NA

[Litesire]

Thing is, price needs to drop and lower difficulty needs to rise (read: more dedicated miners). This way the switching miner will not be interested in NLG any more. The question is where these limits are?

Let it drop to under 200 , I think that will keep them off our backs. It really doesn't matter what the price of NLG is for the next 2 - 3 months. We all know in 3 years it's going to be big.

Read the below:

I have to agree with Dutchyy above, I have removed all my buy orders, let the price fall to around 150 again. Give the devs and community time to grow the coin and let it rise slowly. Dogecoin went to 25 sat, look where it is now!!
Lets force the price down. I am even prepared to sell some off my coins to force it down, who is with me? This will get NLG off cleverminings list or at least they won't throw so much hash, this is not the time to be selfish and keep prices high!

[1714997689]

1714997689

[1714997689]

1714997689

[veertje]

Thing is, price needs to drop and lower difficulty needs to rise (read: more dedicated miners). This way the switching miner will not be interested in NLG any more. The question is where these limits are?

Let it drop to under 200 , I think that will keep them off our backs. It really doesn't matter what the price of NLG is for the next 2 - 3 months. We all know in 3 years it's going to be big.

Read the below:

I have to agree with Dutchyy above, I have removed all my buy orders, let the price fall to around 150 again. Give the devs and community time to grow the coin and let it rise slowly. Dogecoin went to 25 sat, look where it is now!!
Lets force the price down. I am even prepared to sell some off my coins to force it down, who is with me? This will get NLG off cleverminings list or at least they won't throw so much hash, this is not the time to be selfish and keep prices high!

I don't agree. When good news stays coming with new merchants coming months, price will rise in notime again to these levels. Keep the motivation high. When price drops too much, people also are waiting with buying goods, because they don't want to buy expencive. That is not good for the merchants. Keep the momentum. Price has dropped already   This was some panicselling of some. No need to do that. Only DGW3 is not working as expected, but all other things are good.

What is needed is a good marketing campaign to attract more miners and buyers. DGW3 is just as KGW a bit of a problem with the multipool, but rewards come eventually after a long blockfinding time. That is not only now, but will always be the case, when big miners come jumping in. Maybe there is a more stable solution for that, but a good campaign can help also.

[/GeertJohan]

Hi all,

As everyone can see DGW3 is not working as good as epxected. It's still better than KGW, but not good enough.

Forcing the price down on the exchanges seems like a bad idea to me. We need a hgih and stable price so Guldencoin can become mainstream. Forcing the price down does not move us in the right direction.

Having a miners whitelist is very difficult solution. For starters, it will make the coin more centralized. Because we need someone to decide which miners get whitelist and which don't. I for one do not intend to be that person. I think we need solution that manages itself.

Difficulty adjustment between blocks will cause more blocks to be mined than actually required... So more than 1 block per 2.5 minute on average.
There are also more complicated problems when having diff adjustment between blocks.. (could be misused easily)

A different solution I'm thinking off is to change the blockreward to be 1000/150*<secs-since-previous-block> with a maximum of 1000.
I need to do some research if this is actually possible and if it doesn't create more problems..

For now I'll contact Terk and ask if he can dial down the hashrate thrown at NLG again, this isn't in his best interest either.

[/GeertJohan]

Hi all,

As everyone can see DGW3 is not working as good as epxected. It's still better than KGW, but not good enough.

Forcing the price down on the exchanges seems like a bad idea to me. We need a hgih and stable price so Guldencoin can become mainstream. Forcing the price down does not move us in the right direction.

Having a miners whitelist is very difficult solution. For starters, it will make the coin more centralized. Because we need someone to decide which miners get whitelist and which don't. I for one do not intend to be that person. I think we need solution that manages itself.

Difficulty adjustment between blocks will cause more blocks to be mined than actually required... So more than 1 block per 2.5 minute on average.
There are also more complicated problems when having diff adjustment between blocks.. (could be misused easily)

A different solution I'm thinking off is to change the blockreward to be 1000/150*<secs-since-previous-block> with a maximum of 1000.
I need to do some research if this is actually possible and if it doesn't create more problems..

For now I'll contact Terk and ask if he can dial down the hashrate thrown at NLG again, this isn't in his best interest either.

Have you looked into Digishield?
Well i dont know what algo adjustments are the best so i leave the choices up to you..

Yes, Digishield won't solve this problem..

[ny2cafuse]

Hi all,

As everyone can see DGW3 is not working as good as epxected. It's still better than KGW, but not good enough.

Forcing the price down on the exchanges seems like a bad idea to me. We need a hgih and stable price so Guldencoin can become mainstream. Forcing the price down does not move us in the right direction.

Having a miners whitelist is very difficult solution. For starters, it will make the coin more centralized. Because we need someone to decide which miners get whitelist and which don't. I for one do not intend to be that person. I think we need solution that manages itself.

Difficulty adjustment between blocks will cause more blocks to be mined than actually required... So more than 1 block per 2.5 minute on average.
There are also more complicated problems when having diff adjustment between blocks.. (could be misused easily)

A different solution I'm thinking off is to change the blockreward to be 1000/150*<secs-since-previous-block> with a maximum of 1000.
I need to do some research if this is actually possible and if it doesn't create more problems..

For now I'll contact Terk and ask if he can dial down the hashrate thrown at NLG again, this isn't in his best interest either.

There's a lot of posts I want to comment on, but I'll stick to this one and build out of comments from here.

I want to say that I'm 100% behind this coin and the dev team.  As such, I will dedicate any resources I have to helping investigate what's going on here.  That being said, I do believe we can make DGW3 work for us.  Looking at this:



I can see the one way this can change.  We need the chart to look like this:

http://www.coinwarz.com/difficulty-charts/potcoin-difficulty-chart

The peaks in our difficulty chart are good, but the valleys aren't.  They are allowing too many blocks to be mined before the difficulty spikes up.  The difficulty needs to spike instantly.  This gives clever 1 block or 2 consecutive blocks before they get cut out.  Yes, we would still be in a situation where we're mining higher blocks, but we need to cut clevermining out of the picture.  I'm looking at the code right now, and I'll post a pull request if I can come up with something.

On to my second point.  Ban Clevermining from the network or get Terk to withdraw.  Stop being amicable.  It isn't centralizing mining, it's saving the coin from what is now centralized mining.  Terk told me in an original PM that he wouldn't stop mining NLG because he "had an obligation to his miners to make them money".  I read "I don't give a shit what my pool does to your coin because I'm making money".  We don't need this.  Ban by IP or tell him you'll ban by IP if he doesn't stop.  I'm sorry Terk, but you need to do the right thing... not say that you are and then continue to rape the shit out of us for the sake of your pockets.

My 2 cents...

-Fuse

[CIG]

The blockexplorer says Clever finds blocks in a few seconds. The truth is that they might find blocks much faster (about 12 blocks within a second?). That's faster then the blockexplorer can proces. I saw around 12 blocks with age -1Y at the same moment. Why is the algo allow that?

The difference in power between dedicated miners and Clever is way out of control. Boosting the dedicated miners I see as only solution. If we manage to mine the hard blocks quicker then the diff will not fall that much.

[BioMike]

The difference in power between dedicated miners and Clever is way out of control. Boosting the dedicated miners I see as only solution. If we manage to mine the hard blocks quicker then the diff will not fall that much.

That was the conclusion that I came also to. Started renting hashing power, not sure if that will work in the long run.

[RJF]

Thing is, price needs to drop and lower difficulty needs to rise (read: more dedicated miners). This way the switching miner will not be interested in NLG any more. The question is where these limits are?

More dedicated miners is certainly a good thing but, as I'm sure most of you who mine NLG, as I do, are pushing the ROI limit at this point. I have watched my returns drop quite a bit in the last month or so but, NLG is one of 2 favorite coins I believe has a real future so, I keep mining but, my 20 to 40 MH/s, depending on rotation, can't compete with the multipool. So, emotionally, I will continue to mine NLG but, financially, it's a wash. Since I don't sell the coins I mine, it's easier for me to hang in there, others are more constrained to an immediate profit model.

I can tell you this, if I ran a multipool and a coin's Dev team asked me to quit while they planned an upgrade, I would certainly comply. For now, we could just ask them to drop NLG until a long term solution is found.

Just my 2 cents....

[BioMike]

Hash rate seems to have dropped a lot.

[ny2cafuse]

The blockexplorer says Clever finds blocks in a few seconds. The truth is that they might find blocks much faster (about 12 blocks within a second?). That's faster then the blockexplorer can proces. I saw around 12 blocks with age -1Y at the same moment. Why is the algo allow that?

The difference in power between dedicated miners and Clever is way out of control. Boosting the dedicated miners I see as only solution. If we manage to mine the hard blocks quicker then the diff will not fall that much.

That's like saying, "all we need to do is make a coin, be accepted, and strike it rich".  Obviously we need more dedicated miners, but we can't just do that overnight.  And we're not going to do that with Clevermining destroying us right now.

Setting up dedicated pools and all is a great idea, but we can't get people on any pool other than HCM.  So then we're talking buying gear that's dedicated to mining NLG.  Who owns that, where does the coin go?  Does it get destroyed, or does it go into someone's wallet?  That sounds more centralized to me than just working on getting CM out of the picture.

I can tell you this, if I ran a multipool and a coin's Dev team asked me to quit while they planned an upgrade, I would certainly comply. For now, we could just ask them to drop NLG until a long term solution is found.

Absolutely correct.  I shut down mining when my pool topped 40% because I wanted miners to spread the hash.  Hardcore did the same at one point because he got too big.

-Fuse

[CIG]

I can tell you this, if I ran a multipool and a coin's Dev team asked me to quit while they planned an upgrade, I would certainly comply. For now, we could just ask them to drop NLG until a long term solution is found.

Just my 2 cents....

A good change miners will return if Clever drop NLG for a while.
And... if 50 miners all add there 2 cents we have 1 nice Guilder!

[/GeertJohan]

Right so I agree that Terk should throw less GH/s at NLG. But I don't want to ban IP's. Besides that there are literally thousands of ways to work around IP bans. Especially when it's about profit.
I think the fix should be governed by the software itself. A consensus between all nodes.
There's not too much smart stuff you can do with the diff re-adjustment; in the end the problem simply is that a jump pool cannot be predicted and that the diff re-adjusts towards 2.5 minute blocktime. It's really hard to take 200 GH/s into account.

Fuse (and others) what do you think about the formula that the block reward is 1000/150*<seconds-since-last-block> with a max of 1000 per 150 seconds?
This makes sure that jumping with large GH/s is not profitible, because there's a max of 1000 coins being released per 150 seconds..
So IF the diff is low, a 300GH/s cluster could only be used to generate a block of 900-1000 coins close to the 2.5 minute mark, this doesn't affect the difficulty because blocks are mined at the correct time..
I think this, combined with DGW3, will cause a more stable blockchain.

[/GeertJohan]

The blockexplorer says Clever finds blocks in a few seconds. The truth is that they might find blocks much faster (about 12 blocks within a second?). That's faster then the blockexplorer can proces. I saw around 12 blocks with age -1Y at the same moment. Why is the algo allow that?

The difference in power between dedicated miners and Clever is way out of control. Boosting the dedicated miners I see as only solution. If we manage to mine the hard blocks quicker then the diff will not fall that much.

The timestamps are in the block itself. The block explorer can easily process 50 blocks per second.
The "-1y" is a feature in displaying time that is in the future.. The timestamp in a block can be set in the future when the miner doesn't have his clock synced properly.

[BioMike]

Thing is, price needs to drop and lower difficulty needs to rise (read: more dedicated miners). This way the switching miner will not be interested in NLG any more. The question is where these limits are?

More dedicated miners is certainly a good thing but, as I'm sure most of you who mine NLG, as I do, are pushing the ROI limit at this point. I have watched my returns drop quite a bit in the last month or so but, NLG is one of 2 favorite coins I believe has a real future so, I keep mining but, my 20 to 40 MH/s, depending on rotation, can't compete with the multipool. So, emotionally, I will continue to mine NLG but, financially, it's a wash. Since I don't sell the coins I mine, it's easier for me to hang in there, others are more constrained to an immediate profit model.

You got me thinking about this... not sure if it will work. I guess those miners want BTC for their NLG... what if the community pays them a higher rate than the market rate... would that work?

[ny2cafuse]

Right so I agree that Terk should throw less GH/s at NLG. But I don't want to ban IP's. Besides that there are literally thousands of ways to work around IP bans. Especially when it's about profit.
I think the fix should be governed by the software itself. A consensus between all nodes.
There's not too much smart stuff you can do with the diff re-adjustment; in the end the problem simply is that a jump pool cannot be predicted and that the diff re-adjusts towards 2.5 minute blocktime. It's really hard to take 200 GH/s into account.

Fuse (and others) what do you think about the formula that the block reward is 1000/150*<seconds-since-last-block> with a max of 1000 per 150 seconds?
This makes sure that jumping with large GH/s is not profitible, because there's a max of 1000 coins being released per 150 seconds..
So IF the diff is low, a 300GH/s cluster could only be used to generate a block of 900-1000 coins close to the 2.5 minute mark, this doesn't affect the difficulty because blocks are mined at the correct time..
I think this, combined with DGW3, will cause a more stable blockchain.

I still think the algo can be tweaked to do this as well.  You can literally do a search for clevermining and find coins that went through the same thing we did.  From just glancing at the search results, it appears DGW3 did it for some coins.  I just need to track the ones that worked, and take a look at their readjustment values.  I do think that we're jumping a little too high with the difficulty.  We went from around 300 to over 700 yesterday in an instant.  Maybe a difficulty increase / decrease limit of 20% would help even things out as well.  I don't mind spikes up and down... but 100% spikes up are no bueno.

However, GJ, this would possibly work.  In the end you want to cut the profit out from under the jumpers.  Limiting the block value for fast blocks could do that, but that's a pretty big change to the coin.  If we are talking changing block rewards, maybe we should just go the route of BTM.  While I haven't done enough research on it, I could say that a 24 hour confirmation time would cripple the jumpers.

IDK... I'd like to see DGW3 work.  And I think it can with a little tweaking.  I just need to do some reading.

-Fuse

[BioMike]

This issue also hit the exchanges apparently:

mcmont is a Bleutrade admin

mcmont @biomike We detected blocks out of sync on different ips. We prefer to pause for protection. It seems that problems are occurring in blockchain, the difficulty is not adjusting properly.
mcmont @biomike bittrex also blocked nlg: https://bittrex.com/status

[KenChanYu]

I hate to point out the obvious but your solution is multi algo where you allow sha256,x11 and scrypt in one.

Thanks you and now I need to go sleep.

[WaterLooDown]

This issue also hit the exchanges apparently:

mcmont is a Bleutrade admin

mcmont @biomike We detected blocks out of sync on different ips. We prefer to pause for protection. It seems that problems are occurring in blockchain, the difficulty is not adjusting properly.
mcmont @biomike bittrex also blocked nlg: https://bittrex.com/status

Hey Bio,

NLG goes into a blocked status on bittrex only during block resolves over 1hr, they not actually blocking the coin but just that transfers will be delayed, it's unblocked(status) now again.

https://bittrex.com/status

[ny2cafuse]

I hate to point out the obvious but your solution is multi algo where you allow sha256,x11 and scrypt in one.

Thanks you and now I need to go sleep.

Oh, here we go...

And while we're at it, let's make it POS only.  And implement an IPO and sell shares.  Oh... and maybe we can tie it to a real commodity.... maybe waffles.

It's all so obvious now... I wish I thought of this earlier.

-Fuse

[BioMike]

I hate to point out the obvious but your solution is multi algo where you allow sha256,x11 and scrypt in one.

Thanks you and now I need to go sleep.

Oh, here we go...

And while we're at it, let's make it POS only.  And implement an IPO and sell shares.  Oh... and maybe we can tie it to a real commodity.... maybe waffles.

It's all so obvious now... I wish I thought of this earlier.

-Fuse

Fuse, your forgetting the pump en dump schemes that could be included...!!!