◈◈Bitcredit ◈◈ Migrating to UniQredit◈◈

[Nik4691]

Code:

Status: 723 confirmations
Date: 9/22/2015 00:52
To: 5qogcsbnhTweGLkH21YBSUbcr4P4uLcaTd
Debit: -3776.75000000 BCR
Transaction fee: -0.00039763 BCR
Net amount: -3776.75039763 BCR
Transaction ID: 26df9bde785137602cab76a0f6c42063c48870cd2ddb8c8e9cdb245e022ce60e-000

723+ confirmations, still not in my bittrex wallet.

Working on contacting them.... but I can't change any details in my account anymore?

Don't worry... It happens very often here. Nobody cares to inform bittrex about a  new wallet or a broken wallet or a wrong blockchain or...
Since last January, when I mention this, nothing changed.
Eventually they will get the new version and our coins will appear.

[bitcreditscc]

We are going to keep getting stranger.... I've made a new file... it will be a dump of active BNs pubkeyhashes (maybe scripts too) anyway the idea is that when a new block is received... the node cross checks the key used for the coinbase tx , if it is in the list then the block is accepted. The thing about this is that nodes starting from zero will not have this list and so may fail to sync past a certain point, i can see two ways around this:-

1) initial sync ignores the rule and only uses it when it is synced and has a list

2) The first node you connect to provides you with a list of nodes

Thoughts?

@ renegadepcsolutions i'll contact them when i'm ready with the next update.

@ Nik4691 I told them about the current version a while before i made the public announcement.

[renegadepcsolutions]

Code:

Status: 723 confirmations
Date: 9/22/2015 00:52
To: 5qogcsbnhTweGLkH21YBSUbcr4P4uLcaTd
Debit: -3776.75000000 BCR
Transaction fee: -0.00039763 BCR
Net amount: -3776.75039763 BCR
Transaction ID: 26df9bde785137602cab76a0f6c42063c48870cd2ddb8c8e9cdb245e022ce60e-000

723+ confirmations, still not in my bittrex wallet.

Working on contacting them.... but I can't change any details in my account anymore?

Don't worry... It happens very often here. Nobody cares to inform bittrex about a  new wallet or a broken wallet or a wrong blockchain or...
Since last January, when I mention this, nothing changed.
Eventually they will get the new version and our coins will appear.

Actually, Bittrex was notified as soon as bitcreditscc realized what happened.
They're working on it now. The post here was basically for posterity.

@ bitcreditscc, already taken care of. Thanks.

[renegadepcsolutions]

@ bitcreditscc, any idea what's up with these pools? I know you may not be the owner... just trying to figure something out here. I can't connect to any of them, and I know ypool has been down forever.

[bitcreditscc]

@ bitcreditscc, any idea what's up with these pools? I know you may not be the owner... just trying to figure something out here. I can't connect to any of them, and I know ypool has been down forever.

pools are obsolete, soon so will competitive mining

[bitcreditscc]

As though to try and anticipate the upcoming restrictions , seems there are two nodes now alternating block production.... So my idea to maintain a list of the last 5-10 keys (ie 5-10 blocks) may be what we resort to. If we go with 5 blocks, a miner wishing to try and dominate mining would have the cost of mining + the 250K required for 5 BNs....@ 10 blocks that doubles. I am thinking of using a dynamic limit, simply a BN can only produce one block in half the total active BNs. ie with 50 BNs active a BN can only produce one in 25 blocks.

I wish some of you would raise your issues publicly rather than in private, open discussion is good for projects like this. Anyway user X is suggesting that we do limit mining consecutive blocks but allow any user to mine , seeing as he says he has free electricity and as a result can afford to mine.

Thoughts?

[dragos_bdi]

As though to try and anticipate the upcoming restrictions , seems there are two nodes now alternating block production.... So my idea to maintain a list of the last 5-10 keys (ie 5-10 blocks) may be what we resort to. If we go with 5 blocks, a miner wishing to try and dominate mining would have the cost of mining + the 250K required for 5 BNs....@ 10 blocks that doubles. I am thinking of using a dynamic limit, simply a BN can only produce one block in half the total active BNs. ie with 50 BNs active a BN can only produce one in 25 blocks.

I wish some of you would raise your issues publicly rather than in private, open discussion is good for projects like this. Anyway user X is suggesting that we do limit mining consecutive blocks but allow any user to mine , seeing as he says he has free electricity and as a result can afford to mine.

Thoughts?

What if from 50 active BN's, 25 is not mining?
eg: 104.238.186.50 has 28BN's ... are all mining ?!

[proletariat]

As though to try and anticipate the upcoming restrictions , seems there are two nodes now alternating block production.... So my idea to maintain a list of the last 5-10 keys (ie 5-10 blocks) may be what we resort to. If we go with 5 blocks, a miner wishing to try and dominate mining would have the cost of mining + the 250K required for 5 BNs....@ 10 blocks that doubles. I am thinking of using a dynamic limit, simply a BN can only produce one block in half the total active BNs. ie with 50 BNs active a BN can only produce one in 25 blocks.

I wish some of you would raise your issues publicly rather than in private, open discussion is good for projects like this. Anyway user X is suggesting that we do limit mining consecutive blocks but allow any user to mine , seeing as he says he has free electricity and as a result can afford to mine.

Thoughts?

The bolded part sounds very good to me, it incites node ownership. as for the first part, wouldn't the miner just alternate 5 blocks on 5 off to play that rule?

PS.

I think user X is hilarious  

[dragos_bdi]

As though to try and anticipate the upcoming restrictions , seems there are two nodes now alternating block production.... So my idea to maintain a list of the last 5-10 keys (ie 5-10 blocks) may be what we resort to. If we go with 5 blocks, a miner wishing to try and dominate mining would have the cost of mining + the 250K required for 5 BNs....@ 10 blocks that doubles. I am thinking of using a dynamic limit, simply a BN can only produce one block in half the total active BNs. ie with 50 BNs active a BN can only produce one in 25 blocks.

I wish some of you would raise your issues publicly rather than in private, open discussion is good for projects like this. Anyway user X is suggesting that we do limit mining consecutive blocks but allow any user to mine , seeing as he says he has free electricity and as a result can afford to mine.

Thoughts?

The bolded part sounds very good to me, it incites node ownership. as for the first part, wouldn't the miner just alternate 5 blocks on 5 off to play that rule?

PS.

I think user X is hilarious  

What if, after an update (often happen that) there is only one BN online that mine, or "better", none. How can the chain be moved ?

[proletariat]

As though to try and anticipate the upcoming restrictions , seems there are two nodes now alternating block production.... So my idea to maintain a list of the last 5-10 keys (ie 5-10 blocks) may be what we resort to. If we go with 5 blocks, a miner wishing to try and dominate mining would have the cost of mining + the 250K required for 5 BNs....@ 10 blocks that doubles. I am thinking of using a dynamic limit, simply a BN can only produce one block in half the total active BNs. ie with 50 BNs active a BN can only produce one in 25 blocks.

I wish some of you would raise your issues publicly rather than in private, open discussion is good for projects like this. Anyway user X is suggesting that we do limit mining consecutive blocks but allow any user to mine , seeing as he says he has free electricity and as a result can afford to mine.

Thoughts?

The bolded part sounds very good to me, it incites node ownership. as for the first part, wouldn't the miner just alternate 5 blocks on 5 off to play that rule?

PS.

I think user X is hilarious  

What if, after an update (often happen that) there is only one BN online that mine, or "better", none. How can the chain be moved ?

thats a problem alright.

What about something like a 'super-node' that mines when the BN count is below a threshold?

**EDIT**
or super low % PoS

[bitcreditscc]

As though to try and anticipate the upcoming restrictions , seems there are two nodes now alternating block production.... So my idea to maintain a list of the last 5-10 keys (ie 5-10 blocks) may be what we resort to. If we go with 5 blocks, a miner wishing to try and dominate mining would have the cost of mining + the 250K required for 5 BNs....@ 10 blocks that doubles. I am thinking of using a dynamic limit, simply a BN can only produce one block in half the total active BNs. ie with 50 BNs active a BN can only produce one in 25 blocks.

I wish some of you would raise your issues publicly rather than in private, open discussion is good for projects like this. Anyway user X is suggesting that we do limit mining consecutive blocks but allow any user to mine , seeing as he says he has free electricity and as a result can afford to mine.

Thoughts?

What if from 50 active BN's, 25 is not mining?
eg: 104.238.186.50 has 28BN's ... are all mining ?!

We are not worried about the location....we are worried if it actually is a BN, ie with the unspent 50K input.

[bitcreditscc]

As though to try and anticipate the upcoming restrictions , seems there are two nodes now alternating block production.... So my idea to maintain a list of the last 5-10 keys (ie 5-10 blocks) may be what we resort to. If we go with 5 blocks, a miner wishing to try and dominate mining would have the cost of mining + the 250K required for 5 BNs....@ 10 blocks that doubles. I am thinking of using a dynamic limit, simply a BN can only produce one block in half the total active BNs. ie with 50 BNs active a BN can only produce one in 25 blocks.

I wish some of you would raise your issues publicly rather than in private, open discussion is good for projects like this. Anyway user X is suggesting that we do limit mining consecutive blocks but allow any user to mine , seeing as he says he has free electricity and as a result can afford to mine.

Thoughts?

The bolded part sounds very good to me, it incites node ownership. as for the first part, wouldn't the miner just alternate 5 blocks on 5 off to play that rule?

PS.

I think user X is hilarious  

What if, after an update (often happen that) there is only one BN online that mine, or "better", none. How can the chain be moved ?

thats a problem alright.

What about something like a 'super-node' that mines when the BN count is below a threshold?

**EDIT**
or super low % PoS

BN registration is a network message, it's not dependent on blocks moving, still a simple line saying :-  if BNcount<1 || isinitialsync() continue; would suffice. Decentralization is key, the network should be easy enough for anyone to restart in case of even a major disaster.

[bitcreditscc]

As though to try and anticipate the upcoming restrictions , seems there are two nodes now alternating block production.... So my idea to maintain a list of the last 5-10 keys (ie 5-10 blocks) may be what we resort to. If we go with 5 blocks, a miner wishing to try and dominate mining would have the cost of mining + the 250K required for 5 BNs....@ 10 blocks that doubles. I am thinking of using a dynamic limit, simply a BN can only produce one block in half the total active BNs. ie with 50 BNs active a BN can only produce one in 25 blocks.

I wish some of you would raise your issues publicly rather than in private, open discussion is good for projects like this. Anyway user X is suggesting that we do limit mining consecutive blocks but allow any user to mine , seeing as he says he has free electricity and as a result can afford to mine.

Thoughts?

The bolded part sounds very good to me, it incites node ownership. as for the first part, wouldn't the miner just alternate 5 blocks on 5 off to play that rule?

PS.

I think user X is hilarious  

lol i think user X calculated the amount of BCR he needed to populate his botnet and realized what we are doing to his operation.

[doesntmatter]

easy enough.... and if one cpu can encode it fast, will take a real computer very little time to hack through it...
mining and the rise in hash are GOOD!!! Look at what happened to both PTS and BTS when pts converted.... AND they made $100MIL upfront!!!! everyone who had paid lost!  but really.... you thinkk the blocks will flow with all these rules... so what happens if someone ddos 2 or 3 node.... the rest CAN'T move the chain??? and my 1$ a day is ADDING TO THE VALUE.... because i seldom sell!

I have never been in this for the money and held this network up for several months...  but this is exactly what is wrong with the world... we don't like what that guy is doing, oh just make a rule against it!

I can make this real easy... your network is NOT P2P as it doesn't connect... THIS NET is centralized!!!  without your "main" nodes to communicate it doesn't make or receive new connections, that is why i don't seem to appear in the nodes list....

PLUS how is any of that currency from others coins going to raise your value, when it is not actually transferred without burning the original coin of the other chain??? and who has the keys to those addresses...? and how is any of that yours? you get your bcr like the rest who have done nothing but support dumping miners from before....

all of a sudden this seems more like a bank than ever...

doesntmatter

[proletariat]

^^^^^^

very low PoS for ddos on the BNs? that is centralized though isn't it? with the master key and all

[alganonim]

As though to try and anticipate the upcoming restrictions , seems there are two nodes now alternating block production.... So my idea to maintain a list of the last 5-10 keys (ie 5-10 blocks) may be what we resort to. If we go with 5 blocks, a miner wishing to try and dominate mining would have the cost of mining + the 250K required for 5 BNs....@ 10 blocks that doubles. I am thinking of using a dynamic limit, simply a BN can only produce one block in half the total active BNs. ie with 50 BNs active a BN can only produce one in 25 blocks.

I wish some of you would raise your issues publicly rather than in private, open discussion is good for projects like this. Anyway user X is suggesting that we do limit mining consecutive blocks but allow any user to mine , seeing as he says he has free electricity and as a result can afford to mine.

Thoughts?

What if from 50 active BN's, 25 is not mining?
eg: 104.238.186.50 has 28BN's ... are all mining ?!

We are not worried about the location....we are worried if it actually is a BN, ie with the unspent 50K input.

If we will go with such restrictive rules then why not to made first a rule inside a mining BN that after findind it's block it stops to mine for this 5 consecutive blocks, why to waste energy and CPU cycles for example second BN with another port on the same ip/VPS can mine with this CPU. It then could be allocated not one core per one BN on one port (setgenerate true 1) but with all cores shared minus BNs that found blocks lastly.

And about "One strange thing i'd like users to confirm for me : bidtracker/final.dat is showing zero values only in windows ? While linux users have accurate numbers?"

Confirmed , final.dat on linux shows bids, on windows only shows zero values.



@dragos_bdi
And no, only 1 core and 1 BN is mining right now for these 28 BNs,  +  ocassionaly few local cores for a few these BNs addresses (don't know how it counts and what rules are applied), and probably will stays that way.

[dragos_bdi]

As though to try and anticipate the upcoming restrictions , seems there are two nodes now alternating block production.... So my idea to maintain a list of the last 5-10 keys (ie 5-10 blocks) may be what we resort to. If we go with 5 blocks, a miner wishing to try and dominate mining would have the cost of mining + the 250K required for 5 BNs....@ 10 blocks that doubles. I am thinking of using a dynamic limit, simply a BN can only produce one block in half the total active BNs. ie with 50 BNs active a BN can only produce one in 25 blocks.

I wish some of you would raise your issues publicly rather than in private, open discussion is good for projects like this. Anyway user X is suggesting that we do limit mining consecutive blocks but allow any user to mine , seeing as he says he has free electricity and as a result can afford to mine.

Thoughts?

What if from 50 active BN's, 25 is not mining?
eg: 104.238.186.50 has 28BN's ... are all mining ?!

We are not worried about the location....we are worried if it actually is a BN, ie with the unspent 50K input.

If we will go with such restrictive rules then why not to made first a rule inside a mining BN that after findind it's block it stops to mine for this 5 consecutive blocks, why to waste energy and CPU cycles for example second BN with another port on the same ip/VPS can mine with this CPU. It then could be allocated not one core per one BN on one port (setgenerate true 1) but with all cores shared minus BNs that found blocks lastly.

And about "One strange thing i'd like users to confirm for me : bidtracker/final.dat is showing zero values only in windows ? While linux users have accurate numbers?"

Confirmed , final.dat on linux shows bids, on windows only shows zero values.



@dragos_bdi
And no, only 1 core and 1 BN is mining right now for these 28 BNs,  +  ocassionaly few local cores for a few these BNs addresses (don't know how it counts and what rules are applied), and probably will stays that way.

Exactly !

So, from 53 BN's active, at most 53- 28 + 1 = 26 are mining.
So if you impose a limit that one BN can mine only one time @ 53/2 = aprox. 26 blocks, that is at limit. What if from the rest of 26 active BN's, there are another 3-4 BN's that are not mining? We STOP !
Same scenario could be theoretical possible if you limit @5 ... or other numbers.

I also confirm that on linux bids are OK, but in windows, no.

[bitcreditscc]

^^^^^^

very low PoS for ddos on the BNs? that is centralized though isn't it? with the master key and all

This network does not rely on a masterkey, there are no longer any central nodes as users now connect to each other pure p2p.

@ doesntmatter out of 100 miners , how many would have the same mind frame as you? Further as you have stated you are doing , you are using external miners which do not honour payout blocks, thereby depriving the network of the growth we are trying to foster. Please if there is any point of centralization, please , please point it out. Even the "spork" code that made others jittery has been filtered out. Noone is central as far as connectivity is concerned. As for other coins adding value, that could not be any clearer, they send to an address we own, we allocate them bcr and we sell what they sent us, and send the BTC to the multi-sig address.

I think you need to step back fro the "miner" mentality and look at this from a finance point of view. What does burning electricity add to BCR's or any coin's fundamental value? Can you explain to an everyday user of money , (i am talking 7 billion people) how "cryptography" and a lot of electricity/hot air gives value to something?

The reason gold was so popular as money, is that it has uses beyond value of measure...can you tell me a use for 0's and 1's made by burning a ton of electricity , other than the fact that they are a nearly definitive transfer of assumed value? Practical analysis by major finance minds still leaves Bitcoin looking as a security/commodity rather than as actual money and even then it's value is highly speculative because noone can actually say that it has a threshold value.

For the purposes of BTC, perhaps their model works. But for the purposes of BCR and our intended spectrum of services/utilities , i completely disagree with your views.

[gavrilo77]

As i see with the mining (for example one R9 290) is possible to have 1500-2000 BCR/day. With the one node maybe 60-100 BCR.

I would do:

for the first two BN 50 000
for the next two BN 75 000
for the next two BN 100 000
...

Otherwise mining trough the BN will not have that much sense if somebody has 30 nodes.

[bitcreditscc]

As though to try and anticipate the upcoming restrictions , seems there are two nodes now alternating block production.... So my idea to maintain a list of the last 5-10 keys (ie 5-10 blocks) may be what we resort to. If we go with 5 blocks, a miner wishing to try and dominate mining would have the cost of mining + the 250K required for 5 BNs....@ 10 blocks that doubles. I am thinking of using a dynamic limit, simply a BN can only produce one block in half the total active BNs. ie with 50 BNs active a BN can only produce one in 25 blocks.

I wish some of you would raise your issues publicly rather than in private, open discussion is good for projects like this. Anyway user X is suggesting that we do limit mining consecutive blocks but allow any user to mine , seeing as he says he has free electricity and as a result can afford to mine.

Thoughts?

What if from 50 active BN's, 25 is not mining?
eg: 104.238.186.50 has 28BN's ... are all mining ?!

We are not worried about the location....we are worried if it actually is a BN, ie with the unspent 50K input.

If we will go with such restrictive rules then why not to made first a rule inside a mining BN that after findind it's block it stops to mine for this 5 consecutive blocks, why to waste energy and CPU cycles for example second BN with another port on the same ip/VPS can mine with this CPU. It then could be allocated not one core per one BN on one port (setgenerate true 1) but with all cores shared minus BNs that found blocks lastly.

And about "One strange thing i'd like users to confirm for me : bidtracker/final.dat is showing zero values only in windows ? While linux users have accurate numbers?"

Confirmed , final.dat on linux shows bids, on windows only shows zero values.



@dragos_bdi
And no, only 1 core and 1 BN is mining right now for these 28 BNs,  +  ocassionaly few local cores for a few these BNs addresses (don't know how it counts and what rules are applied), and probably will stays that way.

That's a great idea but it would clash with the suggested policy of dynamic limiting and the "1 core" policy. if we istitute limits in the mining threads..what if the limit adjusts to 4 or two blocks?

Thanks for the tip on windows....can't seem to figure out why though... i'll have to spin up a vm and try getting a build/test environ for it .