[ANN] Catcoin - 0.9.1.1 - Old thread. Locked. Please use 0.9.2 thread.

[mutar05]

steady please donations cat : 9fY9mSMTattSxFvCzxayBsC6ZRoZBETr7r

[vondi1122]

some cats for a new 300khash miner?, ty i have 0.04cats, so op!
9UbGJ5GZvYWSWQxvgiMPNNkxDvAiDvFTKb

steady please donations cat : 9fY9mSMTattSxFvCzxayBsC6ZRoZBETr7r

Does this look like a begging/giveaway thread?

[Shahrukh]

We have listed catcoin on our exchange www.pmtocoins.com

[kuroman]

kuro, I don't think that the community is going to reach a consensus on a copy/paste implementation of KGW, for a couple reasons:

Of course there will never be a consensus as long as there are people that doesn't want to compromise and only believe that their way of thinking is the only way to go rejecting and deniying anything else outside their ideas, not to mention the discussions here and the old thread when the fork was initiated I saw some heated discussion on the irc channel rejecting people and even insulting them, and I am not the only one who's thinking this, alot of people that were proposing alternative ideas are not anymore for this same reason ( I know this since I had a similar reaction when the fork idea was initiated and when it was obviously too late and became counter productive to suggest ideas when the code reached the test phase and become ready to deploy )

1: it seems hacked together, in that some of its functionality is (looks?) redundant to other code, and overall is styled entirely differently from the rest of the code; this could be fixed by a good integration.

2: the function isn't well understood by the community, and the perception of black-box in an open-source project isn't going to sit well. I don't claim to understand it myself. I know its an exponential smoothing that puts a lot of weight on recent blocktimes, but "EventHorizonDeviation = 1 + (0.7084 * pow((double(PastBlocksMass)/double(144)), -1.228))" has a lot of hardcoded constants for no clear reason.

3: the effect the function will have on Catcoin isn't obvious... we don't even have any estimations other than "well it works good on other coins". Catcoin has a slow block time and large block reward relative to other coins; is KGW going to kick the diff up fast enough under hash attack? Will it drop fast enough after the attack? Which of those constants need to be modified if tests show that it doesn't work quite right for Catcoin?

I think it has potential, but the next steps to getting it to community acceptance are to break down the guts at a fundamental level, at least to a point where we can get some kind of model for it working, or pseudocode so its easier to understand for those not advanced in C programming.

If you can put together a simple model, even just showing its time-response to a step or impulse change off a baseline constant hashrate (e.g. constant 50 MH/s stepped to constant 400 MH/s), I would love to see that. Or just step through the function and point out what the hardcoded constants and unique variables are doing, so others can replicate it.

All of this was explained before in my previous posts with facts none were discredited so far, It's more of self denial right now, the current fork is causing more issues than solving them, and some of those defending the parameters of the current fork are well aware of this which is really self contradicting if we consider that the goal is rise of catcoin.

Can anyone confirm or deny this?

r3wt    October 1, 2013

actually rum, the “kimoto gravity well” is a rip off of J-coin’s SSDRA, (Symmetrically Scaling Difficulty Readjustment Algorithm) with block roll back if it gets stuck(ie, the block target is lowered to 0 if a block hasn’t been found within a given timeframe.)

I introduced this idea in J-coin, by combining YAC’s retargeting algorithm with Terracoins 3 block retarget, and a switch for emergency retarget every 10 minutes. It’s also a feature present in OSC albeit the difficulty is adjusted per block and there is no 10 minute block rollback. the actual person who wrote the white paper on this idea(and co-author of the algorithm is a 17 year old from Oklahoma named Justin.

http://cryptolife.net/in-depth-altcoin-analysis-megacoin/

And this guy that claimed this got destroyed in the comment section with facts. If you want to discredit KGW there is only one way: prove it doesn't work properly or it does have some major issues (like some other solution that keeps forking block chain wherever the diff drops huh?) You have around 20 coins that uses/will use very shortly KGW to look at

Sorry, no - unless any of these have 10 minute or longer blocks.

Thank you though as you found more than I did.  Please post a CAT address - I'll pay 20 for the list.

Andy

Not like I didn't post the list a few days ago, or did mention the coins that have a 6min block time but it doesn't really matter, as I said before I'm pretty sure even if there was an 8min a 9 min or even 9min 30 block target time coin you'll denie the effect of KGW for the sake of deniying it and you will say the same thing.

[kuroman]

We have listed catcoin on our exchange www.pmtocoins.com

Great news

[skillface]

Pfft stuff Gravity Well, I found a better solution.

[SlimePuppy]

kuro, I don't think that the community is going to reach a consensus on a copy/paste implementation of KGW, for a couple reasons:

Of course there will never be a consensus as long as there are people that doesn't want to compromise and only believe that their way of thinking is the only way to go rejecting and deniying anything else outside their ideas, not to mention the discussions here and the old thread when the fork was initiated I saw some heated discussion on the irc channel rejecting people and even insulting them, and I am not the only one who's thinking this, alot of people that were proposing alternative ideas are not anymore for this same reason ( I know this since I had a similar reaction when the fork idea was initiated and when it was obviously too late and became counter productive to suggest ideas when the code reached the test phase and become ready to deploy )

Kuroman - I tried to make clear to you yesterday that we are working through a logical process to improve CAT.  Compromise does not mean: "Forcing your own pet project over all options".

Not like I didn't post the list a few days ago, or did mention the coins that have a 6min block time but it doesn't really matter, as I said before I'm pretty sure even if there was an 8min a 9 min or even 9min 30 block target time coin you'll denie the effect of KGW for the sake of deniying it and you will say the same thing.

While heartwarming, your 'pretty sure' is NOT good enough.  Earlier folks were 'pretty sure' the first fork would be the fix.  The team was 'pretty sure' that this current code would be an 80% solution.  Opinions are worth very little at the moment.

And for the last time - and for the record - please note:



As I've already told you - the ONLY thing that will get KGW pulled from the rotation prior to testing is if people acting like religious zealots continue to clog this thread with KGW-themed butt-hurt attacks on ANY other member of this community or the dev team.  If you want to help, we're working in the dev channel.  If you choose to stay here and complain, please take it to a doge forum.

Andy

[SlimePuppy]

Just a quick update, folks.  As some may know, Maverickthenoob is away for a time getting married.  While he's away, we're scouring the code, coding initial models of various options, and have a 2nd testnet deployed.  Contrary to the beliefs of at least one vocal member of our community, there are no 'plug and play' solutions available - each has to be custom-tailored to our code and our coin.  We are not a 30 second coin or a 6 minute coin and a tiny change can create a massive problem.  We are working to constantly improve CAT, not knee-jerk ourselves into a grave.

We also have a control systems engineer/programmer and CAT pool operator working on a real control system solution.

I know the bickering that happens here sucks the energy out of most of us, do not be fooled into thinking that this is where the main work's being done.

Andy

[madoka]

kuro, I don't think that the community is going to reach a consensus on a copy/paste implementation of KGW, for a couple reasons:

Of course there will never be a consensus as long as there are people that doesn't want to compromise and only believe that their way of thinking is the only way to go rejecting and deniying anything else outside their ideas, not to mention the discussions here and the old thread when the fork was initiated I saw some heated discussion on the irc channel rejecting people and even insulting them, and I am not the only one who's thinking this, alot of people that were proposing alternative ideas are not anymore for this same reason ( I know this since I had a similar reaction when the fork idea was initiated and when it was obviously too late and became counter productive to suggest ideas when the code reached the test phase and become ready to deploy )

Kuroman - I tried to make clear to you yesterday that we are working through a logical process to improve CAT.  Compromise does not mean: "Forcing your own pet project over all options".

Not like I didn't post the list a few days ago, or did mention the coins that have a 6min block time but it doesn't really matter, as I said before I'm pretty sure even if there was an 8min a 9 min or even 9min 30 block target time coin you'll denie the effect of KGW for the sake of deniying it and you will say the same thing.

While heartwarming, your 'pretty sure' is NOT good enough.  Earlier folks were 'pretty sure' the first fork would be the fix.  The team was 'pretty sure' that this current code would be an 80% solution.  Opinions are worth very little at the moment.

And for the last time - and for the record - please note:



As I've already told you - the ONLY thing that will get KGW pulled from the rotation prior to testing is if people acting like religious zealots continue to clog this thread with KGW-themed butt-hurt attacks on ANY other member of this community or the dev team.  If you want to help, we're working in the dev channel.  If you choose to stay here and complain, please take it to a doge forum.

Andy

while the value of the currency continues to fall and confirmations takes more than a day: (

[kalus]

Would be stupid to sell now coz the prices is so low.

not if people believe the price could go lower.  

Now that cryptsy has their code fixed and trades are moving again, we're seeing a nice rebound in price.  

the rebound was temporary, lasting about 10-12 hours, and has started to return to its new baseline.

I think some of the valuation has to do with the infighting and heated discussion in this thread, but as you pointed out, the fork really fucks up the trading on exchanges, and the more forks we're proposing (e.g. 'caturday') further hurt investor confidence.  with enough forks, i'm concerned that exchanges will drop catcoin becuase of the PITA it creates.

in the long term, forks to prevent people from mining the coin aren't the answer.  the long term sustainability of cat value, regardless of which type of algorithm used, is to allow it to settle to the normal price it should have started at, and allowing the value to build up gradually.  no mattter how catcoin changes its algorithm, it will not increase the network hashrate.  the only way you can do that is to increase liquidity to withstand a sudden influx of coins and mining. 

current catcoin prices on cryptsy:

[SlimePuppy]

while the value of the currency continues to fall and confirmations takes more than a day: (

The value of the currency is not a coding problem - that's a supply/demand and confidence problem.  People complaining don't help with either aspect.

Yes, some confirmation take a full day.  Not many days ago, confirms were taking about a week and we were a couple of days away from dying.  A dead coin has a value of zero.  Let's not go there.

[envy2010]

And for the last time - and for the record - please note:



Andy

Throw one more option on there: retarget every block, but limit the total 36-block change to 2x up and 0.5x down; it would still adjust fast, but not overshoot like it does now.

The code implementation for this is just changing one character:

Code:

    if(pindexLast->nHeight >= fork2Block){
        numerator = 112;
        denominator = 100;

to:

Code:

    if(pindexLast->nHeight >= fork2Block){
        numerator = 102;
        denominator = 100;

I really do think the current code is within one line and and possibly one character of being quite stable.

[kalus]

while the value of the currency continues to fall and confirmations takes more than a day: (

The value of the currency is not a coding problem - that's a supply/demand and confidence problem.  People complaining don't help with either aspect.

Yes, some confirmation take a full day.  Not many days ago, confirms were taking about a week and we were a couple of days away from dying.  A dead coin has a value of zero.  Let's not go there.

there is a subtle difference between 'dead', and simply being uneconomically viable.  The rate of return is especially important for miners who look at their farms as a money-making investment, rather than a hobby.  It is the pool of miners that processes the confirmation and protects the coin.

The community is comlpetely overreacting to natural market flux.  you're not even letting the market properly respond to the fundamental, midstream changes you've introduced.  let the value slide, let the coin play out, and stop toying with another fork.  for the record, this will be catcoin's 4th fork.  

[envy2010]

while the value of the currency continues to fall and confirmations takes more than a day: (

6 confirmations (which is standard for exchanges) should not take longer than about 6 hours right now, and might only take 20 minutes. If the exchanges aren't showing the transaction after 6 blocks, there is nothing the coin can do to fix that... its an exchange issue.

[SlimePuppy]

the rebound was temporary, lasting about 10-12 hours, and has started to return to its new baseline.

I think some of the valuation has to do with the infighting and heated discussion in this thread, but as you pointed out, the fork really fucks up the trading on exchanges, and the more forks we're proposing (e.g. 'caturday') further hurt investor confidence.  with enough forks, i'm concerned that exchanges will drop catcoin becuase of the PITA it creates.

Whoa - nobody is proposing any 'caturday' forks - that was never a plan!

in the long term, forks to prevent people from mining the coin aren't the answer.

Nobody is suggesting this, either!  We need MORE miners to stabilize the network, not fewer!

We are starting here and moving forward.  Forget the old thread and old ideas - that's history.  Please go back a few pages and read Maverick's update.  The OP of this thread is our starting point.  The PR team continues to work on expanding ways to spend CAT, progress continues on the non-profit foundation.  And yes - keep in mind that we now have, for the first time, the time, the team, and the testnets we need for a 100% solution to CAT's long-term viability.

[SlimePuppy]

while the value of the currency continues to fall and confirmations takes more than a day: (

The value of the currency is not a coding problem - that's a supply/demand and confidence problem.  People complaining don't help with either aspect.

Yes, some confirmation take a full day.  Not many days ago, confirms were taking about a week and we were a couple of days away from dying.  A dead coin has a value of zero.  Let's not go there.

there is a subtle difference between 'dead', and simply being uneconomically viable.  The rate of return is especially important for miners who look at their farms as a money-making investment, rather than a hobby.  It is the pool of miners that processes the confirmation and protects the coin.

Speaking as a miner, we are more economically viable today than we were 10 days ago.

The community is comlpetely overreacting to natural market flux.  you're not even letting the market properly respond to the fundamental, midstream changes you've introduced.  let the value slide, let the coin play out, and stop toying with another fork.  for the record, this will be catcoin's 4th fork.  

Kalus, I was with you until the end.  There have been exactly TWO forks.  Please do not join the FUD bandwagon...

[SlimePuppy]

Throw one more option on there: retarget every block, but limit the total 36-block change to 2x up and 0.5x down; it would still adjust fast, but not overshoot like it does now.

The code implementation for this is just changing one character:

Code:

    if(pindexLast->nHeight >= fork2Block){
        numerator = 112;
        denominator = 100;

to:

Code:

    if(pindexLast->nHeight >= fork2Block){
        numerator = 102;
        denominator = 100;

I really do think the current code is within one line and and possibly one character of being quite stable.

Thanks Envy - another option noted and in queue.  One thing we're finding with any of the single-SMA options is that they WILL converge and stabilize if left alone, but they continue to oscillate in the real world.  The current code still overshoots on the high side, and we need to make sure that we stay away from our very low diffs.

This is an example of etblvu1's work:

[madoka]

while the value of the currency continues to fall and confirmations takes more than a day: (

The value of the currency is not a coding problem - that's a supply/demand and confidence problem.  People complaining don't help with either aspect.

Yes, some confirmation take a full day.  Not many days ago, confirms were taking about a week and we were a couple of days away from dying.  A dead coin has a value of zero.  Let's not go there.

there is a subtle difference between 'dead', and simply being uneconomically viable.  The rate of return is especially important for miners who look at their farms as a money-making investment, rather than a hobby.  It is the pool of miners that processes the confirmation and protects the coin.

Speaking as a miner, we are more economically viable today than we were 10 days ago.

The community is comlpetely overreacting to natural market flux.  you're not even letting the market properly respond to the fundamental, midstream changes you've introduced.  let the value slide, let the coin play out, and stop toying with another fork.  for the record, this will be catcoin's 4th fork.  

Kalus, I was with you until the end.  There have been exactly TWO forks.  Please do not join the FUD bandwagon...

Now we are not the worst currency to undermine. We are now the penultimate. 

[kuroman]

Pfft stuff Gravity Well, I found a better solution.

So this is the level of conversation we are having right now?

Anti-KGW arguments so far:

-It's a black box, it's black magic!
It's even funny when you add the fact that these same people didn't bother to look it up before and I've posted everything to be able to have an objectif judgement about it, but anyway KGW is based on a single math formula that is applied dynamically, I've posted the formula behind it,And also the code behind it, so no it's not a blackbox

-But wait what does the numbers mean ? why 0.7084 or -1.228?
I provided an answer to this, those numbers are scientific constantes (thermodynamics and consmolgy) and obviously if you didn't figure it by now Kimoto seems to be inspired by fundamental physics in his work hence the gravity well, event horizon blackholes....., after testing the numbers they worked and were adopted, and wasn't you guys who were promoting arbitrary numbers such as 36 and 12% saying that the testing will judge these numbers ?


-Wait wait wait, but how can we be so sure that KGW will not bring issues to the coin ? this is a major concern and this is the reason why we can't proceed with KGW.
There are at least a dozen of coins that adopted KGW and almost every new coin is released with it, with a date of adaption vareying from 2 months + to a few hours/min and more to come of course as many coins are annouced with it, KGW proved to work perfectly without adding any issue to these coins!

-No it can't be our coin is very different than other coins, we have a very lonnnnnnnng 10min block target time so no it will not work for sure!
KGW worked for every coin with a block time ranging from 30s or 1/2min to 6min with every coin having unique set of parameters (number of coins, coins per block halfing time ...ect) KGW worked 100% of the time and perfectly, I also remind you that the difference between 30s or 0.5min and 6min is 12x and the difference between 6min is 10min is less than 1.667 so in our case the behaviour at 10min won't be any different than 6min (6 is very close to 10 in this scall 12x>>>>1.67).
If you use any extrapolation law and probability law, KGW will have around 90% rate of succeding AS IS and over 99.9% to work if the parametes are tweaked and adapted (this is just probability calculus and math is absolute)

-It can't be!? Aha gotya now! since all these coins will use this similar small piece of alghorithm it will mean that it will be a target for hackers
lol No! the whole altcoin system is based on copying bitcoin, 99% of code you see on other altcoin is copied from bitcoin/litecoin (except new algo PoW/PoS coins) which means that there is a huge chunk of code that is used by all the cryptocurrencies while KGW is just started to spread for the last month or two, so this assumption is stupid on it self.

-Nah all these devs are using this KGW because they are lazy and stupid and there is no merite to the solution!
Are fcking kidding me? we are starting to get to self denial zone here like the little kid who close his ears with his hands and start screaming I don't hear you and start yealling, well let me tell you: there are devs that understand code better than any of us, and can weight the merite of the solution better than any of us, these  devs that you call lazy, developped some innovative coins that uses new alghorithms altogether and new code (lazy huh?), and choose the KGW because it is by far the best solution available.

- KGW is just bandaid fix
lol! it's a fix that works end of story

-We don't want to consider it because we can't weight the issues it can bring in the future.
This is a legitimate concern but the answer to this was already given! KGW been used on some coins for over than 2 months now and it behaves as it supposed to be without briging any issue! longterm and in real life conditions! and if you were this wize to begin with we woudn't be having this discussing I believe, euh hint blockchain n°3 or n°4 and more to come? and not going to elaborate more on this because you know what I'm talking about and this is really no joke

-"I feel smart ! I can descredit this people by posting a joke"
Speaking of joke see last paragraph, I doubt we have the time to joke around with the current situation and I fear that some don't understand the responsability they have on their hand, let me just remind you that some people have invested dozens of thousands of €s on this coin what are you playing with right now is these guys money and I'm sure they aren't appreciating/won't appreaciate the current situation and some people will be held accountable for this, just saying.

-Why are you (and others who are supporting KGW) so obstinate about KGW?
No I'm not obstinate about it because I want this solution implemented over other solutions no matter what, this is totally wrong! I've posted and kept posting alternative possible solutions, but since these solutions and any other proposed solution are just a plain theory and not faced to all the real world variables we don't know for sure that they will work and how much they'll break before fixing something (aka look at current solution that was supposed to work and was tested on the testnet ( this is not to disregard the test net, and Thanks to the person who invested in a VPS for it) and had been simulated over and over again) this is the opposite of KGW, KGW is implemeted in real coins and it works! this why I believe it's the solution to solve the current critical situation and this is solution will give us the opportunity to work out our own solution with not stress and time constraint, and this is what I'm obstinated about, it to have a solid plan and proceed and steam steps as I've said before

-How about implementing Pheonixcoin solution ?
Why not? BUT like I said previously and it seems that you didn't bother to read, is that Pheonixcoin did not suffer from profitability a month before and only once or twice after their fork and during mid december (the coin wasn't tradable on cryptsy for a long periode of time which means and this was the reason the why profitability pools didn't push on it at all) so pheonixcoin = Bad example, their fix wasn't stressed to prove it works.
Also are you contradicting your own principales, euh weren't you saying "lazy copy solution no good" then now "pheonixcoin solution works we should implement that"  double standards much?!.

As you can see every single of your pseudo-arguments has been proven wrong. Hope this will help, and brings some enlightement to your way of proceeding and thinking, and I'm sure any reasonnable person will do and some of you are, but at the same time I'm sure there are one or two persons, with a huge inflated ego, (they'll recon themselves)  this will refuse categorically common sense and will keep doing the same little kid attitude of closing ears with hands and screaming "I DONT HEAR YOU"

[kuroman]

kuro, I don't think that the community is going to reach a consensus on a copy/paste implementation of KGW, for a couple reasons:

Of course there will never be a consensus as long as there are people that doesn't want to compromise and only believe that their way of thinking is the only way to go rejecting and deniying anything else outside their ideas, not to mention the discussions here and the old thread when the fork was initiated I saw some heated discussion on the irc channel rejecting people and even insulting them, and I am not the only one who's thinking this, alot of people that were proposing alternative ideas are not anymore for this same reason ( I know this since I had a similar reaction when the fork idea was initiated and when it was obviously too late and became counter productive to suggest ideas when the code reached the test phase and become ready to deploy )

Kuroman - I tried to make clear to you yesterday that we are working through a logical process to improve CAT.  Compromise does not mean: "Forcing your own pet project over all options".

Not like I didn't post the list a few days ago, or did mention the coins that have a 6min block time but it doesn't really matter, as I said before I'm pretty sure even if there was an 8min a 9 min or even 9min 30 block target time coin you'll denie the effect of KGW for the sake of deniying it and you will say the same thing.

While heartwarming, your 'pretty sure' is NOT good enough.  Earlier folks were 'pretty sure' the first fork would be the fix.  The team was 'pretty sure' that this current code would be an 80% solution.  Opinions are worth very little at the moment.

And for the last time - and for the record - please note:



As I've already told you - the ONLY thing that will get KGW pulled from the rotation prior to testing is if people acting like religious zealots continue to clog this thread with KGW-themed butt-hurt attacks on ANY other member of this community or the dev team.  If you want to help, we're working in the dev channel.  If you choose to stay here and complain, please take it to a doge forum.

Andy

No you are not. your acts =/= that picture poeple aren't that naif really, not even once you've considered KGW as a legitimate solution and discussed it properly, all I saw here, #catcoin-dev #catcoin-code ##catcoin whatever is one line SMA nothing else and reserver/concerners denials of KGW! and skillface proposed double SMA but it ended at that and fell free to prove me wrong!

As for the rest of your comment we are just repeating our selfs, I've answered that a couple of times I've even repeated my self again on the comment above/ previous page and here click here if you are lazy or don't know which one

if you a real argument to add against KGW it would be nice to have it.

Thanks Envy - another option noted and in queue.  One thing we're finding with any of the single-SMA options is that they WILL converge and stabilize if left alone, but they continue to oscillate in the real world.  The current code still overshoots on the high side, and we need to make sure that we stay away from our very low diffs.

This is an example of etblvu1's work:

That's how 36SMA12 was supposed to converge, just instead of linear a linear evolution block to block you have exponential factors, and you are well informed on the current situation of 36SMA12 right now, I've been repeating this for a couple of time aswell, the simulation is great, BUT it has limited set of parameters while the real life conditions are different, and When we talk about simulations vs real life I know very well what I'm talking about.