Difficulty from 16 all the way to 1024 in a few hours after the first announcement.
Obviously this was announced on the 5th day after it's creation.
Coin and OP live up to it's name.
Topic: JKC, the newest Litecoin-based alt coin has arrived! - page 25. (Read 54191 times)
JunkCoin/src# make -f makefile.unix USE_UPNP=-
make: *** No rule to make target `testcoind', needed by `all'. Stop.
Lol same here. testcoind wtf is that and how to solve it?
make: *** No rule to make target `testcoind', needed by `all'. Stop.
Lol same here. testcoind wtf is that and how to solve it?
yes someone please create a pool? I don't get anything now...
You are competing with people having big computing power, I also see only rejected blocks. Only at the beginning I was able to get a few blocks...
I guess a mining pool could help...
I guess a mining pool could help...
No, I see ACCEPTED blocks. Not rejected. For every 20 blocks I solve, I get about 3 in my wallet. Also, what happened with the 500 coins on the first day? I'm only getting 50 per block.
You are competing with people having big computing power, I also see only rejected blocks. Only at the beginning I was able to get a few blocks...
I guess a mining pool could help...
I guess a mining pool could help...
Is not receiving ACCEPTED blocks part of the lovely features of this new coin?
Solved plenty, yet wallet reflects very few of them.
Mining this is like a kick in the junk for sure.
Solved plenty, yet wallet reflects very few of them.
Mining this is like a kick in the junk for sure.
now difficulty seems stabilized...
however all recent released alt coin all have same start difficulty, I guess they all have a lot premining happened...
however all recent released alt coin all have same start difficulty, I guess they all have a lot premining happened...
Quote
Hi.,., why is junkcoin.exe 50 mb in size?
What did you put in it?
junkcoind.exe? maybe I did not strip it, anyway compile it yourself, the makefile.mingw is working, just change the lib path. Then you can compare it. What did you put in it?
Hi.,., why is junkcoin.exe 50 mb in size?
What did you put in it?
What did you put in it?
how to merge mining all these coins and get fee paid? need a joint-mining program to do it.
p2pool supports merged mining.
You mine bitcoins using p2pool, but also tell p2pool about any merged-mine-able coin daemons you wish to merged-mine alongside bitcoin. So you can pick and choose whichever merged-mine-able coins you like, up to all of them if you have the RAM and bandwidth and disk space to run all of them.
Currently I have p2pool doing that on one 16 gigs of RAM machine, with all the coin daemons it is using all on that same machine with it, merged-mining BTC, NMC, DVC, GRP, I0C, IXC, CLC and XGG all at once. It works fine except that I0Coin dies regularly from a boost assert when boost fails to successfully do a DNS lookup. The rest keep humming along though so I just have to restart I0Coin periodically, which actually I could maybe even delegate to a watchdog script or daemon.
Adding seven more chains should not really be any particular problem. (Maybe use more RAM of course, but 16 gigs is hardly a large system so that should not be a problem.)
-MarkM-
how to merge mining all these coins and get fee paid? need a joint-mining program to do it.
Now the difficulty seems reasonable, my mining is pretty slow, anyone out there want to create a pool? otherwise this is only the pond for big fishes..
Now the difficulty seems reasonable, my mining is pretty slow, anyone out there want to create a pool? otherwise this is only the pond for big fishes..
Since it has now been established that it is fine and dandy to pre-mine, and also that it is fine and dandy for rewards to be random, maybe the day is fast approaching when the coins that retreated, for security, to Open Transactions can consider coming out into the open?
Imagine a coin worth 15.23244463 BTC per coin.
A coin so ancient that long long long long long ago the last block-reward was already given out.
So the "random reward" is in fact the "randomness" of how many fee-paying transactions you can put into a block.
If the fees were, say, 0.005 of a coin minimum fee, that would be 0.07616222 BTC per fee.
The coin would be merged-mined, along with many similar blockchains, lets say initially seven such chains, so if each chain yielded only one fee per block, that would add up to 0.53313554 BTC in fees across the seven chains, per block (on targeted average that is per ten minutes).
If no paying transactions are available, why bother mining? Wait until a paying transaction appears, then mine it.
Of course the more frequent paying transactions are, the more reward is available.
In practice, not all the chains would have quite such high-value coins. Sometimes some of them might have coins worth less than a bitcoin each. Then again, transactions might not be very scarce, possibly some of them might transact more than once per ten minutes on average.
Also, in practice, seven chains would be just the tip of the iceberg. More and more chains would probably jump aboard.
Is this too futuristic a concept still or is it starting to look reasonable nowadays, with all the experience gained in the last while?
-MarkM-
Imagine a coin worth 15.23244463 BTC per coin.
A coin so ancient that long long long long long ago the last block-reward was already given out.
So the "random reward" is in fact the "randomness" of how many fee-paying transactions you can put into a block.
If the fees were, say, 0.005 of a coin minimum fee, that would be 0.07616222 BTC per fee.
The coin would be merged-mined, along with many similar blockchains, lets say initially seven such chains, so if each chain yielded only one fee per block, that would add up to 0.53313554 BTC in fees across the seven chains, per block (on targeted average that is per ten minutes).
If no paying transactions are available, why bother mining? Wait until a paying transaction appears, then mine it.
Of course the more frequent paying transactions are, the more reward is available.
In practice, not all the chains would have quite such high-value coins. Sometimes some of them might have coins worth less than a bitcoin each. Then again, transactions might not be very scarce, possibly some of them might transact more than once per ten minutes on average.
Also, in practice, seven chains would be just the tip of the iceberg. More and more chains would probably jump aboard.
Is this too futuristic a concept still or is it starting to look reasonable nowadays, with all the experience gained in the last while?
-MarkM-
Difficulty better, I am still getting rejected blocks though, someone with big computing powres...
Your entire early adopter scheme is through now because of those big computers.... shouldn't you relaunch?
I got this error in my debian box:
git clone https://github.com/js2082/JunkCoin.git
JunkCoin/src# make -f makefile.unix USE_UPNP=-
make: *** No rule to make target `testcoind', needed by `all'. Stop.
Other litecoin base alt coins do just fine.
git clone https://github.com/js2082/JunkCoin.git
JunkCoin/src# make -f makefile.unix USE_UPNP=-
make: *** No rule to make target `testcoind', needed by `all'. Stop.
Other litecoin base alt coins do just fine.
Difficulty better, I am still getting rejected blocks though, someone with big computing powres...
I am continuing mining, I want to value my 2 blocks of junk, the only 2 I ever mined, lol!
Agreed, but if seeding with block hash then no one can predict unless you compute all the blocks, lol.
Except it is not random.
Everyone will know exactly which are the bonus blocks, and chain-hop onto just exactly those blocks, ignoring the chain the rest of the time.
Even if you use the hash of the previous block as seed, each time a block is mined everyone will immediately know what the reward on the next block is going to be, so again can immediately switch to that chain for that block.
So you have to use some kind of hash of the actual block you are mining, which only the miner will know, each miner seeing a different one until some miner solves the block.
Miners can re-arrange the transactions or try more nonces to try to not only solve the block but solve it in a way that gives the extra-large payout.
-MarkM-
Everyone will know exactly which are the bonus blocks, and chain-hop onto just exactly those blocks, ignoring the chain the rest of the time.
Even if you use the hash of the previous block as seed, each time a block is mined everyone will immediately know what the reward on the next block is going to be, so again can immediately switch to that chain for that block.
So you have to use some kind of hash of the actual block you are mining, which only the miner will know, each miner seeing a different one until some miner solves the block.
Miners can re-arrange the transactions or try more nonces to try to not only solve the block but solve it in a way that gives the extra-large payout.
-MarkM-
Quote
It can easily be fixed.
Not a problem whatsoever.
The hard part is just the coding, to fix the future history.
The difficulty fix is just to >> 30 instead of >> 20, (or is it, 10 instead of 20? Hmm, think, think...), that will make it 2048 times harder, which hopefully will at least not be insanely easy.
The entire pre-mined blockchain will be rejected as having too low a difficulty, so will become a massive string of orphans.
So the new chain will replace it.
If a new genesis block is made, instead of simply skipping the test of whether the genesis block itself is difficult enough, then even the genesis block of the pre-mined chain will be rejected, the entire chain from genesis being orphaned.
-MarkM-
Not a problem whatsoever.
The hard part is just the coding, to fix the future history.
The difficulty fix is just to >> 30 instead of >> 20, (or is it, 10 instead of 20? Hmm, think, think...), that will make it 2048 times harder, which hopefully will at least not be insanely easy.
The entire pre-mined blockchain will be rejected as having too low a difficulty, so will become a massive string of orphans.
So the new chain will replace it.
If a new genesis block is made, instead of simply skipping the test of whether the genesis block itself is difficult enough, then even the genesis block of the pre-mined chain will be rejected, the entire chain from genesis being orphaned.
-MarkM-
I know it's easy fix in code. But I don't want to change the p2p nature, since it is already released, let it be.
It's good to know you guys, maybe we can work on something in the future together. Need to think something more fun. Anyway I think the random block part is pretty cool...
Quote
Why not just fix the problem and relaunch it? Most of us like the ideas you had. It sounds like a fun coin. But the whole beginning stages of it aren't able to be implemented at such a low difficulty.
well I think it is too late, this is p-2-p network, it is not under my control, the nature of p2p, it's a good experiment, anyway I gave it a good name:-) Have fun guys, and I learned quite a bit from there...
It can easily be fixed.
Not a problem whatsoever.
The hard part is just the coding, to fix the future history.
The difficulty fix is just to >> 30 instead of >> 20, (or is it, 10 instead of 20? Hmm, think, think...), that will make it 2048 times harder, which hopefully will at least not be insanely easy.
The entire pre-mined blockchain will be rejected as having too low a difficulty, so will become a massive string of orphans.
So the new chain will replace it.
If a new genesis block is made, instead of simply skipping the test of whether the genesis block itself is difficult enough, then even the genesis block of the pre-mined chain will be rejected, the entire chain from genesis being orphaned.
-MarkM-
Quote
Why not just fix the problem and relaunch it? Most of us like the ideas you had. It sounds like a fun coin. But the whole beginning stages of it aren't able to be implemented at such a low difficulty.
well I think it is too late, this is p-2-p network, it is not under my control, the nature of p2p, it's a good experiment, anyway I gave it a good name:-) Have fun guys, and I learned quite a bit from there...
If you quit, I quit. Going back to bitbar I guess.
Jump to: