[ANN][XMY] Myriad | Multi-Algo, Fair, Secure

[Zoella]

Just doing some research into an address (MREBM2LWmmxxAF1vYyfoEcpQhZjJ5fQpAQ) that keeps popping up using http://myr.coinpi.pe/ since it will display addresses with large numbers of transaction.

On 5/27 (UTC), this address generated 305,000 MYR (http://pastebin.com/AU2EakQW). Based on a block time of 2:30 (150 seconds), there should be an average of 576 blocks per day (per algo). This one address accounted for 53% of those blocks. At the end of the day, that address held a whopping 13,000 MYR. The rest were sent to M8LtymYa42xrxXmA8yydFcBDzeRhdz9X25. That account currently holds 17,537,005 MYR, and I can only assume is an exchange.

This is the address used by Wafflepool, as you can see from the image below (taken from the Wafflepool rolling stats page)...

The referenced hash (6ad7beca9ba28732c598c06f6c40f958fe02e565d39d7d6988f16e82a895b45a) links to a payout to MREBM2LWmmxxAF1vYyfoEcpQhZjJ5fQpAQ.

http://myr.coinpi.pe/tx/cb96fe1fc6b4d91631767b3b630b3baaef9d5faad701d2e61de371c83790b881

This is ONE profit switching pool grabbing greater than 50% of the expected blocks in a 24 hour period. I did not look to see if blocks were created in greater numbers than expected, although I suspect they may have been based on the overall percentage of scrypt blocks climbing to 21.6%.

Looking at a second address from that "burst" of blocks (MQgsHVckUWdELkyHxeQJJ3m7Dfu23ZKkpH) is interesting as well. On 5/27 (UTC), this address generated 160,000 MYR (http://pastebin.com/jrtdG9Z2). It also dumped most of its coins to a single address (MEuTEpcNfFmMC8msP1t2vhis63rZgfo82f), having a total of 15,000 MYR left at the end of the day. I'm assuming this is also an exchange, as that address has a current balance of 4,403,000 MYR.

On these 4 addresses (wafflepool & exchange + suspected profit switching pool & suspected exchange), there are no micropayments (sub reward size) like you would expect to see from a regular pool to miners. We know that one is a profit switching pool, and if we assume the second is as well, that means that 465 of the 576 daily blocks went to profit switching pools. That is almost 81% of scrypt blocks on 5/27 payed out to profit switching pools. That is almost 81% of scrypt blocks on 5/27 dumped the same day. (assuming that each pool carries over an average 10k - 15k daily)

I would love to see some more detailed research performed to validate/invalidate my assumptions. Please!

Now I can understand the thinking that, "oh, it's just ASIC flooded scrypt and we don't care because we have 3 other GPU algos." That's what I thought originally. But follow it through the next most likely progression. 80% or more of all blocks created by all 4 gpu algos will be generated by profit switching pools that dump everything as soon as they can. Like I said earlier, the folks on the Wafflepool thread are already talking about an algo+profit switching pool. This can't be far away. A solution should be researched NOW, before it spreads.

If those of us concerned about this are correct, this coin will soon become nothing but a mine & dump with no one holding but us poor schlubs who believed in the coin. Please, somebody take a look and waylay our fears with analytical data sets, not assumptions or questions. This is a big enough concern that I believe needs to be answered. We need to stay ahead of the curve.

[iamphoenix]

these people need to get their asses off IRC and in here so we have a record...........

[HashEngineering]

The android app (as a beta) will be on Google Play soon.

An update to include more nodes was also released: 
https://github.com/HashEngineering/myriadcoin-wallet/releases/download/v0.1.1-beta/myriadcoin-wallet-0.1.1-beta.apk

[gusk73]

Who is sell coin so cheap?

Those of this coin lost confidence, people tend to sell them at a very low price!

[gusk73]

Is there any reason why MYR keeps going down? I bought in a few weeks ago at the peak 

Don't worry, the market situation is now very good, prices will soon rise!
 

[jvdp]

Guys, keep voting here https://www.coinpayments.net/vote-results
I just voted as well, its only 0.50 euro, or 0.001 btc

[Wiseman]

IDEA:

Would it be possible to implement a time constrained reward system, where the amount of coin generated by the block depends on how much time it took from the the 1st confirmation of the previous block and it's own 1st check?
This way, no matter how many blocks were mined, the reward would be the same on a time basis. Multipools woudn't be a problem, because if they find 10 blocks in one minute they will get the same reward from those 10 blocks as the small pool that only found 1 block in the same amount of time.
In fact, this would probably remove the multipools altogether (coin not profitable when compared to others, never gets selected) or keep them on the coin forever (coin is very stable because price/availability is a function of time spent finding blocks and not hashrates used)

Is this feasible?

I have recently came up with the same idea, but before implementing it worth to think about some moments:
1)In normal mining (without multipools) it is convinient, and statistically legitimately when two or even three blocks are found faster than 2:30, and then difficulty adjusts and block finding requires more time, than 2:30. So, such reward-limit system must start only after 3-4 simultaneously found blocks, in order not to  affect regular mining process. And it will make some problems for current alghoritms which calculate profitability (but it is a headache of multi-pool developers ).

2)Ok, let such reward-limit system is ready and limits the reward for fast-generating blocks. So, multipool comes into net, grabs 5-6 blocks and then leaves. The difficulty is high, and regular miners have to wait a lot of time for next few blocks. What's next? We have two options:
         a) In case the reward for this blocks is depending on time of their generation and can be higher than 1000 MYR, at some point it may be profitable for multipool to come again and take this blocks. It's is bad, because miners will not receive anything at all. However, in this case, the number of daily generated coins is strictly as in coin specification and inflation is under control.
         b) The reward for long-generating blocks doesn't depend on time of their generation and it is strictly 1000 MYR. In this case situation for regular miners will be the same as now (they receive the same small amount of MYR), but multi-pools will receive almost nothing. In this case, the number of daily generated coins will be less then in coin specification.

3)How to calculate the time between blocks correctly (I don't know technical details)? Which time is used, when block is solved? UTC from server or local machine time? Is it possible to make some fraud changing time on local machine or even server if block reward depends on it? We have to think about it

4)As I know, when hash for block is being solved, it includes the hashes of all transactions of this block, but in case  of time-dependent reward during solving this transaction will change permanently in time. How it would affect the statistics of coin generation (now we have two variables: nonce and reward-transaction hash)?

5)Multi-pools are the part of cryptocoin world, so if we are "a coin for everyone" we have to find the ways in which multipools will have the same rights as asic-users and regular miners. Or in some time we will see the birth of another coin "for everyone" which solved this problem and our coin will not be the leader.

So, in conclusion I see this idea for reward-limiting system for fast-found blocks is very prospective, but we have a lot to discuss.

UPD. I have a workaround  proposal. What if we don't change the total  reward for fast-generating blocks (leave it 1000), but part of it will be put on public account to pay bounties? For example if 10 blocks instead of 1 block were generated simultaneously by multi-pool in 2:30 , multi-pool receives totally only 1000 MYR and other 9000 MYR (proportions might be changed) goes to bounty-account ?  It will solve a set of our problems.

[fullhdpixel]

5)Multi-pools are the part of cryptocoin world, so if we are "a coin for everyone" we have to find the ways in which multipools will have the same rights as asic-users and regular miners.

Multipools should not have any right of existence in my opinion (multipools are parasites). Don't forget they ruin the fun for other miners, dump directly for ANY price and don't give the coins itself a chance to grow. Myriad is not becoming more decentralized than any other currency this way, since you would be better of buying the coin instead of mining it.

UPD. I have a workaround  proposal. What if we don't change the total  reward for fast-generating blocks (leave it 1000), but part of it will be put on public account to pay bounties? For example if 10 blocks instead of 1 block were generated simultaneously by multi-pool in 2:30 , multi-pool receives totally only 1000 MYR and other 9000 MYR (proportions might be changed) goes to bounty-account?  It will solve a set of our problems

This only centralizes the currency. Maybe if miners could vote to which address some part of the currency is send that would be totally fine.  (E.g. An address for the people of Brazil or an address for the development team etc..)

[foodies123]

Heed my words anything we do now because of problems that can only happen due to the fact that our network is very small will come back and bite us right in the ass tenfold when we grow 5-10x our current size.

Mark this post for future reference.

[Wiseman]

Multipools should not have any right of existence in my opinion (multipools are parasites). Don't forget they ruin the fun for other miners, dump directly for ANY price and don't give the coins itself a chance to grow. Myriad is not becoming more decentralized than any other currency this way, since you would be better of buying the coin instead of mining it.

Yes, i agree,they shouldn't, they are parasites. But the fact that they exist, and will exist. We can do nothing and we have to take it into account. Some time ago about asic-miners were thought that they play unfair and centralize currency, but we have found a way to adopt it via multi-algo. We have to do something like this with multipools too.

It's like unemployed people (i speak about lazy people, not unhealthy). They are parasites, they don't want to work, but they want to eat and ready to do some crimes in order to get money.  But well-developed countries found a way to keep them on a leash and pay some unemployment benefits in order to decrease number of crimes. In our case we have to do something which prevent multpools from destroying our coin, but will keep it still multipool-mineable (may be less profitable for multipools). This is the only one way to keep our coin in leaders. Remember, MYR is coin for everyone.

UPD. I have a workaround  proposal. What if we don't change the total  reward for fast-generating blocks (leave it 1000), but part of it will be put on public account to pay bounties? For example if 10 blocks instead of 1 block were generated simultaneously by multi-pool in 2:30 , multi-pool receives totally only 1000 MYR and other 9000 MYR (proportions might be changed) goes to bounty-account?  It will solve a set of our problems

This only centralizes the currency. Maybe if miners could vote to which address some part of the currency is send that would be totally fine.  (E.g. An address for the people of Brazil or an address for the development team etc..)

I agree here. It centralizes a bit, but such coins will be only a small part of all coins, because multipools will not mine a lot blocks in this case. And we will have this as additional sum which can be used to develop our community. But anyway, nobody permit to make a voting on how to use it.

Heed my words anything we do now because of problems that can only happen due to the fact that our network is very small will come back and bite us right in the ass tenfold when we grow 5-10x our current size.

Mark this post for future reference.

Where I can see the mechanism of difficulty regulation? May be I can propose some ideas to improve it to resist multipools, i have some mathematical background.

[rentodev]

5)Multi-pools are the part of cryptocoin world, so if we are "a coin for everyone" we have to find the ways in which multipools will have the same rights as asic-users and regular miners.

Multipools should not have any right of existence in my opinion (multipools are parasites). Don't forget they ruin the fun for other miners, dump directly for ANY price and don't give the coins itself a chance to grow. Myriad is not becoming more decentralized than any other currency this way, since you would be better of buying the coin instead of mining it.

UPD. I have a workaround  proposal. What if we don't change the total  reward for fast-generating blocks (leave it 1000), but part of it will be put on public account to pay bounties? For example if 10 blocks instead of 1 block were generated simultaneously by multi-pool in 2:30 , multi-pool receives totally only 1000 MYR and other 9000 MYR (proportions might be changed) goes to bounty-account?  It will solve a set of our problems

This only centralizes the currency. Maybe if miners could vote to which address some part of the currency is send that would be totally fine.  (E.g. An address for the people of Brazil or an address for the development team etc..)

I agree to the fact that multipool chase for profitability and instant dumps in to BTC is only harming this innovative coin. I hope we all can agree on some solution ASAP and devs can implement it fast.

P.S. I like the idea of fast-generated block rewards to be sent to community voted address. For beginning I vote it to be sent to developers!

[Rainer4256]

To fight multipools we should have our own one!

[rentodev]

To fight multipools we should have our own one!

What do you think about idea to have official Myriadcoin community managed pools for each algo to try to fight multipools?
Do you think it could work?

I could help to set up. (I'm running my own stratum pool for sha256 algo for solo mining.)

[Rainer4256]

To fight multipools we should have our own one!

What do you think about idea to have official Myriadcoin community managed pools for each algo to try to fight multipools?
Do you think it could work?

I could help to set up. (I'm running my own stratum pool for sha256 algo for solo mining.)

+1
You are welcome if the community agrees.

[Tekkerr]

I disagree completely about multipool should not have a reason to exist.
If they are here, they exist, so there is a need for them, so they are entitled to be around.
It's an open and free market!
It's like saying, Napster shouldn't be around back then, as it gave internet a bad name.
Nonsense.
Or saying that arbitrage is unfair, so exchanges shouldn't allow it....
Multipools are not here to accommodate Myriad or any other alt, they are here mainly to accommodate Bitcoin.
Don't you want them on your coin, then find a solution for it, that's the only way.
I won't ever suggest it, but scrypt will be your multipool enemy for the time, asic and such. Delete it or not, I don't know and I wouldn't suggest it, but that's a solution, better then wishes multipools vanish.
Oyeah they will vanish when Myriad is at 1 sat.

[neuroMode]

Just doing some research into an address (MREBM2LWmmxxAF1vYyfoEcpQhZjJ5fQpAQ) that keeps popping up using http://myr.coinpi.pe/ since it will display addresses with large numbers of transaction.

On 5/27 (UTC), this address generated 305,000 MYR (http://pastebin.com/AU2EakQW). Based on a block time of 2:30 (150 seconds), there should be an average of 576 blocks per day (per algo). This one address accounted for 53% of those blocks. At the end of the day, that address held a whopping 13,000 MYR. The rest were sent to M8LtymYa42xrxXmA8yydFcBDzeRhdz9X25. That account currently holds 17,537,005 MYR, and I can only assume is an exchange.

This is the address used by Wafflepool, as you can see from the image below (taken from the Wafflepool rolling stats page)...

The referenced hash (6ad7beca9ba28732c598c06f6c40f958fe02e565d39d7d6988f16e82a895b45a) links to a payout to MREBM2LWmmxxAF1vYyfoEcpQhZjJ5fQpAQ.

http://myr.coinpi.pe/tx/cb96fe1fc6b4d91631767b3b630b3baaef9d5faad701d2e61de371c83790b881

This is ONE profit switching pool grabbing greater than 50% of the expected blocks in a 24 hour period. I did not look to see if blocks were created in greater numbers than expected, although I suspect they may have been based on the overall percentage of scrypt blocks climbing to 21.6%.

Looking at a second address from that "burst" of blocks (MQgsHVckUWdELkyHxeQJJ3m7Dfu23ZKkpH) is interesting as well. On 5/27 (UTC), this address generated 160,000 MYR (http://pastebin.com/jrtdG9Z2). It also dumped most of its coins to a single address (MEuTEpcNfFmMC8msP1t2vhis63rZgfo82f), having a total of 15,000 MYR left at the end of the day. I'm assuming this is also an exchange, as that address has a current balance of 4,403,000 MYR.

On these 4 addresses (wafflepool & exchange + suspected profit switching pool & suspected exchange), there are no micropayments (sub reward size) like you would expect to see from a regular pool to miners. We know that one is a profit switching pool, and if we assume the second is as well, that means that 465 of the 576 daily blocks went to profit switching pools. That is almost 81% of scrypt blocks on 5/27 payed out to profit switching pools. That is almost 81% of scrypt blocks on 5/27 dumped the same day. (assuming that each pool carries over an average 10k - 15k daily)

I would love to see some more detailed research performed to validate/invalidate my assumptions. Please!

Now I can understand the thinking that, "oh, it's just ASIC flooded scrypt and we don't care because we have 3 other GPU algos." That's what I thought originally. But follow it through the next most likely progression. 80% or more of all blocks created by all 4 gpu algos will be generated by profit switching pools that dump everything as soon as they can. Like I said earlier, the folks on the Wafflepool thread are already talking about an algo+profit switching pool. This can't be far away. A solution should be researched NOW, before it spreads.

If those of us concerned about this are correct, this coin will soon become nothing but a mine & dump with no one holding but us poor schlubs who believed in the coin. Please, somebody take a look and waylay our fears with analytical data sets, not assumptions or questions. This is a big enough concern that I believe needs to be answered. We need to stay ahead of the curve.

Very very interesting research you have done here. This is the type of analysis I love.

I'm going to make a record of this, pass it along to a few of the devs to ensure they read it, and start thinking about the problem in depth.

One thing to think about: If the multipools on Scrypt didn't exist and those 81% of Scrypt blocks went to the other miners on Scrypt...would they have dumped too?

Furthermore, the 305,000 MYR that the multipool mined yesterday in your first address report comes out to be ~0.88 BTC at 300 satoshis. This is a pretty damn mild "dump" that at the very worst puts MYR into the hands of someone who wants them.

[neuroMode]

The android app (as a beta) will be on Google Play soon.

An update to include more nodes was also released: 
https://github.com/HashEngineering/myriadcoin-wallet/releases/download/v0.1.1-beta/myriadcoin-wallet-0.1.1-beta.apk

Thank you!

[neuroMode]

I've been talking about this with Mr_burdell on IRC. It seems to not be a pressing issue to him. The multipools have yet to ever fork Myriad (praise be to multi-PoW).

The only issue I see is that the brief period after we see 5 block runs by multipools--the next 10 blocks. If these next 10 blocks are taking way longer than 25 minutes to solve by the normal ecosystem of miners without multipools, then it's unfair to them. But as each block is solved, the difficulty adjustment goes down faster and faster until it stabilizes completely after 10 blocks.

Yeah, forking isn't an issue due to multi-algo, but neuro, the rest IS
The pool I'm in, mining with scrypt, hasn't found a block in almost 10 hours!!! 
As a miner, I'm totally wasting my resources as I'll get zilch myr for them ...
It doesn't matter if I can switch to other algos, because this simply says that I must move into another coin that I can mine in a profitable way and, maybe, use the proceeds to by myr (assuming I have the necessary hw; yes,I'm using asics to mine scrypt)

Personally, I don't see this outcome as positive for myr 

To put it simply, I really think myr's developers should start discussing changing the code to be more multipool resilient (notice the word : resilient, not resistant )

Multipools are part of the ecosystem and have their role to play, but we need to better get along with them ... and have ways to avoid such impacts.

You are using Scrypt ASICs to mine MYR and you can't find any blocks in 10 hours? Have you had any luck since you posted this?

[novag]

Who sell coins so cheap?

[neuroMode]

The pools don't get cutoff, they decide difficulty has increased enough to change coins and left it to the regular miners. For why that is bad for regular miners, just read SilentBit's post.

The next 15 blocks in the list are the same 3 addresses listed above, with the addition of one more (MQkqCo7Wdr88iM5F6pJjc3x69iEmqiaD7F) grabbing the first and last three of the series. Someone with more time (I need to go back to work), can look at those addresses.

That's what I meant by being cut off, the diff catches up to them and they stop hashing while normal miners continue as usual.

Now ask yourself this question: how would the litecoin network react to a 5-10x increase in hashrate and a 5-10x decrease in hashrate as soon as the diff adjusts to the increase. Allow me to answer: their network would freeze up as most of the other coins in existence that have larger networks than myr.

But those normal miners continue on with little to show for it. Read SilentBit's post.

Regarding LTC, their network is already so much larger that it wouldn't make much difference. Many profit pools have LTC as their low coin. LTC gets hit regularly, and has been for a while. For evidence, just go look at http://wafflepool.com/stats

That's not the point though. The point is a combination of SilentBit's post that explains how normal miners get borked and the fact that profit switching pools are working towards including algo switching. This means that the normal miner will get borked across ALL altos in the future. It was/is interesting to watch on one algo, but across all that would absolutely destroy this coins primary "for all" theme as the normal mine and hold guys get shafted.

I feel I'm not getting through to you so I'll say it again: WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO LITECOIN IF IT HAD OUR SCRYPT HASHRATE AND GET HIT LIKE THAT ? WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO ANY KNOWN COIN ? IT WOULD GO TO SHIT THAT WOULD HAPPEN, ON OUR COIN IT'S BARELY NOTICEABLE. THAT'S THE POINT.

EDIT: sorry for the caps, it's meant to take the point across not as shouting or something else.

But that point is incorrect. There are a bunch of new altcoins that get hit by profit switching pools every day. They survive the network hit. What they complain about is loss of value to the miners and investors who want to hold rather than dump for BTC. The networks don't drop (most of the time). If you want to point out the loss of value to the MYR community (everyone that actually acquires MYR rather than mine 'n dump) as being low since there are other algos, that's what I'm warning about. Those other algos will not be free of profit switching pools long.

Again, whether or not the network survives is unimportant to this conversation. This is not something unique to MYR. I've seen it on many new altcoins that get hit. The drag is on the pools themselves. They have less resilience to a bump in hashrate than the altcoin chains. This has nothing to do with the concerns raised about MYR and the response to profit switching pools. We are not talking about frozen networks or forked chains. We are talking about loss of value to the coin and the community that supports it in favor mine 'n dump profit switching pools.

I'm just trying to understand: Your main concern right now with multipools is that they mine and dump and this creates a loss of value?

I want to make a couple points if so:

1) If Myriad had the most perfect difficulty readjustment calculations for dealing with mutlipools, it still does not prevent them from mining and dumping. Nothing can prevent this.
2) Instead of worrying about something we cannot fix (mutlipool dumping) and its perceived negative impact on the day-to-day value of MYR (which is still debatable), why not attack this problem from the other direction? I think we should focus on creating buying demand for Myriad that would offset any multipool effects.