[ANN] [XMG] MAGI | CPU mining | mPoW | mPoS | [MagiPay]

[111magic]

Just to make it clear for people who are thinking the register for the new Proof of Interest campaign opened on 12 jan 2015! Thats not correct.
The register is open from 01 december 2015.
In the Netherlands we use day-month-year!

[lxxtikk]

how much can be price for XMG in 2017-2020 

[cryptonit]

how much can be price for XMG in 2017-2020 

worst case nothing
best case multiple $

and everything between is possible too

[joelao95]

Nice words Abiky, thanks.
Joe to save time, if we know the things that needed to fix/change in the wallet to get it work faster there are others who can help you with the improvements.
(Like Wolf) Also would like to see a button: start/stop mining in the wallet. Very easy for newbies to mine Magi.
Welcome back Joe!

I agree with that, and will talk to people, or any ones who are interested to the development, we can communicate to each other. We had feldenthorne and lightsplasher contributions to the current source repo; people interested to improvements are always welcome.

Mining in the wallet is inefficient but I'd think about it.

Mining in the wallet is just fine, you've just got to fix the code.

It will work but it may be less meaningful at the final people will realize. The wallet mining would be less efficient primarily because of cpu consumption by wallet and solo mining:

1) With the present network hash, solo mining would be unlikely, unless we enable pool mining by merging m-cpuminer-qt which is quite feasible.

2) Wallet takes up percentages of cpu, particularly PoS mining enabled as well; the hash of PoS or some things else I'd like to look at to make PoS efficient, however, staking more or less takes more cpu% than no staking.

I think a lightweight wallet with mining is better.

[joelao95]

how much can be price for XMG in 2017-2020 

This is rather speculative, even btc, but any one believed btc will hit $350 when it was $240; and it will continue rising? 

[DeathProxyX]

1) With the present network hash, solo mining would be unlikely, unless we enable pool mining by merging m-cpuminer-qt which is quite feasible.

why solo mining would be unlikely?

[joelao95]

1) With the present network hash, solo mining would be unlikely, unless we enable pool mining by merging m-cpuminer-qt which is quite feasible.

why solo mining would be unlikely?

I guess this statement is bit harsh; the situation will be the higher the network hash, the more time solo mining finding a block.

[111magic]

PM`s added to the Proof of Interest 3 campaign!

[joelao95]

Nice words Abiky, thanks.
Joe to save time, if we know the things that needed to fix/change in the wallet to get it work faster there are others who can help you with the improvements.
(Like Wolf) Also would like to see a button: start/stop mining in the wallet. Very easy for newbies to mine Magi.
Welcome back Joe!

I agree with that, and will talk to people, or any ones who are interested to the development, we can communicate to each other. We had feldenthorne and lightsplasher contributions to the current source repo; people interested to improvements are always welcome.

Mining in the wallet is inefficient but I'd think about it.

Mining in the wallet is just fine, you've just got to fix the code.

It will work but it may be less meaningful at the final people will realize. The wallet mining would be less efficient primarily because of cpu consumption by wallet and solo mining:

1) With the present network hash, solo mining would be unlikely, unless we enable pool mining by merging m-cpuminer-qt which is quite feasible.

2) Wallet takes up percentages of cpu, particularly PoS mining enabled as well; the hash of PoS or some things else I'd like to look at to make PoS efficient, however, staking more or less takes more cpu% than no staking.

I think a lightweight wallet with mining is better.

If you do it properly, you shouldn't see any difference between in-wallet mining and a standalone miner with the wallet running. It should simply make communication simpler.

EDIT: Further explanation, in case you need it: Most OS schedulers, including the Windows scheduler, schedule threads for execution - they don't really care what process they belong to, the priority matters a lot more. So, obviously you're going to spawn new miner threads inside the wallet process to mine. Assuming the miner code is the same, there's really little to no difference - except that passing info back to the wallet can be done with a pointer - dropping the overhead of JSON-RPC.

Talking about PoS taking up CPU time is irrelevant because the person would be mining and staking on the same system regardless - whether the wallet is in the miner or not, if there's a performance hit, it's going to happen. But I doubt there will be with staking - especially if the hashing code is done correctly.

The mining is actually working already by issuing setgenerate true, solo mining. I'd like get pool mining enabled as well. If you are saying little / no difference in performance, I doubt it. PoS mining is hashing with SHA256 which does affect.

[z0n0]

Hi all, just got back from 3 weeks vacations in Thailand - was 100% off...Whats going on? Some new thing (most important)?
What happened with price (big drop )

cheers y'all

[joelao95]

Of course PoS mining is hashing with SHA256 - but you're not doing it constantly. Secondly, the wallet mining is slower mostly because the code is old - isn't it still the original M7M implementation?

EDIT: Also, SHA256 is probably wasting so much time because you're probably using a slow one-way implementation of it - if you're hashing, you can probably use SSE/AVX to parallelize the different iterations.

These are all where we can put optimizations on.

Hi all, just got back from 3 weeks vacations in Thailand - was 100% off...Whats going on? Some new thing (most important)?
What happened with price (big drop )

cheers y'all

Welcome back!

[Abiky]

how much can be price for XMG in 2017-2020 

Magi could reach a good price in the next 2 to 5 years if there is enough demand. By the looks of it, I think that Magi would be worth $0.10 or $1 per coin if it continues bringing new development and growing in community. Remember, the most important thing is not the price but the coin itself (usability, features, etc)

[111magic]

Hi all, just got back from 3 weeks vacations in Thailand - was 100% off...Whats going on? Some new thing (most important)?
What happened with price (big drop )

cheers y'all

Welcome back Z0n0. Check the new Proof of Interest 3 campaign!

[111magic]

Hi all, just got back from 3 weeks vacations in Thailand - was 100% off...Whats going on? Some new thing (most important)?
What happened with price (big drop )

cheers y'all

I wanna go!

Me also. Z0n0 next time we would like to join you!

[z0n0]

Hi all, just got back from 3 weeks vacations in Thailand - was 100% off...Whats going on? Some new thing (most important)?
What happened with price (big drop )

cheers y'all

I wanna go!

Me also. Z0n0 next time we would like to join you!

You're more than welcome guys 

[StaisyBit]

IMPORTANT UPDATE

Hi Magi community. I am here to update you about a deep change in our service.

You can read everything about it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091402.msg13164967#msg13164967.

If you have any question, please post in our thread or contact our support.

Thank you.

Cheers
Alberto

[djnocide]

Is there a member of this community with block explorer knowledge?

[111magic]

IMPORTANT UPDATE

Hi Magi community. I am here to update you about a deep change in our service.

You can read everything about it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091402.msg13164967#msg13164967.

If you have any question, please post in our thread or contact our support.

Thank you.

Cheers
Alberto

Thanks for the update Staisybit!

[111magic]

Is there a member of this community with block explorer knowledge?

Sorry amigo I don't have that knowlegde with block explorer.
Hope somebody here can respons to your question.

[111magic]

Important update - 6th Dec. 2015


Contracts:
After a month of stable service, having received hundred feedback, we have decided to change our business model regarding BTC contracts to use our service. I'm here to announce that Staisybit will no more use a BTC contract approach.

Fees:
Getting rid of BTC contracts, we anyway need incomes to keep up the whole thing. The natural approach is using fees % on every transaction, like, for example, exchanges do.

Fee have been set as follow:

- deposits: 0.25%
- withdrawals: 1%
- generated coins: 5%


It's worth to point out that 5% fees on the mined amounts may seem high, but actually the impact on the single user is negligible and it decreases as the number of users. Indeed, the 5% fee is applied on the value of the block generated, therefore the fee itself is shared among all the participants, ensuring a very lower impact on the single one.

I put below a brief example with numbers of how users share fees:


Example coin: BLK
Number of users:  2

Block value		Fees		User gets (with Fees)		User would get (without Fees)		Impact
100		5 BLK		47,5 BLK		50 BLK		50 - 47,5 = 2,5 BLK
200		10 BLK		95 BLK		100 BLK		100 - 95 = 5 BLK
						Total Impact for 300 BLK mined		7,5 BLK for each user

Example coin: BLK
Number of users:  50

Block value		Fees		User gets (with Fees)		User would get (without Fees)		Impact
100		5 BLK		1,90 BLK		2 BLK		2 - 1.9 = 0.1 BLK
200		10 BLK		3,80 BLK		4 BLK		4 - 3.80 = 0.2 BLK
						Total Impact for 300 BLK mined		0.3 BLK for each user

Feel free to ask more.

Added the post from Staisybit here!