[ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development - page 168.

hanzac

sr. member

Activity: 425

Merit: 262

Quote from: sairon on May 21, 2013, 08:19:59 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Difficulty will "think" it took much longer than 60 seconds to find that specific block so it will adjust result downward, a bit.

By 0.131 in this case. Seems like quite a bit when we're talking in numbers less than 6. Cheesy

It seems that the next block took the beneficial:
65953   2013-05-19 07:21:46   2   88.9   5.972   2792270.214184   7.0035   11.0751   29.3145%
65952   2013-05-19 07:20:16   1   18.56   5.972   2792251.664184   7.00252   11.074   29.3174%
65951   2013-05-19 07:19:44   1   18.63   5.836   2792233.104184   7.0022   11.0737   29.3185%
65950   2013-05-19 09:13:03   1   18.549999   5.967   2792214.474184   7.08094   11.1523   29.0875%
65949   2013-05-19 07:18:46   3   40.141702   5.969   2792195.924185   7.00162   11.073   29.3205%

sairon

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

One does not simply mine Bitcoins

Quote from: ?? on ??

Difficulty will "think" it took much longer than 60 seconds to find that specific block so it will adjust result downward, a bit.

By 0.131 in this case. Seems like quite a bit when we're talking in numbers less than 6. Cheesy

hanzac

sr. member

Activity: 425

Merit: 262

Quote from: sairon on May 21, 2013, 08:04:58 PM

Quote

A timestamp is accepted as valid if it is greater than the median timestamp of previous 11 blocks, and less than the network-adjusted time + 2 hours. "Network-adjusted time" is the median of the timestamps returned by all nodes connected to you.

EDIT: But my graphs look ugly now Sad

http://imgur.com/GA5YeBa

If the node can access the "Network-adjusted time", why not using it directly as the block completion time? It doesn't make sense to use the single node's timestamp.

Moreover, I think from the block chain, we can only see the transaction completion time (the block is completed) but without the transaction open time? This information might be needed for the both party of the transaction to check for a time-critical transaction.

sairon

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

One does not simply mine Bitcoins

Quote from: WindMaster on May 21, 2013, 08:01:56 PM

Unless I'm mistaken (and I could be, as I have not closely scrutinized that part of the code), the timestamp comes from the time on the computer yacoind is running on when that user successfully mines a block. There aren't any validity checks to determine that the time on someone's computer is set correctly, I believe the timestamp goes into the block unchecked by anyone else and is there just for information purposes. Unless I'm mistaken, the person who mined block 65950 may just have had their time set incorrectly.

You're probably right, even https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_timestamp says just this:

Quote

A timestamp is accepted as valid if it is greater than the median timestamp of previous 11 blocks, and less than the network-adjusted time + 2 hours. "Network-adjusted time" is the median of the timestamps returned by all nodes connected to you.

EDIT: But my graphs look ugly now Sad

http://imgur.com/GA5YeBa

WindMaster

sr. member

Activity: 347

Merit: 250

Quote from: sairon on May 21, 2013, 07:50:22 PM

Just found this, dunno what it means... Take a look at block #65950. Now look at its timestamp and comapre it with the previous and next blocks. The block #65951 actually references a block from the future (2 hours) as its predecessor. WTF? Huh

Code:

blockNumber,time,target,avgTargetSinceLast,difficulty,hashesToWin,avgIntervalSinceLast,netHashPerSecond
65948,1368947791,4514804921008731308454430435778960213168305865242321266277686968320,4513641497971115828711486814529046024528909146303095102832514587060,5.971,25647196559,171,150022265
65949,1368947926,4516461674132362327428514198696163951811506256528911325690882686976,4514804921112633307813024314283998771971589842941187092551326050290,5.969,25637788514,135,189979234
65950,1368954783,4517581709949210843650566946274525742145464232015577932297087746048,4516461674301031541131425724681672434723711469088240722175479913075,5.967,25631432184,6857,3738922
65951,1368947984,4619111269461582367239859195192825077698022061568762349217099284480,4517581710069151063071590748558847984710411633611607164785871725281,5.836,25068045016,-6799,Infinity
65952,1368948016,4514350157542206014206452060506827664151792081795080735905296678912,4619111269483137401095330193924680793834345357377930282214297105835,5.972,25649780189,32,783376407
65953,1368948106,4513930746712654417744535608400726620712533786813703426975283019776,4514350157549266139778184631237032541778948367955566187930484179163,5.972,25652163432,90,284997558

http://yacexplorer.tk/chain/Yacoin/q/nethash/1/65940/65960

Unless I'm mistaken (and I could be, as I have not closely scrutinized that part of the code), the timestamp comes from the time on the computer yacoind is running on when that user successfully mines a block. There aren't any validity checks to determine that the time on someone's computer is set correctly, I believe the timestamp goes into the block unchecked by anyone else (there isn't anything else to check it against anyway, unless NTP were incorporated into the client or something, rather than relying on the computer's time) and is there just for information purposes. Unless I'm mistaken, the person who mined block 65950 may just have had their time set incorrectly.

eule

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 501

netHashPerSecond : Infinity
YAC to the moon! Cheesy

sairon

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

One does not simply mine Bitcoins

Just found this, dunno what it means... Take a look at block #65950. Now look at its timestamp and comapre it with the previous and next blocks. The block #65951 actually references a block from the future (2 hours) as its predecessor. WTF? Huh

Code:

blockNumber,time,target,avgTargetSinceLast,difficulty,hashesToWin,avgIntervalSinceLast,netHashPerSecond
65948,1368947791,4514804921008731308454430435778960213168305865242321266277686968320,4513641497971115828711486814529046024528909146303095102832514587060,5.971,25647196559,171,150022265
65949,1368947926,4516461674132362327428514198696163951811506256528911325690882686976,4514804921112633307813024314283998771971589842941187092551326050290,5.969,25637788514,135,189979234
65950,1368954783,4517581709949210843650566946274525742145464232015577932297087746048,4516461674301031541131425724681672434723711469088240722175479913075,5.967,25631432184,6857,3738922
65951,1368947984,4619111269461582367239859195192825077698022061568762349217099284480,4517581710069151063071590748558847984710411633611607164785871725281,5.836,25068045016,-6799,Infinity
65952,1368948016,4514350157542206014206452060506827664151792081795080735905296678912,4619111269483137401095330193924680793834345357377930282214297105835,5.972,25649780189,32,783376407
65953,1368948106,4513930746712654417744535608400726620712533786813703426975283019776,4514350157549266139778184631237032541778948367955566187930484179163,5.972,25652163432,90,284997558

http://yacexplorer.tk/chain/Yacoin/q/nethash/1/65940/65960

WindMaster

sr. member

Activity: 347

Merit: 250

Quote from: ecliptic on May 21, 2013, 07:10:19 PM

crossposting

Quote from: sairon on May 21, 2013, 06:39:57 PM

Quote from: ecliptic on May 21, 2013, 06:29:55 PM

This is a very bad idea. You have just introduced another litecoin cgminer gpu catastrophe

I would not be surprised if people, maybe even many people independently, have forked and created their own cgminer in secret which is capable of utilizing GPUs, giving them several order of magnitude advantage over everyone else.

Actually, this is already happening. I've seen 3 people posting they have working opencl kernels (two of them had relatively low hashrates, the third one claims to be the dev of the Reaper litecoin gpu miner and has hashrates in the Mh/s range).

You're actually crossposting to a thread where this isn't particularly groundbreaking news. This thread is where the information sairon posted came from, and I believe I'm one of the 3 people sairon refers to as having benchmarked a working OpenCL kernel (which had relatively low hash rates). Recommend reading more than just the last page of this thread and the official YACoin thread, as this has been discussed to death already (in both threads).

bitdwarf

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

The cryptocoin watcher

"moneysupply" : 2826236

If anyone is GPU mining, they are definitely not moving much the total supply.

ecliptic

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

crossposting

Quote from: sairon on May 21, 2013, 06:39:57 PM

Quote from: ecliptic on May 21, 2013, 06:29:55 PM

This is a very bad idea. You have just introduced another litecoin cgminer gpu catastrophe

I would not be surprised if people, maybe even many people independently, have forked and created their own cgminer in secret which is capable of utilizing GPUs, giving them several order of magnitude advantage over everyone else.

Actually, this is already happening. I've seen 3 people posting they have working opencl kernels (two of them had relatively low hashrates, the third one claims to be the dev of the Reaper litecoin gpu miner and has hashrates in the Mh/s range).

WindMaster

sr. member

Activity: 347

Merit: 250

Quote from: sairon on May 21, 2013, 05:39:19 PM

maybe it would be sufficient to just drop "unofficial client fork" from the topic, it might scare a lot of people

True. That is now dropped from the topic title.

sairon

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

One does not simply mine Bitcoins

maybe it would be sufficient to just drop "unofficial client fork" from the topic, it might scare a lot of people

ginjou

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

As it seems like pocopoco was only a multi account and that he won't show his face again, maybe you windmaster, should post your thread and the news about this fork on the official thread and ask a moderator to get the control of the first post of the official thread, don't you think?
This way, it will become official and the monney can regain a little bit of its previous fame

Because the way it is now, the official thread seems dead and the warning on the official windows wallet looks frightening for the noobs, so it doesn't look good for the reputation of the monney :/

I'm suggesting the idea because i beleave in this monney, but my skills in programming don't allow me to help in a better way Sad

PS: sorry for the not so fluent english Sad

cryptohunter

legendary

Activity: 2100

Merit: 1167

MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG

Quote from: WindMaster on May 21, 2013, 04:19:08 PM

Quote from: cryptohunter on May 21, 2013, 04:11:50 PM

Quote from: WindMaster on May 21, 2013, 07:11:57 AM

Quote from: sumantso on May 21, 2013, 05:45:33 AM

Opened the wallet and it says 'Checkpoint too old......'. I will just ignore it for now? On windows 32 bit.

For Win32, just ignore it. The warning is harmless, an artifact left over from the original developer who should've at least adjusted the time before the warning appears to a more reasonable timeframe than 10 days after the release (or more accurately, 10 days after the last checkpoint, which he added just after the coin was released).

Im getting this warning too? checkpoint too old? on win7 64bit? will the wallet still be able to send and receive coins? thanks

The warning is harmless. But for Win 64-bit, you have the option of using an interim Windows 64-bit binary that hanzac compiled of my version of the client (which doesn't show that warning) and provided a link to it a page back in this thread. All the usual warnings about running third-party binaries apply of course.

Thanks for quick reply

very helpful.

WindMaster

sr. member

Activity: 347

Merit: 250

Quote from: cryptohunter on May 21, 2013, 04:11:50 PM

Quote from: WindMaster on May 21, 2013, 07:11:57 AM

Quote from: sumantso on May 21, 2013, 05:45:33 AM

Opened the wallet and it says 'Checkpoint too old......'. I will just ignore it for now? On windows 32 bit.

For Win32, just ignore it. The warning is harmless, an artifact left over from the original developer who should've at least adjusted the time before the warning appears to a more reasonable timeframe than 10 days after the release (or more accurately, 10 days after the last checkpoint, which he added just after the coin was released).

Im getting this warning too? checkpoint too old? on win7 64bit? will the wallet still be able to send and receive coins? thanks

The warning is harmless. But for Win 64-bit, you have the option of using an interim Windows 64-bit binary that hanzac compiled of my version of the client (which doesn't show that warning) and provided a link to it a page back in this thread. All the usual warnings about running third-party binaries apply of course.

cryptohunter

legendary

Activity: 2100

Merit: 1167

MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG

Quote from: WindMaster on May 21, 2013, 07:11:57 AM

Quote from: sumantso on May 21, 2013, 05:45:33 AM

Opened the wallet and it says 'Checkpoint too old......'. I will just ignore it for now? On windows 32 bit.

For Win32, just ignore it. The warning is harmless, an artifact left over from the original developer who should've at least adjusted the time before the warning appears to a more reasonable timeframe than 10 days after the release (or more accurately, 10 days after the last checkpoint, which he added just after the coin was released).

Im getting this warning too? checkpoint too old? on win7 64bit? will the wallet still be able to send and receive coins? thanks

WindMaster

sr. member

Activity: 347

Merit: 250

Changes committed to my GitHub repository:

- Fix my previously added feature that reports N and Nfactor in the getmininginfo command. It was only reporting what N and Nfactor were when yacoind was last started, not what it is at the immediate moment. Duh, fixed.

- Added getnetworkhashps command to show estimated network hash rate. This implementation was mostly lifted from Litecoin, still need to verify that it makes sense and operates correctly for YACoin.

- Added network hash rate and the PoW block reward of the highest block on the blockchain to the info reported by the getmininginfo command:

Quote

yacoin@blah:~/wm/yacoin/src$ ~/yacoind getmininginfo
{
   "blocks" : 67663,
   "currentblocksize" : 1000,
   "currentblocktx" : 0,
   "difficulty" : 4.10475631,
   "errors" : "",
   "generate" : false,
   "genproclimit" : 8,
   "hashespersec" : 0,
   "networkhashps" : 88885983,
   "pooledtx" : 0,
   "testnet" : false,
   "Nfactor" : 7,
   "N" : 256,
   "powreward" : 19.75000000
}

Note that this is reporting what the block reward was for the last block on the blockchain, not necessarily what the block reward is going to be for the next mined block. So use this as an estimate of approximately what the current block reward is, knowing that the actual reward of the next mined block may/will differ slightly.

Sahtor

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

N rising is not a problem if we get back to CPU server/laptop based mining. The problem is if GPU or AWS farms raised the difficulty too high to not readjust back to lower levels before even speculated future profitability drops and the mining freezes.

Basicly it doesnt matter which hardware works best but we can't have sudden volatility in difficulty or the currency dies.

eule

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 501

Someone with a GPU farm and a GPU miner could easily 51%-attack the coin right now, right?
Should be top priority to get a GPU miner for the masses, even if it's unoptimized. Maybe everyone of us should donate to the bounty or we should do some effort to get an open source miner.
0.02€

WindMaster

sr. member

Activity: 347

Merit: 250

Quote from: sumantso on May 21, 2013, 05:45:33 AM

Opened the wallet and it says 'Checkpoint too old......'. I will just ignore it for now? On windows 32 bit.

For Win32, just ignore it. The warning is harmless, an artifact left over from the original developer who should've at least adjusted the time before the warning appears to a more reasonable timeframe than 10 days after the release (or more accurately, 10 days after the last checkpoint, which he added just after the coin was released).

Topic: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development - page 168. (Read 379873 times)