delete

[johnj]

Though TBX may have been a smaller release, it took ~4hrs to reach block 500. That's just my personal experience with brand-new CPU blockchains.

[1714162943]

1714162943

[1714162943]

1714162943

[1714162943]

1714162943

[FlipPro]

I work with EC2 myself, and know how much it can cost. They charge based upon CPU cycles. Just a quick question, how much will the 400 EC2 server instances cost, and who is going to be footing the bill?

His employer...

No cost, no loss besides I'm leaving soon anyway.

Bullshit. I've had enough of you. It's quite clear that not only do you not have those servers, you also don't know what you're talking about. The only reason that I believed you in the Namecoin incident was because you said you optimized Artforz attack code. I knew of an optimization, so I assumed that it was the same one you thought of. It's quite clear that you were just saying that, though, and aren't a real developer.

Don't try coming back here again.

how is it quite clear, are you suggesting that coinhunter designed 2-3 blocks per sec? serious question hope you dont ban me for it.

You along with so many others deserve to be banned from this forum. People like you are the direct cause to the overall price decline IMHO. People come to an "investment" forum, see the likes of you, and RUN.

You moron.

[Spacy]

how is it quite clear, are you suggesting that coinhunter designed 2-3 blocks per sec? serious question hope you dont ban me for it.

Looks like you don't have a clue how diff and max-diff-inc-limits work...

[grod]

And considering 95% of blocks on coinotron are invalid and 67.5% on mine-for are stale we're looking at what, 1000x as many people joining SC the very first minute it's out of the gate compared to tenebrix and 4000x as many for fairbrix?  So the first two hours we've got somewhere around 30,000 cpus boiling along on solidcoin?

I'm having a pretty hard time believing it myself.  Forked chain is a much simpler and easier to believe explanation.

Up to block 7739.  Looks like blocks per second is still accelerating.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Seems like some people are just ban-happy.

"I disagree with you so you should be banned.  Unless you fill gullible new investors/suckers with anything other than dreams of unicorns that shit skittles you are banned."

So sad really.  I mean does the Federal Reserve feel the need to ban anyone who talks (even falsely) about the dollar?  If you need to ban someone you disagree with then you have already lost.  Period.

Seriously though the network has produced one block every 2 seconds.  Is it suppose to do that?

400 Amazon Instances costs = $32 per hour.  Should $32 per hour investment be able to push block generation speed that high?
Shouldn't difficulty be slowing the rate of block generation?  Why after difficulty rising to 68 is block generation still this fast?

I mean @ difficulty 68 to sustain 2 blocks per second would require 68x the computational power.  Are we to believe that the network grew 6800% from block 1 till now.  Wouldn't that be like 20,000 CPU?

[bulanula]

And considering 95% of blocks on coinotron are invalid and 67.5% on mine-for are stale we're looking at what, 1000x as many people joining SC the very first minute it's out of the gate compared to tenebrix and 4000x as many for fairbrix?  So the first two hours we've got somewhere around 30,000 cpus boiling along on solidcoin?

I'm having a pretty hard time believing it myself.  Forked chain is a much simpler and easier to believe explanation.

Up to block 7739.  Looks like blocks per second is still accelerating.

Seems like you are the new BitcoinExpress. Welcome back. We missed you NOT.

It only seems like block generation is increasing BUT it actually is constant ( but in theory it is going down because diff is going up ) because of such a small diff. So you cannot perceive the block generation slowing down but it actually is slowing down.

[BitterTea]

So you cannot perceive the block generation slowing down but it actually is slowing down.

If you cannot perceive it, how do you know that it's happening?

[Bobnova]

Were it slowing down, it would be going at half the speed now that it was at ~37 difficulty.

It isn't.

[johnj]

I for one would have appreciated if 'banning' (and other implications) wasn't thrown around so easily by a Mod, especially with just minutes of room for explanation. Seeing as how there are numerous other reports of the blockchain growing peculiarly fast, I imagine it'd be beneficial to discovery for the alleged perpetrator to be active in this discussion.

Though I can see dealing with a personality like BCX could be tricky for a Mod, I think Maged dropped the ball on this one.

No big deal really in the grand scheme of things (no one bats 1.0), just my opinion.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I doubt CH got banned.  He is part of the "in" crowd.  The fact that he isn't here triumphantly likely points to a problem.

Like for current block speed to still be 2 blocks per second would require tens of thousands of CPU and hundreds being added every minute to avoid block speed slowing down.  

[doublec]

not a programmer but i do understand higher math and the calculation that 30,000 cpus joined in the first two hours is conservative and impossible. multi forks is the reason

You must be using a definition of fork that I'm familiar with. BCX claimed to be mining a fork and followed with "Some of you are on my fork I suspect.". The only way they could be on that fork and not the main chain is if there was a break in the network somewhere. Peers share their blocks so the fork will become the main chain if it has a greater sum of work. For BCX to have a fork with a greater sum of work than the main chain he'd have to someone stop that from being distributed to the other peers. In which case the "Some of you are on my fork" can't be true.

It's certainly possible for blocks to be solved faster even while difficulty is increasing. All it requires is hash rate to increase faster than difficulty. This is happening on namecoin at the moment as merged miners come on board, drastically increasing the hash rate while difficulty increases are capped at 4x.

[Spacy]

Blockrate is now about 1 block every 2 seconds...

[DeathAndTaxes]

For BCX to have a fork with a greater sum of work than the main chain he'd have to someone stop that from being distributed to the other peers. In which case the "Some of you are on my fork" can't be true.

No he wouldn't.  If "his block" chain isn't being received by 100% of nodes then there is a fork and some people would be on his fork and some wouldn't.  As to how the chain could be split.  If we had the source code we could look.


Idle speculation follows:
 Possible that the bitcoind equivelent couldn't properly handle the massive increase in blocks which would be compounded if their are forks and failed to replicate them to other nodes fast enough.  In other words each fragment of the chain was producing blocks faster than it was getting blocks from other fragments.  If each fragment stayed ahead of the blocks it received from other fragments then each fragment would believe it was "the longest chain".  If true then that problem will be self correcting as block rate slows down and parts of the chain catch up with work done by other parts.  Bad news is all but one of those chains end up being worthless.  Luck of the draw.  Well luck favored the person with most computing resources.  For others it would just be luck that they ended up on the "true" longest chain.

Given we have no source code to look at this is just idle speculation.

[/quote]

[TheLaundryMan]

Herp derp there certainly are a lot of tards on here. Thinking that 30000 cpus joining at the start is completely logical. Ever heard of a botnet? The more they hear about it the more will mine, including them. I have personally generated plenty of blocks, although there is a very large amount of stales what do you expect with so many cpus and little difficulty.

[Spacy]

Blockrate is now about 1 block every 2 seconds...

still getting a steady 1 per sec, but im sure when it slows down we will see the CH here roaring like a lion.

Block number 8305.

[Red]

the rate is not slowing down. still over 1 block per sec at diff 92, actually same as when diff 48

Not sure where you are getting your info but as of right now the diff just went up from 88 to 100

If different people are seeing different difficulties and block rates, that would be a fork then wouldn't it?

[Spacy]

If different people are seeing different difficulties and block rates, that would be a fork then wouldn't it?

If people could post numbers? Block 8413 Diff 100.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Herp derp there certainly are a lot of tards on here. Thinking that 30000 cpus joining at the start is completely logical. Ever heard of a botnet? The more they hear about it the more will mine, including them. I have personally generated plenty of blocks, although there is a very large amount of stales what do you expect with so many cpus and little difficulty.

Why would a botnet mine a brand new nearly worthless cryptocurrency?  Botnets generally have more profitable things to do with their computing power.  30,000+ nodes is illogical.  Even more illogical is that as difficulty rises the speed of blocks has remained constant between 1 & 2 blocks per second.  That would mean not only do you have 30,000 nodes but you are picking up 100+ nodes a minute to avoid block times slowing down (hashing power falling behind difficulty).

[DeathAndTaxes]

So how are you diff 101 @ block 8297 and the person above you is diff 100 @ 8413?

[Red]

Is the exchange open? I'm not seeing any new trades.

Seems like the perfect time for double spends.