Topic: [ANN][BLC] Blakecoin Blake-256 for GPU/FPGA With Merged Mined Pools Stable Net - page 139. (Read 409569 times)

BLC Blakecoin now active

I am considering launching a wiki for Blakecoin. To start I will find a free wiki host to run it from, and if needed, set up a dedicated server later. Does any one have suggestions for which wiki host service to use, or what wiki platform to run if self-hosted? I was considering wikispaces.com or nginx+PmWiki (PHP). Any input is appreciated, thanks.

Awesome thanks ByronP

I sent the donations to the address you sent me 

BLC has been tested and synced... Will go live shortly :-)

100BLC sent, http://blakexplorer.dyndns.org:2750/tx/c469a8a43bc95487d9e94f27891beb838277fc33304fb54baead430b6a1422bf#o0

BLC on Atomic-Trade Promo

List:
BlueDragon747: 1000 BLC
Donations:         383 BLC
MikuCoin:           350 BLC
mogrith:            217 BLC
kramble:            200 BLC
Donations:         249.99 BLC
bzyzny:             500 BLC
hal7:                 386 BLC
Donations:          200 BLC
Donations:          468.27 BLC
Ignatius:            100 BLC

              Total: 3854.26 BLC

I am all for working together as a team or helping out a developer or even doing some beta tests but it does require cooperation and communication which has been lacking here with dreamwatcher and this is a good example of the end result.  

It also happened in the Apollo program with the CO2 scrubbers and almost cost the crew of Apollo 13 their lives but the fix was a messy hack with duct tape and plastic bags, something I would like to avoid with the pool software

with the merge mining and eloipool/merge mine proxy, it treats each coin base separately and generates the merkle for each but as I said the proxy reuses many functions in the pool that have been modified for Blakecoin hence the compatibility issues as far as I understand it from working with the pool software

changing the protocol versions and address generation will ensure incompatibility with the pool software without some re-writes, if you want a coin to have a different network you only need to change the magic number to have a different broadcast address for your network/wallet  

I have a new pool up and working in New York so will spend some time this weekend working on merge mining coin and general stability of the pool software  

"It is unfortunate that it appears we are incompatible working together as developers."

could have something to do with not working with me and doing your own incompatible thing on your own, the only contact you gave me was to tell me your are going to use Blake, I did ask in a friendly and polite way to look into merge mining to avoid this exact issue regarding the merge mining proxy but you never replied  

you just purposely changed stuff like protocol version/address knowing full well this is in the headers and would effect mining

"I certainly was not just going to clone Blakecoin and slap the Federation Credit name on it"

but you did you even left this block height check in which is not needed for a new coin:
https://github.com/scificryptocoin/Federation-Credits/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1170

you are welcome to re-write the pool software and merge mine proxy to make it compatible its quite a bit of work  

that proxy does work with namecoin et al. so very few changes needed if any, as proof of concept I will write a coin that is both merge able using the proxy and not a exact clone, at the very least this will create a base for people to use, it will also show the range of changes that can be done without touching the protocol versions (headers) and the address (blake-256) in fact most scrypt based coins show the range of different reward structures you can have without changing these things!

I am not upset you are welcome to do your own thing, I am just deeply disappointed in both your actions and attitude

 

Maybe not my place to butt in here, but for the sake of fostering cooperation and a friendly community, i wish to comment. If you feel we must agree to disagree, so be it, but hopefully there is room to discuss things further before jumping to that conclusion. I'm sure BlueDragon did not intend to come across as overly critical about your methods. Please consider discussing more details so we can try to find solutions that work for all of us.
I'm not sure of the technical details involved with merged mining and pool proxies, etc. however my understanding is that merged mining does not equate to cloning. Correct me if im wrong, but would not the ancillary coin have the freedom to differ from the primary coin? If you consider Blakecoin to be the primary blockchain, then the merge mined coin(s) would use the primary blockchains proof of work as input to generate its own blockchain. They are separate coins entirely, only sharing hashing resources to reduce duplicate effort. As for the pool software (or any other coin related tools), i'm sure there may be a current way to ensure compatibility, but theres also always room for improvement. Obviously it would be ideal to have standardization of interfaces to allow for broad interoperability, but the issue is making an api or platform that provides the flexibility to permit differences between the blake-based coins.

Anyways I could be totally wrong about all that but my main point is simply that working together can be difficult since people can have vastly different opinions, but it's worth giving it a shot at seeing if at least some things can be agreed on, and thats something each of us has to participate in.

Yeah its fine if people want to release their own coins (even though there's already a substantial division of efforts), but it would be beneficial to everyone to try to keep compatibility and reduce duplicate effort where possible. All the scrypt coins are in competition with each other, but if we work to keep the Blake based coins united thru merged mining and software compatibility, it will strengthen the community as a whole.

"In short, nothing I have changed should effect adding merged mining in the future."

I have been working with the pool quite a bit I don't think this is true! it has created the issue that a merged coin will be based on one of the forks not both, you would need to copy some of the function in the pool software to be able to process both chains e.g the address and other bits mentioned (pool only assumes one type of address not a blake-256 for one and sha-256 for another, things like this cannot be changed after without messy hacks!)

"Merged mine coins are still different coins, Protocol versions can always be changed or the merged mining code can just use the appropriate version number when communicating with the merged coin."

I have not seen this do you have example code? did you read the merge mine proxy for eloipool?
https://gitorious.org/~Luke-Jr/bitcoin/luke-jr-bitcoin/blobs/namecoin_mmm/contrib/merged-mine-proxy

"network to go down to 3-4 GH and still maintain the 1 minute target spacing"
the law of large numbers controls target spacing as it is an average of the past random events (block find) with the diff set to create the perfect x time block, you can see an example of this in the all time average of my pool 100.70% so it should have better averages at any diff due to Blake-256

"Could you imagine the cries of "instamine""
yeah I can hear the cries now: static const int64 nSuperBlockCoin = 8000000 * COIN;  
code speaks for itself: https://github.com/scificryptocoin/Federation-Credits/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1083

"merged coin might have a higher difficulty then the parent coin"
this would only happen if you had a slower block time but you state 1 minute? so it should not have a higher diff?

so much for the concept of united/merged compute/mining at this rate Bitcoin will always have the upper hand, Scrypt based coins prove this  

I am sure many of you have seen this motto "United we stand, divided we fall"  

if anyone has a plan for a Blake based coins please contact me before hand and spend just a little longer testing the wallet and we can have merged/standalone coin it does NOT have to be merged only with eloipool merge mine proxy, address and some other small bits need to remain else you need to do some re-writes as the merge mine proxy re-uses the pool functions which have been modified for Blakecoin and as explained above, this hybrid does not use same functions thus it is incompatible without quite a few changes  

Merged mine coins are still different coins, Protocol versions can always be changed or the merged mining code can just use the appropriate version number when communicating with the merged coin.

The difficulty floor is also not an issue, there are going to be times when the merged coin might have a higher difficulty then the parent coin, merged mining simply stops until the merged coin difficulty drops below the parent coin.

I could not leave the difficulty floor where it was at. The floor in Blakecoin was fine when Blakecoin was CPU only, but there is absolutely no way I could start the new UFC blockchain  that low with GPU/FPGA miners.

During testing, just one of my rigs would totally dominate the network and generate blocks faster then the network could process them. Could you imagine the cries of "instamine" with the starting difficulty Blakecoin had? The floor I have set now will allow the network to go down to 3-4 GH and still maintain the 1 minute target spacing.

In short, nothing I have changed should effect adding merged mining in the future. 

I am not sure if those changes to the protocol version will prevent merge mining? and changes to the bnProofOfWorkLimit might effect merged mining

can't just use the merge mine proxy with these changes would need to re-write both the merge mine proxy and the pool software to do both  

its such a shame to divide the hashing power  

mogrith, how is this different from blakecoin?

there is another coin that uses blake256 now

***FEDERATION CREDIT RELAUNCH IS NOW***


Federation Credits v2.2.2

Github:

https://github.com/scificryptocoin/Federation-Credits


Windows:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0wumNRRq9LNYWUxRVVNbFBJSW8/edit?usp=sharing

Solo mining right now Pool should be up soon.

UFC will also be on scifi coin exchange opening tomorrow.

You have a pool! Should have ask you in the first place. Wasted the whole night or more running without making any coins. Damn!

I put in on main site as well will update OP and Website too

http://www.blakecoin.org/cgminer-3.7-blake256.tar.gz

thanks for this  

yeah sent a pm to kr105

use my pool: eu1.blakecoin.com

Is blakecoinpool.org down? Trying to mine some for the exchange donations and it seems to be having some wallet RPC issue.