Topic: ◈◈Bitcredit ◈◈ Migrating to UniQredit◈◈ - page 226. (Read 284545 times)

Yes. And I'll tell you why: it looks stable and reliable. Nice and fast GUI is better than classic one. But classic is better than ugly wallet looking very unstable and coded just to be coded.

Best regards.

So in your mind a copy paste wallet is a much better idea to attract investors?

Fancy wallets don't make technology work, in fact a lot of the coins with fancy looking wallets turned out to be scams because it apparently attracts investors, just like poo and flies.

Ugly wallet. Do you want attract investors by this?
Great coin, great idea. But wallet...

This is the Voting address
http://strawpoll.me/3393659/

That all comes with the update

Sorry to bother but when you say fixed RPC mining, does that mean a version is out right now?  Or you mean coming in next release, the one on the main page is sill from the 9th.

Glad to see you really pushing this!! cant wait for that update. Too many coins made promises with no progress.

When is the ICO?

Lively discussion happening in ypool chat about the difficulty and how it is adjusting.

just tick YES

Hmm cannot figure out how to vote ?

Everyone be sure to post your vote here:- http://strawpoll.me/3393659/r

Good Morning,

  First, thanks for being active and giving a detailed response. 

  I just wrote a page of detailed response outlining why I thought you were wrong about the difficulty readjust algos performance....at the end realized that you were 100% correct in your analysis after looking at the numbers, the readjust algo, and several system responses to exogenous shock as hash rate increases and drops.

  I am now actually very impressed with how well the algo performed in the pretense of such increases and decreases (order of 10x magnitude over the base network hash)

   So keep it up!

{
"blocks" : 12403,
"currentblocksize" : 0,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.00000089,
"errors" : "",
"genproclimit" : -1,
"networkhashps" : 18,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false,
"chain" : "main",
"generate" : true,
"hashespermin" : 32
}


Nope, you are wrong the difficulty algorithm  ramps up difficulty to match network hash in 5 blocks, while  aggressively doing time keeping. While it is not perfect, it has managed to keep our silent errant miner from instamining low difficulty, whoever it/they is/are is only getting a few blocks before they are matched by the difficulty, and when they drop off suddenly, we need only solve two or so blocks to get back to normal. This is what has kept the average CPU miner in the game so long, because of a small network the difficulty matches and is always CPU friendly. When someone tries to throw (maybe) GPU mining or large CPU count in the mix, they fail to make the profit required because they end up with a matching difficulty in minutes. When our silent friend calculates the electricity used vs the rewards, they'll realize they are making losses.

If someone had figured out getwork mining, they'll only really profit by making it available to the community, because they'll have created more interest in the coin they are HODLing, more interest == better price. But if they go ahead and try to mine by themselves, they'll mine a lot of coin with no price support. Markets are funny that way.

I nearly panicked when i saw it, but proper analysis IMO has shown that the algorithm only has the problem of scaling doen when the difficulty is very high for only 2 or three blocks, once those pass, it's back to normal for everyone else.

Fri Jan 16 20:16:22 GMT 2015
    "networkhashps" : 86,
    "hashespermin" : 18
    "balance" : 0.99996411,
    "blocks" : 12288,
    "difficulty" : 0.00001051,
Transferred: 50

Sat Jan 17 01:27:32 GMT 2015
    "networkhashps" : 87,
    "hashespermin" : 18
    "balance" : 0.99996411,
    "blocks" : 12289,
    "difficulty" : 0.00001261,
Transferred: 50


New block finally came in 5 hours late...   and the difficulty increased

Is it possible to do that with a PoW/PoS hybrid?

I'm not dead set on it being PoW and it's your coin, you can do as you wish with it.  Just keep in mind that any major changes to the original specifications need to be considered very carefully now that the network has been launched.  While I think it is great that you are here everyday taking suggestions and being receptive to the feedback of the small group of people following this coin, any changes from here on out are apt to be looked at as manipulation by you and that small group of people for their own benefit!  Even if that isn't the intention in reality.  Bitcredits could be a great coin and you certainly have interesting ideas, but if it ends up getting the stink of "SCAMCOIN!!!" early on, it can be tough to wash off.

I'd say if your ideas are easier to implement in a purely PoS environment, run the ICO and then have an accelerated mining period.  Like 3 months of PoW tops.  I'm sure you could chop the number of PoW coins in half and not have anyone bitch and moan too much so that is an option.  While the PoW period is running, you will have plenty of time to perfect your vision for bitcredits in testnet and hopefully you can even raise enough funds to bring in a bit of extra help as understandably seem a bit overwhelmed at the moment.  By the time the network switches to full on PoS, everyone will have gotten plenty of time to mine and buy bitcredits, the founder positions will be liquid so there shouldn't be too much complaining there, and as interest in the coins grows a solid community who would support the further development of bitcredits should have sprung up.

Early adopters get rewarded from mining early on with low difficulty and being able to buy a large chunk of coins with founder position staking rights in the ICO, and later adopters will have plenty of opportunities to join the party down the road as we all anxiously await the launch of Bitcredits proper upon switching to PoS.  Sounds fair to me.

Fri Jan 16 20:09:29 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12285,
    "difficulty" : 0.00000168,

Fri Jan 16 20:09:55 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12286,
    "difficulty" : 0.00000210,

Fri Jan 16 20:10:44 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12287,
    "difficulty" : 0.00000420,

Fri Jan 16 20:16:22 GMT 2015
    "blocks" : 12288,
    "difficulty" : 0.00001051,


While (I believe) it was stated that the difficulty code was working as intended... based on numbers I see... it seems to go too far in trying to get the time to find a block back to 1 minute.  It seems like the network is too small, and luck is currently too big of a factor... you end up with several blocks in a row coming within 5-20 seconds... and then not coming for 5 minutes.  Tho I would guess the current problem is something else.