroed out. In any difficulty era, where it was not followed by very high difficulty, the full 50 CATs are awarded as usual. This proposed Loyalty Credit feature is a major, brand new innovation and is very pool friendly. Pools can easily track who has earned Loyalty Credits (being a participant in the pool during a difficulty phase when the Credits are generated by the network), and it can track it just as it tracks any other balance of anything. It can destroy the Loyalty Credits when it subsequently solves a block during a subsequent easy difficulty era, and zero out loyalty credits when they expire. It can distribute the mined Catcoins based on each miner's Loyalty Credit balances as well as shares contributed. It is a very clean, fair, mathematically precise algorithm, and targets and narrowly addresses the specific problem of destructive difficulty oscillations caused by unstable hashrate contributors with laser-like precision. We do not then need to worry about changing the difficulty retarget time because we have addressed a more fundamental, actual root cause of the problem. In fact, having this mechanism in place pretty much acts as a failsafe and should almost never come into play anyway after being triggered once or twice, because the network hashrate would be become so stable, and swarms of hashers who switch mining on a minute-by-minute basis learn to stay away just as they currently stay away from Litecoin mining.

The code implementing this change can be lobbied to be back-ported into the existing Bitcoin code as a pure improvement in handling difficulty level changes, and it can be implemented without affecting its operations at all (unless there is a dramatic shift in difficulty levels in the Bitcoin network, which is unlikely to ever occur). So we have the possibility to solve our problem, and also maintain 100% Bitcoin clone status (if we succeed in getting the Loyalty Credit feature back-ported into Bitcoin). In any case, it would remain essentially exact clone of Bitcoin with just the tiny change. It would be an innovation in the altcoin world, not something that had been done yet, and it would specifically and systematically reward loyal miners who are committed enough to mine through both easy and difficult difficulty eras - denying the benefits of easy difficulty phases to to swarms of miner-dumpers who jump on a minute-by-minute basis to maximize profit (and immediately dump coins on the exchanges). With this architecture, the hashrate for the Catcoin network would stabilize long-term based on the number of miners who are willing to mine through both easy and difficult difficulty levels, and profitability would stabilize probably somewhere north of Litecoin profitability, but south of the most profitable coins at any given instant, and reduce the number of newly mined coins ending up on the exchanges being sold and putting constant downward pressure on price. This would essentially make the pattern of network hashrate follow the same general trajectory as early Bitcoin network hashrates (people sign on as they set up to mine it, and tend to stay), and can scale all the way up to becoming the dominant Scrypt coin, superseding Litecoin, because as Catcoin increases in value, Litecoin would become more and more subject to swarms of miner-dumpers, since it does not have the loyalty system built-in (or they will implement it before that happens, in which case Catcoin will have tremendous credibility from having been the first to implement it). I believe this feature will sooner or later become standard for all cryptocoins (including Bitcoins), to put an end to the era of crazy difficulty shifts based on split-second profitability calculations. In the new era, people will only shift coin mining every few weeks or months, based on revised long-term projections, and it would lose money to shift more often than that. I believe whichever cryptocurrency implements this feature first will have the first mover advantage and tremendous credibility, I would like Catcoins to be the first to implement this. We can and must do better than implement a mere patchwork to speed up damaging oscillations of difficulty levels, copying the formula of unsuccessful altcoins, and if we want Catcoins to suceed above all other altcoins, we have to implement a mathematically sound innovation which precisely addresses a problem plauging all altcoins, which this proposal does.

I believe this is the best change to implement, if we are making changes at all, for the above reasons.

Thank you for considering this proposal.

That would be a fantastic addition, I see it becoming standard, and being the first coin to implement it also gives more credit to our beloved coin.

[Last1212]

I am just curious, guys. I saw here several people with more than 3k CATs. Why did you show up only now when coin got in this situation? We could easily prevent it with your help a little bit earlier.

[zerodrama]

I believe this is the best change to implement, if we are making changes at all, for the above reasons.

Thank you for considering this proposal.

That would be a fantastic addition, I see it becoming standard, and being the first coin to implement it also gives more credit to our beloved coin.

There is no way to manage the synchronization of pools and solo miners.

Your solution identifies the problem but it is not network scalable. It's micromanaging.

I can emulate it perhaps, but it has to be a more general adaptation.

[dotnetmin]

please explain how it helps the coins survive when we show our balances.

i also have more than 1k and ready to build up stock and hold them for a long long ride, not only a month
for short term profit.

[etblvu1]

I am just curious, guys. I saw here several people with more than 3k CATs. Why did you show up only now when coin got in this situation? We could easily prevent it with your help a little bit earlier.

I have been here for a few days, which is pretty much the entire lifetime of the coin. I tried to get in by mining at the beginning, but could not get the QT client to work, until difficulty was nearing the end of the Difficulty 64 era. I got most of my coins by trading in other altcoin (and some bitcoin). I have been actively participating here for a few days, and have been actively working on presenting solutions to the current problems. I believe I have the luxury of more time I can invest in this than most people, who may have jobs or responsibilities which limit the time they can participate, and I believe we should respect that not everyone can put full focus on this coin just because they may have invested into it. Some people may be dividing their investments among many coins, and cannot afford to invest too much time on this coin. I believe we have quality people here collaborating to solve the problems, and there may be disagreements (and a few trolls we can try hard to ignore), but I am optimistic that we will see a good result.

[etblvu1]

I believe this is the best change to implement, if we are making changes at all, for the above reasons.

Thank you for considering this proposal.

That would be a fantastic addition, I see it becoming standard, and being the first coin to implement it also gives more credit to our beloved coin.

There is no way to manage the synchronization of pools and solo miners.

Your solution identifies the problem but it is not network scalable. It's micromanaging.

I can emulate it perhaps, but it has to be a more general adaptation.

I have almost 30 years of coding experience, having learned about 20 programming languages, mostly in the Apple and Windows environments. I am unfortunately not at the right expertise level in C++ or Linux to directly contribute code, so I can only contribute at a more pseudocode/abstract level. But believe I do have a pretty good grasp of coding fundamentals, and the logic of what we are talking about. I would be happy to describe how this could work in more detail, but I am not certain this thread is the best place to do that...

But I'll describe it generally, and maybe you can see it can work. The "loyalty credits" would be implemented as a user interface fiction, and each time the right conditions exist, it would just increment the value as a local variable in RAM +50, and get subtract -50 under the right trigger conditions, and zeroed out under the right conditions. The actual way this would be implemented underneath the skin, is that when a block solution is submitted to the network, the network would know which address is making the claim for the block reward, and each node can independently check how many block solution this particular address submitted during the recent difficult era, how many claims for block reward the address has submitted during the current easy difficulty era, and can compute whether to credit the 50 CATs or only 25 CATs, based on this verification step. This computation would be a matter of provable consensus, computed independently by each node without any extra coordinating needed, and correspond to the Loyalty Credit fiction shown on the user interface. The pools can do the same independent computation as solo nodes.

[Mortimer452]

Whatever is done, we need to wait until the original dev chimes in and reach a consensus.  A "hostile takeover fork" will kill this coin.

[zerodrama]

I have almost 30 years of coding experience, having learned about 20 programming languages, mostly in the Apple and Windows environments. I am unfortunately not at the right expertise level in C++ or Linux to directly contribute code, so I can only contribute at a more pseudocode/abstract level. But believe I do have a pretty good grasp of coding fundamentals, and the logic of what we are talking about. I would be happy to describe how this could work in more detail, but I am not certain this thread is the best place to do that...

But I'll describe it generally, and maybe you can see it can work. The "loyalty credits" would be implemented as a user interface fiction, and each time the right conditions exist, it would just increment the value as a local variable in RAM +50, and get subtract -50 under the right trigger conditions, and zeroed out under the right conditions. The actual way this would be implemented underneath the skin, is that when a block solution is submitted to the network, the network would know which address is making the claim for the block reward, and each node can independently check how many block solution this particular address submitted during the recent difficult era, how many claims for block reward the address has submitted during the current easy difficulty era, and can compute whether to credit the 50 CATs or only 25 CATs, based on this verification step. This computation would be a matter of provable consensus, computed independently by each node without any extra coordinating needed, and correspond to the Loyalty Credit fiction shown on the user interface. The pools can do the same independent computation as solo nodes.

I'm concerned it introduces non-fungibility even if it's an abstract case. We have to get miners to grow up. Pools can do it to some extent but I don't see it happening in the network.

Also consider that everybody is generating fewer blocks during the difficulty. You're trying to force miners not jump coins. It's much simpler to temporarily drop the retarget rate. And it will result in fewer debates by developers. Also the simpler it is the more likely it is to be adopted by other coins.

[zerodrama]

Whatever is done, we need to wait until the original dev chimes in and reach a consensus.  A "hostile takeover fork" will kill this coin.

That's why I am only offering code. Some people have no idea how harmful a hostile fork would be.

[Last1212]

Whatever is done, we need to wait until the original dev chimes in and reach a consensus.  A "hostile takeover fork" will kill this coin.

Maybe a new thread with poll?

[etblvu1]

I'm concerned it introduces non-fungibility even if it's an abstract case. We have to get miners to grow up. Pools can do it to some extent but I don't see it happening in the network.

Also consider that everybody is generating fewer blocks during the difficulty. You're trying to force miners not jump coins. It's much simpler to temporarily drop the retarget rate. And it will result in fewer debates by developers. Also the simpler it is the more likely it is to be adopted by other coins.

There is no problem with fungibility, because each block solution reward claim event, deterministically creates exactly 25 coins or 50 coins, based on deterministic conditions, which can be independently verified by each node by analyzing block chain data, creating a network consensus on exactly what was created. Once the coins are created, it can wait the usual time to maturity, and can be spent, without there being any difference in quality between coins that were mined as part of a block of 25 or as part of a block of 50. All that is required is for all the nodes to agree on the conditions under which a successful block solution results in a credit of 50 coins, or in 25 coins. The loyalty points are ephemeral non-traded fictions which help the miner know whether they'll get more coins or less coins during the next easy-mining era, provides much needed morale boost (and assurance of rewards to come) to keep mining during the difficult era, and gets zeroed out after that, so there is no issue with fungibility between this and actual Coins. In pools, this would just be tracked like any other account balance is tracked, and there is a deterministic solution to how much a miner should be credited in coins, depending on whether or not they accumulated Loyalty Points (i.e., they contributed hashes while the special difficult conditions existed which created Loyalty Points). Forward thinking pools would realize this logic will eventually be implemented by all altcoins and even Bitcoin itself (because it inherently has to help a coin succeed), so they will invest the resources needed to code support for it. And once they do, they would naturally support Catcoins as the first coin with the Loyalty Credit feature in place. As other cryptocoins implement this feature, they can simply apply the same logic to them. Eventually, this would become universal, and quick and easy profits would be a thing of the past, and miners would mine coins based on what they believe will be the most successful long-term. They would generally engage in mine-and-hold behavior, not mine-and-dump behavior. Maybe the exchanges will hate this change (reduced dumping transactions), but this will be good for the entire cryptocurrency movement. Pools that don't implement Loyalty Point logic would simply go out of existence, because nobody would choose to mine there.

I agree that implementing this would be more complex than simply changing the difficulty retarget parameter. However, changing the difficulty retarget parameter is addressing only one of the symptoms of the problem (perhaps a pressing one - the very low hashrate we see right now), but not the root cause. That is why I would support lowering the difficulty retarget as a temporary solution, while a permanent solution to the harmful oscillation is worked on. I would not support it as a permanent solution in itself, because it does not actually solve the oscillation issue - we need to get out of the vicious cycle of miner-dumpers mining our coins when it is easy to mine, then dumping it on the exchanges. This dynamic is suppressing the value of altcoins because the only way any cryptocurrency gains value is by more and more people choosing to hold it. When people mine coins they believe in, they tend to hold it. When people mine coins for the purpose of "profit" they are inherently dumping it. By implementing a change where only loyal miners mine a coin, very few coins would end up in the exchanges on the sell side, and this would drive the prices up. I believe this is the dynamic by which Litecoins is maintaining high value relative to other altcoins because very few people mine Litecoins and systematically immediately dumping it. I believe we can benefit by the same dynamic, by completely solving the difficulty oscillation problem, i.e., by getting rid of incentives for temporary easy mining and dumping, from our beloved Coin.

[kaene]

THey are aware that they need to be on top of it and that it is coming. O only really got an "OK, Thanks" as a reply, but I would assume that it means they've got it covered.

To them this is basically to update the wallet, nothing else, and yours coins will be safe in the exchange.

[kisa2005]

I am just curious, guys. I saw here several people with more than 3k CATs. Why did you show up only now when coin got in this situation? We could easily prevent it with your help a little bit earlier.

I have been here for a few days, which is pretty much the entire lifetime of the coin. I tried to get in by mining at the beginning, but could not get the QT client to work, until difficulty was nearing the end of the Difficulty 64 era. I got most of my coins by trading in other altcoin (and some bitcoin). I have been actively participating here for a few days, and have been actively working on presenting solutions to the current problems. I believe I have the luxury of more time I can invest in this than most people, who may have jobs or responsibilities which limit the time they can participate, and I believe we should respect that not everyone can put full focus on this coin just because they may have invested into it. Some people may be dividing their investments among many coins, and cannot afford to invest too much time on this coin. I believe we have quality people here collaborating to solve the problems, and there may be disagreements (and a few trolls we can try hard to ignore), but I am optimistic that we will see a good result.

appreciate your actively involved into the community push! may the CAT be with you

[FanEagle]

Let this coin burn like hell!  

[zerodrama]

I'm concerned it introduces non-fungibility even if it's an abstract case. We have to get miners to grow up. Pools can do it to some extent but I don't see it happening in the network.

Also consider that everybody is generating fewer blocks during the difficulty. You're trying to force miners not jump coins. It's much simpler to temporarily drop the retarget rate. And it will result in fewer debates by developers. Also the simpler it is the more likely it is to be adopted by other coins.

I agree that implementing this would be more complex than simply changing the difficulty retarget parameter. However, changing the difficulty retarget parameter is addressing only one of the symptoms of the problem (perhaps a pressing one - the very low hashrate we see right now), but not the root cause. That is why I would support lowering the difficulty retarget as a temporary solution, while a permanent solution to the harmful oscillation is worked on. I would not support it as a permanent solution in itself, because it does not actually solve the oscillation issue - we need to get out of the vicious cycle of miner-dumpers mining our coins when it is easy to mine, then dumping it on the exchanges. This dynamic is suppressing the value of altcoins because the only way any cryptocurrency gains value is by more and more people choosing to hold it. When people mine coins they believe in, they tend to hold it. When people mine coins for the purpose of "profit" they are inherently dumping it. By implementing a change where only loyal miners mine a coin, very few coins would end up in the exchanges on the sell side, and this would drive the prices up. I believe this is the dynamic by which Litecoins is maintaining high value relative to other altcoins because very few people mine Litecoins and systematically immediately dumping it. I believe we can benefit by the same dynamic, by completely solving the difficulty oscillation problem, i.e., by getting rid of incentives for temporary easy mining and dumping, from our beloved Coin.

The oscillation problem is a human problem not a code problem. You will have to keep babysitting these Adderall Jihad miners no matter what you do. You will end up with multiple oscillations where you had one before. And eventually all of them will only get 25 coins per block because the coin hopping pools will not bother to adjust to this.

Also the address in the client does not correspond to the pool mining address. There's going to be a shitstorm of synchronization issues and simpletons screaming they were scammed. I understand what you're trying to do but people are extremely short sighted especially during an already existing panic.

You. Can't. Fix. Human. With. Code.

You can adapt to it, though.

[g4lt]

Whatever is done, we need to wait until the original dev chimes in and reach a consensus.  A "hostile takeover fork" will kill this coin.

You mean like the one attempted on day #1 by the pools? Count the git trees...

[etblvu1]

The oscillation problem is a human problem not a code problem. You will have to keep babysitting these Adderall Jihad miners no matter what you do. You will end up with multiple oscillations where you had one before. And eventually all of them will only get 25 coins per block because the coin hopping pools will not bother to adjust to this.

Also the address in the client does not correspond to the pool mining address. There's going to be a shitstorm of synchronization issues and simpletons screaming they were scammed. I understand what you're trying to do but people are extremely short sighted especially during an already existing panic.

You. Can't. Fix. Human. With. Code.

You can adapt to it, though.

It really isn't a human problem. It is a code problem. Humans are responding to the faulty economic incentives created by the code. Right now, with the way the coins function, if you mine "profitable" coins of the split second and dump it on the exchanges, you do end up accumulating more coins, than if you loyally mine your favorite coin. If the code stops giving economic incentives to behave in this way, humans will stop behaving this way. We really should not be satisfied with coin software which embeds economic incentive for users to act in a way that is destructive to the value of the coin. We are so close to achieving a perfect solution to this problem, it would be a shame if some other coin were to be the first to implement it.

The pools would calculate the profitability of the coin based on the formula that the coin is worth 25 coins per block. Using standard profitability formulas, this would show the coin as being only half as profitable as it would be for loyal miners. Thus, multipool type services would choose not to mine this coin,because it appears unprofitable, or if they forget to change the value to 25 coins per block, they would have some explaining to do to their userbase who is looking to maximize profits, and they seem to keep getting a low number of Catcoins. And in any case it does not harm the network that much, because other multipool type sites would pop up that specifically avoid coins that implement Loyalty Points because it attracts users not to end up with a low number of coins. While the coin jumpers receive 25 coins, the loyal miners are getting the benefit of 50 coins during easy difficulty times. People do respond to incentives. People do not set up elaborate multipool type systems just to complicate their lives - they are actually trying to maximize profits for their mining rigs. Deny them the profits, and they will seek the profits elsewhere. But in short order, as coins implementing Loyalty Credits soar in value, while other coins lose value, all the coins will in short order implement this change or find they cannot survive. So jumping around by the minute hunting for profits, will become a thing of the past. It is not human nature to coin-hop - it is human nature to try to eek out maximum profits - and when the code stops incentivizing people to behave this way, they will just pick a coin to be loyal to, and set the rigs to mine there, and forget it. This is how miners should behave, and will behave, once the Loyalty Credit system gets implemented. And this will help the entire cryptocurrency movement. And as a bonus, for people who report coin income to the tax authorities, mining a coin and holding it long term can result in favorable long-term capital gains treatment, whereas engaging in mining-dumping-buying behavior presumably would not.

[raistlinthewiz]

http://cat.coinium.org/

.:: 30 Confirmations ::.

Quick Start

Start with registering on our pool & creating workers for your computers. You can use our automated config generator in our workers page and download pre-configured files for your mining software.

EU Stratum Server: stratum+tcp://eu.coinum.org:3336
US Stratum Server: stratum+tcp://us.coinum.org:3336

CGMiner Configuration

Here is sample CGMiner configurations with fail-over support. Given that the stratum server you use fails, your miner software will continue to work with out other stratum server.
Note: You have to change WORKER and PASS with your actual worker-name and worker-password values you get from workers page.

EU

Code:

./cgminer -o stratum+tcp://eu.coinium.org:3336 -u WORKER -p PASS --failover-only -o stratum+tcp://us.coinium.org:3336 -u WORKER -p PASS --scrypt -I 13

US

Code:

./cgminer -o stratum+tcp://us.coinium.org:3336 -u WORKER -p PASS --failover-only -o stratum+tcp://eu.coinium.org:3336 -u WORKER -p PASS --scrypt -I 13

• Our network - We already operate first class & high performance pools, check our other pools over http://www.coinium.org
• %0 fee - Our network have no fees! We just kindly ask you to donate if you like to.
• Stratum servers - We have stratum servers in Europe and  United States. Right now we have a total of 4 servers (2 stratum server, 1 webserver and 1 database server) and we are quickly upgrading & adding new servers to stack when we need to.
• Fail-over config support - In case that the stratum server you use fails, your miner will just continue to mine with our secondary stratum server.
• DDOS Protected - Our servers are DDOS protected 7x24!
• Automated backups - We get automated backups of our system.
• Automatic payments - You can set automatic payments if you like to.
• Fast confirmations - We are quickly processing your transactions once newly found blocks are confirmed.
• Automatic config generator - Check our workers page to automatically download a generated configuration file for your workers with fail-over support!
• Continous support - We are eager to help our users! You can ask for support in our forum topic.
• IRC support - We have operators in our IRC channel and you can chit-chat about mining too.
• Mobile friendly - We have mobile friendly user interface so you can check your miner's status from your mobile devices
• Contests - We are regularly creating contests and giving bonus coins to our miners!

[kuroman]

I saw someone trying to take a onesided decision and fork this coin and he even made a countdown.

Things doesn't work that way, if you want people support you need to ask for their opinion and not make one sided decision, WHO THE HELL ENTITLED YOU TO SPEAK FOR OTHERS

A hostile and rushed take over will just kill the coin (maybe this is the real goal of the person who wants to fork this coin ? )

Hardforking might be a solution, but it need to be discussed, and voted, once the decision, there must be a strategy built around that,objectives, time table, milestones, ect, because alot of people are involved in this coin, and 3 exchanges, we need to get their take on the matter if it possible for them to update their wallets and how much they might need, (it might take a week or two just for this) and give people time to update their wallets, but before testing if the software does not break anything.........

Again THINK BEFORE RUSHING THINGS  OR YOU ARE HEADED STRAIGHT TO THE WALL