Author

Topic: NA - page 182. (Read 893610 times)

hero member
Activity: 638
Merit: 500
July 11, 2015, 02:19:25 PM
LTEX said it best. Shock and horror that I agree with him but he is right. I am a businessman and people want to back winners, over supply is a capitalization destroyer and that is not good for business.

Quote
I do like the proposed change and I think you are right that it can't hurt to act upon new insights now that we have passed some learning curves. Change is not something to fear, as long as it's thought through.

https://community.guldencoin.com/t/belangrijk-guldencoin-100-switching-gears/1126/19



Indeed, finally the supply will be there but block rewards will be adjusted over time to meet our goals the best way possible. Insight comes over time and cannot be overseen from before, that's why the founder suggested this change on the official Guldencoin forum https://community.guldencoin.com/t/belangrijk-guldencoin-100-switching-gears/1126
sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 250
July 11, 2015, 02:03:37 PM
LTEX said it best. Shock and horror that I agree with him but he is right. I am a businessman and people want to back winners, over supply is a capitalization destroyer and that is not good for business.

Quote
I do like the proposed change and I think you are right that it can't hurt to act upon new insights now that we have passed some learning curves. Change is not something to fear, as long as it's thought through.

https://community.guldencoin.com/t/belangrijk-guldencoin-100-switching-gears/1126/19

sr. member
Activity: 458
Merit: 500
July 11, 2015, 01:24:07 PM
The extra value that Digibyte, Myriadcoin, and lots of other coins (multi-algo or not) have over Guldencoin at this point is that they don't have meddling devs trying to play the role of fed chairperson, adjusting the total number of coins and emission rate well after the coin has been launched. For some reason this seems even worse to me in the context of a 10% premine...

MaNI, the meddling assertive Guldencoin dev suggested the change to a smaller block reward. Only if the majority of the Guldencoin community agrees with the plan the changes will push through. And you better lose your trust in the Guldencoin community then, because at this moment most of the NLG users want a lower supply.

Is that a fact or an assumption? How was the concensus measured? The largest wallets? The biggest yellers? A poll? What about people that hold or mine NLG and do not wish to post on a forum? I'm against fiddling with the coinspecs mainstream, it wil be used against the coin for years.


I am neutral because it doesn't matter what the supply is, the coins success won't be judged on this, a better question to ask is what will peoples motivation be if the price falls under 100 should this bitcoin rally go to 500? My bottom of 230 was calculated on a bitcoin price of 250 and under, this scenario changes drastically as the btc price carries on increasing. Well you could end up losing half your community while the supply inflates to around a billion and you losing more users. Really who gives a fuck what the crypto community think if they really wanted guldencoin wouldn't they be invested in it already. No they clearly coming here because they feel threatened by this change.


I have to admit something, I was planning to sell all my NLG to go to bytecent as I like the fact bytecent has constant reward and the reward is low. Chris is doing a good job there, guldencoin is my favourite alt but I was losing hope because of the over supply. So I am sticking around for the long term knowing this team has the coins best interests in mind and prepared to make tough choices for the good of the coin. Well done!

sr. member
Activity: 246
Merit: 250
July 11, 2015, 01:22:00 PM

Is that a fact or an assumption? How was the concensus measured?


That's my own conclusion after counting the votes in the several forum threads (thread 1 & thread 2) about this subject.

Quote
What about people that hold or mine NLG and do not wish to post on a forum?

What about them? If there are people who decide to don't be a part of an active community, whose problem is that? If you want to be heard, you have to stand up.
sr. member
Activity: 332
Merit: 250
July 11, 2015, 12:46:43 PM
The extra value that Digibyte, Myriadcoin, and lots of other coins (multi-algo or not) have over Guldencoin at this point is that they don't have meddling devs trying to play the role of fed chairperson, adjusting the total number of coins and emission rate well after the coin has been launched. For some reason this seems even worse to me in the context of a 10% premine...

MaNI, the meddling assertive Guldencoin dev suggested the change to a smaller block reward. Only if the majority of the Guldencoin community agrees with the plan the changes will push through. And you better lose your trust in the Guldencoin community then, because at this moment most of the NLG users want a lower supply.

Is that a fact or an assumption? How was the concensus measured? The largest wallets? The biggest yellers? A poll? What about people that hold or mine NLG and do not wish to post on a forum? I'm against fiddling with the coinspecs mainstream, it wil be used against the coin for years.
legendary
Activity: 1197
Merit: 1001
July 11, 2015, 10:02:48 AM
The extra value that Digibyte, Myriadcoin, and lots of other coins (multi-algo or not) have over Guldencoin at this point is that they don't have meddling devs trying to play the role of fed chairperson, adjusting the total number of coins and emission rate well after the coin has been launched. For some reason this seems even worse to me in the context of a 10% premine...

MaNI, the meddling assertive Guldencoin dev suggested the change to a smaller block reward. Only if the majority of the Guldencoin community agrees with the plan the changes will push through. And you better lose your trust in the Guldencoin community then, because at this moment most of the NLG users want a lower supply.

Did I miss the vote? Was there a public poll taken of miners? Merchants accepting NLG? Or is this just based off of 5-10 guys circlejerking on internet forums?

Besides btc talk you need to look at the 2 different forums. official and community forum.I only browse those forums but lots of activity on them.
legendary
Activity: 3136
Merit: 1116
July 11, 2015, 09:45:40 AM
The extra value that Digibyte, Myriadcoin, and lots of other coins (multi-algo or not) have over Guldencoin at this point is that they don't have meddling devs trying to play the role of fed chairperson, adjusting the total number of coins and emission rate well after the coin has been launched. For some reason this seems even worse to me in the context of a 10% premine...

MaNI, the meddling assertive Guldencoin dev suggested the change to a smaller block reward. Only if the majority of the Guldencoin community agrees with the plan the changes will push through. And you better lose your trust in the Guldencoin community then, because at this moment most of the NLG users want a lower supply.

Did I miss the vote? Was there a public poll taken of miners? Merchants accepting NLG? Or is this just based off of 5-10 guys circlejerking on internet forums?
legendary
Activity: 1658
Merit: 1001
July 11, 2015, 08:52:57 AM
The extra value that Digibyte, Myriadcoin, and lots of other coins (multi-algo or not) have over Guldencoin at this point is that they don't have meddling devs trying to play the role of fed chairperson, adjusting the total number of coins and emission rate well after the coin has been launched. For some reason this seems even worse to me in the context of a 10% premine...

MaNI, the meddling assertive Guldencoin dev suggested the change to a smaller block reward. Only if the majority of the Guldencoin community agrees with the plan the changes will push through. And you better lose your trust in the Guldencoin community then, because at this moment most of the NLG users want a lower supply.

Absolutely  Smiley. It's also not in contrast with the original plan as laid down by Rijk, au contraire, he suggested that eventually we are supposed to arrive at a value that is close to the old guilder, so therefore lowering the supply fits within the guidelines of Guldencoin. I have trust in the devs BECAUSE they interfere when necessary.  Smiley

1) Intrinsic value doesn't change, when that increases you could more easily overshoot the gulden price (and possibly larger swings on the market). You could overcome some of these problems by keeping the total amount fixed, but the fact is this adoption creates problems of it own.
2) This interference isn't necessary. It is that people don't trust the "marktwerking" (supply and demand) that is in play or would rather want to have the price pumped to a specific level by reducing the supply.

Sometimes the market needs a little helping hand  Wink

I don't see any disagreements. I'll know what to do.
legendary
Activity: 1658
Merit: 1001
July 11, 2015, 05:13:44 AM
The extra value that Digibyte, Myriadcoin, and lots of other coins (multi-algo or not) have over Guldencoin at this point is that they don't have meddling devs trying to play the role of fed chairperson, adjusting the total number of coins and emission rate well after the coin has been launched. For some reason this seems even worse to me in the context of a 10% premine...

MaNI, the meddling assertive Guldencoin dev suggested the change to a smaller block reward. Only if the majority of the Guldencoin community agrees with the plan the changes will push through. And you better lose your trust in the Guldencoin community then, because at this moment most of the NLG users want a lower supply.

Absolutely  Smiley. It's also not in contrast with the original plan as laid down by Rijk, au contraire, he suggested that eventually we are supposed to arrive at a value that is close to the old guilder, so therefore lowering the supply fits within the guidelines of Guldencoin. I have trust in the devs BECAUSE they interfere when necessary.  Smiley

1) Intrinsic value doesn't change, when that increases you could more easily overshoot the gulden price (and possibly larger swings on the market). You could overcome some of these problems by keeping the total amount fixed, but the fact is this adoption creates problems of it own.
2) This interference isn't necessary. It is that people don't trust the "marktwerking" (supply and demand) that is in play or would rather want to have the price pumped to a specific level by reducing the supply.
sr. member
Activity: 275
Merit: 250
July 11, 2015, 04:42:09 AM
The extra value that Digibyte, Myriadcoin, and lots of other coins (multi-algo or not) have over Guldencoin at this point is that they don't have meddling devs trying to play the role of fed chairperson, adjusting the total number of coins and emission rate well after the coin has been launched. For some reason this seems even worse to me in the context of a 10% premine...

MaNI, the meddling assertive Guldencoin dev suggested the change to a smaller block reward. Only if the majority of the Guldencoin community agrees with the plan the changes will push through. And you better lose your trust in the Guldencoin community then, because at this moment most of the NLG users want a lower supply.

Haha, I can't take all the blamecredit here, all dev decisions are based on bullyingdiscussion and whoever yells the loudestconsensus :p
sr. member
Activity: 246
Merit: 250
July 11, 2015, 03:51:19 AM
The extra value that Digibyte, Myriadcoin, and lots of other coins (multi-algo or not) have over Guldencoin at this point is that they don't have meddling devs trying to play the role of fed chairperson, adjusting the total number of coins and emission rate well after the coin has been launched. For some reason this seems even worse to me in the context of a 10% premine...

MaNI, the meddling assertive Guldencoin dev suggested the change to a smaller block reward. Only if the majority of the Guldencoin community agrees with the plan the changes will push through. And you better lose your trust in the Guldencoin community then, because at this moment most of the NLG users want a lower supply.
newbie
Activity: 40
Merit: 0
July 11, 2015, 03:42:42 AM
Can we get an official statement by MaNI if the multi algo design on coins like Myriadcoin and Digibyte is flawed also? Or is it a secret?

After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective. While it sounds good on the surface there are some rather complex implementation issues in reality which have become apparent while looking at the code, that we are not satisfied can be solved in a reasonable way, or at least I am not confident I can solve them and I feel it is good to know your limits Smiley
I don't want to go into too much technical details but most of the flaws revolve around the fact that 'difficulty' is a somewhat arbitrary measurement, while it can be used to meaningfully compare two blocks from the same algorithm to one another, there is no real relation between the difficulties of two different algorithms. i.e. It is not really meaningful to say that a 500 difficulty Scrypt block is worth more or less than a 500 difficulty Groestl block. While it can be determined with some analysis for a specific moment in time with some work it requires a level of 'perfect information' that is not compatible with a p2p crypto currency type system, and even I as a human cannot tell you for a fact that the answer I give you now will still be the same in say six months time.
I have looked at various proposals to try and solves these issues, and what several coins have done and have found theoretical problems and flaws with all of them.


A few months ago I came to the same conclusions and eventually crafted https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36, which removes the magic work factors and instead uses the geometric mean of all difficulties to compute work.  This greatly improves the security.

Thanks, I have viewed your pull request before... It does address some of the issues, but I don't feel it addresses all of them and there are still potential problems that I'm not happy with, so I'm still not comfortable with multi algo as a general solution... Even if all these concerns are addressed I still wouldn't be 100% confident that there aren't other problems that are being missed. So while we are still discussing everything internally still I don't think we want to head towards multi really at this point...
That said it is important that things get addressed for those who are on multi algo and do feel it is the way to go, I mean it is not like they can just stop trying at this point, so do keep up the good work Smiley

I would love to hear your concerns in detail.
sr. member
Activity: 458
Merit: 500
July 10, 2015, 11:15:00 PM
Can we get an official statement by MaNI if the multi algo design on coins like Myriadcoin and Digibyte is flawed also? Or is it a secret?

After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective. While it sounds good on the surface there are some rather complex implementation issues in reality which have become apparent while looking at the code, that we are not satisfied can be solved in a reasonable way, or at least I am not confident I can solve them and I feel it is good to know your limits Smiley
I don't want to go into too much technical details but most of the flaws revolve around the fact that 'difficulty' is a somewhat arbitrary measurement, while it can be used to meaningfully compare two blocks from the same algorithm to one another, there is no real relation between the difficulties of two different algorithms. i.e. It is not really meaningful to say that a 500 difficulty Scrypt block is worth more or less than a 500 difficulty Groestl block. While it can be determined with some analysis for a specific moment in time with some work it requires a level of 'perfect information' that is not compatible with a p2p crypto currency type system, and even I as a human cannot tell you for a fact that the answer I give you now will still be the same in say six months time.
I have looked at various proposals to try and solves these issues, and what several coins have done and have found theoretical problems and flaws with all of them.


A few months ago I came to the same conclusions and eventually crafted https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36, which removes the magic work factors and instead uses the geometric mean of all difficulties to compute work.  This greatly improves the security.

Thank you!
So 2 excellent developers came to the same conclusion and that is thet multi-pow solution is flawed (or atleast with what they are marketing with and that is that multi-pow is more secure than a single pow coin).
I will stop using this as marketing gimmick for Digibyte until this is resolved (if it can be resolved). I guess at this moment Digibyte has no extra value over Guldencoin...

The extra value that Digibyte, Myriadcoin, and lots of other coins (multi-algo or not) have over Guldencoin at this point is that they don't have meddling devs trying to play the role of fed chairperson, adjusting the total number of coins and emission rate well after the coin has been launched. For some reason this seems even worse to me in the context of a 10% premine...

I am neutral on the supply change as it's not the supply that will determine the coins success. Pleasing the crypto community is also not going to determine the coins success. The alt coin community is a set size and every coin is fighting for that. Guldencoin is at least breaking into the mainstream public because it has a set focus on the Netherlands, this is the real power of country coins. It's just unfortunate this is the only real one.
legendary
Activity: 3136
Merit: 1116
July 10, 2015, 10:16:58 PM
Can we get an official statement by MaNI if the multi algo design on coins like Myriadcoin and Digibyte is flawed also? Or is it a secret?

After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective. While it sounds good on the surface there are some rather complex implementation issues in reality which have become apparent while looking at the code, that we are not satisfied can be solved in a reasonable way, or at least I am not confident I can solve them and I feel it is good to know your limits Smiley
I don't want to go into too much technical details but most of the flaws revolve around the fact that 'difficulty' is a somewhat arbitrary measurement, while it can be used to meaningfully compare two blocks from the same algorithm to one another, there is no real relation between the difficulties of two different algorithms. i.e. It is not really meaningful to say that a 500 difficulty Scrypt block is worth more or less than a 500 difficulty Groestl block. While it can be determined with some analysis for a specific moment in time with some work it requires a level of 'perfect information' that is not compatible with a p2p crypto currency type system, and even I as a human cannot tell you for a fact that the answer I give you now will still be the same in say six months time.
I have looked at various proposals to try and solves these issues, and what several coins have done and have found theoretical problems and flaws with all of them.


A few months ago I came to the same conclusions and eventually crafted https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36, which removes the magic work factors and instead uses the geometric mean of all difficulties to compute work.  This greatly improves the security.

Thank you!
So 2 excellent developers came to the same conclusion and that is thet multi-pow solution is flawed (or atleast with what they are marketing with and that is that multi-pow is more secure than a single pow coin).
I will stop using this as marketing gimmick for Digibyte until this is resolved (if it can be resolved). I guess at this moment Digibyte has no extra value over Guldencoin...

The extra value that Digibyte, Myriadcoin, and lots of other coins (multi-algo or not) have over Guldencoin at this point is that they don't have meddling devs trying to play the role of fed chairperson, adjusting the total number of coins and emission rate well after the coin has been launched. For some reason this seems even worse to me in the context of a 10% premine...

All I see on your post history is a lot of bitching and complaining in almost every reply. Perhaps someone will dump out to your buy orders after reading this, gl it might work. Wink

I don't think I complain unless it's warranted, and in this case it's warranted in my opinion. Also, I'm really not much of a trader, bought some NLG at ~450 and 350 sat, but I'm not even planning on selling (or buying anymore) at this point. Way to completely avoid answering any criticism and just go for the ad hominem though.
sr. member
Activity: 1701
Merit: 308
July 10, 2015, 10:00:54 PM
Can we get an official statement by MaNI if the multi algo design on coins like Myriadcoin and Digibyte is flawed also? Or is it a secret?

After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective. While it sounds good on the surface there are some rather complex implementation issues in reality which have become apparent while looking at the code, that we are not satisfied can be solved in a reasonable way, or at least I am not confident I can solve them and I feel it is good to know your limits Smiley
I don't want to go into too much technical details but most of the flaws revolve around the fact that 'difficulty' is a somewhat arbitrary measurement, while it can be used to meaningfully compare two blocks from the same algorithm to one another, there is no real relation between the difficulties of two different algorithms. i.e. It is not really meaningful to say that a 500 difficulty Scrypt block is worth more or less than a 500 difficulty Groestl block. While it can be determined with some analysis for a specific moment in time with some work it requires a level of 'perfect information' that is not compatible with a p2p crypto currency type system, and even I as a human cannot tell you for a fact that the answer I give you now will still be the same in say six months time.
I have looked at various proposals to try and solves these issues, and what several coins have done and have found theoretical problems and flaws with all of them.


A few months ago I came to the same conclusions and eventually crafted https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36, which removes the magic work factors and instead uses the geometric mean of all difficulties to compute work.  This greatly improves the security.

Thank you!
So 2 excellent developers came to the same conclusion and that is thet multi-pow solution is flawed (or atleast with what they are marketing with and that is that multi-pow is more secure than a single pow coin).
I will stop using this as marketing gimmick for Digibyte until this is resolved (if it can be resolved). I guess at this moment Digibyte has no extra value over Guldencoin...

The extra value that Digibyte, Myriadcoin, and lots of other coins (multi-algo or not) have over Guldencoin at this point is that they don't have meddling devs trying to play the role of fed chairperson, adjusting the total number of coins and emission rate well after the coin has been launched. For some reason this seems even worse to me in the context of a 10% premine...

All I see on your post history is a lot of bitching and complaining in almost every reply. Perhaps someone will dump out to your buy orders after reading this, gl it might work. Wink
legendary
Activity: 3136
Merit: 1116
July 10, 2015, 08:20:41 PM
Can we get an official statement by MaNI if the multi algo design on coins like Myriadcoin and Digibyte is flawed also? Or is it a secret?

After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective. While it sounds good on the surface there are some rather complex implementation issues in reality which have become apparent while looking at the code, that we are not satisfied can be solved in a reasonable way, or at least I am not confident I can solve them and I feel it is good to know your limits Smiley
I don't want to go into too much technical details but most of the flaws revolve around the fact that 'difficulty' is a somewhat arbitrary measurement, while it can be used to meaningfully compare two blocks from the same algorithm to one another, there is no real relation between the difficulties of two different algorithms. i.e. It is not really meaningful to say that a 500 difficulty Scrypt block is worth more or less than a 500 difficulty Groestl block. While it can be determined with some analysis for a specific moment in time with some work it requires a level of 'perfect information' that is not compatible with a p2p crypto currency type system, and even I as a human cannot tell you for a fact that the answer I give you now will still be the same in say six months time.
I have looked at various proposals to try and solves these issues, and what several coins have done and have found theoretical problems and flaws with all of them.


A few months ago I came to the same conclusions and eventually crafted https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36, which removes the magic work factors and instead uses the geometric mean of all difficulties to compute work.  This greatly improves the security.

Thank you!
So 2 excellent developers came to the same conclusion and that is thet multi-pow solution is flawed (or atleast with what they are marketing with and that is that multi-pow is more secure than a single pow coin).
I will stop using this as marketing gimmick for Digibyte until this is resolved (if it can be resolved). I guess at this moment Digibyte has no extra value over Guldencoin...

The extra value that Digibyte, Myriadcoin, and lots of other coins (multi-algo or not) have over Guldencoin at this point is that they don't have meddling devs trying to play the role of fed chairperson, adjusting the total number of coins and emission rate well after the coin has been launched. For some reason this seems even worse to me in the context of a 10% premine...
hero member
Activity: 637
Merit: 500
July 10, 2015, 04:12:40 PM

Recently, some members of your community asked you to discuss multi-algo.  You replied.  Your reply was thoughtful and informed.  However, your response related to the role of multi-algo from the perspective of applying it to Guldencoin.  The problem is that you were slightly misled by the question that you answered.  The people who asked it were not particularly interested in application of multi-algo to Guldencoin, they were interested in criticizing multi-algo for DGB.  For the past 4 days, they have been using your comments as a foundation to undermine and condemn the DGB development team.


Eric

AltcoinFanatic is newly created account and not part of guldencoin community.
sr. member
Activity: 245
Merit: 250
July 10, 2015, 03:58:16 PM
The problem is that you have made a statement that is unsubstantiated and that directly damages other coins and harms other people.
It would have been one thing to say that you don’t like it and want to do something else, but it’s quite another to say that it’s flawed without clearly outlining your reasoning, as technical as it may be.
To do otherwise, to make an unsubstantiated claim that harms others, is tantamount to slander and libel. You tarnish something without reason. It’s defamation.
By the very fact that you have made the claim, you have obligated yourself to detailing the specifics behind that claim. To do otherwise would cast severe doubt on what you’ve said and threaten your reputation.
You simply can’t make this kind of damning declaration without backing it up with hard data.
Now that you’ve made the claim, please detail your findings for what you base your claim on without condescending technical exclusions (meaning all the technical details you are capable of explaining), or be known as someone who we might refer to as a back-stabber (to be nice about it).
Of course, you could always apologize for doing harm to others when you should have just said that personally you didn’t like it . . . that is if you are not able to present a rational explanation for your claim.
Again, you said in that same post (nothing taken out of context here, please don’t try to distract): “After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective.” (emphasis mine)
Please, adequately explain, or do us the favor of retracting that statement in its entirety.

Sorry, but you are mistaken, pay closer attention to the original post.
Pay attention to language used in various places throughout my post:
"we are not satisfied"
"or at least I am not confident"
"it is good to know your limits"
"theoretical problems and flaws" with all of them.
"not necessarily going to help"
"This is not to say that multi-algo is 'completely broken'"
"the above are of course theoretical"
"I would not begin a complete panic about other coins."
"Perhaps time will show differently that the worries are unfounded."
"I would not personally use such an important coin as NLG on which to test theories"
"I can not in good concious recommend anything that is not 100% theoretically air tight."
"It is my belief that..."
"don't want to implement something we are not 100% happy with"
"based also on the possibility that there may be further flaws we are missing"
"It is my feeling that they are not more secure but then that depends on various things."

I went out of my way to show that it is only an opinion (an informed one but one nonetheless), and to as such not say anything overly decisive, if you or other people want to misinterpret what I have said and quote only little tidbits then that is not my problem, I certainly won't revoke my opinion and stand 100% by it, I'm certainly under no obligation to now spend the rest of my life writing detailed reports on other peoples code for them.
A theoretical flaw is enough for me personally to not put any more time into it, if  I were to spend weeks of my life detailing formal proofs of every algorithm I discard I would never get any work done, it is neither my job or responsibility to worry about what other coins do so unless you are offering to pay me for my time providing formal proofs of insecurity would not be worth my time.

Your post is quite frankly very aggressive and demanding, and is now off topic for this the Guldencoin forum, I have replied one last time only to defend myself against your aggression I will not reply to you again. I strongly suggest that you drop this now, if you want to talk about Digibyte go to the Digibyte forum.

Hi MaNI.  First, I want to thank you for your thoughtful replies and engagement with recent posts related to your comments about multi-algo.  This is my first post in a forum outside of the DGB forum.  It will likely be my last post outside of that forum.

Earlier in the week, I wrote a post welcoming some new members to our DGB discussion.  Several of those new members are strong supporters of Guldencoin.  In that post I stated that I believe that Guldencoin is a great coin, with strong development, a fantastic identity, and that I believe that our two communities can easily work side by side.  I believe all of that ... without a doubt.

The issue that HR pointed out is a bit complex, and I hope I can shed light on his level of frustration.

Recently, some members of your community asked you to discuss multi-algo.  You replied.  Your reply was thoughtful and informed.  However, your response related to the role of multi-algo from the perspective of applying it to Guldencoin.  The problem is that you were slightly misled by the question that you answered.  The people who asked it were not particularly interested in application of multi-algo to Guldencoin, they were interested in criticizing multi-algo for DGB.  For the past 4 days, they have been using your comments as a foundation to undermine and condemn the DGB development team.

In all fairness, last year when DGB adopted multi-algo the level of security that it provided from a 51% attack was different in practice than it had been projected in theory (resulting from unequal distributions of the different algorithms).  Because SHA mining dominated so much of the hash power, the theoretical additional protections of multiple algorithms were reduced.  DGB is not less secure - in fact it is just as secure, if not slightly more secure - with the multi-algo process.  But in theory it would be possible to use a 51% attack.  The DGB development team began work on a new implementation (Digishield) and it is being tested and further developed - it will more than adequately address the security concerns related to the distribution of algorithms.  There is not a certain date for the release (probably late this year or early next year) but it is under active development.  I mention this simply to be entirely fair to the supporters of Guldencoin, and to you.  The concerns about multi-algo security are legitimate; they are part of DGB development and future plans.  That being said, I do not think that using your response to a question about Guldencoin is an appropriate way to attack or undermine the integrity of other coins or developers for personal gain or profit.

I want, in the end, to reinforce that I appreciate all the valuable contributions that Guldencoin supporters make to DigiByte.  And, I believe you guys have a great coin with good opportunities.  I hope that people who support Guldencoin succeed.  I hope that Guldencoin continues to succeed.   I know you have a great community here.  And, I'm proud to say that we also have a great community with DGB.  Cheers to all of you here at Guldencoin.

Eric
legendary
Activity: 988
Merit: 1000
July 10, 2015, 03:21:21 PM
I don't want to go into too much technical details but most of the flaws revolve around the fact that 'difficulty' is a somewhat arbitrary measurement, while it can be used to meaningfully compare two blocks from the same algorithm to one another, there is no real relation between the difficulties of two different algorithms. i.e. It is not really meaningful to say that a 500 difficulty Scrypt block is worth more or less than a 500 difficulty Groestl block.

Current diff for DigiByte:

"difficulty_sha256d" : 1252668.67021677,
"difficulty_scrypt" : 30.25224995,
"difficulty_groestl" : 129.23048482,
"difficulty_skein" : 1467.28252719,
"difficulty_qubit" : 40.10777032,

It's not arbitrary and it is adjusted to each algo's network hashrate as is obvious when looking at the stats. The long term average ratio between network hashrate and diff for each algo is 28.64:1 and it fluctuates correspondingly with increases and decreases in the network hashrate.

(The DGB network hashrate is currently running at about 25-30% of long term average so that ratio is also currently below the average.)

Multi algo for digibyte and myriad coin work because of high block reward but won't be good for low block reward. I also use a farm of USB asic to mine gpu algos and makes it very cost effective compared to mining scrypt and sha. scrypt and sha is mainly multipools dumping out but miners of other 3 algos hold over a billion coins for higher price.

If nlg switch to multiAlgo I can secure network with asic on gpu algos

Aren't those algorithms ASIC resistant?

Groestl, Skein and Qubit are.


He is saying he is using ASICs to mine those 3 algorithms, if this is true this isn't very good as it means he is mining dgb for practically no electrical costs.
HR
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1011
Transparency & Integrity
July 10, 2015, 03:02:10 PM
I don't want to go into too much technical details but most of the flaws revolve around the fact that 'difficulty' is a somewhat arbitrary measurement, while it can be used to meaningfully compare two blocks from the same algorithm to one another, there is no real relation between the difficulties of two different algorithms. i.e. It is not really meaningful to say that a 500 difficulty Scrypt block is worth more or less than a 500 difficulty Groestl block.

Current diff for DigiByte:

"difficulty_sha256d" : 1252668.67021677,
"difficulty_scrypt" : 30.25224995,
"difficulty_groestl" : 129.23048482,
"difficulty_skein" : 1467.28252719,
"difficulty_qubit" : 40.10777032,

It's not arbitrary and it is adjusted to each algo's network hashrate as is obvious when looking at the stats. The long term average ratio between network hashrate and diff for each algo is 28.64:1 and it fluctuates correspondingly with increases and decreases in the network hashrate.

(The DGB network hashrate is currently running at about 25-30% of long term average so that ratio is also currently below the average.)

Multi algo for digibyte and myriad coin work because of high block reward but won't be good for low block reward. I also use a farm of USB asic to mine gpu algos and makes it very cost effective compared to mining scrypt and sha. scrypt and sha is mainly multipools dumping out but miners of other 3 algos hold over a billion coins for higher price.

If nlg switch to multiAlgo I can secure network with asic on gpu algos

Aren't those algorithms ASIC resistant?

Groestl, Skein and Qubit are.
Jump to: