|
|
|
haggis
|
 |
July 21, 2014, 11:46:16 PM |
|
2)If you made something memory intensive, you could check how much system memory exists then allocate a certain percentage of it. This way, botnets of really old machines wouldn't be as effective and the industry would have a hard time creating gpu / asics for the algorithm.
This is not possible. A malicious miner could modify the wallet sources to trick it. The blockchain is responsible for confirming blocks and has no possibility to check your system settings (luckily  ). Hence you can only regulate a miners efficiency by the mathematic mechanics a hashing algo uses. To reach 100% fairness we first need to define "fairness". I think all efforts to achieve that will be for nothing  |
|
|
|
|
DigiByte (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1051
Official DigiByte Account
|
|
July 22, 2014, 12:20:22 AM |
|
Thank you for sharing all the info! Just read the POSV white paper, it is very interesting. We still feel multi-algo, decentralized mining is the best long term solution at this point. We want to make absolutely sure this update sets us up for a long term successful mining future. |
|
|
|
|
Kayahoga
|
|
July 22, 2014, 02:54:00 AM |
|
Yes, I agree, multi-algo, decentralized mining is the best long term solution. It would be neat if one of the algos was a CPU only algo that could be added and a "1-click miner" option as HR suggested. There are some guys over in /r/vertcoin that are developing a 1-click miner for gpus for vertcoin. I think its a great idea to download a piece of software, have it hook into p2pool and start mining away, then in a few hours you start seeing coins in your wallet. That to me at least would be a gateway for the average everyday person to be like hey, I can set this 1 piece of software up in 30 seconds and automatically make currency. I mean, even if you started with casual gamers ( which more than likely have somewhat of a decent video card ) you could get them to be mining in the off hours. Especially since we will be using Groestl, the cards wont be sucking huge amounts of power or making a ton of heat. I honestly don't know why people haven't done this already. Can you imagine paying for some marketing that would get posted to just a tenth of the League of Legends players? In January they had almost 67 million people play that game. Or the pro streamers, if we could get just one of them to talk about it, that would reach tens of thousands of players. Especially when the streamers do guides, they often have sponsors. I would be more than happy to mine if I knew it was going promote the coin on a twitch stream. If you go to http://www.leagueoflegendsstreams.com/home/stream right now there are over 18000 people watching Phreak stream League of Legends. Even if you had one of the other players that aren't as popular but still have a good following ( say Trick2g ) , they usually average around 7-9 thousand viewers during peak hours. That's a lot of people that more than likely don't know about Digibyte or crypto currency in general. You create a script for them to read, give them all the information and after one of their guides or during a break have a commercial or something that would have a short plug for digibyte, how to start the 1 click miner and where they can spend their currency ( Digi-pay ? ) . Ok, well I got all excited about this and went off on a tangent but seriously, if there is more interest in this idea I am a C# programmer and would be able to help with this project. |
|
|
|
|
ricomanito
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
|
|
July 22, 2014, 10:40:51 AM |
|
sorry, but conf ist still working..? wallet won´t sync..  |
|
|
|
|
learningcrypto.com
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 5
Merit: 0
|
|
July 22, 2014, 01:00:54 PM
Last edit: July 22, 2014, 01:15:00 PM by learningcrypto.com |
|
Same, cant sync wallet. Been trying for 3 hours
I'm on a mac. Is this a shared problem? I have quite a few coins in limbo from MP which I would like access to.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
learningcrypto.com
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 5
Merit: 0
|
|
July 22, 2014, 05:16:02 PM |
|
Same, cant sync wallet. Been trying for 3 hours
I'm on a mac. Is this a shared problem? I have quite a few coins in limbo from MP which I would like access to.
Cheers
I found that it was because I was working from a coffee shop. Any idea how I can fix this for the future? as I do alot of work in coffee shops |
|
|
|
|
AlexMc
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 54
Merit: 0
|
|
July 22, 2014, 05:32:38 PM |
|
Same, cant sync wallet. Been trying for 3 hours
I'm on a mac. Is this a shared problem? I have quite a few coins in limbo from MP which I would like access to.
Cheers
I found that it was because I was working from a coffee shop. Any idea how I can fix this for the future? as I do alot of work in coffee shops I don't use a Mac and don't know a lot about how the firewall in Mac OS works, but I know my girlfriend had a similar connectivity issue on her Mac and it turned out to be a setting she had to change in Little Snitch. |
|
|
|
|
AlexMc
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 54
Merit: 0
|
|
July 22, 2014, 06:26:34 PM |
|
After catching up on the last few pages of this post I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that having an easy to use miner built into a future version of the DigiByte wallet would be a great idea. This would allow many more people who may be interested in cryptocurrencies to get involved quickly and easily, and with DigiByte!
I remember when I first started looking into mining last year that it all seemed very complicated, and this is coming from someone who works in IT. I ordered a USB hub, and some ASICminers. When they arrived, my first taste of mining was with Bitminter's downloadable Java client/miner. I remember how happy I was when I had shares being accepted after a quick download and almost no configuration being required.
I have since configured ATI and NVidia graphics cards using BFGminer, cgminer, and cudaMiner amongst others. However, to get the most out of the cards has required downloads of multiple drivers and applications from different authors, and countless hours reading forums and websites and messing around with stratum software, launch configs, settings for intensities, thread concurrency, and so on. Most of the time when I talk to people about crypto currency, and mining in particular, they lose interest in trying it themselves after a few minutes of hearing what it entails.
With the multi-algo update coming to DigiByte soon, I think this opens up a great opportunity to get more people involved, mining, and hosting the blockchain for DigiByte. Perhaps the "DigiMiner Wallet" could include an additional page during the setup wizard which asked if the user would like to use the power of their CPU or GPU to mine DigiByte while they weren't using them for anything else. This could either be done with the mining only being triggered when they were idle, or perhaps with an On/Off toggle on the wallets Overview tab. If selecting the option to mine you could also include a disclaimer explaining that mining would increase the operating temperature and power consumption of the computer in exchange for it's contribution to the security of the DigiByte network, and mining some DigiByteCoins. An advanced mining tab could then have options to allow you to select the algo, number of CPU threads to use, mining pool logon info, etc.
While I realize that adding all of this would be a huge amount of work, I think it would also greatly increase the Digibyte community, help decentralize and secure the network, and most importantly it would further differentiate DigiByte from the ever increasing mass of alternate cryptocurrencies out there.
Here's hoping to a successful launch of the new multi-algo update and the hard fork!
|
|
|
|
|
|
cad_cdn
|
|
July 22, 2014, 07:26:18 PM |
|
anyone lose all their coins from a wallet sync?
Status: 5340 confirmations
Date: 7/22/2014 15:21
To: DCjdizkQsj7mkcgvTA2WYKEkAm1huUs393
Debit: -17406.28802485 DGB
Transaction fee: -0.68 DGB
Net amount: -17406.96802485 DGB
Transaction ID: 7d9bd93be6ac3c500e241f1ffb3642935edf84c5a6ec6b4a491007559c31c269
forked?
|
|
|
|
|
|
appbox
|
|
July 22, 2014, 07:40:03 PM |
|
Same, cant sync wallet. Been trying for 3 hours
I'm on a mac. Is this a shared problem? I have quite a few coins in limbo from MP which I would like access to.
Cheers
I found that it was because I was working from a coffee shop. Any idea how I can fix this for the future? as I do alot of work in coffee shops Cant sync. +1 More patience ...  |
|
|
|
HR
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1011
Transparency & Integrity
|
|
July 22, 2014, 10:08:55 PM
Last edit: July 23, 2014, 12:31:02 PM by HR |
|
@ Digibyte, How nice to see an idea get some traction! Glad to see it being considered, analyzed, broken down, and dissected. Ideas are just for that: brainstorming starting points that more often than not end up leading to something very different than what they were to begin with. Real nice input so far to get things rolling. I'm delighted to see interest in the debate. One of the first things I start to do with any idea I have is doubt myself to begin with, and one of my major doubts with this has to do with whether or not the CPU miner is really feasible anymore (regardless of how much we try to make it so), or whether feasibility should even matter to begin with and we shouldn’t strive for CPU competitiveness regardless, and out of principle. I remember seeing oodles of CPU DOGE miners on reddit back in January who were thrilled to be mining double digit amounts of coins a day when a GPU was taking down thousands, and perhaps those same miners would be thrilled to be able to mine again. Another positive would be basic math: if things got really bad and nobody came to the party, at some point the difficulty would be so low that the rewards would look good even to someone like myself. This is a point for real debate in any event. I wonder if there are any stats out there at all to help us with this. Another debate centers around whether or not price is really being driven down by specialized miners using ASIC equipment. While I'm very much of the opinion that the answer is yes, many, including the following dev insider, argue the complete opposite: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=483515.msg7783111#msg7783111As you know, I’m not a coder, so I haven’t a clue about what is technically feasible and what isn’t, but the need to keep the little guy “in the game” has me constantly mulling over the issue (very much like you all). This is all very conceptual and the technical aspects certainly leave us with yet another debate. Taken in Digibyte 'steady as she goes' terms, this all translates into something that might be fairly long term (I might think, but who knows?) since there certainly are lots of questions to be answered. @ Kayahoga, Your ideas on how to reach the gaming community are so interesting that, now after reading your comments, I too ask myself “why people haven't done this already?” Quite often we miss the forest for the trees. That one click miner is already happening! I came across this yesterday: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=683317.0When I mentioned this on the MYR thread, a couple of contributors chimmed in with a couple of ideas (but it really didn't go much further than that, perhaps because there was no dev interest either, who knows?). The main issue that immediately jumped front and center was netbot vulnerability and we talked about the same wallet restrictions and limitations that would lead to the logical conclusion you described in your first point - everyone’s wallet would be the same, and everyone would have the same limitations, thus meaning that regardless of the hash you try to send through any given wallet, you’ll never get credit for more than the maximum limit set. @ haggis, 1) My thinking, and this is conceptual, mind you, is to not touch, or touch as little as possible, the coin itself, and the only thing that really needs to be done with the coin code would be to set the individual algorithm payouts, and nothing else. 2) The idea was mentioned on the MYR thread that the wallet probably wasn’t going to be able to effectively manage the maximum hashrate “throttling” threshold (which should probably just be referred to as a simple threshold since the world “throttling” suggests something more dynamic than a simple cap) since it could be hacked, like you mentioned, which perhaps would mean that maximum cap would also have to be included in the coin code. I'm thinking now that it would best be managed server side, with the official Qubit P2Pool’s servers doing simple handshake connections and putting a maximum hashrate submission limit into place above which any excess hashrate sent by any given wallet would be simply discarded, and rewards could never be more than that possible for the maximum hashrate share. 3) Everything else would be done with the wallet. Other secondary ideas mentioned were an IP address connection limit for individual wallets, and, this last one being another of mine, e-mail user registration on install. Add: I'm also in favor of a 1% fee on all coins mined (that would double at each of the next 2 reward halvings and then stay permanently capped at 4%) that would go directly to development and administration. |
|
|
|
Gunther
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 840
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 23, 2014, 07:28:40 AM |
|
Will we be adding Bittrex to that in the near future? that's where all the action is at the moment
Yea, heard about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
ycagel
|
|
July 23, 2014, 02:01:10 PM |
|
Really good thoughts. I think the commentary around a 1% for mining that goes back to development and administration is very critical. The lack of any type of funds going back to development has hurt a lot of coins from further growth and innovation. Not sure I understand all the technical aspects, but would be curious to see what the development team thinks. YC @ Digibyte, How nice to see an idea get some traction! Glad to see it being considered, analyzed, broken down, and dissected. Ideas are just for that: brainstorming starting points that more often than not end up leading to something very different than what they were to begin with. Real nice input so far to get things rolling. I'm delighted to see interest in the debate. One of the first things I start to do with any idea I have is doubt myself to begin with, and one of my major doubts with this has to do with whether or not the CPU miner is really feasible anymore (regardless of how much we try to make it so), or whether feasibility should even matter to begin with and we shouldn’t strive for CPU competitiveness regardless, and out of principle. I remember seeing oodles of CPU DOGE miners on reddit back in January who were thrilled to be mining double digit amounts of coins a day when a GPU was taking down thousands, and perhaps those same miners would be thrilled to be able to mine again. Another positive would be basic math: if things got really bad and nobody came to the party, at some point the difficulty would be so low that the rewards would look good even to someone like myself. This is a point for real debate in any event. I wonder if there are any stats out there at all to help us with this. Another debate centers around whether or not price is really being driven down by specialized miners using ASIC equipment. While I'm very much of the opinion that the answer is yes, many, including the following dev insider, argue the complete opposite: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=483515.msg7783111#msg7783111As you know, I’m not a coder, so I haven’t a clue about what is technically feasible and what isn’t, but the need to keep the little guy “in the game” has me constantly mulling over the issue (very much like you all). This is all very conceptual and the technical aspects certainly leave us with yet another debate. Taken in Digibyte 'steady as she goes' terms, this all translates into something that might be fairly long term (I might think, but who knows?) since there certainly are lots of questions to be answered. @ Kayahoga, Your ideas on how to reach the gaming community are so interesting that, now after reading your comments, I too ask myself “why people haven't done this already?” Quite often we miss the forest for the trees. That one click miner is already happening! I came across this yesterday: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=683317.0When I mentioned this on the MYR thread, a couple of contributors chimmed in with a couple of ideas (but it really didn't go much further than that, perhaps because there was no dev interest either, who knows?). The main issue that immediately jumped front and center was netbot vulnerability and we talked about the same wallet restrictions and limitations that would lead to the logical conclusion you described in your first point - everyone’s wallet would be the same, and everyone would have the same limitations, thus meaning that regardless of the hash you try to send through any given wallet, you’ll never get credit for more than the maximum limit set. @ haggis, 1) My thinking, and this is conceptual, mind you, is to not touch, or touch as little as possible, the coin itself, and the only thing that really needs to be done with the coin code would be to set the individual algorithm payouts, and nothing else. 2) The idea was mentioned on the MYR thread that the wallet probably wasn’t going to be able to effectively manage the maximum hashrate “throttling” threshold (which should probably just be referred to as a simple threshold since the world “throttling” suggests something more dynamic than a simple cap) since it could be hacked, like you mentioned, which perhaps would mean that maximum cap would also have to be included in the coin code. I'm thinking now that it would best be managed server side, with the official Qubit P2Pool’s servers doing simple handshake connections and putting a maximum hashrate submission limit into place above which any excess hashrate sent by any given wallet would be simply discarded, and rewards could never be more than that possible for the maximum hashrate share. 3) Everything else would be done with the wallet. Other secondary ideas mentioned were an IP address connection limit for individual wallets, and, this last one being another of mine, e-mail user registration on install. Add: I'm also in favor of a 1% fee on all coins mined (that would double at each of the next 2 reward halvings and then stay permanently capped at 4%) that would go directly to development and administration. |
|
|
|
|
|
AtlasONo
|
|
July 23, 2014, 04:02:45 PM |
|
I Heartily Endorse This Event Or Product @bittrex
|
|
|
|
|
Rakitich
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
July 23, 2014, 04:14:07 PM |
|
Im still holding some DGB. Best of luck
|
|
|
|
|
|
EtherCoin
|
|
July 23, 2014, 04:34:44 PM |
|
I have a little bag of DGBs since Marylin was singing "Happy b'day Mr. President" all high on amphs.
Hoping this rocket up )
Eth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cad_cdn
|
|
July 23, 2014, 05:11:41 PM |
|
I could\would have... but no one from the dev team has bothered to respond to why my coins went missing after a simple blockchain sync. so, no positive support from me. |
|
|
|
|
|
dimke_yu
|
|
July 23, 2014, 05:12:58 PM |
|
DGB on bittrex would be great...
|
|
|
|
|
