Author

Topic: [ANN] Blacknet | IBO for BlackCoin | New code | PoS | No ICO - page 1450. (Read 2510308 times)

sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
Someone is massively dumping

Blackcoin is up 100% in a few days, some are taking quick small profits, but really we are going much much further than this. It's hardly even the beginning. My coins are all safely sitting in my wallet, not even thinking about selling them - pump or no pump!

PS. The quality of posts in this thread are amazing compared to the dross you get in other coin threads Cheesy

Yes. Probably before the end of 2014 Bitcoin will have a monumental resurgence as it continues to go mainstream. Inevitability, folks. The writing is on the wall on that one. The secondary/tertiary markets, in this case altcoin, will track upward with the primary market as they invariably do. A few standouts will reap the most benefit, and Blackcoin will be one of them. Altcoin awareness has grown enormously since the last Bitcoin surge. Vastly more miners, but not only. As the next wave of mania sets in for virtual currency in general there will be a great deal more spillover-effect into the altcoin market than any previous time has seen. Volume and liquidity of altcoin trade is trivial now compared to what it will be as investors and players stampede in, particularly those who are hungry and looking for greater risk/reward scenarios. And in an up-market, that means a lot of people, a lot of new money-flow. Blackcoin is a no-brainer for reasons mentioned many times on this thread and which I needn't bother repeating. I also foresee major marketing and branding initiatives coming into play on this coin as it evolves and matures. We have scarcely begun. There will be cocktail parties on yachts people. I look forward to seeing you there.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
Really smells like 2nd wave

Gotta wait until the pump and dumpers, dump the remainder of their coins.

I really can't see that they got many coins, the exposure was really good for BlackCoin, but it doesn't need market manipulation, it's a good coin, so much has traded hands since the move up from 600 sat that our floor has to be very near the 1000 sat level - unless panic sellers sell at a loss
sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 250
CAT.EX Exchange
Really smells like 2nd wave

Gotta wait until the pump and dumpers, dump the remainder of their coins.
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000
Really smells like 2nd wave
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000
I made some 3k accidentally Cheesy Just for fun put 3 places higher sell offer, but it gone in seconds. Bought back later for lower price with little bonus
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
Someone is massively dumping

Blackcoin is up 100% in a few days, some are taking quick small profits, but really we are going much much further than this. It's hardly even the beginning. My coins are all safely sitting in my wallet, not even thinking about selling them - pump or no pump!

PS. The quality of posts in this thread are amazing compared to the dross you get in other coin threads Cheesy
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
Just got an idea on the POS.. does this mean that i am only earning 1% of my total coins every year?

for example a coins worth 1,000 USD will have an interest of 10 USD per year? and the wallet should be left unlock and let it go POS mining?

if that's the case it's a very low profit on holding the coins for a long period of time.. or maybe my understanding is incorrect.
please enlighten me.

The 1% per year means the coin price only needs to rise 1% per year in order for your investment to not lose value. Compare with MINT, the price will have to rise 20% in first year for holders to break even due to higher coin inflation.

1% per annum coin inflation is a big positive feature of BlackCoin. There is no huge new supply of coins to be dumped. If someone wants the coins, they have to buy them at market rate.

Why would the price have to rise for me to break even? Math is hard, but the way I see it, the price of Mint can go down 20% and since I will have 20% more Mint after a year I will still breakeven after a 20% price drop. Why are you are saying the price needs to rise 20% for me to breakeven?

To keep same coin price a 20% inflationary coin has to rise by 20% otherwise the coin price drops. It is due to new coins being added to the supply. A coin with 1% inflation does not have this problem, only on a very tiny scale. If everyone always holds their coins it makes no difference. If everyone dumps their extra coins the price gets diluted downwards.

Colinfx well put. Too many people who mine and trade cryptocoins have a limited understanding of economics and inflation.

The 1% inflation will not suffice to dilute price. It will merely offset the inevitable deflationary process slightly. People will lose coins. People will hoard coins over lengthy periods. People will lose track of wallets, lose passwords, accidentally delete their wallet.dat lol.

Agreed - TBH 1% is almost borderline deflationary due to lost coins, wallets etc, it's a close call.
hero member
Activity: 1778
Merit: 520
yup Roll Eyes i bought another 11k
sr. member
Activity: 385
Merit: 250
Someone is massively dumping

Yup time to gobble up some more bc
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
That's one of the things I love about BlackCoin, how it proves that you don't need a premine at all to make a solid coin. BlackCoin also goes above and beyond many coins with its well thought-out distribution model etc.
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000
Someone is massively dumping
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
Wow bc is doing exceptionally well and I am not talking about the price I am talking about rat4, soepkip, xbladex and some other fellas helping the coin get pushed. The rise has not even started yet, yet I am witnessing one of the most vivid and supportive (at the same time) communities in the crypto scene. Congrats guys.

+1 Fully agreed!
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
Wow bc is doing exceptionally well and I am not talking about the price I am talking about rat4, soepkip, xbladex and some other fellas helping the coin get pushed. The rise has not even started yet, yet I am witnessing one of the most vivid and supportive (at the same time) communities in the crypto scene. Congrats guys.
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
Just got an idea on the POS.. does this mean that i am only earning 1% of my total coins every year?

for example a coins worth 1,000 USD will have an interest of 10 USD per year? and the wallet should be left unlock and let it go POS mining?

if that's the case it's a very low profit on holding the coins for a long period of time.. or maybe my understanding is incorrect.
please enlighten me.

The 1% per year means the coin price only needs to rise 1% per year in order for your investment to not lose value. Compare with MINT, the price will have to rise 20% in first year for holders to break even due to higher coin inflation.

1% per annum coin inflation is a big positive feature of BlackCoin. There is no huge new supply of coins to be dumped. If someone wants the coins, they have to buy them at market rate.

Why would the price have to rise for me to break even? Math is hard, but the way I see it, the price of Mint can go down 20% and since I will have 20% more Mint after a year I will still breakeven after a 20% price drop. Why are you are saying the price needs to rise 20% for me to breakeven?

To keep same coin price a 20% inflationary coin has to rise by 20% otherwise the coin price drops. It is due to new coins being added to the supply. A coin with 1% inflation does not have this problem, only on a very tiny scale. If everyone always holds their coins it makes no difference. If everyone dumps their extra coins the price gets diluted downwards.

Colinfx well put. Too many people who mine and trade cryptocoins have a limited understanding of economics and inflation.

The 1% inflation will not suffice to dilute price. It will merely offset the inevitable deflationary process slightly. People will lose coins. People will hoard coins over lengthy periods. People will lose track of wallets, lose passwords, accidentally delete their wallet.dat lol.
legendary
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1005
Quote
Read this thread more closely: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ppcoin-stake-burn-through-vulnerability-131901

And diff PPCoin 0.2 and 0.3

You'll see why it's a bad idea to turn off PoW

If I understand this correctly, there was additiotal search space caused by insufficient timestamp check and difficulty retarget every block. Both have nothing to do with PoW.

Code:
bool ComputeNextStakeModifier(const CBlockIndex* pindexPrev, uint64& nStakeModifier, bool& fGeneratedStakeModifier)
{
    nStakeModifier = 0;
    fGeneratedStakeModifier = false;
    if (!pindexPrev)
    {
        fGeneratedStakeModifier = true;
        return true;  // genesis block's modifier is 0
    }
    // First find current stake modifier and its generation block time
    // if it's not old enough, return the same stake modifier
    int64 nModifierTime = 0;
    if (!GetLastStakeModifier(pindexPrev, nStakeModifier, nModifierTime))
        return error("ComputeNextStakeModifier: unable to get last modifier");
    if (fDebug)
    {
        printf("ComputeNextStakeModifier: prev modifier=0x%016"PRI64x" time=%s\n", nStakeModifier, DateTimeStrFormat(nModifierTime).c_str());
    }
    if (nModifierTime / nModifierInterval >= pindexPrev->GetBlockTime() / nModifierInterval)
        return true;

    // Sort candidate blocks by timestamp
    vector > vSortedByTimestamp;
    vSortedByTimestamp.reserve(64 * nModifierInterval / nTargetSpacing);
    int64 nSelectionInterval = GetStakeModifierSelectionInterval();
    int64 nSelectionIntervalStart = (pindexPrev->GetBlockTime() / nModifierInterval) * nModifierInterval - nSelectionInterval;
    const CBlockIndex* pindex = pindexPrev;
    while (pindex && pindex->GetBlockTime() >= nSelectionIntervalStart)
    {
        vSortedByTimestamp.push_back(make_pair(pindex->GetBlockTime(), pindex->GetBlockHash()));
        pindex = pindex->pprev;
    }
    int nHeightFirstCandidate = pindex ? (pindex->nHeight + 1) : 0;
    reverse(vSortedByTimestamp.begin(), vSortedByTimestamp.end());
    sort(vSortedByTimestamp.begin(), vSortedByTimestamp.end());

    // Select 64 blocks from candidate blocks to generate stake modifier
    uint64 nStakeModifierNew = 0;
    int64 nSelectionIntervalStop = nSelectionIntervalStart;
    map mapSelectedBlocks;
    for (int nRound=0; nRound    {
        // add an interval section to the current selection round
        nSelectionIntervalStop += GetStakeModifierSelectionIntervalSection(nRound);
        // select a block from the candidates of current round
        if (!SelectBlockFromCandidates(vSortedByTimestamp, mapSelectedBlocks, nSelectionIntervalStop, nStakeModifier, &pindex))
            return error("ComputeNextStakeModifier: unable to select block at round %d", nRound);
        // write the entropy bit of the selected block
        nStakeModifierNew |= (((uint64)pindex->GetStakeEntropyBit()) << nRound);
        // add the selected block from candidates to selected list
        mapSelectedBlocks.insert(make_pair(pindex->GetBlockHash(), pindex));
        if (fDebug && GetBoolArg("-printstakemodifier"))
            printf("ComputeNextStakeModifier: selected round %d stop=%s height=%d bit=%d\n", nRound, DateTimeStrFormat(nSelectionIntervalStop).c_str(), pindex->nHeight, pindex->GetStakeEntropyBit());
    }

    // Print selection map for visualization of the selected blocks
    if (fDebug && GetBoolArg("-printstakemodifier"))
    {
        string strSelectionMap = "";
        // '-' indicates proof-of-work blocks not selected
        strSelectionMap.insert(0, pindexPrev->nHeight - nHeightFirstCandidate + 1, '-');
        pindex = pindexPrev;
        while (pindex && pindex->nHeight >= nHeightFirstCandidate)
        {
            // '=' indicates proof-of-stake blocks not selected
            if (pindex->IsProofOfStake())
                strSelectionMap.replace(pindex->nHeight - nHeightFirstCandidate, 1, "=");
            pindex = pindex->pprev;
        }
        BOOST_FOREACH(const PAIRTYPE(uint256, const CBlockIndex*)& item, mapSelectedBlocks)
        {
            // 'S' indicates selected proof-of-stake blocks
            // 'W' indicates selected proof-of-work blocks
            strSelectionMap.replace(item.second->nHeight - nHeightFirstCandidate, 1, item.second->IsProofOfStake()? "S" : "W");
        }
        printf("ComputeNextStakeModifier: selection height [%d, %d] map %s\n", nHeightFirstCandidate, pindexPrev->nHeight, strSelectionMap.c_str());
    }
    if (fDebug)
    {
        printf("ComputeNextStakeModifier: new modifier=0x%016"PRI64x" time=%s\n", nStakeModifierNew, DateTimeStrFormat(pindexPrev->GetBlockTime()).c_str());
    }

    nStakeModifier = nStakeModifierNew;
    fGeneratedStakeModifier = true;
    return true;
}

Notice how ComputeNextStakeModifier typically includes PoW blocks; you can visualise this if you turn on the debug flags.

What could happen when you don't include PoW blocks and you're only using entropy bits from PoS blocks (GetStakeEntropyBit() from main.cpp)?  Especially if you're producing most of the previous PoS blocks?  Of course, we can be generally assured that entropy bits from PoW miners are completely random because for them not to be would involve them throwing away a lot of work...

Quote
Quote
I don't think there's any easy fix not including PoW, and if you make the chain completely PoS you run into the forking issue (that miners can mine both forks of a chain easily and without consequence, so when forks are started they continue to propagate forever).

Nodes do not propagate double stakes.

Okay; how do you select which chain is the correct one?
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
Uh, I'm not sure what the developers did, but you should probably be aware that without PoW blocks a PeerCoin/NovaCoin fork is vulnerable to the stake burnin vulnerability.

Interesting, I was under the impression that the POS vulnerability was fixed in the next update.

It was -- by using modifiers derived from the entropy of the PoW blocks.  Grin

See in kernel.cpp:
Code:
bool ComputeNextStakeModifier(const CBlockIndex* pindexPrev, uint64& nStakeModifier, bool& fGeneratedStakeModifier){
...
}

ComputeNextStakeModifier uses hashes of 64 blocks (both PoW and PoS) as source of entropy.
Compare 64 blocks to forge StakeModifier with 10 blocks to confirm transaction.

FYI, and worth reading. Sunny King response to the matter: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144964.0;all
full member
Activity: 329
Merit: 197
Two-way squared
Quote
Read this thread more closely: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ppcoin-stake-burn-through-vulnerability-131901

And diff PPCoin 0.2 and 0.3

You'll see why it's a bad idea to turn off PoW

If I understand this correctly, there was additiotal search space caused by insufficient timestamp check and difficulty retarget every block. Both have nothing to do with PoW.

Quote
I don't think there's any easy fix not including PoW, and if you make the chain completely PoS you run into the forking issue (that miners can mine both forks of a chain easily and without consequence, so when forks are started they continue to propagate forever).

Nodes do not propagate double stakes.
newbie
Activity: 43
Merit: 0
Ok, that makes sense from what I've read from the post. Haven't has a look at the code yet though so I haven't messed around with it myself. Truly a difficult problem to find a permanent fix for while remaining PoS only. What of the reported work-around by Sunny King, the PPC developer? Has he made it available? And moreso, does it work as intended?

Sunny King's workaround was to compute the modifier using PoW blocks for entropy so you'd couldn't game them by rapidly computing PoS blocks (as far as I could tell)

And to prevent the forking issue (although not a huge problem with the current state of PoW), he centralized the blockchain by constantly signing new checkpoints into the network.  This allows him to select which chain he thinks is the valid one, and then miners mine off of that.

OK. Seems like it requires significant manual maintenance and monitoring though.
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
Just got an idea on the POS.. does this mean that i am only earning 1% of my total coins every year?

for example a coins worth 1,000 USD will have an interest of 10 USD per year? and the wallet should be left unlock and let it go POS mining?

if that's the case it's a very low profit on holding the coins for a long period of time.. or maybe my understanding is incorrect.
please enlighten me.

The 1% per year means the coin price only needs to rise 1% per year in order for your investment to not lose value. Compare with MINT, the price will have to rise 20% in first year for holders to break even due to higher coin inflation.

1% per annum coin inflation is a big positive feature of BlackCoin. There is no huge new supply of coins to be dumped. If someone wants the coins, they have to buy them at market rate.

Why would the price have to rise for me to break even? Math is hard, but the way I see it, the price of Mint can go down 20% and since I will have 20% more Mint after a year I will still breakeven after a 20% price drop. Why are you are saying the price needs to rise 20% for me to breakeven?

To keep same coin price a 20% inflationary coin has to rise by 20% otherwise the coin price drops. It is due to new coins being added to the supply. A coin with 1% inflation does not have this problem, only on a very tiny scale. If everyone always holds their coins it makes no difference. If everyone dumps their extra coins the price gets diluted downwards.

Colinfx well put. Too many people who mine and trade cryptocoins have a limited understanding of economics and inflation.
Jump to: