That being said above, 1GH should just update the files and call it a cgminer update ... with a standard vote set of 1 or 0
+1
Topic: [ANN] [HVC] Heavycoin - Ultra-secure, Decentralized Block Reward Voting, Fast - page 68. (Read 542276 times)
April 12, 2014, 06:34:09 PM
+1
April 12, 2014, 06:13:14 PM
For people looking to create a multipool (which, for the record, I do not agree with) here's what Faircoin is doing: http://fair-coin.info/multipool
They seem to be working with WafflePool to create a multipool system and then buying FC with the profits, distributing the profits to the faircoin addresses. Not sure what needs to be done for HVC to get that sort of deal. Might need to work something out with the Wafflepool admins.
They seem to be working with WafflePool to create a multipool system and then buying FC with the profits, distributing the profits to the faircoin addresses. Not sure what needs to be done for HVC to get that sort of deal. Might need to work something out with the Wafflepool admins.
Actually, looks like they're just using a BTC wallet database sorta deal. Pretty simple to program actually. Worth nothing though, if the network drops too low, then someone with a hashrate like GPools could single handedly launch a 51% attack... So I recommend any multipool efforts change the method a bit so we redirect at least 25-50% of hashrate to HVC.
April 12, 2014, 06:08:32 PM
For people looking to create a multipool (which, for the record, I do not agree with) here's what Faircoin is doing: http://fair-coin.info/multipool
They seem to be working with WafflePool to create a multipool system and then buying FC with the profits, distributing the profits to the faircoin addresses. Not sure what needs to be done for HVC to get that sort of deal. Might need to work something out with the Wafflepool admins.
They seem to be working with WafflePool to create a multipool system and then buying FC with the profits, distributing the profits to the faircoin addresses. Not sure what needs to be done for HVC to get that sort of deal. Might need to work something out with the Wafflepool admins.
April 12, 2014, 05:41:45 PM
That being said above, 1GH should just update the files and call it a cgminer update ... with a standard vote set of 1 or 0
April 12, 2014, 05:40:42 PM
Do not change anything in block reward voting, the point of a pseudo-democratic coin like heavycoin is to let the miners decide.
Changing the block reward will be like cheating to me.
I hate coin changing reward just to keep the value from decreasing. Let the market (and the miners for heavycoin) decides !
I am voting 1 myself since the beginning but I do not care that some people vote 1024.
They surely have a reason to do it and it should be respected.
The only things that will make the value grows up is hype and services.
Changing the block reward will be like cheating to me.
I hate coin changing reward just to keep the value from decreasing. Let the market (and the miners for heavycoin) decides !
I am voting 1 myself since the beginning but I do not care that some people vote 1024.
They surely have a reason to do it and it should be respected.
The only things that will make the value grows up is hype and services.
+1
BUT, I also think than a high percentage of miners are voting 512 & 1024 as that's what was in the sample miner config.
We need to educate the miners more. We need zhpool to mass email all the miners on why voting lower is beneficial.
April 12, 2014, 04:44:09 PM
Do not change anything in block reward voting, the point of a pseudo-democratic coin like heavycoin is to let the miners decide.
Changing the block reward will be like cheating to me.
I hate coin changing reward just to keep the value from decreasing. Let the market (and the miners for heavycoin) decides !
I am voting 1 myself since the beginning but I do not care that some people vote 1024.
They surely have a reason to do it and it should be respected.
The only things that will make the value grows up is hype and services.
Changing the block reward will be like cheating to me.
I hate coin changing reward just to keep the value from decreasing. Let the market (and the miners for heavycoin) decides !
I am voting 1 myself since the beginning but I do not care that some people vote 1024.
They surely have a reason to do it and it should be respected.
The only things that will make the value grows up is hype and services.
+1
nothing needs to be changed here.
Now we just need some merchants accepting HVC and we will be in business.
April 12, 2014, 04:30:19 PM
Do not change anything in block reward voting, the point of a pseudo-democratic coin like heavycoin is to let the miners decide.
Changing the block reward will be like cheating to me.
I hate coin changing reward just to keep the value from decreasing. Let the market (and the miners for heavycoin) decides !
I am voting 1 myself since the beginning but I do not care that some people vote 1024.
They surely have a reason to do it and it should be respected.
The only things that will make the value grows up is hype and services.
Changing the block reward will be like cheating to me.
I hate coin changing reward just to keep the value from decreasing. Let the market (and the miners for heavycoin) decides !
I am voting 1 myself since the beginning but I do not care that some people vote 1024.
They surely have a reason to do it and it should be respected.
The only things that will make the value grows up is hype and services.
April 12, 2014, 03:22:09 PM
Does anyone agree/disagree?
Although I have expressed many times that 1024 was/is too high of maximum vote allowed and have recommended that people vote low all along... I have to admit/agree that it would not be a good idea for the devs to change the code at this point. Plus... HVC was doing fine even with the higher votes... maybe this is all due to the general Bear Market... nobody knows.
To be honest... I am in support of efforts such as a multipool. Marketing efforts would be welcomed too... but they take too much time.
But what happens in a couple on months when the reward per block drops to at most 8 HVC regardless of voting? Who will still mine at that point? How will the network survive? Even if there are still a few die-hard miners there will be massive security issues and the network won't be safe. It's not going to be long before the masses figure this out and realize HVC has no future due to faulty design and decentralized voting. What happens to the value of any HVC at that point? IMHO, this can't be avoided at present without a core change.
If the math is correct above then even at a 50 (super unlikely) average vote the reward per block will drop by a factor of 10 on the 1st day sustain phase. That is all but a death sentence, is it not?
Ideally the value of HVC would go up accordingly to offset the lower reward per blocks between now and sustain day, but there is going to be far to much uncertainty of the coin for this to happen. That only leaves two options does it not? Death or core change
If anyone can see any other options how this could play out where HVC comes out ok and survives without a change I'd love to hear your opinion how this could be.
April 12, 2014, 03:05:56 PM
Keep up the good work spreading the Thunderclap everyone, https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/10329-heavycoin-secure-e-currency?locale=en
and request Moolah here http://www.reddit.com/r/heavycoin/comments/21z8v4/moolah_is_the_future_of_digital_currency/
Heavycoin to the mooooon!
and request Moolah here http://www.reddit.com/r/heavycoin/comments/21z8v4/moolah_is_the_future_of_digital_currency/
Heavycoin to the mooooon!
April 12, 2014, 02:29:09 PM
April 12, 2014, 01:34:14 PM
I own 2x290 tri x and 1 280x toxic
mining at 67Mh/s with 480W at wall is it fine or i can do better ?
I can go up to 78Mh/s but it require lot more power..
mining at 67Mh/s with 480W at wall is it fine or i can do better ?
I can go up to 78Mh/s but it require lot more power..
Seems like you have room for improvement but obviously depends from the cards and what they can do.
You are currently drawing 7.16W per Mhash. I am at 5.94W per Mhash. So ideally you could cut down your energy draw another 15-20%. 290's should also be a bit more energy efficient than 280x's.
I think as a community we need a strong effort to raise awareness and vote down the block rewards, substantially. We should try to extend the mint phase for at least 1 year. I believe this would require a block reward of around 100-150 HVC. This would give the community more time to get the word out about heavycoin and allow HVC to show off its GPU friendly features through those warm summer months. Also, allowing more time for the coin to gain acceptance in marketplaces. And ideally, pick up more value.
Totally agree. This should be the first priority for everyone now. Maybe we get another update for the miner so hopefully more miners might update their bat files along with it.
Tried to optimize again my 280x cant go under 1020Vcore@1040Mhz.
I think you are really lucky.
With the 290 i tried to manage with trixxx and afterburner but i dont know how to lock the vcore.
April 12, 2014, 01:12:31 PM
Since keccak512 has said he won't make any changes to the algorithms or timeline changes to the phases I just don't see how this can work out.
So I will repost what I did a few days earlier with the hopes that enough people will understand what I'm saying and put enough pressure on the DEVS that they will act or the coin is dead IMHO.
Mint Phase 45,000,000 coins (72 days to 25+ years depending on votes)
Limit Phase is fixed at 56 days and will award 63,476 blocks
Sustain Phase has 10,000,576 coins and will last from 4.7 years to 38+ years (depending on votes)
All of the above is from the website: http://heavycoin.github.io/about.html#decentralised-voting
Total Supply is said to be from 63,000,576 (12.69% premine) to 128,000,000 HVC (6.25% premine)
The math says 8,000,000 coins were premined in total.
If my understanding is correct:
During the limit phase if vote count was 1024 then 64,999,424 coins would be awarded. If vote count is 0 then 0 coins are awarded.
63,000,576 - 45,000,000 - 10,000,576 = 8,000,000 premined coins
We are currently at 544 average vote. If this stays the same going into Limit phase then 63,476 blocks * 544 = 34,530,944 coins.
34,530,944 / 56 days / 24 hours per day / 30 blocks per hour = 856.42 block reward. This obviously will not work well dropping to a block reward of at most 8 HVC in the sustain phase.
This is a very poor transition because instead of the block reward going down to prepare for the sustain phase it jumped way up making it that much harder for the coin to survive entering the sustain phase.
If the vote is at 256 going into limit then: 63,476 blocks * 544 = 16,249,856 coins. / 56/24/30=403.02 block reward is still way to high.
If the vote is at 100 going into limit then: 63,476 blocks * 100 = 6,347,600 coins. / 56/24/30=157.43 block reward.
If the vote is at 50 going into limit then: 63,476 blocks * 50 = 3,173,800 coins. / 56/24/30=78.71 block reward.
If the vote is at 10 going into limit then: 63,476 blocks * 10 = 634,760 coins. / 56/24/30=15.74 block reward.
So as you can see EVEN with a vote count as low as 10 average, going into and staying in the limit phase, the block reward will still drop by more then half going into the limit phase.
In all honesty even with a GREAT COMMUNITY RALLY I don't see how we'll get the vote down any lower (on average) then 256 which is less then half what it is now. That would have us going from over 400 HVC per block to at MOST 8 HVC in the sustain phase. This coin can't survive any type of drop like that when the sustain phase hits. It just will NOT BE PROFITABLE in any manner to mine and the network will die and thus the coin will too.
Unfortunately at present there is no motivation to down vote for miners who don't have any type of decent stake. They want more coins to sell/dump and don't care about long term value.
With the value of BTC at present and the exchange (HVC/BTC) half what it was a week or two something drastic HAS TO BE DONE as IT CAN NOT GET WORKED OUT BY THE COMMUNITY.
The decentralized voting was/is a terrible idea as implemented and will be the death of this coin. It was not thought out well and has conflicting outcomes on the phases. It could have be useful if the phases were setup to give proper time for things to adjust (along with the market) to shift phases smoothly. Example flip the awarded coins between the mint and sustain phase. Lower amount of coins upfront builds value. Having 1/2 the coins available for sustain phase would have given miners an opportunity to mine. Longer limit phase then 56 was/is still needed however to allow for a proper transition of the market and to allow the math of the voting to work in your favor instead of increasing reward which it presently does with HVC only making the transition to sustain that much harder.
This can only be fixed by the devs if it's not to late already with a core change.
Does anyone agree/disagree?
Carlo
BTW, is there going to be a new wallet release any time soon due to the OpenSSL vulnerability?
So I will repost what I did a few days earlier with the hopes that enough people will understand what I'm saying and put enough pressure on the DEVS that they will act or the coin is dead IMHO.
Mint Phase 45,000,000 coins (72 days to 25+ years depending on votes)
Limit Phase is fixed at 56 days and will award 63,476 blocks
Sustain Phase has 10,000,576 coins and will last from 4.7 years to 38+ years (depending on votes)
All of the above is from the website: http://heavycoin.github.io/about.html#decentralised-voting
Total Supply is said to be from 63,000,576 (12.69% premine) to 128,000,000 HVC (6.25% premine)
The math says 8,000,000 coins were premined in total.
If my understanding is correct:
During the limit phase if vote count was 1024 then 64,999,424 coins would be awarded. If vote count is 0 then 0 coins are awarded.
63,000,576 - 45,000,000 - 10,000,576 = 8,000,000 premined coins
We are currently at 544 average vote. If this stays the same going into Limit phase then 63,476 blocks * 544 = 34,530,944 coins.
34,530,944 / 56 days / 24 hours per day / 30 blocks per hour = 856.42 block reward. This obviously will not work well dropping to a block reward of at most 8 HVC in the sustain phase.
This is a very poor transition because instead of the block reward going down to prepare for the sustain phase it jumped way up making it that much harder for the coin to survive entering the sustain phase.
If the vote is at 256 going into limit then: 63,476 blocks * 544 = 16,249,856 coins. / 56/24/30=403.02 block reward is still way to high.
If the vote is at 100 going into limit then: 63,476 blocks * 100 = 6,347,600 coins. / 56/24/30=157.43 block reward.
If the vote is at 50 going into limit then: 63,476 blocks * 50 = 3,173,800 coins. / 56/24/30=78.71 block reward.
If the vote is at 10 going into limit then: 63,476 blocks * 10 = 634,760 coins. / 56/24/30=15.74 block reward.
So as you can see EVEN with a vote count as low as 10 average, going into and staying in the limit phase, the block reward will still drop by more then half going into the limit phase.
In all honesty even with a GREAT COMMUNITY RALLY I don't see how we'll get the vote down any lower (on average) then 256 which is less then half what it is now. That would have us going from over 400 HVC per block to at MOST 8 HVC in the sustain phase. This coin can't survive any type of drop like that when the sustain phase hits. It just will NOT BE PROFITABLE in any manner to mine and the network will die and thus the coin will too.
Unfortunately at present there is no motivation to down vote for miners who don't have any type of decent stake. They want more coins to sell/dump and don't care about long term value.
With the value of BTC at present and the exchange (HVC/BTC) half what it was a week or two something drastic HAS TO BE DONE as IT CAN NOT GET WORKED OUT BY THE COMMUNITY.
The decentralized voting was/is a terrible idea as implemented and will be the death of this coin. It was not thought out well and has conflicting outcomes on the phases. It could have be useful if the phases were setup to give proper time for things to adjust (along with the market) to shift phases smoothly. Example flip the awarded coins between the mint and sustain phase. Lower amount of coins upfront builds value. Having 1/2 the coins available for sustain phase would have given miners an opportunity to mine. Longer limit phase then 56 was/is still needed however to allow for a proper transition of the market and to allow the math of the voting to work in your favor instead of increasing reward which it presently does with HVC only making the transition to sustain that much harder.
This can only be fixed by the devs if it's not to late already with a core change.
Does anyone agree/disagree?
Carlo
BTW, is there going to be a new wallet release any time soon due to the OpenSSL vulnerability?
April 12, 2014, 12:18:25 PM
vote 1024 on 2 new machines ! yes
You little instigator you... I haven't decided if you're going on my Ignore List yet...
What exactly does vote do? I notice votes can either be 1, 512 or 1024 ?
I am mining at http://hvc.1gh.com/ and they say to put the vote as 512? Does it matter if I put it as vote1 on my bat file ?
You can choose any number between 0 and 1024. It will not affect your mining performance in any way ! Currently 0 would be good to balance out all the 512 votes.
If you and everyone else start voting low the block reward will get lower after ~3600 blocks/votes(5 days) are in. You can see the current blockrewards and votes for next blockreward in the bottom left corner of your wallet.
As history has shown us block halving/lowering rewards is always driving prices up. It's way better to get fewer coins but have their prices steadily growing than having more coins and to discover that they have lost a proportion of their value before you sell them
April 12, 2014, 12:15:11 PM
How about a 420 HVC block reward for 4/20
April 12, 2014, 11:32:41 AM
gpuz in not accurate, because the voltage can be locked, in my case gpu-z show 0.875, but the real voltage is 1v..
Yeah, GPU-Z is only good for reading Information from the bios which might actually not be accurate. For me changing the offset in Afterburner brings clear changes in energy draw also so that is definately working.
i found an interesting thing
if you leave the voltage in the bios as default and then reduce it with msi you will have a certain temp, but if you mod the bios to a lower voltage, and then set the same value as before on msi your tempp will be lower....
for exmaple:
bios voltage 1200 on msi you set 1100 = 80°(just an example)
bios voltage 1100 on msi you set 1100 again = 70°
i tested this myself and i don 't know why it work in that way, problably the card force the value to reach the one of the bios even if you modify it with other programs
Mhmm, I dont quite understand what you mean ? in Afterburner you can only select the voltage offset from you bios voltage but not the actual voltage itself. So with a bios volt of 1.2 and Afterburner set to -100mv you effective voltage will be 1.1v and with bios Volt of 1.1v and Afterburner offset -100mv again you effective voltage will be 1v.
Is there a place where the network hashrate is shown in a Excel import compatible way ? Can't import stuff from php and flash pages
Or can someone give me the equation for mining revenue using network diff instead hashrate please ?
i can select the actual bios voltage with my msi version, not just an offset
April 12, 2014, 11:31:52 AM
I support devs 100% 
lets make it a pos cpu coin with cap of 21mill
lets make it a pos cpu coin with cap of 21mill April 12, 2014, 11:29:42 AM
One thing they got goin is mining is done (fast mine = HVC?). No reason something like this can't happen after HVC finishes phase 1 and phase 2. Should be noted they have a talented dev/market crew though.
April 12, 2014, 11:24:15 AM
Quote
Is there a place where the network hashrate is shown in a Excel import compatible way ? Can't import stuff from php and flash pages
Or can someone give me the equation for mining revenue using network diff instead hashrate please ?
Or can someone give me the equation for mining revenue using network diff instead hashrate please ?
Code:
block_reward / (difficulty * 2^32 / hashs_per_sec / 3600 / 24)
Side note: Blackcoin now trading over 1100 BTC on Mintpal. Impressive community/devs over there. price has more than doubled.
its their pool which creates constant buy support, wish we had a pool like that.
April 12, 2014, 11:11:20 AM
Quote
Is there a place where the network hashrate is shown in a Excel import compatible way ? Can't import stuff from php and flash pages
Or can someone give me the equation for mining revenue using network diff instead hashrate please ?
Or can someone give me the equation for mining revenue using network diff instead hashrate please ?
Code:
block_reward / (difficulty * 2^32 / hashs_per_sec / 3600 / 24)
Side note: Blackcoin now trading over 1100 BTC on Mintpal. Impressive community/devs over there. price has more than doubled.
April 12, 2014, 10:41:52 AM
Now i don't have anymore succession planning from dev team.
Gpools you still mining HVC and voting 1?
+1
The coin is good, but I am becoming increasingly disappointed with the dev activity. There are efforts being made by various community members, but I am seeing no activity from the devs.
@devs: You guys earned a truckload of cash via IPO, and the coin needs buy support, as well as some serious promotion.
Yeah, a good start would be the Thread subject
Nowadays everything is fast so thats not a selling point. For the miners neither is Ultra-secure - It's a good feature but it's just not such a big selling point in this forum.
Something like: "Ultra low power draw and cool GPU's, Vote for decreasing/increasing blockreward" etc would draw a lot more attention in the forum I think.
Jump to: