Topic: MasterCoin: New Protocol Layer Starting From “The Exodus Address” - page 70. (Read 448462 times)

These transaction do not contain valid Mastercoin data. It only has one public key, it requires more. I've disabled simple send generator from Mastercoin explorer since I'm afraid you created them using my software, if so I apologise and will report back once I have time to check out what went wrong.

validateaddress accepts one argument, one of your addresses. So if 1J2svn2GxYx9LPrpCLFikmzn9kkrXBrk8B is your address you would use validateaddress  1J2svn2GxYx9LPrpCLFikmzn9kkrXBrk8B.

Apologies for my ignorance but I'm curious as to the affect of clone coins on the network. Will people only be able to engage in all the activities the protocol allows with someone holding the same type of MSC (so there are networks within the network) or can people with clone coins place bets, etc with someone holding an original MSC for example?

I still have trouble understanding why tx fees aren't enough of a market incentive for miners

Forgive me if I am wrong but wouldn't a pool only reject these transactions if it can increase the expected value of its mining operation?
From what I understand, bigger blocks produce orphans more often, and thats why pools are under pressure to reduce blocksize while maximizing transaction fees.
Isn't it (leaving all other issues like blockchain size etc aside) just a question of calculating transaction fees to compensate for bigger blocksizes? Surely transaction fees also weigh in heavier each time the block reward (= an artificial subvention) is halved and the more is happening on the bitcoin network.

Not in the long run. Too expensive capital costs, probably won't ROI, so we couldn't  stay mining for long. The capital will not be replenished and we won't be able to buy nonobsolete miners/electricity.

We would require around 500TH to find one block per hour. Not sure that's feasible.

Yes, good point. But if there are 144 transactions, we can finish them in one hour with our own pool, but without our own pool, they take one day. So with our own pool, at least we can ensure all transactions can be finished when we found a block, but without it the transactions will definitely take forever to finish as long as there are more than 1 transactions every 10 minutes.

I don't think having our own pool would help enough. Even if we found find the incidental block that would probably be just as fast as the 1 transaction per block that the other pools are doing, if we assume everybody adopts Luke's patch. We would need to find a block every hour consistently if we find less then that Mastercoin would be a seriously slow protocol.

So no dedicated mining thread? 

What about p2pool?
Can we fork p2pool and launch our own MSC instance of that? Maybe our instance can cooperate with "The p2pool" if it won't be big enough?

How about a hierarchical structure for p2pools? Was this discussed anywhere?

In average, 5 days for 5TH now. Just divide 25 by the daily BTC mined, assuming no difficulty change.

It probably wouldn't break even, that I'm sure of.

I don't know how to calculate probability of x TH/s finding a block, and at what point P would no longer be statistically viable to find blocks while mining privately.

Oops, now I clearly feel the danger of BTC. Miners will only join the existing pools and new pool is almost impossible to survive now. Is it dangerous?

Maybe seems off topic, but MSC is based on BTC, so it is related. Maybe create an 'Exodus Address' also on LTC block chain?

Luckily we got calculators 

I possibly could get us a few THs/s, depends. I don't know how long that would find blocks though.

I read that to say that ouputs will be throttled as well.


I doubt that Exodus was generate from a deterministic wallet since it's a vanity address. However my suggestion would be to do exactly this. Increase the gap limit for a deterministic wallet based on the volume of the previous X-blocks. Much like Bitcoin's retargeting. I am just not sure how scaleable this would be in the long term. Need to do more research.

Presumably the exodus address was from a deterministic wallet. Could the subsequent addresses be generated and used instead?

Address reusing is sending from the same address.
I don't think that sending to an address multiple times can or will be throttled.

Well miners can blacklist Exodus specifically ... but that's a bit extreme and we are working on a migration plan if that happens.

Both inputs and outputs are counted and since we need to reference Exodus it will still be throttled.

TL;DR it for me?
You mean the possibility that Bitcoin miners will prefer not to process Mastercoin transactions?
The solution might be another chain and merged mining.

There's a $100 bounty on doing this analysis, we're considering increasing it to $300 or $500.

FYI we haven't decided on the formal criteria to accept this analysis and award the bounty.
I want someone with deep understanding of Bitcoin fundamentals.

Core developers or Meni Rosenfeld would have been great for this, but I don't know if they're interested in Mastercoin.
I asked Vitalik Buterin to look into it.


I just heard about this now and don't have the time to form an opinion.
However I trust Mike very much. If Gavin quit then Mike would be my choice for Lead Dev.
It's a good question how this interacts with Mastercoin if at all. See merged mining above.


Nothing. You will just send all your MSC to a new address each time.
All MSC features, including Saving Addresses, can adapt to this model.


Terrific and innovative idea!
I suggest that mining discussions be moved to a dedicated Mastercoin Mining thread.
Talk to us if you need help promoting the pool.


We can start by bribing miners with MSC in exchange for joining the pool.
Then they will have incentive for keeping MSC safe.
The bribe can start at some level and decrease at some rate until it's zero ... the pool should be self-sustainable by then.