Topic: [ANN] Slimcoin : Proof of Burn NEW BLOCK GEN, Mineable by low power computer! - page 8. (Read 284948 times)

Hi Mr E!
Nice to have you aboard the development team - unfortunately you are the only member:)
Though you are based on your self-assessment no main dev, it could be tremendously valuable to do bug fixes and testing.
I don't know why, but Slimcoin is not dead yet. The block chain is running. Some nodes are on the network.
Maybe it can be kept alive long enough to arouse interest of somebody capable of being main dev.
It would be a pity to see this Proof of Burn approach to secure a block chain end this way.
So welcome, amongst this bunch who haven't given up hope!

Hi all. I am now back from my Christmas break and back to attempting to get a build environment working for Slimcoin. I'm by no means a candidate for a 'main dev' (nor am I really a publicity person either!), but I'm hoping that if a123 or another dev picks up the project again, I can contribute testing and bug/feature patches.

In particular, I want to implement the 'coin control' options that are in the current Bitcoin Core, as I like to be able to select old transactions and merge them into a new single, larger one. (I'm OCD like that  ) Plus, I'm still getting occasional random crashes with 'St9badalloc' in the windows GUI client, which I want to debug.


Still haven't completed a successful build yet, but I'm getting closer -- all the dependencies build except for qt-win32, which I'm in the middle of recompiling right now to see if it works this time...

That would be uber-great. Thanks!

The reason of my interest in these data is that I would like to investigate if there is a link between "coin burn rate" / "burn difficulty", "available supply" and price.

Even for "normal users" without academic interest it would be interesting how the "available supply" changes in time, to see if the coin tends to be inflationary or deflationary.

Hey d5000

I'll talk to our dev if it's possible, i'll keep you updated!

greetings

Great work, thanks toshis.guru! Interesting stats.

It would be really cool to have the following statistics too:

- a graph of the balance of the burn address (SfSLMCoinMainNetworkBurnAddr1DeTK5)
- a graph with the value of "Formatted nEffectiveBurntCoins" (from "slimcoind getburndata")
- a graph with the "effective supply": total supply - balance of burn address

Perhaps these stats would be best at the main SLM website or at slimcoin.club, but if an external service sets them up, it would be very cool too. Any chances?

If not, I probably will manually set up a monthly or even weekly report in some days/weeks, as I'm very interested im the PoB dynamics, and post it here in the forum.

If there is a dev (a123 or slimcoin) still reading this thread: There is a interview series about "innovative coins" from the SuperNet initiative:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-proof-of-innovation-clone-coins-need-not-apply-unless-you-want-924275

It could be a great way to spread the word and attract new users and developers.

Also, perhaps it could be possible to try to join SuperNet, as SLM has PoB as an unique feature it's not impossible that they accept it in the mid-term. Only problem I see is the lack of a "main dev" with regular presence in this forum, and the small user base.


Mh. Must look at it, perhaps you are right and that is the only dependency between PoW and PoB. It sounds logical and in fact I have said the same to primer~ some days ago. Perhaps I wrote complete bullshit there

I'm now fully synced and SLM is running like a charm, thanks again for your help! (The database errors were because of an extraction error from my 7-zip. So your Raspberry blockchain snapshot is fine, too.).

I like that even better, because it might be easier to "restart" an adjusted PoS process than to create a completely new one. It might be done without a hard fork as exisiting clients already deal with PoS blocks.

That - especially the latter one!

I'm aware of the problems this has caused until PoS was effectively deactivated. Having a second process that secures the block chain might not bad, though.
It allows removing (or significantly lowering) the PoW block trust values while still having two processes that can create blocks with a reasonable trust value.
I doubt that this is really necessary if PoB works as intended. But having a reinsurance rarely is a bad idea

PoS function has not been removed from the code. It has only been temporarily deactivated by enforcing reservebalance= large balance to prevent staking coins in the wallet.

It is therefore still possible to stake (if you edit before compiling) the code or to fully reactivate staking in the future.

Staking (or having 3 methods of block generation active at once) seemed to be causing some issues as the block chain increased in size. This was simply part of a fix to get the chain moving again following multiple 'forks'. Staking does still appear to stall the client on occasions though. I suspect its rather like the old expression "two's company, three's a crowd" ?  

 

The 40,000 buy was roughly 1.5 BTC of value - not exactly what I'd expect before a new dev steps in and tries to take profit from the development


That would be useful, but I think the priorities need to be focussed on the protocol:

Three algos might be too much, indeed.
PoB needs to stay, of course And I like it that the current combination is PoB/PoW. There are currently more than enough PoS coins for one. And coin distribution by mining in the PoW process shouldn't be underestimated. I think being able to mine a coin (instead of buying the coins) is for some people a very important option; the option to buy still remains.

But how is the PoB difficulty determined by PoW? My understanding is that the PoB difficulty is determined by "nEffectiveBurnCoins". There is only the dependency that between PoB blocks need to be (at least 3?) PoW blocks.

Why are there still PoS blocks in the chain?
I thought PoS would have been deprecated by a123's release (e.g. block 209477 is a PoS block).
Do I interpret this right that PoS blocks now have no trust value and don't generate rewards, but are still in the block chain?

Well, perhaps the 40.000 buy is a new dev stepping in ... perhaps he will dump again at ~ 10.000 satoshis, but maybe we have other problems solved

I think the priority for a new dev - or "slimcoin" or "a123" if they come back - would be to follow closely the development of Peercoin 0.5, which will be based on a newer codebase (the BTC 0.6 base of actual SLM is pretty old, there are a lot of useful commands missing) and merge the new peercoin code with SLM.

The other one is the decision how to continue with the distribution model: PoW/PoS/PoB? PoB/PoS? or PoW/PoB?

For me, both PoB/PoS and PoW/PoB have both advantages -  three different block generation algos are a bit too much, I think. PoB/PoS would be "the ultimative green coin" without energy waste, but PoW until now determines the PoB difficulty, so it will be more difficult to replace.

I will only start to believe that primer- has left this thread if there is no post from him for at least one year here...
...but maybe d5000 has done the trick.
Now we need only the old dev back or a new dev or maybe a123 continues and this experiment can move on
It would be a pity not to continue with the PoB idea!

Haha, you admitted you were wrong :p

If you want to get out, feel free to do so.

Decay rate is too slow, there is no incentive to burn you donkey

I'm out.

@primer~: No. Burn diff correlates with the number of "effective burnt coins" (nEffectiveBurnCoins). That number takes into account the "burn decay" of every burnt coin. Every burnt coin after 1 year has an "effective burn" value of zero. So if nobody burns more coins from now, in one year nEffectiveBurnCoins will be zero.

PoB diff increases with the number of burnt coins. It does not decrease, ever.

That's not a bug, it's a feature. If PoB diff goes too high, burners will have to accept lower income for some time, until an equilibrium is reached. So the system forces participants to act in a rational and not in an emotion-driven way (making serious calculations and not burning all coins in a kind of rat race), only this way miners can profit.

@masterofdisaster: I see a123's snapshot is from block 126xxx, so it probably will solve my problem. Will post if I have any issues.

Sheep everywhere.

PoB is 'broken by design', the number of burnt coins/PoB diff is so high it would take you years to mint 1000SLM if you were to burn them now.

@masterofdisaster: +1 for your post. primer~ is simply trolling. A greater problem is that he probably still owns a pretty large stash of SLM (as he was one of the biggest PoW and PoB miners in SLM's beginnings) and can dump them anytime the price goes up. But very probably his profits would be higher with a more "diplomatic" approach My theory is that he is afraid of a possible success of PoB as an alternative to PoW and PoS.

I've already written that my greatest interest in PoB lies in its "incentive system" and the relation between the number of burnt coins in a given moment and the "price" of the currency units. The hypothesis is that at low prices, people could burn more coins (as they're cheaper) which leads to a smaller supply. That could be a way to stabilize a cryptocurrency price without having to use market pegs like in the case of Nubits or BitUSD. I would like to research this in more depth, but we are still way too small as liquidity in the BTER market is too low and so the number of burnt coins is probably not related to price.

Regarding my resync problem: I am still stuck.

@almightyruler, you are right I was using a incorrect format for -listen and -connect, but with -listen=0 I have the same problem.

I tried using -rescan and -reindex like suggested here but still no luck.

@masterofdisaster: I have updated my peer list again. If you could upload a snapshot newer than block 112000 it would be helpful. I am now trying once more to download the blockchain from zero, will post if there is success.

I've read almost the complete thread. I remember a lot of primer-'s posts talking about an incompetent dev and Slimcoin being a shitcoin. That's what the world needs to know.
Thank you for warning us.
Thank you primer- for sharing your professional attitude with us!

My assessment of Slimcoin is a bit different, though.
I'm aware of the trouble with forks.
I'm aware of the trouble with PoS.

Nevertheless I think that the orginal dev has made a hell of a job implementing a working implementation of Proof of Burn!
That for sure would need more fine tuning.
And some of it was done by a123, e.g. the removal of PoS.
I can say that both the Windows version and the Raspberry version compiled by a123 work fine. Couldn't test the linux version, though (because I have a 32 bit operating system).
The forks seem to be no big problem any more, although the network seems to be quite small.
The security of the block chain is ensured by both the PoB and PoW blocks that have a decent trust value after a123's adjustments.

I want to say something more about PoB, because I got intrigued by it.
It may solve one of the big problems that are inherent with PoS solutions.

In PoS systems with an annual reward it's not important when you mint. You'll get your reward. You might lose compound interest, but you'll get your reward. You are not bound to countinuously contribute to security (unless you are aware that this is necessary to protect the value of your coins.). You don't lose the coinage unless you transfer them.

The PoB approach is somewhat different. After you have burned coins, they start to decay. That happens over time no matter whether or not you mint. If you don't mint after having burned coins, that is a loss, because the coins are gone.
You are incentivized to continuously mint hoping for some minted PoB blocks.

This can lead to a continuous burning and minting.
If very few coins are burned, the difficulty is low and it's worth burning only a little amount of coins to successfully mint PoB blocks (which should have quite high rewards if I got it right that the reward is inversely proportional to the diff).
So there's an incentive to burn coins.
And once they are burned, you need to mint to become compensated by PoB rewards.

That is, dear primer-, something completely different than a shitcoin.
It's a revolutionary approach to secure a block chain energy efficiently with interesting economical attributes!
I'm quite sad that the further development is (temporarily?) ended.

@d5000 if you'd like I can create a snapshot of the block chain and upload it somewhere. I don't know where your trouble comes from. Both the Windows and the raspberry client had no issues downloading the block chain.
I started from a123's snapshot.
Here's my current peerinfo (I've not checked for differences from the last one; I hope there's something helpful in it):

My slimcoin.conf includes these peers:

Don't you have anything better to do than trolling?


Cheers

Graham