NA

[ny2cafuse]

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM2SlekORo0

I'm off to my corner now to cry.

-Fuse

[1715032296]

1715032296

[lakala]

Excellent job folks!!

[strataghyst]

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM2SlekORo0

I'm off to my corner now to cry.

-Fuse

Don't cry every little thing is gonna be alright.  

Did the dev team contact the developers of DGW3 as I read somewhere a while ago that they helped implement with other coins.
Maybe they can help fine tuning it to 2.5 min blocks as it is designed for 1min blocks.

The solution that Geertjohan gives also works, does it require another hard fork? If so maybe a longer maturity time like casinocoin can also be included? I personally like that solution.

I would never ban IP's that just doesn't feel right.
You cannot really blame clevermining as they only use a little flaw in our algorithm.

[Litesire]

Let the price drop another 200 sat and we can see if clevermining still has major impact.

[/GeertJohan]

Let the price drop another 200 sat and we can see if clevermining still has major impact.

Really, this is not a solution in any way.

[strataghyst]

Let the price drop another 200 sat and we can see if clevermining still has major impact.

Really, this is not a solution in any way.

I agree! but i do think a price drop will occur.

[Jero]

Let the price drop another 200 sat and we can see if clevermining still has major impact.

If the price go down to a the level we can start building again, for sure I still contribute.
If the price go down too much, let new people invest. That should be great! Build a strong community, one of the major goals.

With time we hit the road again , that time we are ready for sure!

[deephouse]

I am not following this thread but can't someone explain the reason for decline in prices. The dev ans cumminity were doing a good job. What happened recently.

[ny2cafuse]

I am not following this thread but can't someone explain the reason for decline in prices. The dev ans cumminity were doing a good job. What happened recently.

Maybe you should follow the thread.

Long story short- DGW3 isn't 100% effective and the weak hands are freaking out.

-Fuse

[megashira1]

I am not following this thread but can't someone explain the reason for decline in prices. The dev ans cumminity were doing a good job. What happened recently.

I too dont understand whats going on.

[Jero]

I am not following this thread but can't someone explain the reason for decline in prices. The dev ans cumminity were doing a good job. What happened recently.

After a hugh raise in price (from 100 sat to 2000 sat)  Guldencoin was hit by multipool(s).
KGW was not robuust enough to protect Guldencoin from some kind of mining abuse.
Last thursday KGW was replaced (with hard fork) with DGW3.
But DGW3 seems not the solution for the mentioned mining abuse, or needs some adjustments before it works in the way we want.

In the meantime serveral forces, in the context of the price, are working:

- multipools dumping
- some people thinks a lower price is good and are dumping
- some people just wait for what will happen next
- some people are willing to buy but wait for the right moment
- etc etc

Well, for now, price down. Will stabilize after the weekend. In the meantime, devs working hard the find the best solution.

[megashira1]

I am not following this thread but can't someone explain the reason for decline in prices. The dev ans cumminity were doing a good job. What happened recently.

After a hugh raise in price (from 100 sat to 2000 sat)  Guldencoin was hit by multipool(s).
KGW was not robuust enough to protect Guldencoin from some kind of mining abuse.
Last thursday KGW was replaced (with hard fork) with DGW3.
But DGW3 seems not the solution for the mentioned mining abuse, or needs some adjustments before it works in the way we want.

In the meantime serveral forces, in the context of the price, are working:

- multipools dumping
- some people thinks a lower price is good and are dumping
- some people just wait for what will happen next
- some people are willing to buy but wait for the right moment
- etc etc

Well, for now, price down. Will stabilize after the weekend. In the meantime, devs working hard the find the best solution.

Can you extrapolate on what mining abuse means? The pools are getting to many coins and dumping? Or they can mine the blocks too easily?

[ny2cafuse]

Can you extrapolate on what mining abuse means? The pools are getting to many coins and dumping? Or they can mine the blocks too easily?

One particular multipool, Clevermining, is hitting 10-20 low difficulty blocks in a row in the span of 20 seconds or so, and leaving us with a high difficulty block that is taking longer to crack by the legit NLG pools.  We crack the block an hour later, the difficulty drops back down, and Clevermining hits it again.  Clever doesn't pay out in NLG, so everything they mine is sold for BTC.  Being that they are mining 90% or more of the blocks right now, all those blocks are going to exchanges for a sale.

-Fuse

[Jero]

Can you extrapolate on what mining abuse means? The pools are getting to many coins and dumping? Or they can mine the blocks too easily?

One particular multipool, Clevermining, is hitting 10-20 low difficulty blocks in a row in the span of 20 seconds or so, and leaving us with a high difficulty block that is taking longer to crack by the legit NLG pools.  We crack the block an hour later, the difficulty drops back down, and Clevermining hits it again.  Clever doesn't pay out in NLG, so everything they mine is sold for BTC.  Being that they are mining 90% or more of the blocks right now, all those blocks are going to exchanges for a sale.

-Fuse

Thnx! Good explanation. Hopefully also for megashire and deephouse...

Maybe they have experience/thoughts/solutions to share?

[Bluestreet]

Can you extrapolate on what mining abuse means? The pools are getting to many coins and dumping? Or they can mine the blocks too easily?

One particular multipool, Clevermining, is hitting 10-20 low difficulty blocks in a row in the span of 20 seconds or so, and leaving us with a high difficulty block that is taking longer to crack by the legit NLG pools.  We crack the block an hour later, the difficulty drops back down, and Clevermining hits it again.  Clever doesn't pay out in NLG, so everything they mine is sold for BTC.  Being that they are mining 90% or more of the blocks right now, all those blocks are going to exchanges for a sale.

-Fuse

Clevermining with this type of business would of killed off 99% of the scrypt coins in this situation. Guldencoin is holding resilient with this abuse. At the end of the day Clevermining has no emotional attachment to NLG and is pure business. Whether he kills NLG or not is not his concern but it might end up that Doge and litecoin will be the only ones he will be able to mine.
With the above being said he did reduce the hash against the coin and I am sure he will do it again because if NLG fails due to his multipool it will also hurt his business. Right now there isn't many scrypt coins to mine that are doing well.

[TamiLee]

People who sold out below 600 really got caught out today.

[syncsam]

Is there a way to put a time constraint on block finding i.e no block can be found within 1 minute of each other (blocks get rejected) and if more the x (will use 3 for this example) times usual time passes (7.5min) the difficulty starts lowering <edit> I'll add to that, make it drop  x% every minute past the 7.5min mark till the next block is found

I'm not a programmer so don't know if this is doable

<Edit> or start lowering the block rewards now to a point where its not profitable for the multi pools, but that may have a scarcity effect that drives the price up were you end up back at square one

[F1k]

I'm loving this low price.

Wanted to buy a crapton when nlg went below 2 eur / 1000 nlg on litebit, but suddenly no ideal. >.>

Please keep the price down a bit longer, I need that ideal working xD

[c_e_d]

With the difference in hashrate between our normal miners and the power clever (or other multipools) can throw at NLG, not actual diff adjusting algo can keep up with this. It is too far out of control with too many asics on those pools. Look at the number of hashlets GAW is selling every day and you will get an idea of what we do have to expect in the future.

Don't get me wrong. I think clever is a nice pool if you don't want to steady keep track on the most profitable coins and want to make BTC anyway. Terk wants to make money for his pool (and himself) too. So I can't blame him. He tried to help while not hurting his profits too much.

Right now making the blockreward depending on the block times seems the best to keep the coins per time interval stable and not giving big hashpowers the advantage to make big numbers of coins in a short time and drop out until low diff gives them the change to do it again, over and over. This can be a short solution, but I am not sure if this a good solution on the long run.
So NLG might have to go through a few changes in the near future for the better on the times to come.

I was reading deeper into diff algos during the last couple of days and have some ideas. PMed /GeertJohan this night about something he said to get some more info. This should help me to figure out what might work to improve the diff adjustment for cases like this major imbalance between normal and peek hashrate. After I got a clearer picture I will discuss it with /GeertJohan.
It's not to keep it a secret, but to have a workable solution to present for public discussion instead of throwing around big ideas that will not work out in the end.
And min/max block times (as someone suggested before) will definitely be part of the discussion too.

[ny2cafuse]

Right now making the blockreward depending on the block times seems the best to keep the coins per time interval stable and not giving big hashpowers the advantage to make big numbers of coins in a short time and drop out until low diff gives them the change to do it again, over and over. This can be a short solution, but I am not sure if this a good solution on the long run.
So NLG might have to go through a few changes in the near future for the better on the times to come.

I honestly think the next solution needs to be the solution.  Not a series of solutions until we get there.

The more changes we make, the more bloated the code becomes to keep track of the changes on the blockchain, and the bigger chance we have of breaking things.  Let the devs and the community come together and figure this out in a rational manner.  Hasty decisions kill coins.

-Fuse