Topic: NA - page 275. (Read 893613 times)

I'm done arguing with CM.  Terk honestly thinks he's doing us a favor with what he's done in the last 5 months: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10373148.  He's fucking delusional.

I've spoken my mind, and said my peace.  I'm done.

-Fuse

I'm done arguing with CM.  Terk honestly thinks he's doing us a favor with what he's done in the last 5 months: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10373148.  He's fucking delusional.

I've spoken my mind, and said my peace.  I'm done.

-Fuse

If you find a solution to this - and somehow prevent the other dozen entities to be able to control your network, then I'm ready to discuss what more CM can do for you.

I agree about being fine for now.

As far as the effectiveness goes, we would still be pretty effective with the change, and it could be argued that we would actually be a bit more effective.  Again, it all comes back to finding that sweet spot in the difficulty.  We're there with most of the blocks, so the change would just help us stay in that range.

Again though, I'm happy with what we have going right now.

Oh, and Terk finally responded in his thread about his absence.  Let's see what he decides to do now... the true test is about to begin.

-Fuse

Thought he said at that time he would keep his reduced hashrate stable at that GH/s rate?
Now he confessed he was keeping it somehow 'balanced' to the other miners hashrate.

It was the concern for the other developer who contacted me first with the issue. I addressed this issue and helped to solve this problem.

I have your PM and I answered it immediately. I just checked it. Your concern was also "When CleverMining hops on NLG, we see difficulty swings and periods of no blocks found". I addressed this issue and solved this problem for your community.



I promised to drop our hashrate to solve inflated block times problem and I did exactly that. Our NLG mining share in September was 85% mined blocks, then 65% in October, then 55% in Nov, 51% in Dec, and 53% in Jan. These numbers are coming from your own mining stats at http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/historical_mining_stats.html. You see, I did what I promised, I decreased our NLG hashrate and I kept that promise and never increased it back again.



As you write about "50% ... common concern in the crypto community regardless of the coin" I assume you are taking about 51% attack.

Then you probably lack understanding of 50% issue/attack. It really doesn't matter if someone mines 50% blocks or even mines 80% blocks or doesn't mine at all. The coin has the same problem even if someone doesn't mine it at all, but has enough hashpower to mine 51% blocks. Anyone who has enough hashpower can jump into your coin at any time and execute a 51% attack. It doesn't matter if they were mining 51% blocks before the attack or if they didn't mine your coin at all. And with 14 GH/s network hashrate there are at least dozen entities (mining farms and pools) which have enough hashpower to take 51% of your network. An entity which mines 51% but doesn't attack is better than entity that doesn't mine but plan to attack. Your problem isn't with CM. Your problem is with having a coin which uses the same mining algorithm (scrypt) as another coin which has 85x higher network hashrate (Litecoin). I can't help you with that (some coins solved this by switching algorithms to non-scrypt, but that made them even more niche coins, other solved this by implementing AuxPoW and becoming merge-mined coins, other decided that they didn't care that much and accepted the fact of being little brother to LTC). What I can do is to promise that you will never face a 51% attack from CleverMining. This is much more than you get from the other dozen entities which control over 14 GH/s of scrypt mining power. You don't even need to believe me to believe that we won't attack - as we don't hoard NLG, we don't have coins to double-spend and 51% attack is useful only for double spending.

Another issue which you might have is that we sell blocks which we mine. But this is simply a market mechanism and this is our business model. What you would like us to do is to cease operations and close the pool. This is not going to happen. I can cooperate to don't inflate your block gaps to several hours - which would cause inconvenience for users and merchants and would kill the coin in the long term - but I won't let my users down and I don't close the pool. Coin-switching pools are reality and you need to learn to live with that. I've done as much as I could to limit inconvenience caused by CM to your users and I expected only a little bit of friendliness in return (and I got it from other NLG developers).


If I were, then I would probably like to show you my "power" - after you started offending me and shitting in my thread - by removing all limits which are limiting amount of hashpower sent to NLG. This wouldn't inflate your block times to 560 minutes as before because of your improved algorithm, but it would inflate them to 120~180 minutes which is high enough to cause painful inconveniences to users and merchants. I won't do this. I am friendly and I won't hurt intentionally entire community because of one of their members.



This only shows how hostile you are, while I have been cooperative and friendly.

Also, by the way of your "whole changeover", I would like to remind you, that I was recommending you DigiShield algorithm when you were brainstorming what to use instead of KGW back in September. I told your developers that coins with DigiShield readjustment behave the best with coin-switching pools and that it will be better for NLG to adapt it. I did this because I wanted to help. I really prefer thriving coins than coins with problems. You went with DGW3 despite my advice and you saw only little improvement (which would be zero improvement if I didn't decrease our hashrate). Now you finally switched to Digi readjustment, which is something I recommended from the start for the good of your coin. This is another example of me being helpful, caring and cooperative. You try to paint me as a villain but the truth is I really did everything I could to help your coin. Perhaps you didn't use my advice on readjustment algorithm out of suspicion that I try to sell you something which was good only for me, but I was recommending something which was good for the coin (and in effect, also good for me, because CleverMining can profit only from healthy coins). I wish you could learn to recognize a friendly pool operator and learn to work together peacefully, because coin-switching pools won't disappear - instead of sending only hate my way despite my efforts to cooperate and help.

These coins don't disappear. If the coins are sold on markets, then it means that someone else bought them. So the coins still go to users who will actually use the coins. Nothing changes here.


If you came to that conclusion at the time you now claim you did, then well, you were not successful in implementing it. I recommended DIGI to another NLG developer in a PM sent on Sep 14th and I recommended it to you personally in a PM sent on Sep 16th. One week later you announced switching to DGW3. Then you finally implemented DIGI with the beginning of Feb, four months later. You can't blame me for you being unable to implement good solutions for four months.


Actually exactly 5 months ago I recommended you the solution which you failed to implement then and finally implemented only 4 days ago.


I repeat: There is no difference wether we actually mine 50% or don't mine but control hashpower which is able to dominate your mining network. It's just the fact that somewhere there exists a hashpower which could take over your network - this is the problem. There are dozen of entities with this amount of hashpower, CM being only one of them, and you can't do anything about it. Wether we mine 50% blocks or 0% changes only perception, but doesn't solve the problem. Mining 50% blocks makes only the problem more visible to you. Not mining makes it less visible to you - and that's the only change. Us stopping mining won't change the problem - there still will be dozen of different entities each controlling enough hashpower to dominate your network at any time.

If you find a solution to this - and somehow prevent the other dozen entities to be able to control your network, then I'm ready to discuss what more CM can do for you. Until this happens, I refuse to decrease my users profit only to change your perception of the problem, but don't solve any real problem. Your coin is as much vulnerable with someone mining 50% or not mining but being able to mine. Think of it like 10 people accidentally holding copies of keys to your home. You are vulnerable, because if they decided to, they can go in and out whenever they please (as: attack the coin). 9 of these people are holding their keys in their pockets (are not mining) and you don't see them. 1 of these people have his copy in plain sight (is mining) and it annoys you. You really should be worried that 10 copies of the key exist, not that you can see 1 of them. The thing is that you can't take these keys back and these people cannot give them back even if they wanted. There are dozen of entities with high enough hashpower to dominate your network and they won't disappear. Me hiding my key in a pocket won't solve your problem. And I won't throw my key away (where key being controlling enough amount of hashrate) as it would require shutting the pool down.

So again: I'm helping any way I can while running our pool at the same time. I reduced your max block time 20-fold. I recommended you the best readjustment algorithm four months before you finally decided to use it. But I won't stop mining NLG at all only for you to feel better, because it wouldn't solve any real problem.

Your idea of "cooperation with coin-switch pool" is the pool to stop mining at all. This is not cooperation and this is not going to happen. This is not coexistence. You would like us to stop existing at all. I can agree to solutions which decrease inconvenience to your users a lot (decreasing maximum block times from 580 minutes to 30 minutes) and don't decrease profitability of my users in a significant way, but I won't implement solutions which really don't improve NLG in any way (other than make you feel better) but decrease our users profitability.

No, it was not. It was because I readjusted our algorithms especially for NLG and it started around Oct 20th. Every new 1 GH/s which your dedicated miners added to the network since then, I could match with 3 GH/s more from my side. Instead I matched it with 1 GH/s new from my side to keep the balance (truth be told, it all happened automatically and was managed by algorithms - I didn't look into NLG since October when I readjusted our algorithms).

Already thought about this, the downside is that it will at the same time limit the effectiveness of the algorithm.
I don't think we should do this now, I see some 25-30 minute blocks, that's the max.. Which I think is fine for now.

My guess is that he at least will test the new NLG Digi blockchain. I'm afraid we will see Gf7wGAwJGDLfoHcNCRLKZqpk2EQU5ixA6c popping up soon in the explorer.

Oh, and Terk finally responded in his thread about his absence.  Let's see what he decides to do now... the true test is about to begin.

Already thought about this, the downside is that it will at the same time limit the effectiveness of the algorithm.
I don't think we should do this now, I see some 25-30 minute blocks, that's the max.. Which I think is fine for now.

It would require a wallet update.  So we can continue along without the change, and if we need to update the wallet for something else in the future, we can include it.  Or if the devs decide they want to see a smoother blockchain sooner, we could push it on a faster timeline.

But honestly, it's not a necessity, just a suggestion.

-Fuse

Would this change require a soft fork with wallet updates?

Having time to look at the data for the last few days, I would say we are better overall, but we could get better.

I know someone said /GJ wasn't going to tweak DIGI any further, but I would like to suggest one change.

This:


Becomes this:


Limit the increase and decrease.  It's a simple change.  It's not totally needed, but I think it would help even things out a little more, and limit the blocks gazo is picking up even further.

-Fuse

We have another multipool hitting the chain so the sells are coming through now but I do agree that the digi change is better overall and more profitable for dedicated miners.

Well the +- 40% price increase in Guldencoin recently shows the damage CM was doing, I think NLG was their profit and CM used other coins that were breaking even or just below the profit line to supplement when the hard blocks were being mined for NLG. Added to this fact that Guldencoin is the truth, it has real buyers that want to have coins.
NLG only had one major pump(for about a day it was above 1200 and peaked around 1900) and the price is stable currently at about 1/3 of the peak price and we about 10 times higher then the bottom price with a ever growing supply.

Compare this to coins like CANN that was pumped on some news over 13 times the current price it's trading at and this is far from the worst case scenerio as CANN is still going.