Bitcoin Forum
November 17, 2018, 06:45:42 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 [903] 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 ... 1038 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] [MINT] Mintcoin (POS / 5%) [NO ICO] [Fair distro, community maintained]  (Read 1343089 times)
kiklo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 02:31:14 AM
 #18041

What would be the downsides of setting the timedrift to 1.5 minutes?  Orphans? How bad would it be? Do you think it would really be an issue? Any adverse side affects?

Edit:
Also, what would be a good network weight level needed to prevent this?

Orphans:
Worst case would freeze the mint network and block syncing for a lot of users.
Especially for new People syncing the 1st time.
Best case , then no problem.

FYI:  Mint already has orphan issues, they are just not noticed as much, due to the fact that so few are staking 24x7 .  For example at the moment only 3.2% of coin are staking, so your orphan rate is lower.
Your staking rate changes daily and on days where you have over 10% staking your Orphan rate is higher.
Easy test , start a new mint wallet and sync it from scratch when your staking rate is higher, you will notice it freeze up on blocks during the sync, check the debug.log file and you will see the orphan problem.

If your timedrift is set too low for a 30 second block and your staking rate improves to 20 or 30 % , your orphan rate it gonna go sky high, unknown if high enough to block syncing or not.
So a increasing/normal staking rate should be a factor in the final decisions.

 Cool
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1542480342
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542480342

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542480342
Reply with quote  #2

1542480342
Report to moderator
1542480342
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542480342

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542480342
Reply with quote  #2

1542480342
Report to moderator
1542480342
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542480342

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542480342
Reply with quote  #2

1542480342
Report to moderator
kiklo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 02:43:39 AM
 #18042

This is the issue... If you drop the timedrift window down, you increase the risk of a network freeze; and it can thus reduce the "randomness" of who is going to be getting the next block, by excluding some people who's clocks are not accurate.
The thing to find out is how big of an issue is this? Do we know what the average, or median divergance typically is from keeping an accurate time for a large pool of nodes? If 98% are within 2 minutes, then it makes sense to me to do it. But does anyone know this information? How can we know what a good timedrift is? Is there anyway to track this data?

Are there any sort of configuration settings that can be done to improve this, and make it more accurate.

One thing to find out is what % increase in orphans will it cause? If it increases them by a mere 5% or something then it is probably acceptable. Is there anyway this can this be tested?

http://blog.codinghorror.com/keeping-time-on-the-pc/

Network freeze is most likely not going to be an issue as blackcoin & clams are on 15 seconds and they get by ok. So anything 2 minutes or more won't be an issue.

Hyperstake works at 1 minute time drift with no issues, but they also run at 60 second blocks instead of 30 seconds.

Biggest concern is orphans and that is unknown and dependent on # of people staking.
And will change on a daily basis, don't personally know of anyway to test this, except by doing it and then monitoring the network.

Crypto Bleeding edge, you won't know for sure until you do it.

 Cool
presstab
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


Blockchain Developer


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 03:19:34 AM
 #18043

This is the issue... If you drop the timedrift window down, you increase the risk of a network freeze; and it can thus reduce the "randomness" of who is going to be getting the next block, by excluding some people who's clocks are not accurate.
The thing to find out is how big of an issue is this? Do we know what the average, or median divergance typically is from keeping an accurate time for a large pool of nodes? If 98% are within 2 minutes, then it makes sense to me to do it. But does anyone know this information? How can we know what a good timedrift is? Is there anyway to track this data?

Are there any sort of configuration settings that can be done to improve this, and make it more accurate.

One thing to find out is what % increase in orphans will it cause? If it increases them by a mere 5% or something then it is probably acceptable. Is there anyway this can this be tested?

http://blog.codinghorror.com/keeping-time-on-the-pc/

Network freeze is most likely not going to be an issue as blackcoin & clams are on 15 seconds and they get by ok. So anything 2 minutes or more won't be an issue.

Hyperstake works at 1 minute time drift with no issues, but they also run at 60 second blocks instead of 30 seconds.

Biggest concern is orphans and that is unknown and dependent on # of people staking.
And will change on a daily basis, don't personally know of anyway to test this, except by doing it and then monitoring the network.

Crypto Bleeding edge, you won't know for sure until you do it.

 Cool


Yes I think orphans is the biggest concern. With a 2 minute drift allowance, you would be able to have your machine off by 1 minute and still be within the bounds of the timedrift window if you were to stake a timestamp 60 seconds into the future. With 3 minutes you could be 2 minutes off, etc. If you browse through your debug.log it will show the peers time offset when you connect to them. Usually everyone is within 10 seconds or so from each other.

Projects I Contribute To: libzerocoin | Veil | PIVX | HyperStake | Crown | SaluS
coolbeans94
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 613
Merit: 500


Mintcoin: Get some


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 03:33:27 AM
 #18044

FYI:  Mint already has orphan issues, they are just not noticed as much, due to the fact that so few are staking 24x7 .  For example at the moment only 3.2% of coin are staking, so your orphan rate is lower.
Your staking rate changes daily and on days where you have over 10% staking your Orphan rate is higher.
Easy test , start a new mint wallet and sync it from scratch when your staking rate is higher, you will notice it freeze up on blocks during the sync, check the debug.log file and you will see the orphan problem.

If your timedrift is set too low for a 30 second block and your staking rate improves to 20 or 30 % , your orphan rate it gonna go sky high, unknown if high enough to block syncing or not.
So a increasing/normal staking rate should be a factor in the final decisions.

 Cool

That's strange. Whenever I have looked over the network, it always seemed to me that during the times of highest difficulty, and highest staking rate, the orphans rate spiked down to the fewest orphans.

Regardless; are you talking about trying to sync the wallet from scratch possibly freezing? Or are you talking about a fully synced wallet all of the sudden freezing and not syncing?

At this point, I wouldn't say that orphans are really a "problem" they are still tolerable at this point.



http://blog.codinghorror.com/keeping-time-on-the-pc/

Network freeze is most likely not going to be an issue as blackcoin & clams are on 15 seconds and they get by ok. So anything 2 minutes or more won't be an issue.

Hyperstake works at 1 minute time drift with no issues, but they also run at 60 second blocks instead of 30 seconds.

Biggest concern is orphans and that is unknown and dependent on # of people staking.
And will change on a daily basis, don't personally know of anyway to test this, except by doing it and then monitoring the network.

Crypto Bleeding edge, you won't know for sure until you do it.

I thought Blackcoin and Clams were on 15 minutes, not 15 seconds.


Yes I think orphans is the biggest concern. With a 2 minute drift allowance, you would be able to have your machine off by 1 minute and still be within the bounds of the timedrift window if you were to stake a timestamp 60 seconds into the future. With 3 minutes you could be 2 minutes off, etc. If you browse through your debug.log it will show the peers time offset when you connect to them. Usually everyone is within 10 seconds or so from each other.

Sounds to me according to presstab, 1 minute timedrift is working with 1 minute blocks, on Hyper, and usually everyone is within 10 seconds of eachother, so is there any reason not to think that 1 minutes should easily work fine with the 30 second blocks that Mintcoin has? What about 45 seconds?

(1.) Moral happiness depends upon moral order.
(2.) Moral order depends upon the harmonious action of all our powers, as
individuals and as members of society.
kiklo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 04:59:26 AM
 #18045

That's strange. Whenever I have looked over the network, it always seemed to me that during the times of highest difficulty, and highest staking rate, the orphans rate spiked down to the fewest orphans.

Regardless; are you talking about trying to sync the wallet from scratch possibly freezing? Or are you talking about a fully synced wallet all of the sudden freezing and not syncing?

At this point, I wouldn't say that orphans are really a "problem" they are still tolerable at this point


Orphan problem shows up more when trying to sync a wallet for the 1st time,
It goes over the orphan limit and locks up during the sync, until it clears no other blocks are synced.
The only thing keeping it from being noticed more is the low staking rate.

I noticed more orphan errors in the debug log, when more coins are staking than less.
If there is another explanation, would love to hear it so I could test it.

Correct at your current level Orphans are not an issue if you are fully synced, but everyone does not stay fully sync. And lowering the timedrift will increase orphans , PressTab can confirm that from his own experience. And if your staking % goes higher, your orphans should also increase again.

I thought Blackcoin and Clams were on 15 minutes, not 15 seconds.

Nope, changed to 15 seconds timedrifts,  you can check their forums.

Sounds to me according to presstab, 1 minute timedrift is working with 1 minute blocks, on Hyper, and usually everyone is within 10 seconds of eachother, so is there any reason not to think that 1 minutes should easily work fine with the 30 second blocks that Mintcoin has? What about 45 seconds?

May work fine, with 30 seconds blocks,
May not, 2 major differences Hyperstake is 60 second block time , plus it's  # of coins is less than 250 million.
Mint is over 21 billion, over 84 times the size of hyperstake coins.
More staking coins = more orphans.

A 30 second block would be safe within a 45 second time drift.
A 45 second block should be safe within as large as a 2 minute time drift.
A 60 second block should be safe within as large as a 2½ minute time drift.

Higher the time drift , lower the orphans.

Once everyone is done saying their piece,
Have CM Pick the 3 most preferred choices and then the Mint community can vote on it.
Guess the 4th choice would be No changes and hope no one hits mint with the time warp.

 Cool
cryptomommy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 425
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 11:24:55 AM
 #18046

If I understand this it sounds like A 30 second block would be safe within a 45 second time drift - would be the most secure. Is this an accurate statement?

I do not believe this needs to be a poll. Everyone who would be concerned about these changes in the community from my social channel management experience is talking about it right now. (that's awesome).

As a large investor of Mintcoin I personally would like to go with the most secure option. If everyone agrees with this I would like to move forward with this implementation.

I have another developer on standby for these changes to be completed to make the other changes I mentioned as well. We can release the wallet with all features it looks like.

Flyskyhigh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 292
Merit: 250


Ezekiel 34:11, John 10:25-30


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 01:59:03 PM
 #18047

If I understand this it sounds like A 30 second block would be safe within a 45 second time drift - would be the most secure. Is this an accurate statement?

I do not believe this needs to be a poll. Everyone who would be concerned about these changes in the community from my social channel management experience is talking about it right now. (that's awesome).

As a large investor of Mintcoin I personally would like to go with the most secure option. If everyone agrees with this I would like to move forward with this implementation.

I have another developer on standby for these changes to be completed to make the other changes I mentioned as well. We can release the wallet with all features it looks like.



Okay. I think I am for it. Sounds like even at 45 seconds it would't increase orphans by much though.  Still should be plenty of time. Still will be a big improvement.

Sick of mining?  Start minting!  5% per year!  Mintcoin "MINT"
publicjud
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1002


IXCoin - the first altcoin


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 02:13:25 PM
 #18048

If I understand this it sounds like A 30 second block would be safe within a 45 second time drift - would be the most secure. Is this an accurate statement?

I do not believe this needs to be a poll. Everyone who would be concerned about these changes in the community from my social channel management experience is talking about it right now. (that's awesome).

As a large investor of Mintcoin I personally would like to go with the most secure option. If everyone agrees with this I would like to move forward with this implementation.

I have another developer on standby for these changes to be completed to make the other changes I mentioned as well. We can release the wallet with all features it looks like.



Okay. I think I am for it. Sounds like even at 45 seconds it would't increase orphans by much though.  Still should be plenty of time. Still will be a big improvement.

Would this help the slow sync times?

IXCoin - The first altcoin
cryptomommy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 425
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 02:32:47 PM
 #18049

If I understand this it sounds like A 30 second block would be safe within a 45 second time drift - would be the most secure. Is this an accurate statement?

I do not believe this needs to be a poll. Everyone who would be concerned about these changes in the community from my social channel management experience is talking about it right now. (that's awesome).

As a large investor of Mintcoin I personally would like to go with the most secure option. If everyone agrees with this I would like to move forward with this implementation.

I have another developer on standby for these changes to be completed to make the other changes I mentioned as well. We can release the wallet with all features it looks like.



Okay. I think I am for it. Sounds like even at 45 seconds it would't increase orphans by much though.  Still should be plenty of time. Still will be a big improvement.

Would this help the slow sync times?

I don't believe so but we are looking into making significant improvements on the process of installing / upgrading wallet process as well. In the meantime we have a bootstrap daily backup that cuts the time down to a few hours.
coolbeans94
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 613
Merit: 500


Mintcoin: Get some


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 02:37:07 PM
 #18050

Network weight will mean higher difficulty, and higher difficulty means it will be harder to get it into this type of spiral to begin with.

120 minutes = 7200 possible hashes to try and find a stake (although you could target only the say highest 5000 timestamps)
6 minutes = 360 possible hashes
3 minutes = 180

6 minutes reduces the possibilities by a large amount, but narrowing down to 3 minutes still cuts those chances in half. Is 3 minutes too large? It could be.. MINT's 30 second block time doesnt exactly help in this scenario (I recommended to cryptomommy to also put block time up for vote, but I had longevity of chain syncing in mind not this particular issue). The small block time makes it easier to over shoot. For HyperStake I have used a 60 second time. The only problem I have had so far with it is that the default implementation of PPCs stake hashing goes 60 seconds, so if you clock does not properly read consensus time it is possible to orphan blocks because they minted outside the timedrift window. So even a 1.5 minutes timedrift would probably do the trick.
The only problem I have had so far with it is that the default implementation of PPCs stake hashing goes 60 seconds, so if you clock does not properly read consensus time it is possible to orphan blocks because they minted outside the timedrift window. So even a 1.5 minutes timedrift would probably do the trick.

Because of this...It sounds to me, we need to have the timeshift at or above 60 seconds in order to prevent a spike in orphans. My concern is could 45 seconds be too low? What about a 66 second timeshift? That would be 1.1 minutes; which is still even more conservative than the 1.5 minutes presstab recommended. My thinking is, going just over 60 seconds, would eliminate any issue with the default implementation of stake hashing going to 60 seconds.

Thoughts?

At anyrate, if we do a fork, we need to give plenty of time for people to upgrade wallets, before the fork block comes. All exchanges and such need to be on board.

As for sync times, is there any reason we can't do a genesis block from a year ago or so that would reduce the blockchain? Just another thing to think about, if we are going to need to fork it, we might as well keep them to as few as possible.

(1.) Moral happiness depends upon moral order.
(2.) Moral order depends upon the harmonious action of all our powers, as
individuals and as members of society.
presstab
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


Blockchain Developer


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 03:35:01 PM
 #18051

Network weight will mean higher difficulty, and higher difficulty means it will be harder to get it into this type of spiral to begin with.

120 minutes = 7200 possible hashes to try and find a stake (although you could target only the say highest 5000 timestamps)
6 minutes = 360 possible hashes
3 minutes = 180

6 minutes reduces the possibilities by a large amount, but narrowing down to 3 minutes still cuts those chances in half. Is 3 minutes too large? It could be.. MINT's 30 second block time doesnt exactly help in this scenario (I recommended to cryptomommy to also put block time up for vote, but I had longevity of chain syncing in mind not this particular issue). The small block time makes it easier to over shoot. For HyperStake I have used a 60 second time. The only problem I have had so far with it is that the default implementation of PPCs stake hashing goes 60 seconds, so if you clock does not properly read consensus time it is possible to orphan blocks because they minted outside the timedrift window. So even a 1.5 minutes timedrift would probably do the trick.
The only problem I have had so far with it is that the default implementation of PPCs stake hashing goes 60 seconds, so if you clock does not properly read consensus time it is possible to orphan blocks because they minted outside the timedrift window. So even a 1.5 minutes timedrift would probably do the trick.

Because of this...It sounds to me, we need to have the timeshift at or above 60 seconds in order to prevent a spike in orphans. My concern is could 45 seconds be too low? What about a 66 second timeshift? That would be 1.1 minutes; which is still even more conservative than the 1.5 minutes presstab recommended. My thinking is, going just over 60 seconds, would eliminate any issue with the default implementation of stake hashing going to 60 seconds.

Thoughts?

At anyrate, if we do a fork, we need to give plenty of time for people to upgrade wallets, before the fork block comes. All exchanges and such need to be on board.

As for sync times, is there any reason we can't do a genesis block from a year ago or so that would reduce the blockchain? Just another thing to think about, if we are going to need to fork it, we might as well keep them to as few as possible.

Yes you are exactly right.

If you go 45 second drift you would want to lower the what I call the hashdrift (how far into the future you hash) to preferably lower than 45 seconds, maybe 30-35 seconds. Or you could leave it as is at 60 seconds, and change timedrift allowance to 75-90 seconds, or whatever you all decide is correct (I am just here to help you all understand the details, not here to tell you what to do).

Projects I Contribute To: libzerocoin | Veil | PIVX | HyperStake | Crown | SaluS
presstab
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


Blockchain Developer


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 03:38:30 PM
 #18052

Okay. I think I am for it. Sounds like even at 45 seconds it would't increase orphans by much though.  Still should be plenty of time. Still will be a big improvement.

It is my opinion that the root cause of orphans in PoS coins is the rules that calculate chain trust. If you create a proofhash and it has a timestamp 45 seconds into the future, and then someone else creates a proofhash that is 5 seconds less than yours their block will orphan yours. The chaintrust yields to highest difficulty up to 6 blocks downstream (if I recall correctly). If timedrift changes are implemented correctly, there should be no increase or decrease in orphan count.

Projects I Contribute To: libzerocoin | Veil | PIVX | HyperStake | Crown | SaluS
coolbeans94
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 613
Merit: 500


Mintcoin: Get some


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 04:12:22 PM
 #18053

Network weight will mean higher difficulty, and higher difficulty means it will be harder to get it into this type of spiral to begin with.

120 minutes = 7200 possible hashes to try and find a stake (although you could target only the say highest 5000 timestamps)
6 minutes = 360 possible hashes
3 minutes = 180

6 minutes reduces the possibilities by a large amount, but narrowing down to 3 minutes still cuts those chances in half. Is 3 minutes too large? It could be.. MINT's 30 second block time doesnt exactly help in this scenario (I recommended to cryptomommy to also put block time up for vote, but I had longevity of chain syncing in mind not this particular issue). The small block time makes it easier to over shoot. For HyperStake I have used a 60 second time. The only problem I have had so far with it is that the default implementation of PPCs stake hashing goes 60 seconds, so if you clock does not properly read consensus time it is possible to orphan blocks because they minted outside the timedrift window. So even a 1.5 minutes timedrift would probably do the trick.
The only problem I have had so far with it is that the default implementation of PPCs stake hashing goes 60 seconds, so if you clock does not properly read consensus time it is possible to orphan blocks because they minted outside the timedrift window. So even a 1.5 minutes timedrift would probably do the trick.

Because of this...It sounds to me, we need to have the timeshift at or above 60 seconds in order to prevent a spike in orphans. My concern is could 45 seconds be too low? What about a 66 second timeshift? That would be 1.1 minutes; which is still even more conservative than the 1.5 minutes presstab recommended. My thinking is, going just over 60 seconds, would eliminate any issue with the default implementation of stake hashing going to 60 seconds.

Thoughts?

At anyrate, if we do a fork, we need to give plenty of time for people to upgrade wallets, before the fork block comes. All exchanges and such need to be on board.

As for sync times, is there any reason we can't do a genesis block from a year ago or so that would reduce the blockchain? Just another thing to think about, if we are going to need to fork it, we might as well keep them to as few as possible.

Yes you are exactly right.

If you go 45 second drift you would want to lower the what I call the hashdrift (how far into the future you hash) to preferably lower than 45 seconds, maybe 30-35 seconds. Or you could leave it as is at 60 seconds, and change timedrift allowance to 75-90 seconds, or whatever you all decide is correct (I am just here to help you all understand the details, not here to tell you what to do).

That is why I suggested 66 seconds for the timedrift. 6 seconds (10%) extra time above the hashdrift. A small grace period for any lag (not sure how necessary, but I think most timedrifts are a bit longer than the hashdrifts right?)

Are there any negatives to reducing the "hashdrift"?

(1.) Moral happiness depends upon moral order.
(2.) Moral order depends upon the harmonious action of all our powers, as
individuals and as members of society.
presstab
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


Blockchain Developer


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 05:37:01 PM
 #18054


That is why I suggested 66 seconds for the timedrift. 6 seconds (10%) extra time above the hashdrift. A small grace period for any lag (not sure how necessary, but I think most timedrifts are a bit longer than the hashdrifts right?)

Are there any negatives to reducing the "hashdrift"?

Not necessarily bad. You just arent searching as large of a group of timestamps at a time.

Projects I Contribute To: libzerocoin | Veil | PIVX | HyperStake | Crown | SaluS
coolbeans94
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 613
Merit: 500


Mintcoin: Get some


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 05:50:29 PM
 #18055


That is why I suggested 66 seconds for the timedrift. 6 seconds (10%) extra time above the hashdrift. A small grace period for any lag (not sure how necessary, but I think most timedrifts are a bit longer than the hashdrifts right?)

Are there any negatives to reducing the "hashdrift"?

Not necessarily bad. You just arent searching as large of a group of timestamps at a time.
Doe this aspect affect CPU?
 What are benefits of searching a large group of timestamps at a time? How much would a 20 second drop affect it?

(1.) Moral happiness depends upon moral order.
(2.) Moral order depends upon the harmonious action of all our powers, as
individuals and as members of society.
presstab
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


Blockchain Developer


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:03:43 PM
 #18056


That is why I suggested 66 seconds for the timedrift. 6 seconds (10%) extra time above the hashdrift. A small grace period for any lag (not sure how necessary, but I think most timedrifts are a bit longer than the hashdrifts right?)

Are there any negatives to reducing the "hashdrift"?

Not necessarily bad. You just arent searching as large of a group of timestamps at a time.
Doe this aspect affect CPU?
 What are benefits of searching a large group of timestamps at a time? How much would a 20 second drop affect it?

It is supposed to be setup to only search those 60 timestamps and then only search 1 more each second. I have found that it seems to use way too much CPU to do this. I redesigned the kernel for HYP to have two parameter (which are now directly editable by the user via RPC call) hashdrift and hash interval. hashdrift has already been explained and hash interval is the period of time that the client will wait between hashing bursts. So instead of going through the loop every second only to interate one second at a time, I found that hashing 60 seconds at a time, and waiting 30 seconds until you hash another 60 hashes (50% redundancy with that setting) is much better on CPU. Most of the time it sits at 0.3% CPU, when hashing for a fraction of a second it might jump up to 7-10%.

If my reading of the code is correct, leaving mint at the standard kernel that it uses now will not have an impact on cpu, even if changing timedrift and hashdrift.

Projects I Contribute To: libzerocoin | Veil | PIVX | HyperStake | Crown | SaluS
coolbeans94
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 613
Merit: 500


Mintcoin: Get some


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:24:41 PM
 #18057


That is why I suggested 66 seconds for the timedrift. 6 seconds (10%) extra time above the hashdrift. A small grace period for any lag (not sure how necessary, but I think most timedrifts are a bit longer than the hashdrifts right?)

Are there any negatives to reducing the "hashdrift"?

Not necessarily bad. You just arent searching as large of a group of timestamps at a time.
Doe this aspect affect CPU?
 What are benefits of searching a large group of timestamps at a time? How much would a 20 second drop affect it?

It is supposed to be setup to only search those 60 timestamps and then only search 1 more each second. I have found that it seems to use way too much CPU to do this. I redesigned the kernel for HYP to have two parameter (which are now directly editable by the user via RPC call) hashdrift and hash interval. hashdrift has already been explained and hash interval is the period of time that the client will wait between hashing bursts. So instead of going through the loop every second only to interate one second at a time, I found that hashing 60 seconds at a time, and waiting 30 seconds until you hash another 60 hashes (50% redundancy with that setting) is much better on CPU. Most of the time it sits at 0.3% CPU, when hashing for a fraction of a second it might jump up to 7-10%.

If my reading of the code is correct, leaving mint at the standard kernel that it uses now will not have an impact on cpu, even if changing timedrift and hashdrift.
What do you mean those 60 time stamps?

Are you saying that if we reduce hashdrift to 40 it will search 40 time stamps, initially over 40 seconds, and then continue to search 1 per second?

(1.) Moral happiness depends upon moral order.
(2.) Moral order depends upon the harmonious action of all our powers, as
individuals and as members of society.
coolbeans94
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 613
Merit: 500


Mintcoin: Get some


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 07:00:55 PM
 #18058

The way I see it, we need to drop the hashdrift to about 18 seconds, and then  put the timedrift at about 10 seconds more (to ensure no increase in orphans). This would put the timedrift at 28 seconds which is just under the 30 second block target. So this way, it would ensure that even if you attempt a timewarp attack you cannot lower the difficulty.

What do you think?

(1.) Moral happiness depends upon moral order.
(2.) Moral order depends upon the harmonious action of all our powers, as
individuals and as members of society.
presstab
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


Blockchain Developer


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 07:54:39 PM
 #18059

Yes I define hashdrift as the amount of timestamps it searches from the current timestamp. So 60 timestamps, I mean a hashdrift of 40.

Also in this conversation I don't know if I mentioned that your client actually automatically adjusts your time to be in sync with the network, well in sync with the median time of your peer pool. So even some out of time synced peers will be perfectly capable of producing accepted stakes. But this adjustedtime, as the code calls is, is also dependent on the size of your peer pool, the more peers the more accurate it should be.

Projects I Contribute To: libzerocoin | Veil | PIVX | HyperStake | Crown | SaluS
coolbeans94
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 613
Merit: 500


Mintcoin: Get some


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 08:00:43 PM
 #18060

Yes I define hashdrift as the amount of timestamps it searches from the current timestamp. So 60 timestamps, I mean a hashdrift of 40.

Also in this conversation I don't know if I mentioned that your client actually automatically adjusts your time to be in sync with the network, well in sync with the median time of your peer pool. So even some out of time synced peers will be perfectly capable of producing accepted stakes. But this adjustedtime, as the code calls is, is also dependent on the size of your peer pool, the more peers the more accurate it should be.
Okay. Do you see any reason why 18 would not work just fine then? See my example above. 

(1.) Moral happiness depends upon moral order.
(2.) Moral order depends upon the harmonious action of all our powers, as
individuals and as members of society.
Pages: « 1 ... 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 [903] 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 ... 1038 »
  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!