⚒[CGA] Cryptographic Anomaly - The Elusive Coin⚒

[wzttide]

i would suggest everyone take there coin off poloniex until they fix there problems they are having.

I would, if I could.

Snap!

Done, will never trade there again.

[omwtothemoon]

http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptX/comments/1yph7g/please_add_cryptographic_anomaly_cga/

Vote here too, looks like a promising website

[chowmeow]

Gogogo.  10 votes a day.  Make it happen.  Pretty sure they are launching on Friday, 2/28.

http://www.allcrypt.com/beta/voting.php

[mxq]

Every day I vote on allcrypt and mintpal.

[s4w3d0ff]

I'd like to suggest a different block reward system: Instead of reward every x block, reward every block, but devide the reward (1) by the diff. If the diff is less than 3, 3 is taken.

Examples:
Diff = 1

Code:

1/3 = 0.333333333

Block Reward: 0.333333333

Diff = 10

Code:

1/10 = 0.1

Block Reward: 0.100000000

Diff = 200

Code:

1/200 = 0.005

Block Reward: 0.005

This would have some advantages:

• The rewards wouldn't change at all over time.
• Every block pays (rewarding long-time-miners).
• If a multi pool hits the coin, the diff raises within 2 blocks, the multi pool wouldn't be able to mine much coins.

I have decided to do something similar to this:

Code:

    else if(block > ### )					//Update 1.1.2.3
    	{
    		if(diff < 3)
    		{
    		 nSubsidy = 1 / 3 * COIN;           	//Every 3rd block makes 1 CGA (just split among 3 blocks)
    		}
    		
    		else if(diff > 3)
    		{
    			if (remain < 1)				//Bonus block
    			{
    			nSubsidy = 1 * COIN;
    			}
    			else						// Normal blocks are 1/diff
    			{
    			nSubsidy = 1 / diff * COIN;
    			}
    		}
    	}

With this, CGA will come into existence very close to how it has been since the last update. The difference is that instead of getting a full coin in 1 block, the 1 coin is split up among (what would of been) the 0 blocks. I am not sure if I want to keep the "bonus block", it may encourage MP's to take advantage of CGA. My other options are to "reverse" the "bonus block" and make it a 0 block, or just get rid of it all together.

This isn't my final fix. I will be taking out Kimoto's Gravity Well to reduce the risk of an reorg attack, but I have decided to not switch the alog from scrypt. I feel that it will be too big of a change and will only delay the inevitable.

Please let me know what you think.

[jayguar]

New CGA contest added in Just An Arcade

[ralph12]

i would suggest everyone take there coin off poloniex until they fix there problems they are having.

I would, if I could.

Snap!

Done, will never trade there again.

I've been unable to even login for about 24 hours now.

Edit: at least I can see the trade history now. Some people are selling way too cheap...

[brokedummy]

I only have some WOLF over there at poloniex and I think one of these sundays I'm going to try to trade it out for CGA. I also have figured out who will mine the worthless CGA blocks. I got some of those dualminer scrypt asics. I'll mine the worthless blocks. It will cost a few cents a day.

[wzttide]

I'd like to suggest a different block reward system: Instead of reward every x block, reward every block, but devide the reward (1) by the diff. If the diff is less than 3, 3 is taken.

Examples:
Diff = 1

Code:

1/3 = 0.333333333

Block Reward: 0.333333333

Diff = 10

Code:

1/10 = 0.1

Block Reward: 0.100000000

Diff = 200

Code:

1/200 = 0.005

Block Reward: 0.005

This would have some advantages:

• The rewards wouldn't change at all over time.
• Every block pays (rewarding long-time-miners).
• If a multi pool hits the coin, the diff raises within 2 blocks, the multi pool wouldn't be able to mine much coins.

I have decided to do something similar to this:

Code:

    else if(block > ### )					//Update 1.1.2.3
    	{
    		if(diff < 3)
    		{
    		 nSubsidy = 1 / 3 * COIN;           	//Every 3rd block makes 1 CGA (just split among 3 blocks)
    		}
    		
    		else if(diff > 3)
    		{
    			if (remain < 1)				//Bonus block
    			{
    			nSubsidy = 1 * COIN;
    			}
    			else						// Normal blocks are 1/diff
    			{
    			nSubsidy = 1 / diff * COIN;
    			}
    		}
    	}

With this, CGA will come into existence very close to how it has been since the last update. The difference is that instead of getting a full coin in 1 block, the 1 coin is split up among (what would of been) the 0 blocks. I am not sure if I want to keep the "bonus block", it may encourage MP's to take advantage of CGA. My other options are to "reverse" the "bonus block" and make it a 0 block, or just get rid of it all together.

This isn't my final fix. I will be taking out Kimoto's Gravity Well to reduce the risk of an reorg attack, but I have decided to not switch the alog from scrypt. I feel that it will be too big of a change and will only delay the inevitable.

Please let me know what you think.

This is a great idea! I like it! The bonus block gave me headache too, I think removing it will remove one reason for multipools to hit CGA.

[awesomeperson451]

I'd like to suggest a different block reward system: Instead of reward every x block, reward every block, but devide the reward (1) by the diff. If the diff is less than 3, 3 is taken.

Examples:
Diff = 1

Code:

1/3 = 0.333333333

Block Reward: 0.333333333

Diff = 10

Code:

1/10 = 0.1

Block Reward: 0.100000000

Diff = 200

Code:

1/200 = 0.005

Block Reward: 0.005

This would have some advantages:

• The rewards wouldn't change at all over time.
• Every block pays (rewarding long-time-miners).
• If a multi pool hits the coin, the diff raises within 2 blocks, the multi pool wouldn't be able to mine much coins.

I have decided to do something similar to this:

Code:

    else if(block > ### )					//Update 1.1.2.3
    	{
    		if(diff < 3)
    		{
    		 nSubsidy = 1 / 3 * COIN;           	//Every 3rd block makes 1 CGA (just split among 3 blocks)
    		}
    		
    		else if(diff > 3)
    		{
    			if (remain < 1)				//Bonus block
    			{
    			nSubsidy = 1 * COIN;
    			}
    			else						// Normal blocks are 1/diff
    			{
    			nSubsidy = 1 / diff * COIN;
    			}
    		}
    	}

With this, CGA will come into existence very close to how it has been since the last update. The difference is that instead of getting a full coin in 1 block, the 1 coin is split up among (what would of been) the 0 blocks. I am not sure if I want to keep the "bonus block", it may encourage MP's to take advantage of CGA. My other options are to "reverse" the "bonus block" and make it a 0 block, or just get rid of it all together.

This isn't my final fix. I will be taking out Kimoto's Gravity Well to reduce the risk of an reorg attack, but I have decided to not switch the alog from scrypt. I feel that it will be too big of a change and will only delay the inevitable.

Please let me know what you think.

Two things: First: Yes, removing the bonus blocks would prevent the multipool problem, but it would also remove one of the main reasons this coin is attractive. If cryptographic anomalies are no longer a real thing, all the mystique behind the coin would disappear. It's a brand new system and, really, not a lot of people know how it works; when something knew comes along, a lot of people want to know how it works, so they either come here or go to the website to find out, and by then, they're already far more involved in CGA than they are with most of the other coins, and because of this, these curious people are significantly more likely to become loyal miners and investors. It's the reason I'm here. If we lost this feature, CGA wouldn't attract nearly as many curious people to it as it would have, we would be losing a great deal of our ability to grow, and I don't think the multipool issue is likely enough to risk this. I think we should still reward 1/diff for non-bonus blocks, but I don't think that it would be wise, especially early on like this, to remove the bonus blocks altogether.

Second: Sorry if this comes off like nitpicking, because I don't know how likely or possible this is, but, looking at the code you posted, if the difficulty is exactly 3, every client on the network is going to run into an exception, which would be disastrous. Just change either "if(diff < 3)" or "else if(diff > 3)" to "if(diff <= 3)" or "else if(diff >= 3)". I only know python (and g-code, if that counts- I used to program CNC machines), so I don't know if C++ just handles this automatically- sorry if it does.

[mxq]

why http://mpos.cga.anomalypool.com/ and http://anomalypool.com:2124/static/ can't connect?

[tertius993]

I'd like to suggest a different block reward system: Instead of reward every x block, reward every block, but devide the reward (1) by the diff. If the diff is less than 3, 3 is taken.

Examples:
Diff = 1

Code:

1/3 = 0.333333333

Block Reward: 0.333333333

Diff = 10

Code:

1/10 = 0.1

Block Reward: 0.100000000

Diff = 200

Code:

1/200 = 0.005

Block Reward: 0.005

This would have some advantages:

• The rewards wouldn't change at all over time.
• Every block pays (rewarding long-time-miners).
• If a multi pool hits the coin, the diff raises within 2 blocks, the multi pool wouldn't be able to mine much coins.

I have decided to do something similar to this:

Code:

    else if(block > ### )					//Update 1.1.2.3
    	{
    		if(diff < 3)
    		{
    		 nSubsidy = 1 / 3 * COIN;           	//Every 3rd block makes 1 CGA (just split among 3 blocks)
    		}
    		
    		else if(diff > 3)
    		{
    			if (remain < 1)				//Bonus block
    			{
    			nSubsidy = 1 * COIN;
    			}
    			else						// Normal blocks are 1/diff
    			{
    			nSubsidy = 1 / diff * COIN;
    			}
    		}
    	}

With this, CGA will come into existence very close to how it has been since the last update. The difference is that instead of getting a full coin in 1 block, the 1 coin is split up among (what would of been) the 0 blocks. I am not sure if I want to keep the "bonus block", it may encourage MP's to take advantage of CGA. My other options are to "reverse" the "bonus block" and make it a 0 block, or just get rid of it all together.

This isn't my final fix. I will be taking out Kimoto's Gravity Well to reduce the risk of an reorg attack, but I have decided to not switch the alog from scrypt. I feel that it will be too big of a change and will only delay the inevitable.

Please let me know what you think.

Two things: First: Yes, removing the bonus blocks would prevent the multipool problem, but it would also remove one of the main reasons this coin is attractive. If cryptographic anomalies are no longer a real thing, all the mystique behind the coin would disappear. It's a brand new system and, really, not a lot of people know how it works; when something knew comes along, a lot of people want to know how it works, so they either come here or go to the website to find out, and by then, they're already far more involved in CGA than they are with most of the other coins, and because of this, these curious people are significantly more likely to become loyal miners and investors. It's the reason I'm here. If we lost this feature, CGA wouldn't attract nearly as many curious people to it as it would have, we would be losing a great deal of our ability to grow, and I don't think the multipool issue is likely enough to risk this. I think we should still reward 1/diff for non-bonus blocks, but I don't think that it would be wise, especially early on like this, to remove the bonus blocks altogether.

Second: Sorry if this comes off like nitpicking, because I don't know how likely or possible this is, but, looking at the code you posted, if the difficulty is exactly 3, every client on the network is going to run into an exception, which would be disastrous. Just change either "if(diff < 3)" or "else if(diff > 3)" to "if(diff <= 3)" or "else if(diff >= 3)". I only know python (and g-code, if that counts- I used to program CNC machines), so I don't know if C++ just handles this automatically- sorry if it does.

I think you have to keep the bonus blocks, otherwise as awesome person says it becomes just like every other coin.  I am worried that this change makes it rather like every other coin anyway ...

Re. The code, I agree for completeness and elegance but isn't diff a FLOAT?  So it can never be exactly 3?

[wzttide]

why http://mpos.cga.anomalypool.com/ and http://anomalypool.com:2124/static/ can't connect?

What do you mean with "can't connect"? There are active miners on the pools.

I think you have to keep the bonus blocks, otherwise as awesome person says it becomes just like every other coin.  I am worried that this change makes it rather like every other coin anyway ...

What's your suggestion?

[brokedummy]

Can't we just leave it like it is and start our own CGA insider multipool that mines all the good CGA blocks and switches to wafflepool or something for the other blocks, then just don't tell anybody on the original post about the multipool so they mine the zero reward blocks.

[phzi]

Can't we just leave it like it is and start our own CGA insider multipool that mines all the good CGA blocks and switches to wafflepool or something for the other blocks, then just don't tell anybody on the original post about the multipool so they mine the zero reward blocks.

lol...

[tertius993]

I think you have to keep the bonus blocks, otherwise as awesome person says it becomes just like every other coin.  I am worried that this change makes it rather like every other coin anyway ...

What's your suggestion?

I don't have one I am afraid, indeed I don't think there is an answer.  The part of the bitcoin protocol which requires that the reward of every block be known at the time you start mining the block means that the original concept of the coin simply cannot be achieved.

[omwtothemoon]

I think you have to keep the bonus blocks, otherwise as awesome person says it becomes just like every other coin.  I am worried that this change makes it rather like every other coin anyway ...

What's your suggestion?

I don't have one I am afraid, indeed I don't think there is an answer.  The part of the bitcoin protocol which requires that the reward of every block be known at the time you start mining the block means that the original concept of the coin simply cannot be achieved.

Completely removing KMG would get rid of nTime which would solve it right?

[s4w3d0ff]

Completely removing KMG would get rid of nTime which would solve it right?

This would just solve the reorg attack problem, but you can still know what the block is worth before mining (this is a problem all coins have).

Two things: First: Yes, removing the bonus blocks would prevent the multipool problem, but it would also remove one of the main reasons this coin is attractive. If cryptographic anomalies are no longer a real thing, all the mystique behind the coin would disappear. It's a brand new system and, really, not a lot of people know how it works; when something knew comes along, a lot of people want to know how it works, so they either come here or go to the website to find out, and by then, they're already far more involved in CGA than they are with most of the other coins, and because of this, these curious people are significantly more likely to become loyal miners and investors. It's the reason I'm here. If we lost this feature, CGA wouldn't attract nearly as many curious people to it as it would have, we would be losing a great deal of our ability to grow, and I don't think the multipool issue is likely enough to risk this. I think we should still reward 1/diff for non-bonus blocks, but I don't think that it would be wise, especially early on like this, to remove the bonus blocks altogether.

Second: Sorry if this comes off like nitpicking, because I don't know how likely or possible this is, but, looking at the code you posted, if the difficulty is exactly 3, every client on the network is going to run into an exception, which would be disastrous. Just change either "if(diff < 3)" or "else if(diff > 3)" to "if(diff <= 3)" or "else if(diff >= 3)". I only know python (and g-code, if that counts- I used to program CNC machines), so I don't know if C++ just handles this automatically- sorry if it does.

I think you have to keep the bonus blocks, otherwise as awesome person says it becomes just like every other coin.  I am worried that this change makes it rather like every other coin anyway ...

Re. The code, I agree for completeness and elegance but isn't diff a FLOAT?  So it can never be exactly 3?

You're right awesomeperson, I should (and will) add if(diff <= 3), thanks for the heads up. Yes tertius, it is a float, tho I have seen the diff have only 1 decimal place at times, and so I believe if we were really lucky (unlucky?) it could happen to fall on a whole number.

As for the bonus block, the problem it creates is that a profit switching multipool could (would) wait until a bonus block shows up and jumps in, steals the 1 CGA, then leaves and leaves everyone with a ridiculously high diff. Yes this would possibly make CGA worth more due the scarcity of the coin would increase, but I'm not sure how long it would take for the diff to drop back down with KGW removed, making CGA much less profitable (IMO). Also, the bonus block actually hurts the elusiveness factor (if a multipool doesn't jump in driving the diff up), it puts more CGA into circulation at any given time, thus making us deviate slightly from what was originally planned (CGA coming into being at 1/diff).

As for the new code making it less of an anomaly, I don't think that is true. By definition an anomaly is a "Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule. One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify." I think we have that covered. Also with the new code, the elusive factor is still at play (even at the same rate, 1/diff) so I'm not worried.

[sublok]

I think you have to keep the bonus blocks, otherwise as awesome person says it becomes just like every other coin.  I am worried that this change makes it rather like every other coin anyway ...

What's your suggestion?

I don't have one I am afraid, indeed I don't think there is an answer.  The part of the bitcoin protocol which requires that the reward of every block be known at the time you start mining the block means that the original concept of the coin simply cannot be achieved.

I have an insane idea.... why dont we just broadcast the block reward as

Code:

 notfound(slice rewardValAfterBlockStarts() ) 

so was could just declare the value of the block to be x or 0, then after the block begins we update the block hash to reflect the true value ...

[tertius993]

Completely removing KMG would get rid of nTime which would solve it right?

This would just solve the reorg attack problem, but you can still know what the block is worth before mining (this is a problem all coins have).

Two things: First: Yes, removing the bonus blocks would prevent the multipool problem, but it would also remove one of the main reasons this coin is attractive. If cryptographic anomalies are no longer a real thing, all the mystique behind the coin would disappear. It's a brand new system and, really, not a lot of people know how it works; when something knew comes along, a lot of people want to know how it works, so they either come here or go to the website to find out, and by then, they're already far more involved in CGA than they are with most of the other coins, and because of this, these curious people are significantly more likely to become loyal miners and investors. It's the reason I'm here. If we lost this feature, CGA wouldn't attract nearly as many curious people to it as it would have, we would be losing a great deal of our ability to grow, and I don't think the multipool issue is likely enough to risk this. I think we should still reward 1/diff for non-bonus blocks, but I don't think that it would be wise, especially early on like this, to remove the bonus blocks altogether.

Second: Sorry if this comes off like nitpicking, because I don't know how likely or possible this is, but, looking at the code you posted, if the difficulty is exactly 3, every client on the network is going to run into an exception, which would be disastrous. Just change either "if(diff < 3)" or "else if(diff > 3)" to "if(diff <= 3)" or "else if(diff >= 3)". I only know python (and g-code, if that counts- I used to program CNC machines), so I don't know if C++ just handles this automatically- sorry if it does.

I think you have to keep the bonus blocks, otherwise as awesome person says it becomes just like every other coin.  I am worried that this change makes it rather like every other coin anyway ...

Re. The code, I agree for completeness and elegance but isn't diff a FLOAT?  So it can never be exactly 3?

You're right awesomeperson, I should (and will) add if(diff <= 3), thanks for the heads up. Yes tertius, it is a float, tho I have seen the diff have only 1 decimal place at times, and so I believe if we were really lucky (unlucky?) it could happen to fall on a whole number.

As for the bonus block, the problem it creates is that a profit switching multipool could (would) wait until a bonus block shows up and jumps in, steals the 1 CGA, then leaves and leaves everyone with a ridiculously high diff. Yes this would possibly make CGA worth more due the scarcity of the coin would increase, but I'm not sure how long it would take for the diff to drop back down with KGW removed, making CGA much less profitable (IMO). Also, the bonus block actually hurts the elusiveness factor (if a multipool doesn't jump in driving the diff up), it puts more CGA into circulation at any given time, thus making us deviate slightly from what was originally planned (CGA coming into being at 1/diff).

As for the new code making it less of an anomaly, I don't think that is true. By definition an anomaly is a "Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule. One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify." I think we have that covered. Also with the new code, the elusive factor is still at play (even at the same rate, 1/diff) so I'm not worried.

I'm a truly hopeless coder so may be misreading the code, but doesn't your change simply vary the reward with the difficulty? I.e higher difficulty means a lower reward?

Surely that is exactly what every other coin does? Albeit by making solving the block harder.

Could it not vary more irregularly with the remainder as before but still reward "something" in every block?