Destination > the moon!
Topic: âš’[CGA] Cryptographic Anomaly - The Elusive Coinâš’ - page 73. (Read 226291 times)
I am on this train
Destination > the moon!
Destination > the moon!
Something came to my mind about option 2:
I'd love to see a coin where GPU and CPU deliver comparable hashrates. This would not only make the coin more secure due to a higher hashrate, because you can use all your computer's power, but also open the coin for cpu-only-miners and gpu-only-miners. I believe scrypt-jane can do this.
I'd love to see a coin where GPU and CPU deliver comparable hashrates. This would not only make the coin more secure due to a higher hashrate, because you can use all your computer's power, but also open the coin for cpu-only-miners and gpu-only-miners. I believe scrypt-jane can do this.
Honestly I really dont care which way the cookie crumbles as long as it crumbles fast and I can pick up the pieces off the table and put them in my mouth err.. wallet.
Its not up to me or anyone else but the Devs to decide on the outcome of their coin. As i stated before, Im "all in" as well.
Lets just get it fixed, make it stable and make it valuable and get back to mining!
Its not up to me or anyone else but the Devs to decide on the outcome of their coin. As i stated before, Im "all in" as well.
Lets just get it fixed, make it stable and make it valuable and get back to mining!
I don't think we need to KGW as long as the next block rewards do not predict.
The difficulty will increase fast when multipools come on .
Then the probability of currency generated will quickly reduce(1/diff) and income will quickly reduce.
who want to mine the blocks without any value?
What we should do is to quickly recover difficulty and generate a new block When multipools leave.
The difficulty will increase fast when multipools come on .
Then the probability of currency generated will quickly reduce(1/diff) and income will quickly reduce.
who want to mine the blocks without any value?
What we should do is to quickly recover difficulty and generate a new block When multipools leave.
I vote for whatever makes the flow of CGA the slowest, since I already have a buttload in my wallet.
How many???
I got a little over 300 right now. It was over 2% of the total supply, now it's a little under. I am a CGA whale, I can crush the orderbook if I wanted to. I'd like to get a good return on it though. I'm actually thinking of placing more bids, but I guess now I'll wait and see if price goes any lower after this last round of FUD.
Wow!!! you have a boat load!!!!
What I am about to say is not the final decision. I am merely thinking out loud and see what you all have to say about it.
The way I see it we now have 2 options:
1. We stick with scrypt, remove KGW (to keep the nTime attack from happening) and update the source to the latest version of Litecoin. This would keep the "anomaly factor" intact (which is what this coin is all about). In order to combat the issue of "skipping the 0 blocks" I can raise the transaction fees significantly so that the 0 blocks will have more value. This will not deter multipools in any way but will reward the dedicated miners a bit more, encouraging miners to solve 0 blocks. If raised high enough... solving around 10 "0 blocks" could be more rewarding than solving 1 Anomaly block. (once again I am thinking out loud)
2. We move to scrypt n-factor, remove KGW, and raise tx fees. This would do most of the above mentioned and keep multipools at bay (for a little while longer). The only issue I have seen with scrypt n-factor is that it needs updated mining software, and has been said to really ware on GPU's and CPU's (tho I have yet to see the evidence).
Both options will have no effect on current CGA balances (except at the direct time of the update, which damage should be minimal).
Please let me know what your thoughts are on this.
The way I see it we now have 2 options:
1. We stick with scrypt, remove KGW (to keep the nTime attack from happening) and update the source to the latest version of Litecoin. This would keep the "anomaly factor" intact (which is what this coin is all about). In order to combat the issue of "skipping the 0 blocks" I can raise the transaction fees significantly so that the 0 blocks will have more value. This will not deter multipools in any way but will reward the dedicated miners a bit more, encouraging miners to solve 0 blocks. If raised high enough... solving around 10 "0 blocks" could be more rewarding than solving 1 Anomaly block. (once again I am thinking out loud)
2. We move to scrypt n-factor, remove KGW, and raise tx fees. This would do most of the above mentioned and keep multipools at bay (for a little while longer). The only issue I have seen with scrypt n-factor is that it needs updated mining software, and has been said to really ware on GPU's and CPU's (tho I have yet to see the evidence).
Both options will have no effect on current CGA balances (except at the direct time of the update, which damage should be minimal).
Please let me know what your thoughts are on this.
take your time..
the more rare, the more resistant to multipools/asics and more anomalous/unpredictable/random the better.
I vote for whatever makes the flow of CGA the slowest, since I already have a buttload in my wallet.
How many???
I got a little over 300 right now. It was over 2% of the total supply, now it's a little under. I am a CGA whale, I can crush the orderbook if I wanted to. I'd like to get a good return on it though. I'm actually thinking of placing more bids, but I guess now I'll wait and see if price goes any lower after this last round of FUD.
Right before the FUD started I placed sell orders for all my alts except CGA, with the plan to buy more CGA. I've almost doubled my stash of CGA, which still isn't that many. You could say I'm "all in"
I vote for whatever makes the flow of CGA the slowest, since I already have a buttload in my wallet.
How many???
I got a little over 300 right now. It was over 2% of the total supply, now it's a little under. I am a CGA whale, I can crush the orderbook if I wanted to. I'd like to get a good return on it though. I'm actually thinking of placing more bids, but I guess now I'll wait and see if price goes any lower after this last round of FUD.
I vote for whatever makes the flow of CGA the slowest, since I already have a buttload in my wallet.
How many???
I vote for whatever makes the flow of CGA the slowest, since I already have a buttload in my wallet.
What I am about to say is not the final decision. I am merely thinking out loud and see what you all have to say about it.
The way I see it we now have 2 options:
1. We stick with scrypt, remove KGW (to keep the nTime attack from happening) and update the source to the latest version of Litecoin. This would keep the "anomaly factor" intact (which is what this coin is all about). In order to combat the issue of "skipping the 0 blocks" I can raise the transaction fees significantly so that the 0 blocks will have more value. This will not deter multipools in any way but will reward the dedicated miners a bit more, encouraging miners to solve 0 blocks. If raised high enough... solving around 10 "0 blocks" could be more rewarding than solving 1 Anomaly block. (once again I am thinking out loud)
2. We move to scrypt n-factor, remove KGW, and raise tx fees. This would do most of the above mentioned and keep multipools at bay (for a little while longer). The only issue I have seen with scrypt n-factor is that it needs updated mining software, and has been said to really ware on GPU's and CPU's (tho I have yet to see the evidence).
Both options will have no effect on current CGA balances (except at the direct time of the update, which damage should be minimal.
Please let me know what your thoughts are on this.
The way I see it we now have 2 options:
1. We stick with scrypt, remove KGW (to keep the nTime attack from happening) and update the source to the latest version of Litecoin. This would keep the "anomaly factor" intact (which is what this coin is all about). In order to combat the issue of "skipping the 0 blocks" I can raise the transaction fees significantly so that the 0 blocks will have more value. This will not deter multipools in any way but will reward the dedicated miners a bit more, encouraging miners to solve 0 blocks. If raised high enough... solving around 10 "0 blocks" could be more rewarding than solving 1 Anomaly block. (once again I am thinking out loud)
2. We move to scrypt n-factor, remove KGW, and raise tx fees. This would do most of the above mentioned and keep multipools at bay (for a little while longer). The only issue I have seen with scrypt n-factor is that it needs updated mining software, and has been said to really ware on GPU's and CPU's (tho I have yet to see the evidence).
Both options will have no effect on current CGA balances (except at the direct time of the update, which damage should be minimal.
Please let me know what your thoughts are on this.
I think both ideas are great, but I'll say option 2 is the best because if KGW will be removed and you have no resistance of multipools, you might get many pools hopping in at low difficulty which results in an insanely high difficulty... With anomalies this gets even worse because we'll have to mine through many very difficult blocks with close to no reward at all. Is there some kind of midway in this? Like a KGW which only changes when hash rate goes through the roof or something?:p Personally I've had good experiences with adaptive N-factor, it's hard to set up but works perfectly, also my GPU is less stressed.
What I am about to say is not the final decision. I am merely thinking out loud and see what you all have to say about it.
The way I see it we now have 2 options:
1. We stick with scrypt, remove KGW (to keep the nTime attack from happening) and update the source to the latest version of Litecoin. This would keep the "anomaly factor" intact (which is what this coin is all about). In order to combat the issue of "skipping the 0 blocks" I can raise the transaction fees significantly so that the 0 blocks will have more value. This will not deter multipools in any way but will reward the dedicated miners a bit more, encouraging miners to solve 0 blocks. If raised high enough... solving around 10 "0 blocks" could be more rewarding than solving 1 Anomaly block. (once again I am thinking out loud)
2. We move to scrypt n-factor, remove KGW, and raise tx fees. This would do most of the above mentioned and keep multipools at bay (for a little while longer). The only issue I have seen with scrypt n-factor is that it needs updated mining software, and has been said to really ware on GPU's and CPU's (tho I have yet to see the evidence).
Both options will have no effect on current CGA balances (except at the direct time of the update, which damage should be minimal.
Please let me know what your thoughts are on this.
The way I see it we now have 2 options:
1. We stick with scrypt, remove KGW (to keep the nTime attack from happening) and update the source to the latest version of Litecoin. This would keep the "anomaly factor" intact (which is what this coin is all about). In order to combat the issue of "skipping the 0 blocks" I can raise the transaction fees significantly so that the 0 blocks will have more value. This will not deter multipools in any way but will reward the dedicated miners a bit more, encouraging miners to solve 0 blocks. If raised high enough... solving around 10 "0 blocks" could be more rewarding than solving 1 Anomaly block. (once again I am thinking out loud)
2. We move to scrypt n-factor, remove KGW, and raise tx fees. This would do most of the above mentioned and keep multipools at bay (for a little while longer). The only issue I have seen with scrypt n-factor is that it needs updated mining software, and has been said to really ware on GPU's and CPU's (tho I have yet to see the evidence).
Both options will have no effect on current CGA balances (except at the direct time of the update, which damage should be minimal.
Please let me know what your thoughts are on this.
Personally not a big fan of n-factor myself however if its a standard one in use there are plenty of modded miners out there that will work.
So from my PoV I personally don't care so long as it is not months to do a fix.
What I am about to say is not the final decision. I am merely thinking out loud and see what you all have to say about it.
The way I see it we now have 2 options:
1. We stick with scrypt, remove KGW (to keep the nTime attack from happening) and update the source to the latest version of Litecoin. This would keep the "anomaly factor" intact (which is what this coin is all about). In order to combat the issue of "skipping the 0 blocks" I can raise the transaction fees significantly so that the 0 blocks will have more value. This will not deter multipools in any way but will reward the dedicated miners a bit more, encouraging miners to solve 0 blocks. If raised high enough... solving around 10 "0 blocks" could be more rewarding than solving 1 Anomaly block. (once again I am thinking out loud)
2. We move to scrypt n-factor, remove KGW, and raise tx fees. This would do most of the above mentioned and keep multipools at bay (for a little while longer). The only issue I have seen with scrypt n-factor is that it needs updated mining software, and has been said to really ware on GPU's and CPU's (tho I have yet to see the evidence).
Both options will have no effect on current CGA balances (except at the direct time of the update, which damage should be minimal).
Please let me know what your thoughts are on this.
The way I see it we now have 2 options:
1. We stick with scrypt, remove KGW (to keep the nTime attack from happening) and update the source to the latest version of Litecoin. This would keep the "anomaly factor" intact (which is what this coin is all about). In order to combat the issue of "skipping the 0 blocks" I can raise the transaction fees significantly so that the 0 blocks will have more value. This will not deter multipools in any way but will reward the dedicated miners a bit more, encouraging miners to solve 0 blocks. If raised high enough... solving around 10 "0 blocks" could be more rewarding than solving 1 Anomaly block. (once again I am thinking out loud)
2. We move to scrypt n-factor, remove KGW, and raise tx fees. This would do most of the above mentioned and keep multipools at bay (for a little while longer). The only issue I have seen with scrypt n-factor is that it needs updated mining software, and has been said to really ware on GPU's and CPU's (tho I have yet to see the evidence).
Both options will have no effect on current CGA balances (except at the direct time of the update, which damage should be minimal).
Please let me know what your thoughts are on this.
No matter what to see the devs being proactive lets me keep my faith and trust in the coin and since that is what makes a coins value (aside from a few other varibles) I will keep mining it.
I hope this can be fixed within a week though I understand that amount of work and testing that needs to be done.
I hope this can be fixed within a week though I understand that amount of work and testing that needs to be done.
Whats the matter right now?
I don't understand why people want to change the code again? Its pretty "normal", that this coin is rare, this is a GOOD thing.
It produces fear, when the chain is forked again, especially when people could loose coins wtf. I don't want to loose any coins, and I don't see a necessarity in a code change, could someone explain to me please?
I don't understand why people want to change the code again? Its pretty "normal", that this coin is rare, this is a GOOD thing.
It produces fear, when the chain is forked again, especially when people could loose coins wtf. I don't want to loose any coins, and I don't see a necessarity in a code change, could someone explain to me please?
I agree, you are taking a gamble here. Not many people check forums like this every day to see if they are running everything properly. The coin is already on markets, and it simply needs to get stable. If this is another major code change, it needs to be the last.
The changes being discussed are necessary in order to protect the coin from two major threats: MultiPools (since you can predict the reward of the next block and choose not to mine it, and let someone else do it if it's zero), and a new type of 51% attack that lets you force the reward of the next block to be either zero or one CGA coin. This isn't a matter of if it will happen, it's a matter of when it will happen. Believe me, we had no intention of making any changes to the coin after we had fixed the constant forking problem. Updates take a lot of work to coordinate with exchanges, pools, miners, and regular wallet users, plus we have to make sure we compile all the new binaries and test them before they're released, and fix any bugs that come up later (meaning more testing and more compiling binaries)! Like I said earlier in this thread, we could simply leave the coin as-is and not make any changes, but we're going to be absolutely screwed once people succeed in a 51% attack or point a multipool at us.
Painful but gotta be done...
Whats the matter right now?
I don't understand why people want to change the code again? Its pretty "normal", that this coin is rare, this is a GOOD thing.
It produces fear, when the chain is forked again, especially when people could loose coins wtf. I don't want to loose any coins, and I don't see a necessarity in a code change, could someone explain to me please?
I don't understand why people want to change the code again? Its pretty "normal", that this coin is rare, this is a GOOD thing.
It produces fear, when the chain is forked again, especially when people could loose coins wtf. I don't want to loose any coins, and I don't see a necessarity in a code change, could someone explain to me please?
I agree, you are taking a gamble here. Not many people check forums like this every day to see if they are running everything properly. The coin is already on markets, and it simply needs to get stable. If this is another major code change, it needs to be the last.
The changes being discussed are necessary in order to protect the coin from two major threats: MultiPools (since you can predict the reward of the next block and choose not to mine it, and let someone else do it if it's zero), and a new type of 51% attack that lets you force the reward of the next block to be either zero or one CGA coin. This isn't a matter of if it will happen, it's a matter of when it will happen. Believe me, we had no intention of making any changes to the coin after we had fixed the constant forking problem. Updates take a lot of work to coordinate with exchanges, pools, miners, and regular wallet users, plus we have to make sure we compile all the new binaries and test them before they're released, and fix any bugs that come up later (meaning more testing and more compiling binaries)! Like I said earlier in this thread, we could simply leave the coin as-is and not make any changes, but we're going to be absolutely screwed once people succeed in a 51% attack or point a multipool at us.
Whats the matter right now?
I don't understand why people want to change the code again? Its pretty "normal", that this coin is rare, this is a GOOD thing.
It produces fear, when the chain is forked again, especially when people could loose coins wtf. I don't want to loose any coins, and I don't see a necessarity in a code change, could someone explain to me please?
I don't understand why people want to change the code again? Its pretty "normal", that this coin is rare, this is a GOOD thing.
It produces fear, when the chain is forked again, especially when people could loose coins wtf. I don't want to loose any coins, and I don't see a necessarity in a code change, could someone explain to me please?
I agree, you are taking a gamble here. Not many people check forums like this every day to see if they are running everything properly. The coin is already on markets, and it simply needs to get stable. If this is another major code change, it needs to be the last.
Whats the matter right now?
I don't understand why people want to change the code again? Its pretty "normal", that this coin is rare, this is a GOOD thing.
It produces fear, when the chain is forked again, especially when people could loose coins wtf. I don't want to loose any coins, and I don't see a necessarity in a code change, could someone explain to me please?
I don't understand why people want to change the code again? Its pretty "normal", that this coin is rare, this is a GOOD thing.
It produces fear, when the chain is forked again, especially when people could loose coins wtf. I don't want to loose any coins, and I don't see a necessarity in a code change, could someone explain to me please?
I don't know what you guys are talking about but I'm not selling my CGA. If anybody else needs to panic sell their CGA and they don't see the depth in the book, PM me. This is ridiculous. Still only 15000 something CGA. I don't think there was any need to panic. Now how are you going to buy back in cheaper if nobody else is panicking like a noob?
I agree with you. The issue CGA is facing has a lot of "if"s and "when", won't panic sell either. Sawedoff and the other devs will find a solution, I'm very confident.Likewise, I must confess when the discussions started yesterday I pulled all my buy orders, but didn't sell any. However, having thought about it and followed the discussions with interest I have now re-instated them and picked up a few coins this morning.
As said there is a risk here, but hey, let us live while we are alive!
I don't know what you guys are talking about but I'm not selling my CGA. If anybody else needs to panic sell their CGA and they don't see the depth in the book, PM me. This is ridiculous. Still only 15000 something CGA. I don't think there was any need to panic. Now how are you going to buy back in cheaper if nobody else is panicking like a noob?
I agree with you. The issue CGA is facing has a lot of "if"s and "when", won't panic sell either. Sawedoff and the other devs will find a solution, I'm very confident.I concur!
unique coin, a coin that adapts to it's popularity, great devs and as I can see it is a good investment opportunity whilst only few people are aware of this coin and once the devs find a way around the issues and combined with the scarcity of the coin it will most likely increase the price substantially! Like any investment there is a risk involved, but if you didn't like risk you probably wouldn't consider investing in altcoins anyway.
On all the alts available there is a majority of coins that is offering nothing new apart from being an addition to the pile of crap that is already out there and people will still invest. So I don't worry about a coin with this potential and an honoust team.
Next to that the reason why I got to CGA is that I have been scanning through all the altcoins available and this was the only one I thought that is new and has a uniqueness to it and therefor potential.
I am assuming others will soon follow!
Jump to: