Topic: [ANN][MOON] Mooncoin: You know where it's headed! KGW exploit FIXED 4/3/2014 - page 217. (Read 1106934 times)

Ok you are right, but still even with the 1/2ing it is not enough. The dev has shown no activity for a month, no update to his homepage for 1 & 1/2 months.

Block rewards need to get much lower, average of 100k.

Mooncoin has been dying for a long time, every week the marketcap just keeps going lower & lower, main reason is because of the constant supply from mining.

It is still giving out close to 1Million MOON blocks, the DEV needs to ASAP cut this amount down with an emergency update to the coin. Limit coin generation to no more than 100k MOON per block.

It is still being way over issued !!!

The DEV needs to show responsibility and help the holders.

I have set up a temporary blockexplorer for MOON because the official one still seems to be stuck.
You can find it here: http://dutchpool.org:2750
Use it with care

I totally agree. It's a pitty that people don't put in some constructive efforts, if there's an issue ask the devs or the community and try to resolve it. There is one point that was made about bandwidth being used by MOON's daemon and I have to confirm this is correct, strangely enough it seems to be happening on the p2p port 44664, I see traffic between 5mb/s and 12mb/s where most coins only generate 500kb/s max. So it is definitely worth looking. This is still no reason to burn down MOON and it could have been resolved loooooooooong time ago if it would have been reported in a normal way.

Tune bitcoind and P2Pool
If you can't use the methods above or they aren't enough you can limit the number of connections used by bitcoind and P2Pool.

For bitcoind, use the parameter maxconnections in bitcoin.conf


There's a compromise here: the more connections, the faster your node will be notified of new blocks and avoid wasting work, the faster it can include transactions with fees in the coinbase and the faster it will propagate a P2Pool block minimizing chances it would become orphan.
But the less connections, the less bandwidth used and the lower the latency.

More than 20 for maxconnections is probably overkill: from my experience (trying various values from 6 to 100) it seems there's not much gain to have past this value (and if you don't have enough WAN bandwidth it can hurt your latencies by queuing transfers between P2Pool nodes during peaks).
Note that this may change in the future if the behavior of bitcoind/P2Pool network changes: when in doubt, monitor your interface(s) bandwidth usage and raise this value when most peaks are below your link capacity.

If your orphan rate is fine, don't tempt the devil and try tuning maxconnections below 20: you may reduce your income more than you increase it...

Warning: P2Pool needs one connection to bitcoind and bitcoind tries to fill all the allowed connections after startup. If you start P2Pool just after bitcoind (or before, it will repeatedly try to connect), it shouldn't have problem connecting because bitcoind will still have connection slots available. If you set maxconnections too low P2Pool might not succeed connecting.

For P2Pool, you can do the same by passing parameters to P2Pool:


Note: orphans will quickly rise if you have very few connections (they are the means to be notified of other shares after all). I would prefer reducing bitcoind connections before P2Pool's.

In my experience you can get as low as 6 total connections (3 in, 3 out) without noticeable efficiency changes. The default values seem overkill (6 outgoing, 40 incoming). The large number of incoming connections (--max-conns) is designed to help the whole network (some nodes are behind firewalls that don't allow incoming connections). You probably should allow more incoming connections (and check that your network setup allows incoming connections) to do your part in helping the network.

Seems as if the shouting worked at least for p2poolbrasil on http://177.148.255.149:9664/static. Has updated now obviously. :-)

Could someone contact evilhumpty, too?
http://85.25.197.187:9664/static/classic/
I have already written him an email (link "Contact" on the pool-site). If you look at the list of payout addresses, it seems that P2Pool is still on the old blockchain, as there are only shown two payout-addresses, when - in fact - there should be at least ~10-15 (18 at the time of writing), if you look at the P2Pools, that are on the latest mooncoin-daemon.

Also this pool seems to be on the wrong chain:
http://144.76.107.241:9664/static/
Shows only two payout-addresses, too.
Please could write someone else the pool-operator an email, to tell him?

Edit:
BTW, see here for a P2Pool-node-scanner: http://5.45.105.66/

Only the brave step in now. Massive opportunity with big risk.

is the coin dead?I dont hear anything about the coin recently

I hope Moon price will pick back up again soon. It's been a massacre lately.

is something wrong with the block explorer ? It seems to have stopped yesterday sometime, weird stuff going on