NA

[BioMike]

I've been following the discussion the past 24 hours and have some mixed feelings. My effort to push back clever below the 50% failed with the rise of the market price and following clever's hash rate (I assumed they put all their hashing power on NLG in that short time frame).

None of the proposed solutions are ideal, and I change my opinion on the IP banning. While I don't like it, I like all the other suggested solutions less. The pro of this solution is that it is only temporarily, until the new difficulty changing algorithm is in place. Then clever can, IMHO, be unblocked again. The problem is how to get that implemented, IP addresses are not in the block chain, right?

The thing that has been on my mind today is if I should continue buying the hashing power. I can sustain the current level for some time, but if clever increases their hashing power at higher market rate, I can't really follow much (assuming that the renting prise goes down due to higher bitcoin price). Which makes me thing if all this buying hashing power is really worth it. Do others think I should continue, or just stop it (and accept 3 hour block times).

[Meije]

ontopicplease,
 That depends if you sell them right away like cleverminig or not. The coins will be more evenly distributed with a cloud-mining solution, than you selling coins for a huge profit to dutch people. All i am trying to say is that we should be careful not to lose to many coins to foreign investors which can play with the price when the block size becomes smaller. The same has happened with Bitcoin, only a small group of people have allot of the coins. Clevermining is giving these sharks the opportunity to stack in for selling them when the price increases, with clevermining out of the pictures this is less the case. A guaranteed question of the media will be, from who do you buy the coins?, the answer, from some guy who bought them early. will not make people very happy.

[BioMike]

The normal users are already familiar with using the Guldencoin wallet. Why not using those wallets to provide some more steady hashing power to the network. Users can choose in their wallets how much power they want to contribute (this option is already there), and for every full day that they leave their wallet open and contribute to the network they receive a little NLG reward. In this way they don't have to do technical stuff and it feels like they receiving NLG for free.

In my surroundings most of the people are interested in NLG (specially free NLG) but don't want to learn about the technical mining part.

You mean like this? http://www.projectgulden.nl/92/rekenkracht-bijdragen-aan-het-guldencoin-netwerk/ but standard and with an easy UI or something?

Problem with this is that it is not pooled mining, but solo CPU mining. Chances of getting NLG through this way are very slim.

[Frais]

In my opinion you can only justify an ip ban if clevermining is abusing (do they?) the Guldencoin network.

[Meije]

The normal users are already familiar with using the Guldencoin wallet. Why not using those wallets to provide some more steady hashing power to the network. Users can choose in their wallets how much power they want to contribute (this option is already there), and for every full day that they leave their wallet open and contribute to the network they receive a little NLG reward. In this way they don't have to do technical stuff and it feels like they receiving NLG for free.

In my surroundings most of the people are interested in NLG (specially free NLG) but don't want to learn about the technical mining part.

You mean like this? http://www.projectgulden.nl/92/rekenkracht-bijdragen-aan-het-guldencoin-netwerk/ but standard and with an easy UI or something?

Problem with this is that it is not pooled mining, but solo CPU mining. Chances of getting NLG through this way are very slim.

dat zet geen zoden aan de dijk

[Meije]

In my opinion you can only justify an ip ban if clevermining is abusing (do they?) the Guldencoin network.

They are not only abusing, but also raping the network

[Frais]

In my opinion you can only justify an ip ban if clevermining is abusing (do they?) the Guldencoin network.

They are not only abusing, but also raping the network

So they are raping the current flaws in the Guldencoin algorithm on purpose? Then is a temporarily ip ban totally justified till the problems are fixed.

On the other hand, can you blame clevermining when Guldencoin is apparently 'willing to be abused' by not protecting themselves. Difficult situation..

[Meije]

In my opinion you can only justify an ip ban if clevermining is abusing (do they?) the Guldencoin network.

They are not only abusing, but also raping the network

So they are raping the current flaws in the Guldencoin algorithm on purpose? Then is a temporarily ip ban totally justified till the problems are fixed.

On the other hand, can you blame clevermining when Guldencoin is apparently 'willing to be abused' by not protecting themselves. Difficult situation..

Not on purpose, they just want to satisfy the miners by getting as much profit as they can, even if it means dragging other coins down. The problem is that they are evil because they consciously know that it is wrong, but put their interest above those of the coins they mine. An IP ban is an ethical question, Geert knows what is best for NLG, so let him decide what's best.

Guldencoin is apparently 'willing to be abused' by not protecting themselves. Difficult situation..

The protecting is the problem, you can't just 'fix' something like this, it takes time, 1 mistake can be fatal in this business. With technological innovation comes more risks and more things can go wrong, that's why airplanes use outdated technology instead of state of the art tech.

[ny2cafuse]

In my opinion you can only justify an ip ban if clevermining is abusing (do they?) the Guldencoin network.

They are not only abusing, but also raping the network

This.

So they are raping the current flaws in the Guldencoin algorithm on purpose? Then is a temporarily ip ban totally justified till the problems are fixed.

On the other hand, can you blame clevermining when Guldencoin is apparently 'willing to be abused' by not protecting themselves. Difficult situation..

The problem is that when Terk was told he's killing the coin, he responded that it was his obligation to his miners to make them money and that the devs would have to fix it.  Basically a "fuck you, I'm going to do it until you stop me".  I don't like that.  He makes a good sum of money with his pool at the expense of coins like Gulden.

Gulden isn't willing to be abused.  When clever was identified as the guilty party, a lot of effort was made to try to get them to stop.  Now we're working on changing the coin to combat the threat of multi-pools like clever raping the chain like clever does.

In all honesty, IP banning them sends a clear message.  If they go out of their way to get around it, it shows their true intentions... which I'm sure we all know is to profit at our expense.

-Fuse

[Meije]

In my opinion you can only justify an ip ban if clevermining is abusing (do they?) the Guldencoin network.

They are not only abusing, but also raping the network

This.

So they are raping the current flaws in the Guldencoin algorithm on purpose? Then is a temporarily ip ban totally justified till the problems are fixed.

On the other hand, can you blame clevermining when Guldencoin is apparently 'willing to be abused' by not protecting themselves. Difficult situation..

The problem is that when Terk was told he's killing the coin, he responded that it was his obligation to his miners to make them money and that the devs would have to fix it.  Basically a "fuck you, I'm going to do it until you stop me".  I don't like that.  He makes a good sum of money with his pool at the expense of coins like Gulden.

Gulden isn't willing to be abused.  When clever was identified as the guilty party, a lot of effort was made to try to get them to stop.  Now we're working on changing the coin to combat the threat of multi-pools like clever raping the chain like clever does.

In all honesty, IP banning them sends a clear message.  If they go out of their way to get around it, it shows their true intentions... which I'm sure we all know is to profit at our expense.

-Fuse

Or IP banning provokes them to harm us even more...

[thsminer]

In my opinion you can only justify an ip ban if clevermining is abusing (do they?) the Guldencoin network.

They are not only abusing, but also raping the network

This.

So they are raping the current flaws in the Guldencoin algorithm on purpose? Then is a temporarily ip ban totally justified till the problems are fixed.

On the other hand, can you blame clevermining when Guldencoin is apparently 'willing to be abused' by not protecting themselves. Difficult situation..

The problem is that when Terk was told he's killing the coin, he responded that it was his obligation to his miners to make them money and that the devs would have to fix it.  Basically a "fuck you, I'm going to do it until you stop me".  I don't like that.  He makes a good sum of money with his pool at the expense of coins like Gulden.

Gulden isn't willing to be abused.  When clever was identified as the guilty party, a lot of effort was made to try to get them to stop.  Now we're working on changing the coin to combat the threat of multi-pools like clever raping the chain like clever does.

In all honesty, IP banning them sends a clear message.  If they go out of their way to get around it, it shows their true intentions... which I'm sure we all know is to profit at our expense.

-Fuse

Sorry Fuse, but banning does not work, They'll change IP or proxy it the speed you change socks. If you want to do some selection whitelisting is the way, just allow anyone with a good reputation and give others a hard time(i.e. raise the diff fast, block them xx seconds if they mine three fast blocks, whatever)  till the moment they build a reputation, No IP needed just public keys. But whatever solution is taken the missing key is communication and coordination.

[ny2cafuse]

Or IP banning provokes them to harm us even more...

Well then it's just war lol

Seriously though, that's a possibility.  But I honestly don't think Terk would risk the reputation of his profitable pool to go that extra step.  It would put him in a bad light with the whole crypto community, not just Gulden's.  Besides, he would need to take focus off of the profitability of his pool to do so.  He would most likely need to mine in to the difficulties that would be totally unprofitable.  I don't think his more conscientious miners would approve of that.

Sorry Fuse but banning does not work, They'll change IP or proxy it the speed you change socks. If you want to do some selection whitelisting is the way, just allow anyone with a good reputation and give others a hard time(i.e. raise the diff fast, block them xx seconds if they mine three fast blocks, whatever)  till the moment they build a reputation, No IP needed just public keys. But whatever solution is taken the missing key is communication and coordination.

Whitelisting, IMO, is the abuse of power.  That is centralizing the coin, and it's something I just can't get behind.

To be effective, you don't ban the IP... you ban the IP block.  In terms of pools and hosted server solutions, it would restrict him to using a VPN or stratum proxy off premise.  Either would probably introduce enough latency into the mix to make it not worth the effort.  Again though, would he seriously go through the effort to do this when he could just pick another coin to rape?

I know algorithm changes will fix this later, but I'm just tired of seeing 50% of the blocks pass by the legitimate pools, and get insta-sold.  It's the only reason I brought up this whole discussion again.

-Fuse

[ontopicplease]

ontopicplease,
 That depends if you sell them right away like cleverminig or not. The coins will be more evenly distributed with a cloud-mining solution, than you selling coins for a huge profit to dutch people. All i am trying to say is that we should be careful not to lose to many coins to foreign investors which can play with the price when the block size becomes smaller. The same has happened with Bitcoin, only a small group of people have allot of the coins. Clevermining is giving these sharks the opportunity to stack in for selling them when the price increases, with clevermining out of the pictures this is less the case. A guaranteed question of the media will be, from who do you buy the coins?, the answer, from some guy who bought them early. will not make people very happy.

I fully understand how important it is to be well distributed.That's why I say, emphasize on that.
Teach the dutch peoplewhta NLG is and how to use, this is as important as atttracting the Merchants.
Somple explanation like this'
1. Down wallet.
2. Make account at bittrex.
3. Buy btc at bitronic, send them to your btc wallet on bittrex.
4. Buy NLG.
5. Send them to wallet or mobile device to use.

But probably this kind of info is available already, I guess.

My aim is not to sell to dutch people by the way ( I just sell when things go bad imo). I just hope, that I never feel the need to sell any NLG and just use them to buy things.
I am a crypto idealist, who thinks bitcoin ( altcoins) will make this world more fare and will finally make us independent from those criminal banks.

[thsminer]

Or IP banning provokes them to harm us even more...

Well then it's just war lol

Seriously though, that's a possibility.  But I honestly don't think Terk would risk the reputation of his profitable pool to go that extra step.  It would put him in a bad light with the whole crypto community, not just Gulden's.  Besides, he would need to take focus off of the profitability of his pool to do so.  He would most likely need to mine in to the difficulties that would be totally unprofitable.  I don't think his more conscientious miners would approve of that.

Sorry Fuse but banning does not work, They'll change IP or proxy it the speed you change socks. If you want to do some selection whitelisting is the way, just allow anyone with a good reputation and give others a hard time(i.e. raise the diff fast, block them xx seconds if they mine three fast blocks, whatever)  till the moment they build a reputation, No IP needed just public keys. But whatever solution is taken the missing key is communication and coordination.

Whitelisting, IMO, is the abuse of power.  That is centralizing the coin, and it's something I just can't get behind.

To be effective, you don't ban the IP... you ban the IP block.  In terms of pools and hosted server solutions, it would restrict him to using a VPN or stratum proxy off premise.  Either would probably introduce enough latency into the mix to make it not worth the effort.  Again though, would he seriously go through the effort to do this when he could just pick another coin to rape?

I know algorithm changes will fix this later, but I'm just tired of seeing 50% of the blocks pass by the legitimate pools, and get insta-sold.  It's the only reason I brought up this whole discussion again.

-Fuse

Quickfix could be adding a check for low blocktime and increase the banscore with 10. That way clients would disconnect from clever after 10 fast blocks for 1 day because the default ban limit is 100. Easy to implement, dynamic and not centralized.

[ny2cafuse]

Quickfix could be adding a check for low blocktime and increase the banscore with 10. That way clients would disconnect from clever after 10 fast blocks for 1 day because the default ban limit is 100. Easy to implement, dynamic and not centralized.

I would get behind this.  You're 100% correct in that this would be an easy implementation.  The only thing I would worry about is forked side chains from people not updating their clients.  The breakdown looks good now, but before the 130 update, there were a lot of people on old wallets.  Of course, you would just ban versions older than the newest as well.

Not a bad idea, thsminer.

-Fuse

[BioMike]

Quickfix could be adding a check for low blocktime and increase the banscore with 10. That way clients would disconnect from clever after 10 fast blocks for 1 day because the default ban limit is 100. Easy to implement, dynamic and not centralized.

I would get behind this.  You're 100% correct in that this would be an easy implementation.  The only thing I would worry about is forked side chains from people not updating their clients.  The breakdown looks good now, but before the 130 update, there were a lot of people on old wallets.  Of course, you would just ban versions older than the newest as well.

Not a bad idea, thsminer.

-Fuse

Simple, but elegant. I like that. Is a forced upgrade really needed for this? Clever would continue through older wallets, but as they would get more rare, they would be knocked from the network at some point.

[BioMike]

Dedicated miners (on criptoe and guldenpool) deserve a bit extra:

Code:

# /usr/local/bin/guldencoind sendtoaddress GceCqp5eLQ5jKPhBQe1E3g9qFN46sCSizo 10000.0
5d07d37cff6c94ea04c2c13bdff8b80ab1727463e010e32b2ad6235945e15259
# /usr/local/bin/guldencoind sendtoaddress GZXckkrHVUbHdKtnD5u8Yz2yhB7x6Jtrks 10000.0
5837cf5a806d24ed3d599147c360f2b01eb97da6712839fbeb240da994ec4e3c
# /usr/local/bin/guldencoind sendtoaddress Gd3KgQVKnSzAMLKw4Av7KyN4DjZSk6Zu1L 10000.0
443bd67f3790089308cda0226a1d2dadefbecd428ca96aa11c01d6f9f75abe57
# /usr/local/bin/guldencoind sendtoaddress GKF3aqPbWYfCsVfg9Fb5EcRd5R4Aivcsd2 10000.0
04f5c4b510839ca3b7fdb2f5da00cad24d3bc866fb59a4bb0e75ed5be88c98c6
# /usr/local/bin/guldencoind sendtoaddress GcC5eVErzMZr72CSc5pVJdbaTXUBhZCKQc 1000.0
dbebb8cf85d284267cde70159289251c70405458512e4c7c4a4257ccfb8fe16a
# /usr/local/bin/guldencoind sendtoaddress GTumSsfv6dKUurP3va3adzWszRiUzJ6zkn 10000.0
4d73d78adaf4391a643639593e1af8da67ee5c58dfbfa66478873c69bc33ced4
# /usr/local/bin/guldencoind sendtoaddress GP9pWRxr4AzLAmLmR6FstxEbxYAVkPL5o4 1000.0
555dbe5051b9c4729dfbeb41d0c51d6285ee8301d4d4927de88b06dd86c31dc8

[Frais]

Quickfix could be adding a check for low blocktime and increase the banscore with 10. That way clients would disconnect from clever after 10 fast blocks for 1 day because the default ban limit is 100. Easy to implement, dynamic and not centralized.

I'm wondering if the Guldencoin devs ever thought about this solution, I can't imagine they didn't. I'm happy to hear there are quick fixes 

[thsminer]

Quickfix could be adding a check for low blocktime and increase the banscore with 10. That way clients would disconnect from clever after 10 fast blocks for 1 day because the default ban limit is 100. Easy to implement, dynamic and not centralized.

I would get behind this.  You're 100% correct in that this would be an easy implementation.  The only thing I would worry about is forked side chains from people not updating their clients.  The breakdown looks good now, but before the 130 update, there were a lot of people on old wallets.  Of course, you would just ban versions older than the newest as well.

Not a bad idea, thsminer.

-Fuse

Simple, but elegant. I like that. Is a forced upgrade really needed for this? Clever would continue through older wallets, but as they would get more rare, they would be knocked from the network at some point.
[/quote
You are right, that's also how I see it. It does not matter what client as long as the majority has the ban system.

[investeerder]

I've been following the discussion the past 24 hours and have some mixed feelings. My effort to push back clever below the 50% failed with the rise of the market price and following clever's hash rate (I assumed they put all their hashing power on NLG in that short time frame).

None of the proposed solutions are ideal, and I change my opinion on the IP banning. While I don't like it, I like all the other suggested solutions less. The pro of this solution is that it is only temporarily, until the new difficulty changing algorithm is in place. Then clever can, IMHO, be unblocked again. The problem is how to get that implemented, IP addresses are not in the block chain, right?

The thing that has been on my mind today is if I should continue buying the hashing power. I can sustain the current level for some time, but if clever increases their hashing power at higher market rate, I can't really follow much (assuming that the renting prise goes down due to higher bitcoin price). Which makes me thing if all this buying hashing power is really worth it. Do others think I should continue, or just stop it (and accept 3 hour block times).

I would suggest PM'ing Guldencoin and /GeertJohan to see which month they think the algorithm will be updated and take things based on that feedback. Make them realize that it's because of the community the blockchain times are doing ok but what happens when the price goes up more, block times will go to 8 hours again because you need more hashing power to even it out.