[ANN][HUC] Huntercoin - Worlds First Decentralized Game/World on the Blockchain

[MithrilMan]

at the moment bot cause huntercoin to be unfair because bot can easily evade and/or keep collecting while the human is disconnected, with a client that can manage bots (for all, not just for who has programming knowledge) then it will be fair enough, that's why i want to implement a bot interface into my client (not easy but that's my mission)

[radi324]

at the moment bot cause huntercoin to be unfair because bot can easily evade and/or keep collecting while the human is disconnected, with a client that can manage bots (for all, not just for who has programming knowledge) then it will be fair enough, that's why i want to implement a bot interface into my client (not easy but that's my mission)

I understand BGB's possible reluctance in helping out on this issue, but if he has a big stash of HUC (and I believe he has), perhaps he would be much better off helping in every way he can to implement such a bot interface and make bots accessible to the normal player, which would add a degree of strategy to the game as most people would be on an equal footing, yet never detracting the advantage which active groups of human player would have over bots. It's pretty elementary - the benefit BGB would derive from joining the HUC development team, if his help is needed, would be far greater than the benefit he is currently deriving with his bots when the market-cap is around $60,000.

Note - I use the term "HUC development team" generically and not with reference to any official dev team.

[BGB_HUC]

I understand BGB's possible reluctance in helping out on this issue, but if he has a big stash of HUC (and I believe he has), perhaps he would be much better off helping in every way he can to implement such a bot interface and make bots accessible to the normal player, which would add a degree of strategy to the game as most people would be on an equal footing, yet never detracting the advantage which active groups of human player would have over bots. It's pretty elementary - the benefit BGB would derive from joining the HUC development team, if his help is needed, would be far greater than the benefit he is currently deriving with his bots when the market-cap is around $60,000.

Note - I use the term "HUC development team" generically and not with reference to any official dev team.

I did make an attempt to release a QT Client that uses very similar bot methods to what I am using. It is posted on the huntercoin forum site. I am running some of these AFKs right now and they are turning in a pretty good profit since the reduction of aggressive players on the map.

I also just posted in the other forum that my BGB bots are in wind down mode with the recent drop in players after all the red players removed themselves from the game. I don't want to "own" the game because that is bad for everyone. One thing to keep in mind when looking at "BGB" on the board is there are many imposters using the name. For example there is/was a huge amount of "BGBT" bots in the green cresent coin area. Finally somebody made their player names that match the same naming scheme as I have been using "BGB<series><3 digit number><color>" (ie green player BGBT000G) which caused my bots to completely ignore them assuming they were "friendly" to them. Obviously when I coded it in the bots I recognized it as a risk but it was the simple thing to do at that time. It has taken months for somebody to figure that out. Of course plan B was already in place where I use a database to keep track of the players names. So I turned that on and the imposters began to be attacked. I am just trying to point out there are a bunch of "BGB" players on the board that are NOT mine.

[radi324]

I understand BGB's possible reluctance in helping out on this issue, but if he has a big stash of HUC (and I believe he has), perhaps he would be much better off helping in every way he can to implement such a bot interface and make bots accessible to the normal player, which would add a degree of strategy to the game as most people would be on an equal footing, yet never detracting the advantage which active groups of human player would have over bots. It's pretty elementary - the benefit BGB would derive from joining the HUC development team, if his help is needed, would be far greater than the benefit he is currently deriving with his bots when the market-cap is around $60,000.

Note - I use the term "HUC development team" generically and not with reference to any official dev team.

I did make an attempt to release a QT Client that uses very similar bot methods to what I am using. It is posted on the huntercoin forum site. I am running some of these AFKs right now and they are turning in a pretty good profit since the reduction of aggressive players on the map.

I also just posted in the other forum that my BGB bots are in wind down mode with the recent drop in players after all the red players removed themselves from the game. I don't want to "own" the game because that is bad for everyone. One thing to keep in mind when looking at "BGB" on the board is there are many imposters using the name. For example there is/was a huge amount of "BGBT" bots in the green cresent coin area. Finally somebody made their player names that match the same naming scheme as I have been using "BGB<series><3 digit number><color>" (ie green player BGBT000G) which caused my bots to completely ignore them assuming they were "friendly" to them. Obviously when I coded it in the bots I recognized it as a risk but it was the simple thing to do at that time. It has taken months for somebody to figure that out. Of course plan B was already in place where I use a database to keep track of the players names. So I turned that on and the imposters began to be attacked. I am just trying to point out there are a bunch of "BGB" players on the board that are NOT mine.

Sorry, didn't know about the client! The second part is really interesting. I took a look at the map on occasions and I did notice a large amount of players with "BGB" in them - that's a really neat trick. It does show how players and programmers alike quickly adapt to any changes in the game

[radi324]

Once I read a post mentioning that the HUC client acts as a perfect coin-mixing service due to dropped coins, etc. This however necessitates having to actually play the game to benefit from the service. What if all it required was for a person to "deposit" whatever amount of HUC he/she wanted in the game, and then just as easily withdraw them back? Upon a deposit, the coins get mixed with the main pool of coins on the map, including coins belonging to the players actually playing, and if the user wants to take those HUC back, all he/she needs to do is withdraw them back and you will have a fresh amount of HUC.

This might need a slight overhaul of the payment system, whereby a player would need to "charge" his playing time rather than deposit money on a one-off basis for a permanent player. If a player deposits HUC and clicks on "start playing", the timer starts running and the payment made becomes part of the main pool. If there is any playing time left over, the player can decide to stop playing and withdraw whatever HUC he/she has left plus any amount won. Likewise, for those who simply want to use the coin-mixing service, all they would need to do is deposit the money without clicking on start, and withdraw the same money after the mix has occurred. I think HUC is the only coin which can afford having a central mixing service due to its very nature as a game. The only centralization occurring here is the temporary "holding" of the coins of people playing

[domob]

Once I read a post mentioning that the HUC client acts as a perfect coin-mixing service due to dropped coins, etc. This however necessitates having to actually play the game to benefit from the service. What if all it required was for a person to "deposit" whatever amount of HUC he/she wanted in the game, and then just as easily withdraw them back? Upon a deposit, the coins get mixed with the main pool of coins on the map, including coins belonging to the players actually playing, and if the user wants to take those HUC back, all he/she needs to do is withdraw them back and you will have a fresh amount of HUC.

This might need a slight overhaul of the payment system, whereby a player would need to "charge" his playing time rather than deposit money on a one-off basis for a permanent player. If a player deposits HUC and clicks on "start playing", the timer starts running and the payment made becomes part of the main pool. If there is any playing time left over, the player can decide to stop playing and withdraw whatever HUC he/she has left plus any amount won. Likewise, for those who simply want to use the coin-mixing service, all they would need to do is deposit the money without clicking on start, and withdraw the same money after the mix has occurred. I think HUC is the only coin which can afford having a central mixing service due to its very nature as a game. The only centralization occurring here is the temporary "holding" of the coins of people playing

While a nice idea, I don't see how this would be possible for now.  The problem is that there must be some kind of verifiable link between deposit and withdraw (to make sure that noone can withdraw more than they deposited), and this link can be used to undo the mix.  I actually think that even the game in its current state, if you play it, is not too great as a coin mixer - mixing would mean to create a lot of generals, kill them off somehow, and collect their coins with different players (ideally on a different wallet).  But presumably either this procedure is very tedious and bears a lot of risk that other players collect the coins instead, or it must be done in a very obvious way so that the mix isn't really of any use.

However, if there are good ideas how to facilitate coin mixing inside of Huntercoin's game, I'm definitely interested in that!

[MithrilMan]

Once I read a post mentioning that the HUC client acts as a perfect coin-mixing service due to dropped coins, etc. This however necessitates having to actually play the game to benefit from the service. What if all it required was for a person to "deposit" whatever amount of HUC he/she wanted in the game, and then just as easily withdraw them back? Upon a deposit, the coins get mixed with the main pool of coins on the map, including coins belonging to the players actually playing, and if the user wants to take those HUC back, all he/she needs to do is withdraw them back and you will have a fresh amount of HUC.

This might need a slight overhaul of the payment system, whereby a player would need to "charge" his playing time rather than deposit money on a one-off basis for a permanent player. If a player deposits HUC and clicks on "start playing", the timer starts running and the payment made becomes part of the main pool. If there is any playing time left over, the player can decide to stop playing and withdraw whatever HUC he/she has left plus any amount won. Likewise, for those who simply want to use the coin-mixing service, all they would need to do is deposit the money without clicking on start, and withdraw the same money after the mix has occurred. I think HUC is the only coin which can afford having a central mixing service due to its very nature as a game. The only centralization occurring here is the temporary "holding" of the coins of people playing

While a nice idea, I don't see how this would be possible for now.  The problem is that there must be some kind of verifiable link between deposit and withdraw (to make sure that noone can withdraw more than they deposited), and this link can be used to undo the mix.  I actually think that even the game in its current state, if you play it, is not too great as a coin mixer - mixing would mean to create a lot of generals, kill them off somehow, and collect their coins with different players (ideally on a different wallet).  But presumably either this procedure is very tedious and bears a lot of risk that other players collect the coins instead, or it must be done in a very obvious way so that the mix isn't really of any use.

However, if there are good ideas how to facilitate coin mixing inside of Huntercoin's game, I'm definitely interested in that!

an idea could be to transfer some amount to a newly created player.
this could lead to a risk of course, but it's the easiest way i think and after all this game shouldn't be a money laundering system, and if someone wants to use it for that, rightly takes its risks

[radi324]

Once I read a post mentioning that the HUC client acts as a perfect coin-mixing service due to dropped coins, etc. This however necessitates having to actually play the game to benefit from the service. What if all it required was for a person to "deposit" whatever amount of HUC he/she wanted in the game, and then just as easily withdraw them back? Upon a deposit, the coins get mixed with the main pool of coins on the map, including coins belonging to the players actually playing, and if the user wants to take those HUC back, all he/she needs to do is withdraw them back and you will have a fresh amount of HUC.

This might need a slight overhaul of the payment system, whereby a player would need to "charge" his playing time rather than deposit money on a one-off basis for a permanent player. If a player deposits HUC and clicks on "start playing", the timer starts running and the payment made becomes part of the main pool. If there is any playing time left over, the player can decide to stop playing and withdraw whatever HUC he/she has left plus any amount won. Likewise, for those who simply want to use the coin-mixing service, all they would need to do is deposit the money without clicking on start, and withdraw the same money after the mix has occurred. I think HUC is the only coin which can afford having a central mixing service due to its very nature as a game. The only centralization occurring here is the temporary "holding" of the coins of people playing

While a nice idea, I don't see how this would be possible for now.  The problem is that there must be some kind of verifiable link between deposit and withdraw (to make sure that noone can withdraw more than they deposited), and this link can be used to undo the mix.  I actually think that even the game in its current state, if you play it, is not too great as a coin mixer - mixing would mean to create a lot of generals, kill them off somehow, and collect their coins with different players (ideally on a different wallet).  But presumably either this procedure is very tedious and bears a lot of risk that other players collect the coins instead, or it must be done in a very obvious way so that the mix isn't really of any use.

However, if there are good ideas how to facilitate coin mixing inside of Huntercoin's game, I'm definitely interested in that!

an idea could be to transfer some amount to a newly created player.
this could lead to a risk of course, but it's the easiest way i think and after all this game shouldn't be a money laundering system, and if someone wants to use it for that, rightly takes its risks

Anonymity doesn't necessarily mean money-laundering operations. Even though my suggestion was a pretty minor one compared to the current impending issues of pruning and the like, it's still worthwhile to try and see what the true potential of a game platform like HUC can really be, by using all of its possible assets I'm also preparing a document with all the salient features of HUC which distinguish it from the rest and which would make HUC worthy of adoption, in preparation for the major update which is in the works. This summer should be used well to strengthen HUC's foundations since I'm predicting another major upshift in the crypto-world come next October/November, and we should take full advantage of that

[domob]

an idea could be to transfer some amount to a newly created player.
this could lead to a risk of course, but it's the easiest way i think and after all this game shouldn't be a money laundering system, and if someone wants to use it for that, rightly takes its risks

Anonymity doesn't necessarily mean money-laundering operations. Even though my suggestion was a pretty minor one compared to the current impending issues of pruning and the like, it's still worthwhile to try and see what the true potential of a game platform like HUC can really be, by using all of its possible assets I'm also preparing a document with all the salient features of HUC which distinguish it from the rest and which would make HUC worthy of adoption, in preparation for the major update which is in the works. This summer should be used well to strengthen HUC's foundations since I'm predicting another major upshift in the crypto-world come next October/November, and we should take full advantage of that

This.  I really believe that crypto-coins should allow for strong anonymity.  But unfortunately, I don't see how it can be achieved in Huntercoin so far.

@MithrilMan:  Do you mean that when creating a player, you can optionally give it some coins already?  (Incidentally, the upcoming hardfork will allow this in some way - it won't fix a general's value but only enforce a lower limit.  That's what the new "coinAmount" field is for.)  I don't think this helps much, though, since everyone who does this and loses the coins later to some "other" player is making a very obvious link between input and output of the attempted "mix".  (Although, since there's some non-vanishing risk that some other player may take the coins, it does at least provide deniability.)

[MithrilMan]

@MithrilMan:  Do you mean that when creating a player, you can optionally give it some coins already?  (Incidentally, the upcoming hardfork will allow this in some way - it won't fix a general's value but only enforce a lower limit.  That's what the new "coinAmount" field is for.)  I don't think this helps much, though, since everyone who does this and loses the coins later to some "other" player is making a very obvious link between input and output of the attempted "mix".  (Although, since there's some non-vanishing risk that some other player may take the coins, it does at least provide deniability.)

yes that was the idea: when you create an hunter, you can charge him with some coins, so he can go somewhere on the map, destruct himself and with another hunter can collect that sum
of course it's risky for the player, but this way huntercoin could create a sort of "job", where people who want to mix coins (i was joking about money laundering ) can ask to an "huntercoin escrow" to do the job (the escrow service could have just an hunter with a reward address set to the user who ask the coin mix

just few thoughts, have to think about it, but it should be not so hard to do i guess, because after all a player is an address, right?

[radi324]

@MithrilMan:  Do you mean that when creating a player, you can optionally give it some coins already?  (Incidentally, the upcoming hardfork will allow this in some way - it won't fix a general's value but only enforce a lower limit.  That's what the new "coinAmount" field is for.)  I don't think this helps much, though, since everyone who does this and loses the coins later to some "other" player is making a very obvious link between input and output of the attempted "mix".  (Although, since there's some non-vanishing risk that some other player may take the coins, it does at least provide deniability.)

yes that was the idea: when you create an hunter, you can charge him with some coins, so he can go somewhere on the map, destruct himself and with another hunter can collect that sum
of course it's risky for the player, but this way huntercoin could create a sort of "job", where people who want to mix coins (i was joking about money laundering ) can ask to an "huntercoin escrow" to do the job (the escrow service could have just an hunter with a reward address set to the user who ask the coin mix

just few thoughts, have to think about it, but it should be not so hard to do i guess, because after all a player is an address, right?

Instead of individual "huntercoin escrows", what about "safes/banks" on the map itself where players can deposit their HUC? These safes cannot be broken into and would also act as a tactical maneuver of sorts since if for example a player is being chased, he can deposit his coins there and wait until it is safe again to withdraw them once more and take them safely to base. As Domob mentioned, the problem might be to determine how many coins belong to the depositor. I'm no programmer so I don't know how feasible these would be, but since you mentioned escrows, I thought I'd bring this suggestion up

[Sanglotslongs]

Glad to see this topic rising

I HODL from day 1. Huntercoin deserve TOP30 market cap !

[BayAreaCoins]

Top 5 market cap imo

[BayAreaCoins]

What services/goods would y'all like to be able to spend your HUC on?  I want to come up with something special or metals... I was thinking Romen Noodles lol I can afford a inventory and if I go tits up at least I have noodles

Edit:

Maybe insurance for your Generals?

[radi324]

What services/goods would y'all like to be able to spend your HUC on?  I want to come up with something special or metals... I was thinking Romen Noodles lol I can afford a inventory and if I go tits up at least I have noodles

Edit:

Maybe insurance for your Generals?

USBs are a high-demand tech item. Maybe a "Survivor Gamer pack" for when HUC becomes played by a lot of people again, consisting of Ramen noodles, mountain dew, etc HUC t-shirts would also be really cool.

[BGB_HUC]

I could likely pull off the t-shirts given some designs...

[cathoderay]

Hi domob, thanks for getting back to me. According to this link:

http://www.ubuntuupdates.org/package/core/trusty/main/base/gcc

it's 4:4.8.2-1ubuntu6 - if you know the syntax that will tell me what's on my unit I can tell you for sure.

Cheers

Edit - found it! - gcc version 4.8.2 (Ubuntu 4.8.2-19ubuntu1)

Ok - at least, I know that I'm using 4.7.2 (Debian Wheezy), so it may be related to that.  I'll try to install 4.8.2 from source to check this when I come around.  But I still don't really know whether or not this can be related.

If it's of any use, the error appears right at the very end of compiling, there are zero errors/warnings up until the very end.

OK guys, I'm afraid I'm gonna drop this coin. There has to be some kind of problem with the daemon & Ubuntu 14.04 - it just wont build. I've read of others having problems with the daemon also, so I know it's not an isolated incident - if the coin is to take off at all, this needs to be sorted.

Good luck.

[snailbrain]

Hi domob, thanks for getting back to me. According to this link:

http://www.ubuntuupdates.org/package/core/trusty/main/base/gcc

it's 4:4.8.2-1ubuntu6 - if you know the syntax that will tell me what's on my unit I can tell you for sure.

Cheers

Edit - found it! - gcc version 4.8.2 (Ubuntu 4.8.2-19ubuntu1)

Ok - at least, I know that I'm using 4.7.2 (Debian Wheezy), so it may be related to that.  I'll try to install 4.8.2 from source to check this when I come around.  But I still don't really know whether or not this can be related.

If it's of any use, the error appears right at the very end of compiling, there are zero errors/warnings up until the very end.

OK guys, I'm afraid I'm gonna drop this coin. There has to be some kind of problem with the daemon & Ubuntu 14.04 - it just wont build. I've read of others having problems with the daemon also, so I know it's not an isolated incident - if the coin is to take off at all, this needs to be sorted.

Good luck.

can you compile the namecoin daemon on the same machine?

sorry just read.. sorry can't help, i only know of you and i think someone else who's had problem compiling, but i believe you when you say there is a problem

someone will spot the issue - eventually

[cathoderay]

Yup. I'm running BTC, NMC, DVC, FSC & GRP - all built from source without issues. NMC wouldn't compile with upnp enabled, but apart from that they are all running sweet.

[radi324]

Yup. I'm running BTC, NMC, DVC, FSC & GRP - all built from source without issues. NMC wouldn't compile with upnp enabled, but apart from that they are all running sweet.

Well it's a shame having to lose you because of a bug which as of yet has remained unidentified. Can we perhaps set up a bounty for whoever finds what this bug is?