Topic: [ANN][DGC] Digitalcoin | Multi-algo & Masternodes | Established 2013 - page 113. (Read 523478 times)

I don't see why Baritus is getting so much flack for this.

The way I see it, he's one of the more active dev's in the alt coin market. He's innovating and coming up with new ideas to ensure his coin's longterm success.

People read the word bank and they lose their shit. It's not an actual bank, it's just an extra service and an extra avenue for people to obtain their coins.

As for the decrease in rewards... sure, it's a controversial issue and arguments can be made for both sides. However, he's not just halving the rewards on a whim without talking to anyone. He simply found a possible exploit and is trying to come up with solutions and then opening a public discussion to gauge reaction from the community. I don't see anything wrong with this. He's just trying to find a solution to a problem that will benefit everyone long term. No flip has been switched yet.

What I'd like to see done, is have some sort of mechanism that blocks large amounts of hashrate to be dumped on a coin. Not sure if it's possible... but say if a pool with more than 40% of the current hashrate tries to mine.. it simply gets blocked and no work gets sent to it.

Federal Reserve of Baritus and his cronies....

I would wonder how it could be turn to centralized system? Not to mention other nonsenses you are writing about. Where do you guys get all those sh*ts? Do you have some kind of random stupid sentence generator or somethink like that?

Go learn the definition of a pre-mine before you make yourself look any more stupid.

Did you or did you not market mining contracts during DGC release?  I can post the link for you in case you forgot.

As mentioned in the post by disclaimer201, this can be seen as a premine.  I very clearly did not say DGC is a premined coin.  I very clearly said now you want to turn it into a premined coin.  If you can't read, then, well...

-Merc

@mercSuey

I am the developer, a community member, and one of the service providers.

DGC will always be decentralized since anyone can do anything they want using it.

DGC was not pre-mined, your ignorance is astounding. Here's a lesson for you: http://cryptometer.org/digitalcoin_96_hour_charts.html

And of course I mined other coins before DGC was released, how is that even a comment?

You are clueless and fermented in your ignorance and misinformation. You judge based on facts which don't exist, and believe your delusion is fact. Get educated before trying to educate others.

Are you the dev of DGC or are you its price manipulator?  I could have swore in a past post you said you're not THE dev but rather a volunteer.  And now you want to change DGC into the biggest premined coin in all history of premined coins.  Congrats, you have turned what's supposed to be a decentralized system into a centralized one. 

By the way, how's that mining contract of yours coming along?  You still mining other coins instead of DGC?

Respectfully, the fact you would even consider this shows how clueless you are...

-Merc

I'm just gauging community opinion with the poll, you can be assured no decisions are ever made in this community without input from all members. I definitely see both sides of the argument and I am currently siding with keeping it as is or a slight decrease (10-20%).
 
Nevertheless, polls are one of the few ways of gathering information so don't be surprised to see them coming up. It doesn't mean anything but an opinion gauge.

Good discussion, if anyone has anything else to add, please do.

Again, I would agree with the concerns simply because you shouldn't change the rules of the game while people are already playing it, especially if there was no urgent need for such a change other than profit. It will undo all of your efforts to make DGC have a fair start, which I found awesome because now everyone who comes after the early adopters gets screwed over. This might be seen as sort of a "premine" for anyone who will discover DGC at some point in the future.

Another issue is one shouldn't try to force success of a coin since this is a probably futile approach, either it will be successful on its own, or it will fail. Poll or not, you cannot ask future miners about their opinion, so let's leave things as they are, work toward more actual incentives for people to switch over to DGC and develop services. For public relations matters it will be very important how to market the strength of DGC in contrast to other coins.

I want to be able to have very clear and convincing information if I chat with someone on btc-e, and for myself as why I should believe in digitalcoin and mine it. "Why did I choose DigitalCoin and not fast coin?" I usually say, 12 second blocks are way too short, the orphan rate will just be too high. "What makes dgc not just another crap coin out there, they are all the same!" I would usually say it will be much better to use for merchants and if it has enough hashpower in the future, it might even address the PoS problem, because clearly 20 seconds a block is very fast and your usually waiting longer in line to pack your bags, or have them pack your bags for you. There are other reasons for why a scrypt coin, and not sha-256...and it just goes on. The strong community support is another reason to choose DGC.

And that's why it's important to ensure the community is in full agreement of any changes, but not just the current community, but the future one as well. There are more people needed to make DGC a success that do not know about DGC yet than there are people backing it right now. Baritus, make me believe in it, and others will believe in it too!

disclaimer201

started mining bitcoins in June 2011,
mined bitcoins in November and December 2011,
started mining litecoins in June 2012,
mined litecoins until July 2013,
started mining digitalcoins.

why do you want to play with the market ?-

Why don't you guys have any attention span? , this is a market mechanism.

Why don't you people understand anything about basic economics  ?

Can i get a confirmation on weather this is going to take place so i can sell what i have .


There is no way in which what so ever to manipulate hash expect in an informational manner - if the currency gets "stuck in difficulty" then it is , what needs to occur is a trend towards security , other than strictly hash - this was in some ways done with PoS - but its not the only option .

there are other ways , but i depends on what one's aims are .

IMO, cutting reward by half (50%) is dangerous.

If DGC mining doesn't get profitable, lots of miners will fallback on another alt coin.

This could lead to panic selling on the currency, that will lead to even less profitability. And so on...

I think DGC (with current reward ans stales ajustment) is just as profitable as LTC (i switch my miners regularly between both currencies)

If you cut mining rewards by half, i dunno if i would continue mining DGC (even if i really believe in this coin's future !)

Well, that's just my (newbie) opinion :-)

All the best for your future projects (bank/exchange)

I think currently it is done by averaging time between blocks. Don't know how large the window is, but it can be lowered. For example averaging time between last 15 blocks. This way diff can adjust quickly to network hashrate growt, but not quickly enough (i mean quickly in time, not in number of blocks found) to network hashrate fall. But it is still much better the current diff adjustment algorhitm. Maybe there can be one alghoritm for computing diff increase and second alghoritm to compute diff decrease. Or 2 alghoritms for calculating next diff, and then diff will be adjusted based on result from both algorhitms. It is not computationally demanding to do so.


Regarding your solution. It could work. But DGS's 20s per block is just statisticaly. It can be found in 5s, or in 1 minute to, but when you take time between last for example 1000 blocks it should be ~20s per block. So your solution will sometimes reject completely valid blocks. But if you think of it as minimum gap between last n block, it could work.

The reason for doing it would be the unexpected arrival of profit switching miners and pools. This change means a large portion of the alt coin hash power are uninvolved profit seekers. When deciding on the current rate, that was not taken into consideration. These miners do not hold like regular miners do and so are having a disproportionately negative effect on the currency.

Also, I will never make an arbitrary decision over matters that affect others in the community. Voting is the common mechanism.

^^this

Hello,

Make yourselves heard by voting: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/dgc-mining-rewards-decrease-vote-263417

Also, we are running a fund raiser event that also gives you shares in upcoming Bank/Exchange, check that out here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/anndgc-fundraiser-to-take-dgc-to-the-next-level-163895-dgc-donated-262648

Thank you

It's only been a few hours so it's too soon to have meaningful numbers, but over the last few hours xpool has returned about 8:5 what bigvern's pool did per hour. And I have another machine still on bigvern's pool so the test is unfairly stacked in bivern's favor. So I'm surprised to admit that jamestown2035's "half" isn't hyperbole.

I came up with the idea trying to partially solve the 51% problem, but more so to get some stability into the block rate, these fluctuations are driving me nuts.

It wont totally solve the 51% problem, but it should make it a lot harder, and it should discourage the attacks we have seen on FTC/TRC and others.

I think that might be a very effective way of solving both the 51% attack problem and the coin hopping miner problem

How are you going to work out what the network hash rate is at the time? Currently that's done by counting blocks.


My solution to the hash rate burst problem is simple, reject blocks that try to be added to the chain faster than a predetermined rate. So you are introducing a minimum gap between blocks.

Say a DGC miner finds a new block and want's to submit it to the block chain, the digitalcoind would check the current time against the timestamp on the newest block of the chain and if less than 15sec had elapsed, it would not submit the block.  Also the copies of digitalcoind peering, would not accept any blocks to be added to the chain unless their timestamp was at least 15 higher than the highest timestamp in their copy of the block chain, but not higher than the current time. (to avoid cheats)   For ARG you would probably make it a 25 sec minimum gap between blocks.


You would need to calculated difficulty slightly differently, it would be based on the ratio of blocks that were submitted exactly at the 15sec mark rather than the 20sec target. Some testing and tuning would be requited. 15secmin between blocks might be too long for a good difficulty calculation, perhaps 10sec.

I dunno. When what I described happened the address didn't appear in my address book but the balance was in my transaction history. I'm just saying that the unrecognized address might not be anything bad by itself. Not showing in your transaction history, obviously that is bad but I'm fresh out of clue.