Just jump in, have start to mine it earlier today... still nice to mine for little farmer like me
Hope this project will grow !!!
I can help with french translation if needed! (it means something like "reserved"
) 
Topic: [ANN] [POW] [MSR] Masari - simple, scalable, and secure cryptocurrency - page 74. (Read 85417 times)
October 30, 2017, 03:15:31 PM
Hi there,
Just jump in, have start to mine it earlier today... still nice to mine for little farmer like me
Hope this project will grow !!!
I can help with french translation if needed! (it means something like "reserved" )
Just jump in, have start to mine it earlier today... still nice to mine for little farmer like me
Hope this project will grow !!!
I can help with french translation if needed! (it means something like "reserved"
) October 29, 2017, 02:45:31 PM
good luck!!
i would like to reserve portuguese translation, if needed
thanks and keep working
i would like to reserve portuguese translation, if needed
thanks and keep working
October 29, 2017, 08:55:03 AM
interesting! I will mine and follow this coin, keep listing this!
October 28, 2017, 07:06:02 PM
The exchange topic comes up a lot in our Slack page and I'd also like to make a post here regarding the progress:
We're actively communicating with candidate exchanges, and are doing our best. We have the opportunity to list with HitBTC, but they want 10 BTC/year to get listed, and have also asked for 5 BTC as a "set-up" fee. Since this is a Monero fork, integration is very easy and is mainly why we were able to get listed so quickly, and requesting a 5 BTC set-up fee is unacceptable.
With all that said, exchanges for the core team are a tier-two priority for public accessibility, and the core development of the project is the first priority.
We're actively communicating with candidate exchanges, and are doing our best. We have the opportunity to list with HitBTC, but they want 10 BTC/year to get listed, and have also asked for 5 BTC as a "set-up" fee. Since this is a Monero fork, integration is very easy and is mainly why we were able to get listed so quickly, and requesting a 5 BTC set-up fee is unacceptable.
With all that said, exchanges for the core team are a tier-two priority for public accessibility, and the core development of the project is the first priority.
Actually this is rough on the one hand because those price tags are obscene, but man this is great news! What about yo-bit? I understand it is equally expensive but they list smaller cap aswell - same with coinexchange.io (I think they are 2 btc)
October 25, 2017, 05:23:06 PM
I didn't mined this coin at the beginning, for the first logo In my defense I already mining another cryptonote coin and there were too many news coins for look in detail all news projects.
But last week I download the wallet and saw the excellent work like the adjustment of the difficulty, the new logo ... and now a 50% of my hashrate are in Masari.
I see in Masari one rare, very rare nowaday feature... profesional devs...
In my defense I already mining another cryptonote coin and there were too many news coins for look in detail all news projects.But last week I download the wallet and saw the excellent work like the adjustment of the difficulty, the new logo
... and now a 50% of my hashrate are in Masari.I see in Masari one rare, very rare nowaday feature... profesional devs...
October 25, 2017, 11:30:04 AM
The exchange topic comes up a lot in our Slack page and I'd also like to make a post here regarding the progress:
We're actively communicating with candidate exchanges, and are doing our best. We have the opportunity to list with HitBTC, but they want 10 BTC/year to get listed, and have also asked for 5 BTC as a "set-up" fee. Since this is a Monero fork, integration is very easy and is mainly why we were able to get listed so quickly, and requesting a 5 BTC set-up fee is unacceptable.
With all that said, exchanges for the core team are a tier-two priority for public accessibility, and the core development of the project is the first priority.
We're actively communicating with candidate exchanges, and are doing our best. We have the opportunity to list with HitBTC, but they want 10 BTC/year to get listed, and have also asked for 5 BTC as a "set-up" fee. Since this is a Monero fork, integration is very easy and is mainly why we were able to get listed so quickly, and requesting a 5 BTC set-up fee is unacceptable.
With all that said, exchanges for the core team are a tier-two priority for public accessibility, and the core development of the project is the first priority.
It is good to know you have your priorities in the right place and that you still listen to the community.
Keep up the good work! The coin value will eventually go up...I'm sure there are other tangible exchanges.
October 25, 2017, 10:56:47 AM
The exchange topic comes up a lot in our Slack page and I'd also like to make a post here regarding the progress:
We're actively communicating with candidate exchanges, and are doing our best. We have the opportunity to list with HitBTC, but they want 10 BTC/year to get listed, and have also asked for 5 BTC as a "set-up" fee. Since this is a Monero fork, integration is very easy and is mainly why we were able to get listed so quickly, and requesting a 5 BTC set-up fee is unacceptable.
With all that said, exchanges for the core team are a tier-two priority for public accessibility, and the core development of the project is the first priority.
We're actively communicating with candidate exchanges, and are doing our best. We have the opportunity to list with HitBTC, but they want 10 BTC/year to get listed, and have also asked for 5 BTC as a "set-up" fee. Since this is a Monero fork, integration is very easy and is mainly why we were able to get listed so quickly, and requesting a 5 BTC set-up fee is unacceptable.
With all that said, exchanges for the core team are a tier-two priority for public accessibility, and the core development of the project is the first priority.
October 25, 2017, 10:45:42 AM
it has come to my attention that many people have the default assumption that a new cryptocurrency isn't listed, when in fact Masari is already listed on an exchange in the month of September, only a few weeks from launch. Since this is deemed to be important by the community, I've bumped up the exchanges section in the announcement page, and have tagged the title accordingly.
October 25, 2017, 09:55:31 AM
@Littledragons it's already up on SouthXchange - any more exchanges listing MSR will be promptly announced!
@bitnod the Masari network's difficulty adjustment algorithm is responsive and resistant to flash mining attempts, and isn't determined by any pool behaviour - the network difficulty jump you saw was it reacting to an increased hash rate detected by block emission rates (specifically their timespans).
Hell right. I dont personally trust them, but thats a damn good start. @bitnod the Masari network's difficulty adjustment algorithm is responsive and resistant to flash mining attempts, and isn't determined by any pool behaviour - the network difficulty jump you saw was it reacting to an increased hash rate detected by block emission rates (specifically their timespans).
October 25, 2017, 09:52:36 AM
@Littledragons it's already up on SouthXchange - any more exchanges listing MSR will be promptly announced!
@bitnod the Masari network's difficulty adjustment algorithm is responsive and resistant to flash mining attempts, and isn't determined by any pool behaviour - the network difficulty jump you saw was MSR reacting to an increased hash rate detected by block emission rates and adjusting to maintain ~2 minute block times.
@bitnod the Masari network's difficulty adjustment algorithm is responsive and resistant to flash mining attempts, and isn't determined by any pool behaviour - the network difficulty jump you saw was MSR reacting to an increased hash rate detected by block emission rates and adjusting to maintain ~2 minute block times.
October 24, 2017, 09:04:05 AM
^ that all depends on when an exchange picks it up
October 23, 2017, 12:29:23 PM
what makes the MSR coin different from Sumokoin or AEON coin? will this coin be listed on coinmarketcap.com?
regards,
regards,
October 21, 2017, 08:23:45 PM
The attacker is gone again, leaving the difficulty at 350M. Superpools has around 30kH/s, masaripool around 60kH/s and ms-pool has around 5kH/s.
Good luck to the remaining permanent miners. It will probably take 5-10 hours this time until the difficulty is again down to a level which reflects their hashrate, at which point they will start to earn some coins again. This is unless the attacker won't return just then, get 99% of all block rewards again and rinse repeat.
The operator of superpools can see in his backend where the hashrate is coming from. He has recently added a port specifically for Nicehash mining. As far as I remember this cryptonote universal pool has ways to block miners if they are considered to be malevolent, e.g. by detecting things like low diff attacks and then blocking their IP.
Good luck to the remaining permanent miners. It will probably take 5-10 hours this time until the difficulty is again down to a level which reflects their hashrate, at which point they will start to earn some coins again. This is unless the attacker won't return just then, get 99% of all block rewards again and rinse repeat.
The operator of superpools can see in his backend where the hashrate is coming from. He has recently added a port specifically for Nicehash mining. As far as I remember this cryptonote universal pool has ways to block miners if they are considered to be malevolent, e.g. by detecting things like low diff attacks and then blocking their IP.
October 21, 2017, 08:22:08 PM
Regarding Nicehash, if it is the case here, these flash mine attempts typically take around 30 minutes, and with respect to valuation would have cost the miner 1800+ satoshis / MSR **, more than 4x the current exchange rate at SouthXchange. This is either an attempt to harm the network regardless of cost, or their mining costs are lower than Nicehash's (if it's not).
** (estimating 2.5 MH/s, roughly 30 blocks were involved ending around block #36130, currently costing ~0.35 BTC/MH/day as a "fixed" rate on Nicehash, costing 0.018 BTC for that half hour, and 0.018 / (33 * 30) = ~1800 satoshis per MSR)
edit: corrected calculation based on 2.5 instead of 3 MH/s
** (estimating 2.5 MH/s, roughly 30 blocks were involved ending around block #36130, currently costing ~0.35 BTC/MH/day as a "fixed" rate on Nicehash, costing 0.018 BTC for that half hour, and 0.018 / (33 * 30) = ~1800 satoshis per MSR)
edit: corrected calculation based on 2.5 instead of 3 MH/s
October 21, 2017, 08:13:53 PM
If the adjustment back down worked so fast how do you regulate the amount of blocks found per 24 hour period? Should be 720 Blocks per day right? When some idiot uses nicehash and runs difficulty up they hit blocks well to fast and once they stop the network needs to change difficulty. In Theory If some one nice hashed in a few hours all 720 blocks then the network should not produce more blocks for next 20 hours or so. If it does readjust in like 2 hours then you would produce more than 720 blocks per day?
The network needs to and does change difficulty much earlier than "once he stops". He therefore can't mine 720 blocks within a few hours. Especially not since the V2 fork which implemented a more aggressive difficulty adjustment. If we would wait until "he stops", he would never stop and mine all 18.5M coins in no time.
October 21, 2017, 07:58:13 PM
The attacker is simply waiting for the difficulty to drop below a certain threshold and then returns. After the remaining 50kH/s of permanent miners brought the difficulty down from 100M+ to 20M after two hours, the attacker returned, this time with even more hashrate. Currently nearly 3MH/s, which is insane for a network that works usually at 100kH/s. Difficulty is now above 300M. Good thing is the uptick adjustment works, or we would currently see more QE than at the Fed, ECB and BOJ.
> This whole issue in general is a good sign because it shows the value being attributed to Masari
It makes economically no sense what he is doing. Instead of pointing 4,000 GPUs to mine MSR against a huge difficulty he is generating, he could simply point 50 GPUs 24/7, keep the difficulty low and get the same amount of coins at much much lower cost.
Anyone with such a farm knows this. Therefore this is certainly not someone with a huge farm but some dummy using rented hashrate. I mean how long and how many attacks do you need to notice that difficulty goes up quickly every time and your 4,000 GPUs are suddenly as good as 100 GPUs previously. Or he is trying to break something, that would make more sense.
> This whole issue in general is a good sign because it shows the value being attributed to Masari
It makes economically no sense what he is doing. Instead of pointing 4,000 GPUs to mine MSR against a huge difficulty he is generating, he could simply point 50 GPUs 24/7, keep the difficulty low and get the same amount of coins at much much lower cost.
Anyone with such a farm knows this. Therefore this is certainly not someone with a huge farm but some dummy using rented hashrate. I mean how long and how many attacks do you need to notice that difficulty goes up quickly every time and your 4,000 GPUs are suddenly as good as 100 GPUs previously. Or he is trying to break something, that would make more sense.
October 21, 2017, 07:34:21 PM
The difficulty adjustment works well now when the hashrate is skyrocketing. It is too slow however to re-adjust when the hashrate suddenly drops, like from 1.1MH/s to 55kH/s.
This happened right now when the latest attack stopped at block 36086 with the difficulty at 131M. The next block was found only after exactly one hour.
You would expect the difficulty to drop significantly, but it went up to 144M.
The pools are actually the ones who see what is really happening since they do directly measure the actual hashrate the miners contribute to the network through them in every single second.
I could imagine a re-target method where the pools are communicating the actual hashrate that is pointing at them. This way the adjustment could be done as hashrate joins or leaves.
The current systems in use only react after the fact by looking at the timestamps of previous blocks, which is always too late and inaccurate anyway.
Already because faster or slower blocks due to natural variance will emulate a higher or lower hashrate, which means the adjustment will be fooled by hashrate increase or decrease which simply doesn't exist.
Of course that would open up also many attack vectors and it might be not viable at all.
This happened right now when the latest attack stopped at block 36086 with the difficulty at 131M. The next block was found only after exactly one hour.
You would expect the difficulty to drop significantly, but it went up to 144M.
The pools are actually the ones who see what is really happening since they do directly measure the actual hashrate the miners contribute to the network through them in every single second.
I could imagine a re-target method where the pools are communicating the actual hashrate that is pointing at them. This way the adjustment could be done as hashrate joins or leaves.
The current systems in use only react after the fact by looking at the timestamps of previous blocks, which is always too late and inaccurate anyway.
Already because faster or slower blocks due to natural variance will emulate a higher or lower hashrate, which means the adjustment will be fooled by hashrate increase or decrease which simply doesn't exist.
Of course that would open up also many attack vectors and it might be not viable at all.
If the adjustment back down worked so fast how do you regulate the amount of blocks found per 24 hour period? Should be 720 Blocks per day right? When some idiot uses nicehash and runs difficulty up they hit blocks well to fast and once they stop the network needs to change difficulty. In Theory If some one nice hashed in a few hours all 720 blocks then the network should not produce more blocks for next 20 hours or so. If it does readjust in like 2 hours then you would produce more than 720 blocks per day?
October 21, 2017, 07:20:49 PM
All a pool is, is a miner node distributing its work to other miners, giving them some sort of quorum capabilities as part of the protocol would be pretty bad since it centralizes control of block emission.
Your idea goes towards decentralized governance like Dash's model, but that has some heavy restrictions with respect to voting and like you mentioned can't be applied to block difficulty without opening attack vectors on the network.
P.S the Masari network has adjusted quickly enough and has been emitting blocks within reasonable times in the last 10 or so blocks - happy mining!
Your idea goes towards decentralized governance like Dash's model, but that has some heavy restrictions with respect to voting and like you mentioned can't be applied to block difficulty without opening attack vectors on the network.
P.S the Masari network has adjusted quickly enough and has been emitting blocks within reasonable times in the last 10 or so blocks - happy mining!
October 21, 2017, 06:24:43 PM
The difficulty adjustment works well now when the hashrate is skyrocketing. It is too slow however to re-adjust when the hashrate suddenly drops, like from 1.1MH/s to 55kH/s.
This happened right now when the latest attack stopped at block 36086 with the difficulty at 131M. The next block was found only after exactly one hour.
You would expect the difficulty to drop significantly, but it went up to 144M.
The pools are actually the ones who see what is really happening since they do directly measure the actual hashrate the miners contribute to the network through them in every single second.
I could imagine a re-target method where the pools are communicating the actual hashrate that is pointing at them. This way the adjustment could be done as hashrate joins or leaves.
The current systems in use only react after the fact by looking at the timestamps of previous blocks, which is always too late and inaccurate anyway.
Already because faster or slower blocks due to natural variance will emulate a higher or lower hashrate, which means the adjustment will be fooled by hashrate increase or decrease which simply doesn't exist.
Of course that would open up also many attack vectors and it might be not viable at all.
This happened right now when the latest attack stopped at block 36086 with the difficulty at 131M. The next block was found only after exactly one hour.
You would expect the difficulty to drop significantly, but it went up to 144M.
The pools are actually the ones who see what is really happening since they do directly measure the actual hashrate the miners contribute to the network through them in every single second.
I could imagine a re-target method where the pools are communicating the actual hashrate that is pointing at them. This way the adjustment could be done as hashrate joins or leaves.
The current systems in use only react after the fact by looking at the timestamps of previous blocks, which is always too late and inaccurate anyway.
Already because faster or slower blocks due to natural variance will emulate a higher or lower hashrate, which means the adjustment will be fooled by hashrate increase or decrease which simply doesn't exist.
Of course that would open up also many attack vectors and it might be not viable at all.
October 21, 2017, 05:55:47 PM
@nanona
Thank you for your feedback, I'm aware of the mining adversary in the Masari network. The current difficulty calculation in place is based off a linear combination of the average and median timespans, and it does effectively address these flash mining issues. However, it could be improved on, and will likely see updates in future protocol upgrades that would include as part of the equation a percentile from the timespan distribution. This is a statistically tricky problem, as we can't simply skyrocket difficulty and spin it back down since this is a decentralized system, and can only estimate difficulty based on block timespans. In consultation with a statistician, any future improvements will have to involve mining simulations to get the correct linear combination of observed parameters, which may also include adjusting the block timespan and cut windows.
With all that said, since the new algorithm in place is doing well (derived from and thanks to Sumokoin), an alternative solution is to add more features which will increase demand and organic hash rate, effectively muting these flash mine attempts.
If you have any suggestions, or more questions, I'm more than happy to have this discourse with the community.
Thank you for your feedback, I'm aware of the mining adversary in the Masari network. The current difficulty calculation in place is based off a linear combination of the average and median timespans, and it does effectively address these flash mining issues. However, it could be improved on, and will likely see updates in future protocol upgrades that would include as part of the equation a percentile from the timespan distribution. This is a statistically tricky problem, as we can't simply skyrocket difficulty and spin it back down since this is a decentralized system, and can only estimate difficulty based on block timespans. In consultation with a statistician, any future improvements will have to involve mining simulations to get the correct linear combination of observed parameters, which may also include adjusting the block timespan and cut windows.
With all that said, since the new algorithm in place is doing well (derived from and thanks to Sumokoin), an alternative solution is to add more features which will increase demand and organic hash rate, effectively muting these flash mine attempts.
If you have any suggestions, or more questions, I'm more than happy to have this discourse with the community.
Jump to: