Topic: [ANN] SpreadCoin | True Decentralization (No Pools) | Testing New Masternodes - page 235. (Read 810085 times)

Mr. Spread said he changed the layout to 64 bit to fix the year 2106 problem.
He obviously didn't know external miners didn't work until after.

Also there is a quote somewhere of the very early OP and he says "I'm trying to do something but I don't know if it will work" or something. Clearly it was not an accident.

edit:

I must say that I do enjoy having SPR around and I am excited to see what happens.  I am not investing in it though, as I don´t see the added value proposition in terms of the end user compared to DRK.  The differences are of form,  do the masternodes a little different, do the mining a little different, but nothing different than DRK or BTC for the end user. For now the only end user directed feature I have heard of is copying InstantX from DRK, but DRK already has that. So no original added value from an end user perspective yet, lets see what the future holds.

On the other hand, I dont like investing in anonymous developers and also I have the feeling that some early holders have more power over the project than the developer himself. So in the end, I wouldnt know who I am entrusting my money with.

The last thing that I would say is that the DRK holders that are here have all their bases covered, they already own nice amounts of DRK and is not like they sold those to hold SPR. So the newbies here should be careful and do the same and cover their bases buy some DRK.  Some of the DRK holders here see this as a side investment if it does not go well they still have their DRK so they are OK if it goes well they make some profit, so they don't have much to loose.

 Other DRK holders saw an opportunity to buy lots of this really cheap and promote it as an alternative within the community and then others bought that idea as they could buy more of this than they could DRK and are hoping for rewards. Those are all very good valid reasons to take a risk, but again, they all have their bases covered. If you are a newbie here with no DRK holdings you are assuming a greater risk than they are and that puts you at a disadvantage if you have decided you want to support this coin you must hedge your investment and buy some DRK, since for now it is trying to be a copy of a much more established coin, it makes no sense to only hold the copy.  The ones that hold the original and the copy too, have all their bases covered are doing it right. The ones that only hold the copy are running a greater risk and are at the hands of the first group.

Good luck with the project, lets see how it goes.   I am staying with DRK though a lot more to do still. Cheers.

It will be bias as it comes from Flare, one of the members of the DRK team, but:

"What i got from the Spreadcoin thread is that the developer originally (by accident) changed the layout of the blocks, by using 64bit timestamps, which caused all X11 miners not to work anymore. It must have been this moment when he realized that this flaw could be a potential unique selling point of the coin: Not to be mineable in pools. So instead of fixing the coin, he decided to alter the block layout again, so that the address of the miner is part of the block, which means miners can cheat the pools, as the block is getting paid to the miner and not to the pool."

There are very few people that understand the technical workings of how things work in crypto, but Flare is one (and also one I respect). Mr Spread can obviously refute this if he so desires.

Where is your evidence of this, or the logic behind your statement? How does the lack of pools limit hashrate?

If you mean that big multipools can't mine and instadump, good. Solo mining encourages longer term miners who are more likely to value their mined coins, and less likely to dump them like clockwork twice a day at whatever the bid price happens to be.

I'll happily trade the lack of multipools and their constant price supression for a few less temporary GH/s. Such multipools do nothing for blockchain security anyway, like every other pool they just reduce it.

No pools and specially no Multipools, keeps the network smaller or at least limits its growth over time, because of this the percentage of the total hashrate you represent will be significant for a longer period of time or maybe forever in the absence of pools.

Pools have no effect one way or another on the behaviour of larger farmers. How do pools make selling your mined coins easier exactly? What multipools do achieve is a constant downward price pressure as they sell straight into the bids every shift.

Pools allow smaller/short term miners a steadier income, but at the expense of concentrating hashpower in the hands of whoever controls any given pool, that's all.

I dont think he has massive amounts for DRK, some people just want to make their point. This is a forum afterall,  I follow all the coins I consider to be in DRKs market segment, big or small, threats or not, just because I am interested in this space.  I also enjoy a good debate.

I could argue that you are here because your specialty is optimized mining and a coin with no pools just plays to your strenghts as you can mine with an advantage and dump on people with no competition from pools. Everyone does what they do for their own reasons.

I mostly agree, but...


... this is as "made up" as it gets.

This SPR chart is different from the others because it's historical (not current) and includes only  addresses that mined over 1k coins. That means it doesn't cover the whole network hashrate, making all those numbers actually much smaller pieces of the entire pie. The top "miner" SNYq only mined for one month last year, but his 25k coins is still the highest proportion among mining addresses. There may be farms, but SPR is still supported by many small miners.

http://spreadcoin.net/explorer/index.php?q=SNYqcyEtXr5UWpxMds8mQ9x8jo8fWFJVKz

Mr. Spread, is it possible to make that clear on the Network Hashrate page? Or a way to make a comparable chart? I think everyone is used to looking at current hashrate charts.

I said "is currently" for a reason. Satoshi "currently" ain't kicking anyone's ass in programming crypto.

OK, I will make an effort to respond. What I meant was that having no pools is in no clear way a great solution to the problem it was intending to solve as it creates other avenues of manipulation. Pools allow small miners to come together and compete with large miners. In the absence of pools large mining farms can optimize their operation, mine with an advantage and dump on people easier than in a environment that allows for pooled mining.  

In conclusion, there are disadvantages to eliminating pooled mining. It is not a poweful solution to the problem.

Big miners earn more, regardless of what is being mined or whether those big miners are mining solo or via a pool. Keeping pools away just keeps pools and their centralised risk away, it does not introduce any new weakness. Your argument is bogus.

And p2pool just kicks the can down the road (p2pool does not prevent pooling) while introducing an extra layer of complexity.

A revelation I posted a couple weeks ago taking about the results of no-pool mining:
-Lack of pools means miners don't get a steady stream of income but rather must now devote time and must have a sense of belief in the coin that they will eventually find a block. This belief has been lacking for a year now since the emergence of mega-miners and pools. This sense of belief is also what leads to buying on exchanges as some miners either a) figure out that buying and holding makes more economic sense than mining and waiting, or b) lose patience with waiting to find a block.

-Dynamic masternodes will basically cause these same believers from above to do whatever it takes to continue holding a masternode. Mr. Spread has stumbled upon what could likely be a major feature for every Crypto going forward, including bitcoin. As Mr. Spread continues with innovations, Spread's believers will fight to continue holding their masternodes. Miners, who no longer have the patience to wait for blocks, will instead prefer to run masternodes to increase their SPR.

-Like bitcoin, eventually the believers and miners will increase so much and will become so vocal that merchants will have no choice but to accept Spreadcoin.

Oblox, is not fudding he was just giving his honest opinion. Fudding in this forums means making stuff up or trying to intentionally manipulate people.

From a rewards perspective?
But a person who invests thousands of $ should absolutely get more reward. This is a good correlation. You seem to have a problem with that?
We here have nothing against rich people. We have nothing against large investors. In fact, we want to attract them.

If your farm is securing the blockchain it earns a percentage based on the blocks it finds.
How is this "taking advantage"?

Oblox, you're coming across as the grumpy old man yelling at neighbor kids to stay of his lawn.

1) Please don't downplay Mr. Spread's fixing Evan's code... Or at least show evidence of other "clones" out there doing the same since as you say that's what happens with 'enough eyes';
2) please show evidence of 20% of the SPR network belonging to one miner
3) Evan is currently the indisputable champion programmer of crypto until he's not, in my opinion,
4) volume is cyclical, you should know that well from watching OTOH's order sit for days on the DRK books when he tries to buy 60k DRK at a time, I'm not following with the point you're trying to make about SPR mn's though.

Overall I give you a FUD grade of D+.
JL

Also Darkcoin has 3 times more coinsupply atm, so our marketcaps are like from different "timelines" if you will.

There is a fundamental difference here that can't be ignored.  In that pie chart from SPR that you show the different percentages represent large mining farms or individuals that can take advantage of the absence of pools and monopolize the network from a rewards perspective, these people are getting all the coins, some mining with optimized miners.

In the pie chart from DRK those larger percentages represent a lot of different individuals. Pools were created for a reason it facilitates a larger group of people to come together and mine and compete with large individual miners. By keeping pools away you are only making it easier for large farms to abuse the system, it creates new weaknesses.

A better solution would be to create a better P2Pool system that allows both pools and a better decentralization, which is a novel goal but not quite accomplished by the no pools  approach. In my opinion it is just something to sell people on but not a strong differentiator, even a weakness from other aspects.

Well this sounds like you only love competition when there is no threat coming from it?
But that's not "loving competition", that's just hoping that all competition stays behind and will never catch up.
Well, competition is here, it is hungry and it wants to do things differently.  

Also, with competition I don't mean using each others code, that's what I call sharing and open sourcing. (everybody wins)
Competition arises when suddenly participants realize that they can't relax much longer, but should rather "step it up a notch".

The MarketCap reflects current progress and development, i don't see how a small marketcap can be a bad thing...