Topic: [ANN] Catcoin - 0.9.1.1 - Old thread. Locked. Please use 0.9.2 thread. - page 6. (Read 131061 times)

Troy - while your politician/propaganda/"I Love Me" skillz are in rare form, the piece you continue to ignore is the part where you are not part of this community.  You were kicked for being a self-serving terrorist working against this community and it's clear that you haven't changed your stripes.  That's your first problem.  Your second is that there is no "everyone" running your code that is not you and your aliases and your nodes.  And your third is that those of us that came together had exactly one project in mind:  CAT and her community.  We aren't here to make money, or manipulate a blockchain, or fragment a network, or fund our farming hobby.  You were the only person wasting our time trying to find a way to get paid to program.  Seriously - put an add on elance if you want to but CAT is not your retirement fund.

Feel free to play with any strawmen you care to stitch together but here we don't like zombies, or strawmen, or hozers - and certainly not the embodiment of all three.

Enough of THAT BS. 

For the rest of the community:  I have only one concern with publishing the code.  I know - it has to be published and it'll be known regardless.  But as I have absolutely zero trust for hozer/troy/tmagik/catcoiner I fully expect that as soon as the code is made public that he will be sifting through it to find an exploit he can use for personal profit.  As he's been working against the community from the beginning, I don't expect him to be fully transparent if he does find a problem.  So - while this code works, and while it's been validated against other projects that are believed to resist exploitation, it's really important that we get eyes on it.  Thanks in advance for your help!

Andy

This is the current test code running on testnet.

https://github.com/Blaksmith/CatcoinRelease

Checkpoints and Version change still need to be done before it gets released.

Blak

Blak, you wrote the code for PID difficulty adjustment. It's not how I would have written it, if I had the time to spend, but you did, and the damn thing WORKS, and seems to work quite well with a longer minimum block time.

If you have some new code that you think works better, then I'd like to review it with you, and come up with a good test plan that either increases the minimum block time, or removes it entirely. I still hope it's possible you and I could have a rational discussion about the algorithms and how to test whether they work correctly or not.

It greatly decreased my stress levels to ignore unelected tyrants who write more inflammatory rhetoric than code, but that is not an easy thing to do.

I keep hearing about how I've been ejected, yet what I see is that everyone still runs the code I wrote.

The fact that we're still all arguing about this almost 2 years later seems to indicate there actually might be a community worth saving if we can grow up and learn some conflict resolution skills.

Nobody elected any of us, we all showed up here for our own reasons. Some for profit, some because we like cats. The original developer of Catcoin is long gone, and we all took in the stray code, and did what we thought was best to improve it, and the ultimate authority on who is 'part of the community' are the people that buy catcoin, sell catcoin, run miners, exchanges, and websites, and write the code that facilitates it. There's no 'catcoin federal reserve committee' that decides in secret who's part of the community, you either participate, because you want to, or you don't.

It appears there is a switchpool that is still using a 33 second minimum, and maybe two (or more) miners that appear to be running code that ignore anything under 3 minutes or so (Catcoiner's code?). So the way the consensus rules in the published code work, if the 33 second guy shows up for 10 blocks in 5 minutes and then leaves a stuck blockchain for a day and a half, the miners running 3-minute code end up continuing to find blocks. And when the chain work of the 3-minute fork gets to the point of exceeding the hung fork, *all* the nodes, agree, by consensus, that the 3-minute fork wins.

And then the profit switcher comes along on autopilot and starts mining again, to start the whole process over again. (Also please note, that when this happens, the profit-switcher is agreeing, by consensus, that the 3-minute fork wins, and is orphaning their previous blocks **by choice**, because they'd rather have one block get through than be on a dead fork)

So I could make an argument that the consensus *is* 3 minute minimum, and we just have some stragglers who either haven't noticed, don't care, or maybe even think it's more profitable to FUD.

This is also really determined by whether people buy catcoin, or sell it, and whether they mine, or not.

The problem is going to come if we have competing incompatible hardforks, and then it's going to come down to what code the exchanges run. It'd be a hilariously amusing case study in coin forking culture if we had two exchanges running different code. The problem is that's still a game of whomever has enough money to pay a couple of list-your-coins-for pay exchanges like Bittrex.

Or maybe to put this another way:

I'll understand a clear consensus for a hardfork-upgrade by who can raise real money to pay another exchange to list Catcoin. If the community believes in catcoin and is willing to invest money in listing on another exchange, then I think it will be good for everyone, and we can move on from this nonsense.

I do not agree with creating conflicting nodes as a means to decide which fork should "win" as way to decide the future of the coin. I also do not agree with the characterization that rejecting blocks which come too quickly after the previous block constitutes "stealing." If there is fair notice that this is the algorithm of the coin, nothing prevents the miner from developing pauses in the hashing (or move to hashing some other coin during the pause). Any hashing that is done by a miner during a time when it is known in advance any found blocks will be rejected, I would characterize as the miner not being sophisticated enough in the code yet, which can be fixed at any time by using one of the aforementioned techniques.

I would request all concerned to come to a consensus on the future of Catcoin that does not involve competing forks, and that does not involve mischaracterizing algorithms based on falsely assuming that miners cannot adapt to the algorithm to avoid performing mining calculations that get wasted.

Thank you,

Etblvu1

p2pool info on my github -> https://github.com/devlin85/p2pool

Pool up right now! Testing with burst speeds of 1GH  

Just a short but sweet update.  None of the tested algo's made us really happy.  While enjoying too many adult beverages, Blak got the bizarre idea to try combining methods.  So....  Testnet's running both Digishield and PID and selecting which algo builds the next block semi-randomly.  It sounds crazy, but it's working better than any other tested algo has run on its own.  Once we're done beating on it, we'll submit the code for community review.  In the mean time, check-out testnet:  http://testnet.geekhash.org/

Nice try, Troy/hozer/tmagik, but stealing from the community is still not an option.  No.

This should reduce the long block problems

https://github.com/catcoiner/catcoin

Happy Caturday!

New pool: https://pool.bejjan.net/pool/CAT

Cheers

Hey cats, when do you expect the new wallet to be released with a fix to the sync issue? There are gaps as long as 30 hours happening continuously, it would be be a significant improvement to have that fixed.

Thank you for explanation. Indeed, the wallet is in sync again.

We have an extraordinary long block going on right now.  Your wallets will say out of sync until a block is found.

Blak

winter came

spring shall to

Hi,
my wallet v0.9.1.1-PID-beta  is out of sync, but I have 7 connections to the network.
Did I miss any update?
What do I need to do?
Thanks

Just registered on IEGServers and E-Pool, and started to mine CAT

Testnet's running Digishield with a 3-block retarget. 

I'm looking for a community position, please.

When he was part of the development team, Hozer accepted donations and managed the 'forks of 2014' insurance fund.  It's my personal opinion that Hozer should submit an accounting of the funds received, and that those funds should either be transferred to the dev team so they can be left in trust to continue the insurance program, or that they should be returned to the folks that donated them.

Again - this is my personal thought and does not reflect the opinion of the dev team.

Donators:  What do YOU want done with your CATs?  Community - what do you want done?

Thanks all,
Andy

Thanks Eric.

I'm not in charge of testnet - that's Blak's domain.  He's made clear that he'll run any catd that can be compiled.

My C++ skills have advanced enough to allow adapting functioning code, but I'm not the guy you want to convert your algo.  (Not saying that you've asked as you haven't.  Just communicating that while I would if I could, I'm not in a position to convert your code.)

I'd be interested in reading your thoughts on how your penta-moving average system compares/contrasts with KGW, as KGW consists of four exponential moving averages and one SMA.

Andy