NA

[Frais]

Now, check this: http://egulden.org/info/boekhouding/blockchain-in-beeld (last graph, gap times between blocks), see something familiar? And they are not even noticing it.

So if a multipool is hitting EFL there should be sell orders the multiple of 12,5 (block reward), like the last sell order (02:19:00 PM). And there're a lot of them more. Good luck with that  

[Halofire]

@ markanth: https://distribution.guldencoin.com/#/stats

Distribution is up to date in link above  

Thanks Veertje.  The 150M NLG pre-mine distribution stats to Dutch citizens looks up to date.. the one I was questioning was the 20M Premine for Development, Marketing, Bounties. 

Speaking of bounties, isn't there one for fixing the algo? Something like 500k? Can't remember exactly where I saw it.

https://forum.guldencoin.com/index.php?topic=260.msg6307#msg6307

Took a while to find it, but there it is. I remembered there was a bounty, that's why I was suggesting Nite's GW but I couldn't test it, but here's hoping DIGI works.

[veertje]

Any details, what to expect? Digshield just kicking in on block 194300?

[BioMike]

Any details, what to expect? Digshield just kicking in on block 194300?

Yep, and it will work... or not.

[markanth]

Any details, what to expect? Digshield just kicking in on block 194300?

Since we're only mining an average of 550 blocks per day in January, I'd tack on about 3 hours to this estimate.    

Just curious.. does anyone care much about # of blocks in 24 hours coming in short every day since switching to DGW?.. My personal view is it's not a big deal.. too many NLG were mined April 5 to April 14 (almost 3,000 per day) so we are still technically ahead of schedule in terms of NLG creation.  See http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/charts/blocks_per_day.html   come to think of it that would probably make a good running chart.. how many blocks ahead/behind schedule we are..

In terms of what to expect after the switch to the new algo, I'm really excited to see how the difficulty swings and block gaps look a week or so after the switch.  A lot will probably depend on whether or not this will shake clevermining and other jumpers off the chain.. there now seem to be other miners/multipools(?) jumping in only to mine low difficulty NLG blocks (took them long enough to figure it out).   Gazo1qWgAxtkRfapMjv6GQWJskeWTPWGkd for example only seems to solve low difficulty blocks and sends the NLG rewards straight to bittrex. See chart below of Gazo1q solved blocks.. Has been mining NLG since December 11.  Despite the NLG difficulty range typically bouncing between 300 and 2000, Gazo1q typically doesn't solve a block above 600. 





 

[BioMike]

So Gazo is more directly competing with Clever? If that keeps Cever below 50% I'm fine with that, but better to have them all gone.

[markanth]

So Gazo is more directly competing with Clever? If that keeps Cever below 50% I'm fine with that, but better to have them all gone.

I'm still kind of new to crypto but that's my take on it as well..  makes NLG mining less profitable for clever as some of the low difficulty blocks are going to other jump pools instead of clever having them all to themselves.  The flipside with the current algorithm is there are potentially higher difficulty upswings as multiple pools are now bringing their hashing power to NLG to solve those low diff blocks.  With the new algorithm only looking at the time between the last block and new block to set the new difficulty those jump pools should theoretically exit sooner.. we'll see what happens   Once in a while clever solves a high difficulty block.. not sure why.. testing?  Anyways, will be interesting in a few days to see what happens.  Hoping this will do the trick and we'll see dedicated miners return to NLG for their fair share of the rewards.

[RD965]

Always good to see a price raise

[ny2cafuse]

So Gazo is more directly competing with Clever? If that keeps Cever below 50% I'm fine with that, but better to have them all gone.

I'm still kind of new to crypto but that's my take on it as well..  makes NLG mining less profitable for clever as some of the low difficulty blocks are going to other jump pools instead of clever having them all to themselves.  The flipside with the current algorithm is there are potentially higher difficulty upswings as multiple pools are now bringing their hashing power to NLG to solve those low diff blocks.  With the new algorithm only looking at the time between the last block and new block to set the new difficulty those jump pools should theoretically exit sooner.. we'll see what happens   Once in a while clever solves a high difficulty block.. not sure why.. testing?  Anyways, will be interesting in a few days to see what happens.  Hoping this will do the trick and we'll see dedicated miners return to NLG for their fair share of the rewards.

Price will jump on a buy high enough to kick in the profitability algorithm, and they mine like one block before the exchange price drops back down.

I have full confidence in DIGI.  It will do the trick to get the jumpers off the chain.  I'm just interested to see what the mining distribution will look like after the switch.  My only concern is the 25-30% of the wallets that haven't updated.  We didn't make a protocol version ban in the code, so I'm just hoping that doesn't come back to bite us in the butt.  /GJ said it wouldn't matter, so I'm trust him and ride it out.

-Fuse

[BioMike]

If all the pools are updated, the old versions won't process transactions any more, right? So, that should not be a problem then.

[ny2cafuse]

If all the pools are updated, the old versions won't process transactions any more, right? So, that should not be a problem then.

Not necessarily.  If the 30% of the wallets that haven't updated are connected to each other, essentially they will still be processing "valid" blocks because their code says it's valid.  They will fork off the chain into their own "valid" chain.  I mentioned this a few pages back with the possibilities of what could happen with CM.

Luckily we have a majority of the wallets upgraded, so the impact should be minimal.  The 70% will invalidate the 30%'s "valid" blocks.  The blocks will hit the chain but be rejected before they are written.  Now if we were sitting at a 50/50 split in versions or worse, or the majority of the hashrate was based on the old code and validating with older clients, we would be in for trouble unless we explicitly stated the MIN_PEER_PROTO_VERSION found here: https://github.com/nlgcoin/guldencoin/blob/master/src/version.h#L34.  That line, combined with a protocol increase, would block connections from any wallet running an older protocol version.

I see that the protocol magic was changed in this code change, but I'm not sure if that has something to do with this whole discussion, but /GJ could probably shed some light on it.

-Fuse

[Mesterlovesz74]

If all the pools are updated, the old versions won't process transactions any more, right? So, that should not be a problem then.

Not necessarily.  If the 30% of the wallets that haven't updated are connected to each other, essentially they will still be processing "valid" blocks because their code says it's valid.  They will fork off the chain into their own "valid" chain.  I mentioned this a few pages back with the possibilities of what could happen with CM.

Luckily we have a majority of the wallets upgraded, so the impact should be minimal.  The 70% will invalidate the 30%'s "valid" blocks.  The blocks will hit the chain but be rejected before they are written.  Now if we were sitting at a 50/50 split in versions or worse, or the majority of the hashrate was based on the old code and validating with older clients, we would be in for trouble unless we explicitly stated the MIN_PEER_PROTO_VERSION found here: https://github.com/nlgcoin/guldencoin/blob/master/src/version.h#L34.  That line, combined with a protocol increase, would block connections from any wallet running an older protocol version.

I see that the protocol magic was changed in this code change, but I'm not sure if that has something to do with this whole discussion, but /GJ could probably shed some light on it.

-Fuse

So, I have only 1 28 Mhs miner. I am able to mine 400 NLG/day. I hope that Digishield wont change that, because that will have a reverse effect that you expect! Miners will leave if the diff will go higher then 1000 and wont come back, because that wont be profitable even with someone with free electricity!

Hope I am wrong and I can have near the same amount after digi kicks in!

[veertje]

So, I have only 1 28 Mhs miner. I am able to mine 400 NLG/day. I hope that Digishield wont change that, because that will have a reverse effect that you expect! Miners will leave if the diff will go higher then 1000 and wont come back, because that wont be profitable even with someone with free electricity!

Hope I am wrong and I can have near the same amount after digi kicks in!

Expectation is that after Digi it will be more profitable for dedicated miners, because multipools will leave and lower the difficulty because of that.

[Jero]

If all the pools are updated, the old versions won't process transactions any more, right? So, that should not be a problem then.

Not necessarily.  If the 30% of the wallets that haven't updated are connected to each other, essentially they will still be processing "valid" blocks because their code says it's valid.  They will fork off the chain into their own "valid" chain.  I mentioned this a few pages back with the possibilities of what could happen with CM.

Luckily we have a majority of the wallets upgraded, so the impact should be minimal.  The 70% will invalidate the 30%'s "valid" blocks.  The blocks will hit the chain but be rejected before they are written.  Now if we were sitting at a 50/50 split in versions or worse, or the majority of the hashrate was based on the old code and validating with older clients, we would be in for trouble unless we explicitly stated the MIN_PEER_PROTO_VERSION found here: https://github.com/nlgcoin/guldencoin/blob/master/src/version.h#L34.  That line, combined with a protocol increase, would block connections from any wallet running an older protocol version.

I see that the protocol magic was changed in this code change, but I'm not sure if that has something to do with this whole discussion, but /GJ could probably shed some light on it.

-Fuse

So, I have only 1 28 Mhs miner. I am able to mine 400 NLG/day. I hope that Digishield wont change that, because that will have a reverse effect that you expect! Miners will leave if the diff will go higher then 1000 and wont come back, because that wont be profitable even with someone with free electricity!

Hope I am wrong and I can have near the same amount after digi kicks in!

My feeling says youre profit will be better. Pls let us know how you do after Digishield kicks in.

May I ask? Do you sell all the coins you mine or do you save some also for saving/investing/spending?

[veertje]

Bump. iOS Wallet available for download in Appstore Apple: http://guldenwallet.com/nl  




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also update available for wallet Guldencoin Mac, Windows, Linux:
It is a mandatory update!!

Countdown: https://digi.guldencoin.com



Updated version: v1.3.1.0-unk-beta (08-01-2015)

     

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Activation Digishield countdown below.



Countdown: https://digi.guldencoin.com

[BioMike]

So, I have only 1 28 Mhs miner. I am able to mine 400 NLG/day. I hope that Digishield wont change that, because that will have a reverse effect that you expect! Miners will leave if the diff will go higher then 1000 and wont come back, because that wont be profitable even with someone with free electricity!

Hope I am wrong and I can have near the same amount after digi kicks in!

Expectation is that after Digi it will be more profitable for dedicated miners, because multipools will leave and lower the difficulty because of that.

To add to this, I'm currently renting a LOT of hashes to keep the negative effects of Clever down. If multipools drop from the chain after the switch I will also reduce the hashes I rent to make things more profitable for dedicated miners.

[Jero]

Today we had some pishing trough PM's at https://forum.guldencoin.com/. The message looked like:

NEW LAUNCH STELLAR (31.01.2015)
Stellar Invites System™ UPDATE TODAY FREE
- You must have some stellar to be able to get a bonus
- Login to Get 10,000 Free Stellar
- Login Now : h-ttp://launch-stellar-org.xx-in.com/info
Note: Your accounts must after register stellar 1 months and has 450 balance minimum.Thank you for your loyalty to us.
King Regards,

If you have this same message at the Guldencoin forum, here, email or other places: don't click the link!

[Mesterlovesz74]

If all the pools are updated, the old versions won't process transactions any more, right? So, that should not be a problem then.

Not necessarily.  If the 30% of the wallets that haven't updated are connected to each other, essentially they will still be processing "valid" blocks because their code says it's valid.  They will fork off the chain into their own "valid" chain.  I mentioned this a few pages back with the possibilities of what could happen with CM.

Luckily we have a majority of the wallets upgraded, so the impact should be minimal.  The 70% will invalidate the 30%'s "valid" blocks.  The blocks will hit the chain but be rejected before they are written.  Now if we were sitting at a 50/50 split in versions or worse, or the majority of the hashrate was based on the old code and validating with older clients, we would be in for trouble unless we explicitly stated the MIN_PEER_PROTO_VERSION found here: https://github.com/nlgcoin/guldencoin/blob/master/src/version.h#L34.  That line, combined with a protocol increase, would block connections from any wallet running an older protocol version.

I see that the protocol magic was changed in this code change, but I'm not sure if that has something to do with this whole discussion, but /GJ could probably shed some light on it.

-Fuse

So, I have only 1 28 Mhs miner. I am able to mine 400 NLG/day. I hope that Digishield wont change that, because that will have a reverse effect that you expect! Miners will leave if the diff will go higher then 1000 and wont come back, because that wont be profitable even with someone with free electricity!

Hope I am wrong and I can have near the same amount after digi kicks in!

My feeling says youre profit will be better. Pls let us know how you do after Digishield kicks in.

May I ask? Do you sell all the coins you mine or do you save some also for saving/investing/spending?

Hi Jero, I mined Gulden from the beginning! I sold at that time all for profit, but after it went up to 300-480 I did not sell a bit. I am only a small investor, but I think this year will be the year when Gulden will go up big time. Because of this, I am mining and buying Gulden to reach my goal amount.

[ArieNLG]

So good to see Guldencoin is finally start burning the premine

Good job guys
https://forum.guldencoin.com/index.php?topic=813.msg11086#msg11086

[/GeertJohan]

I see that the protocol magic was changed in this code change, but I'm not sure if that has something to do with this whole discussion, but /GJ could probably shed some light on it.

-Fuse

We changed the magic in the 1.3.0 release. The magic wasn't changed again in 1.3.1.

Cheers!