Topic: [ANN] MemoryCoin - page 23. (Read 100357 times)
http://memorycoin.21stcenturymoneytalk.org not show total clients in network, I have 85 connections at one comp.
20 I7 3770k($1000X20=$20000) + a week(300w x20x24x7x$0.2/1000=$200) =10000MEG
You are pricing 10K MEG at 100 BTC...That is >$10,000. Your electricity cost are maybe $300. Please post a more realistic price or wait for an exchange.
This from the same user a few days ago . . .
I will buy all you coin . 1btc=8000MEG
Quite the speculator! Good luck to everyone, fingers crossed for an exchange soon.
Explanation 2: My home PC does around 6 h/s on average for 350 W
7000 = (3.6*10^9 hashes / block) / (6 h/s) / (60 seconds per minute) / (60 minutes / hour) * 350 W/hr * (1 KW / 1000 W) * ($0.12 / KW hr)
7000 = (3.6*10^9 hashes / block) / (6 h/s) / (60 seconds per minute) / (60 minutes / hour) * 350 W/hr * (1 KW / 1000 W) * ($0.12 / KW hr)
Also, are you sure the PC is running at the full 350W? It sounds a lot for a home PC. It might just be the max rating for the power supply but running at a fraction of that - you'd need to hook up a watt meter to know for sure.
Have you got any plans to get this one one of the exchanges?
not that I have much only 166
not that I have much only 166
I've made a request for inclusion in Cryptsy - we'll see how it goes.
http://forum.litebonk.com/index.php?topic=691.msg4117#msg4117
Have you got any plans to get this one one of the exchanges?
not that I have much only 166
not that I have much only 166
http://21stcenturymoneytalk.org/index.php?topic=34.0
Have you got any plans to get this one one of the exchanges?
not that I have much only 166
not that I have much only 166
If you look at the granted addresses they are always the same 5 at present,
No, there's been quite a bit of jockeying around for grant in the last 48hrs.
Therefore the highest holder/miner can ensure he/she receives more than a 4% of the newly issued coins.
No.
Therefore the highest holder/miner can ensure he/she receives more than a 4% of the newly issued coins.
Yes, but what's new?
You'd need to hold
a) 17% of the votes, to get the 4% and
b) 13% of the hashing power
to ensure you remained at 17%.
As the coin grows, it will be increasingly difficult to hold onto 13% of the hashing power - especially as minting is designed not to be commercially viable.
In any case, this would be a foolish strategy since it would be obvious to the market that community grants were not being awarded, thus driving down the value of the currency, which you are a 17% stake holder in.
1btc=100MEG or 200MEG or ? I want to sell 10000 MEG.
I want to sell 10000 MemoryCoin。
If I understand correctly, those people having huge balances who have created 'private' grant addresses are getting most of the grant rewards thus increasing their balances which, at the same time, gives them more 'power' to receive more grants. If this is the case, I think it should be included some kind of mechanism to regulate this stock concentration.
The mechanism is dilution over time. A holder needs 17% of all MC votes to guarantee a 1 grant win, or 4% of newly issued currency, so over time the 17% will tend towards 4%. The only feasible way to guarantee grants over time is to seek community support.
The way to increase the speed of this process is to increase the base of miners so that no individual can mine a large percentage of the coins, and to get more small holders to vote for community-oriented grants. I think having more grants to vote for would help here too.
If you look at the granted addresses they are always the same 5 at present, this means that this 'private' addresses get an equivalent of 1 of each 25 block (20 mined blocks + 5 grant blocks) plus any other blocks they could mine since they have 'huge' computational power to get hte initial balance. Therefore the highest holder/miner can ensure he/she receives more than a 4% of the newly issued coins.
The last 3 coins NEVER get confirmed, ever...
After this starts happening ALL subsequent coins mined DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH...
One has to restart and/or reseed the client.
Sounds like you might be getting orphans. I think the client gets stuck on a block sometimes when mining. I'm still looking at this stability issue.
In the meantime, make sure to use the latest client available.
Does this formula look correct....
Electric cost ($ per block) = 7200 * DIFF
Coin Price: Will vary based on declining reward per block and future difficulty expectations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanation 1: Amazon EC2 reported getting 35 h/s at $0.25/hour (stats posted in prior posting)
7142 = (3.6*10^9 hashes / block) / (35 h/s) / (60 seconds per minute) / (60 minutes / hour) * 0.25 $/hr
Explanation 2: My home PC does around 6 h/s on average for 350 W
7000 = (3.6*10^9 hashes / block) / (6 h/s) / (60 seconds per minute) / (60 minutes / hour) * 350 W/hr * (1 KW / 1000 W) * ($0.12 / KW hr)
Electric cost ($ per block) = 7200 * DIFF
Coin Price: Will vary based on declining reward per block and future difficulty expectations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanation 1: Amazon EC2 reported getting 35 h/s at $0.25/hour (stats posted in prior posting)
7142 = (3.6*10^9 hashes / block) / (35 h/s) / (60 seconds per minute) / (60 minutes / hour) * 0.25 $/hr
Explanation 2: My home PC does around 6 h/s on average for 350 W
7000 = (3.6*10^9 hashes / block) / (6 h/s) / (60 seconds per minute) / (60 minutes / hour) * 350 W/hr * (1 KW / 1000 W) * ($0.12 / KW hr)
Your home PC sounds a bit expensive - energy inefficient . .
1. EC2 is giving you 35 x 60 x 60 = 126,000 hashes for 0.25 . . . about 504,000 hashes per dollar
2. Home PC is giving you 6 x 60 x 60 = 21,600 hashes for .12*.35 = .042 . . .about 514,000 hashes per dollar
That's about the same cost to you . . . but you're not renting the home pc, you already own that, it's a sunk cost, so you should expect a better rate from it.
Consider my laptop at 4 hashes for 60 watts
3. Energy Efficient laptop 4 x 60 x 60 = 14,400 hashes for .12*.06 = . . . 0.0072 . . . about 2 million hashes per dollar.
Conclusion: the most efficient way to mine MemoryCoin is on an energy-efficient PC that you already own.
If I understand correctly, those people having huge balances who have created 'private' grant addresses are getting most of the grant rewards thus increasing their balances which, at the same time, gives them more 'power' to receive more grants. If this is the case, I think it should be included some kind of mechanism to regulate this stock concentration.
The mechanism is dilution over time. A holder needs 17% of all MC votes to guarantee a 1 grant win, or 4% of newly issued currency, so over time the 17% will tend towards 4%. The only feasible way to guarantee grants over time is to seek community support.
The way to increase the speed of this process is to increase the base of miners so that no individual can mine a large percentage of the coins, and to get more small holders to vote for community-oriented grants. I think having more grants to vote for would help here too.
I posted some information about wasted votes here -
http://21stcenturymoneytalk.org/index.php/topic,36.0.html
http://21stcenturymoneytalk.org/index.php/topic,36.0.html
Good news . . .21st Century has been re-funded, but I've been defunded. Competition for grant allocations has really heated up. Most of the grant addresses haven't proposed to do anything, but rather are using large amount of coin to vote for their own grants. 3/5 are currently going to private address. 1 to 21st Century and 1 to MC Foundation.
So I need to ask for some voting preferences for my grant as a developer.
Please send 0.00000009 memory coins to my grant address at MVTEoEo5LgYAMVh95oBBfGPj2eCDzkuJC3
This is especially relevant if you voted before to maintain balances (MVTE7E3QD83ZLHivvBeNh8ZK1Eg313AEm). That vote is now over, so a vote for this address is a waste.
Thank you kindly. Should have client update and some information on a website soon.
If I understand correctly, those people having huge balances who have created 'private' grant addresses are getting most of the grant rewards thus increasing their balances which, at the same time, gives them more 'power' to receive more grants. If this is the case, I think it should be included some kind of mechanism to regulate this stock concentration.
New client -
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-5Ax5kejTpMdnV6RTZaSGJFaDA/edit?usp=sharing
Added
1. checkpoints
2 -debugvote=1 switch to print out votes in folder
3. tidy Makefile (Thanks to SlyWax and 21st)
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-5Ax5kejTpMdnV6RTZaSGJFaDA/edit?usp=sharing
Added
1. checkpoints
2 -debugvote=1 switch to print out votes in folder
3. tidy Makefile (Thanks to SlyWax and 21st)
Had to make a patch to get it to compile on *nix....
http://dpaste.com/1344270/
Did not check yet if this works on windows still.
Yes it dose work on widows(as far as I can tell)
Heve downloaded it and have it runing sice the past 2 hours and it works just fine, no errors
That patch failed to build on windows for me. What build env. are you using it worked in?
http://dpaste.com/1344394/
works for me now though is a bit ugly. Would probably look cleaner if done as a macro defined in compat.h, but this lets me build it at least.
New client -
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-5Ax5kejTpMdnV6RTZaSGJFaDA/edit?usp=sharing
Added
1. checkpoints
2 -debugvote=1 switch to print out votes in folder
3. tidy Makefile (Thanks to SlyWax and 21st)
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-5Ax5kejTpMdnV6RTZaSGJFaDA/edit?usp=sharing
Added
1. checkpoints
2 -debugvote=1 switch to print out votes in folder
3. tidy Makefile (Thanks to SlyWax and 21st)
Had to make a patch to get it to compile on *nix....
http://dpaste.com/1344270/
Did not check yet if this works on windows still.
Yes it dose work on widows(as far as I can tell)
Heve downloaded it and have it runing sice the past 2 hours and it works just fine, no errors
New client -
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-5Ax5kejTpMdnV6RTZaSGJFaDA/edit?usp=sharing
Added
1. checkpoints
2 -debugvote=1 switch to print out votes in folder
3. tidy Makefile (Thanks to SlyWax and 21st)
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-5Ax5kejTpMdnV6RTZaSGJFaDA/edit?usp=sharing
Added
1. checkpoints
2 -debugvote=1 switch to print out votes in folder
3. tidy Makefile (Thanks to SlyWax and 21st)
Had to make a patch to get it to compile on *nix....
http://dpaste.com/1344270/
Did not check yet if this works on windows still.
Edit:
Ok, that failed on windows.
This patch works seems to now build on deb6/deb7/windows/bsd
http://dpaste.com/1344394/
New client -
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-5Ax5kejTpMdnV6RTZaSGJFaDA/edit?usp=sharing
Added
1. checkpoints
2 -debugvote=1 switch to print out votes in folder
3. tidy Makefile (Thanks to SlyWax and 21st)
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-5Ax5kejTpMdnV6RTZaSGJFaDA/edit?usp=sharing
Added
1. checkpoints
2 -debugvote=1 switch to print out votes in folder
3. tidy Makefile (Thanks to SlyWax and 21st)
Jump to: