Vertcoin - First Scrypt N | First Stealth Address - Privacy without mixer

[Rainman5419]

I'm having real trouble getting Cudaminer to work with my pool. I'm getting straight "boooo"s, but the pool runs very smoothly for it's Doge operations, so I wouldn't assume that it's a pool issue. Probably my mistake, so I'd appreciate help with the config.

Downloaded the CudaMiner client from the VertCoin site.

Code:

cudaminer.exe -o stratum+tcp://stratum.simplevert.com:3343 -u Vew82HiUdaa9v81ZidBKkNX1USs2PwALTv.WorkerName -p password -d 0 -i 1 -l auto -C 1

After searching the first 30 pages of the thread I've got nothing. Any ideas?

[1715443789]

1715443789

[1715443789]

1715443789

[1715443789]

1715443789

[pym002]

any future goals/plans/aims for this coin ? Other N-factor coins are catching up...

Firstly, I'm unaware of any N-factor coins that bring anything new to the table, the ones I am aware of are just premined VTC clones?

Secondly, there's constant development and growth. I don't really perceive anyone "catching up" - I've never seen anything get the scale and breadth of growth and adoption that VTC has, and the momentum just keeps going - I'm certainly continuing to hold and I know a lot of people who are doing the same.

Lastly I'd say, having first-hand day-to-day contact with all the people who put in hundreds of hours of unpaid work on Vertcoin, that rather than asking what plans there are, you could more usefully ask what _you_ can do to help further develop the VTC infrastructure, spread the word and grow adoption even faster. No contribution is too small, everyone has something they can do well and some skill or network of contacts they can use to help build the future of VTC.

good news

[8-bit]

I'm following this guide: https://vertcoin.org/gpu-miner-build-howto.html

I didn't see any breaks in the files during install so I believe I can skip this step:

{cd /etc/OpenCL/vendors/

in here are two files amdocl32.icd and amdocl64.icd, you will find their contents (they are just text files) to be "libamdocl32.so" and "libamdocl64.so" respectively. Edit them to include their full paths. }

After the ./buildit.sh command I get this error:

litecoin@litecoin-pc4:~/Downloads/vertminer-gpu$ ./buildit.sh ./buildit.sh: 2: ./buildit.sh: ./configure: not found make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found. Stop. ./buildit.sh: 5: [: -a: unexpected operator stripping vertminer strip: 'vertminer': No such file

Any Ideas? Vertcoin forums r down

[leckey]

I've put, what I consider to be, a more user-friendly block explorer online:

http://vertexplorer.com

[OPTiK]

I've put, what I consider to be, a more user-friendly block explorer online:

http://vertexplorer.com

Whatever text is at the top is being blocked by the banner when using firefox.

EDIT: Fixed itself when I made my browser width larger.

[BorisTheSpider]

I've put, what I consider to be, a more user-friendly block explorer online:

http://vertexplorer.com

Very nice. Thankyou.

[Radar]

Help contribute and I will release vertcoincasino.com https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=537326.msg5917721#msg5917721

[techlover]

any future goals/plans/aims for this coin ? Other N-factor coins are catching up...

All other N-factors are direct copy and paste of Vertcoin, it is difficult for them to catch up Vertcoin.

[rapsac]

Debunking the 'Litecoin Development Team’s official position on Litecoin’s proof of work' from Warren (Litecoin devteam, https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=18166.0)

I am very sceptical of the reasons mentioned in above thread, and i have some remarks and questions. Maybe we can get a consensus on a reply to this post? If the outcome is positive for VTC (hey, you never know) then maybe we could get something on vertcoin's web site? I have a feeling most people still do not see why asics lead to centralisation and why that is bad..

Fallacy: Slower PoW is Safe from ASIC’s?
The escalating “N” proposals all suffer from the issue where increasingly slow PoW by design makes it much slower to verify, thereby worsening block propagation latency across the multi-hop P2P network.  Block propagation latency is already a growing problem on the Bitcoin network where larger blocks take longer to traverse the network.  With an escalating memory PoW the smallest of blocks would suffer from increased propagation delay.  At best this means increased annoyance from more frequent accidental orphans.  At worst, higher propagation latency reduces the cost of perverse mining behaviors like double-spending attacks.

First point, the block propagation. The verify time for scrypt-n is currently 2x slower than scrypt's. And with a scaling N the time will increase further.
Right then, scrypt is 1000x? slower compared to SHA256 from bitcoin and they say bitcoin already has a problem with that? And litecoin doesn't?? And a typical node does ~5000 scrypt-n hashes/s resulting in 0.2 MILLIsecond propagation delay? And a typical block propagation time from network latency alone is 3000MILLIseconds as blocks have to be sent around the world?
Either i don't understand it at all or this is fud on several levels:
- Verify time is only a fraction of network propagation delay (which can't be solved as information exchange is hampered by the speed of light)
- Current verify time is 1000x slower with scrypt compared to bitcoin yet staying with scrypt is the way to go
Is it not possible to change the current verification method from cpu based to gpu based? That would solve that 'problem' at once..



Furthermore it is doubtful that escalating N would be truly ASIC proof.  Since the deployment schedule of future N is known, near-term ASIC’s could cut costs as they need not implement distant future N in hardware because early generation custom hardware will be unable to compete on power cost with later generation custom hardware.  We already see this today with first generation Avalon and ASICMINER miners, currently so power cost uncompetitive that they are being given away at the cost of disposal.

In short: asic producers can release a new asic version for every N as previous generation asic miners will be too power hungry anyway.
I agree. Scrypt-n is however much more expensive to implement in an asic! And changing to scrypt-n would remove the threat of the currently announced  asic miners. And what is even more important: it would scare asic developers from trying again for scrypt-n. You only need to show your determination not to allow asics for your coin!

..
In these examples, they made hashes more complex and increased the cost of ASIC development, but if your coin becomes popular enough then ASIC’s become economically feasible.
..
Also true. When there is money to be made someone will try to make it. But what if there is no money to be made (see previous point)?

Arbitrary Hardforks Hardly Inspires Confidence
Arbitrary hardforks are a nono, duh.
Hardly Inspires Confidence? I guess not when arbitrary hardforked! What when the coin is hardforked to protect it? Like when asics are about to be released which will destroy the coin's reason to exist?

Bitcoin and Litecoin are exceedingly careful in avoiding unnecessary rule changes that completely breaks sync compatibility with old clients.  Prior to the official release of Litecoin 0.8.x we carefully reviewed the code multiple times and even hired an external expert to quadruple check our work to reduce the likelihood of accidents.

Checking code is good. And for the rest see point below.

Bitcoin has many users still using very old versions.  The Litecoin network is less afraid of using alerts and other discouragement to coax users onto newer versions, yet there still persist many old clients that are at risk of accidental hardfork from the BIP50 BDB lock limit issue.  Old clients are highly discouraged but they remain (somewhat) compatible because both networks have never forced any completely incompatible block-level protocol change upon users.
Being sturdy, not implementing better ways to do things (KGW, PoW?) and thereby not ensuring your coin's future is better yes?

Contrast this to various amateur clones of Bitcoin.  They are characterized by a rush to market with code that was not well designed or tested, often containing errors that require mandatory hardforks to correct.  Sometimes hastily written “fixes” have introduced additional problems often resulting in further mandatory upgrades.  Often on their forums, weeks after a hardfork you see confused users who are on an old chain.
Releasing broken code is alway bad, so whoever does that: shame! Who did that btw?, except the junk coins?


Stability of the protocol matters a great deal to the perceived viability of a network as a long-lasting medium of commerce.  Litecoin has been strong because of doing things in the Bitcoin way, just with different hardware protecting its network.  If Litecoin were to fundamentally change the rules for reasons unrelated to technical correctness and in a way that requires everyone to suddenly change their software it would make people question the stability of the network and the professionalism of its developers.
Stability IS very important. Any coin that somehow stops 'working' will loose much if not all faith. Here we get the good code/bad code again.
btw they admit they are as of now just another bitcoin clone.

Centralized Mining problematic long before ASIC
In the end, a greater threat is centralized pooled mining.  This problem is inherent to Bitcoin-like networks and existed long before the coming of ASIC’s.  The Litecoin Dev Team invested resources and funds to help with P2Pool for the benefit of both Bitcoin and Litecoin, and we acknowledge the Eligius approach with the GBT protocol is another important approach where miners can completely stop a pool from withholding blocks.  A Litecoin develoer has even brokered an agreement in principle with a major institutional miner to agree to independent 3rd party monitoring to create new tools to alert vendors of block withholding on the Bitcoin network, if other major pools and institutional miners agree to identical monitoring.  If successful for Bitcoin, this model may be needed on the Litecoin network.  There is a great deal more work needed to be done on this front to reduce risks of mining centralization on both the Bitcoin and Litecoin network.
This is inherent for any coin and has nothing to do with the PoW

Conclusion
What makes Litecoin strong is its closeness to the good parts of Bitcoin with a few small but meaningful improvements like faster confirmations and discouragement of spam.  Its developers are heavily involved in improving both Bitcoin and Litecoin as part of their professional careers.  Good luck to the long-term longevity of forks.

uhm.. really? You are now a btc ripoff in every way BUT you have a shorter block time? Thats it? Kinda like EXE/VTC?
And it was
What makes Litecoin strong is it PoW preventing asics and its closeness to the good parts of Bitcoin with a few small but meaningful improvements like faster confirmations and discouragement of spam.  Its developers are heavily involved in improving both Bitcoin and Litecoin as part of their professional careers.
That last line is meant to be sarcastic? Good luck to the long-term longevity of forks. What forks? You mean to say you will one day actually incorporate new functionality and thus hardfork someday?

This was the 2nd post in the thread to provide (technical?) reasons not to change the PoW. Needless to say they give no technical reason as there isn't any.
The first post in the thread has a more touchy/feely aproach that is harder to comment on. I'm going to give it a shot though

But first i want to say once more; what makes a coin your coin is what you design into it (technical), how you treat your miners (block rewards, tx fees) and the idea behind it (asic proof/anonimity/joke/premine scam..) and the resulting community that 'likes' your coin.
The PoW is largely irrelevant to all this as a means to a goal. Changing the PoW is no big deal for the users/community as long as miners can still mine it after the change.
By not changing the PoW litecoin just fired all its miners!

[AlexGR]

In short: asic producers can release a new asic version for every N as previous generation asic miners will be too power hungry anyway.
I agree. Scrypt-n is however much more expensive to implement is an asic! And changing to scrypt-n would remove the threat of the currently announced  asic miners. And what is even more important: it would scare asic developers from trying again for scrypt-n. You only need to show your determination not to allow asics for your coin!

I fear that Scrypt's way to implement RAM, and now Scrypt-N's to implement way more RAM, will have a boomerang effect in trying to prevent centralization, creating more centralization as an unintended mid-term consequence.

The Litecoin devs are right in one thing: If a coin is mine-able in a GPU, it's game over. ASICs are just a matter of time from that point onwards. The thought however of making the ASICs expensive through much RAM, is something that will escalate ASIC prices and reduce the affordability of ASIC miners for the masses.

If RAM was not a part of the equation, a greater degree of decentralization could occur once a coin moves from the GPU to the ASIC cycle of mining, through affordable ASICs that normal people can actually buy without paying a fortune. So the fact that ASICs will have to be very costly in order to have much RAM, is not really good down the road.

[LPCobris]

In short: asic producers can release a new asic version for every N as previous generation asic miners will be too power hungry anyway.
I agree. Scrypt-n is however much more expensive to implement is an asic! And changing to scrypt-n would remove the threat of the currently announced  asic miners. And what is even more important: it would scare asic developers from trying again for scrypt-n. You only need to show your determination not to allow asics for your coin!

I fear that Scrypt's way to implement RAM, and now Scrypt-N's to implement way more RAM, will have a boomerang effect in trying to prevent centralization, creating more centralization as an unintended mid-term consequence.

The Litecoin devs are right in one thing: If a coin is mine-able in a GPU, it's game over. ASICs are just a matter of time from that point onwards. The thought however of making the ASICs expensive through much RAM, is something that will escalate ASIC prices and reduce the affordability of ASIC miners for the masses.

If RAM was not a part of the equation, a greater degree of decentralization could occur once a coin moves from the GPU to the ASIC cycle of mining, through affordable ASICs that normal people can actually buy without paying a fortune. So the fact that ASICs will have to be very costly in order to have much RAM, is not really good down the road.

So whats the solution?
If any...

LPC

[JohnnyDaMitch]

True, there is some chance that a company will try to make an ASIC that can do N-Scrypt for any N up to some number, say, M. Put aside the arguments about how difficult that is, it's at least technically possible. They will still be hesitant to do it for fear that there's a hard fork taking vertcoin to M+1.

Contrast that with X11, where you have a similar argument that it's very difficult to implement it in an ASIC. But once it's done, game over. You have to move to something else, entirely.

[bengtåke]

I'm having real trouble getting Cudaminer to work with my pool. I'm getting straight "boooo"s, but the pool runs very smoothly for it's Doge operations, so I wouldn't assume that it's a pool issue. Probably my mistake, so I'd appreciate help with the config.

Downloaded the CudaMiner client from the VertCoin site.

Code:

cudaminer.exe -o stratum+tcp://stratum.simplevert.com:3343 -u Vew82HiUdaa9v81ZidBKkNX1USs2PwALTv.WorkerName -p password -d 0 -i 1 -l auto -C 1

After searching the first 30 pages of the thread I've got nothing. Any ideas?

add -a scrypt:2048

[AlterMiner]

I sold 350+ LTC and bought 3700+ VTC. Buy-buy, LTC. I will go to future with VTC.

[Rainman5419]

I'm having real trouble getting Cudaminer to work with my pool. I'm getting straight "boooo"s, but the pool runs very smoothly for it's Doge operations, so I wouldn't assume that it's a pool issue. Probably my mistake, so I'd appreciate help with the config.

Downloaded the CudaMiner client from the VertCoin site.

Code:

cudaminer.exe -o stratum+tcp://stratum.simplevert.com:3343 -u Vew82HiUdaa9v81ZidBKkNX1USs2PwALTv.WorkerName -p password -d 0 -i 1 -l auto -C 1

After searching the first 30 pages of the thread I've got nothing. Any ideas?

add -a scrypt:2048

I appreciate the help. I had pasted the wrong config, but adding that to a second config I was playing with got me working. This version of CudaMiner, or maybe it's Vertcoin itself doesn't seem to work for me with a pre-set launch config, only auto. Any tips?

[koby]

How much Can I make with this coin,speculation about the furure value of the coin, per coin dollar?

[AlexGR]

In short: asic producers can release a new asic version for every N as previous generation asic miners will be too power hungry anyway.
I agree. Scrypt-n is however much more expensive to implement is an asic! And changing to scrypt-n would remove the threat of the currently announced  asic miners. And what is even more important: it would scare asic developers from trying again for scrypt-n. You only need to show your determination not to allow asics for your coin!

I fear that Scrypt's way to implement RAM, and now Scrypt-N's to implement way more RAM, will have a boomerang effect in trying to prevent centralization, creating more centralization as an unintended mid-term consequence.

The Litecoin devs are right in one thing: If a coin is mine-able in a GPU, it's game over. ASICs are just a matter of time from that point onwards. The thought however of making the ASICs expensive through much RAM, is something that will escalate ASIC prices and reduce the affordability of ASIC miners for the masses.

If RAM was not a part of the equation, a greater degree of decentralization could occur once a coin moves from the GPU to the ASIC cycle of mining, through affordable ASICs that normal people can actually buy without paying a fortune. So the fact that ASICs will have to be very costly in order to have much RAM, is not really good down the road.

So whats the solution?
If any...

LPC

I think the solution, in the long run, is the replacement of proof-of-work, with an artificial intelligence entity that will run the currency network. It will be a 100% reliable and trusted "third party" which is neutral and objective in its handling of transactions, solving both the proof of work and proof of stake inadequacies that are a result of dumb if-then-else algorithms. It will also solve issues related to network resilience, spam attacks, etc.

As for now: Darkcoin implements a diminishing reward formula (moore's law) that reduces the block reward as the hashrate goes up. This allowed CPU miners to make more DRKs per block than GPU miners and ASIC miners will get the least - when they launch. With CPU mining we were getting something like 75-100 coins per block if I remember correctly, with GPU we are now in a range between 5-25, but with the existing hashrate it fluctuates in the 15-20 range. If the diff goes up a lot, it will bottom out at 5 DRKs per block. Thus early miners with CPU/GPUs get a larger share of the monetary base for the mid-term.

Yet, it may solve one problem and create another (less incentive for securing the network), but all this is highly dependent on the price of each coin. If the price is high, the incentive is there. We'll have to see how this one works out.

True, there is some chance that a company will try to make an ASIC that can do N-Scrypt for any N up to some number, say, M. Put aside the arguments about how difficult that is, it's at least technically possible. They will still be hesitant to do it for fear that there's a hard fork taking vertcoin to M+1.

Contrast that with X11, where you have a similar argument that it's very difficult to implement it in an ASIC. But once it's done, game over. You have to move to something else, entirely.

X11 hashes are better for ASICs but a design for the ASIC must be built first. Scrypt design is already complete and rolled, so the circuits must have a small tweak to account for the -N and it should be closer to launch than X11 - if ASIC designers want to implement it. ASIC designers don't need to do all the work from scratch with scrypt-N. Most of the job is done already. Yet, X11 might have a bigger incentive if far more coins adopt it instead of scrypt-n, and if it also allows faster acceleration compared to GPUs (compared to the acceleration factor of scrypt-n vs gpus).

I think miners in particular are very "doomy" regarding the ASIC factor. When we say it's over, what we really mean is that "it's over for us, because we can't make money with our GPUs". The coins continue their life as normal, even with ASICs, as Bitcoin and other SHA-256 coins demonstrated. Litecoin and Dogecoin continue as usual. Actually Dogecoin (!!!) is probably in the best position of all, given that by the time of mass ASIC adoption, it will have already distributed the bulk of its monetary base to GPU miners.

[rapsac]

I fear that Scrypt's way to implement RAM, and now Scrypt-N's to implement way more RAM, will have a boomerang effect in trying to prevent centralization, creating more centralization as an unintended mid-term consequence.

You mean to say that asics for scrypt-n will be more expensive so less people can afford one??

The Litecoin devs are right in one thing: If a coin is mine-able in a GPU, it's game over. ASICs are just a matter of time from that point onwards. The thought however of making the ASICs expensive through much RAM, is something that will escalate ASIC prices and reduce the affordability of ASIC miners for the masses.

If a coin is gpu-minable then everything is ok. Where it goes wrong is when it gets asic-minable.

If RAM was not a part of the equation, a greater degree of decentralization could occur once a coin moves from the GPU to the ASIC cycle of mining, through affordable ASICs that normal people can actually buy without paying a fortune. So the fact that ASICs will have to be very costly in order to have much RAM, is not really good down the road.

You are missing the point. The point is asics should never be given a chance. What happens when asics arrive is irrelevant. Furthermore: a coin is not dead when asics arrive, the coin's PoW is dead when asics arrive.

The biggest problem with asics is their scalability. Compared to gpu's they need no external hardware worth mentioning. Affordable asics are as worse as very expensive asics because affordable asics will allow mining factories to be setup by anyone willing to do so. Expensive asics will leave the option open for the asic producer to setup a giant mining factory (as producing asics gets very cheap when the numbers go up). And the control over the coin is transferred from the mining community to the asic producer(s) in the long run.

[dotnetmin]

I fear that Scrypt's way to implement RAM, and now Scrypt-N's to implement way more RAM, will have a boomerang effect in trying to prevent centralization, creating more centralization as an unintended mid-term consequence.

You mean to say that asics for scrypt-n will be more expensive so less people can afford one??

The Litecoin devs are right in one thing: If a coin is mine-able in a GPU, it's game over. ASICs are just a matter of time from that point onwards. The thought however of making the ASICs expensive through much RAM, is something that will escalate ASIC prices and reduce the affordability of ASIC miners for the masses.

If a coin is gpu-minable then everything is ok. Where it goes wrong is when it gets asic-minable.

If RAM was not a part of the equation, a greater degree of decentralization could occur once a coin moves from the GPU to the ASIC cycle of mining, through affordable ASICs that normal people can actually buy without paying a fortune. So the fact that ASICs will have to be very costly in order to have much RAM, is not really good down the road.

You are missing the point. The point is asics should never be given a chance. What happens when asics arrive is irrelevant. Furthermore: a coin is not dead when asics arrive, the coin's PoW is dead when asics arrive.

The biggest problem with asics is their scalability. Compared to gpu's they need no external hardware worth mentioning. Affordable asics are as worse as very expensive asics because affordable asics will allow mining factories to be setup by anyone willing to do so. Expensive asics will leave the option open for the asic producer to setup a giant mining factory (as producing asics gets very cheap when the numbers go up). And the control over the coin is transferred from the mining community to the asic producer(s) in the long run.

Could you please translate PoW to me, thanks

[rapsac]

I think the solution, in the long run, is the replacement of proof-of-work, with an artificial intelligence entity that will run the currency network. It will be a 100% reliable and trusted "third party" which is neutral and objective in its handling of transactions, solving both the proof of work and proof of stake inadequacies that are a result of dumb if-then-else algorithms. It will also solve issues related to network resilience, spam attacks, etc.

Ground control to major Tom..

As for now: Darkcoin implements a diminishing reward formula (moore's law) that reduces the block reward as the hashrate goes up. This allowed CPU miners to make more DRKs per block than GPU miners and ASIC miners will get the least - when they launch. With CPU mining we were getting something like 75-100 coins per block if I remember correctly, with GPU we are now in a range between 5-25, but with the existing hashrate it fluctuates in the 15-20 range. If the diff goes up a lot, it will bottom out at 5 DRKs per block. Thus early miners with CPU/GPUs get a larger share of the monetary base for the mid-term.

Yet, it may solve one problem and create another (less incentive for securing the network), but all this is highly dependent on the price of each coin. If the price is high, the incentive is there. We'll have to see how this one works out.

Fighting asics by means of a reward system equal to a giant premine is no good.

True, there is some chance that a company will try to make an ASIC that can do N-Scrypt for any N up to some number, say, M. Put aside the arguments about how difficult that is, it's at least technically possible. They will still be hesitant to do it for fear that there's a hard fork taking vertcoin to M+1.

Contrast that with X11, where you have a similar argument that it's very difficult to implement it in an ASIC. But once it's done, game over. You have to move to something else, entirely.

ANY cpu/gpu minable PoW can be made in hardware (asic). But scrypt-n is currently too expensive to make for the asic producers. The ram takes up so much silicon that the asics will be too expensive to produce.

X11 hashes are better for ASICs but a design for the ASIC must be built first. Scrypt design is already complete and rolled, so the circuits must have a small tweak to account for the -N and it should be closer to launch than X11 - if ASIC designers want to implement it. ASIC designers don't need to do all the work from scratch with scrypt-N. Most of the job is done already. Yet, X11 might have a bigger incentive if far more coins adopt it instead of scrypt-n, and if it also allows faster acceleration compared to GPUs (compared to the acceleration factor of scrypt-n vs gpus).

See point above. Designing an asic is not the problem! Producing one at low cost is.

I think miners in particular are very "doomy" regarding the ASIC factor. When we say it's over, what we really mean is that "it's over for us, because we can't make money with our GPUs". The coins continue their life as normal, even with ASICs, as Bitcoin and other SHA-256 coins demonstrated. Litecoin and Dogecoin continue as usual. Actually Dogecoin (!!!) is probably in the best position of all, given that by the time of mass ASIC adoption, it will have already distributed the bulk of its monetary base to GPU miners.

When we (the miners) say its over what we mean is DECENTRALISATION IS LOST. You mentioned ltc and btc continu as normal now asics have arrived. Yes, they continu until attacked. And an attack will come as that attack gets easier when centralisation increases over time. Also asic producers will steadily increase prices at every opportunity making them decide what transaction costs to charge for every transfer.

-------

There are 3 major questions as of yet unanswered

- Why are asics bad? has not been answered clearly enough and/or often enough. People still seem to accept them as inevitable/normal/a chance to get in early/.. too often, not realising what asics will do to the coin in the long run.
- How to hardfork a coin without causing problems?
- Will vertcoin be the first asic resistant coin to keep up its asic resistant claim?

Vertcoin needs a plan of attack against asics, and it has to be more flexible than easily overcome hurdles like the adaptive-N method. Any built-in feature of a coin can ultimately be put in silicon. What will vertcoin do when the need to make a decision a la LTC arises?
Coins are released with a set of features and then they are never changed again ever. You could as well use fiat as that is as innovative as current carved out of steel cryptos. Coins need to react to developments while staying true to their claims and users. Doing so will need new functionality to make hardforks easier.