Topic: [ANN] Catcoin - Scrypt meow! - page 34. (Read 470759 times)

Apparently code is speech, and speech is terrorism. Got any better ideas for what number should go in https://github.com/tmagik/catcoin/commit/c98f9f3267fbe28b36ed7a2130e8854c379fc0e7


Frickin comment on github, launch your own counter-terrorist patch, or just post a poll on what that number should be.

So go click the 'fork' button on github ( https://github.com/tmagik/catcoin/fork ) , and change the following line to whatever number the community comes to a consensus on:

I don't know whether to laugh at this or worry.

Leaning towards laughing.

Oh sorry, did not know.

Uh.. looks more like a page about another 'Catcoin' made by Chinese devs, according to Google Translate. If I'm right, it predates our Catcoin by around 8 months.

The hell?

Here is a Chinese site here all about Catcoin, it seems they may be opening a store soon or something that accepts catcoins. Also there is a message box at the bottom of the page where you can get intouch with them. Worth a look?

http://catcoin.cn/zh-cn/index.html

+1

No Kuro, the two channels exist exclusively for a reason. It's actually not #catcoin that is the main channel, it is ##catcoin, and has been since launch. Secondly, #catcoin-dev allows us a place to bash our heads together without boring people who aren't interested to death. It is not meant to obscure anything. neither of the channels are locked and they are both open to anyone at any time. #catcoin-dev was the channel that was made when the board was created. We want to add more people to that. There is nothing nefarious going on in there at all, just discussion on how to fix this coin.


Did you even read what he wrote? At all? He built the code for me for a a 1 block retarget, 36 block average that I have been talking about for like four days. That code specifically isn't some savage terrorist attack on our coin, it is what I personally asked him to create so we could test it. If you read back over the past ten pages you'll see I suggested this solution many many times. Nobody has yet said no at all to 1 block 36 average yet, that I've seen, because we're still simulating it. But the code is built for testing when we get there. Hozer's fork is completely seperate from that. Chill out. Lets work together, I think hozer has made it reasonably clear he isn't the enemy and isn't actually going to contact any exchanges or try to 51% the coin.

My personal vote so far is still the 1 block 36 average method, HOWEVER, etbluv1 has just made a reasonable suggestion in IRC that we're going to need to sim out. He already posted it here a few posts up.

#catcoin is the irc  channel we should use not some pseudo random #catcoin-whatever created by someone else. I don't like IRC and didn't use it in more than a decade but If it is necessary I'll join.

Also I prefere that this thread be used as a reference, it's a mean of communication on it self, slow I give you that but it's a good way to have traceability and thus if there is something important to discuss that require instant messaging, I'm up to it and have no problem with that and it would be nice to join a public chat channel, but lets be clear about, a rushed fork is out of the question and there is nothing to discuss there and this not my opinion but the majority that expressed their opinion here, so lets give that a rest, if you guys want to discuss a possible fork and what it should have as parametre and what are the pros and cons of each I'm open to that.


Are you still going with this bullshit, You are on your own at step 4 and 5, the majority that expressed their opinion said NO.

You are free to FEEL as you wish.  What you're actually accomplishing, on the other hand, is essentially a terrorist act.  Let THAT sink in a bit...

We are somewhere between steps 4 and 5 for code that retargets every block over the last 36 block average. We can test it with between 1 and 5 Mhash with a live fork, and as long as the main fork has at least 100Mhash there should be near zero possibility of any problems, and if there IS a problem that means we need to find it now, before someone else does and exploits it in secret.

I'm going to go make a github version so it should be easier to compare.

THANK YOU.. again, I'm going to be a b0rk3n record here, join #catcoin-dev and #catcoin-test on irc.freenode.net. I expect coinhoppers in an hour or two.

And to you and everyone else, I want to apologize for being a bit of an asshole.

Alright. Can you please join #catcoin-test and #catcoin-dev in irc.freenode.net and help us figure out how to get a good team of testers for new releases? There's probably another hour or two before we get 51%'ed by coinhoppers again.

No I am not a coin hopper it is money I have actually invested, and I am saying what COULD happen, I would not wish that up on any one but if people have put in hundreds of thousand if not millions you can see why they would be that PISSED if it died and you caused it.

And I was going off what others had said about you contacting exchanges and doing it anyway without any testing and that, so sorry about the early post but I was just saying be careful not to kill the coin and now I know you are listening and not blanking the community I will begin helping, at the start it was like you were just doing it and not giving a S@&t about others, but now I know you are taking it seriously I will help and won't argue any more. Sorry again.

If you feel that talking to an exchange "would not look good for anyone", then stop what you're doing.  you know you could potentially unbalance the currency by forking it, so why do it until we have a consensus on how to move forward?

I never said "don't let him talk to an exchange"; that's a strawman and you can have fun with him. I am going even simpler than that:  get community consensus before you release a fork unilaterally!

I respectfully suggest that FUD will not work on coin hoppers, because they promptly dump the coins on the markets as soon as they receive them, and convert to BTC. The FUD is affecting the coin credibility and community more than coin hoppers, and this in turn can lead to de-listing from exchanges. Let's be more deliberative and not so hasty - we may find a solution pretty quickly if we calm down for a bit and think about what we want and need to do.

Etblvu1

Hmm do you actually need mIRC to use irc.freenode.net, or is there a page you can use for that?

I mean I've used mIRC before and all, but that was.. nearly 10 years ago.

EDIT: Nevermind, found a webchat page for it. May just use mIRC anyway.

What do you want me to do? First it's "NO DON'T LET HIM TALK TO AN EXCHANGE", then its "NO HES PLAYING INSIDE BASEBALL"

Please join irc.freenode.net #catcoin-dev and #catcoin-test and we can play with an open book.

Someone make a poll at strawpoll.me of different options. This will give a relative idea of what people want to do.

A Modest Proposal

I humbly submit this proposal for your consideration. This proposal should not be implemented without consensus in the community. It requires no complicated simulations - you can try it out yourself just looking at the blockchain and with the help of a calculator, pen, and paper. Let's try to follow an open source model to agree on an algorithm. Everyone can peer review and verify this algorithm for themselves. You don't even need to be a programmer. We can reach consensus and put Catcoin on a solid footing for growth. Try it out and see for yourself:

Step 1. Look. Look at the Catcoin blockchain and look at a few hundred of the most recent transactions (easiest, I believe, is just point the browser to www.catchain.info, and click on "500" to see the 500-at-a-time view.)
Step 2. List. Ignore the current difficulty, but make a list of recent previous difficulty numbers, until you have 8. I am doing this now, and here is what I get: 1] 29.833, 2] 63.071, 3] 45.592, 4] 26.728, 5] 98.455, 6] 24.613, 7] 62.987, 8] 44.875.
Step 3. Average. Add the eight numbers together, and divide by 8. I get 49.51925. This is our reference difficulty, which is the average of recent difficulties. Ask yourself: Would it be asking a lot to agree this is a reasonable estimate of where the difficulty should be right now?
Step 4. Compare. Compare this reference difficulty to the current difficulty, and write down "low" or "high." I am looking at the blockchain. We are at difficulty 78.951 right now. So I write down "high." If difficulty was less than 49.51925, then we would write "low." This is simply deciding if we are above or below our reference difficulty.
Step 5. Compute. One of two possible options: 1) If we wrote down "high" then we write down the current normal block reward, "50." Otherwise, we wrote down "low" and we do a simple computation and write down the result of that. We'd punch into the calculator: 50 times (current difficulty) divided by (reference difficulty), and write this down.
Step 6. Attribute. Write the words "is the current reward to create a new block" after the number you just wrote down. Ask yourself: Is it asking too much, to make the maximum reward per hashes contributed, equal to (and never greater than) what you would get when difficulty is set equal to the reference difficulty?

We can call this the LLACCA algorithm (Look, List, Average, Compare, Compute, Attribute). Until/unless this is implemented, we can express support by posting a LLACCA statement, which anyone can make by following this  formula. Here's an example of a LLACCA statement I am making now, based on looking at the current blockchain:

LLACCA: (29.833+63.071+45.592+26.728+98.455+24.613+62.987+44.875)/8 = 49.51925 REF < 78.951 CURRENT ==> 50 would be the current reward to create a new block.

LLACCA for the last difficulty was: (63.071+45.592+26.728+98.455+24.613+62.987+44.875+60.199) = 53.315 REF > 29.833 CURRENT ==> 27.97805496 would have been the reward to create a new block when difficulty was at 29.833.

I will post a LLACCA statement whenever we have a change in difficulty. I am hopeful that we can form a consensus that implementing this in the coin will eliminate incentives for coin hoppers to bother the coin, keep blocks coming about every 10 minutes, and long-term miners will get maximum rewards for their tireless effort to secure our Coin. Or anyone else can post a LLACCA statement following these simple steps. Since this is easy enough for anyone to compute and there can be consensus from everyone manually doing it, this can be considered an example of a model of open source algorithm (and as the author/inventor of the LLACCA algorithm, I hereby release this algorithm under the MIT license). I believe this is the first fully open source algorithm proposed for Catcoin, that can be peer-reviewed by even non-programmers.

I invite everyone to verify this algorithm on their own, and contemplate what this would do to the incentives for both consistent miners and coin hopping miners. Everyone is free to post alternative algorithm ideas. I suggest any algorithm we consider be open source, can be peer-reviewed by non-programmers, and MIT licensed like the BTC and CAT source code itself.

Thank you,

Etblvu1