[ANN] SpreadCoin | True Decentralization (No Pools) | Testing New Masternodes

[georgem]

Again, you don't even have masternodes setup as a network to provide tx locking. Are you really going to want tx locking on say 50 masternodes? 100? How many is enough to actually provide viable consensus? People keep talking like IX is right around the corner here, maybe it is, but I question sensibility without any pre-existing infrastructure to support its design. Lots of dreamers here, that's for sure.

Why dreamers?

Darkcoin made a powerful masternode network happen in just one year, and this with the quite hefty price tag of 1000 DRK per MN.

SPR masternodes will be more flexible, both in price and in installation requirements.

Plus, the darkcoin people will probably be most interested in running a DRK and SPR masternode side by side... why shouldn't they, if they already have the infrastructure in place?
Sounds like a nice additional profit without any large expenses.

[oblox]

Again, you don't even have masternodes setup as a network to provide tx locking. Are you really going to want tx locking on say 50 masternodes? 100? How many is enough to actually provide viable consensus? People keep talking like IX is right around the corner here, maybe it is, but I question sensibility without any pre-existing infrastructure to support its design. Lots of dreamers here, that's for sure.

Why dreamers?

Darkcoin made a powerful masternode network happen in just one year, and this with the quite hefty price tag of 1000 DRK per MN.

SPR masternodes will be more flexible, both in price and in installation requirements.

Plus, the darkcoin people will probably be most interested in running a DRK and SPR masternode side by side... why shouldn't they, if they already have the infrastructure in place?
Sounds like a nice additional profit without any large expenses.

So far, this is nothing more than a glorified clone. The no-pool thing is gimmicky without standing the test of time in terms of whether or not this really will prevent creative pools from mining. Besides, isn't there a miner (or group of miners) that control in excess of 20% of the existing network hash. How is that decentralized? Further, the current distribution coupled with lack of volume only indicates that when the masternodes do come into play, it's going to remain incredibly centralized with only a handful of parties involved. When you have people owning in excess of 7% of the outstanding coins, you have problems. Evan has already done the heavy lifting here, IX code is out on github and has been since November (iirc). People make it seem like Mr. Spread is superior to Evan in terms of ability when there hasn't been anything truly innovative here. The SpreadX11 came from a mistake in playing with the blocktemplate which is currently the sole selling point of this coin. Did he find a potential vulnerability in DRK, sure, but if you have enough eyes looking at various areas of the codebase, you're bound to find bugs and the likes on new code that isn't even a year old. When Mr. Spread actually does something innovative besides taking code that Evan and team has already designed, then I will be interested. Until then, its a glorified clone with a gimmicky idea that hasn't stood the test of time in terms of viability.

Now bring on the haterade.

[soundwallet]

Again, you don't even have masternodes setup as a network to provide tx locking. Are you really going to want tx locking on say 50 masternodes? 100? How many is enough to actually provide viable consensus? People keep talking like IX is right around the corner here, maybe it is, but I question sensibility without any pre-existing infrastructure to support its design. Lots of dreamers here, that's for sure.

Why dreamers?

Darkcoin made a powerful masternode network happen in just one year, and this with the quite hefty price tag of 1000 DRK per MN.

SPR masternodes will be more flexible, both in price and in installation requirements.

Plus, the darkcoin people will probably be most interested in running a DRK and SPR masternode side by side... why shouldn't they, if they already have the infrastructure in place?
Sounds like a nice additional profit without any large expenses.

So far, this is nothing more than a glorified clone. The no-pool thing is gimmicky without standing the test of time in terms of whether or not this really will prevent creative pools from mining. Further, the current distribution coupled with lack of volume only indicates that when the masternodes do come into play, it's going to remain incredibly centralized with only a handful of parties involved. When you have people owning in excess of 7% of the outstanding coins, you have problems. Evan has already done the heavy lifting here, IX code is out on github and has been since November (iirc). People seem to make it seem like Mr. Spread is superior to Evan in terms of ability when there hasn't been anything truly innovative here. The SpreadX11 came from a mistake in playing with the blocktemplate which is currently the sole selling point of this coin. Did he find a potential vulnerability in DRK, sure, but if you have enough eyes looking at various areas of the codebase, you're bound to find bugs and the likes on new code that isn't even a year old. When Mr. Spread actually does something innovative besides taking code that Evan and team has already designed, then I will be interested. Until then, its a glorified clone with a gimmicky idea that hasn't stood the test of time in terms of viability.

Now bring on the haterade.

Yeah,man ,perhaps you are right,solo-mining is just like cpu-only stuff,it's just a matter of time to crack it.But that's good ,it means SPR has grown up.

[georgem]

Again, you don't even have masternodes setup as a network to provide tx locking. Are you really going to want tx locking on say 50 masternodes? 100? How many is enough to actually provide viable consensus? People keep talking like IX is right around the corner here, maybe it is, but I question sensibility without any pre-existing infrastructure to support its design. Lots of dreamers here, that's for sure.

Why dreamers?

Darkcoin made a powerful masternode network happen in just one year, and this with the quite hefty price tag of 1000 DRK per MN.

SPR masternodes will be more flexible, both in price and in installation requirements.

Plus, the darkcoin people will probably be most interested in running a DRK and SPR masternode side by side... why shouldn't they, if they already have the infrastructure in place?
Sounds like a nice additional profit without any large expenses.

So far, this is nothing more than a glorified clone. The no-pool thing is gimmicky without standing the test of time (test of time? Like the 12 months of darkcoin? Cryptos are a very young technology!) in terms of whether or not this really will prevent creative pools from mining. Besides, isn't there a miner (or group of miners) that control in excess of 20% of the existing network hash. How is that decentralized? Further, the current distribution coupled with lack of volume only indicates that when the masternodes do come into play, it's going to remain incredibly centralized with only a handful of parties involved.(who's that darkcoin guy again who owns 100 Masternodes?)  
When you have people owning in excess of 7% of the outstanding coins, you have problems (baseless assumption). Evan has already done the heavy lifting here (what about satoshi? who we still owe atleast 95% of all our code?), IX code is out on github and has been since November (iirc). People seem to make it seem like Mr. Spread is superior to Evan in terms of ability when there hasn't been anything truly innovative here. The SpreadX11 came from a mistake in playing with the blocktemplate which is currently the sole selling point of this coin (do you just make that up?). Did he find a potential vulnerability in DRK, sure, but if you have enough eyes looking at various areas of the codebase, (yes, but remember that eduffield went closed source for the first 6 or 7 months, that's why you see bugs found only NOW and not already months ago) you're bound to find bugs and the likes on new code that isn't even a year old. When Mr. Spread actually does something innovative besides taking code that Evan and team has already designed, then I will be interested. (darkcoin's masternode model is NOT suitable for spreadcoin, that's why we need to adjust it accordingly) Until then, its a glorified clone with a gimmicky idea that hasn't stood the test of time in terms of viability. (Then come back in a year or so, why blame a coin for "not standing the test of time" when it is just 6 months old. lol.)

Now bring on the haterade. (look who's talking)

You just hate competition...

I for one love both coins, and think they will be of benefit to each other.

[oblox]

You just hate competition...

I for one love both coins, and think they will be of benefit to each other.

Actually, I love competition and so far, SPR isn't a threat (it doesn't have the network, the hash power, the market cap, the team size (talent pool), the distribution, the volume, and the innovation that DRK already has). Should Mr. Spread create some sort of improvement, I know Evan will use it, but I'm still waiting.

What I do hate is not giving credit where credit is due and the naive nature of nearly everyone in here. I'm going back to lurking until more BS is spewed.

[thelonecrouton]

So far, this is nothing more than a glorified clone. The no-pool thing is gimmicky without standing the test of time in terms of whether or not this really will prevent creative pools from mining. Besides, isn't there a miner (or group of miners) that control in excess of 20% of the existing network hash. How is that decentralized?

Hmmm...

Further, the current distribution coupled with lack of volume only indicates that when the masternodes do come into play, it's going to remain incredibly centralized with only a handful of parties involved. When you have people owning in excess of 7% of the outstanding coins, you have problems.

There are at least 4 people that I know of who each own more than or close to 7% of all DRK, but only one is left in the rich list as the others have split it up to run Masternodes. Hundreds, each.


What was your point again?

[georgem]

You just hate competition...

I for one love both coins, and think they will be of benefit to each other.

Actually, I love competition and so far, SPR isn't a threat (it doesn't have the network, the hash power, the market cap, the team size (talent pool), the distribution, the volume, and the innovation that DRK already has). Should Mr. Spread create some sort of improvement, I know Evan will use it, but I'm still waiting.

What I do hate is not giving credit where credit is due and the naive nature of nearly everyone in here. I'm going back to lurking until more BS is spewed.

All SourceCode that was written by Evan Duffield is still marked as such. What other attribution (or shall I say glorification) do you need?
And I say "you", I am not adressing anyone else of the darkcoin community (which has a lot of awesome guys and gals)

[defunctec]

You just hate competition...

I for one love both coins, and think they will be of benefit to each other.

Actually, I love competition and so far, SPR isn't a threat (it doesn't have the network, the hash power, the market cap, the team size (talent pool), the distribution, the volume, and the innovation that DRK already has). Should Mr. Spread create some sort of improvement, I know Evan will use it, but I'm still waiting.

What I do hate is not giving credit where credit is due and the naive nature of nearly everyone in here. I'm going back to lurking until more BS is spewed.

The MarketCap reflects current progress and development, i don't see how a small marketcap can be a bad thing...

[georgem]

You just hate competition...

I for one love both coins, and think they will be of benefit to each other.

Actually, I love competition and so far, SPR isn't a threat (it doesn't have the network, the hash power, the market cap, the team size (talent pool), the distribution, the volume, and the innovation that DRK already has). Should Mr. Spread create some sort of improvement, I know Evan will use it, but I'm still waiting.

What I do hate is not giving credit where credit is due and the naive nature of nearly everyone in here. I'm going back to lurking until more BS is spewed.

Well this sounds like you only love competition when there is no threat coming from it?
But that's not "loving competition", that's just hoping that all competition stays behind and will never catch up.
Well, competition is here, it is hungry and it wants to do things differently.  

Also, with competition I don't mean using each others code, that's what I call sharing and open sourcing. (everybody wins)
Competition arises when suddenly participants realize that they can't relax much longer, but should rather "step it up a notch".

[Minotaur26]

So far, this is nothing more than a glorified clone. The no-pool thing is gimmicky without standing the test of time in terms of whether or not this really will prevent creative pools from mining. Besides, isn't there a miner (or group of miners) that control in excess of 20% of the existing network hash. How is that decentralized?

Hmmm...

Further, the current distribution coupled with lack of volume only indicates that when the masternodes do come into play, it's going to remain incredibly centralized with only a handful of parties involved. When you have people owning in excess of 7% of the outstanding coins, you have problems.

There are at least 4 people that I know of who each own more than or close to 7% of all DRK, but only one is left in the rich list as the others have split it up to run Masternodes. Hundreds, each.


What was your point again?

There is a fundamental difference here that can't be ignored.  In that pie chart from SPR that you show the different percentages represent large mining farms or individuals that can take advantage of the absence of pools and monopolize the network from a rewards perspective, these people are getting all the coins, some mining with optimized miners.

In the pie chart from DRK those larger percentages represent a lot of different individuals. Pools were created for a reason it facilitates a larger group of people to come together and mine and compete with large individual miners. By keeping pools away you are only making it easier for large farms to abuse the system, it creates new weaknesses.

A better solution would be to create a better P2Pool system that allows both pools and a better decentralization, which is a novel goal but not quite accomplished by the no pools  approach. In my opinion it is just something to sell people on but not a strong differentiator, even a weakness from other aspects.

[georgem]

You just hate competition...

I for one love both coins, and think they will be of benefit to each other.

Actually, I love competition and so far, SPR isn't a threat (it doesn't have the network, the hash power, the market cap, the team size (talent pool), the distribution, the volume, and the innovation that DRK already has). Should Mr. Spread create some sort of improvement, I know Evan will use it, but I'm still waiting.

What I do hate is not giving credit where credit is due and the naive nature of nearly everyone in here. I'm going back to lurking until more BS is spewed.

The MarketCap reflects current progress and development, i don't see how a small marketcap can be a bad thing...

Also Darkcoin has 3 times more coinsupply atm, so our marketcaps are like from different "timelines" if you will.

[Jesse Livermore]

Again, you don't even have masternodes setup as a network to provide tx locking. Are you really going to want tx locking on say 50 masternodes? 100? How many is enough to actually provide viable consensus? People keep talking like IX is right around the corner here, maybe it is, but I question sensibility without any pre-existing infrastructure to support its design. Lots of dreamers here, that's for sure.

Why dreamers?

Darkcoin made a powerful masternode network happen in just one year, and this with the quite hefty price tag of 1000 DRK per MN.

SPR masternodes will be more flexible, both in price and in installation requirements.

Plus, the darkcoin people will probably be most interested in running a DRK and SPR masternode side by side... why shouldn't they, if they already have the infrastructure in place?
Sounds like a nice additional profit without any large expenses.

So far, this is nothing more than a glorified clone. The no-pool thing is gimmicky without standing the test of time in terms of whether or not this really will prevent creative pools from mining. Besides, isn't there a miner (or group of miners) that control in excess of 20% of the existing network hash. How is that decentralized? Further, the current distribution coupled with lack of volume only indicates that when the masternodes do come into play, it's going to remain incredibly centralized with only a handful of parties involved. When you have people owning in excess of 7% of the outstanding coins, you have problems. Evan has already done the heavy lifting here, IX code is out on github and has been since November (iirc). People make it seem like Mr. Spread is superior to Evan in terms of ability when there hasn't been anything truly innovative here. The SpreadX11 came from a mistake in playing with the blocktemplate which is currently the sole selling point of this coin. Did he find a potential vulnerability in DRK, sure, but if you have enough eyes looking at various areas of the codebase, you're bound to find bugs and the likes on new code that isn't even a year old. When Mr. Spread actually does something innovative besides taking code that Evan and team has already designed, then I will be interested. Until then, its a glorified clone with a gimmicky idea that hasn't stood the test of time in terms of viability.

Now bring on the haterade.

Oblox, you're coming across as the grumpy old man yelling at neighbor kids to stay of his lawn.

1) Please don't downplay Mr. Spread's fixing Evan's code... Or at least show evidence of other "clones" out there doing the same since as you say that's what happens with 'enough eyes';
2) please show evidence of 20% of the SPR network belonging to one miner
3) Evan is currently the indisputable champion programmer of crypto until he's not, in my opinion,
4) volume is cyclical, you should know that well from watching OTOH's order sit for days on the DRK books when he tries to buy 60k DRK at a time, I'm not following with the point you're trying to make about SPR mn's though.

Overall I give you a FUD grade of D+.
JL

[georgem]

There is a fundamental difference here that can't be ignored.  In that pie chart from SPR that you show the different percentages represent large mining farms or individuals that can take advantage of the absence of pools and monopolize the network from a rewards perspective, these people are getting all the coins, some mining with optimized miners.

From a rewards perspective?
But a person who invests thousands of $ should absolutely get more reward. This is a good correlation. You seem to have a problem with that?
We here have nothing against rich people. We have nothing against large investors. In fact, we want to attract them.

If your farm is securing the blockchain it earns a percentage based on the blocks it finds.
How is this "taking advantage"?

[Minotaur26]

Oblox, is not fudding he was just giving his honest opinion. Fudding in this forums means making stuff up or trying to intentionally manipulate people.

[Jesse Livermore]

So far, this is nothing more than a glorified clone. The no-pool thing is gimmicky without standing the test of time in terms of whether or not this really will prevent creative pools from mining. Besides, isn't there a miner (or group of miners) that control in excess of 20% of the existing network hash. How is that decentralized?

Hmmm...

Further, the current distribution coupled with lack of volume only indicates that when the masternodes do come into play, it's going to remain incredibly centralized with only a handful of parties involved. When you have people owning in excess of 7% of the outstanding coins, you have problems.

There are at least 4 people that I know of who each own more than or close to 7% of all DRK, but only one is left in the rich list as the others have split it up to run Masternodes. Hundreds, each.


What was your point again?

There is a fundamental difference here that can't be ignored.  In that pie chart from SPR that you show the different percentages represent large mining farms or individuals that can take advantage of the absence of pools and monopolize the network from a rewards perspective, these people are getting all the coins, some mining with optimized miners.

In the pie chart from DRK those larger percentages represent a lot of different individuals. Pools were created for a reason it facilitates a larger group of people to come together and mine and compete with large individual miners. By keeping pools away you are only making it easier for large farms to abuse the system, it creates new weaknesses.

A better solution would be to create a better P2Pool system that allows both pools and a better decentralization, which is a novel goal but not quite accomplished by the no pools  approach. In my opinion it is just something to sell people on but not a strong differentiator, even a weakness from other aspects.

A revelation I posted a couple weeks ago taking about the results of no-pool mining:
-Lack of pools means miners don't get a steady stream of income but rather must now devote time and must have a sense of belief in the coin that they will eventually find a block. This belief has been lacking for a year now since the emergence of mega-miners and pools. This sense of belief is also what leads to buying on exchanges as some miners either a) figure out that buying and holding makes more economic sense than mining and waiting, or b) lose patience with waiting to find a block.

-Dynamic masternodes will basically cause these same believers from above to do whatever it takes to continue holding a masternode. Mr. Spread has stumbled upon what could likely be a major feature for every Crypto going forward, including bitcoin. As Mr. Spread continues with innovations, Spread's believers will fight to continue holding their masternodes. Miners, who no longer have the patience to wait for blocks, will instead prefer to run masternodes to increase their SPR.

-Like bitcoin, eventually the believers and miners will increase so much and will become so vocal that merchants will have no choice but to accept Spreadcoin.

[thelonecrouton]

There is a fundamental difference here that can't be ignored.  In that pie chart from SPR that you show the different percentages represent large mining farms or individuals that can take advantage of the absence of pools and monopolize the network from a rewards perspective, these people are getting all the coins, some mining with optimized miners.

In the pie chart from DRK those larger percentages represent a lot of different individuals. Pools were created for a reason it facilitates a larger group of people to come together and mine and compete with large individual miners. By keeping pools away you are only making it easier for large farms to abuse the system, it creates new weaknesses.

A better solution would be to create a better P2Pool system that allows both pools and a better decentralization, which is a novel goal but not quite accomplished by the no pools  approach. In my opinion it is just something to sell people on but not a strong differentiator, even a weakness from other aspects.

Big miners earn more, regardless of what is being mined or whether those big miners are mining solo or via a pool. Keeping pools away just keeps pools and their centralised risk away, it does not introduce any new weakness. Your argument is bogus.

And p2pool just kicks the can down the road (p2pool does not prevent pooling) while introducing an extra layer of complexity.

[Minotaur26]

There is a fundamental difference here that can't be ignored.  In that pie chart from SPR that you show the different percentages represent large mining farms or individuals that can take advantage of the absence of pools and monopolize the network from a rewards perspective, these people are getting all the coins, some mining with optimized miners.

From a rewards perspective?
But a person who invests thousands of $ should absolutely get more reward. This is a good correlation. You seem to have a problem with that?
We here have nothing against rich people. We have nothing against large investors.

If your farm is securing the blockchain it earns a percentage based on the blocks it finds.
How is this "taking advantage"?

OK, I will make an effort to respond. What I meant was that having no pools is in no clear way a great solution to the problem it was intending to solve as it creates other avenues of manipulation. Pools allow small miners to come together and compete with large miners. In the absence of pools large mining farms can optimize their operation, mine with an advantage and dump on people easier than in a environment that allows for pooled mining.  

In conclusion, there are disadvantages to eliminating pooled mining. It is not a poweful solution to the problem.

[Jesse Livermore]

Again, you don't even have masternodes setup as a network to provide tx locking. Are you really going to want tx locking on say 50 masternodes? 100? How many is enough to actually provide viable consensus? People keep talking like IX is right around the corner here, maybe it is, but I question sensibility without any pre-existing infrastructure to support its design. Lots of dreamers here, that's for sure.

Why dreamers?

Darkcoin made a powerful masternode network happen in just one year, and this with the quite hefty price tag of 1000 DRK per MN.

SPR masternodes will be more flexible, both in price and in installation requirements.

Plus, the darkcoin people will probably be most interested in running a DRK and SPR masternode side by side... why shouldn't they, if they already have the infrastructure in place?
Sounds like a nice additional profit without any large expenses.

So far, this is nothing more than a glorified clone. The no-pool thing is gimmicky without standing the test of time in terms of whether or not this really will prevent creative pools from mining. Besides, isn't there a miner (or group of miners) that control in excess of 20% of the existing network hash. How is that decentralized? Further, the current distribution coupled with lack of volume only indicates that when the masternodes do come into play, it's going to remain incredibly centralized with only a handful of parties involved. When you have people owning in excess of 7% of the outstanding coins, you have problems. Evan has already done the heavy lifting here, IX code is out on github and has been since November (iirc). People make it seem like Mr. Spread is superior to Evan in terms of ability when there hasn't been anything truly innovative here. The SpreadX11 came from a mistake in playing with the blocktemplate which is currently the sole selling point of this coin. Did he find a potential vulnerability in DRK, sure, but if you have enough eyes looking at various areas of the codebase, you're bound to find bugs and the likes on new code that isn't even a year old. When Mr. Spread actually does something innovative besides taking code that Evan and team has already designed, then I will be interested. Until then, its a glorified clone with a gimmicky idea that hasn't stood the test of time in terms of viability.

Now bring on the haterade.

Oblox, you're coming across as the grumpy old man yelling at neighbor kids to stay of his lawn.

1) Please don't downplay Mr. Spread's fixing Evan's code... Or at least show evidence of other "clones" out there doing the same since as you say that's what happens with 'enough eyes';
2) please show evidence of 20% of the SPR network belonging to one miner
3) Evan is currently the indisputable champion programmer of crypto until he's not, in my opinion,
4) volume is cyclical, you should know that well from watching OTOH's order sit for days on the DRK books when he tries to buy 60k DRK at a time, I'm not following with the point you're trying to make about SPR mn's though.

Overall I give you a FUD grade of D+.
JL

3 is bullshit, Satoshi kicks his ass

I said "is currently" for a reason. Satoshi "currently" ain't kicking anyone's ass in programming crypto.

[LiteMine]

So far, this is nothing more than a glorified clone. The no-pool thing is gimmicky without standing the test of time in terms of whether or not this really will prevent creative pools from mining. Besides, isn't there a miner (or group of miners) that control in excess of 20% of the existing network hash. How is that decentralized?

Hmmm...

Further, the current distribution coupled with lack of volume only indicates that when the masternodes do come into play, it's going to remain incredibly centralized with only a handful of parties involved. When you have people owning in excess of 7% of the outstanding coins, you have problems.

There are at least 4 people that I know of who each own more than or close to 7% of all DRK, but only one is left in the rich list as the others have split it up to run Masternodes. Hundreds, each.


What was your point again?

There is a fundamental difference here that can't be ignored.  In that pie chart from SPR that you show the different percentages represent large mining farms or individuals that can take advantage of the absence of pools and monopolize the network from a rewards perspective, these people are getting all the coins, some mining with optimized miners.

In the pie chart from DRK those larger percentages represent a lot of different individuals. Pools were created for a reason it facilitates a larger group of people to come together and mine and compete with large individual miners. By keeping pools away you are only making it easier for large farms to abuse the system, it creates new weaknesses.

A better solution would be to create a better P2Pool system that allows both pools and a better decentralization, which is a novel goal but not quite accomplished by the no pools  approach. In my opinion it is just something to sell people on but not a strong differentiator, even a weakness from other aspects.

This SPR chart is different from the others because it's historical (not current) and includes only  addresses that mined over 1k coins. That means it doesn't cover the whole network hashrate, making all those numbers actually much smaller pieces of the entire pie. The top "miner" SNYq only mined for one month last year, but his 25k coins is still the highest proportion among mining addresses. There may be farms, but SPR is still supported by many small miners.

http://spreadcoin.net/explorer/index.php?q=SNYqcyEtXr5UWpxMds8mQ9x8jo8fWFJVKz

Mr. Spread, is it possible to make that clear on the Network Hashrate page? Or a way to make a comparable chart? I think everyone is used to looking at current hashrate charts.

[georgem]

Oblox, is not fudding he was just giving his honest opinion. Fudding in this forums means making stuff up or trying to intentionally manipulate people.

I mostly agree, but...

The SpreadX11 came from a mistake in playing with the blocktemplate which is currently the sole selling point of this coin.

... this is as "made up" as it gets.