Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN] official NovaCoin thread - the original PoS+scrypt coin. --POOL LIST-- - page 28. (Read 282664 times)

legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
Maybe you are right but it couldn't be added without an appropriate discussion... I've already thought about a separate AUX PoW block type with own difficulty and reward ~6-7 months ago but this proposal was rejected... Roll Eyes

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.

This solution sounds simple but it's impossible to implement a sustainable proof-of-stake + native & auxiliar proof-of-work system. It's impossible due to self-competition between native & auxiliar proof-of-work miners.

Why self-competition isn't a good thing? It's quite simple, just one example:

PoS -> PoS -> PoS -> PoW -> PoS -> PoS -> PoW -> PoS

vs.

PoS -> PoS -> PoS -> PoW -> PoS -> PoS -> AUX PoW -> PoS

vs.

PoS -> PoS -> PoS -> AUX PoW -> PoS -> PoS -> PoW -> PoS

vs.

PoS -> PoS -> PoS -> AUX PoW -> PoS -> PoS -> AUX PoW -> PoS

Which chain should be preferred? It's obvious that auxiliar proof-of-work difficulty will be higher than native proof-of-work difficulty, so the last chain will be selected. But this solution is flawed because it makes native proof-of-work blocks less secure in comparison with auxiliar proof-of-work blocks i.e. malicious auxiliar miner will be able to fork native blocks out of the main chain*.

There is no way to calculate correct trust for so heterogenious chain. We can calculate a trust score for proof-of-work and native/auxiliar proof-of-stake blocks, but we can't make a correct difference between native and auxiliar proof-of-work.

Of course, we can fix a trust of auxiliar proof-of-work blocks at 1 or use another value but it makes no sense. Because such blocks wouldn't be able to provide any security into the block chain and native proof-of-work miner will be able to fork auxiliar blocks out of the main chain (direct opposite for * scenario).

So, we can't implement a sustainable PoS + PoW + AUX PoW system with separate aux and native difficulties. We have to use equal difficulties or remove native PoW to make PoS + AUX PoW design reliable. Roll Eyes

P.S. I guess that beta implementation of coin mixing protocol will be ready for testing in the near future.
sr. member
Activity: 470
Merit: 250
AUX PoW is cost-free for a miner

Yes, and that means we could reduce the PoW reward from currently about 10NVC to maybe 1NVC or so. That would restrict the supply of new coins and help lift the price.

These things are serious problem because one or two big LTC pools will take a major part of PoW emission for free. I presume that we shouldn't introduce a possibility of this scenario, especially if the pool operator decides to keep mined coins for himself instead of distribution. Because it allows somebody to get a part of stake for free, which contradicts to the network security model. Roll Eyes

If significant extra income can be achieved from merge-mining NVC then miners will naturally choose the pools that will pay it to them.

I believe that if this is done right it could give Novacoin a much needed boost.
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
It seems that merged mining for scrypt has arrived:

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=15666.0

That makes me want to build a rig and start PoW mining again!
I think Novacoin should implement merged mining as well because it would make us truly energy efficient.
You are right about energy efficiency but there are a some problems:

  • AUX PoW is cost-free for a miner;
  • There are a few big mining pools which will be able to introduce a centralization into PoW mining.

These things are serious problem because one or two big LTC pools will take a major part of PoW emission for free. I presume that we shouldn't introduce a possibility of this scenario, especially if the pool operator decides to keep mined coins for himself instead of distribution. Because it allows somebody to get a significant part of stake for free, which contradicts to the network security model. Roll Eyes
sr. member
Activity: 470
Merit: 250
It seems that merged mining for scrypt has arrived:

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=15666.0

That makes me want to build a rig and start PoW mining again!
I think Novacoin should implement merged mining as well because it would make us truly energy efficient.
sr. member
Activity: 470
Merit: 250
when should it stake?

Nobody knows, it depends on the size of the payment and on how lucky you are. Just give it some time, it will happen eventually (probably soon).  Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1000
i have a payment received on 12/31 and i haven't received stake yet

when should it stake?

legendary
Activity: 976
Merit: 1003
http://vps.novacoin.su/

Some copy&paste guys even unable to adjust the network ID and DNS seed addresses %) So we see a bunch of bitbar nodes in the "Forked-off" category. Roll Eyes
Forked nodes removed from dnsseed.novacoin.su database, dnsseed.novacoin.ru will be updated a bit later.

dnsseed.novaco.in updated too...
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
http://vps.novacoin.su/

Some copy&paste guys even unable to adjust the network ID and DNS seed addresses %) So we see a bunch of bitbar nodes in the "Forked-off" category. Roll Eyes
Forked nodes removed from dnsseed.novacoin.su database, dnsseed.novacoin.ru will be updated a bit later.
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
Thank you!

I'll try to analyze this PDF as soon as possible Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 470
Merit: 250
Bitinvestor

That's quite interesting news. I have been able to reduce proof size by 30-40% only. Will see... Although the 20-30kb proof size is not a serious problem, there are a lot of transactions with even higher size (something like 100kb) due to many inputs usage. This could be handled by regular fees.

Here's a new paper about Zerocoin: "Rational Zero: Economic Security for Zerocoin with Everlasting Anonymity"

http://fc14.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/bitcoin14_submission_12.pdf
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
http://vps.novacoin.su/

Some copy&paste guys even unable to adjust the network ID and DNS seed addresses %) So we see a bunch of bitbar nodes in the "Forked-off" category. Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
Some fixes were merged to resolve address book page and listtransactions issues (special thanks to svost for his investigation).

https://github.com/novacoin-project/novacoin/pull/9
https://github.com/novacoin-project/novacoin/pull/10

  • Qt: fix known addressbook bugs (duplicate addresses etc.);
  • Core: Avoid trying to parse outputs that aren't relevant to CWalletTx::GetAmounts;
  • Core: Supress "address" key in transaction details, when the destination isn't recognized;
  • Qt: copyrights update.


Windows nosetup builds:

0.4.4.6 update3: [ AMD64 | i686 ]
0.4.4.7 bugfix4: [ AMD64 | i686 ]

Linux, OS X builds and installers will be published later.
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
Windows nosetup builds of 0.4.4.6 update2 and 0.4.4.7 bugfix3 were published.

0.4.4.6 update2 changes list:

  • Extend transaction script checkings to fight with transaction malleability issues;
  • Reject connections from obsolete clients;
  • New dnsseed node.

Download: [ i686 | AMD64 ]

0.4.4.7 bugfix3 changes list:

  • New pruned coin approach which resolves a syncronization issue;
  • Extend transaction script checkings to fight with transaction malleability issues;
  • Transaction metadata hash field added to gettransaction and listtransactions RPC output;
  • New dnsseed node.

Please note that 0.4.4.7 bugfix3 uses DB format which is incompatible with previous 0.4.4.7 builds.

Download: [ i686 | AMD64 ]
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
Tranz, hi. Seems very interesting. This code was added to resolve some issues with balance calculation after downloading a fresh copy of blockchain. It's safe to ignore this log messages because wallet won't perform an update for already existing record.

0.4.4.6-update2 and 0.4.4.7-bugfix3 will be released today. I guess that your fix will be incorporated into next builds. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1052
May the force bit with you.
Hello,

In this commit: https://github.com/novacoin-project/novacoin/commit/b9c711308fc96540c0a22c7aba0707d90460c0a1

It seems that line 394 in wallet.cpp, (CWallet::WalletUpdateSpent):

Code:
NotifyTransactionChanged(this, hash, CT_UPDATED);

Is not needed as it causes a warning:

Code:
02/22/14 08:29:22 Warning: updateWallet: Got CT_NEW, but transaction is already
in model

When returned back to CWallet::AddToWallet  and the next line try to notify transaction as new.

At least I think that is why. I commented out the new Notify and no such warning and still received notification in wallet of new block found.





legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
New dns seed node is up and added to sources tree. So, currently we have

  • dnsseed.novaco.in
  • dnsseed.novacoin.ru
  • dnsseed.novacoin.su

another one probably will be added later.
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
Protocol update: preconditions and prospects.

A new proposal for Proof-of-Work signing protocol is currently under development. It would provide stakeholders an ability to vote for Proof-of-Work blocks they've received. What is interesting, it's possible to implement without breaking a compatibility with nodes that doesn't support this protocol.

A main idea is quite simple:

1. Proof-of-Work miner submits a new block over the network;
2. New block is accepted as a "candidate" (score = 1);
3. Each node builds a deterministic list of stake generators from the past (64 items, for example);
4. Stake holder appends own signature to vchBlockSig field (currently it's not used) and then submits signed block over the network;
5. Once enough signatures collected (16 of 64, for example) new block is accepted into block chain as a "full value" block (score is equal with provided by the current proof-of-work score policy).

This process would be able to prevent malicious miner from creating a secretly pre-mined chain in order to perform 51%+ attack even if he has 99% of hashing power and significant stake volume. Because he can't collect enough signatures while keeping his chain secret.
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
Also I recently updated my coin(fork for NVC) to be ready to QT5. I would be more then happy to issue the same PR for NVC if you would find it useful.

Thank you and good luck.
Yep, I seen it. Smiley Actually we are working on Qt5 too but it's not published due to recent issues with 0.4.4.7.

By the way, 0.4.4.7 branch seems pretty stable so builds are scheduled for publishing. Smiley

Also we'll update reference stratum server code to add vardiff support.

Another good way to put your scrypt hashing power, scrypt cloud mining  but payment directly in BTC, no need to trade.

http://scrypt.cc?ref=baars

What about uptime?
full member
Activity: 221
Merit: 100

  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
 
  .
 
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1052
May the force bit with you.
Hi Balthazar,

Just wanted to say great work on this coin, I have been scooping these up as they slide for some unknown reason.

Also I recently updated my coin(fork for NVC) to be ready to QT5. I would be more then happy to issue the same PR for NVC if you would find it useful.

Thank you and good luck.

Pages:
Jump to: