Who knows what else are normal coins with the function of the masternode?
PepeCoin has masternodes but they will be activated in 2 weeks.Got a link?
Topic: [ANN][PIVX] - PRIVATE INSTANT VERIFIED TRANSACTION - PROOF OF STAKE - ZEROCOIN - page 467. (Read 782382 times)
March 29, 2016, 01:17:42 PM
Got a link?
March 29, 2016, 03:56:59 AM
Who knows what else are normal coins with the function of the masternode?
PepeCoin has masternodes but they will be activated in 2 weeks. 
March 29, 2016, 03:32:31 AM
Who knows what else are normal coins with the function of the masternode?
March 29, 2016, 03:11:46 AM
And don't forget about 360 000 coins mined every day.
March 28, 2016, 08:12:06 PM
there is a chance that the price will rise more?
Eventually.
But I think in the near future it will probably drop lower or stay around the current level.
The top 3 addresses on Bittrex combined have 10% of the total available supply or the equivalent of 198 masternodes.
That means the distribution is poor now and that price manipulation will likely happen in the future if it isn't happening already.
I don't think distribution is poor. There will always be major share holders so that's expected.
Due to it being still in PoW stage, there are plenty of new coins to go around daily anyways.
Lack of promo during this PoW stage does mean there is no increase in number of buyers though.
With any form of investment, speculation is key to growth and good result solidifies it for next up.
So healthy dose of promotion, dev updates & community involvement is needed. (bounties etc)
Anyways, it's still very early stages for DNET. It was only last month when it was launched!
It needs more time to find stability and sort out any kinks. (like what happened with 1.0.2.0)
March 28, 2016, 02:35:43 PM
there is a chance that the price will rise more?
Eventually.
But I think in the near future it will probably drop lower or stay around the current level.
The top 3 addresses on Bittrex combined have 10% of the total available supply or the equivalent of 198 masternodes.
That means the distribution is poor now and that price manipulation will likely happen in the future if it isn't happening already.
March 28, 2016, 01:09:52 PM
there is a chance that the price will rise more?
I mean, no one knows the future, but DNET has active devs, a "slow and steady" roadmap, and an engaged community. Those are all good signs for the long term. No one can make any promises, but I know I'm enjoying the low prices--easier to spin off a few more masternodes.
March 28, 2016, 12:45:30 PM
there is a chance that the price will rise more?
March 28, 2016, 12:37:17 PM
Most of them auto-resolved eventually. Have 2 that are missing and will delete cache to try again
March 28, 2016, 06:59:16 AM
since updating all nodes to 1.0.2.1 and moving remaining clearnet nodes to externalip-onion hostname addresses, I havent seen any payments since 3/25. they list status enabled, would a full chain delete and resync be the best fix or should I send all coins to new collaterall addresses and do them over? ssh into nodes and querying status locally shows masternode successfully started message
Same problem here.
Mine took about 30 hours before receiving first payment after the upgrade. It's more frequent from then on.
March 28, 2016, 06:29:09 AM
since updating all nodes to 1.0.2.1 and moving remaining clearnet nodes to externalip-onion hostname addresses, I havent seen any payments since 3/25. they list status enabled, would a full chain delete and resync be the best fix or should I send all coins to new collaterall addresses and do them over? ssh into nodes and querying status locally shows masternode successfully started message
Same problem here.
March 27, 2016, 09:05:16 PM
Yes I get your point, just saying that in my opinion it would be good to be consistent within Quark algo.
Just like Cryptonight coins are all consistent without 2^32 multiplier.
I understand there are no strong arguments one way or another.
If the devs here decide to stick to 2^32, instead of 2^24, then I will adapt my code
Just like Cryptonight coins are all consistent without 2^32 multiplier.
I understand there are no strong arguments one way or another.
If the devs here decide to stick to 2^32, instead of 2^24, then I will adapt my code
Okay, I finally understand your issue and your reasoning.
But there's no consistency within the quark algo if you take into account Joincoin's quark algorithm or Amsterdamcoin (I'm not 100% sure about the latter though).
Besides, every non-quark algo (x11, x13, x15, nist5, groestl, whirl, luffa, keccak, qubit, neoscrypt, both lyra2, all flavor of blake, etc) uses the same difficulty system (with a tiny number of exceptions like Eth, Scrypt-Jane) so I consider those few quark algo coins (MUE, Quark, SRC) to have a buggy difficulty reporting method.
So I think diff shouldn't be based on a per algo basis because it's not 100% consistent.
March 27, 2016, 08:44:45 PM
Yes I get your point, just saying that in my opinion it would be good to be consistent within Quark algo.
Just like Cryptonight coins are all consistent without 2^32 multiplier.
I understand there are no strong arguments one way or another.
If the devs here decide to stick to 2^32, instead of 2^24, then I will adapt my code
Just like Cryptonight coins are all consistent without 2^32 multiplier.
I understand there are no strong arguments one way or another.
If the devs here decide to stick to 2^32, instead of 2^24, then I will adapt my code
March 27, 2016, 08:38:43 PM
update: MN's revenue stop due to me not updating to the latest git master, doing it right now, good I caught it fast, I see LOTs of codebase changes...
March 27, 2016, 08:14:09 PM
If we would update the code with my suggestion, then the difficulty would already be multiplied by 256, internally by the wallet and the equation would be true again:
2^24 * 113.43 * 256 / (100 * 1e6) = 4871 seconds
I only want this to be done by the wallet internally, so externally every quark coin uses the same formula.
In other words, I think it would be best to return difficulty (in comparison to current) multiplied by 256, so any equation used by 3rd party includes only the 2^24 multiplier, as already used by other Quark coins.
2^24 * 113.43 * 256 / (100 * 1e6) = 4871 seconds
I only want this to be done by the wallet internally, so externally every quark coin uses the same formula.
In other words, I think it would be best to return difficulty (in comparison to current) multiplied by 256, so any equation used by 3rd party includes only the 2^24 multiplier, as already used by other Quark coins.
But your proposition, (meaning difficulty should be multiplied by 256) only works for a handful of coins. Other than that virtually every single non-quark coin out there has the correct difficulty which isn't divided by 256 for no reason.
DNET is one of those correct coins so to me at least it seems your proposition would actually break generic profitability calculations that ~98% of coins use.
March 27, 2016, 07:39:55 PM
Interesting. I prefer block frequency and this is what I use:
block frequency in seconds = 2^32 * coin_difficulty / (hashrate_in_Mhs * 1e6)
And it appears you were right about the number 256 instead of 200, I'm not sure why I came up with 200 when I did my calculation long ago.
Let's see Quarkcoin with its current difficulty (228):
2^32 * 228 / (100 * 1e6) = 9792 seconds per block with 100 Mh/s which is obviously wrong.
2^32 * 228 / 256 / (100 * 1e6) = 38.2 seconds per blocks which is the correct number.
Now let's see DNET:
2^32 * 113.43 / (100 * 1e6) = 4871 seconds or 81 minutes which is correct so there's no need for a correction. (with a correction 100 Mh/s would get you a block every 19 seconds.)
block frequency in seconds = 2^32 * coin_difficulty / (hashrate_in_Mhs * 1e6)
And it appears you were right about the number 256 instead of 200, I'm not sure why I came up with 200 when I did my calculation long ago.
Let's see Quarkcoin with its current difficulty (228):
2^32 * 228 / (100 * 1e6) = 9792 seconds per block with 100 Mh/s which is obviously wrong.
2^32 * 228 / 256 / (100 * 1e6) = 38.2 seconds per blocks which is the correct number.
Now let's see DNET:
2^32 * 113.43 / (100 * 1e6) = 4871 seconds or 81 minutes which is correct so there's no need for a correction. (with a correction 100 Mh/s would get you a block every 19 seconds.)
If we would update the code with my suggestion, then the difficulty would already be multiplied by 256, internally by the wallet and the equation would be true again:
2^24 * 113.43 * 256 / (100 * 1e6) = 4871 seconds
I only want this to be done by the wallet internally, so externally every quark coin uses the same formula.
In other words, I think it would be best to return difficulty (in comparison to current) multiplied by 256, so any equation used by 3rd party includes only the 2^24 multiplier, as already used by other Quark coins.
March 27, 2016, 06:22:59 PM
Interesting. I prefer block frequency and this is what I use:
block frequency in seconds = 2^32 * coin_difficulty / (hashrate_in_Mhs * 1e6)
And it appears you were right about the number 256 instead of 200, I'm not sure why I came up with 200 when I did my calculation long ago.
Let's see Quarkcoin with its current difficulty (228):
2^32 * 228 / (100 * 1e6) = 9792 seconds per block with 100 Mh/s which is obviously wrong.
2^32 * 228 / 256 / (100 * 1e6) = 38.2 seconds per blocks which is the correct number.
Now let's see DNET:
2^32 * 113.43 / (100 * 1e6) = 4871 seconds or 81 minutes which is correct so there's no need for a correction. (with a correction 100 Mh/s would get you a block every 19 seconds.)
block frequency in seconds = 2^32 * coin_difficulty / (hashrate_in_Mhs * 1e6)
And it appears you were right about the number 256 instead of 200, I'm not sure why I came up with 200 when I did my calculation long ago.
Let's see Quarkcoin with its current difficulty (228):
2^32 * 228 / (100 * 1e6) = 9792 seconds per block with 100 Mh/s which is obviously wrong.
2^32 * 228 / 256 / (100 * 1e6) = 38.2 seconds per blocks which is the correct number.
Now let's see DNET:
2^32 * 113.43 / (100 * 1e6) = 4871 seconds or 81 minutes which is correct so there's no need for a correction. (with a correction 100 Mh/s would get you a block every 19 seconds.)
March 27, 2016, 05:47:30 PM
Yeah the problem now is that standard formula for calculating is like:
br * 86400 / 2**32 * hr / diff
But Quark coins for some time were using this: (not sure why you got 200, instead of 256)
br * 86400 / 2**24 * hr / diff
Its not something only quark does, cause Cryptonight/Ethereum uses it like:
br * 86400 * hr / diff
I am fine with having different formulas per algo, but I would still go for consistency within the same algo.
br * 86400 / 2**32 * hr / diff
But Quark coins for some time were using this: (not sure why you got 200, instead of 256)
br * 86400 / 2**24 * hr / diff
Its not something only quark does, cause Cryptonight/Ethereum uses it like:
br * 86400 * hr / diff
I am fine with having different formulas per algo, but I would still go for consistency within the same algo.
March 27, 2016, 05:00:16 PM
Heya,
Currently the difficulty is incorrectly reported, reduced by a factor of 256.
I have proposed a PR with changes that should fix it, based on the same bugfix for MUE coin:
https://github.com/Darknet-Crypto/Darknet/pull/1
I am not sure, if those changes are all thats required, but in the PR I have linked to the original commit.
Please look into it
Currently the difficulty is incorrectly reported, reduced by a factor of 256.
I have proposed a PR with changes that should fix it, based on the same bugfix for MUE coin:
https://github.com/Darknet-Crypto/Darknet/pull/1
I am not sure, if those changes are all thats required, but in the PR I have linked to the original commit.
Please look into it
I noticed a long time ago that almost all quark based coins showed 200 (not 256) times higher difficulty (MUE, Quark SRC). This is just the reported difficulty and has no effect on block times; it's just messing with generic profitability calculations if you're not familiar with the discrepancy.
But for DNET it's not the case, it reports the correct difficulty which you can use to calculate your block finding frequency or in other words the average time for you to find blocks based on your hashrate, therefore your profitability.
For example, with 100 Mh/s you'll find one block every 80 minutes with the current difficulty at the time of writing (113.43) using standard calculations.
Comparing that suprnova's estimated payouts for this hashrate will result in 81 minutes which means the wallet reports the correct difficulty.
March 27, 2016, 03:47:29 PM
Heya,
Currently the difficulty is incorrectly reported, reduced by a factor of 256.
I have proposed a PR with changes that should fix it, based on the same bugfix for MUE coin:
https://github.com/Darknet-Crypto/Darknet/pull/1
I am not sure, if those changes are all thats required, but in the PR I have linked to the original commit.
Please look into it
Currently the difficulty is incorrectly reported, reduced by a factor of 256.
I have proposed a PR with changes that should fix it, based on the same bugfix for MUE coin:
https://github.com/Darknet-Crypto/Darknet/pull/1
I am not sure, if those changes are all thats required, but in the PR I have linked to the original commit.
Please look into it
Jump to: