Topic: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development - page 148. (Read 379983 times)
Isn't it common practice for pool operators to close registration when hashrate is too close to 50%?
CPU mining dead til August?
I checked the YAC pools I knew of to look for the rate each were reporting:
yac.ltcoin.net : 49.3 MH/sec
yac.coinmine.pl : 23.4 MH/sec
P2Pool : 8.94 MH/sec
apparently, there aren't any other options other than solo mining
perhaps we need one more non P2P pool to give some more options to keep the work spread out?
yac.ltcoin.net : 49.3 MH/sec
yac.coinmine.pl : 23.4 MH/sec
P2Pool : 8.94 MH/sec
apparently, there aren't any other options other than solo mining
perhaps we need one more non P2P pool to give some more options to keep the work spread out?
Um guys.... this isn't good
They are literally taking all the blocks. I mean like nearly all of them. I have been watching them for a while and I continue to see almost all the their block confirmation values are consecutive numbers.
They are literally taking all the blocks. I mean like nearly all of them. I have been watching them for a while and I continue to see almost all the their block confirmation values are consecutive numbers.
They're not quite getting all the blocks, there's quite a few discontinuities. However, we do have a situation here where one pool has (or is bordering on having) more than 50% of the network hash power. The threat to YAC at the moment isn't the mythical highly-optimized scrypt+chacha GPU miners or botnets, it's that a large number of people have all gotten the bright idea to all mine on one single pool.
I don't see the information in yacexplorer.tk, but does the block store who it was relayed by? I know for bitcoin, there's information about how large each pool is based on this, and btcguild was close to 50% at one point, but it was easy to spot this and they closed new user registration at the time to combat the problem.
Block height matters. Nodes will always switch to longest blockchain.
Here's the code in the Litecoin client that chooses the winning (or "best") chain to reorg to:
Code:
while (pindexIntermediate->pprev && pindexIntermediate->pprev->bnChainWork > pindexBest->bnChainWork)
{
vpindexSecondary.push_back(pindexIntermediate);
pindexIntermediate = pindexIntermediate->pprev;
}
if (!vpindexSecondary.empty())
printf("Postponing %i reconnects\n", vpindexSecondary.size());
// Switch to new best branch
if (!Reorganize(txdb, pindexIntermediate))
Note that block height is not considered anywhere in there, only the cumulative work of the chain (in bnChainWork) is used to make the decision.
Block height matters. Nodes will always switch to longest blockchain.
Negative, not if the longer chain has lower cumulative work (cumulative difficulty, in PoW-only coins). Otherwise someone could 51% any of the coins that get stalled out in "high difficulty land" simply by waiting a while, mining an off-network blockchain from just before the previous difficulty retarget, achieving a lower difficulty, then outrunning everyone else on the public blockchain while having much less than 51% of the hash power. Someone attempted that unsuccessfully on Elacoin a few days back, and failed dismally. Their chain was significantly longer (in terms of block height) than the public blockchain, but had been mined at a lower difficulty, so lost and was orphaned in preference to the public blockchain.
Remember, just hours ago we witnessed a reorg to a shorter blockchain.
Um guys.... this isn't good
They are literally taking all the blocks. I mean like nearly all of them. I have been watching them for a while and I continue to see almost all the their block confirmation values are consecutive numbers.
They are literally taking all the blocks. I mean like nearly all of them. I have been watching them for a while and I continue to see almost all the their block confirmation values are consecutive numbers.
They're not quite getting all the blocks, there's quite a few discontinuities. However, we do have a situation here where one pool has (or is bordering on having) more than 50% of the network hash power. The threat to YAC at the moment isn't the mythical highly-optimized scrypt+chacha GPU miners or botnets, it's that a large number of people have all gotten the bright idea to all mine on one single pool.
Seems every proof of stake will make proof of work invalid.
This may be partially correct, but I'm not in a good spot right now to go code diving. The issue may be that if someone stakes PoS blocks while off-network, they may be able to trigger a reorg and orphan PoW blocks if they achieve a higher cumulative work for their off-network blockchain (meaning that the rest of the network did not stake enough PoS blocks in the meantime). Someone may have just lucked out in this case and managed to stake two PoS blocks while the rest of the network had only staked one. Not sure yet. Someone who can go code diving should check how PoS blocks affect the cumulative work of a chain and under what circumstances someone off-network can make their own chain with higher cumulative work without actually having 51% of the hash power (or 51% of the coin stakes being generated).
From my recent investigation in the Elacoin client source while Elacoin was being 51%'d over and over, the answers will probably be in main.cpp in the AcceptBlock(), ConnectBlock() and CheckBlock() functions, or wherever else the Reorganize() function gets called from. Normal behavior in Bitcoin and Litecoin derived coins is that the chain with the most cumulative work (difficulty) will win a reorg and block height has nothing to do with it, but I have not examined that part of the code on any PoS coin to see how PoS blocks factor into which chain has the highest cumulative work.
Um guys.... this isn't good
They are literally taking all the blocks. I mean like nearly all of them. I have been watching them for a while and I continue to see almost all the their block confirmation values are consecutive numbers.
They are literally taking all the blocks. I mean like nearly all of them. I have been watching them for a while and I continue to see almost all the their block confirmation values are consecutive numbers.
Seems every proof of stake will make proof of work invalid.
FYI yac.coinmine.pl has 19mh of the 36 on the network as of right now
well, if there's only 36MH on the network, then there's the problem, yac.ltcoin.net is currently reporting is has 37 MH/sec... Actually, this could be problematic as well as the mean hashrate is 72 MH/sec as reported on yacexplorer.tk
in my client it was 72MH 5 hours ago and didnt drop untill the last 2 or more hours to 36MH and now its back up so...
Your results in the client are going to be different depending on which client you have. Because of the low CPU hashrate as N went up, WindMaster set it to report an average, but the hashrate is still pretty swingy. That's why I was using the stats on yacexplorer.tk
FYI yac.coinmine.pl has 19mh of the 36 on the network as of right now
well, if there's only 36MH on the network, then there's the problem, yac.ltcoin.net is currently reporting is has 37 MH/sec... Actually, this could be problematic as well as the mean hashrate is 72 MH/sec as reported on yacexplorer.tk
in my client it was 72MH 5 hours ago and didnt drop untill the last 2 or more hours to 36MH and now its back up so...
sairon: In yacexplorer, how often is the top stats (richest addresses, etc) updated? Looks like the numbers up there are form 6-1. Any way to update more frequently?
FYI yac.coinmine.pl has 19mh of the 36 on the network as of right now
well, if there's only 36MH on the network, then there's the problem, yac.ltcoin.net is currently reporting is has 37 MH/sec... Actually, this could be problematic as well as the mean hashrate is 72 MH/sec as reported on yacexplorer.tk
In yacexplorer.tk graph, there's an extreme spike in recent hash rate, what's wrong with that?
FYI yac.coinmine.pl has 19mh of the 36 on the network as of right now
well, if there's only 36MH on the network, then there's the problem, yac.ltcoin.net is currently reporting is has 37 MH/sec... Actually, this could be problematic as well as the mean hashrate is 72 MH/sec as reported on yacexplorer.tk
Thanks YacLives and Bitcoin Megastore for your debug logs.
PoS blocks 91036 and 91037 were staked by someone operating off-network (whether intentionally or unintentionally) and then reintroduced to the network, triggering the reorg and orphaning 75 blocks. Anyone here have really good familiarity with the Novacoin PoS code?
PoS blocks 91036 and 91037 were staked by someone operating off-network (whether intentionally or unintentionally) and then reintroduced to the network, triggering the reorg and orphaning 75 blocks. Anyone here have really good familiarity with the Novacoin PoS code?
Is this may be the reason for my problem?
This transaction is still not confirmed, and my wallet always says to stake=0 after -rescan and -reindex. And impossible to find this transaction in yacexplorer.
Code:
Status: 0/unconfirmed
Date: 6/12/13 01:55
Debit: 0.00 YAC
Net amount: -1189.99 YAC
Transaction ID: 7a86082a5685784ad33cec31a5300a611b9f4076a0c2b1d1d7f2c035a6d3e7e5
Staked coins must wait 520 blocks before they can return to balance and be spent.
When you generated this proof-of-stake block, it was broadcast to the network to be added to the block chain.
If it fails to get into the chain, it will change to "not accepted" and not be a valid stake.
This may occasionally happen if another node generates a proof-of-stake block within a few seconds of yours.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2461662
Thank you!!
Thanks YacLives and Bitcoin Megastore for your debug logs.
PoS blocks 91036 and 91037 were staked by someone operating off-network (whether intentionally or unintentionally) and then reintroduced to the network, triggering the reorg and orphaning 75 blocks. Anyone here have really good familiarity with the Novacoin PoS code?
PoS blocks 91036 and 91037 were staked by someone operating off-network (whether intentionally or unintentionally) and then reintroduced to the network, triggering the reorg and orphaning 75 blocks. Anyone here have really good familiarity with the Novacoin PoS code?
No, I have Win32 custom built by some guy and it is few days old. I think what happened is that some miner upgraded to newest code, which is
broken somewhere.
broken somewhere.
So far it looks like everyone is actually on the same block # and blockchain that I'm on with the newest code, so most likely something else occurred unrelated to the code changes.
Anyone have a copy of their debug log going back a couple hours so we can get a better look at what happened? I see eule posted the reorg itself but I'd like to get a look at what came before it. I don't have a debug log handy since I wasn't running yacoind continuously while I was preparing the commits to Github.
Just noting that my (old) client and yacexplorer are now at the same number of total blocks (91121).
Jump to: