Topic: [ANN] [HVC] Heavycoin - Ultra-secure, Decentralized Block Reward Voting, Fast - page 79. (Read 542276 times)

Goes to credibility
Problem with this is that it was flawed from the launch by amateur design, so any vote change won't matter (nor did it ever really matter). The 3 "phrases" don't make sense as implemented. Being more specific. This coin is just barely profitable right now for some and not for others already.  There are many other coins much more profitable right now any way you cut it. It's almost impossible to get ROI on equipment at CURRENT levels per block on HVC.  If EVERYONE lowered their vote then we would get an extended "mint" phase but then it would NOT be profitable to mine at all so no one would mine it due to higher diff level. So it's would self kill.  On the other hand with higher vote count there is more coins to mine for a short time to make it profitable short term (maybe). But then we get to limit phase and 56 days later the coin is dead as no one will mine it.

Both are bad, by poor design and right now without a "core" change it can't be fixed. This is why I said the vote count really doesn't matter. The vote count can maybe buy another 56 days before it dies.

Because of the faulty implementation it's doomed. No one that does any proper research on this coin could find ANY reason to invest in it that I can see.

I would love to see ANYONE post a scenario where the coin lives into the summer without a rapid death spiral.  Try doing the math and see if you can find any possible way it survives short of somehow changing the core (spaced out time line, different coin count or somehow changing/morphing into a POS).  The only way involves a change that invalidates the central voting feature and completely abolishing the 3 current phases as these do not mathematically work at present nor since it was launched.  At this point the credibility of the coin is gone as there is nothing left unique to the coin. If you go to this extreme to fix things then I'd ask why?  It would be much easier to fix things with a brand new launch of a new coin.  Probably harsh to say but am I wrong?

If you do the math, you'll find the decentralized vote count is an illusion at best.

Sure, but by design most don't setup a coin to mine 90% or so in the first couple of months. The problem I have is the sustain phase. It by design throws the diff off the charts and will halt mining.  So what do you do then? With other coins that are designed without the "trick/illusion" phases it's predetermined how many coins can be mined.  The block values SLOWLY adjust over time based on hash rate and not by some other "trick" thrown in (that was not thought out AT ALL).  This gives the coin a chance to build value if everything else is done well.  With other coins, as diff rises people stop mining and move to a different more profitable coin. Then diff lowers and people move back, cycle of mining.  With HVC and the sustain phase this can't work.  Once it hits that phase the diff level is sky high and no intelligent miner will touch it.

The only exception I can see to the above paragraph is what I alluded to in a previous post.  Some how, some way, in a real short term the core team will need to get the value to 100 times it's current value.  With a set amount of coins to be produced in the sustain phase of 10 million coins at the minimal amount of time 4.7 years there has to be some serious value to the coin for people to continue mining it.

I just don't see this happening.  Do any of you?  I just don't think there is any credibility to the coin or ideas behind it that work as "marketed". A lot of stuff sounds good when you first hear it, but breaking it down and analyzing it... With no real credibility behind it how do you increase the value to a point that will allow the sustain phase to exist?


I don't really like any of them particularly either but they each probably have something really unique they are doing. HVC has nothing once you start to peel back the marketing and really look at the implementation.

You guys can quote me and throw this back at me at a later time, but don't say I didn't foretell the future and tell you there will be a death spiral coming by the end of the limit phase if not sooner.

Keep holding your HVC like a boss if you think they will have a future and be worth something but I just don't see it.

Again, I'd love for someone to show me where my logic is wrong.

Carlo

There's a ton of Zeta talk on Twitter, some big announcement of the culmination of a huge real world project being announced in a few hours. Can be certain, but it seems legit. We'll see.

Coin was sold as CPU only by the devs.
 True. It is not the first CPU only coin to be GPU mined. HVC brought us 50% less power than scrypt and cool cards. I think we can all agree these are beneficial to GPU miners. Why is the loss of CPU only so important?

Coin has what many consider a unique feature of decentralized voting but it's more gimmick then anything else due to implementation failures.
 I agree that it could have been implemented much better, votes should have been set at zero, and people forced to choose. Connection strings should have left the -v as 0, again forcing people to choose. We still have the power to change the duration of the mint phase. If the community dropped the vote to 1, so we mint 720 coins per day, 45,000,000-22,873,154= 22,127,428 coins remaining in mint phase/720= 30,732.538889 days until end of mint phase. We could mine the mint phase for another 84 years if my math is right. We need to come together as a community and lower the vote, which would demonstrate a solid community for the coin, which helps people give the coin value. Not a gimmick at all, no other coin even allows for such happenings.

Devs made a horrible choice in having three phases of production which are Mint, Limit and Sustain
Don't all coins give you lower rewards as they age and the difficulty gets higher? Does changing the mint phase duration change the effect of limit and sustain phase in your assessment?

A few miners hold the keys to most of the coins
The whales are everywhere, this is certainly not specific to HVC. There would have been whales if it was CPU only too.

Lets get the vote down and get ourselves more time.

Myriad coin will mint 2 billion coins. Zetacoin Initial coin mining is 160 million coins, thereafter a yearly inflation of 1 million coins. Blackcoin strikes me as a scam. I don't see how any of those coins are better than HVC, even at max supply of 128,000,000.

What will we allegedly know tomorrow?

Lower the memory clock on the 280 to 1500Mhz, increase GPU clock on the 7950s to 1000Mhz, try a different worksize, add "-g 2" for multi-thread mining, try "-X 4" instead of "-I 8", add "--thread-concurrency 8193".

My 7950s run 1050/1450 at ~15Mh/s
My 280s run 1100/1500 at ~20Mh/s.

@Cayars For the ASIC part, I disagree. To my understanding your hash speed will only be as fast as the slowest algorithm, so using an asic would be useless and multi-gpu distributed hashing wouldn't be much better. Regardless, as I said in my last post, that isn't the problem.

Big problem 1) The votes are TOO DAMN HIGH. Voting will be the death of the coin. All PoW coins need mass adoption and a crap ton of transactions in order to survive. (The reason Bitcoin will survive even after 100% mint is because transaction volumes will keep rewarding for new blocks). IF HVC were to survive, it would need to achieve mass adoption before the end of the limit phase, which at this rate cannot happen.

Big problem 2) The coin has no meaningful innovations to offer. It is competing against Blackcoin (BC), Myriadcoin (MYR) and Zetacoin (ZET) for an up-and-coming place in crypto this year, and the only upside to it is the new algo. Problem with that is, MYR has a MUCH cooler Algo system, and QRK kinda already has that issue covered, as do all X11 coins.

I really like HVC. It was the first crypto I mined and I think it had some real innovations. But as a trader as well, I can find no reasons to justify long term survival of HVC without the Devs pulling off what ZET did (allegedly, we'll know tomorrow) and achieve some form of real world utility.

I completely agree that those numbers seem pretty accurate.


I have seen the timelines of bitcoin and have seen the same thing happen to it.  Bitcoin started off as CPU only, but after the difficulty went up and the miners were not making enough money to pay the electricity, someone decided to push the algo to better memory.  Now I don't have exact figures, but there were not that many people around 3 years ago.  Fast forward to today, and you will see that the community has at least tripled, if not quadrupled, which means there are more software programmers around.  Hence why I don't believe there is a CPU only coin, sure it was sold to us that way, but let's consider that during their testing maybe they couldn't figure out a way.  I believe there are two sides to every fence.


With every cut copy and paste coin out there, everyone is looking to take the original idea of bitcoin and make it better.  Bitcoin simply can not be #1, some other coin will surpass it, but Bitcoin has showed us that cryptocurrency is a valid structure.  As for this coin and the ability to allow people to vote?  Well I think it is great that seeing as how we rely on trust from our coin dev, that they have allowed the community to have a final say in the total coins.  Sure our votes during the minting phase is not going to change how many will be minted, but once we enter the second phase that will change.  We as a community have to support our coin, very much like those folks did when they were mining bitcoin back in the day for .01 cents/coin. 


While I do agree that you have some valid points, I have to say that the dev of the coin has decided to do the coin their way.  I mean no disrespect, but we all have great ideas of what we want our coin to be, and I admit that it is up to the dev to keep up with communty in order to try to meet the demands of the community, but we can't all have it our way. 

If my post comes off as negative in any way, then I apoligize in advance.  I just wanted to offer my opinion on the matter.

I browse forums all the time and I seem to see these questions come up a lot, and while they are valid we must always look at what bitcoin went through.  It went through at least 4 crashes that I am aware of, but the community still believed in the process of how it can be used to pay for things, therefore allowing it to remain today.

I for one am supporting this coin because I believe that it has a chance to surpass litecoin, at least with a little bit of time.  This coin's specs are what merchants could stand behind in order to secure their transactions and do them in timely fashions.

[/quote]

I don't disagree with you, but nothing here goes against what I was saying.

In regards to ASIC use, I was simply stating you could use what is currently available and being dumped for use on Bitcoin right now for 1/4 of HVC hash functions because of it's use of interleaving (poor amateur implementation).  X11 couldn't be done like this (to get big returns) and would need an ASIC designed for it.

Don't get to hung up on the ASIC part of my message.  I was simply showing that ASIC devices could be used right now without any special new devices since one of the hash functions plays right into current SHA-256 devices which are already on the market.  The coin was sold as "CPU" only at launch but 1/4 of the algorithm was ASIC minable from day one.

I have other issues not mentioned in the previous post such as: The coin was sold as using Kimoto Gravity Well but this was also quickly replaced by Temporal Retargeting which is a "home-brew" different way of adjusting difficulty on the fly.  It's untested to the best of my knowledge except in use by this coin for less than a month and may have many exploits that could be used against it. KGW is outdated. Why was it chosen to begin with (another bad example of dev architecture)? Why did the devs come up with a new way that hasn't been through a test phase to make sure it's exploit free.  DigiShield would have been a much better solution. Anyone want to make any wagers how the block chain would stand up to an attack that could put on it? 

With the changes made to the architecture, has this coin been vetted against attacks like the KGW exploit or many others?  Is there any documentation of said testing?  IMHO, you can't just arbitrary change things without a solid testing and proof of concept.

However putting all the technical stuff out of mind:

The bigger problem I see is that once out of limit phase which is 56 days, there is no reason left to mine this coin as the diff level is "beyond" through the roof.  The coin itself is dead at that point unless something monumental happens between now and that time to make it super valuable.

It makes no difference if this coin runs cooler on my GPUs during summer because it will be all but dead before summer. See what I'm getting at?

This coin would probably have to somehow become 100 or more realistically 1000 times more valuable then it is now by that time to have any value in holding or having it.  My issue is that the coin is only minable for about 4 months from it's inception, give or take and then it's done/over/dead.  It has no life time of mining. It's basically a mint/limit phase and dead coin. I hate to say it but it's just another "scam" coin without a chance, worse than most actually.  I really hate to use that 4 letter word because I don't think that was the intention, but ends up having the same affect as other "scam" alt coins because the timelines and concepts weren't thought out very well.

Try playing around with the numbers on paper or in a spreadsheet. Set it up and use a vote of 1, a vote of 1024 or anything in between.  You'll see it makes no real difference at all.  Once out of limit phase the diff value is so high no one will mine it.  The only way at that point for this coin to work is that is has to by some miracle become so valuable it can survive on it's own as a valuable commodity.  But how can it? It's pre-mined at a much higher rate then any literature published would suggest (higher in overall affect then just about every other alt coin with a pre-mine). It was flawed from inception in what it had that was unique (but flawed in implementation).  It had/uses a flawed algorithm approach that was partially ASIC usable from day one and surely wasn't CPU only as pitched from the beginning.

Realistically, what does this coin have going for it other than community? Even this is slowly dropping. IRC is all but dead.  Not really many new people here in the forum. Hash rates not really climbing, etc. This isn't really that important in the scheme of things as I don't think even a vibrant community can overcome the difficulties I've pointed out about this coin at present.

From an analyst standpoint it can't be vetted as a good buy, short or long term.

Show me how this isn't the case?!?!?

Am I wrong on anything I've said that has any substance?

Carlo

the fact is an asic can be made for any coin and any alogo it doesent matter.. the only ones that stand a chance is the ones that change algo's not the ones that have multiple in ones so yes i have less faith in this than other options... every premine ends up dead

for that reason the x11 would be another band-aid


if your worried about asics consider this http://www.reddit.com/r/vertcoin/comments/1zr9hy/faq_vertcoin_asicresistance_all_the_answers_you/

the main point is no one would attempt a asic if the developers of the coin would be willing to do anything to stop it including changing code.. ltc would thrive if they took a stance against it but devolopers have said they will embrace asic.. that being said this coin seems to be willing to do that however there are other coins more reputable with no premine that already have a market value that would do the same
[/quote]

After writing this post I came back to the top to add this.  I'm not a hater.  Up until this post I've been mining it. I was cought up in the "cool aid" myself.  But today I decided to think about this coin, it's implementation and it's long term survival.  I don't like what I'm thinking.  Below is my current thoughts. I haven't given this much thought other than what I just typed.  So PLEASE correct me where I'm wrong (and I hope I am).  I start with a response to another post which has useful information.

So at 80MH/s you right now would be generating about 227.74 coins per day on 4/8/14. HVC is currently trading at 0.00002933 so that is 0.006679589 BTC per day.  BTC right now is at $452 so your rig is earning $3.02 per day on average before expenses.  880W is 21.12 kWH per day.  If your electric cost is 13 cents (with all taxes included) that is $2.75 in cost per day.  You are making $0.27 per day mining HVC at present.  If you figure any type of depreciation or any other factors then you are most likely loosing money mining HVC at present.  You will never get an ROI at present profit levels. So why mine HVC at present if there are other coins much more profitable?  You could always use that money to purchase HVC if you think it has a future. Profitability would be higher for 750ti users as the power requirements are lower, but again, why not just mine a different coin that is more profitable?

BUT DOES THIS COIN HAVE A FUTURE?
To me this coin really has a lot of problems. I'm a programmer and very good business analyst.  I don't think it was thought out well.  More hype then delivery.  Here are some of my reasons:
Coin was sold as CPU only by the devs.  (see here for a good profile of how this was originally "sold": http://blog.gryfencryp.to/2014/03/19/heavycoin-hvc-democratic-cpu-coin/)  Didn't even take a week to have GPUs mining this coin. The whole implementation of the coin was based on CPU and not GPU mining.  Forget about any thoughts of ASIC mining as that just wasn't possible according to what the dev's told us. Then the tone switched to ASIC resistant but is it? See below:  

Coin has what many consider a unique feature of decentralized voting but it's more gimmick then anything else due to implementation failures from my interpretation of the timeline.  It's a novel idea but the implementation is/was horrible and automately will have no affect regardless of your vote. Vote 1 or 1024 and it will hardly make a difference to the life of the coin.

Devs made a horrible choice in having three phases of production which are Mint, Limit and Sustain (at least in the setup).  For the sake of argument lets just look at the Sustain phase. 10,000,576 coins for a duration of 4.7 years to 38+ years.  Doesn't matter what the vote is.  The Sustain phase should have been called "Coin is Dead" phase. 10 million coins at 4.7 years (minimal).  Really?  I mean really?  It hardly worth mining at present.  Who  in there right mind is going to mine it during the Sustain phase?  That's 242 coins PER HOUR at the BEST CASE (only 4.7 years).  This isn't per 2 minute block (well over 550 coins) but PER HOUR.  Forget the diff value.  No way/shape/form anybody with any sense will be mining at this point. From over 550 coins per 2 minute block (16,500 per hour minimal currently) to 242 at bast case per hour?  That's one hell of a DIFF JUMP. Really?  You guys really think this is a good idea, regardless of the fact that you can vote on it?  This is the best case.  Worst case isn't even worth looking at since best case doesn't work. ( extrapolate 4.7 years to 38 years)

Mint phase had 45,000,000 coins (regardless of duration).  Limit phase is fixed at 56 days until coin is dead (from mining anyway).  I honestly don't see how anyone would mine it after this period. You can do the math to determine how many coins based on current vote pattern will be mined during the limit phase.  Really the only variable worth exploring.

IPO gave 5 million coins away (where did these coins come from?).  There was a pre-mine (called 1-2%) but if you really look at what the numbers will look like it's a lot higher. Not a statement but a question: Was this coin not really pre-mined around 10% plus or minus?  Regardless of what you call it, where did the 1-2% plus 5 million coins come from?  What is that percentage compared to what will most likely be mined though out the mint and limit phase.  What is that percent?  That is really the pre-mine regardless of what you call it.

I'm not sure how anyone can see this being a good coin for anyone not in on the "ground floor" or being a dev with their hand in the pocket of the IPO when you factor in what I just typed.

Another MAJOR problem: A few miners hold the keys to most of the coins.  What happens if they decide to dump? 3 or 4 people could single handily kill this coin outright with a complete dump of their coins.  HVC in the current alt coin market right now could probably not survive this.  gpools, want to make some extra cash?  Get people to bribe you not to dump your HVC. I want 10% of bribe money for the idea.

One of the other characteristics of this coin being sold as unique is the Hefty1 algorithm (http://heavycoin.github.io/about.html#asic-resistant).  This isn't some new algorithm per say but a combination of other algorithms that already exists.  It does nothing more than interleave bits from each hash of 4 other hash functions into a combined 256-bit hash.  Nothing special going on here by any means.  Pretty simple/basic stuff. Not sure what all the attention is about this as this type of thing has been done for ages. Sounds good on initial inspection but the 4 algorithms chosen weren't the best to choose. SHA-256 should have never been one of them IMHO.

1/4 of the Hefty1 algorithm is not ASIC proof. SHA-256 is what ASIC machines in the wild currently run best!!! If I thought this coin had a true future I would dive right into the code and separate the algorithms to run on separate GPUs for faster processing. Sure the GPUs would run hotter but I'd produce more hash/s too. That's an increase right there. I'd run all SHA-256 via any type of ASIC device (even the "cheap" ones not worth running for BTC would be valuable here for HVC).  Thereby freeing up all GPUs not having to process any SHA-256 stuff at all (another huge increase for the GPU hash rates).  Assign different GPU(s) to each remaining hash function.  Slower ones get more GPUs.  The idea with a GPU farm is to have one ASIC device to process SHA-256 and other GPUs running dedicated algorithms for each.  Then with a central "operator program" doing the dispatching I'd run circles around everyone else. I wouldn't be surprised if someone else is already doing one or both of these ideas!  Not really that much involved.  I'd do this myself but I'm not sure I see the long term value of the coin. Do any of you after reading this?  Using this type of approach with X11 or Quark is much, much harder as your not just doing interleaving. The parallel processing would be much more difficult to get high level results then Hefty1.

From an HVC ASIC resistance standpoint it would have been far better to only use Keccak-512, Grøestl-512,BLAKE-512 and leave out SHA-256!  Why was an ASIC hash function included in the first place?  I can't figure out the reasoning behind it, can you? But, HVC was conceived as CPU only!  Not even GPU, forget about ASIC.  Failure on Devs part is all I can think of.  Just really not well conceived.

Technically if someone had a good SHA-256 ASIC device and wanted to run a pool they could cut the SHA-256 out of the end-user's program and handle all SHA-256 at the pool level.  Give a special client to pool members and this pool would dominate since they can hash much faster then everyone else as 1/4 of the hash functionality is done via ASIC device(s).

This is what I mean by "the coin is not thought out well" or done during Amature hour as I'll call it.

Again, with the first paragraph taken into consideration and again stating I'm not a hater but not sipping the "cool aid" anymore.  I want to believe in HVC but after thinking about it and typing this, I just don't see it.

Any/Everyone, what is wrong with my logic? What am I overlooking?  What really is unique about HVC that has a future? What do I have wrong in my logic?

Carlo

Yeah might be rented or a large miner moved over.

Difficutly adjusts very quickly with HVC temporal retargeting. They designed it so it wouldnt get stuck for more than 3 hours I believe.

Probably rented mining rigs - they get there for a few hours or a couple of days and then are gone, leaving the rest of us with high diff for a while ... but it will lower, only the sustainable hash power remains

Anyone know what the hashrate of the chinese pool http://hvc.v36.net:8002/ is?

The network went from +/- 100 Gh/s earlier today to +/- 145 Gh/s right now. 1GH hashrate is 56.8 Gh/s, zhpool is 47 Gh/s, HVC mining pool hub is 8 Gh/s, and nonce-pool is 814 Mh/s, for a total of about 112 Gh/s.

I was just curious where the additional 32 Gh/s came from.

I am running my 1 7970 rig and I am getting 18MH/s.... exact same software...

Do you guys know if it mixing 280x, 7970s and 7950s in 1 rig will mess things up ??

Just to make it clear I have 3 rigs... but one of them only has a 7970 lol..

The other 2 rigs are producing half the expected speed

setx GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
setx GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS 1
cgminer.exe --heavy --vote 1 --no-submit-stale -o stratum+tcp://us-east1.heavycoin.miningpoolhub.com:30475 -u x -p x -I 6,7,7 --gpu-engine 1170 --gpu-memclock 1500 -w 64

19.5mh/s gigabyte 280x hynix. 18.7mh/s gigabyte 280x elpida

i use 14.3 beta and win 8.1

Diff 4500  srsly

I am using the latest miner and this is my bat file

setx GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
setx GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS 1
COLOR 0A
del *.bin
cgminer.exe --heavy --vote 512 -w 64 -o stratum+tcp://hvcpool.1gh.com:5333 -u x-p VIP -o stratum+tcp://hvcpool2.1gh.com:5333 -u x-p VIP -I 8 --gpu-memclock 1400,1600,1300,1300 --gpu-engine 1000,1100,950,950

The GPUs are as follows 7970, 280x toxic, 7950, 7950

I am getting around 10MH/s each of these... any ideas? I thought I should be getting 20MH/s each?

I am using the latest miner with the 13.12 installed

I'm gonna try to see if I can just reinstall the drivers and get a better result later - thanks