[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.

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.

Thank you. Someone with a much better crypto background should be able to do a much more in-depth look at this. I'd love to see it.

In the hypothetical that the multipools don't exist, I think a much smaller amount of MYR gets dumped on a daily basis, limiting supply and helping to firm up the price floor. How much smaller of an amount? I honestly don't know and any guess on my part would be completely unfounded.

I 100% completely agree that right now the "damage" is limited. As SilentBit's post explained, anyone with a GPU mining scrypt should change algos now. Scrypt should be considered dead for GPU miners between ASICs and multipools. To be honest I feel sorry for ASIC owners, as they will get squeezed out by the multipools. Assuming that MYR scrypt is only producing the expected ~576 blocks a day, and only 80% of that goes to multipools, then that is only 16% of the overall blocks generated daily. Thanks to the awesome multi-POW architecture of this coin, the mutlipool threat to MYR has been greatly contained to date. I cannot express enough how awesome this coin design is and how much potential I think it has.

Because of that, the devs have time to approach this with a very cautious mindset and not rush into something. Other coins have fallen all over themselves trying to implement KGW badly, or early on in the lifecycle resulting in horrible side effects such as week long + confirm times. Yes there is time enough to avoid those pitfalls. Thankfully. But that window is closing. Now is the time to be researching the issue and spitballing solutions, testing options, brainstorming side effects, etc. Multipools won't be confined to scrypt for long, and if MYR is not ready for it, the resulting "damage" could be disastrous.

As far as value damage to the coin, I have no idea. I know Wafflepool started mining MYR on Apr 6 (first transaction). That second suspected address started Apr 23 (first transaction). I don't believe the current slump in price is due to profit switching pools (again, thanks to multi-POW), but instead to "slow news, lack of hype" at the moment. To be honest, I'm OK with a floor of 300 while MYR grows and evolves. I'd prefer a floor of 500, but if market cap continues to grow and the community continues to grow, then per coin value will come. All is good. Let's make sure it stays this way. Heck, a resilient and well implemented solution would just be another feather in the cap of MYR devs and another great feature to advertise.

[cowandtea]

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.

Well, I think that the multipool mine and dump isn't the main issue here. But mining myriadcoin was suppose to have 20% per algo and not 21.6% for scrypt and 19.4% for the rest of the algo. Please change how the difficulty retarget works and everything would be fine..

[neuroMode]

To fight multipools we should have our own one!

You fight multipools by focusing your energy on giving people reasons to buy Myriad. Then mutlipools become an afterthought you couldn't believe you spent so much time worrying about.

[iamphoenix]

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.

Foodies I hold you in great regard and value your insight and knowledge, However my good man, This Problem is Not Temporary.

Profit based mechanisms like a multi-pool such as CEX.IO will only:

- Become more numerous

- Increase Exponentially in Size with regard to Hash Raping Power. CEX.IO was at 5ghs yesterday evening, by night I noticed it was at 6ghs.  

            CEX.IO has the resources necessary to take this game to a whole-other level.

-- Find new pathways of destruction (A multi-pool that is similar to our Myriad-Switcher. We WILL see their evolution take place in a short time.
   Multi-Algo-Multi-Pools that will utilize a sophisticated algorithmic function to find the most profitable coin to rape with out the limitation in   being constrained to 1 algorithm. We will have all of our algorithms targeted as well as other Coins with different algorithms. Think about it.. I am confident that there have been such proposals or even projects currently in development by Corporations such as CEX.io or even an existing smaller multi-pool with massive profits wanting to take the next step.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now

I will make an assumption that may not completely reflect reality with relation to how the Crypto-Family at Large thinks and acts.
And that is a Reactionary; in other words looking through the rear view mirror.

Myriad as it was originally designed and papers explaining such forward thinking is not included.
Now it is falling into the latter category. A great experiment in innovation stagnating and afraid to venture onward with the brave foresight it once had.

Foodies your main objection to finding a resolution to one proposal which some here in Myriads community are still deliberating.
That is an algorithm permanently frozen in the ice of a massive difficulty.

That makes sense and a must be avoided but is not permanent.
IF this were to occur,
which once we and hopefully other developers will join to assist as 8bitcoder is frustratingly absent in these discussions,
EVEN after every step has been taken to make sure it does not.
There are 2 solutions I can see at the moment:
A- Re-Fork the code (undesirable but it is an option if somehow a rabbit comes out of our asses after much deliberation and test-net runs.
B- We will have our computing power with the arriving soon on the scene generation 2, 3 ... Scrypt ASICs within a short time likely to reach over 1GHs in hashing power.


Do not be afraid of the future. Rest assured we will face other challenges that will test our ability to adapt, but right now this is the one we face.
The path we are currently walking, if left unabated whether it is due to a lack of foresight, clinging on to old methods in the face of rapid change, or simply protecting our fragile, egos ever afraid to consider new ideas falsifying our own, I am sad to say there will be a future without Myriad.

[Zoella]

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.

Actually, there are two concerns, but I'll address the mine 'n dump first.

1) Correct, there is no way to prevent people from mining and dumping there coins. The difference is the rate at which generated coins are dumped. I would love to see someone figure out how many coins generated on 5/27 (UTC) were dumped that day, that did not come from the two addresses I looked at. This would give us a much better understanding. Someone needs to take this concern seriously and do some detailed research.

2) While any idea to attack this problem is a good start, this would not work. Based on the second concern (again, Silent Bit's post is a very good walk through of how normal miners get squeezed out), all the work we do making MYR more desirable would be in support of the multipools as they would be the ones generating all the coins. Yes, value would increase. Ironically this would make MYR even more desirable to mine 'n dumps, and at the same time make it more difficult for the community to mine. The value of our holdings may go up, but we would end up seeing a net loss as our daily take of coins goes down. This would be another way to kill MYR.

While multipools are currently confined to scrypt, now is the perfect time to analyze what overall effects they have on a coin while that coin is still healthy (which I believe MYR is). I don't know what the solution is, but there is time to find one before multipools spread to other algos. I really dread the day that happens if MYR is not prepared. I believe it would be very destructive.

[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.

Well, I think that the multipool mine and dump isn't the main issue here. But mining myriadcoin was suppose to have 20% per algo and not 21.6% for scrypt and 19.4% for the rest of the algo. Please change how the difficulty retarget works and everything would be fine..

The situation is being closely monitored. We are the first coin with a multi-PoW framework so there will be bumps in the road that nobody else has had to go over yet. We need to spend the proper time assessing the situation, gathering data, and providing meaningful responses.

It's a good thing Myriad was designed with an incredibly fair distribution model (48 weeks of initial block rewards!). We do not need to trip over forwards trying to create a hurried solution. A few days of multipool "rape" means nothing in the long run, it is the creativity, intelligence, and diligence of our decision-making that define it.

[Zoella]

To fight multipools we should have our own one!

You fight multipools by focusing your energy on giving people reasons to buy Myriad. Then mutlipools become an afterthought you couldn't believe you spent so much time worrying about.

I hate to disagree, but I am 100% against a solution like this. All you end up doing is making profit switching pools desire you even more. This means algo switchers become even more valuable to profit switching pools and are implemented sooner. This means regular miners are squeezed out even sooner. This means all of your work building up the MYR community was ultimately to support profit switching while the community itself slowly slipped away. MYR needs to focus on giving people reasons to buy AND mine. You lose the mining community, and you are left with investors who only care about trading and multipools who only care about BTC. You have nobody left who actually cares about MYR.

A resistance feature to multipools would be another selling point for MYR, as well as another innovative solution that could be touted to the world and make others stop and take notice. This would give people reasons to buy MYR AND to mine it.

[foodies123]

Stop multi quotingggg it's distracting .... Arghhhh

[foodies123]

I've got the perfect anti multipool solution but like I said ass biting to come.
Here it is:
Whenever a surge happens on one algo we add a shitload weighing factor to other algos thus when they find their normally timed block they'll most likely orphan the string of fast submitted blocks belonging to the multipool.


Tadaaa I am now your myrssaiah.

[Zoella]

<snipping multiquote for foodies! >

The situation is being closely monitored. We are the first coin with a multi-PoW framework so there will be bumps in the road that nobody else has had to go over yet. We need to spend the proper time assessing the situation, gathering data, and providing meaningful responses.

This is a perfect response. Thanks to that multi-PoW framework there is time. There should be no rush to implement something, but researching this should be a top priority. I think the concern is that this is being ignored until now. If the devs now consider this worth looking into, I'm sure there are those in the community with the technical skills to help.

It's a good thing Myriad was designed with an incredibly fair distribution model (48 weeks of initial block rewards!). We do not need to trip over forwards trying to create a hurried solution. A few days of multipool "rape" means nothing in the long run, it is the creativity, intelligence, and diligence of our decision-making that define it.

Can't agree more. Multi-PoW is awesome, and very under-appreciated IMO.

I know iamphoenix brought this up well before the rest of us, and I'm sorry I dismissed his points because I didn't see the bigger picture beyond scrypt (and to be honest, based a little on our previous dispute). If the devs take this seriously enough start the researching/monitoring of how multipool is effecting scrypt now, and can extrapolate that data into some educated estimates of how this may effect MYR once algo-switching multipools come into play, I think many of us would feel much more confident in MYR. Once that is done, and a determination made as to whether a solution is truly needed, there should be time to develop and test something practical with minimal impact.

[Zoella]

I've got the perfect anti multipool solution but like I said ass biting to come.
Here it is:
Whenever a surge happens on one algo we add a shitload weighing factor to other algos thus when they find their normally timed block they'll most likely orphan the string of fast submitted blocks belonging to the multipool.


Tadaaa I am now your myrssaiah.

I have no idea on the feasibility, Mr. MYRssaiah, but if something like that worked it would only add to the benefits of multi-PoW. Would be funny as hell to watch all the multipools spend half their time just trying to herd their clients between algos. The question would be which algo you weighted favorably? Or do you weight them all? I like the idea of weighting the weakest, but then you introduce the possibility of pre-determination so that a pool could switch to that algo just as it gets weighted.

[foodies123]

I've got the perfect anti multipool solution but like I said ass biting to come.
Here it is:
Whenever a surge happens on one algo we add a shitload weighing factor to other algos thus when they find their normally timed block they'll most likely orphan the string of fast submitted blocks belonging to the multipool.


Tadaaa I am now your myrssaiah.

I have no idea on the feasibility, Mr. MYRssaiah, but if something like that worked it would only add to the benefits of multi-PoW. Would be funny as hell to watch all the multipools spend half their time just trying to herd their clients between algos. The question would be which algo you weighted favorably? Or do you weight them all? I like the idea of weighting the weakest, but then you introduce the possibility of pre-determination so that a pool could switch to that algo just as it gets weighted.

99% sure it works.

Here's the concept:

scrypt diff goes max up (which is 15% or something) for longer than say 5 consecutive blocks + block time is < 30 seconds (per scrypt) + blocks are scrypt blocks triggers the guard dogs program in all other algos meaning all algos receive a getwork with the height being current height minus the number of consecutive scrypt blocks found under the projected timeframe and whichever algo finds the block announces it with the height at which scrypt (or any other algo for that matter) surged up triggering a reorganization since the announcet block outweighs the other blocks thus the announced chain is higher.


Oh wait I think you can use this to doublespend later on ), see ? this is what I meant by things like this comming around to bite us in the arse.

[fullhdpixel]

Dev's, don't you see we'll end up in limbo with this rate of inflation?

And I also doubt this will enforce better distribution. Who wants to invest a coin that's been going sideways for two whole weeks?

Don't get me wrong, you all know I love the work you've been doing for this coin and I suggest you continue to do this.

Personally, my investment is down 50%...

[iamphoenix]

Dev's, don't you see we'll end up in limbo with this rate of inflation?

And I also doubt this will enforce better distribution. Who wants to invest a coin that's been going sideways for two whole weeks?

Don't get me wrong, you all know I love the work you've been doing for this coin and I suggest you continue to do this.

Personally, my investment is down 50%...

it is not when you invest but WHAT you invest in... thats why we are concerned with that WHAT and not the WHEN

[iamphoenix]

<snipping multiquote for foodies! >

The situation is being closely monitored. We are the first coin with a multi-PoW framework so there will be bumps in the road that nobody else has had to go over yet. We need to spend the proper time assessing the situation, gathering data, and providing meaningful responses.

This is a perfect response. Thanks to that multi-PoW framework there is time. There should be no rush to implement something, but researching this should be a top priority. I think the concern is that this is being ignored until now. If the devs now consider this worth looking into, I'm sure there are those in the community with the technical skills to help.

It's a good thing Myriad was designed with an incredibly fair distribution model (48 weeks of initial block rewards!). We do not need to trip over forwards trying to create a hurried solution. A few days of multipool "rape" means nothing in the long run, it is the creativity, intelligence, and diligence of our decision-making that define it.

Can't agree more. Multi-PoW is awesome, and very under-appreciated IMO.

I know iamphoenix brought this up well before the rest of us, and I'm sorry I dismissed his points because I didn't see the bigger picture beyond scrypt (and to be honest, based a little on our previous dispute). If the devs take this seriously enough start the researching/monitoring of how multipool is effecting scrypt now, and can extrapolate that data into some educated estimates of how this may effect MYR once algo-switching multipools come into play, I think many of us would feel much more confident in MYR. Once that is done, and a determination made as to whether a solution is truly needed, there should be time to develop and test something practical with minimal impact.

thanks and i am truly sorry for being an asshole to you.

[fedmahnkassad]

Cut ties with Bryce Weiner or this will end up really bad.

[Zoella]

I've got the perfect anti multipool solution but like I said ass biting to come.
Here it is:
Whenever a surge happens on one algo we add a shitload weighing factor to other algos thus when they find their normally timed block they'll most likely orphan the string of fast submitted blocks belonging to the multipool.


Tadaaa I am now your myrssaiah.

I have no idea on the feasibility, Mr. MYRssaiah, but if something like that worked it would only add to the benefits of multi-PoW. Would be funny as hell to watch all the multipools spend half their time just trying to herd their clients between algos. The question would be which algo you weighted favorably? Or do you weight them all? I like the idea of weighting the weakest, but then you introduce the possibility of pre-determination so that a pool could switch to that algo just as it gets weighted.

99% sure it works.

Here's the concept:

scrypt diff goes max up (which is 15% or something) for longer than say 5 consecutive blocks + block time is < 30 seconds (per scrypt) + blocks are scrypt blocks triggers the guard dogs program in all other algos meaning all algos receive a getwork with the height being current height minus the number of consecutive scrypt blocks found under the projected timeframe and whichever algo finds the block announces it with the height at which scrypt (or any other algo for that matter) surged up triggering a reorganization since the announcet block outweighs the other blocks thus the announced chain is higher.


Oh wait I think you can use this to doublespend later on ), see ? this is what I meant by things like this comming around to bite us in the arse.

Dude, that's the whole point of development and testing!!!

Can you imagine if every project just died because nobody was willing to explore updates or upgrades for fear of breaking anything? I'm sorry foodies but this is just a horrible attitude to have. Fear should not control the future of this coin.

[Zoella]

thanks and i am truly sorry for being an asshole to you.

No worries. I was just as much of a jackass (probably more).

[foodies123]

zoe, phoenix, the fact that I responded to this means we are aware of this problem (although it's not exactly a problem but something specific to all coins with a smaller network hashrate) and we're thinking about the issue. what I posted I genuinely thought was the answer for stopping multipools but as I thought deeper I realized someone could use that to perform a double-spend attack, although I think that can be avoided with prolonguing confirmation from 6 to more blocks.

[Zoella]

Cut ties with Bryce Weiner or this will end up really bad.

I know nothing about Bryce, or his plans.

What I do know is he pumped this coin with grandiose plans and pre-announcement about announcements and then disappeared. Hell, I've seen scam coins announced here with more upfront information. If he's just spitballing ideas, great. Tell us. If he really is working on this other stuff, great. Again, tell us.

Until he's a little more forthcoming, there is no reason to give any weight to his meanderings. I really hope colored coins take off on MYR, but that doesn't need Bryce. It needs someone with a motivation and a drive to create and release.