Topic: [ANN] Woodcoin [LOG] Pure Skein POW, Logarithmic Release, No Premine nor ICO - page 14. (Read 126271 times)

In other news, there is a new woodcoin.org website up and slowly growing. Please take a look and if there are any issues let us know here. 

The repo for making changes to this is at github.com/woodcoin-core/wooccoin.org/   

A number of our projects have also been forked into the github.com/woodcoin-core/ github heading for simplicity and ease of access. 

If there are any issues with these repos please do post here. 

Hi Pokeytex, well it is a long story, sorry.  And one without a conclusion at this point.  

Basically what "segwit" refers to is two new types of transaction, in addition to the types we have already.  Mostly we have today Pay-To-Pubkey-Hash (pay to a standard bitcoin address) transactions, but also possible are Pay-To-Pubkey transactions.  There are also Pay-To-Script-Hash transactions, which enable multisignature functionality.  For an interesting review as of 2014, see this survey of the bitcoin blockchain:

http://www.quantabytes.com/articles/a-survey-of-bitcoin-transaction-types

The new types in "segwit" are referred to as pay-to-witness-public-key-hash and pay-to-witness-script-hash if you want to look them up.  There are a couple of advantages to these TX types.  One is that they allow for an elimination of transaction-ID-malleability, which enables certain implementations of payment channels and sidechains.  Another is that they take up less space.

This would be all well and good, if they were cleanly back-compatible like the other new transaction types have been.  

For example if you are using bitcoin 0.5.3, which doesn't have multisig P2SH transactions implemented, you can still sync to the chain.  P2SH transactions just look nonstandard but still verify as valid and don't cause a conflict in the block chain.  

HOWEVER, one of the new transaction types in segwit looks like an "anyone-can-spend" transaction to an older client.  This means that a chain split is possible.  One miner verifying with older software might let somebody spend these, whereas the newer software being run by another miner wouldn't let that transaction go through.  This means there is a fundamental disagreement over what is the blockchain, which is bad (TM) (R).  

People are generally scared of any kind of forking in the consensus mechanism, and so segwit transactions have not appeared on any highly valued blockchain.  However there is a "signalling" mechanism that allows miners to publicly state that they are willing to start confirming these new transactions.  When a certain level of support is signalled, we will relax a little bit, the transaction type will be enabled, and maybe people will start using them.  

Currently some miners of bitcoin and litecoin are signalling that they support this "soft-fork", but not a majority.  It is only a soft fork because non-mining users wouldn't have to update to validate segwit transactions.    

--

I have not gone through the segwit code in detail nor done testing personally on the segwit-enabled-bitcoin-testnet.  My purpose here is not to promote segwit transations, though the idea seems sound and potentially useful as well as being recommended by many developers I respect.  My purpose is rather to make the option available, and to point out that woodcoin is ready for this should woodcutters (and LOG users) desire it.  It has no fundamental conflict with the logarithmic release schedule nor our other unique features.  

That's my understanding, likely incomplete, and hence my request for comments from all y'all.  Hope that helps!

Recommended reading:

http://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup




    




 


 

@funkenstein - would you elaborate on this "woodcutters signaling, and people using, segregated witness transactions" in layman's terms please?  I am not that technical.

WOODCOIN UPDATE

Greetings citizens of middle earth.

I have been working on yet another client for the woodcoin network: 

https://github.com/funkshelper/woodcore

When this goes live we will have the option of woodcutters signaling, and people using, segregated witness transactions. 

It's probably a good idea to throw this out there as a request for comments before I get much further. 

What do you think? 

Until then of course, and even after, the original client and source tree are still validating the chain and enabling interaction:

https://github.com/funkshelper/woodcoin

There are a number of contributions still oustanding on this task, including adapting and performing all the relevant unit tests.  Your efforts will be generously compensated. 

Heh, neat.

Glad things have smoothed out for you Epsylon3.

Glad to hear it Epsylon3 and many thanks for your work !  Please keep us posted if there are any developments. 

In other news..   only related to woodcoin tangentially through the logarithm function, I made a fun little program to determine your next log-birthday. 

http://github.com/funkshelper/log-birthdays/

Here's a sample output, as applied to woodcoin:

ENTER BIRTHDATE OF OBJECT: (as format Jun 18 2009) > Oct 21 2014
now: 1488400086871
then: 1413864000000
AGE OF OBJECT:
seconds    7.4536088E7
minutes    1242268.0
hours     20704.0
days      862.0
weeks     123.0
months    31.0
years    2.3600042
great-years    9.157594E-5

 LOG AGE OF OBJECT (base e, 2, 10):
seconds  :    18   26   7
minutes  :    14   20   6
hours   :    9   14   4
days    :    6   9   2
weeks   :    4   6   2
months  :    3   4   1
years  :    0   1   0
great-years :    -9   -13   -4


Next Log Birthday Is: hours   turning 10 in 55 days
Next Log2 Birthday Is: months  turning 5 in 11 days
Next Log10 Birthday Is: great-years turning -4 in 78 days

yep ok, will re-enable it.. thanks for clarifications, its just the first time i get orphans after the maturation period and the pool was unable to pay miners.. with wind

i kept the pool on dev/test mode during a few weeks with a card in "low power mode" to have a feedback of the chain stability...

ah i see ccex has finally dropped the 3 "locked" txids from my balance (after months)

Thanks for bringing this up again Epsylon3.  Yeah these events were disturbing while I watched them go down, and picked through the history, but I don't see anything that made me think "hacked block chains".  

Allow me to clarify the events of several months ago.

What appears to have happened (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that at least two separate miners had very large hash capability, enough to perform effectively a 51% attack on the network.  While one was doing "drive-by-hashing", putting a large amount of work into the network and then leaving (to mine another coin?) after the difficulty went up, another was combating this actor by remining the blocks which took place during the low difficulty and building up a longer chain which eventually removed the rewards of the first attacker.  

According to this theory, the second of these players didn't mean any harm to you but you were caught in the crossfire and blocks that your pool mined were then orphaned when he/she presented the network with a much longer chain.  In some recognition of this the second attacker sent you some of the newly issued LOGs as "rain".  

Clients seeing a much longer chain do what they are supposed to do - they accept the chain which presents the most work.  This is basic blockchain dynamics and although it can be annoying and presents issues I don' t think there is a separate hack or vulnerability at play here.  If there is evidence of one, I would certainly be interested to hear it.  

In any case, the hashpower of the network is now a good factor of 5 or so larger than it was during that era, and I have seen no signs of such behavior recently.  It is still possible however to be overpowered by a large attacker.  We should be aware of this possibility in doing business on any public coin. 

What are you on about? As Funkenstein explained, there are a few people with an awful lot of hash who occasionally mine Woodcoin, and when they do they leave the chain with a very high difficulty. I've also seen one miner manage to steal blocks from these same miners by waiting until they've finished mining, and then publishing a longer chain. I'm not particularly concerned about your pool leaving. I'd rather we stay in a state where pools are unnecessary, but I really resent the misuse of the term "hacked."

just read the 5 last pages near https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15671896 and https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15731462

i dont had my answer and i dont want to promote possibly hacked block chains

Yiimp has solved several blocks in the past few hours.

If you're wanting a rundown on the malarkey with the website, you can e-mail either [email protected] or myself [email protected]. There was no compromise at the chain or code level of Woodcoin, only on the integrity of its public facing website.

Thanks for clarifying Epsylon3.  Well what happened? 

until i understand what happened and how.. its closed on yiimp

It appears that yiimp is still solving blocks:
http://yiimp.ccminer.org/explorer/313
http://yiimp.ccminer.org/

The spurnova pool also appears online but I don' t see any hash there:
https://wood.suprnova.cc/

In other news:

https://qz.com/804022/health-benefits-japanese-forest-bathing/?utm_source=qzfbarchive

any pool available?

This is the best list of goals I've seen in a long time.

Personally, I have no issue with people wanting to redesign the site. The most efficient and problem-free way for web designers to do this is through Github, so that the site can be community-reviewed and if it has obvious problems (as we saw the other day), they don't have to be public-facing, but can be internally handled before going live. "Better" is a term web designers often use to mean "my way." Ultimately the site should be whatever the community wants it to be, but that doesn't mean there should be no established process for initiating changes.

Currently there is a less-commonly used set-up which is serving the pages. While it is workable, I think this discourages contribution. Nevertheless, something should be written by the server's maintainer, stuff0577, to help designers understand how not to clash with it.

I think the best result would be a situation where stuff0577 can simply pull in the latest files from the git repository, or anyone with access to the server can do the same.

"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better". Samuel Beckett.

Don't give up. Every failure is a great opportunity to learn and to do better the next time. I wish you and woodcoin best of luck.

An Apology

I must apologize for my complete failure of management capability.  The end results are that a few of the informational websites including woodcoin.org and the explorer.woodcoin.org block explorer as well as the frass blog are now down.  Perhaps worse is that tempers flared and personal differences arose among some of my friends that have been contributing to woodcoin related infrastructure.  好丢面子。 The responsibility here is squarely on my shoulders for allowing these issues to come to your attention at a time when there is already so much work to do.  

If you are reading this, your feedback in terms of what you want to see at woodcoin.org or what other resources might help would be highly appreciated at this critical juncture.  A new version is in progress.

The good news is that the woodcoin network itself is completely unaffected by my failures here, and continues to show steadily increasing hash rate and transaction activity.  I am hopeful we can move past these issues quickly and get on to more interesting concerns in the evolution of the codebases that power the network.              

Yours in the realm of the publicly issued coin -  

Hey Salim, I'm getting some flags on your windows binary..

https://virustotal.com/en/file/4080aa2a4838b9cc78a381f9c12a977455e3934729bf6b3a7ab1fefe922f101a/analysis/1486163790/