Bitcoin Forum
May 27, 2015, 05:38:07 AM *
News: Change your password!
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 [66]
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] Catcoin - 0.9.1.1 - NEW THREAD  (Read 90042 times)
Catcoiner
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1


View Profile

Ignore
April 25, 2015, 02:05:23 AM
 #1301

This should reduce the long block problems

https://github.com/catcoiner/catcoin

Happy Caturday!

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1432705087
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432705087

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1432705087
Reply with quote  #2

1432705087
Report to moderator
1432705087
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432705087

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1432705087
Reply with quote  #2

1432705087
Report to moderator
SlimePuppy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294


View Profile

Ignore
May 01, 2015, 11:03:35 PM
 #1302

This should reduce the long block problems
<snip>

Happy Caturday!
Nice try, Troy/hozer/tmagik, but stealing from the community is still not an option.  No.

CAT: 9Yb2QsQQLfEuGUepVLyZjxF7WmG2NwNogi  LTC: LPaE7H5uEjLWSLrB6GSxP8AoiAwRPcHWae
SlimePuppy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294


View Profile

Ignore
May 01, 2015, 11:16:25 PM
 #1303

Just a short but sweet update.  None of the tested algo's made us really happy.  While enjoying too many adult beverages, Blak got the bizarre idea to try combining methods.  So....  Testnet's running both Digishield and PID and selecting which algo builds the next block semi-randomly.  It sounds crazy, but it's working better than any other tested algo has run on its own.  Once we're done beating on it, we'll submit the code for community review.  In the mean time, check-out testnet:  http://testnet.geekhash.org/

CAT: 9Yb2QsQQLfEuGUepVLyZjxF7WmG2NwNogi  LTC: LPaE7H5uEjLWSLrB6GSxP8AoiAwRPcHWae
devlin85
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 75


View Profile

Ignore
May 08, 2015, 03:31:34 AM
 #1304

I have a pool setup on P2Pools.com

East Coast USA: Sarasota, FL
Server Address: stratum+tcp://mining.p2pools.com:10036
Username: Your_Wallet_Address
Password: anything

p2pool info on my github -> https://github.com/devlin85/p2pool

Pool up right now! Testing with burst speeds of 1GH  Grin Grin

Antminer S4's Be Loud! / Check out http://p2pools.com Mining Pools!
etblvu1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 198


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2015, 08:27:53 AM
 #1305

This should reduce the long block problems
<snip>

Happy Caturday!
Nice try, Troy/hozer/tmagik, but stealing from the community is still not an option.  No.

I do not agree with creating conflicting nodes as a means to decide which fork should "win" as way to decide the future of the coin. I also do not agree with the characterization that rejecting blocks which come too quickly after the previous block constitutes "stealing." If there is fair notice that this is the algorithm of the coin, nothing prevents the miner from developing pauses in the hashing (or move to hashing some other coin during the pause). Any hashing that is done by a miner during a time when it is known in advance any found blocks will be rejected, I would characterize as the miner not being sophisticated enough in the code yet, which can be fixed at any time by using one of the aforementioned techniques.

I would request all concerned to come to a consensus on the future of Catcoin that does not involve competing forks, and that does not involve mischaracterizing algorithms based on falsely assuming that miners cannot adapt to the algorithm to avoid performing mining calculations that get wasted.

Thank you,

Etblvu1
hozer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 25, 2015, 04:09:09 PM
 #1306

This should reduce the long block problems
<snip>

Happy Caturday!
Nice try, Troy/hozer/tmagik, but stealing from the community is still not an option.  No.

I do not agree with creating conflicting nodes as a means to decide which fork should "win" as way to decide the future of the coin. I also do not agree with the characterization that rejecting blocks which come too quickly after the previous block constitutes "stealing." If there is fair notice that this is the algorithm of the coin, nothing prevents the miner from developing pauses in the hashing (or move to hashing some other coin during the pause). Any hashing that is done by a miner during a time when it is known in advance any found blocks will be rejected, I would characterize as the miner not being sophisticated enough in the code yet, which can be fixed at any time by using one of the aforementioned techniques.

I would request all concerned to come to a consensus on the future of Catcoin that does not involve competing forks, and that does not involve mischaracterizing algorithms based on falsely assuming that miners cannot adapt to the algorithm to avoid performing mining calculations that get wasted.

Thank you,

Etblvu1


It appears there is a switchpool that is still using a 33 second minimum, and maybe two (or more) miners that appear to be running code that ignore anything under 3 minutes or so (Catcoiner's code?). So the way the consensus rules in the published code work, if the 33 second guy shows up for 10 blocks in 5 minutes and then leaves a stuck blockchain for a day and a half, the miners running 3-minute code end up continuing to find blocks. And when the chain work of the 3-minute fork gets to the point of exceeding the hung fork, *all* the nodes, agree, by consensus, that the 3-minute fork wins.

And then the profit switcher comes along on autopilot and starts mining again, to start the whole process over again. (Also please note, that when this happens, the profit-switcher is agreeing, by consensus, that the 3-minute fork wins, and is orphaning their previous blocks **by choice**, because they'd rather have one block get through than be on a dead fork)

So I could make an argument that the consensus *is* 3 minute minimum, and we just have some stragglers who either haven't noticed, don't care, or maybe even think it's more profitable to FUD.

This is also really determined by whether people buy catcoin, or sell it, and whether they mine, or not.

The problem is going to come if we have competing incompatible hardforks, and then it's going to come down to what code the exchanges run. It'd be a hilariously amusing case study in coin forking culture if we had two exchanges running different code. The problem is that's still a game of whomever has enough money to pay a couple of list-your-coins-for pay exchanges like Bittrex.

Or maybe to put this another way:

I'll understand a clear consensus for a hardfork-upgrade by who can raise real money to pay another exchange to list Catcoin. If the community believes in catcoin and is willing to invest money in listing on another exchange, then I think it will be good for everyone, and we can move on from this nonsense.
Blaksmith
Full Member
***
Online Online

Activity: 135



View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 26, 2015, 02:11:12 PM
 #1307

This should reduce the long block problems
<snip>

Happy Caturday!
Nice try, Troy/hozer/tmagik, but stealing from the community is still not an option.  No.

I do not agree with creating conflicting nodes as a means to decide which fork should "win" as way to decide the future of the coin. I also do not agree with the characterization that rejecting blocks which come too quickly after the previous block constitutes "stealing." If there is fair notice that this is the algorithm of the coin, nothing prevents the miner from developing pauses in the hashing (or move to hashing some other coin during the pause). Any hashing that is done by a miner during a time when it is known in advance any found blocks will be rejected, I would characterize as the miner not being sophisticated enough in the code yet, which can be fixed at any time by using one of the aforementioned techniques.

I would request all concerned to come to a consensus on the future of Catcoin that does not involve competing forks, and that does not involve mischaracterizing algorithms based on falsely assuming that miners cannot adapt to the algorithm to avoid performing mining calculations that get wasted.

Thank you,

Etblvu1


It appears there is a switchpool that is still using a 33 second minimum, and maybe two (or more) miners that appear to be running code that ignore anything under 3 minutes or so (Catcoiner's code?). So the way the consensus rules in the published code work, if the 33 second guy shows up for 10 blocks in 5 minutes and then leaves a stuck blockchain for a day and a half, the miners running 3-minute code end up continuing to find blocks. And when the chain work of the 3-minute fork gets to the point of exceeding the hung fork, *all* the nodes, agree, by consensus, that the 3-minute fork wins.

And then the profit switcher comes along on autopilot and starts mining again, to start the whole process over again. (Also please note, that when this happens, the profit-switcher is agreeing, by consensus, that the 3-minute fork wins, and is orphaning their previous blocks **by choice**, because they'd rather have one block get through than be on a dead fork)

So I could make an argument that the consensus *is* 3 minute minimum, and we just have some stragglers who either haven't noticed, don't care, or maybe even think it's more profitable to FUD.

This is also really determined by whether people buy catcoin, or sell it, and whether they mine, or not.

The problem is going to come if we have competing incompatible hardforks, and then it's going to come down to what code the exchanges run. It'd be a hilariously amusing case study in coin forking culture if we had two exchanges running different code. The problem is that's still a game of whomever has enough money to pay a couple of list-your-coins-for pay exchanges like Bittrex.

Or maybe to put this another way:

I'll understand a clear consensus for a hardfork-upgrade by who can raise real money to pay another exchange to list Catcoin. If the community believes in catcoin and is willing to invest money in listing on another exchange, then I think it will be good for everyone, and we can move on from this nonsense.

Troy.

You RIGHT HERE, are admitting that you are running code that has NOT BEEN APPROVED, AND CAN CAUSE A FORK.  For the last time.

YOU HAVE BEEN EJECTED FROM THE COMMUNITY BY THE COMMUNITY.

All you ever talk about for CatCoin, is HOW CAN I LINE MY OWN POCKET, WHILE DISRUPTING THE REST OF THE MINERS

It is assholes like you that keep the stress levels high, and take away from other more important things in life.

Why don't you try this stuff with your Uro coin, and leave CatCoin alone, as you know you are not welcome!

Blak

"Your future is whatever you make it, so make it a good one." Dr. Emmett Brown
Donations welcome: Bitcoin: 1BLAKSMTjnME4ZJX7VzzUyEgbQYLShvqgi Catcoin: 9aw3Ttiz5yMALUm2DUj748cCHYQLatwLPz Unobtanium: uh3bjJua71jFijmz1yAB89KM8mqJEbzrek Wankcoin: 16r6gAdDukMRYgch1fhxPytsp2WsEfmLRc
Pool owner of: geekhash.org
hozer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 26, 2015, 03:26:20 PM
 #1308


Troy.

You RIGHT HERE, are admitting that you are running code that has NOT BEEN APPROVED, AND CAN CAUSE A FORK.  For the last time.

YOU HAVE BEEN EJECTED FROM THE COMMUNITY BY THE COMMUNITY.

All you ever talk about for CatCoin, is HOW CAN I LINE MY OWN POCKET, WHILE DISRUPTING THE REST OF THE MINERS

It is assholes like you that keep the stress levels high, and take away from other more important things in life.

Why don't you try this stuff with your Uro coin, and leave CatCoin alone, as you know you are not welcome!

Blak

Blak, you wrote the code for PID difficulty adjustment. It's not how I would have written it, if I had the time to spend, but you did, and the damn thing WORKS, and seems to work quite well with a longer minimum block time.

If you have some new code that you think works better, then I'd like to review it with you, and come up with a good test plan that either increases the minimum block time, or removes it entirely. I still hope it's possible you and I could have a rational discussion about the algorithms and how to test whether they work correctly or not.

It greatly decreased my stress levels to ignore unelected tyrants who write more inflammatory rhetoric than code, but that is not an easy thing to do.

I keep hearing about how I've been ejected, yet what I see is that everyone still runs the code I wrote.

The fact that we're still all arguing about this almost 2 years later seems to indicate there actually might be a community worth saving if we can grow up and learn some conflict resolution skills.

Nobody elected any of us, we all showed up here for our own reasons. Some for profit, some because we like cats. The original developer of Catcoin is long gone, and we all took in the stray code, and did what we thought was best to improve it, and the ultimate authority on who is 'part of the community' are the people that buy catcoin, sell catcoin, run miners, exchanges, and websites, and write the code that facilitates it. There's no 'catcoin federal reserve committee' that decides in secret who's part of the community, you either participate, because you want to, or you don't.
Blaksmith
Full Member
***
Online Online

Activity: 135



View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 26, 2015, 04:07:03 PM
 #1309

This is the current test code running on testnet.

https://github.com/Blaksmith/CatcoinRelease

Checkpoints and Version change still need to be done before it gets released.

Blak

"Your future is whatever you make it, so make it a good one." Dr. Emmett Brown
Donations welcome: Bitcoin: 1BLAKSMTjnME4ZJX7VzzUyEgbQYLShvqgi Catcoin: 9aw3Ttiz5yMALUm2DUj748cCHYQLatwLPz Unobtanium: uh3bjJua71jFijmz1yAB89KM8mqJEbzrek Wankcoin: 16r6gAdDukMRYgch1fhxPytsp2WsEfmLRc
Pool owner of: geekhash.org
SlimePuppy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294


View Profile

Ignore
May 26, 2015, 05:24:04 PM
 #1310


Troy.

You RIGHT HERE, are admitting that you are running code that has NOT BEEN APPROVED, AND CAN CAUSE A FORK.  For the last time.

YOU HAVE BEEN EJECTED FROM THE COMMUNITY BY THE COMMUNITY.

All you ever talk about for CatCoin, is HOW CAN I LINE MY OWN POCKET, WHILE DISRUPTING THE REST OF THE MINERS

It is assholes like you that keep the stress levels high, and take away from other more important things in life.

Why don't you try this stuff with your Uro coin, and leave CatCoin alone, as you know you are not welcome!

Blak

Blak, you wrote the code for PID difficulty adjustment. It's not how I would have written it, if I had the time to spend, but you did, and the damn thing WORKS, and seems to work quite well with a longer minimum block time.

If you have some new code that you think works better, then I'd like to review it with you, and come up with a good test plan that either increases the minimum block time, or removes it entirely. I still hope it's possible you and I could have a rational discussion about the algorithms and how to test whether they work correctly or not.

It greatly decreased my stress levels to ignore unelected tyrants who write more inflammatory rhetoric than code, but that is not an easy thing to do.

I keep hearing about how I've been ejected, yet what I see is that everyone still runs the code I wrote.

The fact that we're still all arguing about this almost 2 years later seems to indicate there actually might be a community worth saving if we can grow up and learn some conflict resolution skills.

Nobody elected any of us, we all showed up here for our own reasons. Some for profit, some because we like cats. The original developer of Catcoin is long gone, and we all took in the stray code, and did what we thought was best to improve it, and the ultimate authority on who is 'part of the community' are the people that buy catcoin, sell catcoin, run miners, exchanges, and websites, and write the code that facilitates it. There's no 'catcoin federal reserve committee' that decides in secret who's part of the community, you either participate, because you want to, or you don't.
Troy - while your politician/propaganda/"I Love Me" skillz are in rare form, the piece you continue to ignore is the part where you are not part of this community.  You were kicked for being a self-serving terrorist working against this community and it's clear that you haven't changed your stripes.  That's your first problem.  Your second is that there is no "everyone" running your code that is not you and your aliases and your nodes.  And your third is that those of us that came together had exactly one project in mind:  CAT and her community.  We aren't here to make money, or manipulate a blockchain, or fragment a network, or fund our farming hobby.  You were the only person wasting our time trying to find a way to get paid to program.  Seriously - put an add on elance if you want to but CAT is not your retirement fund.

Feel free to play with any strawmen you care to stitch together but here we don't like zombies, or strawmen, or hozers - and certainly not the embodiment of all three.

Enough of THAT BS.  Sad

For the rest of the community:  I have only one concern with publishing the code.  I know - it has to be published and it'll be known regardless.  But as I have absolutely zero trust for hozer/troy/tmagik/catcoiner I fully expect that as soon as the code is made public that he will be sifting through it to find an exploit he can use for personal profit.  As he's been working against the community from the beginning, I don't expect him to be fully transparent if he does find a problem.  So - while this code works, and while it's been validated against other projects that are believed to resist exploitation, it's really important that we get eyes on it.  Thanks in advance for your help!

Andy

CAT: 9Yb2QsQQLfEuGUepVLyZjxF7WmG2NwNogi  LTC: LPaE7H5uEjLWSLrB6GSxP8AoiAwRPcHWae
hozer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 26, 2015, 06:07:44 PM
 #1311

This is the current test code running on testnet.

https://github.com/Blaksmith/CatcoinRelease

Checkpoints and Version change still need to be done before it gets released.

Blak

My biggest concern with that code is that by going back to the original GetMedianTimePast function, in combination with using the timestamp to select the difficulty algorithm, you are basically giving the miners the ability to manipulate the difficulty by selecting timestamps that cause the difficulty to do whatever they want. This is why early disclosure and discussion of the code is so critical, so that we have a chance to talk about how or why it might be exploitable.

I see a repeat of some exploitable things in Dogecoin going on here.. https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/issues/323#issuecomment-37419607

GetMedianTimePast works in Bitcoin because they only change difficulty every 2016 blocks, and an attacker would have to maintain a large hashrate for at least that many blocks to subvert the block timestamps. With Catcoin and adjusting every block, you only need 5-10 blocks to cause dramatic difficulty changes, which means there's now a profitable motive to run the difficulty way up, and then mine on another fork with different timestamps and lower difficulty, but more consistent block times.

As far as I can tell, there are only two ways out of that mess:
1) do what Dogecoin did and merge-mine with another coin. (What if all the cat-themed scypt coins that are still alive agreed to do AuxPOW merge-mining?)
2) longer minimum block times

There also might be a way to use Heavycoin's temporal retargeting (https://heavycoin.github.io/about.html#temporal-retargeting) but I haven't quite figured out if that'd be exploitable in the same way or not.

Blaksmith
Full Member
***
Online Online

Activity: 135



View Profile WWW

Ignore
Today at 05:07:54 AM
 #1312

This is the current test code running on testnet.

https://github.com/Blaksmith/CatcoinRelease

Checkpoints and Version change still need to be done before it gets released.

Blak

My biggest concern with that code is that by going back to the original GetMedianTimePast function, in combination with using the timestamp to select the difficulty algorithm, you are basically giving the miners the ability to manipulate the difficulty by selecting timestamps that cause the difficulty to do whatever they want. This is why early disclosure and discussion of the code is so critical, so that we have a chance to talk about how or why it might be exploitable.

I see a repeat of some exploitable things in Dogecoin going on here.. https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/issues/323#issuecomment-37419607

GetMedianTimePast works in Bitcoin because they only change difficulty every 2016 blocks, and an attacker would have to maintain a large hashrate for at least that many blocks to subvert the block timestamps. With Catcoin and adjusting every block, you only need 5-10 blocks to cause dramatic difficulty changes, which means there's now a profitable motive to run the difficulty way up, and then mine on another fork with different timestamps and lower difficulty, but more consistent block times.

As far as I can tell, there are only two ways out of that mess:
1) do what Dogecoin did and merge-mine with another coin. (What if all the cat-themed scypt coins that are still alive agreed to do AuxPOW merge-mining?)
2) longer minimum block times

There also might be a way to use Heavycoin's temporal retargeting (https://heavycoin.github.io/about.html#temporal-retargeting) but I haven't quite figured out if that'd be exploitable in the same way or not.



That's the whole point of the semi-random algo used.  According to your statement, that so-called attacker (most likely you that CLAIMS that everyone is running your code, which looking at the blockchain, only YOU are running that code), could set the timestamp of each block....

ok,  say someone (you) does come up with a clever way to TRY and submit blocks within the certain period of the certain algo picked, that is still a VERY small period of time to submit a shit-ton of illegal blocks, as your code would try to submit, as you are still trying to manipulate the coin with low-ish fake hash.  What would happen if a LEGIT block domes through at the same time as your hacking attempts, it would throw you off 100000%, as the whole algo was changed, and then, it would probably take a main system another few hours to try to decipher what the next attack would be, and then in the mean time LEGIT blocks would be happening, and you, the hacker would only get 1 or two blocks out of the whole deal.

Hell, I'm even willing to tighten it up and add more algo's in there, with smaller timestamp resolutions.

Let's let the WHOLE community decide.. not ONE asshole who wants to try and hack the whole system EVERY FUCKING TIME!

Blak

"Your future is whatever you make it, so make it a good one." Dr. Emmett Brown
Donations welcome: Bitcoin: 1BLAKSMTjnME4ZJX7VzzUyEgbQYLShvqgi Catcoin: 9aw3Ttiz5yMALUm2DUj748cCHYQLatwLPz Unobtanium: uh3bjJua71jFijmz1yAB89KM8mqJEbzrek Wankcoin: 16r6gAdDukMRYgch1fhxPytsp2WsEfmLRc
Pool owner of: geekhash.org
Pages: « 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 [66]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!