[Ultracoin] [Est. Feb 2014] ~ ASIC Resistant & Ultrafast 6 Second Transactions!

[Beave162]

I don't think there is an issue with orphans worth worrying about in my opinion.

With other coins a high orphan rate is typically linked to low difficulty + lots of hash.  Blocks are easy to solve at low diff so the race to the finish line from different miners is much closer.  Even UTC1 at Tumblingblock with 10% network hash is hitting blocks sometimes seconds apart now.  With block intervals like that there is going to be orphans as one pool (or solo miner) beats the other to the finish line in a photo finish.  

I don't see how consolidating hash power into less pools has a net positive benefit.  It is more healthy to have more pools and solo mining with some orphans than a single dominant pool solving every block (thus no orhpans).  You do not want all the hash in one pool.  Quark for example has that issue with 90%+ hash at one pool and it used by FUDsters as an attack on the currency daily (regardless if it is an actual concern).  

Consolidating all pools is solving one issue that is primarily cosmetic and creating another issue that is real (network centralization).

Thank you for that reasonable response. I agree with pretty much everything you just said, Hilux...

So right now there is one centralized force which is attacking UltraCoin through swings in difficulty. Is there denial here about that?

The way to combat it is to reward those mining UltraCoin consistently. The high fees are a deterrent from using the pool. The orphans are not only punishing the healthy, consistent miners, but they are actually rewarding the attacker. The attacker wins the spoils of the 'race' (30 UTC) while invalidating the work of the miners in the pool.

To be clear, my interest is mainly in YAC. But more than anything else, I need a race to the top and not a race to the bottom. There are only a handful of scrypt-chacha coins left now...

[tex81]

1400 h/s on 280X @ 1200/1500 with gap=24

[dan_and_shan]

I wanted to say that this coin is dead , dead , dead  and i forgot to say tha it is DEADDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!

With trolls like you waiting to scoop up all the coins at the bottom, it can never die ;p

U......T......C.........4.........EVA

[volyova]

Oh well..at least we are still above Vert.  Fabietech will be happy

[tsjaar]

CT shutting down               

Due to very low volume and lack of good userbase, Crypto-Trade has decided to shutdown permanently due to inability to cover its expenditures on rented servers , staff salary and site promotion. All the users are requested to withdraw their funds within 48 hours.The site will continue to process pending withdrawals till our private wallet is empty. The site will go offline on 29th January 6:00 UTC.

[jacobshm]

CT shutting down               

Due to very low volume and lack of good userbase, Crypto-Trade has decided to shutdown permanently due to inability to cover its expenditures on rented servers , staff salary and site promotion. All the users are requested to withdraw their funds within 48 hours.The site will continue to process pending withdrawals till our private wallet is empty. The site will go offline on 29th January 6:00 UTC.

literally no f**ks given, they did this to themselves when they got hacked. UTC put them on the map and they shit the bed while using our blanket

[marcoman22]

Oh well..at least we are still above Vert.  Fabietech will be happy

Vert is dead and Ultra is still stable.

[Kracko]

I don't think there is an issue with orphans worth worrying about in my opinion.

With other coins a high orphan rate is typically linked to low difficulty + lots of hash.  Blocks are easy to solve at low diff so the race to the finish line from different miners is much closer.  Even UTC1 at Tumblingblock with 10% network hash is hitting blocks sometimes seconds apart now.  With block intervals like that there is going to be orphans as one pool (or solo miner) beats the other to the finish line in a photo finish.  

I don't see how consolidating hash power into less pools has a net positive benefit.  It is more healthy to have more pools and solo mining with some orphans than a single dominant pool solving every block (thus no orhpans).  You do not want all the hash in one pool.  Quark for example has that issue with 90%+ hash at one pool and it used by FUDsters as an attack on the currency daily (regardless if it is an actual concern).  

Consolidating all pools is solving one issue that is primarily cosmetic and creating another issue that is real (network centralization).

Thank you for that reasonable response. I agree with pretty much everything you just said, Hilux...

So right now there is one centralized force which is attacking UltraCoin through swings in difficulty. Is there denial here about that?

Not outright denial, but there is some doubt.  Let's see some proof to back your assertion about this solo miner threat.  It can be readily checked by looking at the first transaction in each of PoW blocks- the pool generation reward, but I'm sure you already know that.  And here are the pool addresses:

UgLHrPXC5QeUxdr4RSVCappd7g7uZwkXw2    utc
UXs4V2RZKzk9uPq4Hyg9AM7HJ735RNqZzE    utc2

Any block generation rewards sent to addresses other than the pools' would be attributable to competing pools/solo miners.

[fabietech]

Oh well..at least we are still above Vert.  Fabietech will be happy

He is

[Beave162]

Not outright denial, but there is some doubt.  Let's see some proof to back your assertion about this solo miner threat.  It can be readily checked by looking at the first transaction in each of PoW blocks- the pool generation reward, but I'm sure you already know that.  And here are the pool addresses:

UgLHrPXC5QeUxdr4RSVCappd7g7uZwkXw2    utc
UXs4V2RZKzk9uPq4Hyg9AM7HJ735RNqZzE    utc2

Any block generation rewards sent to addresses other than the pools' would be attributable to competing pools/solo miners.

I've been looking, and I see only that those addresses are dominating the chain, unless I'm missing something...

So something is causing crazy swings in difficulty without actually getting confirmed blocks on the chain? Would that be a botnet?

When UTC's difficulty dropped, it seemed YAC's skyrocketed almost completely in sync. I'm at a loss as to what is happening...

[Hilux74]

Pretty sure it is just UTC difficulty algo being too sensitive and 'correcting' too far either side of optimum.  Things seem to get a lot more twitchy at these low low N15+ POW diffs.  Also as a POS/POW hybrid adjusting teh difficulty is even more complicated as the POW diff is in feedback with the POS diff so that a weighting between the two is maintained.  I don't feel like looking it up but I have a strong hunch that the YAC difficulty adjustment settings are not as sensitive so you will not see as much oscillation in difficulty if you are trying to compare the two coins.

The two unwanted side effects of the algo adjusting the diff too low are rapid blocks seconds apart and hand in hand with easy fast blocks are a high orphan rate. 

Adjusting the diff too high is worse.  The unwanted side effect when the diff adjusts too high are slower than normal blocks, and if it it adjusts way too high like when a big hash profit hopping miner/attacker hops onto a pool when diff is low until it is quite high and then just leaves, you see other miners leave as well and exaggerate the issue.  That kind of abuse is why UTC likely has a fairly sensitive algo that readjusts every 10 blocks.  Some other coins with slow adapting diff algo have been crippled pretty badly by these kinds of maneuvers.

It is possible that a high hash profit hopping miner keeps hoping onto one of the UTC pools every time the diff drops low and takes advantage until the diff rockets upward.  However I haven't noticed it, and my payouts from the pool seem more or less at a constant interval throughout the day so I do not think UTC is being 'attacked' by a a profit hopper or an actual attacker.

If you just pick a pool and mine for a few days I think you will see your daily payout is pretty constant.  I do not think UTCs difficulty oscillation is much of a concern though it might get even more wild at N16.  If so the devs could always tweak the algo if it became a big issue. 

[Kracko]

Pretty sure it is just UTC difficulty algo being too sensitive and 'correcting' too far either side of optimum.  Things seem to get a lot more twitchy at these low low N15+ POW diffs.  Also as a POS/POW hybrid adjusting teh difficulty is even more complicated as the POW diff is in feedback with the POS diff so that a weighting between the two is maintained.  I don't feel like looking it up but I have a strong hunch that the YAC difficulty adjustment settings are not as sensitive so you will not see as much oscillation in difficulty if you are trying to compare the two coins.

Yeah, the Peercoin exponential retarget is much more precise.  And of course, what scrypt-chacha folks are used to seeing behind a network rate.  I definitely prefer the stability this retarget brings, but since it only uses the last two blocks it's vulnerable to time manipulation.

Digishield can be oscillated more.  It tends to overshoot a bit at the extremes.  But while it swings more than before, the blocks still have an acceptable spacing over time.   It appears to scale up nicely- Dogecoin doesn't appear to having any issues with it.  I like the asymmetric rise/fall.  Being able to correct downward faster than upward was a positive to making the coin more available to our dedicated miners by quickly recovering from those difficulty levels that leave the chain stuck.  It's less affected from time manipulation.  But, at the difficulty lows and the highs the network hash rate seems to go beyond the actual a bit when it overshoots.

[volkantipi]

Hi, What is your setting for the R9 280x?

[PTseller]

Hi Ultracoin Community


Thanks dev for making wonderful coin i truly believe in Ultracoin for long term investment.

[wtfc360]

R9 280x 3 GB:
yacminer.exe --scrypt-chacha -o stratum+tcp://stratum2.tumblingblock.com:5555 -u worker.1 -p password -R 2560 -g 1 -w 128 --buffer-size 2590 --lookup-gap 24 --gpu-engine 1200 --gpu-memclock 1500 --temp-cutoff 85 --nfmin 4 --nfmax 30 --starttime 1388361600

this setting gives 1,174kh/s, lookup-gap 8 also works

Hi, What is your setting for the R9 280x?

[volkantipi]

R9 280x 3 GB:
yacminer.exe --scrypt-chacha -o stratum+tcp://stratum2.tumblingblock.com:5555 -u worker.1 -p password -R 2560 -g 1 -w 128 --buffer-size 2590 --lookup-gap 24 --gpu-engine 1200 --gpu-memclock 1500 --temp-cutoff 85 --nfmin 4 --nfmax 30 --starttime 1388361600

this setting gives 1,174kh/s, lookup-gap 8 also works

Hi, What is your setting for the R9 280x?

gpu 0 disabling gives the error.

[flippo]

R9 280x 3 GB:
yacminer.exe --scrypt-chacha -o stratum+tcp://stratum2.tumblingblock.com:5555 -u worker.1 -p password -R 2560 -g 1 -w 128 --buffer-size 2590 --lookup-gap 24 --gpu-engine 1200 --gpu-memclock 1500 --temp-cutoff 85 --nfmin 4 --nfmax 30 --starttime 1388361600

this setting gives 1,174kh/s, lookup-gap 8 also works

Hi, What is your setting for the R9 280x?

gpu 0 disabling gives the error.

Try lowering gpu engine value. You are overclocking your R9 280X card with clock set @1200 MHz.

[volkantipi]

R9 280x 3 GB:
yacminer.exe --scrypt-chacha -o stratum+tcp://stratum2.tumblingblock.com:5555 -u worker.1 -p password -R 2560 -g 1 -w 128 --buffer-size 2590 --lookup-gap 24 --gpu-engine 1200 --gpu-memclock 1500 --temp-cutoff 85 --nfmin 4 --nfmax 30 --starttime 1388361600

this setting gives 1,174kh/s, lookup-gap 8 also works

Hi, What is your setting for the R9 280x?

gpu 0 disabling gives the error.

Try lowering gpu engine value. You are overclocking your R9 280X card with clock set @1200 MHz.

did not work.

del *.bin
yacminer --scrypt-chacha  -o stratum+tcp://stratum2.tumblingblock.com:5555 -u username -p password -R 2560 -g 1 -w 128  --lookup-gap 8 --buffer-size 2590 --gpu-engine 950 --gpu-memclock 1200 --temp-cutoff 85 --nfmin 4 --nfmax 30 --starttime 1388361600
pause

[Qxw]

R9 280x 3 GB:
yacminer.exe --scrypt-chacha -o stratum+tcp://stratum2.tumblingblock.com:5555 -u worker.1 -p password -R 2560 -g 1 -w 128 --buffer-size 2590 --lookup-gap 24 --gpu-engine 1200 --gpu-memclock 1500 --temp-cutoff 85 --nfmin 4 --nfmax 30 --starttime 1388361600

this setting gives 1,174kh/s, lookup-gap 8 also works

Hi, What is your setting for the R9 280x?

N=15  -> 8M
8/24= 0.3333

0.3333 * 2560 = 853.8

What is idea with this lookup-gap 24  with this buffer size and with This Raw intensity?
(exept that result is still not so bad if also real accepted works are nearly 1.2kh/s

[Hilux74]

R9 280x 3 GB:
yacminer.exe --scrypt-chacha -o stratum+tcp://stratum2.tumblingblock.com:5555 -u worker.1 -p password -R 2560 -g 1 -w 128 --buffer-size 2590 --lookup-gap 24 --gpu-engine 1200 --gpu-memclock 1500 --temp-cutoff 85 --nfmin 4 --nfmax 30 --starttime 1388361600

this setting gives 1,174kh/s, lookup-gap 8 also works

Hi, What is your setting for the R9 280x?

gpu 0 disabling gives the error.

Try lowering gpu engine value. You are overclocking your R9 280X card with clock set @1200 MHz.

did not work.

del *.bin
yacminer --scrypt-chacha  -o stratum+tcp://stratum2.tumblingblock.com:5555 -u username -p password -R 2560 -g 1 -w 128  --lookup-gap 8 --buffer-size 2590 --gpu-engine 950 --gpu-memclock 1200 --temp-cutoff 85 --nfmin 4 --nfmax 30 --starttime 1388361600
pause

'Error 4 - Kernal blah blah blah' usually happens when you are setting your buffer size too high for the amount of system ram you have