◈◈Bitcredit ◈◈ Migrating to UniQredit◈◈

[bitcreditscc]

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.

The problem here would be distinguishing accurately whic node belongs to who  the overall logic would fail since people can just as simply import the privkey into a new wallet.

[dragos_bdi]

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 .

I think the problem goes from opening the addresses (eg. https://blockchain.info) in curl.
Opening a website address in windows has to pass through windows policies/IE security policies ... and so on.

In linux, you don't have such limitations ...

[bitcreditscc]

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 .

I think the problem goes from opening the addresses (eg. https://blockchain.info) in curl.
Opening a website address in windows has to pass through windows policies/IE security policies ... and so on.

In linux, you don't have such limitations ...

Maybe we can try using json to get around it, talked to hack_ about it, but he's gone off the grid again.

[dragos_bdi]

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 .

I think the problem goes from opening the addresses (eg. https://blockchain.info) in curl.
Opening a website address in windows has to pass through windows policies/IE security policies ... and so on.

In linux, you don't have such limitations ...

Maybe we can try using json to get around it, talked to hack_ about it, but he's gone off the grid again.

recompiling the curl again to make sure I have https support.
testing ...

[thelonecrouton]

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?

My (linux) final.dat looks like this right now:

Code:

1NFPKQdfigWdfGwZmhSZKomvoUYvJWUqW9,100000.000000
1ASJQ7SE84sgQketS2kQCTQLV3DJesYnLh,4000000.000000
1PEWVhJaaLYuhT8Nor4gVjKn9rDiCWJJEk,1000000.000000
1KgKG9SWSTUCqaC7kmaBFL87EUCsE7ot38,100000.000000
1ASJQ7SE84sgQketS2kQCTQLV3DJesYnLh,1000000.000000
1FkwyC42xdHHw3QEVgUfJg8ihVUfbxKaJB,1200000.000000
LS18wropMM8VwT8YFiEZJE7LK8UdZVXXyE,1235.300000
XyHvWG9iAhtmk31gMymsfdhuC1DQg1Sr8K,10534.380000
XvwiNgZctKuiKCvnbFy2z3fBUqfWAyqNTb,105343.800000
XmKJ7KmtrQr1E3dgvcbjbDVyZngRpH9aSg,105343.800000

It is not accurate though, have made two bids with DASH since the ones shown, from XmKJ7KmtrQr1E3dgvcbjbDVyZngRpH9aSg: heh, I was going to post a link but you can just click the DASH bidding address in-wallet...

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?

User X is a mooching schmuck, his parents/landlord/employer are paying for that electricity, nothing is free.

[thelonecrouton]

my 1$ a day is ADDING TO THE VALUE

No it isn't, unless you can find a bigger fool to sell to. This is called a Ponzi scheme.

If I build two identical houses, using all the same materials, but for the second house, instead of using my usual suppliers and contractors, I instead choose to pay 100000X more to some other suppliers and contractors for exactly the same thing - does that make the second house worth 100000X more when I come to sell it? Obviously not.

In the analogue world, production costs can and do affect price, if I'd built the second house out of higher quality materials and the workmanship on everything was better, it would be worth more, but here it's just 1's and 0's. 1's and 0's are free, pretending that because you wasted money making yours, they should somehow be more valuable than anyone else's is nonsense.


What you are doing right now is preventing value being added to BCR. It's all good though, we need to make this robust against such behaviour.

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!

Righteous outrage of the entitled! 

[thelonecrouton]

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 .

I think the problem goes from opening the addresses (eg. https://blockchain.info) in curl.
Opening a website address in windows has to pass through windows policies/IE security policies ... and so on.

In linux, you don't have such limitations ...

Surely in Windows, these sites still work...? Why would the OS allow a browser to display the http request result but not pass it to something else? I realise this may be a silly question.  

Maybe the Win client needs to register with Windows... "Hello OS, I am actually a browser, give me the html!"

[thelonecrouton]

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.

BN mining could be made compulsory? If the limit was 1 in n blocks, you'd only need n BNs to get the chain moving again after an update - no big deal.

eg. 'banknode start' would automatically call 'setgenerate true 1'

I would have no problem with this.


I suppose there would need to be some sort of check by the network to verify that a BN was actually mining, to prevent modified clients NOP'ing the setgenerate call?

[bitcreditscc]

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.

BN mining could be made compulsory? If the limit was 1 in n blocks, you'd only need n BNs to get the chain moving again after an update - no big deal.

eg. 'banknode start' would automatically call 'setgenerate true 1'

I would have no problem with this.


I suppose there would need to be some sort of check by the network to verify that a BN was actually mining, to prevent modified clients NOP'ing the setgenerate call?

I can see no immediate/easy way to verify that a node is mining within the instant, but we can use a more advanced piece of lookback as part of the proof of service module.

We agree that once a BN is active it has at least one core dedicated to mining....tso we say that the longest a node should go without producing a blocky should be two cycles....which in BCR has been determined to be  900 blocks * 2.

So we then create a proof of service policy that looks back 1800 blocks and compares the lists, if a BN that has been active >1800 blocks but has not mined a block exists, then it gets marked as invalid and stops receiving payments, shortly there after it is dropped from the list.

[dragos_bdi]

Sorry, my bad. Seems that my curl compiled version was compiled without ssl support.

Windows 64 bit - 0.30.17.2-fixssl Download link: https://mega.nz/#!T11S1YIT!VDe4TZhtWZDv4y-7XW4q5a0vSCqdg03MwnhyvdtlKOA

[bitcreditscc]

Some could mistake the point's against us moving to a more cooperative model as shying away from capitalism. Rather we are trying to encourage constructive capitalism that benefits not only the user but they system they use. Consider: what are miners doing? They are coming to leech value from BCR (through dumping) , by flooding the sell side of markets, in an attempt to 1) stave of the cost and 2) make a profit.

But their investment is not into BCR, their investment is into hardware, cooling and power. So they are paying companies X,Y and Z and in turn getting BCR from this, which they need to cycle o the markets to once again pay X,Y,Z..... there is NO investment made into BCR at this point. And because the initial investent fro which the miner leeches value is finite....we see all cryptos have a very similar graph (slope angle differs but it's all generally going) DOWN. This analysis does not need a PhD to make, just  a dispassionate mind that asses facts and comes to the logical conclusion.... The idea of backing with "hot air" is an incredibly flawed and wasteful method.

The original concept by satoshi was a great idea, but seeing as how one could not predict the current state of things , there was no fixing it.

What satoshi did was make the security model and rewards model entwined and co-dependent this was also a means of encouraging participation...ie, if you want coins, you have to mine them , thus you help secure the network.

We on the other had are trying to separate the two and place as much of the burden as we realistically and logically can on the 24/7 players of the network....by default.

Securing the blockchain

Securing the blockchain works on the "longest chain with most work done" rule set and thus prevents a malicious user usurping the existing chain by requiring this user to have enough hash power to blot out the other miners...ie the so called 51% attack.

For the bitcoin network, this now nearly impossible as andreas antonopoulos points out that the cost alone is more than 60% of the worlds' nations would ever spend on any single line item on their budgets. For smaller networks this remains a major problem though as it becomes more feasible to attack in this manner but in the same 2 minutes, andreas antonopoulos then states....say you successfully attack and disrupt the chain... a two minute patch and new checkpoint would immediately lay waste to all the work and investment you put into disrupting the chain. And any item you attempt to enforce on the users by way of having the most hash would be forked out too. Hard forks are not just for repair and upgrades, they are a tool available to developers (the nuke option) to deal with malicious actors.

So how do we deal with this is a non nuclear manner? We first decouple the rewards from mining and make it such that mining , while it does pay...the amount is not too much incentive to get inventive to kick of a arms race.... then we introduce a limitation that prevents a super node from mining everything. This is done in two steps, we increase the cost of mining by requiring that a miner posses 50K BCR, then further we add a policy that restricts the number of blocks a node can produce in a given timespan. What this does is disrupt the typical mining regime of fire and forget , and if you have the highest hash, you are the highest paid. Rather, no matter how you struggle, your 50K BCR can only earn you 1 BCR in every 8. So then we have the possibility of a rich malicious actor purchasing multiple BNs and trying to once again dominate the stage... the net result would be an increase in price @ the market as the user purchases the coins and likely other users also getting nodes to share in the suddenly profitable operation of running a BN, which would prompt our bad user to buy more so as to maintain the dominative edge, and the cycle would continue until it becomes financially unsustainable to attenpt to control the network.\

Consider:- to successfully dominate today's network, one needs to purchase @ least 60 BNs.... roughly 3 million BCR, such a purchase would sky rocket the price but allow our bad user a temporary majority....however as we all know there are at least an additional 150 BNs that lie idle which would come to life with massive urgency as the owners would want to jump on the suddenly highly lucrative investment. This leaves our bad user holding at best 1/4 of the network, thus requiring him/her to spend more of their money to regain their lead, again raising the price. @ this point most people would be reluctant to sell their BCR as that would constitute selling the prize cow. So not only does it get financially difficult to gain control , the actual credits would be hard to find.

The requirement of BN only mining is part of this but also serves a crucial role.... BNs are typically online 24/7 and as such they are the "anchors" of the network that enable syncing/tx relay. They are subsidized for this in part, but now their duties include tx processing, that is to secure the chain and allow value transfer by production of blocks. More duties will be delegated to these nodes so that they "earn their keep".

Distribution

One of the key factors of PoW is that it is used to distribute rewards to users for their contribution to the security of the network. This is all well and jolly except where does the value for these rewards come from ? Once again it is leeched off the initial investments made by users in the beginning and the small additions that join later, which is grossly insufficient. Also what about new users who cannot/do not want to go through the hassle of mining/owning a BN to get coins? How do we resolve this while at the same time finding a way to create and grow the fundamental value of BCR? How do we take the speculative edge of BCR from (0.0 BTC to infinity)  to (0.001 BTC to infinity) thereby creating a minimum real price floor?

We resolved that users should be allowed to purchase/bid for BCR right off the blockchain, very simple , yet highly effective. The fV of BCR is increased every time a user bids, be it a tiny amount or a larger amount.... at the same time users can now get their coins right off the chain, and sometimes at a bargain in comparison to markets.  

Overall the logic behind maintaining a PoW regime that gives money away to companies/services unaffiliated with BCR is flawed.

[bitcreditscc]

Sorry, my bad. Seems that my curl compiled version was compiled without ssl support.

Windows 64 bit - 0.30.17.2-fixssl Download link: https://mega.nz/#!T11S1YIT!VDe4TZhtWZDv4y-7XW4q5a0vSCqdg03MwnhyvdtlKOA

Great!!! let's see how this goes. Meanwhile i am working out the final set of rules we can set to ensure the behavior we want is respected on the chain.

[alganonim]

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.

BN mining could be made compulsory? If the limit was 1 in n blocks, you'd only need n BNs to get the chain moving again after an update - no big deal.

eg. 'banknode start' would automatically call 'setgenerate true 1'

I would have no problem with this.


I suppose there would need to be some sort of check by the network to verify that a BN was actually mining, to prevent modified clients NOP'ing the setgenerate call?

I can see no immediate/easy way to verify that a node is mining within the instant, but we can use a more advanced piece of lookback as part of the proof of service module.

We agree that once a BN is active it has at least one core dedicated to mining....tso we say that the longest a node should go without producing a blocky should be two cycles....which in BCR has been determined to be  900 blocks * 2.

So we then create a proof of service policy that looks back 1800 blocks and compares the lists, if a BN that has been active >1800 blocks but has not mined a block exists, then it gets marked as invalid and stops receiving payments, shortly there after it is dropped from the list.

If it will be made compulsory, in case of using cold wallet VPS, how will be treated BN local wallet, from which actual VPS BN wallet was started ?

If I will ocassionally mine on those local BN wallets just to mine some block at proper time, will it be ok or I'm just giving you some loophole ?


I'm trying to be honest, but changing this rules to compulsory makes a lot of difference for me, and what about idea of making Bigger Banknodes, this could resolve some problems if it would be 250k BCR for BBN, and I would not be the only one happy from it. Even if it happen then it would increase costs of running it 5-10 times, don't wanna even think about mining on all BNs permanently, it would increase costs 25-50 times !

Or anyone can suggests some reliable and reasonably cheap VPS services with 30 cores (1-2 for server and pure BN working, rest for BN mining) , 30GB Ram, 40GB SSD/HDD) , checked already on win and linux in both my case BN uses 1GB of Ram not 750MB like in your case, and you can't use all cores for BN mining permanently and to work it stable, you said that we are early adopters but there's a few of us and will be a lot more soon.

I know that hack is ready with his rigs, sorry I'm not ....  

[thelonecrouton]

If it will be made compulsory, in case of using cold wallet VPS, how will be treated BN local wallet, from which actual VPS BN wallet was started ?

If I will ocassionally mine on those local BN wallets just to mine some block at proper time, will it be ok or I'm just giving you some loophole ?

I don't think it should affect hot/cold setups at all - to the network the daemon running on the VPS *is* the BN, the cold wallet is just used to start/stop it. Only the dameon that *is* the BN will be allowed to mine.

I'm trying to be honest, but changing this rules to compulsory makes a lot of difference for me, and what about idea of making Bigger Banknodes, this could resolve some problems if it would be 250k BCR for BBN, and I would not be the only one happy from it. Even if it happen then it would increase costs of running it 5-10 times, don't wanna even think about mining on all BNs permanently, it would increase costs 25-50 times !

Or anyone can suggests some reliable and reasonably cheap VPS services with 30 cores (1-2 for server and pure BN working, rest for BN mining) , 30GB Ram, 40GB SSD/HDD) , checked already on win and linux in both my case BN uses 1GB of Ram not 750MB like in your case, and you can't use all cores for BN mining permanently and to work it stable, you said that we are early adopters but there's a few of us and will be a lot more soon.

I know that hack is ready with his rigs, sorry I'm not ....  

I'm also waiting to be able to set up a smaller number of higher-collateral BNs, I just don't have the time currently to admin a large number of smaller ones. My current VPS providers will kick me off if I'm running a core 100% 24/7 so I'll be running my BNs on my own boxes at my own locations.

Another option might be to find a company that allows you to plug your own box(es) into their datacentre? They aren't going to care if you fry your own hardware.

[thelonecrouton]

For the bitcoin network, this now nearly impossible as andreas antonopoulos points out that the cost alone is more than 60% of the worlds' nations would ever spend on any single line item on their budgets. For smaller networks this remains a major problem though as it becomes more feasible to attack in this manner but in the same 2 minutes, andreas antonopoulos then states....say you successfully attack and disrupt the chain... a two minute patch and new checkpoint would immediately lay waste to all the work and investment you put into disrupting the chain. And any item you attempt to enforce on the users by way of having the most hash would be forked out too. Hard forks are not just for repair and upgrades, they are a tool available to developers (the nuke option) to deal with malicious actors.

AA's argument would be valid if everyone solo-mined, but he seems to have conveniently forgotten that mining pools, which are publicly known or easily discoverable entities, make compromising large percentages of the total hash less costly in direct proportion to how much hash is funnelled through them... 4/5+ orders of magnitude less costly in the case of the biggest pools, of which there are a small number.

Cheapest attack I can think of: a single phone call from an alphabet agency to the pool hosting companies (via proxy jurisdictional buddy if required) and the plug gets pulled. 30% of the BTC network wiped out in 60 seconds at a cost of $0.01. How many plugs would need to be pulled to take out 90%+ of the BTC network? Not that many... not terminal perhaps, but a glaring vulnerability.

[bitcreditscc]

If it will be made compulsory, in case of using cold wallet VPS, how will be treated BN local wallet, from which actual VPS BN wallet was started ?

If I will ocassionally mine on those local BN wallets just to mine some block at proper time, will it be ok or I'm just giving you some loophole ?

I don't think it should affect hot/cold setups at all - to the network the daemon running on the VPS *is* the BN, the cold wallet is just used to start/stop it. Only the dameon that *is* the BN will be allowed to mine.

I'm trying to be honest, but changing this rules to compulsory makes a lot of difference for me, and what about idea of making Bigger Banknodes, this could resolve some problems if it would be 250k BCR for BBN, and I would not be the only one happy from it. Even if it happen then it would increase costs of running it 5-10 times, don't wanna even think about mining on all BNs permanently, it would increase costs 25-50 times !

Or anyone can suggests some reliable and reasonably cheap VPS services with 30 cores (1-2 for server and pure BN working, rest for BN mining) , 30GB Ram, 40GB SSD/HDD) , checked already on win and linux in both my case BN uses 1GB of Ram not 750MB like in your case, and you can't use all cores for BN mining permanently and to work it stable, you said that we are early adopters but there's a few of us and will be a lot more soon.

I know that hack is ready with his rigs, sorry I'm not ....  

I'm also waiting to be able to set up a smaller number of higher-collateral BNs, I just don't have the time currently to admin a large number of smaller ones. My current VPS providers will kick me off if I'm running a core 100% 24/7 so I'll be running my BNs on my own boxes at my own locations.

Another option might be to find a company that allows you to plug your own box(es) into their datacentre? They aren't going to care if you fry your own hardware.

To assist in the hot/cold situation i will add an new item that you can set in your config....ie you can set the bnminingkey.... that means you can use any wallet/node to mine using your BN's pubkeyhash, much like you do with p2pool mining where your username is your address.

Still working out some details and code , but i'll have a report soon.

The idea for multiple types of BNs is extremely high on my to-do list, likely next in line along with some other items. One issue i am still struggling with is how to separate the levels of rewards without too much modification to the coinbase structure.

Wait....you guys realize that you have multiple BNs because you are early adopters and supporters right? In future the average BN count will likely be 1....

Also the only reason it seems so bad is because someone keeps trying to mine as much as they can before i close the loopholes... the target net hashrate is the one we had fro a couple of days.... ie< 1 h/s . At that rate even a r-pi can mine a block (i will post instruction on how to build for r-pi soon) lol, we would be able to secure the entire network with a couple of r-pis.....while others spend millions  

[bitcreditscc]

For the bitcoin network, this now nearly impossible as andreas antonopoulos points out that the cost alone is more than 60% of the worlds' nations would ever spend on any single line item on their budgets. For smaller networks this remains a major problem though as it becomes more feasible to attack in this manner but in the same 2 minutes, andreas antonopoulos then states....say you successfully attack and disrupt the chain... a two minute patch and new checkpoint would immediately lay waste to all the work and investment you put into disrupting the chain. And any item you attempt to enforce on the users by way of having the most hash would be forked out too. Hard forks are not just for repair and upgrades, they are a tool available to developers (the nuke option) to deal with malicious actors.

AA's argument would be valid if everyone solo-mined, but he seems to have conveniently forgotten that mining pools, which are publicly known or easily discoverable entities, make compromising large percentages of the total hash less costly in direct proportion to how much hash is funnelled through them... 4/5+ orders of magnitude less costly in the case of the biggest pools, of which there are a small number.

Cheapest attack I can think of: a single phone call from an alphabet agency to the pool hosting companies (via proxy jurisdictional buddy if required) and the plug gets pulled. 30% of the BTC network wiped out in 60 seconds at a cost of $0.01. How many plugs would need to be pulled to take out 90%+ of the BTC network? Not that many... not terminal perhaps, but a glaring vulnerability.

Quite true, we on the other hand immediately eliminate pool mining by blocking consecutive blocks. While the BNs are concentrated in maybe< 30 hands at the moment this situation will resolve itself once price rises as a result of backing, some users will offload and new ones will join, as well as some simply buying on over the course of two or three days. The seeming centralization that we have is a result of there only being a small strong following of BCR, if it had 1000 daily users we, would see a wider spread of everything from nodes to credits. This will coe to be areality once we figure out how to enforce bidding payouts, as well as start seeing an increasing minimum price. 

[bitcreditscc]

Just in case, this is a discussion about how we proceed and i am very open to abandoning the whole plan if you can give a strong enough argument against mine and tlc's reasoning in this case. We believe in the idea strongly and thus defend it, but if someone can prove to us that we are wrong, we will back down.

[doesntmatter]

my 1$ a day is ADDING TO THE VALUE

No it isn't, unless you can find a bigger fool to sell to. This is called a Ponzi scheme.

If I build two identical houses, using all the same materials, but for the second house, instead of using my usual suppliers and contractors, I instead choose to pay 100000X more to some other suppliers and contractors for exactly the same thing - does that make the second house worth 100000X more when I come to sell it? Obviously not.

In the analogue world, production costs can and do affect price, if I'd built the second house out of higher quality materials and the workmanship on everything was better, it would be worth more, but here it's just 1's and 0's. 1's and 0's are free, pretending that because you wasted money making yours, they should somehow be more valuable than anyone else's is nonsense.


What you are doing right now is preventing value being added to BCR. It's all good though, we need to make this robust against such behaviour.

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!

Righteous outrage of the entitled! 

well, you have never had a million of anything... if the second house is made shit wouldn't matter because I have made houses scarce because no one will sell theirs for less than 1 mil...
supply and demand... so far, i am the only one to create ANY demand!!!  I did the only PR for this coin EVER!!!

I spread this coin to ypool.  I created the only facebook link.  My involvement got the dev a little help in the beginning...  Where were all of you in Jan, Feb, and March???  no one was complaining about my use of electricity then...

It works more like free drinks at the bar... Everyone at the bar gets free drinks, but i tip, so i get more drinks more often... you want more drinks, tip better...
you think it is just about cost... but it is more about difficulty...

what you are doing is accepting Commodities for Other commodities... I hope you have spoken with a lot of lawyers... because any transaction done this way violates United States treaties, and requires about a million dollars in licenses... Without an international commodities license this tactic will end you up in jail...

It's a great idea, just costs alot... BTS got around it by using the term DONATIONS.... AT LEAST LEARN THIS!!!
you can't have "BIDS" for your "COMMODITIES" without it being said that you "sell"... can i get your license number please? do you login from your ip??? to buy something from you in the USA i need a lot of information to NOT BE BREAKING THE LAW!!!

doesntmatter

[bitcreditscc]

If you run a build off the git right now..... you'll see that i have introduced a thread that creates a text file that contains a list of active BNs. using this list it becomes trivial to compare new blocks and see if the keys that are producing blocks match any in this list.

Also you'll see there is a new line that is occasionally popping up that tells you when it detects a key that has signed two consecutive blocks.