a123
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
October 12, 2014, 06:20:39 PM |
|
Just a quick update, I've forked slimcoin to https://github.com/kryptoslab/slimcoin. I pushed a couple of changes here which focuses on gradually banning clients that are stuck at 15164 or keep requesting for blocks between 30k to 60k, while not keeping legitimate users away. If you have memory concerns, this would be quite useful; my clients now run consistently at a lower RAM utilisation and uses much less bandwidth - the old code really can eat up gigabytes of both RAM and bandwidth every day. Also, hankrules suggested a checkpoint which I incorporated into the code. He is also offering to work on a dnsseed node. Currently I'm about a quarter done into browser-based burning. I quite like the convenience of the idea here and I do intend for it to visually show how mining and burning works in an interactive fashion, so as to educate and encourage the uptake of SLM. Also, I have noted that since the change the supply of SLM has grown much faster than before. I know, in theory it should be the same like before because of the diff adjustment for PoS. Perhaps it is related to the PoW changes, I don't know.
The rates of SLM minting for PoW and PoB are inversely linked to the difficulty, so I guess the minting rate is much higher. A month back it was like, 8 SLMs minted every PoW block but now it's 12 to 13. I am neutral regarding PoS removal. Note that PoS in PPC is the main security mechanism, with PoW having almost no importance. So in a PPC-based PoW/PoB coin without changing this, the PoB algorithm (which is the most experimental part of the coin) would carry "most responsibility" for blockchain security. But I am not an expert on this issue, only read this in the PPC forums, as I am not a programmer.
I'm also quite ambivalent about PoS removal. PoB in this current implementation does not secure the blockchain, and the design of SLM actively discourages mining, so it might make Slimcoin vulnerable to 51% attacks if it's PoW/PoB only. I'll explore 2 methods of fixing the PoS issue on a testnet branch and will update here once I get the code up; hopefully everyone can run a copy to test and we can be rich in test-SLMs for a bit. I intend to check/change the hashing function (slimcoin himself did note that this is quite intensive and he tried to fix it), as well as simulate and re-weigh the values for PoS, PoB and PoW. If all these fail, then I'll disable PoS and we can see if it helps stability (compared to the main fork). If all goes well, we can then have a hard fork implementing these PoS changes and disabling access from old clients. In the background, we should still see if there are any skilled devs willing to port it to a newer code-base. Slimcoin did mention he was interested in this approach though he remains busy. Could I have your SLM address for donation, please? Very appreciate for helping this coin.
I am planning to give SLMs away faucet-style, but tied to IP and the web-wallet mining itself (ala lucky draw while browser mining), so will welcome donations for spreading more SLMs around and get people excited about it. You can donate SLMs to Sg72f5icXXAjrdV7o15ZrFdj9CvNaTZwS1; this is what feeds the browser mining rewards (besides the rewards from mining, that is).
|
|
|
|
BitcoinFX
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1722
https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF
|
|
October 12, 2014, 09:06:16 PM Last edit: October 12, 2014, 10:03:28 PM by BitcoinFX |
|
Just a quick update, I've forked slimcoin to https://github.com/kryptoslab/slimcoin. I pushed a couple of changes here which focuses on gradually banning clients that are stuck at 15164 or keep requesting for blocks between 30k to 60k, while not keeping legitimate users away. If you have memory concerns, this would be quite useful; my clients now run consistently at a lower RAM utilisation and uses much less bandwidth - the old code really can eat up gigabytes of both RAM and bandwidth every day. Also, hankrules suggested a checkpoint which I incorporated into the code. He is also offering to work on a dnsseed node. Currently I'm about a quarter done into browser-based burning. I quite like the convenience of the idea here and I do intend for it to visually show how mining and burning works in an interactive fashion, so as to educate and encourage the uptake of SLM. Also, I have noted that since the change the supply of SLM has grown much faster than before. I know, in theory it should be the same like before because of the diff adjustment for PoS. Perhaps it is related to the PoW changes, I don't know.
The rates of SLM minting for PoW and PoB are inversely linked to the difficulty, so I guess the minting rate is much higher. A month back it was like, 8 SLMs minted every PoW block but now it's 12 to 13. I am neutral regarding PoS removal. Note that PoS in PPC is the main security mechanism, with PoW having almost no importance. So in a PPC-based PoW/PoB coin without changing this, the PoB algorithm (which is the most experimental part of the coin) would carry "most responsibility" for blockchain security. But I am not an expert on this issue, only read this in the PPC forums, as I am not a programmer.
I'm also quite ambivalent about PoS removal. PoB in this current implementation does not secure the blockchain, and the design of SLM actively discourages mining, so it might make Slimcoin vulnerable to 51% attacks if it's PoW/PoB only. I'll explore 2 methods of fixing the PoS issue on a testnet branch and will update here once I get the code up; hopefully everyone can run a copy to test and we can be rich in test-SLMs for a bit. I intend to check/change the hashing function (slimcoin himself did note that this is quite intensive and he tried to fix it), as well as simulate and re-weigh the values for PoS, PoB and PoW. If all these fail, then I'll disable PoS and we can see if it helps stability (compared to the main fork). If all goes well, we can then have a hard fork implementing these PoS changes and disabling access from old clients. In the background, we should still see if there are any skilled devs willing to port it to a newer code-base. Slimcoin did mention he was interested in this approach though he remains busy. Could I have your SLM address for donation, please? Very appreciate for helping this coin.
I am planning to give SLMs away faucet-style, but tied to IP and the web-wallet mining itself (ala lucky draw while browser mining), so will welcome donations for spreading more SLMs around and get people excited about it. You can donate SLMs to Sg72f5icXXAjrdV7o15ZrFdj9CvNaTZwS1; this is what feeds the browser mining rewards (besides the rewards from mining, that is). Good work and great website. Trying to get wallets / client synced now again. PoS generation can ofc be temporarily disabled by setting a reserve balance above your current eligible stake balance in the slimcoin.conf So, say: I have almost 4000 effective burnt Slimcoins, so I'll donate some SLM once I've hit a couple of PoB blocks.
|
|
|
|
BitcoinFX
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1722
https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF
|
|
October 13, 2014, 01:02:35 AM |
|
addnode=107.181.250.216:41682 addnode=107.181.250.217:41682
Nodes back up and fully synced to the ones shown at http://www.slimcoin.club/ - hopefully stable.
|
|
|
|
almightyruler
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1092
|
|
October 13, 2014, 06:21:42 AM |
|
My slimcoin client was taking nearly 300% CPU when I killed it. I have staking disabled and it has been running fine for weeks. Any ideas why it went crazy?
|
|
|
|
a123
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
October 13, 2014, 09:07:34 AM |
|
My slimcoin client was taking nearly 300% CPU when I killed it. I have staking disabled and it has been running fine for weeks. Any ideas why it went crazy?
Could you dump the debug.log onto pastebin and post us the link?
|
|
|
|
a123
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
October 13, 2014, 10:24:22 AM |
|
Good point actually. I've pushed a commit that makes it reservebalance=1000000 by default, so PoS will be opt-in for now. addnode=107.181.250.216:41682 addnode=107.181.250.217:41682
Added these nodes to the peer list of the block explorer.
|
|
|
|
almightyruler
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1092
|
|
October 13, 2014, 10:59:14 AM |
|
My slimcoin client was taking nearly 300% CPU when I killed it. I have staking disabled and it has been running fine for weeks. Any ideas why it went crazy?
Could you dump the debug.log onto pastebin and post us the link? Is there a way to upload on pastebin rather than ctrl-v? I won't send the entire log (180MB!) but I have noticed something interesting... my client seems to have stopped processing blocks after 2014-10-12 17:56:57 UTC. For around the next 5 1/2 hours - until I killed it - no further blocks were processed, although it was still trying to connect to peers. The client was also unresponsive to RPC commands. The last block both received and accepted was ec8547a35327162b8284 at 2014-10-12 17:56:57 UTC. Client was killed at 23:35:09 UTC.
|
|
|
|
BitcoinFX
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1722
https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF
|
|
October 13, 2014, 12:54:05 PM |
|
My slimcoin client was taking nearly 300% CPU when I killed it. I have staking disabled and it has been running fine for weeks. Any ideas why it went crazy?
Could you dump the debug.log onto pastebin and post us the link? Is there a way to upload on pastebin rather than ctrl-v? I won't send the entire log (180MB!) but I have noticed something interesting... my client seems to have stopped processing blocks after 2014-10-12 17:56:57 UTC. For around the next 5 1/2 hours - until I killed it - no further blocks were processed, although it was still trying to connect to peers. The client was also unresponsive to RPC commands. The last block both received and accepted was ec8547a35327162b8284 at 2014-10-12 17:56:57 UTC. Client was killed at 23:35:09 UTC. MailBigFile is quite good - https://www.mailbigfile.com/
|
|
|
|
a123
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
October 14, 2014, 06:33:56 PM |
|
Took forever, but I finally managed to compile both slimcoin-qt and slimcoind on Windows. Latest commit: Added 5 hard-coded seed nodes: [37.187.100.75, 5.9.81.9, 192.3.21.71, 107.181.250.216, 107.181.250.217] Fixed some header issues (not sure if bug or just my configuration) Release Notes: Incorporated all of Slimcoin's changes since last release: Improved PoS cpu usage, Disk read efficiency, Reduced mem requirements, RPC improvements Incorporated some of my changes: Bans misbehaving old clients, added checkpoints, added seed nodes, turned off PoS by default You can download the Windows-Qt release at https://github.com/kryptoslab/slimcoin/releases
|
|
|
|
BitcoinFX
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1722
https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF
|
|
October 14, 2014, 07:22:02 PM |
|
Took forever, but I finally managed to compile both slimcoin-qt and slimcoind on Windows. Latest commit: Added 5 hard-coded seed nodes: [37.187.100.75, 5.9.81.9, 192.3.21.71, 107.181.250.216, 107.181.250.217] Fixed some header issues (not sure if bug or just my configuration) Release Notes: Incorporated all of Slimcoin's changes since last release: Improved PoS cpu usage, Disk read efficiency, Reduced mem requirements, RPC improvements Incorporated some of my changes: Bans misbehaving old clients, added checkpoints, added seed nodes, turned off PoS by default You can download the Windows-Qt release at https://github.com/kryptoslab/slimcoin/releasesGood job! Will test this on my windows VPS now.
|
|
|
|
BitcoinFX
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1722
https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF
|
|
October 14, 2014, 10:51:22 PM |
|
Would seem to be a big improvement overall.
Still getting the Checkpoint error, but I guess that will clear if the blockchain is downloaded a fresh - not doing that just now though and will just let it run over 24hrs for error checking etc.
|
|
|
|
a123
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
October 15, 2014, 02:04:04 AM |
|
I noticed it as well, and realised the checkpoint error needs to be cleared with @slimcoin's private key encoding the sync checkpoints. The corresponding public key is hard coded into the source. The checkpoints we added will not remove the error message. This seems to be a feature of the Peercoin; though it appears more applicable as a defensive mechanism on a pure PoS. I'm actually kinda uncomfortable with this checkpointing system, which seems kinda antithetical to the purpose of cryptocurrencies. I could disable it, any thoughts on this though? Would seem to be a big improvement overall.
Still getting the Checkpoint error, but I guess that will clear if the blockchain is downloaded a fresh - not doing that just now though and will just let it run over 24hrs for error checking etc.
|
|
|
|
hankrules
|
|
October 15, 2014, 02:17:51 AM |
|
I noticed it as well, and realised the checkpoint error needs to be cleared with @slimcoin's private key encoding the sync checkpoints. The corresponding public key is hard coded into the source. The checkpoints we added will not remove the error message. This seems to be a feature of the Peercoin; though it appears more applicable as a defensive mechanism on a pure PoS. I'm actually kinda uncomfortable with this checkpointing system, which seems kinda antithetical to the purpose of cryptocurrencies. I could disable it, any thoughts on this though? Would seem to be a big improvement overall.
Still getting the Checkpoint error, but I guess that will clear if the blockchain is downloaded a fresh - not doing that just now though and will just let it run over 24hrs for error checking etc.
Hmm.. Deleting the blockchain and compiling a123's fork from source has me sync'd with no error displaying, { "version" : "v0.3.2.0-13-gd9fad6e-alpha", "protocolversion" : 60003, "walletversion" : 60000, "balance" : 30.57121300, "newmint" : 15.35000000, "stake" : 0.00000000, "blocks" : 124636, "moneysupply" : 1362750.29797200, "connections" : 2, "proxy" : "", "ip" : "xxxxxxxx", "difficulty" : 0.05165174, "testnet" : false, "keypoololdest" : 1401314905, "keypoolsize" : 101, "paytxfee" : 0.01000000, "errors" : "" }
|
|
|
|
a123
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
October 15, 2014, 03:00:14 AM Last edit: October 15, 2014, 03:25:32 AM by a123 |
|
Hmm.. Deleting the blockchain and compiling a123's fork from source has me sync'd with no error displaying,
Oh hmm that's strange, the error showed up for my Windows exe after fully syncing. I'll go check if I compiled the right version! [edit] Yea the files I compiled contained the checkpoints, hmm. Not sure the qt side includes any other checks? [/edit]
|
|
|
|
BitcoinFX
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1722
https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF
|
|
October 15, 2014, 10:30:40 AM |
|
Both 1 GB RAM VPS instances running Slimcoin have remained stable with low RAM usage and even with a bunch of other applications running, thus far. So, the block pruning and other changes appear to of worked in that regard - log files are also much reduced in size as expected.
I did see an Estimated Total Block count of 470000 on one VPS, although the Current Number of Blocks was correct with the node in sync. Restarting the client fixed that ofc.
Original dev. Slimcoin should be interested in the changes / improvements and may look to move them into the main / now old branch. He is / was contactable by using the email address presented in the Slimcoin white paper and also via forum PM ofc. If not and if the checkpoints continue to present an issue moving forward then entirely removing PoS is perhaps the best option after all.
As I understand it, PoB block generation is 'random' after each new PoW block anyway. At the low percentage return PoS is perhaps more of a hindrance, both from the technical and economic perspective. A new pool should bring plenty of 'CPU only' miners to secure the network. Slimcoin being one of the few 'CPU only' coins left in the crypto sphere.
|
|
|
|
AizenSou
|
|
October 15, 2014, 10:40:46 AM |
|
I am planning to give SLMs away faucet-style, but tied to IP and the web-wallet mining itself (ala lucky draw while browser mining), so will welcome donations for spreading more SLMs around and get people excited about it. You can donate SLMs to Sg72f5icXXAjrdV7o15ZrFdj9CvNaTZwS1; this is what feeds the browser mining rewards (besides the rewards from mining, that is).
Sent 100 SLMs as test from the new client. If you get it I will send my donation. Thanks for hard work. As I understand it, PoB block generation is 'random' after each new PoW block anyway. At the low percentage return PoS is perhaps more of a hindrance, both from the technical and economic perspective. A new pool should bring plenty of 'CPU only' miners to secure the network. Slimcoin being one of the few 'CPU only' coins left in the crypto sphere.
Exactly my thoughts. Thanks BitcoinFX.
|
|
|
|
a123
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
October 15, 2014, 10:45:01 AM |
|
Just happened to see it as it was sent! Received Sent 100 SLMs as test from the new client. If you get it I will send my donation. Thanks for hard work.
|
|
|
|
AizenSou
|
|
October 15, 2014, 10:48:28 AM |
|
Just happened to see it as it was sent! Received Sent 100 SLMs as test from the new client. If you get it I will send my donation. Thanks for hard work.
Sent my next donation. ^^ Your client works great, although I didn't try to resync the blockchain from the scratch. Btw I have an expert in block explorer here in my contact and he's interested in providing us a new explorer. How does that sound ?
|
|
|
|
BitcoinFX
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1722
https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF
|
|
October 15, 2014, 11:03:53 AM |
|
I am planning to give SLMs away faucet-style, but tied to IP and the web-wallet mining itself (ala lucky draw while browser mining), so will welcome donations for spreading more SLMs around and get people excited about it. You can donate SLMs to Sg72f5icXXAjrdV7o15ZrFdj9CvNaTZwS1; this is what feeds the browser mining rewards (besides the rewards from mining, that is).
Sent 100 SLMs as test from the new client. If you get it I will send my donation. Thanks for hard work. As I understand it, PoB block generation is 'random' after each new PoW block anyway. At the low percentage return PoS is perhaps more of a hindrance, both from the technical and economic perspective. A new pool should bring plenty of 'CPU only' miners to secure the network. Slimcoin being one of the few 'CPU only' coins left in the crypto sphere.
Exactly my thoughts. Thanks BitcoinFX. We should also thank d5000 as they have helped to bring much new interest for Slimcoin.
|
|
|
|
BitcoinFX
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1722
https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF
|
|
October 15, 2014, 11:07:38 AM |
|
Just happened to see it as it was sent! Received Sent 100 SLMs as test from the new client. If you get it I will send my donation. Thanks for hard work.
I sent you a block of 15 SLM the other day. I'll send you another block now. Keep up the good work! A new block explorer and a pool would be perfect I think.
|
|
|
|
|