I just can't get enough of CGA! I seem to spend most of my free time on this forum hitting refresh lol.
haha n1!
Topic: âš’[CGA] Cryptographic Anomaly - The Elusive Coinâš’ - page 69. (Read 226291 times)
haha n1!
we need a mac client that works please!
A few quick questions about tomorrow's update:
Have you been in contact with the two exchanges regarding the update?
Are they ready for the update?
Please don't fork this coin up royally.
Have you been in contact with the two exchanges regarding the update?
Are they ready for the update?
Please don't fork this coin up royally.
I just can't get enough of CGA! I seem to spend most of my free time on this forum hitting refresh lol.
Probaqbly a bit late, but a I had a few questions/thoughts which I'd hoped to get in before the new update was released:
1. roughly how many coins do you expect to be mined, say per 1,000 blocks? And following on from that is the total number of coins still appropriate, given the reward change? (though I'm not even sure if this is change-able).
2. the wallet itself - well, it isn't very exciting - have you looked at other wallets for inspiration? For example the Unobtanium wallet is really nicely done I think.
The amount of coins going into circulation will not change (by much, maybe a little bit faster, but you will barely be able to tell). Once the logo contest closes I may look into changing the feel of the wallet. I will take a look at Unobtanium, is there any other wallets that would be of interest?
It's honestly the coolest one I've seen. However, it's basically cosmetic. A skin, more or less. But it is very cool.
Frankly, most wallets look the same. It's really not a big deal or a high priority as I see it, so long as it's fully functional. Hell, I use Electrum for bitcoin, and that bitch is UGLY and poorly laid out. But it's fast and functional. I see it the same way I see cars. If it's fast and pretty, that's cool. If it's just pretty, who cares?
I completely agree it is merely cosmetic, but I do think cosmetics are important. They form part of the whole eco-system around the coin. I think it will show that time and thought has gone into it, will help separate CGA from the herd and make it more attractive in the round.
If it were a massive effort, then don't bother, but if we can improve it for a reasonable amount of work then I think it will be time well spent.
Sorry, I was a bit terse there. Didn't mean to be, was dealing with my 6 week old daughter at the same time
I was trying to say that it's not a high priority as long as the wallet works well. I actually agree that making it attractive is a good idea from a marketing/adoption standpoint. I am not a programmer, but it looks like it's simply a skin in the case of Unobtanium, and it does make it very cool. It should be fairly trivial to do something similar with CGA's wallet.
If I could reskin Electrum, I would. I hate it's layout. But waiting sometimes three days for Bitcoin-qt to sync is annoying, and Electrum does it in a few seconds. I don't use online wallets for anything that's going to last over a day, so the speed is important to me. For bitcoin. Alt coins are more of a hobby to me right now. Interesting, sometimes profitable, and a bit of fun. So speed isn't nearly the issue. However, if someone had what it took to make a wallet similar to Electrum for alt coins, I would use it. And if somebody already has and I missed it, please say so!
Have you looked at MuCoWa: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/mucowa-a-multicoinwallet-to-your-service-update-now-130-quark-added-476411
Haven't looked at it myself but it sounds interesting.
I find the "just decompile .jar to examine code" a bit suspicious. It does look interesting, but the built in fees and the lack of source code is a bit scary. I'm not a programmer, but I can hack code well enough to find the cracks.
Electrum is a full client, but the blockchain is kept on online servers. That's why it's fast. It's open source, it could probably be fairly easily adapted to an alt. I doubt it could be a multi-coin wallet in one instance, but I'm not sure of that, as it does have support for multiple wallets with separate keys. I'm not good enough to know, but it would certainly be an interesting project.
Probaqbly a bit late, but a I had a few questions/thoughts which I'd hoped to get in before the new update was released:
1. roughly how many coins do you expect to be mined, say per 1,000 blocks? And following on from that is the total number of coins still appropriate, given the reward change? (though I'm not even sure if this is change-able).
2. the wallet itself - well, it isn't very exciting - have you looked at other wallets for inspiration? For example the Unobtanium wallet is really nicely done I think.
The amount of coins going into circulation will not change (by much, maybe a little bit faster, but you will barely be able to tell). Once the logo contest closes I may look into changing the feel of the wallet. I will take a look at Unobtanium, is there any other wallets that would be of interest?
It's honestly the coolest one I've seen. However, it's basically cosmetic. A skin, more or less. But it is very cool.
Frankly, most wallets look the same. It's really not a big deal or a high priority as I see it, so long as it's fully functional. Hell, I use Electrum for bitcoin, and that bitch is UGLY and poorly laid out. But it's fast and functional. I see it the same way I see cars. If it's fast and pretty, that's cool. If it's just pretty, who cares?
I completely agree it is merely cosmetic, but I do think cosmetics are important. They form part of the whole eco-system around the coin. I think it will show that time and thought has gone into it, will help separate CGA from the herd and make it more attractive in the round.
If it were a massive effort, then don't bother, but if we can improve it for a reasonable amount of work then I think it will be time well spent.
Sorry, I was a bit terse there. Didn't mean to be, was dealing with my 6 week old daughter at the same time
I was trying to say that it's not a high priority as long as the wallet works well. I actually agree that making it attractive is a good idea from a marketing/adoption standpoint. I am not a programmer, but it looks like it's simply a skin in the case of Unobtanium, and it does make it very cool. It should be fairly trivial to do something similar with CGA's wallet.
If I could reskin Electrum, I would. I hate it's layout. But waiting sometimes three days for Bitcoin-qt to sync is annoying, and Electrum does it in a few seconds. I don't use online wallets for anything that's going to last over a day, so the speed is important to me. For bitcoin. Alt coins are more of a hobby to me right now. Interesting, sometimes profitable, and a bit of fun. So speed isn't nearly the issue. However, if someone had what it took to make a wallet similar to Electrum for alt coins, I would use it. And if somebody already has and I missed it, please say so!
Have you looked at MuCoWa: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/mucowa-a-multicoinwallet-to-your-service-update-now-130-quark-added-476411
Haven't looked at it myself but it sounds interesting.
Probaqbly a bit late, but a I had a few questions/thoughts which I'd hoped to get in before the new update was released:
1. roughly how many coins do you expect to be mined, say per 1,000 blocks? And following on from that is the total number of coins still appropriate, given the reward change? (though I'm not even sure if this is change-able).
2. the wallet itself - well, it isn't very exciting - have you looked at other wallets for inspiration? For example the Unobtanium wallet is really nicely done I think.
The amount of coins going into circulation will not change (by much, maybe a little bit faster, but you will barely be able to tell). Once the logo contest closes I may look into changing the feel of the wallet. I will take a look at Unobtanium, is there any other wallets that would be of interest?
It's honestly the coolest one I've seen. However, it's basically cosmetic. A skin, more or less. But it is very cool.
Frankly, most wallets look the same. It's really not a big deal or a high priority as I see it, so long as it's fully functional. Hell, I use Electrum for bitcoin, and that bitch is UGLY and poorly laid out. But it's fast and functional. I see it the same way I see cars. If it's fast and pretty, that's cool. If it's just pretty, who cares?
I completely agree it is merely cosmetic, but I do think cosmetics are important. They form part of the whole eco-system around the coin. I think it will show that time and thought has gone into it, will help separate CGA from the herd and make it more attractive in the round.
If it were a massive effort, then don't bother, but if we can improve it for a reasonable amount of work then I think it will be time well spent.
Sorry, I was a bit terse there. Didn't mean to be, was dealing with my 6 week old daughter at the same time
I was trying to say that it's not a high priority as long as the wallet works well. I actually agree that making it attractive is a good idea from a marketing/adoption standpoint. I am not a programmer, but it looks like it's simply a skin in the case of Unobtanium, and it does make it very cool. It should be fairly trivial to do something similar with CGA's wallet.
If I could reskin Electrum, I would. I hate it's layout. But waiting sometimes three days for Bitcoin-qt to sync is annoying, and Electrum does it in a few seconds. I don't use online wallets for anything that's going to last over a day, so the speed is important to me. For bitcoin. Alt coins are more of a hobby to me right now. Interesting, sometimes profitable, and a bit of fun. So speed isn't nearly the issue. However, if someone had what it took to make a wallet similar to Electrum for alt coins, I would use it. And if somebody already has and I missed it, please say so!
Probaqbly a bit late, but a I had a few questions/thoughts which I'd hoped to get in before the new update was released:
1. roughly how many coins do you expect to be mined, say per 1,000 blocks? And following on from that is the total number of coins still appropriate, given the reward change? (though I'm not even sure if this is change-able).
2. the wallet itself - well, it isn't very exciting - have you looked at other wallets for inspiration? For example the Unobtanium wallet is really nicely done I think.
The amount of coins going into circulation will not change (by much, maybe a little bit faster, but you will barely be able to tell). Once the logo contest closes I may look into changing the feel of the wallet. I will take a look at Unobtanium, is there any other wallets that would be of interest?
It's honestly the coolest one I've seen. However, it's basically cosmetic. A skin, more or less. But it is very cool.
Frankly, most wallets look the same. It's really not a big deal or a high priority as I see it, so long as it's fully functional. Hell, I use Electrum for bitcoin, and that bitch is UGLY and poorly laid out. But it's fast and functional. I see it the same way I see cars. If it's fast and pretty, that's cool. If it's just pretty, who cares?
I completely agree it is merely cosmetic, but I do think cosmetics are important. They form part of the whole eco-system around the coin. I think it will show that time and thought has gone into it, will help separate CGA from the herd and make it more attractive in the round.
If it were a massive effort, then don't bother, but if we can improve it for a reasonable amount of work then I think it will be time well spent.
Probaqbly a bit late, but a I had a few questions/thoughts which I'd hoped to get in before the new update was released:
1. roughly how many coins do you expect to be mined, say per 1,000 blocks? And following on from that is the total number of coins still appropriate, given the reward change? (though I'm not even sure if this is change-able).
2. the wallet itself - well, it isn't very exciting - have you looked at other wallets for inspiration? For example the Unobtanium wallet is really nicely done I think.
The amount of coins going into circulation will not change (by much, maybe a little bit faster, but you will barely be able to tell). Once the logo contest closes I may look into changing the feel of the wallet. I will take a look at Unobtanium, is there any other wallets that would be of interest?
It's honestly the coolest one I've seen. However, it's basically cosmetic. A skin, more or less. But it is very cool.
Frankly, most wallets look the same. It's really not a big deal or a high priority as I see it, so long as it's fully functional. Hell, I use Electrum for bitcoin, and that bitch is UGLY and poorly laid out. But it's fast and functional. I see it the same way I see cars. If it's fast and pretty, that's cool. If it's just pretty, who cares?
Probaqbly a bit late, but a I had a few questions/thoughts which I'd hoped to get in before the new update was released:
1. roughly how many coins do you expect to be mined, say per 1,000 blocks? And following on from that is the total number of coins still appropriate, given the reward change? (though I'm not even sure if this is change-able).
2. the wallet itself - well, it isn't very exciting - have you looked at other wallets for inspiration? For example the Unobtanium wallet is really nicely done I think.
The amount of coins going into circulation will not change (by much, maybe a little bit faster, but you will barely be able to tell). Once the logo contest closes I may look into changing the feel of the wallet. I will take a look at Unobtanium, is there any other wallets that would be of interest?
I agree it would make sense to combine it with the new logo.
I can't think of any other particularly good ones, but other people may have some ideas.
Probaqbly a bit late, but a I had a few questions/thoughts which I'd hoped to get in before the new update was released:
1. roughly how many coins do you expect to be mined, say per 1,000 blocks? And following on from that is the total number of coins still appropriate, given the reward change? (though I'm not even sure if this is change-able).
2. the wallet itself - well, it isn't very exciting - have you looked at other wallets for inspiration? For example the Unobtanium wallet is really nicely done I think.
The amount of coins going into circulation will not change (by much, maybe a little bit faster, but you will barely be able to tell). Once the logo contest closes I may look into changing the feel of the wallet. I will take a look at Unobtanium, is there any other wallets that would be of interest?
my apologies, to clarify, I was suggesting that you 'snapshot' the net hash rate at the point of the block hash creation, not a continuously changing value. I.e. you wouldn't know what the block hash would be prior to the creation. this would obfuscate the value of the block until it was announced prior to mining.
You could just use blockhash as a rnd function seed to the same effect - this is what Doge, Lotto, and all the other pseudo-random coins do.You cannot predict block values 2+ blocks in advance (with the current CGA or any other random reward coins that I know of), but you always know the reward while you are mining for a given block.
Using diff and height in GetBlockReward without KGW would actually make future blocks predictable as well (up until the next diff change), so I am very curious to see what s4w3d0ff produces.
I am not trying to solve this issue anymore. Block rewards will be 1/diff with a bonus block when block# % diff < 0.5, No other changes other than removing KGW.
my apologies, to clarify, I was suggesting that you 'snapshot' the net hash rate at the point of the block hash creation, not a continuously changing value. I.e. you wouldn't know what the block hash would be prior to the creation. this would obfuscate the value of the block until it was announced prior to mining.
You could just use blockhash as a rnd function seed to the same effect - this is what Doge, Lotto, and all the other pseudo-random coins do.You cannot predict block values 2+ blocks in advance (with the current CGA or any other random reward coins that I know of), but you always know the reward while you are mining for a given block.
Using diff and height in GetBlockReward without KGW would actually make future blocks predictable as well (up until the next diff change), so I am very curious to see what s4w3d0ff produces.
Probaqbly a bit late, but a I had a few questions/thoughts which I'd hoped to get in before the new update was released:
1. roughly how many coins do you expect to be mined, say per 1,000 blocks? And following on from that is the total number of coins still appropriate, given the reward change? (though I'm not even sure if this is change-able).
2. the wallet itself - well, it isn't very exciting - have you looked at other wallets for inspiration? For example the Unobtanium wallet is really nicely done I think.
Version 1.2.1.1 Update is going on March 1st @ Noon PST (20:00 GMT)
This update is mandatory. If you own a pool or solo-mine you must update at the above time. If you are just using the software as a node or a normal wallet you must update before block 48,000.
This update is mandatory. If you own a pool or solo-mine you must update at the above time. If you are just using the software as a node or a normal wallet you must update before block 48,000.
There should be a Windows wallet compiled before March 1st @ Noon (20:00GMT). If there isn't then There will be one before block 48,000.
Source code will be going up on git sometime tomorrow before the posted date/time.
What time can download the latest version(windows)?
I look forward to seeing what this new version of CGA will bring. I have serious reservations about the future of this coin, but will hold my comments until new source is released. I do wish CGA the best future, but it needs more then a simple/pathetic modification of GetBlockValue if it is going to survive for any length of time.
I appreciate your "input", and you are right, I don't have the necessary coding skills to completely rewrite the bitcoin/litecoin protocol, what I can do is "try" to resist the (well known) attacks that you mentioned by removing the gravity well and changing the block reward. Once you find the audacity to create your own coin with your "superior" protocol let me know.I think a coin does not need to be technically superior to other coins. The concept as a whole needs to be consistent.
I'm much more worried about marketing than technical stuff.
+1
I look forward to seeing what this new version of CGA will bring. I have serious reservations about the future of this coin, but will hold my comments until new source is released. I do wish CGA the best future, but it needs more then a simple/pathetic modification of GetBlockValue if it is going to survive for any length of time.
I appreciate your "input", and you are right, I don't have the necessary coding skills to completely rewrite the bitcoin/litecoin protocol, what I can do is "try" to resist the (well known) attacks that you mentioned by removing the gravity well and changing the block reward. Once you find the audacity to create your own coin with your "superior" protocol let me know.I think a coin does not need to be technically superior to other coins. The concept as a whole needs to be consistent.
I'm much more worried about marketing than technical stuff.
I look forward to seeing what this new version of CGA will bring. I have serious reservations about the future of this coin, but will hold my comments until new source is released. I do wish CGA the best future, but it needs more then a simple/pathetic modification of GetBlockValue if it is going to survive for any length of time.
I appreciate your "input", and you are right, I don't have the necessary coding skills to completely rewrite the bitcoin/litecoin protocol, what I can do is "try" to resist the (well known) attacks that you mentioned by removing the gravity well and changing the block reward. Once you find the audacity to create your own coin with your "superior" protocol let me know.I have no idea if this would work, but how about this?
Rather than the anomaly being created based on 1/Difficulty, how about the reward being determined by 1/Network hash rate at declaration of block reward?
You could then trigger the reward based on another factor, such as the last digit being odd, even, the number '3', etc.
The network hash fluctuates rapidly, unlike difficulty. The reward would still be announced at the start of the block, but as it could not be so easily predicted, the Multi-pools would not have as much time to 'swoop in' and steal the block. Similarly, as you can't accurately control the total net Hash rate, you couldn't force it to generate an Anomaly every time.
-T
The block reward is part of the block hash - so you can't use something that fluctuates like crazy...Rather than the anomaly being created based on 1/Difficulty, how about the reward being determined by 1/Network hash rate at declaration of block reward?
You could then trigger the reward based on another factor, such as the last digit being odd, even, the number '3', etc.
The network hash fluctuates rapidly, unlike difficulty. The reward would still be announced at the start of the block, but as it could not be so easily predicted, the Multi-pools would not have as much time to 'swoop in' and steal the block. Similarly, as you can't accurately control the total net Hash rate, you couldn't force it to generate an Anomaly every time.
-T
When you are mining, you are performing a hash on a concatenation of:
Version # (Block version number)
hashPrevBlock (Hash of the previous block header)
hashMerkleRoot (hash of the transactions to be included in the block)
nTime (Current timestamp)
Bits (target [aka difficulty])
nonce (A number you increment or choose randomly)
The reason I am showing this, is that hashMerkleRoot is part of what you are hashing.
hashMerkleRoot is essentially a summary of all of the transactions to be included in the block - the first transaction always being a tx that says "pay me". You MUST know how much you are going to get paid.
If you used nethashrate, the hashMerkleRoot would have to change constantly, and this is simply not possible - miners can't constantly change what they are hashing on... even nTime is only updated every few seconds.
my apologies, to clarify, I was suggesting that you 'snapshot' the net hash rate at the point of the block hash creation, not a continuously changing value. I.e. you wouldn't know what the block hash would be prior to the creation. this would obfuscate the value of the block until it was announced prior to mining.
Jump to: