Topic: ◈◈Bitcredit ◈◈ Migrating to UniQredit◈◈ - page 115. (Read 284545 times)

I keep getting Core dumped message when trying to run the qt wallet on ubuntu 14.04. Freshly compiled from source.

I think it's time we made a final decision on legacy stuff like InstantX and Darksend, do we keep or root out the code? Arguments for bothe are welcome.

Simply send hack_ a message and he'll ask you to pay a % then he'll give you a BNprivkey and ip address. You hold your own coins, he keeps the servers running. I think he now has enough capacity for 200+ Bns

Anyone running a banknode service where I can keep my coins safely without risk of being robbed?

Finally i have some time to pursue parts of the code i hadn't had time to try to fix.  Gonna try and fix our internal messaging. Please note if you are running builds off the git that versions built with messaging re-enabled will have slower start-up time because they scan the chain every launch for all pub keys (this will be optional in actual release)... In the event of success, i will also try get our voting system working 

Would be nice if we saw some volume today, particularly of the buy type...it's been two days 

Yeah, we'd appreciate all the help we can get!!

It's an open source project, anyone is welcome to contribute in whatever way they can. 

I think when the bidding system goes live and BCR holders start accruing real backing for their BCR, more people will become interested.

The thing i dislike the most about windows is that it just tries to fight me at every turn. Using back-up environment to build, the one that used to work so well now i refuses to cooperate. Anyone else got a windows build environment?

I deleted the debug.log, db.log and .lock files, the wallet crashed the first and second time opening it. But the third time it miraculously opened..


You're pushing out new updates, features and improvements like there's no tomorrow.. That's the definition of a hard worker, I'm seriously impressed! Really curious to see the impact this coin will have in the next few months. Keep up the amazing work you're doing here.. KUDUS to the whole team!

Are you and lonecrouton the only two actively developing? This is what GitHub Member page shows me:
@bitcreditscc / bicreditsnew
@dragosbdi dragosbdi / bicreditsnew
@gjhiggins gjhiggins / bicreditsnew
@JoshuaAmsden JoshuaAmsden / bicreditsnew
@NaN-git NaN-git / bicreditsnew
@retroman retroman / bicreditsnew
@thelonecrouton thelonecrouton / bicreditsnew

And the GitHub Contributors page shows:


Ever thought about expanding the team?

Well I'm happy you like my work ethic.  Just finished compiling the IBTP stuff, though i have temporarily left it only focused on BCR. I've made provision for listening in on BTC, LTC and DASH chains. This will be put into active mode when i have completed studying some of the nuances.

I am currently waiting on my local node to complete compiling the cross platform environment so i can offer a windows testing binary.

Quick list of Updates, new features and improvements

Bid based distribution
Escrow Nodes
Basic IBTP listening
Checklocktime opcodes for delayed transactions
Expanded statistics report
Faster start up time

For those who are unaware, we already hiked our blocksize to avoid future debate, while it is not a complete solution to what is happening to BTC, it is a first step in a three point plan to scale BCR to the 10K tx per second target. Current BCR tx per sec is 1050 if you subscribe to the bitcoin 7 tx per second calculation.

BCR was forked from the DASH code base but is heading in a very different direction.


The reasons I'm a supporter...

PoW is an inadequate security mechanism, pooled mining completely circumvents the whole point of distributed hash. PoW is enormously wasteful. PoW does not directly benefit the currency in any way, miners sink money into the power company and hardware manufacturers instead. It's also horribly exclusionary, anyone without (geek skills + expensive hardware + ability to pay the electricity bill) need not apply.

BCR is addressing these issues by moving toward a co-operative rather than competetitive consensus mechanism, thus eliminating the wasteful hardware arms race, offering improved blockchain security and seperating the security process from the distribution of new mintage by offering newly minted BCR on the open market for direct purchase by tender. The proceeds from these ongoing sales will be used to back the currency with a portfolio of real assets, offering users and investors a rising, assured minimum value for their BCR holdings. Those assets will be gatekept by Banknode operators with a multisig system, so no one person can run off with the loot.

Think blockchain hedge fund, with cheap p2p transfer of assets, no expensive brokers and middlemen.

Banknodes will also offer p2p lending and other financial services to users, including user-issued blockchain assets (coloured coins), offering further earnings potential for Banknode operators. The software isn't necessarily going to provide you with an automatic income by itself (although Banknodes do accrue reward for services to the network), as with any real business the Banknode ops will have to put a little work in, but the tools will be evolving to make it as easy as possible to connect real world enterprise to the underlying blockchain technology.

This is an ambitious project, the next release is going to include a lot of new features as well as the underlying code foundation for many more.

Coding speaks louder than words though - take a look at the developer's git: https://github.com/bitcreditscc?tab=activity  -  if this guy could work 48 hours a day he would.

While we are on the topic:-

Bank node / Masternodes are a more active form of Proof of Stake. In traditional PoS users mint coins as a reward for producing a block that proves they are invested in the coin and enhancing security of the chain. Whereas in the dual tier system, 2nd tier nodes are rewarded  for actively supporting the chain by providing a service, stabilizing network connectivity and reducing relay times. My proposal to switch to Bn only mining moves the security component to BNs by having them produce a Proof of Activity block similar in many ways to a PoS block.

The block proves the BN exists and is actively working to secure the chain by producing blocks and signing them, all this aside for it's other duties and services. The "stake" in our scenario is the 50K BN fee.

With the current PoW arms race, the money spent @ Amazon or buying/renting rigs, never gets into the ecosystem and usually for most coins, miners are selling at a loss. In the new system, your "mining rig" will be your 50K BCR, which you can run off an everyday PC or off a r-pi, with the purchase cost going into securing the value of your investment.

Hello,

Our diff adjustment algo places more emphasis on lowering the diff, this is to counter Momentum's tendency to quickly push up the diff and to encourage constant block flow. As a caveat it was meant to empower the average miner, however since the pools went online we have never reached the targeted 1 minute blocks, and solo mining has become impossible. These problems are apparently common in coins that use the momentum algorithm.

A few weeks ago, one of the heavy weight pool miners reduced his significant  hashrate enough that the network hiccuped, after the recovery we noticed a converse relationship between the hashrate and the number of blocks per day. This got me thinking so i continued to observe and realized that lower hashrate has less push on the diff, resulting in more low diff blocks, each lower diff block required less work to be done to solve the block.... hence low hashrate == lower diff == faster blocks. So far we have seen a ~30% increase in number of blocks per day along with a 75% drop in hashrate.

Previously we expected anywhere between 600 and 850 blocks , now we expect 900 -1000 (save for the days someone notices the steady increasing price and tries opportunistic mining). I believe we will soon find a sweet spot were blocks are as close as possible to the target time while maintaining a sustainable , green footprint.

Thanks for the suggestion , i would be very thankful if you can point it out to me, i am always researching how best to secure our chain. However accepting lower diff blocks coupled with coinage sounds great on first thought, but it seems very risky because i think it opens up an attack vector that would be difficult to close...

PoS works on coinage      ------->
PoW works on workdone  ====>
PoW/PoS                        ===-->
PoS/PoW                        ------=>

Which do we give priority we we have 4 possible channels? Two with each in their pure form and two with them alternating the position of strength ? I'd expect to see massive uncontrollable forking in such a system. But if it was solved, it would be a great technical feat!!!

What are features of this coin? Similar to DASH?

can you TL;DR on how lower hash == lower diff == faster blocks? is it programmed to lower the diff disproportionately more for lower hash rate to cause the faster blocks? I was always under the assumption it strived to reach the targettime between blocks where if it was 1 hash or 1trillion on average a block would be found around the target time.

Also I hate to say it because it was such a giant scam that bothers me to this day, but Urocoin had an idea to try and accept lower diff blocks by submitting and consuming a stakeweight with the proof of work. it was named SPOW (Staked proof of work) There was some coding done towards it but no one knows how far along it got. If this is something youd like to know more about i can try and find the repo and whitepaper. otherwise forcing the hash through solo banknode operators sounds fine by me.

Yeah that originally had me postponing creating my nodes. Today I tried deleting file by file and narrowed it down to mncache, debug and lock..... I think it is either of those maybe just coincidence.... donno but my nodes are online now 

Nice catch, was going add a debug removal line, tried it, it worked but then realized ht could obscure possible errors

Long shot but can you try with just deleting your debug.log? strange but that worked for me and i managed to replicate it apparently.

For us to have a smooth transition into BN based mining, we need the mining difficulty to be solo- friendly to that effect I have asked hack_ (pools) to start gradually increasing the fee, the intended effect is to slowly wean the chain from reliance on high powered miners and instead focus on solo mining.

Lower hash rate == lower diff == faster blocks. I am still trying to get people to comment on my idea to limit miners by preventing consecutive solving of blocks.

I want our security to rely more on cryptography and consensus rather than brute wasteful force. If it was feasible, i would have a dynamic system, that changes the # of blocks before one can solve another, based on the number of existing nodes. For example if there are 100 nodes, a Bn can only mine another block after ten have passed. This will really kill all sense of competitive mining that does not benefit the chain, because in order to mine in a seemingly competitive way, one would have to buy 50K BCR for a BN. Hopefully, one would be smart and bid for as much as they can then buy the rest of the markets. This benefits price, it benefits the network, it benefits security and makes BN runners more invested in keeping the chain secure, as well as incentivizes them to come up with unique and innovative business models to make their BNs profitable.

Anyway, back to work.

Working on IBTP, for now it will just be in listen mode. Once we can do so and interpret other chains' communication we can start interacting with them.

(theoretical)

Ever thought of a blockchain of blockchains? Once asset nodes go live, one can literally map other blockchains (highly pruned) onto the BCR chain, meaning that should a catastrophe happen, they can bootstrap from the BCR chain.