Topic: [ANN] Catcoin - 0.9.1.1 - Old thread. Locked. Please use 0.9.2 thread. - page 53. (Read 131044 times)

Check your pools and compare it with block explorer, some pools has fork...

Jesus christ it was a joke, settle down.

That's a pretty cool tool there. As for the convergence, I've found there is a critical point around 5% limit, above which none of my 36-block  simple moving average solutions converge... I can't get SAM36LMT12 to converge even if I manipulate hashrate inputs to help it along.

I'm not sure what the difference is in the simulations, though I see that etblvu has a constant hashrate while I dynamically adjust hashrate based on difficulty... makes the system a bit more unstable.

The real problem with the regular simple moving average is those sharp peaks. The function responds exactly the same to being 2000% off in difficulty as it does to being 20% off.

Alright Guys,

I've logged in when I said I wouldn't because this is getting out of hand. OUT. OF. HAND. I am getting married on Sunday....No offense, but I don't really have a ton of time to be logging in to break up cat fights, I have other priorities at the moment.

To clarify a few quick things, so maybe you guys might actually trust what my team is saying:

- There were two hard forks since the beginning of the coin, the first reduced the diff retarget from 2016 blocks to 36 and manually set the diff to 16, this occurred at block 20290. The second implemented the 1 Block retarget, using 36 SMA, 12% Minmax. This was implemented at 21436.

-The gravity well. We get it.  Some of you guys really have a hard-on to see this algorithm deployed ASAP. Before I left, I instructed Etbluv1 to use his new simulator to model the gravity well. This is not a simple task because the code must be ported from C to C#. He said he will do this at his earliest possible convenience. This tool is going to be how we establish consensus, because from what I have seen of it so far, it is EXTREMELY accurate, and very realistic to a real world environment. This is going to take time. After this past debacle, I REFUSE to deploy another fork that MAY OR MAY NOT solve the problem. There will be no more fucking maybes. It's either going to fix the problem and we're going to be able to prove that, or it's not going live. Period. No more half-assed garbage. Be patient, my guys are spending a ridiculous amount of time on this as it is.

I can appreciate that many of you want to see this coin profitable ASAP, believe me, we are all at the top of this list on this team, we are doing our best, and I wish that some of you would be a little more realistic with the fact that this is not what ANY of us do for a living. We do this in our spare time and expecting us to be working on this 24/7 is going to end up with us burnt out, and a lot of people excessively angry. Calm down, I promise you we will develop something that will work.

Hopefully that sorts some things out.

KM

you know if that encourage investors 

What I'm counting as a fork is a hard-fork implemented by the developers.  I know we have had exactly two of them because it's in the code - we had an initial release, the first fork that reset the diff and the 2nd fork (in the source code as "fork2code").

There WAS NO CATURDAY fork.  That was one of the ways a very, very frustrated Hozer attempted to get the community to ACT to fix a problem!  He simply put code in his GIT - there was no fork!

Here - check the code yourself - the fork blocks are identified in main.cpp starting on line 1112:

https://github.com/CatcoinOfficial/CatcoinRelease
The release started with block 0 (nIntervalLocal = 0).  The first fork happened at 20290, and last week's fork 2 was at 21346.

Yes, I am aware the from day 1 there were pool errors and temporary 51% miscues.  Three pool operators have found a problem in the way their pools are configured that limited connections and they have changed their settings to keep that from happening in future.  That's the point of Blaksmith's work that I outlined in my dev team update up a few posts.

A new wallet is required every time the code changes.  I am aware of only three wallets - the release (missing a windows DLL file and catcoin.conf), a wallet update with the same code but with the windows DLL properly linked) (NOT A FORK!)(V0.8.7.0), then the block 20290 wallet release (V0.8.8.0), then the block 21346  wallet release that I was a part of (V0.8.9.0)

Bitch-break......pet solution
if only you've bothered to read some of other people replies instead of having wrong assumptions (reading doesn't take much......)

the rest of your reply was also answered in that same post.

Incorrect.

there was one fork, then coinium forked the coin a second time during the relaunch with a 51%, which is what necessitated a new wallet.

What you call the second fork is the third fork.  look at the wallet versions.  

what we are proposing here is the 4th fork.  this is what is shaking the confidence of the investors:  the fork happy coin, and the bickering development team.

note:  i'm being charitable and not even counting the first "caturday" fork, conducted unilaterally before the second and third fork were even attempted.


again, don't rush into yet another fork.  this is not the way to solve the problem.  as stated since BEFORE the first fork was attempted, the problem has always been the artificially high price of catcoin.  we will not be able to maintain this value no matter what algorithm we choose. 

Nullu - that's the point I'm trying to make here but I'm just plain getting run over.  We simply cannot 'just' implement any idea - whether a brand new one or one that works for other coins - because we are not a 30 second coin or a 6 minute coin (we need to test and confirm), and because it's more complex than just dropping in a block of code and pressing the 'compile' button.

Keep in mind - I keep saying it but it's just as true today as it was three days ago - the dev rolled-out CAT and then left.  We started having problems within days of release.  The first fork was rushed to keep cat alive.  The second fork came in conjunction with forming a new dev team, building testnets, creating the ability to compile all the wallets we need, finding, coding and testing options, and STILL we didn't have enough time to more than a partial fix.  This is the first code release with a Mac wallet!  Hell, none of us were involved in the original release - when Hozer identified himself as a 'code archaeologist' he wasn't kidding!  We're having to reinvent EVERYTHING here!  I'm working 14 hour days on CAT - others are as well, while juggling jobs, kids, and getting married.  

Bloody hell everyone - CAT's still alive and has been getting better and better from the start.  Take a bitch-break, let us work, and know that your pet suggestion WILL get a proper vetting and you and the community WILL get a full view of results.

Thanks in advance.

I can certainly see development is in full swing, and I wouldn't in any way wish to deter people from continuing that. My only point is, it has felt like for some time now that Cat is in maintenance mode. Fear, uncertainty and doubt is to be expected, and I would stress that I do still have a stake in Catcoin, so I do still have faith in it. I'm concerned for all the right reasons.

Community - this sucks - I agree 100%.

Unfortunately, the fear/uncertainty/doubt posts are spinning faster than I can squash them.  This is a current snap-shot of development work being done right now and list of folks performing that work.  If I missed anyone, please add to the list, or let me know and I'll update this.

Blaksmith (professional programmer/control systems expert/pool operator) is working on variations of his commercial control systems code and feeding it live data.  He's also working with folks from two other pools to better stabilize the pool network during our fast block periods.

I'm working on two variations of 2-tail SMA with damping and a limit.

etblvu1 is modeling a number of SMA options, including his 5-tail system and the gravity well.

Zerodrama is working through our code and working out ways to integrate proposed solutions into our codebase so we can move options to the testnets.  (That's when we'll have pro/con data for the community...)  Unfortunately, while some think solutions can just 'drop into' our code, this is not the case.  Sorry about that.

Maverick's getting married.  

Jonhhy_non and the rest of the marketing team are expanding CAT awareness and finding more opportunities for CAT - like this:
http://petscoin.com/home.html

SOME of this work is happening in the #catcoin-dev channel.  Some is happening in another channel, via email, and via 1-1 conversations on and off IRC.


Anyone that says we're not making good progress, or that thinks there are any 'solution wars' happening is just plain incorrect.  Period.

Back to work...

Maybe I was the first to propose it. Anyway, I either way I wish my proposal was given more serious consideration at the time. There are interesting ideas coming out of Catcoin, but they are new and untested ideas, and every fork is skinning this Cat until eventually there's going to be nothing left.

This has no longer become a thread about Catcoin. It's a technical debate about difficulty readjustments. As interesting as that may be, this isn't the kind of thing that attracts new hash to the network. The price is dropping because interest is dropping. The biggest flaw in the coin is that it's just trying to do too much. It has a great name, and it still fetches a good price, all things considered.

KGW, and just move on. I know people have put a lot of hard work into this, and I would love to see it used in a new, different project, but this instability is extremely bad for Catcoin. I used to be a huge supporter of it, but I can hardly bring myself to read these debates anymore.

I am hiding under another handle and I'm not participating to any of the conversations and I said this before and a couple of times and I stated my reasons and One of this reasons is being demonstrated right now!, people moves easly from a respect based conversation based on arguments facts and numbers to insults and threats once they are out of arguments, also if I recall correctly I was called a liar just a few poste before what happened to that? And if you see me rising my ton a bit it is because I am well aware of the current situation and I'll leave it at that.



Exactly, and I think you were the first person to propose it If I remember correctly.

As I said, I have never seen you in #catcoin-dev.  If you are in fact in the channel, then you are hiding behind another handle and you are not participating there.

As for your argument request, I have already told you - TWICE!  That we are working through a process.  We don't have data yet for all the solutions - we're working them as quickly as we have bodies working on them.  Here's a suggestion, instead of running your mouth here, maybe YOU could be providing testnet data for YOUR proposal the same way others are working on theirs?

I don't have any more time to waste with you, Kuroman.  I have to get back to work.  I don't have day-care skills, sorry for my shortcomings.

Andy

FYI, I'm pretty sure I was one of the very first to propose KGW in the original thread. I was proposing it some time before the second fork.

All of this technical data is great, but it feels like the joy's been sucked out of the room. Catcoin was fun when it started. Bring that back, and I'm on board.

Glad you got them - thanks again.

I've got them!
Date: 2/6/2014 00:30
From: unknown
To: 9n2UVMCqbCYcMtQyqA7sba8i4cxXW1575B (own address)
Credit: 20.00 CAT
Net amount: +20.00 CAT
Transaction ID: a8b2f2a5b1c95ab1a699890f2b8bfe000d9aea80979a905d1d9c7f1d59055502

20 CATs on the way, serje - many thanks!

Andy