Linux static builds were added for 0.4.4.6 update3:
Topic: [ANN] official NovaCoin thread - the original PoS+scrypt coin. --POOL LIST-- - page 27. (Read 282664 times)
March 15, 2014, 04:26:43 PM
March 12, 2014, 12:14:26 PM
PSA: Gamblex has added NovaCoin to their supported coins. We will provide an exchange and a gambling section where you can trade and gamble with NVC! Check out now, how you can profit from this. Investing is open now!
Thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/anninvest-gamblex-last-chance-to-invest-today-join-now-498311
Thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/anninvest-gamblex-last-chance-to-invest-today-join-now-498311
March 12, 2014, 10:33:46 AM
http://novaco.in statistics. It only started to collect visits info, but interesting already.
Age % of visits
Gender % of visits
# Country % of visits
Age % of visits
18-24 27,50%
25-34 33,50%
35-44 15,50%
45-54 12,50%
55-64 5,50%
65+ 5,5%
Gender % of visits
female 45,85%
male 54,15%
# Country % of visits
1. Russia 63,66 %
2. Ukraine 11,65 %
3. United States 5,04 %
4. China 2,98 %
5. Austria 1,93 %
6. Kazakhstan 1,66 %
7. Belarus 1,36 %
8. Germany 1,27 %
9. Canada 0,88 %
10. Netherlands 0,79 %
11. United Kingdom 0,48 %
12. Latvia 0,39 %
13. France 0,35 %
14. Indonesia 0,35 %
15. Israel 0,35 %
16. Isle of Man 0,35 %
17. South Africa 0,35 %
18. Australia 0,31 %
19. Spain 0,31 %
20. Poland 0,31 %
21. Portugal 0,31 %
22. Brazil 0,26 %
23. Switzerland 0,26 %
24. Japan 0,26 %
25. South Korea 0,26 %
26. Norway 0,26 %
27. Romania 0,26 %
28. Taiwan 0,26 %
29. Vietnam 0,26 %
30. Greece 0,22 %
31. Argentina 0,18 %
32. Bulgaria 0,18 %
33. Czech Republic 0,18 %
34. Denmark 0,13 %
35. Estonia 0,13 %
36. Finland 0,13 %
37. Croatia 0,13 %
38. Italy 0,13 %
39. Slovakia 0,13 %
40. Colombia 0,09 %
41. Hong Kong 0,09 %
42. India 0,09 %
43. Moldova 0,09 %
44. Mexico 0,09 %
45. Malaysia 0,09 %
46. Philippines 0,09 %
47. Serbia 0,09 %
48. Slovenia 0,09 %
49. Turkey 0,09 %
50. Armenia 0,04 %
51. Belgium 0,04 %
52. Dominican Republic 0,04 %
53. Kyrgyzstan 0,04 %
54. Lithuania 0,04 %
55. Martinique 0,04 %
56. Nigeria 0,04 %
57. Sweden 0,04 %
58. Thailand 0,04 %
59. Uzbekistan 0,04 %
March 12, 2014, 02:04:29 AM
It's recommended to read this and related wiki pages:
https://github.com/novacoin-project/novacoin/wiki/Proof-of-stake
It provides an explanation of proof-of-stake concept and some useful approaches, which could be helpful in order to get average generation time or probability approximations.
https://github.com/novacoin-project/novacoin/wiki/Proof-of-stake
It provides an explanation of proof-of-stake concept and some useful approaches, which could be helpful in order to get average generation time or probability approximations.
March 12, 2014, 12:44:30 AM
It is unlocked, how long should i get my POS?
i don't know something seems wrong and it generated the POS few days ago and it was orphan
i don't know something seems wrong and it generated the POS few days ago and it was orphan
This document shall help. It is better to make the copy and to translate into English.
-- cyммa вxoдa в нoвaкoинax = single nvc input
-- PoS-cлoжнocть (кoмaндa getdifficulty в кoшeлькe) = PoS difficulty
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AocZ4tPn0KAtdE1iVmpURmlzcFIyeHNlOUZsc0pPRVE&usp=drive_web#gid=1
March 11, 2014, 09:01:59 PM
It looks like PoS for NVC was "stable" prior to 5th of Feb, but now there is a major increase in difficulty. Was there a code change back then that could have made this change? Or is it simply more NVC adoption by the community?
Last actual protocol change was activated at 1 January 2014, nTimeWeight value limit was increased from 60 to 90 days. This could cause 30% jump of difficulty, but the current difficulty jump is much higher than 30%. So, I suppose that it's caused by growth of the miners community.every time i check the debug window the block numbers are not matching and it seems like the wallet is out of sync
when i restart it, it downloads the remaining blocks it seems like the wallet is not keeping up with the blocks
What version of client you are using?when i restart it, it downloads the remaining blocks it seems like the wallet is not keeping up with the blocks
I am using 4.4.7 windows and it is past 50 days and still no stake
Wow 50 days. Probably not a factor but I'm going to ask anyways: you don't have your wallet locked do you?
50 days seems really extreme, even for difficulty like it is now.
As noted, the PoS difficulty really did a huge, 45 degree change in the last while. I think maybe 'the cat is out of the bag' about PoS whereas before not as many people knew how it worked. But maybe it's something else, hard to say.
It is unlocked, how long should i get my POS?
i don't know something seems wrong and it generated the POS few days ago and it was orphan
March 11, 2014, 05:35:33 PM
It looks like PoS for NVC was "stable" prior to 5th of Feb, but now there is a major increase in difficulty. Was there a code change back then that could have made this change? Or is it simply more NVC adoption by the community?
Last actual protocol change was activated at 1 January 2014, nTimeWeight value limit was increased from 60 to 90 days. This could cause 30% jump of difficulty, but the current difficulty jump is much higher than 30%. So, I suppose that it's caused by growth of the miners community.every time i check the debug window the block numbers are not matching and it seems like the wallet is out of sync
when i restart it, it downloads the remaining blocks it seems like the wallet is not keeping up with the blocks
What version of client you are using?when i restart it, it downloads the remaining blocks it seems like the wallet is not keeping up with the blocks
I am using 4.4.7 windows and it is past 50 days and still no stake
Wow 50 days. Probably not a factor but I'm going to ask anyways: you don't have your wallet locked do you?
50 days seems really extreme, even for difficulty like it is now.
As noted, the PoS difficulty really did a huge, 45 degree change in the last while. I think maybe 'the cat is out of the bag' about PoS whereas before not as many people knew how it worked. But maybe it's something else, hard to say.
March 11, 2014, 12:46:34 PM
What front end are you using for the block explorer on novaco.in?
Its pretty slick. I didn't know whether it was open source or not.
Core and front-end were developed from a scratch by zloy and penek. This software is proprietary ATM, but it's a subject of future discussion.Its pretty slick. I didn't know whether it was open source or not.
Quote from: penek
It's a beta version yet, so we can't publish it due to possible existence of critical bugs and security vulnerabilities. In addition, we haven't even begun to implement of some planned functionality.
P.S. Engine is written in pure C, front-end is PHP based.
March 11, 2014, 10:13:44 AM
What front end are you using for the block explorer on novaco.in?
Its pretty slick. I didn't know whether it was open source or not.
Core and front-end were developed from a scratch by zloy and penek. This software is proprietary ATM, but it's a subject of future discussion.Its pretty slick. I didn't know whether it was open source or not.
March 06, 2014, 04:59:22 PM
Thanks for the info.
March 06, 2014, 02:15:06 PM
What front end are you using for the block explorer on novaco.in?
Its pretty slick. I didn't know whether it was open source or not.
Core and front-end were developed from a scratch by zloy and penek. This software is proprietary ATM, but it's a subject of future discussion.Its pretty slick. I didn't know whether it was open source or not.
March 06, 2014, 12:07:59 PM
What front end are you using for the block explorer on novaco.in?
Its pretty slick. I didn't know whether it was open source or not.
Its pretty slick. I didn't know whether it was open source or not.
March 04, 2014, 09:15:49 PM
It looks like PoS for NVC was "stable" prior to 5th of Feb, but now there is a major increase in difficulty. Was there a code change back then that could have made this change? Or is it simply more NVC adoption by the community?
Last actual protocol change was activated at 1 January 2014, nTimeWeight value limit was increased from 60 to 90 days. This could cause 30% jump of difficulty, but the current difficulty jump is much higher than 30%. So, I suppose that it's caused by growth of the miners community.every time i check the debug window the block numbers are not matching and it seems like the wallet is out of sync
when i restart it, it downloads the remaining blocks it seems like the wallet is not keeping up with the blocks
What version of client you are using?when i restart it, it downloads the remaining blocks it seems like the wallet is not keeping up with the blocks
I am using 4.4.7 windows and it is past 50 days and still no stake
March 04, 2014, 08:52:59 AM
It looks like PoS for NVC was "stable" prior to 5th of Feb, but now there is a major increase in difficulty. Was there a code change back then that could have made this change? Or is it simply more NVC adoption by the community?
Last actual protocol change was activated at 1 January 2014, nTimeWeight value limit was increased from 60 to 90 days. This could cause 30% jump of difficulty, but the current difficulty jump is much higher than 30%. So, I suppose that it's caused by growth of the miners community.every time i check the debug window the block numbers are not matching and it seems like the wallet is out of sync
when i restart it, it downloads the remaining blocks it seems like the wallet is not keeping up with the blocks
What version of client you are using? when i restart it, it downloads the remaining blocks it seems like the wallet is not keeping up with the blocks
March 03, 2014, 10:04:06 AM
Good morning,
Looking at the charts on http://charts.novaco.in/ - Specifically the difficulty chart and the PoS difficulty...
It looks like PoS for NVC was "stable" prior to 5th of Feb, but now there is a major increase in difficulty. Was there a code change back then that could have made this change? Or is it simply more NVC adoption by the community?
Looking at the charts on http://charts.novaco.in/ - Specifically the difficulty chart and the PoS difficulty...
It looks like PoS for NVC was "stable" prior to 5th of Feb, but now there is a major increase in difficulty. Was there a code change back then that could have made this change? Or is it simply more NVC adoption by the community?
March 01, 2014, 11:58:17 AM
every time i check the debug window the block numbers are not matching and it seems like the wallet is out of sync
when i restart it, it downloads the remaining blocks it seems like the wallet is not keeping up with the blocks
when i restart it, it downloads the remaining blocks it seems like the wallet is not keeping up with the blocks
March 01, 2014, 11:51:42 AM
Hi,
Live Novacoin Price Chart for Your Website
We have created a series of free Live Interactive Cryptocurrency Charts which you can use on your website (Dogecoin, Litecoin, DevCoin, Lottocoin, Quark ... 130 cryptocurrencies).
It will display live prices for a selected cryptocurrency with graphics price changes on your website.
Novacoin price chart which you can place on your website - http://myip.ms/info/chartbox/m/13#c
Regards
Myip.ms Team
http://live.myip.ms
.
New Live Novacoin Chart Functionality -
- Show Prices in EUR/USD/GBP/CNY/etc currencies (we use European Bank Exchange Rates on day of trading)
- Full Screen mode
You can place this free live Novacoin price chart on your website - http://myip.ms/info/chartbox/m/13#c
.
February 27, 2014, 05:44:15 PM
Of course, but it depends on infrastructure of parent chain, which is used currently. DDoS attack or hacking against the parent chain mining pools is able to harm merged chains too.
Proof-of-work is required to be costly, that's why it's used in our design. We need a costly proof-of-work at the bootstrap stages, but that's not necessary in the long-term and it won't be required when the network will mature enough. Over time and the growth of the network, the role of proof-of-work will decrease... And once day it will become negligibly small on the proof-of-stake background. That's why we shouldn't care about energy-inefficient component of our system.
EDIT: By the way, we are able to speed up the reaching of this point by increasing proof-of-work emission rate. I don't think that it's necessary but there is a proposal of proof-of-work target spacing change in order to simplify calculation of trust score and make confirmations faster.
P.S. Currently we are working on new block signing protocol approach, which is able to provide an additional security. This approach could be extended to handle proof-of-stake blocks as well as proof-of-work blocks.
Proof-of-work is required to be costly, that's why it's used in our design. We need a costly proof-of-work at the bootstrap stages, but that's not necessary in the long-term and it won't be required when the network will mature enough. Over time and the growth of the network, the role of proof-of-work will decrease... And once day it will become negligibly small on the proof-of-stake background. That's why we shouldn't care about energy-inefficient component of our system.
EDIT: By the way, we are able to speed up the reaching of this point by increasing proof-of-work emission rate. I don't think that it's necessary but there is a proposal of proof-of-work target spacing change in order to simplify calculation of trust score and make confirmations faster.
P.S. Currently we are working on new block signing protocol approach, which is able to provide an additional security. This approach could be extended to handle proof-of-stake blocks as well as proof-of-work blocks.
February 27, 2014, 12:59:28 PM
Merge-mined coins do not rely on any particular main chain, it's true:
I don't believe this to be true. USC does not care if a parent block comes from LTC or a similar copycat (with ChainID != 1, the only coin with ChainID == 1, is USC, other coins wanting to merge mined, should choose another ChainID). The reason is: USC does not know the genesis block of LTC, so it can't know if a block belongs to LTC. If no-one steps up to experiment, I will try to generate a block against an LTC clone.
The git repository contains the branch merged-mining. This branch is LTC + merged mining (starting at block INT_MAX, ChainID == 0). It can be a starting point for other developers to adopt merged mining as secondary chain.
Hmm that is a good point. I hadn't considered that but looking both at USC code and NMC code I believe you are right it was an incorrect assumption on my part. Since all SHA-256 coins use Bitcoin as parent I assumed that was encoded but it looks like it was not. Would be interesting way to gain hashpower from many chains. Obviously LTC is the biggest bang for the buck (10% of LTC network is worth a lot more than anyone else) but it may it does mean the coin isn't limited to the success of the parent as it can switch to whatever parent(s) are viable at the current time. Thanks you helped me learn something today.
Another interesting idea (and it would be a little more complex probably requiring two different difficulty values) would be to create a coin which can use either hashing algorithm and support merge mining against chains with either algorithm.
The child coin needs to be programmed to work with a SPECIFIC PARENT. In this case USC (child) merge mines with LTC (parent) because that is the way USC was programmed.
I don't believe this to be true. USC does not care if a parent block comes from LTC or a similar copycat (with ChainID != 1, the only coin with ChainID == 1, is USC, other coins wanting to merge mined, should choose another ChainID). The reason is: USC does not know the genesis block of LTC, so it can't know if a block belongs to LTC. If no-one steps up to experiment, I will try to generate a block against an LTC clone.
The git repository contains the branch merged-mining. This branch is LTC + merged mining (starting at block INT_MAX, ChainID == 0). It can be a starting point for other developers to adopt merged mining as secondary chain.
Hmm that is a good point. I hadn't considered that but looking both at USC code and NMC code I believe you are right it was an incorrect assumption on my part. Since all SHA-256 coins use Bitcoin as parent I assumed that was encoded but it looks like it was not. Would be interesting way to gain hashpower from many chains. Obviously LTC is the biggest bang for the buck (10% of LTC network is worth a lot more than anyone else) but it may it does mean the coin isn't limited to the success of the parent as it can switch to whatever parent(s) are viable at the current time. Thanks you helped me learn something today.
Another interesting idea (and it would be a little more complex probably requiring two different difficulty values) would be to create a coin which can use either hashing algorithm and support merge mining against chains with either algorithm.
February 27, 2014, 11:59:54 AM
The main argument is that balanced (proof-of-stake + proof-of-work) system is self-sufficient while (proof-of-stake + auxiliar proof-of-work) doesn't provide a self-sufficiency because it depends on stability of auxiliar chain. So we have to keep a support for native proof-of-work along with auxiliar proof-of-work to keep self-sufficiency.
I'm not convinced that we need to be self-sufficient. Look at the link I posted yesterday:
Quote
Basically here you mine one of the 5 main chain coins (LTC, DOGE, POT, CAT or DGC), and then get the other 4 (PTC, USC, ORG and HUC) for free, without loosing any performance. Furthermore, even if you are only mining LTC, you will get also DOGE, POT, CAT and DGC, just because the pool shares the ones that the others are mining with you. If you are mining at 1250Khash/s, it would look like this:
PesetaCoin: you are mining it at full speed, 1250Khash/s
UnitedScryptCoin: you are mining it at full speed, 1250Khash/s
OrgCoin: you are mining it at full speed, 1250Khash/s
HunterCoin: you are mining it at full speed, 1250Khash/s
LiteCoin: You are mining it at 250Khash/s (1250 / 5), even if the main coin you chose to main was other
DogeCoin: You are mining it at 250Khash/s (1250 / 5), even if the main coin you chose to main was other
CatCoin: You are mining it at 250Khash/s (1250 / 5), even if the main coin you chose to main was other
DigitalCoin: You are mining it at 250Khash/s (1250 / 5), even if the main coin you chose to main was other
PotCoin: You are mining it at 250Khash/s (1250 / 5), even if the main coin you chose to main was other
PesetaCoin: you are mining it at full speed, 1250Khash/s
UnitedScryptCoin: you are mining it at full speed, 1250Khash/s
OrgCoin: you are mining it at full speed, 1250Khash/s
HunterCoin: you are mining it at full speed, 1250Khash/s
LiteCoin: You are mining it at 250Khash/s (1250 / 5), even if the main coin you chose to main was other
DogeCoin: You are mining it at 250Khash/s (1250 / 5), even if the main coin you chose to main was other
CatCoin: You are mining it at 250Khash/s (1250 / 5), even if the main coin you chose to main was other
DigitalCoin: You are mining it at 250Khash/s (1250 / 5), even if the main coin you chose to main was other
PotCoin: You are mining it at 250Khash/s (1250 / 5), even if the main coin you chose to main was other
https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=15666.0
I haven't tried this, but it looks to me like the merge-mined coins do not rely on any particular main chain. If somebody can take down all of those coins at the same time then they can take NVC down as well, self-sufficient or not.
Self-sufficiency is nice, I agree, but it is expensive. I would like to be self-sufficient in food but it would be a fulltime job to achieve that. I'll rather buy my food at the supermarket and accept the small risk of starvation when all the supermarkets are closed.
Jump to: