◈◈Bitcredit ◈◈ Migrating to UniQredit◈◈

[kondiomir]

So is there a working gpu miner ?
The diff is vary high to mine with wallet.

[1713579118]

1713579118

[1713579118]

1713579118

[1713579118]

1713579118

[bitcreditscc]

So is there a working gpu miner ?
The diff is vary high to mine with wallet.

I honestly don't think so, because over the whole day the hash rate topped off at 61 H/s , which is roughly 6x i5 3450 cpus on the whole network.

Either way, the difficulty is pushing me to look into the issue harder

currently struggling with

https://github.com/bitcreditscc/bicreditsnew/blob/smsg/src/rpcmining.cpp#L412

[SockPuppetAccount]

So is there a working gpu miner ?
The diff is vary high to mine with wallet.

I honestly don't think so, because over the whole day the hash rate topped off at 61 H/s , which is roughly 6x i5 3450 cpus on the whole network.

Either way, the difficulty is pushing me to look into the issue harder

currently struggling with

https://github.com/bitcreditscc/bicreditsnew/blob/smsg/src/rpcmining.cpp#L412

You sure you got those numbers correct?

When I run a getmininginfo like so


"blocks" : 12193,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.00000139,
"errors" : "",
"genproclimit" : 10,
"networkhashps" : 49,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false,
"chain" : "main",
"generate" : true,
"hashespermin" : 26
}

I get 26 hashes per MINUTE, so about .43 hashes per second.  I'm running 10 threads on a stock clocked 5820k.  If those numbers are totally off base let me know because I'm very interested in knowing if my new processor is bunk!

.43/49 = 0.877% of the network which seems about right with the number of blocks I've been hitting lately.

I'm guessing you didn't notice that your hashrate is listed per minute, while the network hashrate is listed per second.

[hack_]

So is there a working gpu miner ?
The diff is vary high to mine with wallet.

I honestly don't think so, because over the whole day the hash rate topped off at 61 H/s , which is roughly 6x i5 3450 cpus on the whole network.

Either way, the difficulty is pushing me to look into the issue harder

currently struggling with

https://github.com/bitcreditscc/bicreditsnew/blob/smsg/src/rpcmining.cpp#L412

You sure you got those numbers correct?

When I run a getmininginfo like so


"blocks" : 12193,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.00000139,
"errors" : "",
"genproclimit" : 10,
"networkhashps" : 49,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false,
"chain" : "main",
"generate" : true,
"hashespermin" : 26
}

I get 26 hashes per MINUTE, so about .43 hashes per second.  I'm running 10 threads on a stock clocked 5820k.  If those numbers are totally off base let me know because I'm very interested in knowing if my new processor is bunk!

.43/49 = 0.877% of the network which seems about right with the number of blocks I've been hitting lately.

I'm guessing you didn't notice that your hashrate is listed per minute, while the network hashrate is listed per second.

I think he  was trying to say 60 x i5, that would make more sense.

[SockPuppetAccount]

Oh, and as far as my feelings on PoS, it would certainly look a bit scammy to fully switch to PoS now as the original specifications of the coin called for 105 million credits.  Right now there are only about 600k bitcredits out in the wild + the 6 million Empoex is holding for the on hold ICO.  It would definitely feel like the PoW stage was being cut awfully short to switch to PoS now.  Of course, it is very difficult to create a successful PoW coin that can sustain the constant investment needed to maintain it's price (for that matter it's hard to sustain the price of PoS coins as well, but I digress).

I have been mining and following this coin from the get go, and I know some were opposed to raising the block reward to 200 which resulted in the current 50 reward sticking around, but perhaps an accelerated PoW mining period is in order combined with rewarding those who give out loans and grants with PoS rewards or possibly just extra % points on their PoS compared to your average holder.

To me, the ideal way forward from here would be get a GPU miner and pool up and running, decide what to do with the ICO coins (sell, burn, or keep a portion for a premine to go toward the expenses you listed earlier.  As long as you are transparent about the use of the premine, it shouldn't be a matter of concern).  Once you decide on the PoS scheme you are going to use, hardfork it, up the block rewards to 200,300,400, whatever it needs to be, and keep it as a PoW/PoS coin with steadily declining rewards until say, 3-6 months down the road all the PoW blocks are mined and it switches to pure PoS.

Early adopters get a little extra bonus by mining with low difficulty in the early days, but no one can accuse bitcredits of being a scam as everyone got plenty of time to mine and get their hands on some.

[bitcreditscc]

Oh, and as far as my feelings on PoS, it would certainly look a bit scammy to fully switch to PoS now as the original specifications of the coin called for 105 million credits.  Right now there are only about 600k bitcredits out in the wild + the 6 million Empoex is holding for the on hold ICO.  It would definitely feel like the PoW stage was being cut awfully short to switch to PoS now.  Of course, it is very difficult to create a successful PoW coin that can sustain the constant investment needed to maintain it's price (for that matter it's hard to sustain the price of PoS coins as well, but I digress).

I have been mining and following this coin from the get go, and I know some were opposed to raising the block reward to 200 which resulted in the current 50 reward sticking around, but perhaps an accelerated PoW mining period is in order combined with rewarding those who give out loans and grants with PoS rewards or possibly just extra % points on their PoS compared to your average holder.

To me, the ideal way forward from here would be get a GPU miner and pool up and running, decide what to do with the ICO coins (sell, burn, or keep a portion for a premine to go toward the expenses you listed earlier.  As long as you are transparent about the use of the premine, it shouldn't be a matter of concern).  Once you decide on the PoS scheme you are going to use, hardfork it, up the block rewards to 200,300,400, whatever it needs to be, and keep it as a PoW/PoS coin with steadily declining rewards until say, 3-6 months down the road all the PoW blocks are mined and it switches to pure PoS.

Early adopters get a little extra bonus by mining with low difficulty in the early days, but no one can accuse bitcredits of being a scam as everyone got plenty of time to mine and get their hands on some.

A more elaborate plan was pitched to me a few hours ago and i am still thinking on it. But basically, the ICO funds will be split into

1) development and marketing
2) Price support.

The bank and grant balances are public and have a maximum allowable value. If the balance crosses that line then the excess would be divided among those who participated in the ICO. It's better than PoS in that the growth rate is predictable, we can easily hardcode the payments by time trigger and it does not affect the hard 105 milion limit. everyone who takes part in the ICO is allocated a proportional % to their contribution and they reap perpetual benefits.

This situation deals with four of our problems though i fear loate comers may complain that they won't get a chance to participate.

Any ideas?

GPU mining is pretty high on the list right now. I am working on it and so are at least two other people.

Expenditure will be properly documented, although for now it has just been bounties and the upcoming website.

[SockPuppetAccount]

Oh, and as far as my feelings on PoS, it would certainly look a bit scammy to fully switch to PoS now as the original specifications of the coin called for 105 million credits.  Right now there are only about 600k bitcredits out in the wild + the 6 million Empoex is holding for the on hold ICO.  It would definitely feel like the PoW stage was being cut awfully short to switch to PoS now.  Of course, it is very difficult to create a successful PoW coin that can sustain the constant investment needed to maintain it's price (for that matter it's hard to sustain the price of PoS coins as well, but I digress).

I have been mining and following this coin from the get go, and I know some were opposed to raising the block reward to 200 which resulted in the current 50 reward sticking around, but perhaps an accelerated PoW mining period is in order combined with rewarding those who give out loans and grants with PoS rewards or possibly just extra % points on their PoS compared to your average holder.

To me, the ideal way forward from here would be get a GPU miner and pool up and running, decide what to do with the ICO coins (sell, burn, or keep a portion for a premine to go toward the expenses you listed earlier.  As long as you are transparent about the use of the premine, it shouldn't be a matter of concern).  Once you decide on the PoS scheme you are going to use, hardfork it, up the block rewards to 200,300,400, whatever it needs to be, and keep it as a PoW/PoS coin with steadily declining rewards until say, 3-6 months down the road all the PoW blocks are mined and it switches to pure PoS.

Early adopters get a little extra bonus by mining with low difficulty in the early days, but no one can accuse bitcredits of being a scam as everyone got plenty of time to mine and get their hands on some.

A more elaborate plan was pitched to me a few hours ago and i am still thinking on it. But basically, the ICO funds will be split into

1) development and marketing
2) Price support.

The bank and grant balances are public and have a maximum allowable value. If the balance crosses that line then the excess would be divided among those who participated in the ICO. It's better than PoS in that the growth rate is predictable, we can easily hardcode the payments by time trigger and it does not affect the hard 105 milion limit. everyone who takes part in the ICO is allocated a proportional % to their contribution and they reap perpetual benefits.

This situation deals with four of our problems though i fear loate comers may complain that they won't get a chance to participate.

Any ideas?

GPU mining is pretty high on the list right now. I am working on it and so are at least two other people.

Expenditure will be properly documented, although for now it has just been bounties and the upcoming website.

Interesting idea.  It would certainly give a significant additional bonus to those who participate in the ICO.  Which is actually pretty perfect for this scenario as mining and trading of coins is already underway.  ICO coins would be more valuable than the coins you can buy on bittrex right now.

How would that work?  Are those who buy into the ICO simply issued an address and all the perpetual benefits are sent to those addresses forever?  It's always a fine balance between rewarding early adopters but not balancing things so far in their favor that people who discover the coin later on down the road don't feel like they are getting a raw deal by buying in.  Would there be anyway of making these founder positions liquid?  It would generate a lot of interest in the coin and quiet the FUD if you could go on bittrex and buy and sell bitcredits AND buy and sell your stake in the founder positions.  I have no clue have feasible that would be technically speaking, it's just the ideal way to do this in my mind if you went that route. 

Colored coins?  Couldn't a small amount of colored bitcredits be issued to the address an ICO participant is given, and then be transferred freely?  Of course I am sure this sort of thing is FAR more complicated than a layman such as myself realizes though, especially for an overworked dev who hasn't made a dime off his efforts.  Maybe it would be doable in a perfect world but it's a bit too pie-in-the-sky right now with your limited resources and free time.

[bitcreditscc]

Oh, and as far as my feelings on PoS, it would certainly look a bit scammy to fully switch to PoS now as the original specifications of the coin called for 105 million credits.  Right now there are only about 600k bitcredits out in the wild + the 6 million Empoex is holding for the on hold ICO.  It would definitely feel like the PoW stage was being cut awfully short to switch to PoS now.  Of course, it is very difficult to create a successful PoW coin that can sustain the constant investment needed to maintain it's price (for that matter it's hard to sustain the price of PoS coins as well, but I digress).

I have been mining and following this coin from the get go, and I know some were opposed to raising the block reward to 200 which resulted in the current 50 reward sticking around, but perhaps an accelerated PoW mining period is in order combined with rewarding those who give out loans and grants with PoS rewards or possibly just extra % points on their PoS compared to your average holder.

To me, the ideal way forward from here would be get a GPU miner and pool up and running, decide what to do with the ICO coins (sell, burn, or keep a portion for a premine to go toward the expenses you listed earlier.  As long as you are transparent about the use of the premine, it shouldn't be a matter of concern).  Once you decide on the PoS scheme you are going to use, hardfork it, up the block rewards to 200,300,400, whatever it needs to be, and keep it as a PoW/PoS coin with steadily declining rewards until say, 3-6 months down the road all the PoW blocks are mined and it switches to pure PoS.

Early adopters get a little extra bonus by mining with low difficulty in the early days, but no one can accuse bitcredits of being a scam as everyone got plenty of time to mine and get their hands on some.

A more elaborate plan was pitched to me a few hours ago and i am still thinking on it. But basically, the ICO funds will be split into

1) development and marketing
2) Price support.

The bank and grant balances are public and have a maximum allowable value. If the balance crosses that line then the excess would be divided among those who participated in the ICO. It's better than PoS in that the growth rate is predictable, we can easily hardcode the payments by time trigger and it does not affect the hard 105 milion limit. everyone who takes part in the ICO is allocated a proportional % to their contribution and they reap perpetual benefits.

This situation deals with four of our problems though i fear loate comers may complain that they won't get a chance to participate.

Any ideas?

GPU mining is pretty high on the list right now. I am working on it and so are at least two other people.

Expenditure will be properly documented, although for now it has just been bounties and the upcoming website.

Interesting idea.  It would certainly give a significant additional bonus to those who participate in the ICO.  Which is actually pretty perfect for this scenario as mining and trading of coins is already underway.  ICO coins would be more valuable than the coins you can buy on bittrex right now.

How would that work?  Are those who buy into the ICO simply issued an address and all the perpetual benefits are sent to those addresses forever?  It's always a fine balance between rewarding early adopters but not balancing things so far in their favor that people who discover the coin later on down the road don't feel like they are getting a raw deal by buying in.  Would there be anyway of making these founder positions liquid?  It would generate a lot of interest in the coin and quiet the FUD if you could go on bittrex and buy and sell bitcredits AND buy and sell your stake in the founder positions.  I have no clue have feasible that would be technically speaking, it's just the ideal way to do this in my mind if you went that route. 

Colored coins?  Couldn't a small amount of colored bitcredits be issued to the address an ICO participant is given, and then be transferred freely?  Of course I am sure this sort of thing is FAR more complicated than a layman such as myself realizes though, especially for an overworked dev who hasn't made a dime off his efforts.  Maybe it would be doable in a perfect world but it's a bit too pie-in-the-sky right now with your limited resources and free time.

In order to do it properly with colored coins, it would be best to do PoS , that way the colored bonds would have more staking % than normal tokens.

I'll think on it and give a mock up. I'm done coding for today, too much time on a screen damages the eyes.

[DLDLightwave]

Is something wrong with the network?  Haven't seen a new block in over 2 hours... maybe 3 by now.

[SockPuppetAccount]

Is something wrong with the network?  Haven't seen a new block in over 2 hours... maybe 3 by now.

I noticed difficulty is pretty damn high.  Guessing someone threw a whole lot of hash at it until they spiked the difficulty and then dropped off.  Sure it is fine, just keep powering through the tough block.

[DLDLightwave]

Fri Jan 16 20:09:29 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12285,
    "difficulty" : 0.00000168,

Fri Jan 16 20:09:55 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12286,
    "difficulty" : 0.00000210,

Fri Jan 16 20:10:44 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12287,
    "difficulty" : 0.00000420,

Fri Jan 16 20:16:22 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12288,
    "difficulty" : 0.00001051,


While (I believe) it was stated that the difficulty code was working as intended... based on numbers I see... it seems to go too far in trying to get the time to find a block back to 1 minute.  It seems like the network is too small, and luck is currently too big of a factor... you end up with several blocks in a row coming within 5-20 seconds... and then not coming for 5 minutes.  Tho I would guess the current problem is something else.

[SockPuppetAccount]

Oh, and as far as my feelings on PoS, it would certainly look a bit scammy to fully switch to PoS now as the original specifications of the coin called for 105 million credits.  Right now there are only about 600k bitcredits out in the wild + the 6 million Empoex is holding for the on hold ICO.  It would definitely feel like the PoW stage was being cut awfully short to switch to PoS now.  Of course, it is very difficult to create a successful PoW coin that can sustain the constant investment needed to maintain it's price (for that matter it's hard to sustain the price of PoS coins as well, but I digress).

I have been mining and following this coin from the get go, and I know some were opposed to raising the block reward to 200 which resulted in the current 50 reward sticking around, but perhaps an accelerated PoW mining period is in order combined with rewarding those who give out loans and grants with PoS rewards or possibly just extra % points on their PoS compared to your average holder.

To me, the ideal way forward from here would be get a GPU miner and pool up and running, decide what to do with the ICO coins (sell, burn, or keep a portion for a premine to go toward the expenses you listed earlier.  As long as you are transparent about the use of the premine, it shouldn't be a matter of concern).  Once you decide on the PoS scheme you are going to use, hardfork it, up the block rewards to 200,300,400, whatever it needs to be, and keep it as a PoW/PoS coin with steadily declining rewards until say, 3-6 months down the road all the PoW blocks are mined and it switches to pure PoS.

Early adopters get a little extra bonus by mining with low difficulty in the early days, but no one can accuse bitcredits of being a scam as everyone got plenty of time to mine and get their hands on some.

A more elaborate plan was pitched to me a few hours ago and i am still thinking on it. But basically, the ICO funds will be split into

1) development and marketing
2) Price support.

The bank and grant balances are public and have a maximum allowable value. If the balance crosses that line then the excess would be divided among those who participated in the ICO. It's better than PoS in that the growth rate is predictable, we can easily hardcode the payments by time trigger and it does not affect the hard 105 milion limit. everyone who takes part in the ICO is allocated a proportional % to their contribution and they reap perpetual benefits.

This situation deals with four of our problems though i fear loate comers may complain that they won't get a chance to participate.

Any ideas?

GPU mining is pretty high on the list right now. I am working on it and so are at least two other people.

Expenditure will be properly documented, although for now it has just been bounties and the upcoming website.

Interesting idea.  It would certainly give a significant additional bonus to those who participate in the ICO.  Which is actually pretty perfect for this scenario as mining and trading of coins is already underway.  ICO coins would be more valuable than the coins you can buy on bittrex right now.

How would that work?  Are those who buy into the ICO simply issued an address and all the perpetual benefits are sent to those addresses forever?  It's always a fine balance between rewarding early adopters but not balancing things so far in their favor that people who discover the coin later on down the road don't feel like they are getting a raw deal by buying in.  Would there be anyway of making these founder positions liquid?  It would generate a lot of interest in the coin and quiet the FUD if you could go on bittrex and buy and sell bitcredits AND buy and sell your stake in the founder positions.  I have no clue have feasible that would be technically speaking, it's just the ideal way to do this in my mind if you went that route. 

Colored coins?  Couldn't a small amount of colored bitcredits be issued to the address an ICO participant is given, and then be transferred freely?  Of course I am sure this sort of thing is FAR more complicated than a layman such as myself realizes though, especially for an overworked dev who hasn't made a dime off his efforts.  Maybe it would be doable in a perfect world but it's a bit too pie-in-the-sky right now with your limited resources and free time.

In order to do it properly with colored coins, it would be best to do PoS , that way the colored bonds would have more staking % than normal tokens.

I'll think on it and give a mock up. I'm done coding for today, too much time on a screen damages the eyes.

Is it possible to do that with a PoW/PoS hybrid?

I'm not dead set on it being PoW and it's your coin, you can do as you wish with it.  Just keep in mind that any major changes to the original specifications need to be considered very carefully now that the network has been launched.  While I think it is great that you are here everyday taking suggestions and being receptive to the feedback of the small group of people following this coin, any changes from here on out are apt to be looked at as manipulation by you and that small group of people for their own benefit!  Even if that isn't the intention in reality.  Bitcredits could be a great coin and you certainly have interesting ideas, but if it ends up getting the stink of "SCAMCOIN!!!" early on, it can be tough to wash off.

I'd say if your ideas are easier to implement in a purely PoS environment, run the ICO and then have an accelerated mining period.  Like 3 months of PoW tops.  I'm sure you could chop the number of PoW coins in half and not have anyone bitch and moan too much so that is an option.  While the PoW period is running, you will have plenty of time to perfect your vision for bitcredits in testnet and hopefully you can even raise enough funds to bring in a bit of extra help as understandably seem a bit overwhelmed at the moment.  By the time the network switches to full on PoS, everyone will have gotten plenty of time to mine and buy bitcredits, the founder positions will be liquid so there shouldn't be too much complaining there, and as interest in the coins grows a solid community who would support the further development of bitcredits should have sprung up.

Early adopters get rewarded from mining early on with low difficulty and being able to buy a large chunk of coins with founder position staking rights in the ICO, and later adopters will have plenty of opportunities to join the party down the road as we all anxiously await the launch of Bitcredits proper upon switching to PoS.  Sounds fair to me.

[DLDLightwave]

Fri Jan 16 20:16:22 GMT 2015
    "networkhashps" : 86,
    "hashespermin" : 18
    "balance" : 0.99996411,
    "blocks" : 12288,
    "difficulty" : 0.00001051,
Transferred: 50

Sat Jan 17 01:27:32 GMT 2015
    "networkhashps" : 87,
    "hashespermin" : 18
    "balance" : 0.99996411,
    "blocks" : 12289,
    "difficulty" : 0.00001261,
Transferred: 50


New block finally came in 5 hours late...   and the difficulty increased

[bitcreditscc]

Fri Jan 16 20:09:29 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12285,
    "difficulty" : 0.00000168,

Fri Jan 16 20:09:55 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12286,
    "difficulty" : 0.00000210,

Fri Jan 16 20:10:44 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12287,
    "difficulty" : 0.00000420,

Fri Jan 16 20:16:22 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12288,
    "difficulty" : 0.00001051,


While (I believe) it was stated that the difficulty code was working as intended... based on numbers I see... it seems to go too far in trying to get the time to find a block back to 1 minute.  It seems like the network is too small, and luck is currently too big of a factor... you end up with several blocks in a row coming within 5-20 seconds... and then not coming for 5 minutes.  Tho I would guess the current problem is something else.

{
"blocks" : 12403,
"currentblocksize" : 0,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.00000089,
"errors" : "",
"genproclimit" : -1,
"networkhashps" : 18,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false,
"chain" : "main",
"generate" : true,
"hashespermin" : 32
}


Nope, you are wrong the difficulty algorithm  ramps up difficulty to match network hash in 5 blocks, while  aggressively doing time keeping. While it is not perfect, it has managed to keep our silent errant miner from instamining low difficulty, whoever it/they is/are is only getting a few blocks before they are matched by the difficulty, and when they drop off suddenly, we need only solve two or so blocks to get back to normal. This is what has kept the average CPU miner in the game so long, because of a small network the difficulty matches and is always CPU friendly. When someone tries to throw (maybe) GPU mining or large CPU count in the mix, they fail to make the profit required because they end up with a matching difficulty in minutes. When our silent friend calculates the electricity used vs the rewards, they'll realize they are making losses.

If someone had figured out getwork mining, they'll only really profit by making it available to the community, because they'll have created more interest in the coin they are HODLing, more interest == better price. But if they go ahead and try to mine by themselves, they'll mine a lot of coin with no price support. Markets are funny that way.

I nearly panicked when i saw it, but proper analysis IMO has shown that the algorithm only has the problem of scaling doen when the difficulty is very high for only 2 or three blocks, once those pass, it's back to normal for everyone else.

[Bagdar13]

Good Morning,

  First, thanks for being active and giving a detailed response. 

  I just wrote a page of detailed response outlining why I thought you were wrong about the difficulty readjust algos performance....at the end realized that you were 100% correct in your analysis after looking at the numbers, the readjust algo, and several system responses to exogenous shock as hash rate increases and drops.

  I am now actually very impressed with how well the algo performed in the pretense of such increases and decreases (order of 10x magnitude over the base network hash)

   So keep it up!

Fri Jan 16 20:09:29 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12285,
    "difficulty" : 0.00000168,

Fri Jan 16 20:09:55 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12286,
    "difficulty" : 0.00000210,

Fri Jan 16 20:10:44 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12287,
    "difficulty" : 0.00000420,

Fri Jan 16 20:16:22 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12288,
    "difficulty" : 0.00001051,


While (I believe) it was stated that the difficulty code was working as intended... based on numbers I see... it seems to go too far in trying to get the time to find a block back to 1 minute.  It seems like the network is too small, and luck is currently too big of a factor... you end up with several blocks in a row coming within 5-20 seconds... and then not coming for 5 minutes.  Tho I would guess the current problem is something else.

{
"blocks" : 12403,
"currentblocksize" : 0,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.00000089,
"errors" : "",
"genproclimit" : -1,
"networkhashps" : 18,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false,
"chain" : "main",
"generate" : true,
"hashespermin" : 32
}


Nope, you are wrong the difficulty algorithm  ramps up difficulty to match network hash in 5 blocks, while  aggressively doing time keeping. While it is not perfect, it has managed to keep our silent errant miner from instamining low difficulty, whoever it/they is/are is only getting a few blocks before they are matched by the difficulty, and when they drop off suddenly, we need only solve two or so blocks to get back to normal. This is what has kept the average CPU miner in the game so long, because of a small network the difficulty matches and is always CPU friendly. When someone tries to throw (maybe) GPU mining or large CPU count in the mix, they fail to make the profit required because they end up with a matching difficulty in minutes. When our silent friend calculates the electricity used vs the rewards, they'll realize they are making losses.

If someone had figured out getwork mining, they'll only really profit by making it available to the community, because they'll have created more interest in the coin they are HODLing, more interest == better price. But if they go ahead and try to mine by themselves, they'll mine a lot of coin with no price support. Markets are funny that way.

I nearly panicked when i saw it, but proper analysis IMO has shown that the algorithm only has the problem of scaling doen when the difficulty is very high for only 2 or three blocks, once those pass, it's back to normal for everyone else.

[bitcreditscc]

Good Morning,

  First, thanks for being active and giving a detailed response. 

  I just wrote a page of detailed response outlining why I thought you were wrong about the difficulty readjust algos performance....at the end realized that you were 100% correct in your analysis after looking at the numbers, the readjust algo, and several system responses to exogenous shock as hash rate increases and drops.

  I am now actually very impressed with how well the algo performed in the pretense of such increases and decreases (order of 10x magnitude over the base network hash)

   So keep it up!

Fri Jan 16 20:09:29 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12285,
    "difficulty" : 0.00000168,

Fri Jan 16 20:09:55 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12286,
    "difficulty" : 0.00000210,

Fri Jan 16 20:10:44 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12287,
    "difficulty" : 0.00000420,

Fri Jan 16 20:16:22 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12288,
    "difficulty" : 0.00001051,


While (I believe) it was stated that the difficulty code was working as intended... based on numbers I see... it seems to go too far in trying to get the time to find a block back to 1 minute.  It seems like the network is too small, and luck is currently too big of a factor... you end up with several blocks in a row coming within 5-20 seconds... and then not coming for 5 minutes.  Tho I would guess the current problem is something else.

{
"blocks" : 12403,
"currentblocksize" : 0,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.00000089,
"errors" : "",
"genproclimit" : -1,
"networkhashps" : 18,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false,
"chain" : "main",
"generate" : true,
"hashespermin" : 32
}


Nope, you are wrong the difficulty algorithm  ramps up difficulty to match network hash in 5 blocks, while  aggressively doing time keeping. While it is not perfect, it has managed to keep our silent errant miner from instamining low difficulty, whoever it/they is/are is only getting a few blocks before they are matched by the difficulty, and when they drop off suddenly, we need only solve two or so blocks to get back to normal. This is what has kept the average CPU miner in the game so long, because of a small network the difficulty matches and is always CPU friendly. When someone tries to throw (maybe) GPU mining or large CPU count in the mix, they fail to make the profit required because they end up with a matching difficulty in minutes. When our silent friend calculates the electricity used vs the rewards, they'll realize they are making losses.

If someone had figured out getwork mining, they'll only really profit by making it available to the community, because they'll have created more interest in the coin they are HODLing, more interest == better price. But if they go ahead and try to mine by themselves, they'll mine a lot of coin with no price support. Markets are funny that way.

I nearly panicked when i saw it, but proper analysis IMO has shown that the algorithm only has the problem of scaling doen when the difficulty is very high for only 2 or three blocks, once those pass, it's back to normal for everyone else.

I applaud your diligence, it's nice to have someone questioning what i do as it helps the thinking process. Although, if we ever get a pool, i may need to make adjustments to block time to ensure at least 95% network propagation, for now we are at ~ 80% which while not bad under current circumstances (1 minute blocks) is not so good with a pool. I am also having to take into account that there will be traffic related to payment requests and volatile DB updates related to them.

[bitcreditscc]

Everyone be sure to post your vote here:- http://strawpoll.me/3393659/r

[kondiomir]

Hmm cannot figure out how to vote ?

[bitcreditscc]

Hmm cannot figure out how to vote ?

just tick YES

[bitcreditscc]

Lively discussion happening in ypool chat about the difficulty and how it is adjusting.