Author

Topic: [ANN] [PPC] PPCoin Released! - First Long-Term Energy-Efficient Crypto-Currency - page 136. (Read 684839 times)

legendary
Activity: 1205
Merit: 1010

The design principles must be fully validated to a high degree of confidence in the near-term. People won't wait years for a clear validation of the design. The pump & dump, ponzi issues are irrelevant and should be of far lower priority.

I suggest that you radically modify the rules, aiming to achieve energy efficient operation within a few months of launch. Even if this fails due to lack of interest, it will be quite valuable to know whether the underlying protocol works as advertised.


If you learn enough details from the paper I believe you should be able to understand that the proof-of-work mint rate curve is pretty irrelevant in evaluating whether the design solves energy efficiency. Proof-of-work is not used in any meaningful manner in the protection of the network, it mainly provides minting.
sr. member
Activity: 966
Merit: 311

Actually I think I did a not too shabby job with the difficulty as you can see we went from 256 to 3000 in less than 3 days and block generation adjusted beautifully.

Otherwise you'd been seeing lots of blocks coming in seconds apart.


No, you did a shabby job. You'll understand why later.

May your coin serve as a warning to the community. Smiley

That is, if PPCoin hasn't already failed for some other reason at 3 non-coinbase transactions, as the error message may indicate.
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
Yeah, some truth there. I tried once upon a time to get a definite formula to code for a proof of stake and it all vapourised, turned out there was not yet any actual concrete design ready to code.

-MarkM-
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1003

Proper way to do this: discuss algorithm beforehands, try the idea on a disposable testnet first, and only then release it as a "permanent" currency.

Improper way to do this: release half-baked, not well thought out version as a currency.
Whatever, he is doing something experimental. Proper typically equates to not doing anything at all. Therefore, props for experimenting the improper way. Just hope that the 'improper' experiment can be redesigned to produce useful information in finite time.
legendary
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1033
Perhaps showstopping problems will come up.

What do you mean by "perhaps"? We already know it doesn't work without centralized timestamping. PoW and PoS in this design do pretty much nothing to secure the network, and even if some algorithm will be invented to fix it, it would be simply another currency since rules will change dramatically.

Quote
it will be quite valuable to know whether the underlying protocol works as advertised.

Well, yeah.

Proper way to do this: discuss algorithm beforehands, try the idea on a disposable testnet first, and only then release it as a "permanent" currency.

Improper way to do this: release half-baked, not well thought out version as a currency.

Now thinking about it, WHY would you do it in the improper way if not for pump & dump? I see absolutely no other reasons.

High PoW mint rate is also great for pump and dump: this way people can just use existing mining infrastructure to get coins, thinking that they will be valuable one day, and thinking that they are doing something worthwile.

Even if Sunny King has good intents and is just delusional, he behaves EXACTLY like pump-and-dumper, I can't think of a better scheme. (Well, PoS which would actually work would be better, but it would take much more time to develop a working scheme.)
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1003

Well points taken. Yes it'll take many years but if I had picked a more drastic curve folks would complain even louder about pump & dump, ponzi, etc. whatnot. So this was picked to better match the 4 year halving schedule of Satoshi's. As for long term energy efficiency, I don't think it's too much of an issue as once the design principles are validated as sound and Moore's Law slows down, the mint rate slow down can be switched to a time based decay with proper long term planning.

The design principles must be fully validated to a high degree of confidence in the near-term. People won't wait years for a clear validation of the design. The pump & dump, ponzi issues are irrelevant and should be of far lower priority.

I suggest that you radically modify the rules, aiming to achieve energy efficient operation within a few months of launch. Even if this fails due to lack of interest, it will be quite valuable to know whether the underlying protocol works as advertised.


legendary
Activity: 1205
Merit: 1010
Quote
Proof-of-work mint rate is a function of difficulty (every 16x in difficulty mint rate is halved)

Is this the correct interpretation of this statement?

Difficulty Mint Rate
x                   y
16x                y/2
256x              y/4
4096x            y/8
65536x          y/16
1048576x       y/32
16777216x      y/64
268435456x    y/128

Seems like a timespan somewhere between many years and never will elapse before proof-of-work rewards become minimal and the currency becomes energy efficient. This seems like a bad idea to me. It does not inspire confidence in the protocol's ability to deliver its promised features. I think demonstrating successful, checkpointless, and energy efficient operation should be a near-term goal. Perhaps showstopping problems will come up. Fine, once we know about them, they can likely be solved (and checkpoints can be used as a stopgap measure).

Well points taken. Yes it'll take many years but if I had picked a more drastic curve folks would complain even louder about pump & dump, ponzi, etc. whatnot. So this was picked to better match the 4 year halving schedule of Satoshi's. As for long term energy efficiency, I don't think it's too much of an issue as once the design principles are validated as sound and Moore's Law slows down, the mint rate slow down can be switched to a time based decay with proper long term planning.
legendary
Activity: 1205
Merit: 1010
Update: FAQ page is now available on wiki
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1003
Quote
Proof-of-work mint rate is a function of difficulty (every 16x in difficulty mint rate is halved)

Is this the correct interpretation of this statement?

Difficulty Mint Rate
x                   y
16x                y/2
256x              y/4
4096x            y/8
65536x          y/16
1048576x       y/32
16777216x      y/64
268435456x    y/128

Seems like a timespan somewhere between many years and never will elapse before proof-of-work rewards become minimal and the currency becomes energy efficient. This seems like a bad idea to me. It does not inspire confidence in the protocol's ability to deliver its promised features. I think demonstrating successful, checkpointless, and energy efficient operation should be a near-term goal. Perhaps showstopping problems will come up. Fine, once we know about them, they can likely be solved (and checkpoints can be used as a stopgap measure).
legendary
Activity: 1205
Merit: 1010
I don't know if this is some sort of bug or attack or someone testing stuff. There has been 3 user transactions so far on the block chain. If anyone has more info about this let me know.
Did you change 'pchMessageStart'? If not someone who accidentally connects to the bitcoin network with ppcoin will bridge them and IP addresses will be shared. Could this result in bitcoin transactions being sent (and rejected) to ppcoin?

Hmm you are right I didn't change that. That's why I guess I saw some 17k new addresses in the log.

If it's needed I guess we can change this in a future release with a network protocol upgrade. Hopefully it doesn't cause too many problems at the moment.

It is very important to change pchMessageStart.  This will cause all manner of software confusion, because peers with the same pchMessageStart will exchange addresses and otherwise think they are talking with peers of the same network and block chain.

A hard fork is not required to change pchMessageStart, just a tiny bit of bootstrapping.  Blockchain integrity is not impacted.


Thanks for the tips. I will look into changing it for next release. Best Regards,
legendary
Activity: 1205
Merit: 1010

This probably indicates that a transaction message of incompatible format was received. Remember ppcoin's transaction has an extra timestamp field than bitcoin's.

I don't know if this is some sort of bug or attack or someone testing stuff. There has been 3 user transactions so far on the block chain. If anyone has more info about this let me know.

Did you test this coin before release?

Why did you change the difficulty calculation?

I think you played with too much, without considering the consequences and drawbacks.

Actually I think I did a not too shabby job with the difficulty as you can see we went from 256 to 3000 in less than 3 days and block generation adjusted beautifully.

Otherwise you'd been seeing lots of blocks coming in seconds apart.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1100
I don't know if this is some sort of bug or attack or someone testing stuff. There has been 3 user transactions so far on the block chain. If anyone has more info about this let me know.
Did you change 'pchMessageStart'? If not someone who accidentally connects to the bitcoin network with ppcoin will bridge them and IP addresses will be shared. Could this result in bitcoin transactions being sent (and rejected) to ppcoin?

Hmm you are right I didn't change that. That's why I guess I saw some 17k new addresses in the log.

If it's needed I guess we can change this in a future release with a network protocol upgrade. Hopefully it doesn't cause too many problems at the moment.

It is very important to change pchMessageStart.  This will cause all manner of software confusion, because peers with the same pchMessageStart will exchange addresses and otherwise think they are talking with peers of the same network and block chain.

A hard fork is not required to change pchMessageStart, just a tiny bit of bootstrapping.  Blockchain integrity is not impacted.

legendary
Activity: 1205
Merit: 1010
I don't know if this is some sort of bug or attack or someone testing stuff. There has been 3 user transactions so far on the block chain. If anyone has more info about this let me know.
Did you change 'pchMessageStart'? If not someone who accidentally connects to the bitcoin network with ppcoin will bridge them and IP addresses will be shared. Could this result in bitcoin transactions being sent (and rejected) to ppcoin?

Hmm you are right I didn't change that. That's why I guess I saw some 17k new addresses in the log.

If it's needed I guess we can change this in a future release with a network protocol upgrade. Hopefully it doesn't cause too many problems at the moment.

Thanks for solving this mystery for me  Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 271
Merit: 250
Okay...so I finally got pushpoold to work the way it was suppose to be (or so I think).
I'm going to reset the database (as far as shares..hashrate...etc go) but I will keep a backup of all shares per miner/user/worker so as I can split the verified earnings ( I don't want to seem like a bad guy here Sad ).

This is data that will be used to pay out people who put in their shares.
Code:
root@mein:~# ./ppcoind getinfo
{
    "version" : "v0.1.0ppc-beta",
    "protocolversion" : 60001,
    "walletversion" : 60000,
    "balance" : 0.00000000,
    "newmint" : 16726.30000000,
    "stake" : 0.00000000,
    "blocks" : 1543,
    "connections" : 14,
    "proxy" : "",
    "ip" : "46.166.138.142",
    "difficulty" : 2929.41201025,
    "testnet" : false,
    "keypoololdest" : 1345415511,
    "keypoolsize" : 101,
    "paytxfee" : 0.01000000,
    "errors" : ""
}

You can now re-connect to the pool using your workers username, workers password, 46.166.138.142, and port 9944 (supports LP).

[Edit]: I'm moving the website off-site to off-set the load.

NothinG I thinkin something has to be wrong to not have found a block yet.
It found the block, as you can see under "newmint" : 16726.30000000. The problem, is that it is under "newmint"...
I've already sent a PM asking how we are suppose to detect this.

[Edit]: Site is going to be okwardly strange (still reporting errorous data, aside from the # of shares since the last reset [I still have those shares]).
Once we get the above issue worked out, and get my second server setup with Memcached (for simplepool php)...then we can have a working pool/website. Cheesy

So keep on mining, you're shares will not go un-paid. In-fact, as soon as the balance becomes positive. I'm going to pause the website and pay off all shares and then hopefully by then the new website will be online along with the block-payout fix.

Ok great I was mistaken then, I was simply going by the graph and not thinking that being the first ppcoin pool that there would obviously be quirks and issues needing to be worked out. Guess I am just use to everything being business as usual with pools. Sorry man hope things are smooth sailing for you as a pool operator charting new waters.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 500
I don't know if this is some sort of bug or attack or someone testing stuff. There has been 3 user transactions so far on the block chain. If anyone has more info about this let me know.
Did you change 'pchMessageStart'? If not someone who accidentally connects to the bitcoin network with ppcoin will bridge them and IP addresses will be shared. Could this result in bitcoin transactions being sent (and rejected) to ppcoin?
That might be me.
I had setup mpoold.py (modified poold.py version to work with MySQL), and PushPoold (current running) that is most likely doing the same thing.
I was lead to believe the transaction types mimicked Bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1005
I don't know if this is some sort of bug or attack or someone testing stuff. There has been 3 user transactions so far on the block chain. If anyone has more info about this let me know.
Did you change 'pchMessageStart'? If not someone who accidentally connects to the bitcoin network with ppcoin will bridge them and IP addresses will be shared. Could this result in bitcoin transactions being sent (and rejected) to ppcoin?
sr. member
Activity: 966
Merit: 311

This probably indicates that a transaction message of incompatible format was received. Remember ppcoin's transaction has an extra timestamp field than bitcoin's.

I don't know if this is some sort of bug or attack or someone testing stuff. There has been 3 user transactions so far on the block chain. If anyone has more info about this let me know.

Did you test this coin before release?

Why did you change the difficulty calculation?

I think you played with too much, without considering the consequences and drawbacks.
legendary
Activity: 1205
Merit: 1010
I see this in the ppcoin debug log a lot:

Code:
******* exception encountered *******
ProcessMessages(tx, 225 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read() : end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
ProcessMessage(tx, 225 bytes) FAILED

I am seeing a lot of similiar messages like the above too

This probably indicates that a transaction message of incompatible format was received. Remember ppcoin's transaction has an extra timestamp field than bitcoin's.

I don't know if this is some sort of bug or attack or someone testing stuff. There has been 3 user transactions so far on the block chain. If anyone has more info about this let me know.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 500
Okay...so I finally got pushpoold to work the way it was suppose to be (or so I think).
I'm going to reset the database (as far as shares..hashrate...etc go) but I will keep a backup of all shares per miner/user/worker so as I can split the verified earnings ( I don't want to seem like a bad guy here Sad ).

This is data that will be used to pay out people who put in their shares.
Code:
root@mein:~# ./ppcoind getinfo
{
    "version" : "v0.1.0ppc-beta",
    "protocolversion" : 60001,
    "walletversion" : 60000,
    "balance" : 0.00000000,
    "newmint" : 16726.30000000,
    "stake" : 0.00000000,
    "blocks" : 1543,
    "connections" : 14,
    "proxy" : "",
    "ip" : "46.166.138.142",
    "difficulty" : 2929.41201025,
    "testnet" : false,
    "keypoololdest" : 1345415511,
    "keypoolsize" : 101,
    "paytxfee" : 0.01000000,
    "errors" : ""
}

You can now re-connect to the pool using your workers username, workers password, 46.166.138.142, and port 9944 (supports LP).

[Edit]: I'm moving the website off-site to off-set the load.

NothinG I thinkin something has to be wrong to not have found a block yet.
It found the block, as you can see under "newmint" : 16726.30000000. The problem, is that it is under "newmint"...
I've already sent a PM asking how we are suppose to detect this.

[Edit]: Site is going to be okwardly strange (still reporting errorous data, aside from the # of shares since the last reset [I still have those shares]).
Once we get the above issue worked out, and get my second server setup with Memcached (for simplepool php)...then we can have a working pool/website. Cheesy

So keep on mining, you're shares will not go un-paid. In-fact, as soon as the balance becomes positive. I'm going to pause the website and pay off all shares and then hopefully by then the new website will be online along with the block-payout fix.
sr. member
Activity: 271
Merit: 250
Okay...so I finally got pushpoold to work the way it was suppose to be (or so I think).
I'm going to reset the database (as far as shares..hashrate...etc go) but I will keep a backup of all shares per miner/user/worker so as I can split the verified earnings ( I don't want to seem like a bad guy here Sad ).

This is data that will be used to pay out people who put in their shares.
Code:
root@mein:~# ./ppcoind getinfo
{
    "version" : "v0.1.0ppc-beta",
    "protocolversion" : 60001,
    "walletversion" : 60000,
    "balance" : 0.00000000,
    "newmint" : 16726.30000000,
    "stake" : 0.00000000,
    "blocks" : 1543,
    "connections" : 14,
    "proxy" : "",
    "ip" : "46.166.138.142",
    "difficulty" : 2929.41201025,
    "testnet" : false,
    "keypoololdest" : 1345415511,
    "keypoolsize" : 101,
    "paytxfee" : 0.01000000,
    "errors" : ""
}

You can now re-connect to the pool using your workers username, workers password, 46.166.138.142, and port 9944 (supports LP).

[Edit]: I'm moving the website off-site to off-set the load.

NothinG I thinkin something has to be wrong to not have found a block yet.
Jump to: