NA

[sven22]

Seems that Frais allready sees they took 7blocks. But not as frequent as before, DIGI looks as it's doing it's job. On the other hand if Frais is correct they will still take42% of all blocks, I also wonder where he gets this info from. @Frais?

[1714763147]

1714763147

[veertje]

https://explorer.guldencoin.com/#/

Total hashrate seems ok. Not a big jump, so lets wait a while.

[sven22]

https://explorer.guldencoin.com/#/

Total hashrate seems ok. Not a big jump, so lets wait a while.

I believe that's incorrect as it's from this latest timeframe.

http://guldencointrader.nl/hashrate.php

Around that time CM stepped in

[pijpenstelen]

Now that Terk is back should i put my monthly buy order before 500 or won't he have same effect as before?

[sven22]

Now that Terk is back should i put my monthly buy order before 500 or won't he have same effect as before?

I guess that depands on how many blocks they get so they can drop those on Bittrex again.... 7blocks in 1 hour.

[pijpenstelen]

Now that Terk is back should i put my monthly buy order before 500 or won't he have same effect as before?

I guess that depands on how many blocks they get so they can drop those on Bittrex again.... 7blocks in 1 hour.

Also we don't know the effects these new projects will have on the price that openforbusiness and LTEX is releasing.

[sven22]

That all is true, I am really excited about all that! I really wonder what will happen

I still have 100% faith in this coin anyway. Even these things we have to conquer to become a good coin! Somewhere we need this to get stronger!

[veertje]

Hashrate seems relative stable last 2 hours, so other miners stopped as CM started at the same time? Don't get it.

[Frais]

Hashrate seems relative stable last 2 hours, so other miners stopped as CM started at the same time? Don't get it.

Does guldencointrader.nl notice these very short hashrate peaks?

[Frais]

Does guldencointrader.nl notice these very short hashrate peaks?

Frais ,you can set the timescale from 6-2 to 6-2 on top of the page (only today)

I know.. but since clever hits the chain only for a few minutes I don't know if their peaks will show up in the charts.

[Halofire]

Seems CM will be mining 110-115k NLG/day. 12 blocks in 2.5 hours. .8 btc in buy support needed to maintain 650 satoshi, daily.

[Litesire]

Seems CM will be mining 110-115k NLG/day. 12 blocks in 2.5 hours. .8 btc in buy support needed to maintain 650 satoshi, daily.

I expect an ave price of about 550 sat in the short term, it's not just .8btc from him, will also be traders and other miners and also people buying from merchants. From my estimates the coin is bringing in over 1btc a day in new buys. The user base is growing constantly.

[KenChanYu]

Seems CM will be mining 110-115k NLG/day. 12 blocks in 2.5 hours. .8 btc in buy support needed to maintain 650 satoshi, daily.

I expect an ave price of about 550 sat in the short term, it's not just .8btc from him, will also be traders and other miners and also people buying from merchants. From my estimates the coin is bringing in over 1btc a day in new buys. The user base is growing constantly.

Only combat for this is more adoption. Digi will be fine now... but now it just make coin more known and people will come and support. It has very good support already even with not going mainstream.

[veertje]

It looks like CM now on 4 blocks an hour. That means about 96 blocks a day. That means about 25%-28%.

[Halofire]

Let's get an actual point of reference.

Started with (edit: balance):
114927 <-- index number, not block number  (block number: 196194)    2015-02-06 08:15:48 -0500    Sent    1,000.00000000    7,000.00000000

(Added:) First block found:
114928 <-- index number, not block number  (block number: 196195)    2015-02-06 08:17:55 -0500 Received 1,000.00000000 8,000.00000000

Last found at time of the writing of this post:
114972 <-- index number, not block number  (block number: 196324)   2015-02-06 18:11:44 -0500 Received 1,000.00000000 44,000.20115000

CM had a positive, non-zero balance for the 4 days. CM has also already sent 4000 NLG since CM started back up today.
So 41 blocks in 10 hours, out of 130 blocks. 31% of blocks for ten hours.
My original post came up with a higher percent of blocks, and at the time they were banging out more blocks per hour.
I really wanted to wait to see after 24 hours what the equation would show us, but I was off although I was taking the info straight from the explorer. I would rather get closer to on point since my first post was 20-25% higher than it actually is.


-edited-

[c_e_d]

From https://explorer.guldencoin.com/#/  (guldencointrader.nl shows basically the same):

                       latest        24h avg       7d avg.
Hashrate               12.7 GH/s     12.1 GH/s     14.9 GH/s
Difficulty             1,068.35      722.82        710.57
Time between blocks    1 m 49s       4m 10s        3m 25s


And from http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/ :

    date  | blocks
+---------+-------+
|  Feb 01 |  491  |
|  Feb 02 |  398  |
|  Feb 03 |  377  | 
|  Feb 04 |  410  | 
|  Feb 05 |  370  |
|  Feb 06 |  337  |

Feb 6 with only 337 blocks is very low (~60% of expected 576 blocks).

Looks like while diff goes up, blocks per day goes down (talking about average here).
And this happens while the hashrate goes down too?

DIGI should and is reacting faster than DGW3, so it should level between longer and shorter block times faster too.
So why isn't the average diff lower together with the lower average hashrate?
Looking at our (simple) DIGI code again and again without seeing why.
(Even the old DGW3 with it's one-off bug and 24 blocks interval did a better job there and kept us closer to the default number of blocks per day).
Anyone able to explain what is going on here?

[ny2cafuse]

From https://explorer.guldencoin.com/#/  (guldencointrader.nl shows basically the same):

                       latest        24h avg       7d avg.
Hashrate               12.7 GH/s     12.1 GH/s     14.9 GH/s
Difficulty             1,068.35      722.82        710.57
Time between blocks    1 m 49s       4m 10s        3m 25s


And from http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/ :

    date  | blocks
+---------+-------+
|  Feb 01 |  491  |
|  Feb 02 |  398  |
|  Feb 03 |  377  |  
|  Feb 04 |  410  |  
|  Feb 05 |  370  |
|  Feb 06 |  337  |

Feb 6 with only 337 blocks is very low (~60% of expected 576 blocks).

Looks like while diff goes up, blocks per day goes down (talking about average here).
And this happens while the hashrate goes down too?

DIGI should and is reacting faster than DGW3, so it should level between longer and shorter block times faster too.
So why isn't the average diff lower together with the lower average hashrate?
Looking at our (simple) DIGI code again and again without seeing why.
(Even the old DGW3 with it's one-off bug and 24 blocks interval did a better job there and kept us closer to the default number of blocks per day).
Anyone able to explain what is going on here?

I'll admit that I wasn't expecting some of the results we've been having.  I believed that we should have been having a mix of short blocks and long blocks that averaged out, like you mention.

We're overshooting the difficulty needed to effectively keep the chain moving.  Instead we're going from 500 to 2000 in the span of 3 blocks.  Then the long block time causes the maximum drop, and we end up going back down to the level that is profitable for MPs.  It's part of the reason why I recommended trimming the max adjustment.  The adjustments will happen just as fast, but they won't move as far.

Additionally, we have a lot less hashrate keeping those higher blocks moving.  So it's back and forth with high block, MP block.  Digi is doing it's job, we just need to tweak it a little.  Or we can start talking about the shorter block times.

Of course, the ideal solution is more miners, or more dedicated hashrate.

-Fuse

[BritcoinFTW]

So I have been following this coin in silence since I heard about it on the sterlingcoin ANN.
Guldencoin is in a very fortunate position that it has big enough support to withstand jump pools. These same jump pools destroyed a lot of coins into the ground as first dedicated miners left and then their weak communities gave up. Guldencoin community has a strong will which I truly believe can overcome any obstacle. I wish this was the case for Britcoin but it wasn't.

Yesterday I spoke to one of my mates about Guldencoin because I believe in this project just like most of you do and he bought some up yesterday on bittrex. Which brings me to my next point, I see plenty people wasting time crying about the Hitlers of altcoin currencies also know as jump pools. Now the only way to get nullify the effect of these devils is to grow your coin even more. More users means more purchases and more spending, higher price means more dedicated miners come and smooth out the chain. Litecoin does not have to worry about jump pools, so that coin is free of that evil that plagues the altcoin market.

Now instead of wasting time on what these parasites are doing , spend the time on promoting the coin. Don't be hesitant to promote it because it is constantly getting better and I truly believe this project will succeed even with these devils taking 45% of the coins.

[markanth]

Crypto in general is still very young and there will be a lot of obstacles on the road when growing up. We are experiencing one of those obstacles. For us the problem is not that its happening, but that its possible. We will not try to solve it with reason or trust, because we believe in a system that is not based on trust. So we will solve it with code. Because thats when innovation happens and how crypto will grow up.

So I have been following this coin in silence since I heard about it on the sterlingcoin ANN.
Guldencoin is in a very fortunate position that it has big enough support to withstand jump pools. These same jump pools destroyed a lot of coins into the ground as first dedicated miners left and then their weak communities gave up. Guldencoin community has a strong will which I truly believe can overcome any obstacle. I wish this was the case for Britcoin but it wasn't.

Yesterday I spoke to one of my mates about Guldencoin because I believe in this project just like most of you do and he bought some up yesterday on bittrex. Which brings me to my next point, I see plenty people wasting time crying about the Hitlers of altcoin currencies also know as jump pools. Now the only way to get nullify the effect of these devils is to grow your coin even more. More users means more purchases and more spending, higher price means more dedicated miners come and smooth out the chain. Litecoin does not have to worry about jump pools, so that coin is free of that evil that plagues the altcoin market.

Now instead of wasting time on what these parasites are doing , spend the time on promoting the coin. Don't be hesitant to promote it because it is constantly getting better and I truly believe this project will succeed even with these devils taking 45% of the coins.

These are just 2 of the many posts I just read catching up on the forum after a long day's work.  Inspirational.  I'm proud to be part of this community and biting my tongue pretty hard to put the back and forth between Terk behind us.   Just remember guys.. slow and steady.  Putting up a big 800 satoshi buy wall on bittrex tomorrow only raises the maximum difficulty clever mines NLG at and could create larger block gaps.

[johndec2]

I'll admit that I wasn't expecting some of the results we've been having.  I believed that we should have been having a mix of short blocks and long blocks that averaged out, like you mention.

We're overshooting the difficulty needed to effectively keep the chain moving.  Instead we're going from 500 to 2000 in the span of 3 blocks.  Then the long block time causes the maximum drop, and we end up going back down to the level that is profitable for MPs.  It's part of the reason why I recommended trimming the max adjustment.  The adjustments will happen just as fast, but they won't move as far.

Additionally, we have a lot less hashrate keeping those higher blocks moving.  So it's back and forth with high block, MP block.  Digi is doing it's job, we just need to tweak it a little.  Or we can start talking about the shorter block times.

Of course, the ideal solution is more miners, or more dedicated hashrate.

-Fuse

I think Fuse has hit the nail on the head here.  IMHO, digi was designed for a coin with shorter block times.  I'm no coding guru, far from it, but perhaps we should consider bringing the coin specs more in line with the designed specs of the algo. I can't help but think that 150 second block times and digi don't quite mesh properly.

If that was done, with of course a reduced block reward for a shorter block time, and a slight tweak to the diff adjustments, I'm pretty sure that things would be nearly perfect.