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

[NoobKidOnTheBlock]

Don't think too many people are gonna be selling on a gem like this coin unfortunately not for cheap I'm still trying to get some buy orders filled since 4 days ago but if anyone feels generous they can always donate to : SdpQYCKXV8MQeKE6MSCK2J5JZP8sc3bxAA or if anyone needs any work done I would gladly do it for some more SpreadCoin. Just let the NoobKidOnTheBlock know what needs to be done?

I will be generous and donate you 2 SPR 
Hope this makes you happy, my bagholding wallet won't see market any time soon 

WOW!!! THANKS SO VERY MUCH!!!! Very GENEROUS of you to do that mate Truly appreciate that and much thanks and praise that they still have some good folks left in CryptoWorld!! Thanks again

[1715010564]

1715010564

[1715010564]

1715010564

[1715010564]

1715010564

[1715010564]

1715010564

[NoobKidOnTheBlock]

Don't think too many people are gonna be selling on a gem like this coin unfortunately not for cheap I'm still trying to get some buy orders filled since 4 days ago but if anyone feels generous they can always donate to : SdpQYCKXV8MQeKE6MSCK2J5JZP8sc3bxAA or if anyone needs any work done I would gladly do it for some more SpreadCoin. Just let the NoobKidOnTheBlock know what needs to be done?

I will be generous and donate you 2 SPR 
Hope this makes you happy, my bagholding wallet won't see market any time soon 

WOW!!! THANKS SO VERY MUCH!!!! Very GENEROUS of you to do that mate Truly appreciate that and much thanks and praise that they still have some good folks left in CryptoWorld!! Thanks again

And a truly grateful thanks again for the more SpreadCoin folks I really appreciate that!! Good Strong Community growing here which is awesome for this coin Cheers

[mtwelve]

Coins now on my radar

[AlexGR]

May I post a suggestion here?

Since some DRK features are implemented, and some could be improved upon, the original concept for the Darkcoin masternodes (RC2/RC3 releases) involved a protocol-level enforcement of the masternode payments. The problem with these releases was that there was some kind of bug that triggered sporadic network forking by misbehaving nodes or mining clients. The consensus wasn't working as it should.

In a sense, Darkcoin tried to use a dual consensus for every block: One for the transactions / mining, and one for the masternode payout. This didn't work as planned (there were sporadic forks of the network) and DarkSend development was lagging - so a workaround system was created instead that was "safer" and relieved some of the price speculation (it was the period of the great pump - and all eyes were on DRK news and how something would succeed or fail).

In that payment system (an evolution of which, is the current system of MN payments) the pools decided whether to pay or not in a semi-voluntary scheme. If a pool wanted to cheat payment, they could. The strategy was to shame the pools that "cheated" and it worked to compliance levels of 80-90%. The added threat of "enforcement" where Evan would "flip the switch" to fork off the non-compliant pools was also added as an extra measure. However, in my view, this is not the ideal solution to the problem. Rather, it should be done like it initially was conceived so that misbehaving clients are simply forked by themselves out of the network. No centralization / enforcement switch, no need for asking pools to play nice etc etc.

Perhaps the dev wants to give it a look* and see if he can come up with a system that works and which is free of forking bugs. It could also be implemented by DRK if successful, and it would also give added credibility to SPR itself for improving something in a significant way. The good thing with SPR is that, unlike DRK which is more mature, it can risk multiple hard forks to try things out.

* Perhaps the RC2/RC3 bugged solutions of DRK where there was a voting system in place to decide the MN payments are not the ideal concept for this implementation and another idea can be used altogether.

I think it should be based on the majority of the hashrate. If the majority of the hashrate agrees on masternode payments then others should be forced to accept it even if they don't agree with it and do not create forks. The only way to cheat would be 51% attack but with 51% you can do much worse things anyway.

I'm against introducing any centralization to SpreadCoin. "Hey, this is a decentralized currency but I have a magic switch with which I can turn on and off some major feature". This can be employed to avoid possible issues when introducing new features but not as a long term solution for any problem.

Yes, that's my thoughts on this also. DRK initially went to do it the hashrate way / protocol way, through a voting mechanism where nodes would collect "votes" and then get paid in the next block once their vote count had reached the predetermined limit (6 votes IIRC). But it proved problematic (sporadic forking of the network) in practice and debugging it while in production was attracting all sort of negative attention. Thus it was consequently abandoned in favor of the "spork". So there is definitely room for improvement there.

[digital_money]

It's too hard to find a block now 
But I'll keep mining this excellent coin

[MyFarm]

Let's see what happens.

Good to see you over here. 

Looks like I am going to have some serious competition as I attempt to add to my position.

[MyFarm]

Mr. Spread, I mean ZERO disrespect when I ask this and will definitely not push the issue as it's your coin... but would you be open to a name change for Spreadcoin at some point?  One of the biggest arguments against Darkcoin by many is its' name.  Spreadcoin is going to have many of the same features as DRK (and maybe even some improvements by the sounds of it!) BUT in my opinion, "Spreadcoin" isn't the greatest name ever for a coin, especially for a coin I feel can be a top 3-10 market cap coin within a year. Again, I mean no disrespect and if you love the current name, I won't mention it again.  But if you are open to a name change, I think it could bring even more attention to this coin.

[e1ghtSpace]

Mr. Spread, I mean ZERO disrespect when I ask this and will definitely not push the issue as it's your coin... but would you be open to a name change for Spreadcoin at some point?  One of the biggest arguments against Darkcoin by many is its' name.  Spreadcoin is going to have many of the same features as DRK (and maybe even some improvements by the sounds of it!) BUT in my opinion, "Spreadcoin" isn't the greatest name ever for a coin, especially for a coin I feel can be a top 3-10 market cap coin within a year. Again, I mean no disrespect and if you love the current name, I won't mention it again.  But if you are open to a name change, I think it could bring even more attention to this coin.

We should call it Vegemitecoin. Because Vegemite is a dark spread.

[NoobKidOnTheBlock]

Mr. Spread, I mean ZERO disrespect when I ask this and will definitely not push the issue as it's your coin... but would you be open to a name change for Spreadcoin at some point?  One of the biggest arguments against Darkcoin by many is its' name.  Spreadcoin is going to have many of the same features as DRK (and maybe even some improvements by the sounds of it!) BUT in my opinion, "Spreadcoin" isn't the greatest name ever for a coin, especially for a coin I feel can be a top 3-10 market cap coin within a year. Again, I mean no disrespect and if you love the current name, I won't mention it again.  But if you are open to a name change, I think it could bring even more attention to this coin.

What's wrong with Spread as the coins name? You can SPREAD the wealth, Spread the happiness,, Spread the Joy, Spread the Love, SpreadCoin in my opinion sounds like the perfect name for a top contender to Bitcoin, Darkcoin, or LiteCoin too! I think SpreadCoin would also help Noobies adapt more to the cryptocurrency world by its simplicity in its name How many people would've ever used Facebook if it was called "CreepyWebsiteWhereYouCanStalkYourExesAndCreepPeopleYouDon'tKnowAndAddThemAsAFriend?" It's the smoothness in a name like SpreadCoin that works with it!!
Cheers
s's

[snogcel]

Interesting concept -- I've browsed through most of the thread but haven't seen a clear answer on a key point:

How specifically are mining pools avoided with this coin?

[NoobKidOnTheBlock]

Interesting concept -- I've browsed through most of the thread but haven't seen a clear answer on a key point:

How specifically are mining pools avoided with this coin?

I believe it was somthing to do with a bug in the original Bitcoin coding and Mr. Spread made his coin that way so big pools can't massive mine it or something like that lol dont ask me I'm just a NOOB!!!

[Rux]

There is way we can make pool... same like on LAN, just use massive scale... open ports on routers, forward that port to the MAINrig with wallet acting as a server... with static ip... and off you go!

should we try? anyone interested to share some hash to test this teory?

cmon guys, i need only 1 miner to start with this... if we can get this to work...then what can stop 5 farms of rigs to team up and find blocks faster than any of solo miners?

instead LAN conf rpcallowip=192.168.1.* maybe we can do rpcallowip=*.*.*.*  so that everyone can join

just my 2 cents, we should try

[gjhiggins]

Interesting concept -- I've browsed through most of the thread but haven't seen a clear answer on a key point:

How specifically are mining pools avoided with this coin?

I must admit, I'm a bit hazy on the detail too.

Maybe SPR could do with a one-para summary and a snappy buzzphrase? Something along the lines of the “Sign-to-Mine™” approach taken by by Ziftrcoin and described thusly:

“We will use the NIST chosen Keccak, a memory-hard 512-bit hashing
algorithm, along with our Sign to Mine™ protocol, to mine ziftrCOINs.
Essentially, the header must contain a signature of the header’s contents,
which must be verified with the script spending the coinbase transaction.
This ensures that the one who solves the block also has the capability to
spend the block, which limits large pools. With Sign to Mine, miners should
make sure they trust those with whom they are mining, as anyone in the pool
has the ability to spend the reward for the blocks they solve.”

Quoted from ”ziftrCOIN Specifications, Released December 6, 2014” https://d19y4lldx7po3t.cloudfront.net/assets/docs/ziftrcoin-coinspecs.pdf

They may even have actually registered the trademark.

Cheers

Graham

[thelonecrouton]

Interesting concept -- I've browsed through most of the thread but haven't seen a clear answer on a key point:

How specifically are mining pools avoided with this coin?

Whitepaper link is in OP.

[girino]

Interesting concept -- I've browsed through most of the thread but haven't seen a clear answer on a key point:

How specifically are mining pools avoided with this coin?

I must admit, I'm a bit hazy on the detail too.

Maybe SPR could do with a one-para summary and a snappy buzzphrase? Something along the lines of the “Sign-to-Mine™” approach taken by by Ziftrcoin and described thusly:

“We will use the NIST chosen Keccak, a memory-hard 512-bit hashing
algorithm, along with our Sign to Mine™ protocol, to mine ziftrCOINs.
Essentially, the header must contain a signature of the header’s contents,
which must be verified with the script spending the coinbase transaction.
This ensures that the one who solves the block also has the capability to
spend the block, which limits large pools. With Sign to Mine, miners should
make sure they trust those with whom they are mining, as anyone in the pool
has the ability to spend the reward for the blocks they solve.”

Quoted from ”ziftrCOIN Specifications, Released December 6, 2014” https://d19y4lldx7po3t.cloudfront.net/assets/docs/ziftrcoin-coinspecs.pdf

They may even have actually registered the trademark.

Cheers

Graham

looks like ziftrCOINs has just cloned spread algorithm and changed X11 for keccak. By the date, i'd say it's quite possible! Is their code available? BTW, Keccak is not memory hard. Those guys got something wrong!

[e1ghtSpace]

Interesting concept -- I've browsed through most of the thread but haven't seen a clear answer on a key point:

How specifically are mining pools avoided with this coin?

I must admit, I'm a bit hazy on the detail too.

Maybe SPR could do with a one-para summary and a snappy buzzphrase? Something along the lines of the “Sign-to-Mine™” approach taken by by Ziftrcoin and described thusly:

“We will use the NIST chosen Keccak, a memory-hard 512-bit hashing
algorithm, along with our Sign to Mine™ protocol, to mine ziftrCOINs.
Essentially, the header must contain a signature of the header’s contents,
which must be verified with the script spending the coinbase transaction.
This ensures that the one who solves the block also has the capability to
spend the block, which limits large pools. With Sign to Mine, miners should
make sure they trust those with whom they are mining, as anyone in the pool
has the ability to spend the reward for the blocks they solve.”

Quoted from ”ziftrCOIN Specifications, Released December 6, 2014” https://d19y4lldx7po3t.cloudfront.net/assets/docs/ziftrcoin-coinspecs.pdf

They may even have actually registered the trademark.

Cheers

Graham

Are you allowed to trademark things? Does the open source licence or whatever it is stop that?

Interesting concept -- I've browsed through most of the thread but haven't seen a clear answer on a key point:

How specifically are mining pools avoided with this coin?

I believe it was somthing to do with a bug in the original Bitcoin coding and Mr. Spread made his coin that way.

I'm pretty sure this never happened. But Mr. Spread did improve the transaction size so that it is smaller.

[e1ghtSpace]

Mr. Spread, I mean ZERO disrespect when I ask this and will definitely not push the issue as it's your coin... but would you be open to a name change for Spreadcoin at some point?  One of the biggest arguments against Darkcoin by many is its' name.  Spreadcoin is going to have many of the same features as DRK (and maybe even some improvements by the sounds of it!) BUT in my opinion, "Spreadcoin" isn't the greatest name ever for a coin, especially for a coin I feel can be a top 3-10 market cap coin within a year. Again, I mean no disrespect and if you love the current name, I won't mention it again.  But if you are open to a name change, I think it could bring even more attention to this coin.

What's wrong with Spread as the coins name? You can SPREAD the wealth, Spread the happiness,, Spread the Joy, Spread the Love, SpreadCoin in my opinion sounds like the perfect name for a top contender to Bitcoin, Darkcoin, or LiteCoin too! I think SpreadCoin would also help Noobies adapt more to the cryptocurrency world by its simplicity in its name How many people would've ever used Facebook if it was called "CreepyWebsiteWhereYouCanStalkYourExesAndCreepPeopleYouDon'tKnowAndAddThemAsAFriend?" It's the smoothness in a name like SpreadCoin that works with it!!
Cheers
s's

And Spreadcoin rolls off the tongue. Unlike solocoin or something.

[LitcoinCollector]

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

[Mr. Spread]

Interesting concept -- I've browsed through most of the thread but haven't seen a clear answer on a key point:

How specifically are mining pools avoided with this coin?

There is a whitepaper in OP. I think I should change OP to make it more clear why there are no pools, you are not the first one who asks.

Mr. Spread, I mean ZERO disrespect when I ask this and will definitely not push the issue as it's your coin... but would you be open to a name change for Spreadcoin at some point?  One of the biggest arguments against Darkcoin by many is its' name.  Spreadcoin is going to have many of the same features as DRK (and maybe even some improvements by the sounds of it!) BUT in my opinion, "Spreadcoin" isn't the greatest name ever for a coin, especially for a coin I feel can be a top 3-10 market cap coin within a year. Again, I mean no disrespect and if you love the current name, I won't mention it again.  But if you are open to a name change, I think it could bring even more attention to this coin.

I personally like the current name.

[NoobKidOnTheBlock]

Interesting concept -- I've browsed through most of the thread but haven't seen a clear answer on a key point:

How specifically are mining pools avoided with this coin?

There is a whitepaper in OP. I think I should change OP to make it more clear why there are no pools, you are not the first one who asks.

Mr. Spread, I mean ZERO disrespect when I ask this and will definitely not push the issue as it's your coin... but would you be open to a name change for Spreadcoin at some point?  One of the biggest arguments against Darkcoin by many is its' name.  Spreadcoin is going to have many of the same features as DRK (and maybe even some improvements by the sounds of it!) BUT in my opinion, "Spreadcoin" isn't the greatest name ever for a coin, especially for a coin I feel can be a top 3-10 market cap coin within a year. Again, I mean no disrespect and if you love the current name, I won't mention it again.  But if you are open to a name change, I think it could bring even more attention to this coin.

I personally like the current name.

+1000 TO THAT MR. SPREAD I AGREE IT SUITS THIS COIN JUST FINE!!!