Topic: ★★DigiByte|极特币★★[DGB]✔ Core v6.16.5.1 - DigiShield, DigiSpeed, Segwit - page 1375. (Read 3059029 times)

I agree the most important now is an algochange. without that dgb is doomed to fail. and i think that you cant dance on too many weddings. naut, digishield for others, exchanges etc will not bring this coin any further. i lost trust a bit. you developers work hard for all these other projects and search for investors. but you forget the core of it all. the community, miners and small investors that carry this coin from the beginning. they are your basis and only on their wedding you should dance.

i gonna switch my few millions to the raising BTC now. i see the numbers fall day by day and might come back to dgb once it hit the 0.00000020 again. i wont wait to june just to hear you annonce some exchange and see my small money melt to half.

im out dgb for now. sorry but im disappointed.

with respect, I think you're being a little too much of an idealist. With growth comes the necessary evils along with it. And by that I mean as more people believe a crypto will grow in the future, more people will mine it. Let's be realistic here, most of any large crypto's base are large scale miners. Large scale GPU farms exist...just they aren't pointed at Digibyte.  If DGB's price rises you can bet that whatever people have will be pointed at it, be that ASICs, FPGAs, GPUs.
Sure it would be nice to have 1000 people mining at 1MHs each, but that will only happen as long as it's actually unprofitable to mine DGB with whatever technology that person has available.  For example, I simply can't run my GPUs even this early in summer because it's just not economical, even if DGB went back up to the 200s. But ASICS I can run, and even make a profit with. So when it's profitable more & more miners will come, when it's unprofitable only the hard core few, desperately hoping that one day in the future they will be paid back for their losses, will remain.

If you look at Bitcoin, it was also supposed to be highly decentralized, but do you still think it is?  Nevertheless people still buy it & hold it because they believe it will go up in price. Keeping DGB's hashrate small by forking it again will mean it will only ever be a niche player in an ever increasing market & will never achieve the adoption which was intended when it was launched. Let's not forget that the average person has neither the equipment nor the skills to mine a cc, so in a way even your "1,000 miners" is centralizing the mining base. IMHO A coin with a 1Ghs network simply cannot survive. Or at least will never expand much beyond that user base and that is dooming it just as much as a 51% attack would, just different time frame.

And just another idea/suggestion, if it IS going to be forked again, we should look at introducing something new, which other coins haven't thought of yet. DGB's sole charm that I can see is the confirmation speed, but it's just not proving to be enough of an attraction. A new algo alone I don't think would prove to be that defining feature (unless its something out of this planet), so we should throw around some ideas & help Jared out a little with any suggestions we have. Eg DRK has anonymity, DGB needs...??

Cryptocurrency – For Whom and For What?

• "Fundamentally, cryptocurrencies are specifications regarding the use of currency which seek to incorporate principles of cryptography to implement a distributed, decentralized and secure information economy."
• "Within cryptocurrency systems the safety, integrity and balance of all ledgers is maintained by a swarm of mutually distrustful parties referred to as miners who are usually members of the public handling cryptocurrency transactions for a small fee."

I'm sure that we could all agree that “a distributed, decentralized and secure information economy” whose “safety, integrity and balance of all ledgers is maintained by a swarm of mutually distrustful parties” is the defined, prerequisite, foundation for any cryptocurrency hoping for successful long term adoption and standardization.

Reaching an agreement on a categorical definition of who makes up the decentralized network and the size of their swarm is another matter altogether. Deciding on, and defining these two variables, is undoubtedly essential for making the final decision regarding just about every other aspect of a cryptocurrency.

Who makes up the cryptocurrency's user base? If you are on the Dev team the question becomes: who do you want as your cryptocurrency's users?

I also prefer a 1GH/s network run by 1000 people over a 100GH/s network run by 10 people, INDEPENDENT of the technology used. Note that key concept expressed in the word independent! It's not the technology per se, rather it's the kind of user base I prefer since more users translates into more secure, again, independent of the technology employed.

But let's say that the cryptocurrency's developers prefer the opposite of what I prefer, and they want as few users as possible with the largest hashrate possible. Who am I to get in their way? That's their right and prerogative. Doesn't mean I have to use that particular cryptocurrency though – of course, I always have the same right and prerogative to go somewhere else.

The point is that no-one can really say which is better when it comes to personal preferences and likes and dislikes. What's more, even though you can make a very strong objective argument showing how security is enhanced by a large user base and compromised by a small user base, someone just might choose a less secure network option for whatever strange reason they might have, and that's that.

As a consequence, we've got “a distributed, decentralized and secure information economy” whose “safety, integrity and balance of all ledgers is maintained by a swarm of mutually distrustful parties”, but we still don't know who our users are until we define them on a case by case basis.

Obviously, if security is priority #1, the larger the “swarm”, the better.

Okay, but even “larger” is relative. Larger to what? There's still room here for the ASIC intensive mining ethos to make its argument. It would be elitist of course, but an argument for its case nonetheless. In its most simple of forms it goes as follows: since there are very few specialized ASIC mining machines relative to computers in the world, the aggregate size of an ASIC network need not be nearly as large as that needed for a network of CPU/GPU miners.

And that would be just fine for the developers of a cryptocurrency aimed solely at specialized ASIC intensive miners.

The problem here is that DGB is aimed at a mass consumption audience.

And in this game, unfortunately, you can't have your cake and eat it too (just like life itself ). You have to choose, then clearly define, and then implement.

The debate, as I see it, with regards to this aspect of the current decision making process that DGB is going through, centers on a clear definition of who DGB intends to serve: ordinary folks with the readily available information technology they have at their disposal, or a specialized, elitist group of ASIC miners whose activity precludes the former and most probably ends in killing the coin?

We can spew BS about what we personally like and dislike, fantasize about what's impossible, and the like, but until we seriously lay out all the rock-solid, objective reasons for why we think one thing or the other, we won't be making much of a contribution.

DGB needs to clearly define who its user base is (and is going to be) and then it needs to swiftly move to protect and defend that user base from all attacks, and if the ordinary man in a widely distributed network aimed at the masses is the final, clearly defined, “end user”, then an algo change is urgently needed now (IMVHO).



In order to keep this thread as clean [and mean] as possible, help to eliminate clutter by NOT quoting this entire post when responding. If you link to it by quoting only the title, or the particular comment you wish to respond to, that should suffice, and you'll be helping the rest of us to more quickly see and read your own contributions and comments on the subject as well!

I do too, but technology changes. I can't think of one success story which happened because people refused to accept new technology. Except perhaps brand fashion etc.

Look at Bitcoin now though. I've done now research, but I bet you more than half the network is owned by a very limited number of people/companies.

I prefer a 1GH GPU network runned by 1000 people over a 100GH ASIC network run by 10 people

I also think that running from ASICs could harm DGB. Changing the algo makes sense from a gut reaction point of view, but the network needs to grow & diversifying too far from what most people are going for may put us in too specialized a niche. One way to avoid this might be to use the Foundation which was proposed a while back to ensure that Digibyte supporters have enough hashing power to prevent any 51% attack. Last time I checked there was only 1.5GHs or so, which is of course far too low.

On the DBG <-> USD exchange, if there can then be a big push for merchant adoption following that, with easy tools for merchants to implement it then I can see it as a positive. But yes, building it is not in itself a very useful thing in my opinion. As it stands, if anyone ordered a $500 item via digibyte, the merchant who then sold the DGB for cash would alter the market quite significantly.

Also, I would be another voice against assisting other coins. For Doge it perhaps made sense as it got the name out there, but I can't see as it did anything positive for Digibyte as a brand. Also Nautilus made sense seeing as you worked out promotion for DGB with that, but even these things did nothing much for the price.

IMHO the best thing right now would be to develop uses for Digibyte. Be that online stores selling useful things for miners in only DGB, or similar, but at the moment (and seriously no offense here) I feel as though so much is being made of the algo change that we are missing the whole point that wider adoption is the key to growth. It's like the analogy of the old baseball player who suddenly realizes that he's gone from wanting to hit the ball to being scared of missing. At the start we were all about widening the community & now the whole discussion here is what to do about changing algo to prevent us losing out to other coins (read: missing the ball).  Yes a 51% attack is terrible, but widening the community & the hash rate will cure that, or at least minimize the risk. Let's not get too distracted.

We can't be any more objective and intelligent than that now, can we?  


Let's try to treat this serious issue with a minimum of sobriety.

It is a spurious correlation that hashrate and value do correspond directly with each other. The 3rd vector which is not represented is "popularity". While popularity of BTC rose, the competition in mining and trading rose as well. With the growing amount of BTC enthusiasts it became profitable to develope specials hardware for them.

You can also find statistics saying the more storks live in an area the more (human) babys are born. Does it mean that  storks are bringing the babys? Of course not. It's a spurious correlation.

The Bitcoin Experience, and What It Might Tell Us About The Future For Scrypt


I'd like to suggest that we take a look at what has taken place in Bitcoin, and by doing so, perhaps lay the foundation for creating a thoroughly documented case study, and, ultimately, get as good of an idea as we can as to where scrypt mining might be headed using the logic of extrapolation.

Last December, ZeroHedge posted a very nice article documenting the current state of affairs regarding BTC mining at that time.

The article starts out with some background information to put things into context and then quickly moves to the 'numbers' at the heart of Bitcoin 'mining' and valuations.

As the following chart from the article shows, in addition to the surge in the price of Bitcoin, another explosion was witnessed in the processing power of the Bitcoin network which was directly correlated with price: "from non-existent a couple of years ago, the 'mining' power dedicated to hashing, or the calculations used to extract new Bitcoins, has risen to nearly 10 quadrillion per second!"



The article then gives us an introduction to “what these supercomputer-populated mines" behind the huge increase in hashrate "look like” (along with some pictures like the one below that give us a intuitive visual perspective).



The details regarding the prototype behind these mines, their design, and the technology being employed, are scintillating to say the least, with the following excerpt from the New York Times describing the entrance of one such mine located in Iceland perhaps sufficient to pique your interest further:

• To get there, you pass through a fortified gate and enter a featureless yellow building. After checking in with a guard behind bulletproof glass, you face four more security checkpoints, including a so-called man trap that allows passage only after the door behind you has shut. This brings you to the center of the operation, a fluorescent-lit room with more than 100 whirring silver computers, each in a locked cabinet and each cooled by blasts of Arctic air shot up from vents in the floor.

In my opinion, this article is a wonderful primer on how ASIC mining is a complete game changer, and a 'wake up call' for anyone who thinks they can compete, even with ASIC, on an individual level (without moving to Iceland with a huge stash of cash in their pockets to set up shop with). I highly recommend it, and don't miss the embedded video either!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-25/trip-through-bitcoin-mines


--------------------------------------------------o--------------------------------------------------


The main question, as I see it, that we have before us now has to do with what percentage of current mining is being done by these “supercomputer-populated mines” and what percentage belongs to the most probably extinct members of the now very theoretical widely distributed user base. Given that we're dealing with a basically “anonymous” system, hard data to that effect is hard to come by, if not practically impossible to gather, and we are left with educated guesses. However, based on what I've read from individual accounts and articles like the one above, my educated guess would be that a substantial percentage of current Bitcoin mining corresponds to the supercomputer-populated mines, to not say a vast majority. When looking at where network hashrate has gone in comparison to the inverse trend in price (demonstrating a clear break of the positive correlation between hashrate and price that existed leading up to the advent of mass use of ASIC BTC mining), I'd have to say that these two hard data points corroborate that 'guesstimate'. ( https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate  https://blockchain.info/charts/market-price )

If the above is accurate, then what we are seeing, in real time, is the logical consequences of ASIC mining of what what originally designed to be a widely distributed, peer-to-peer, cryptocurrency which increased in value as mining difficulty rose and immediate new relative supply fell. This preliminary conclusion would suggest that our 'real life' case study of BTC clearly demonstrates that ASIC mining not only destroys the widely distributed user base by 'locking out' the little guy from mining, but that it also subverts normal pricing behavior by suppressing price with an oversupply of 'artificially cheap' coins being brought to market. (The ultimate consequence would be the outright destruction of the coin once price goes so low as to fall below 'Iceland ROI', when there would be nobody left to even man the nodes, but that's for another topic and another day.)


My hope is that this is simply the beginning of a collaborative effort to document the 'Bitcoin experience' with an eye on learning from their mistakes (and successes where they are) so as to avoid the same pitfalls that could very well be leading to BTC's eventual demise. Of course, that's my opinion based on how I interpret the information I have at my disposal, and it should by no means imply that this “collaborative effort” should be one way, or unidimensional – if there's one thing I deplore, it's “group think”. All data points and perspectives are not only welcomed, but actively encouraged.


In order to keep this thread as clean [and mean] as possible, help to eliminate clutter by NOT quoting this entire post when responding. If you link to it by quoting only the title, or the particular comment you wish to respond to, that should suffice, and you'll also be helping the rest of us to more quickly see and read your own contributions and comments on the subject at the same time!

Exactaly, thats why people BUY asics, so they dont get left behind technologically. You can buy 5MH cheaper than it would cost in GPUS's for 5MH, and runs 1/4 the electricity too, if not less. Let your GPU's mine Blake-256, X11 or N, asics are the newer, better, more cost effective method of mining scrypt.

The idea is not to fight ASICs. Just not allow them to easily overtake 51% of the hashing power by people owning lots of them.

Imagine dozens of people/companies having a kill switch for a given coin. Would you invest in that your money and time?

I dont think an algo change is any sort of miracle in the making. If we fought technological improvements in 1900, no one would have electricity. If we fought technological improvements in 1903 we we wouldn't have airplanes. If we fought technological improvements in 1907 we wouldn't have radio communications.. the list goes on and on and on, Ill spare everyone further dates & examples.

patience guys, I was mining darkcoin when it first came out, months of nothing and then kaboom...i'm a happy camper now and can't wait for the DGB explosion...patience and more patience  ...The team is being very transparent and honest, that's all that I ask for at this point in time

First, I aggree 100% on "security first". So an algo change should in my opinion be priority #1, too.

However, you say the approach to open a new exchange is wasted time. I'm not sure about this. Yes, it didn't help Digitalcoin obviously. But as I can see CryptoAve had nothing new to offer beside a possibility to buy some few coins with USD. CA had no reputation outside the cryptocurrency scene (if even). I would say it was

1) a lack of marketing
2) a lack of investors outside cc scene (or at least very wealthy ones)
3) a lack of DGC adoption
4) too early

If we aim towards a broad adoption of DGB for digital payment processes, we obviously need a payment processor. While hoping to get added to bitpay or coinkite for months or forever, you can also take action and create your own. If you have good investors at your hands that want to make serious bussines and are able to finance decent marketing campaigns for being adopted from merchants and customers, this COULD work.
I don't believe the two mentioned major payment processors will be the last ones we ever see in cc world. Someone has to try and someone needs to come up with new, fresh ideas.

I aggree, this is a realy hard task. It's not enough to code a great tool overnight, you need partners that invest and promote and have good connections to other businesses.

Same here, security first and foremost but also it seems scrypt coins are losing popularity more and more everyday.  And lets be honest Digibyte could use a boost in that area.

Could not agree more.

The security of the coin is of utmost importance and should be the priority for now.

Unfortunately, I have to agree. Look at what CryptoAve has done for DigitalCoin. Nothing, other than distracting the Dev(s) from attending to what's important (i.e. the coin itself). https://www.cryptoave.com/

Since CryptoAve inception, DGC has lost over 80% of its value . . . and if we take into account the 3 months or so spent on trying to get it up and running before they actually eventually succeeded, we'd have to say that DGC has lost over 95% of its value from its Nov.-Dec. 2013 highs.

Personally, my 2 cents say that an algo change is paramount ATM. Everything else can wait, we've got years before it's even going to be necessary to even think about PoS, for example, but the ASIC threat has got to be dealt with ASAP, and with a scrypt coin, the only option available is a hardfork algo change. There's no other option. And time is of the essence.

Thanks for the update. Good to hear that you worked out your personal issues.

That sounds like a huge waste of time and money. Another new exchange won't help digibyte. There are already more than enough exchanges out there. For example CryptoAve didn't help DGC a bit.

Just a heads up,

Digishield has been used in a lot more coins than just doge and naut.
Casino coin is the latest off the top of my head to be using it.

Thanks for the update. I'm holding this and adding to my investment as price permits.

Just hanging out for a good way to spend it

Totally agreed. You can't always be the nice guy, your own project is the most important!