Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2017, 07:47:19 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 ... 1016 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] [MINT] Mintcoin (POS / 5%) [NO ICO] [Fair distro, community maintained]  (Read 1321972 times)
I2S2SI
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 12:44:48 AM
 #18101

How long before my coins in wallet start minting?

They been maturing for 2 days now

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
1513021639
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513021639

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513021639
Reply with quote  #2

1513021639
Report to moderator
1513021639
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513021639

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513021639
Reply with quote  #2

1513021639
Report to moderator
1513021639
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513021639

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513021639
Reply with quote  #2

1513021639
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513021639
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513021639

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513021639
Reply with quote  #2

1513021639
Report to moderator
1513021639
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513021639

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513021639
Reply with quote  #2

1513021639
Report to moderator
1513021639
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513021639

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513021639
Reply with quote  #2

1513021639
Report to moderator
sambiohazard
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 01:06:23 AM
 #18102

+1 from me. Security is of utmost importance. Also I would like to hear Presstab's thoughts on POS 2.0 adoption as it is also related to security.
The reason I am against that is because it involves lowering the minimum waiting time in order to stake. I would much rather increase confirmations instead, which increases security without compromising stakabilty.

I am not sure how low waiting time compromises staking. You get smaller but more frequent rewards. Its all about how you see it. For those who are looking at it as a long term investment which they will sit on would like current scheme but if you want to spend your coins then having long wait times will compromise your overall rewards as you spend. Also, there is issue of people not staking 24x7 but still getting rewards for it. When you are offline you are not securing the network/adding to network weight.
It compromises the number of people or the number of balances that are able to stake.
You only stake if you find a block and are only so many blocks in a given period of time. If you lower the waiting period before you can stake again, then it queezes out people with lower balances from being able to stake and get a block. With a 20 day waiting period, it allows for roughly 57,600 stakes before those same coins can stake again, (30 second block time x 20 days). If we lowered it to say 1 day, then only the top 2,880 coin weights would stake, then it will cycle over again, and likely be those same 2,880 addresses once again that stake.
I think that PoS 2.0 is a more fair system. It rewards those who secure the network. If you have more coins i.e. big investment in coin you are rewarded more frequently for your investment risk. If you have less coins, you are rewarded less frequently as you invested less & have smaller risk or less support towards coin. Also when you don't stake in a cycle your network weight is preserved and you will eventually gain enough weight to stake. It is not like people with less coins never stake. I posted it a few pages back that how i get a fairly proportional amount of stakes on Blackcoin with some 0.003% of total coins. It is just like solo mining, your chances increase as you increase your participation.

Also with current system, network weight which determines network security fluctuates wildly between <2% to 10-15%. There is no incentive for people to remain online and stake, but just come online every 20 days to get rewards for not securing the network. Also what if a lot of people have mature coins at same time while at other times there are no/less mature coins, it will make no sense for people to keep there wallets open while they don't have mature coins and thus we see <2% coins staking. With smaller time to mature coins, people remain online more often and thus support network more. I am still learning about these systems, so if i am wrong please do correct me. So far people have been giving me same reasons to avoid PoS 2.0. I have replied to there concerns but still they seem happy to keep status quo going. I am not an authority on PoS 2.0 that's why i asked presstab's view so that i can see why PoS 2.0 is not a good idea to implement.

Rent Rigs @ MiningRigRentals: https://www.miningrigrentals.com/register?ref=9685 | Mine Zcash, X11, ETH, BTC, LTC hashrate available @ Genesis Mining: 9yx2ib (Promo Code for 3% off)
Sell & Buy/Rent hashing power @ Nicehash.com: https://www.nicehash.com/?refby=63551
Trade BTCINR on Coinsecure.in (Global trade available: http://blog.coinsecure.in/post/153309186530/coinsecure-goes-global-by-reducing-the-barrier-for): https://coinsecure.in/signup/z5ehHIOLvHN5sWAq3wTu
sambiohazard
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 01:07:14 AM
 #18103

How long before my coins in wallet start minting?

They been maturing for 2 days now

It takes them 20 days to become mature for minting.

Rent Rigs @ MiningRigRentals: https://www.miningrigrentals.com/register?ref=9685 | Mine Zcash, X11, ETH, BTC, LTC hashrate available @ Genesis Mining: 9yx2ib (Promo Code for 3% off)
Sell & Buy/Rent hashing power @ Nicehash.com: https://www.nicehash.com/?refby=63551
Trade BTCINR on Coinsecure.in (Global trade available: http://blog.coinsecure.in/post/153309186530/coinsecure-goes-global-by-reducing-the-barrier-for): https://coinsecure.in/signup/z5ehHIOLvHN5sWAq3wTu
I2S2SI
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 01:10:52 AM
 #18104

How long before my coins in wallet start minting?

They been maturing for 2 days now

It takes them 20 days to become mature for minting.

Fucking hell...

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
sambiohazard
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 01:11:15 AM
 #18105

I don't really love "PoS2.0". I think stake weight is a well though out system, and when it is properly implemented it is quite safe.

Don't you think that PoS 2.0 is a self managing system by creating right incentives? You don't have to worry about implementing it properly.Am I right?

Rent Rigs @ MiningRigRentals: https://www.miningrigrentals.com/register?ref=9685 | Mine Zcash, X11, ETH, BTC, LTC hashrate available @ Genesis Mining: 9yx2ib (Promo Code for 3% off)
Sell & Buy/Rent hashing power @ Nicehash.com: https://www.nicehash.com/?refby=63551
Trade BTCINR on Coinsecure.in (Global trade available: http://blog.coinsecure.in/post/153309186530/coinsecure-goes-global-by-reducing-the-barrier-for): https://coinsecure.in/signup/z5ehHIOLvHN5sWAq3wTu
Derek492
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 357



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 02:47:27 AM
 #18106

+1 from me. Security is of utmost importance. Also I would like to hear Presstab's thoughts on POS 2.0 adoption as it is also related to security.
The reason I am against that is because it involves lowering the minimum waiting time in order to stake. I would much rather increase confirmations instead, which increases security without compromising stakabilty.

I am not sure how low waiting time compromises staking. You get smaller but more frequent rewards. Its all about how you see it. For those who are looking at it as a long term investment which they will sit on would like current scheme but if you want to spend your coins then having long wait times will compromise your overall rewards as you spend. Also, there is issue of people not staking 24x7 but still getting rewards for it. When you are offline you are not securing the network/adding to network weight.
It compromises the number of people or the number of balances that are able to stake.
You only stake if you find a block and are only so many blocks in a given period of time. If you lower the waiting period before you can stake again, then it queezes out people with lower balances from being able to stake and get a block. With a 20 day waiting period, it allows for roughly 57,600 stakes before those same coins can stake again, (30 second block time x 20 days). If we lowered it to say 1 day, then only the top 2,880 coin weights would stake, then it will cycle over again, and likely be those same 2,880 addresses once again that stake.
I think that PoS 2.0 is a more fair system. It rewards those who secure the network. If you have more coins i.e. big investment in coin you are rewarded more frequently for your investment risk. If you have less coins, you are rewarded less frequently as you invested less & have smaller risk or less support towards coin. Also when you don't stake in a cycle your network weight is preserved and you will eventually gain enough weight to stake. It is not like people with less coins never stake. I posted it a few pages back that how i get a fairly proportional amount of stakes on Blackcoin with some 0.003% of total coins. It is just like solo mining, your chances increase as you increase your participation.

Also with current system, network weight which determines network security fluctuates wildly between <2% to 10-15%. There is no incentive for people to remain online and stake, but just come online every 20 days to get rewards for not securing the network. Also what if a lot of people have mature coins at same time while at other times there are no/less mature coins, it will make no sense for people to keep there wallets open while they don't have mature coins and thus we see <2% coins staking. With smaller time to mature coins, people remain online more often and thus support network more. I am still learning about these systems, so if i am wrong please do correct me. So far people have been giving me same reasons to avoid PoS 2.0. I have replied to there concerns but still they seem happy to keep status quo going. I am not an authority on PoS 2.0 that's why i asked presstab's view so that i can see why PoS 2.0 is not a good idea to implement.
Actually when you don't stake in a cycle, your network weight is NOT preserved, and there is no guarantee you will ever eventually have enough weight to stake. Your weight caps out. With mintcoin it is the 40 day mark, 20 days worth of weight. People with very low amounts of coins will never stake. There are some coins that are setup that have no cap on your weight, but this is not secure, because someone could possibly setup an attack on the network by hoarding their weight for several years, or whatever period of time needed to control and overpower the network weight for an extended period. The cap is needed because it actually helps to bring balance to the difficulty over time too.

Note: The coin weight is not to be confused with the coin age. Coin age doesn't have a cap, so in the event it does take someone say, 4 months to stake, they will get a good chunk in their reward, granted the block reward is based on a % based rate.

EDIT: Using your stated logic, why not then just make the minimum stake time 5 minutes? Do you see the problem with that?

I have been able to stake with 1000 mintcoins before, took around 40 days though, but it's happened. That is about .0000005% of the total supply. It just makes it easier for people with fewer coins to "mint" and get a reward if they choose to participate. Not everybody has a lot of money to invest. Should we punish the poor, and only reward the rich?


Stop Mining.   Start Minting.   Mintcoin  [MINT]
5% annual minting reward. Mintcoins don't wear out like mining gear. They keep on minting!
presstab
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


Pivx Core Developer - HyperStake Founder


View Profile
July 02, 2015, 04:30:11 AM
 #18107

I don't think going blackcoin is really on the table at the moment. And honestly if it is, someone can add that on top of my commits.

So what we now need to decide is if the final decision is 15 second hashdrift/interval and a 30 second timedrift allowance. The other item that will need to be decided is when this fork will occur. MINT is large enough and has enough people and companies running nodes, that it should be at a few weeks from now. This will be a hard fork, so a protocol change cutting off nodes that haven't updated. If we don't cut off all old nodes, then they will get on an incorrect chain and will still be connected to the real chain's nodes and will exhaust their resources by requesting the same thing over and over. Its possible to pull this off in a "soft" approach, but the memory and bandwidth exhaustion is not nearly worth it.

presstab's Block Explorer Service | Only $10/mo for most coins! | Richlist w/ Address Claim | Market Cap Charts | Stake Weight Tracking | PoS % Rate Tracking
PIVX - Private Instant Verified Tx | HyperStake - Fun & Easy High Reward Staking
sambiohazard
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 05:19:38 AM
 #18108

+1 from me. Security is of utmost importance. Also I would like to hear Presstab's thoughts on POS 2.0 adoption as it is also related to security.
The reason I am against that is because it involves lowering the minimum waiting time in order to stake. I would much rather increase confirmations instead, which increases security without compromising stakabilty.

I am not sure how low waiting time compromises staking. You get smaller but more frequent rewards. Its all about how you see it. For those who are looking at it as a long term investment which they will sit on would like current scheme but if you want to spend your coins then having long wait times will compromise your overall rewards as you spend. Also, there is issue of people not staking 24x7 but still getting rewards for it. When you are offline you are not securing the network/adding to network weight.
It compromises the number of people or the number of balances that are able to stake.
You only stake if you find a block and are only so many blocks in a given period of time. If you lower the waiting period before you can stake again, then it queezes out people with lower balances from being able to stake and get a block. With a 20 day waiting period, it allows for roughly 57,600 stakes before those same coins can stake again, (30 second block time x 20 days). If we lowered it to say 1 day, then only the top 2,880 coin weights would stake, then it will cycle over again, and likely be those same 2,880 addresses once again that stake.
I think that PoS 2.0 is a more fair system. It rewards those who secure the network. If you have more coins i.e. big investment in coin you are rewarded more frequently for your investment risk. If you have less coins, you are rewarded less frequently as you invested less & have smaller risk or less support towards coin. Also when you don't stake in a cycle your network weight is preserved and you will eventually gain enough weight to stake. It is not like people with less coins never stake. I posted it a few pages back that how i get a fairly proportional amount of stakes on Blackcoin with some 0.003% of total coins. It is just like solo mining, your chances increase as you increase your participation.

Also with current system, network weight which determines network security fluctuates wildly between <2% to 10-15%. There is no incentive for people to remain online and stake, but just come online every 20 days to get rewards for not securing the network. Also what if a lot of people have mature coins at same time while at other times there are no/less mature coins, it will make no sense for people to keep there wallets open while they don't have mature coins and thus we see <2% coins staking. With smaller time to mature coins, people remain online more often and thus support network more. I am still learning about these systems, so if i am wrong please do correct me. So far people have been giving me same reasons to avoid PoS 2.0. I have replied to there concerns but still they seem happy to keep status quo going. I am not an authority on PoS 2.0 that's why i asked presstab's view so that i can see why PoS 2.0 is not a good idea to implement.
Actually when you don't stake in a cycle, your network weight is NOT preserved, and there is no guarantee you will ever eventually have enough weight to stake. Your weight caps out. With mintcoin it is the 40 day mark, 20 days worth of weight. People with very low amounts of coins will never stake. There are some coins that are setup that have no cap on your weight, but this is not secure, because someone could possibly setup an attack on the network by hoarding their weight for several years, or whatever period of time needed to control and overpower the network weight for an extended period. The cap is needed because it actually helps to bring balance to the difficulty over time too.

Note: The coin weight is not to be confused with the coin age. Coin age doesn't have a cap, so in the event it does take someone say, 4 months to stake, they will get a good chunk in their reward, granted the block reward is based on a % based rate.

EDIT: Using your stated logic, why not then just make the minimum stake time 5 minutes? Do you see the problem with that?

I have been able to stake with 1000 mintcoins before, took around 40 days though, but it's happened. That is about .0000005% of the total supply. It just makes it easier for people with fewer coins to "mint" and get a reward if they choose to participate. Not everybody has a lot of money to invest. Should we punish the poor, and only reward the rich?

My point is that 20 day waiting time deters people from remaining online while they gain nothing, this makes n/w less secure. Is this correct? If yes then changing waiting time to say 1 day will incentivize people to keep there wallets open as they will be staking and getting rewards. I am not vouching for lowest waiting time but for a balanced reduction so that people are online most of the time.

I am aware that there is max cap to weight but it is large enough that you can easily stake if you have any amount of coins that are significant. If you just want everyone even with a single coin to stake while its not good for the network then i don't get your logic. Security of network is more important than making sure that everyone get their rewards. If having a lower cap is inevitable to secure the network what should we choose?

Do you think there is not a problem of low network weight right now? Am I just making it up so that i can argue about introducing PoS 2.0? I would be more than happy if we can solve the problem w/o going to PoS 2.0, its just my opinion that it is a better system. I have suggested other ways previously of solving this problem that i see. So, if you are not worried about rocking the boat then please try to see my point of view.

@presstab I am just asking your informed opinion about PoS 2.0 so that if i have any delusions or unaware of some fault in it then i get to know about it. Nothing about implementing it.

Rent Rigs @ MiningRigRentals: https://www.miningrigrentals.com/register?ref=9685 | Mine Zcash, X11, ETH, BTC, LTC hashrate available @ Genesis Mining: 9yx2ib (Promo Code for 3% off)
Sell & Buy/Rent hashing power @ Nicehash.com: https://www.nicehash.com/?refby=63551
Trade BTCINR on Coinsecure.in (Global trade available: http://blog.coinsecure.in/post/153309186530/coinsecure-goes-global-by-reducing-the-barrier-for): https://coinsecure.in/signup/z5ehHIOLvHN5sWAq3wTu
Derek492
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 357



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 05:38:41 AM
 #18109

I don't think going blackcoin is really on the table at the moment. And honestly if it is, someone can add that on top of my commits.

So what we now need to decide is if the final decision is 15 second hashdrift/interval and a 30 second timedrift allowance. The other item that will need to be decided is when this fork will occur. MINT is large enough and has enough people and companies running nodes, that it should be at a few weeks from now. This will be a hard fork, so a protocol change cutting off nodes that haven't updated. If we don't cut off all old nodes, then they will get on an incorrect chain and will still be connected to the real chain's nodes and will exhaust their resources by requesting the same thing over and over. Its possible to pull this off in a "soft" approach, but the memory and bandwidth exhaustion is not nearly worth it.

Yep.

So basically, we release an updated wallet right now for everyone to upgrade to that will cause a the change (fork) to take effect starting in a few weeks from now. Right?
15 second hashdrift/search interval and 30 second timedrift sounds good to me.
What about increasing the confirmations? I think it would be a good idea. If we did do 40 that would be high enough that we wouldn't need to lower the minimum waiting period to stake, thus allowing more people to mint, but still maintain good security.

Stop Mining.   Start Minting.   Mintcoin  [MINT]
5% annual minting reward. Mintcoins don't wear out like mining gear. They keep on minting!
Derek492
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 357



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 05:43:11 AM
 #18110


My point is that 20 day waiting time deters people from remaining online while they gain nothing, this makes n/w less secure. Is this correct? If yes then changing waiting time to say 1 day will incentivize people to keep there wallets open as they will be staking and getting rewards. I am not vouching for lowest waiting time but for a balanced reduction so that people are online most of the time.

I am aware that there is max cap to weight but it is large enough that you can easily stake if you have any amount of coins that are significant. If you just want everyone even with a single coin to stake while its not good for the network then i don't get your logic. Security of network is more important than making sure that everyone get their rewards. If having a lower cap is inevitable to secure the network what should we choose?

Do you think there is not a problem of low network weight right now? Am I just making it up so that i can argue about introducing PoS 2.0? I would be more than happy if we can solve the problem w/o going to PoS 2.0, its just my opinion that it is a better system. I have suggested other ways previously of solving this problem that i see. So, if you are not worried about rocking the boat then please try to see my point of view.

@presstab I am just asking your informed opinion about PoS 2.0 so that if i have any delusions or unaware of some fault in it then i get to know about it. Nothing about implementing it.
I understand your point, but I would rather increase confirmations to increase security, than reduce the amount of people able to mint. Confirmations is the other way to accomplish the same security goal.  Mintcoin is about minting, and if people cannot stake/mint then I think you will lose a lot of potential users right there.

Stop Mining.   Start Minting.   Mintcoin  [MINT]
5% annual minting reward. Mintcoins don't wear out like mining gear. They keep on minting!
sambiohazard
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 06:07:31 AM
 #18111

I understand your point, but I would rather increase confirmations to increase security, than reduce the amount of people able to mint. Confirmations is the other way to accomplish the same security goal.  Mintcoin is about minting, and if people cannot stake/mint then I think you will lose a lot of potential users right there.

Thanks for understanding. The issue you are discussing is timewarp attack which will be solved by discussed adjustments. I am talking about low network weight which wont be solved by these adjustments. We need people to remain online to strengthen the network.

Rent Rigs @ MiningRigRentals: https://www.miningrigrentals.com/register?ref=9685 | Mine Zcash, X11, ETH, BTC, LTC hashrate available @ Genesis Mining: 9yx2ib (Promo Code for 3% off)
Sell & Buy/Rent hashing power @ Nicehash.com: https://www.nicehash.com/?refby=63551
Trade BTCINR on Coinsecure.in (Global trade available: http://blog.coinsecure.in/post/153309186530/coinsecure-goes-global-by-reducing-the-barrier-for): https://coinsecure.in/signup/z5ehHIOLvHN5sWAq3wTu
sambiohazard
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 06:20:34 AM
 #18112

Here is why i don't like the current arrangement of people coming online once in 20 days or expecting rewards for keeping coins in their wallet while not securing the network. Also this explains why who invest more should be rewarded proportionately.

http://shreysfinanceblog.com/2015/06/24/why-socialism-fails/

Rent Rigs @ MiningRigRentals: https://www.miningrigrentals.com/register?ref=9685 | Mine Zcash, X11, ETH, BTC, LTC hashrate available @ Genesis Mining: 9yx2ib (Promo Code for 3% off)
Sell & Buy/Rent hashing power @ Nicehash.com: https://www.nicehash.com/?refby=63551
Trade BTCINR on Coinsecure.in (Global trade available: http://blog.coinsecure.in/post/153309186530/coinsecure-goes-global-by-reducing-the-barrier-for): https://coinsecure.in/signup/z5ehHIOLvHN5sWAq3wTu
cryptomommy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 425


View Profile
July 02, 2015, 11:58:10 AM
 #18113

I don't think going blackcoin is really on the table at the moment. And honestly if it is, someone can add that on top of my commits.

So what we now need to decide is if the final decision is 15 second hashdrift/interval and a 30 second timedrift allowance. The other item that will need to be decided is when this fork will occur. MINT is large enough and has enough people and companies running nodes, that it should be at a few weeks from now. This will be a hard fork, so a protocol change cutting off nodes that haven't updated. If we don't cut off all old nodes, then they will get on an incorrect chain and will still be connected to the real chain's nodes and will exhaust their resources by requesting the same thing over and over. Its possible to pull this off in a "soft" approach, but the memory and bandwidth exhaustion is not nearly worth it.

Agreed - We have allot of work to do on top of the fork in order to ensure that we provide the best possible user experience for the community during the transition to the new wallet. Once PressTab has completed his changes we will need to test out the changes in a private group - during that time supasonic has volunteered to add the GUI modifications for the following:

make repairwallet easier to find (under Help)
When the wallet opens it would be nice to have the client choose between import wallet or create new wallet.
Require verification of password when sending mintcoins - if password option is enabled

He is also researching this comment:

As for syncing time, dooglus from CLAM has made a very interesting commit this last week that I want to play around with. It has to do with bootstrap files that are not all in one file. For example a bootstrap that is block 1-100k, 100k-200k, etc. This adds the ability to start with the appropriate bootstrap file if you are partially synced. I haven't toyed around with it enough yet, but it shows promise.

Once those changes are implemented and tested we will need a mass distribution to exchanges and community members.

The fork will need to be out long enough to ensure we complete all of these tasks for the community members to ensure there are minimal bad vibes during the upgrade.

Do you think 30 days is enough time for the fork for exchanges & community members?

We can send the exchanges a heads up now with a fork estimated date so they can plan ahead and ensure the manpower is available to make the change.
litemaster
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
July 02, 2015, 02:08:51 PM
 #18114

How long before my coins in wallet start minting?

They been maturing for 2 days now

It takes them 20 days to become mature for minting.

Fucking hell...

I know right?Huh? I have answered this question a few time myself on here. The site need to put this featured more prominently or something.

BITCOIN: 13UY67yfRjRVMR6hauZJbauHiDfeM2qXSg
MINTCOIN: MdVzxTfLDrzdij9vpee1YJGotBahfsfmqs
ASIACOIN: AH7dunb5G99XzCNj1KnGCdPkqc27pRPfBu
Derek492
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 357



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 03:24:20 PM
 #18115

I don't think going blackcoin is really on the table at the moment. And honestly if it is, someone can add that on top of my commits.

So what we now need to decide is if the final decision is 15 second hashdrift/interval and a 30 second timedrift allowance. The other item that will need to be decided is when this fork will occur. MINT is large enough and has enough people and companies running nodes, that it should be at a few weeks from now. This will be a hard fork, so a protocol change cutting off nodes that haven't updated. If we don't cut off all old nodes, then they will get on an incorrect chain and will still be connected to the real chain's nodes and will exhaust their resources by requesting the same thing over and over. Its possible to pull this off in a "soft" approach, but the memory and bandwidth exhaustion is not nearly worth it.

Agreed - We have allot of work to do on top of the fork in order to ensure that we provide the best possible user experience for the community during the transition to the new wallet. Once PressTab has completed his changes we will need to test out the changes in a private group - during that time supasonic has volunteered to add the GUI modifications for the following:

make repairwallet easier to find (under Help)
When the wallet opens it would be nice to have the client choose between import wallet or create new wallet.
Require verification of password when sending mintcoins - if password option is enabled

He is also researching this comment:

As for syncing time, dooglus from CLAM has made a very interesting commit this last week that I want to play around with. It has to do with bootstrap files that are not all in one file. For example a bootstrap that is block 1-100k, 100k-200k, etc. This adds the ability to start with the appropriate bootstrap file if you are partially synced. I haven't toyed around with it enough yet, but it shows promise.

Once those changes are implemented and tested we will need a mass distribution to exchanges and community members.

The fork will need to be out long enough to ensure we complete all of these tasks for the community members to ensure there are minimal bad vibes during the upgrade.

Do you think 30 days is enough time for the fork for exchanges & community members?

We can send the exchanges a heads up now with a fork estimated date so they can plan ahead and ensure the manpower is available to make the change.
At least get in contact with the exchanges, and probably ask them how much time they need to make the upgrade.

So to confirm, is everyone in agreement on changing the hashdrift/search interval to 15 seconds, the timedrift to 30 seconds, and the confirmations to 40? This will greatly bulletproof the security of Mintcoin.

Stop Mining.   Start Minting.   Mintcoin  [MINT]
5% annual minting reward. Mintcoins don't wear out like mining gear. They keep on minting!
coolbeans94
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 613


Mintcoin: Get some


View Profile
July 02, 2015, 04:10:34 PM
 #18116


At least get in contact with the exchanges, and probably ask them how much time they need to make the upgrade.

So to confirm, is everyone in agreement on changing the hashdrift/search interval to 15 seconds, the timedrift to 30 seconds, and the confirmations to 40? This will greatly bulletproof the security of Mintcoin.
Sounds good to me.

Presstab, have you had a chance to look at the code and verify the situation regarding any coin cap?

(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.
RJF
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616


Online since '89...


View Profile WWW
July 02, 2015, 04:20:46 PM
 #18117

I don't think going blackcoin is really on the table at the moment. And honestly if it is, someone can add that on top of my commits.

So what we now need to decide is if the final decision is 15 second hashdrift/interval and a 30 second timedrift allowance. The other item that will need to be decided is when this fork will occur. MINT is large enough and has enough people and companies running nodes, that it should be at a few weeks from now. This will be a hard fork, so a protocol change cutting off nodes that haven't updated. If we don't cut off all old nodes, then they will get on an incorrect chain and will still be connected to the real chain's nodes and will exhaust their resources by requesting the same thing over and over. Its possible to pull this off in a "soft" approach, but the memory and bandwidth exhaustion is not nearly worth it.

Agreed - We have allot of work to do on top of the fork in order to ensure that we provide the best possible user experience for the community during the transition to the new wallet. Once PressTab has completed his changes we will need to test out the changes in a private group - during that time supasonic has volunteered to add the GUI modifications for the following:

make repairwallet easier to find (under Help)
When the wallet opens it would be nice to have the client choose between import wallet or create new wallet.
Require verification of password when sending mintcoins - if password option is enabled

He is also researching this comment:

As for syncing time, dooglus from CLAM has made a very interesting commit this last week that I want to play around with. It has to do with bootstrap files that are not all in one file. For example a bootstrap that is block 1-100k, 100k-200k, etc. This adds the ability to start with the appropriate bootstrap file if you are partially synced. I haven't toyed around with it enough yet, but it shows promise.

Once those changes are implemented and tested we will need a mass distribution to exchanges and community members.

The fork will need to be out long enough to ensure we complete all of these tasks for the community members to ensure there are minimal bad vibes during the upgrade.

Do you think 30 days is enough time for the fork for exchanges & community members?

We can send the exchanges a heads up now with a fork estimated date so they can plan ahead and ensure the manpower is available to make the change.
At least get in contact with the exchanges, and probably ask them how much time they need to make the upgrade.

So to confirm, is everyone in agreement on changing the hashdrift/search interval to 15 seconds, the timedrift to 30 seconds, and the confirmations to 40? This will greatly bulletproof the security of Mintcoin.


Seems reasonable, go for it....

DNotesVault
“First, they ignore you. Then, they laugh at you. Then, they fight you. Then you win!” – Mahatma Gandhi 
Prepare for your future now, check out CRISP For Retirement and our complete family of CRISP savings plans.
coolbeans94
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 613


Mintcoin: Get some


View Profile
July 02, 2015, 04:34:21 PM
 #18118

I'm positive if we pull this off mintcoin is going to soar and may one day even overtake bitcoin itself.

(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: 1288


Pivx Core Developer - HyperStake Founder


View Profile
July 02, 2015, 04:45:28 PM
 #18119


At least get in contact with the exchanges, and probably ask them how much time they need to make the upgrade.

So to confirm, is everyone in agreement on changing the hashdrift/search interval to 15 seconds, the timedrift to 30 seconds, and the confirmations to 40? This will greatly bulletproof the security of Mintcoin.
Sounds good to me.

Presstab, have you had a chance to look at the code and verify the situation regarding any coin cap?

Yes I looked, sorry forgot to reply to this particular issue. It looks like it is as I expected, and the "max coins" doesn't have anything to do with controlling rewards at a particular point in time, and is simply a cap on the maximum transaction amount allowed for the network.

presstab's Block Explorer Service | Only $10/mo for most coins! | Richlist w/ Address Claim | Market Cap Charts | Stake Weight Tracking | PoS % Rate Tracking
PIVX - Private Instant Verified Tx | HyperStake - Fun & Easy High Reward Staking
Flyskyhigh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 292


Ezekiel 34:11, John 10:25-30


View Profile
July 02, 2015, 05:13:27 PM
 #18120


At least get in contact with the exchanges, and probably ask them how much time they need to make the upgrade.

So to confirm, is everyone in agreement on changing the hashdrift/search interval to 15 seconds, the timedrift to 30 seconds, and the confirmations to 40? This will greatly bulletproof the security of Mintcoin.
Sounds good to me.

Presstab, have you had a chance to look at the code and verify the situation regarding any coin cap?

Yes I looked, sorry forgot to reply to this particular issue. It looks like it is as I expected, and the "max coins" doesn't have anything to do with controlling rewards at a particular point in time, and is simply a cap on the maximum transaction amount allowed for the network.
So basically it will just be 5% gain per year forever. Cool. I actually think that is better because it will always motivate people to keep minting. Like a goid savings bond not too low, but not too high. BTW, Mintcoin just hit a new all time high.  80 sats! ^ ^

Sick of mining?  Start minting!  5% per year!  Mintcoin "MINT"
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 ... 1016 »
  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!