Timeline for Jan has also been updated:
https://timeline.guldencoin.com/
Topic: NA - page 282. (Read 893613 times)
Yep I noticed, posted above. Regarding the mining it appears Clever has build it own chain, but with this pace and diff it will die soon. Problem can be the fact that his 1.3 wallet still is able to communicate transactions with 1.3.1 wallets.
This is part of the reason why a minimum protocol version block was in my original code. It would have essentially banned 1.3 wallets from connecting to nodes other than 1.3 nodes. This would force them to update or stay on their own fork, unable to talk to the correct chain. There's a reason that CM is continuing their fork- there were enough wallets on the 1.3(remember that 30%) that say his blocks are valid.
As far as CM mining still, I mentioned that this was probably going to happen. We need to keep an eye on this cross-communication though. This could potentially bite us in the butt at some point. Most importantly, we need to look at the transactions from the CM wallet to Bittrex to make sure we don't see a fork happen. At some point Terk has to realize his precious profit is being sent to the void. In the meantime, a question of ethics comes up. Do we inform CM miners that their pool OP is wasting 4GH of their mining power on a fork because he doesn't pay attention to his pool, or do we let them mine nothing for all the months of raping us?
-Fuse
Hey Fuse, I did BCC Terk in the same message I sent you below for the Digishield update on the 14th Jan, so not sure why he didn't update to Digi yet.
Hi,
Guldencoin will be moving to Digishield around the 31st Jan, this will be a soft fork so you can update the wallet using any of the below links. Please can you make sure you do this ASAP so you don't have to worry about it at the last minute.
Thanks for your valued service for Guldencoin.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/na-554412
Countdown: https://digi.guldencoin.com
Updated version: v1.3.1.0-unk-beta (08-01-2015)
Kind Regards
Waterloo
Guldencoin will be moving to Digishield around the 31st Jan, this will be a soft fork so you can update the wallet using any of the below links. Please can you make sure you do this ASAP so you don't have to worry about it at the last minute.
Thanks for your valued service for Guldencoin.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/na-554412
Countdown: https://digi.guldencoin.com
Updated version: v1.3.1.0-unk-beta (08-01-2015)
Kind Regards
Waterloo
Yep I noticed, posted above. Regarding the mining it appears Clever has build it own chain, but with this pace and diff it will die soon. Problem can be the fact that his 1.3 wallet still is able to communicate transactions with 1.3.1 wallets.
This is part of the reason why a minimum protocol version block was in my original code. It would have essentially banned 1.3 wallets from connecting to nodes other than 1.3 nodes. This would force them to update or stay on their own fork, unable to talk to the correct chain. There's a reason that CM is continuing their fork- there were enough wallets on the 1.3(remember that 30%) that say his blocks are valid.
As far as CM mining still, I mentioned that this was probably going to happen. We need to keep an eye on this cross-communication though. This could potentially bite us in the butt at some point. Most importantly, we need to look at the transactions from the CM wallet to Bittrex to make sure we don't see a fork happen. At some point Terk has to realize his precious profit is being sent to the void. In the meantime, a question of ethics comes up. Do we inform CM miners that their pool OP is wasting 4GH of their mining power on a fork because he doesn't pay attention to his pool, or do we let them mine nothing for all the months of raping us?
-Fuse
Yep I noticed, posted above. Regarding the mining it appears Clever has build it own chain, but with this pace and diff it will die soon. Problem can be the fact that his 1.3 wallet still is able to communicate transactions with 1.3.1 wallets.
yeah sorry about that.. I should learn to read.. and English is my first language.. *shakes head*
Anyways.. my first reaction is to give it some time to see how the mining scene and blocks per hour level out.. maybe a week? if the longest gap of the day is under 30-40 minutes I can live with that.. and as I said previously, NLG is a bit ahead of schedule with the coin creation. so 400-450 a day for a week should be fine.
I'll try to create some additional data products at nlgstats if something particular would help.
Clever gone I see 
Nice spreading of hashes http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/
And Digishield is kicking in right well I think http://guldencointrader.nl/moeilijkheid.php
Nice spreading of hashes http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/
And Digishield is kicking in right well I think http://guldencointrader.nl/moeilijkheid.php
looks like the difficulty has maintained more stable rate. looking good!
Don't want to spoil the positive spirit but I saw these kind of messages with the DGW change also...
- The signs atm show Clever is still on the old wallet so i hope he's mining for J. Doe
- The latter means the diff would have been more steady with or without Digi
- the fact 30% of the wallets are old DGW AND Clever not on this chain does not make me confident (chains are chosen on work not on proper calculated diffs)
- Digi is more nervous due to the other way of retargetting and due to that the average blocks an hour are way to low, not a big deal but not OK either
- The main reason Digi was a better choice was to equalize the chances for all miners and discourage Clever, not as a final fix keep that in mind
So yes it looks OK but thats about it, if Clever jumps back in we can see if Digi does what we expected it to do.
On the other hand, in the past weeks we got company of another - I guess jump pool - and if Bio and friends
are planning to cut back on hashpower and we don't get Multi hour blocktimes it's a good sign. Till then we have to wait and see...thsminer:
I've been running a 1.3.0 guldencoind to keep an eye on the DGW chain.. clever is still mining on it.
i doubt anything malicious.. anyways, block height wise they're pretty much even with us. but for networkhashrate the digi chain is killing it.. 17GH DIGI vs 4GH DGW last 100 blocks. 1.3.0 guldencoind queries cut and pastes below.Code:
[root@dell ~]# guldencoind getbestblockhash
4ab117917969d896e962eac3d231e4a0cd7d6e52350872336927f356a474b0b9
[root@dell ~]# guldencoind getblock 4ab117917969d896e962eac3d231e4a0cd7d6e52350872336927f356a474b0b9
{
"hash" : "4ab117917969d896e962eac3d231e4a0cd7d6e52350872336927f356a474b0b9",
"confirmations" : 1,
"size" : 249,
"height" : 194492,
"version" : 2,
"merkleroot" : "6418cbb4e728bd63cdcb683571b2d420a371cf50e25d05223bd4ad2d3760682e",
"tx" : [
"6418cbb4e728bd63cdcb683571b2d420a371cf50e25d05223bd4ad2d3760682e"
],
"time" : 1422847904,
"nonce" : 15892272,
"bits" : "1c0116fb",
"difficulty" : 234.90891779,
"previousblockhash" : "b7396a43f6a92e2483b29b4de85cda44c69781b0b7bcc5652630ee2abb513a2c"
}
[root@dell ~]# guldencoind gettxout 6418cbb4e728bd63cdcb683571b2d420a371cf50e25d05223bd4ad2d3760682e 0
{
"bestblock" : "4ab117917969d896e962eac3d231e4a0cd7d6e52350872336927f356a474b0b9",
"confirmations" : 1,
"value" : 1000.00000000,
"scriptPubKey" : {
"asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 e96200b2643f6188c66305cd7b3a28923ab0bf0e OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex" : "76a914e96200b2643f6188c66305cd7b3a28923ab0bf0e88ac",
"reqSigs" : 1,
"type" : "pubkeyhash",
"addresses" : [
"Gf7wGAwJGDLfoHcNCRLKZqpk2EQU5ixA6c"
]
},
"version" : 1,
"coinbase" : true
}
[root@dell ~]# guldencoind getmininginfo
{
"blocks" : 194497,
"currentblocksize" : 0,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 324.09852217,
"errors" : "IMPORTANT: Shut down this wallet and download the new version 1.3.1! Very important and mandatory update!!\nBELANGRIJK: Sluit deze wallet af en download de nieuwe versie 1.3.1! Zeer belangrijke update!",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"networkhashps" : 4783660604,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false
}
EDIT: Now should we discuss Digi chain mining at a pace of 400 blocks per day?
Yep I noticed, posted above. Regarding the mining it appears Clever has build it own chain, but with this pace and diff it will die soon. Problem can be the fact that his 1.3 wallet still is able to communicate transactions with 1.3.1 wallets.
Clever gone I see
Nice spreading of hashes http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/
And Digishield is kicking in right well I think http://guldencointrader.nl/moeilijkheid.php
Nice spreading of hashes http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/
And Digishield is kicking in right well I think http://guldencointrader.nl/moeilijkheid.php
looks like the difficulty has maintained more stable rate. looking good!
Don't want to spoil the positive spirit but I saw these kind of messages with the DGW change also...
- The signs atm show Clever is still on the old wallet so i hope he's mining for J. Doe
- The latter means the diff would have been more steady with or without Digi
- the fact 30% of the wallets are old DGW AND Clever not on this chain does not make me confident (chains are chosen on work not on proper calculated diffs)
- Digi is more nervous due to the other way of retargetting and due to that the average blocks an hour are way to low, not a big deal but not OK either
- The main reason Digi was a better choice was to equalize the chances for all miners and discourage Clever, not as a final fix keep that in mind
So yes it looks OK but thats about it, if Clever jumps back in we can see if Digi does what we expected it to do.
On the other hand, in the past weeks we got company of another - I guess jump pool - and if Bio and friends
are planning to cut back on hashpower and we don't get Multi hour blocktimes it's a good sign. Till then we have to wait and see...check it now and tell me things haven't changed. NLG and DIGI is good to go!
http://guldencointrader.nl/moeilijkheid.php
Clever gone I see
Nice spreading of hashes http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/
And Digishield is kicking in right well I think http://guldencointrader.nl/moeilijkheid.php
Nice spreading of hashes http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/
And Digishield is kicking in right well I think http://guldencointrader.nl/moeilijkheid.php
looks like the difficulty has maintained more stable rate. looking good!
Don't want to spoil the positive spirit but I saw these kind of messages with the DGW change also...
- The signs atm show Clever is still on the old wallet so i hope he's mining for J. Doe
- The latter means the diff would have been more steady with or without Digi
- the fact 30% of the wallets are old DGW AND Clever not on this chain does not make me confident (chains are chosen on work not on proper calculated diffs)
- Digi is more nervous due to the other way of retargetting and due to that the average blocks an hour are way to low, not a big deal but not OK either
- The main reason Digi was a better choice was to equalize the chances for all miners and discourage Clever, not as a final fix keep that in mind
So yes it looks OK but thats about it, if Clever jumps back in we can see if Digi does what we expected it to do.
On the other hand, in the past weeks we got company of another - I guess jump pool - and if Bio and friends
are planning to cut back on hashpower and we don't get Multi hour blocktimes it's a good sign. Till then we have to wait and see...thsminer:
I've been running a 1.3.0 guldencoind to keep an eye on the DGW chain.. clever is still mining on it.
i doubt anything malicious.. anyways, block height wise they're pretty much even with us. but for networkhashrate the digi chain is killing it.. 17GH DIGI vs 4GH DGW last 100 blocks. 1.3.0 guldencoind queries cut and pastes below.Code:
[root@dell ~]# guldencoind getbestblockhash
4ab117917969d896e962eac3d231e4a0cd7d6e52350872336927f356a474b0b9
[root@dell ~]# guldencoind getblock 4ab117917969d896e962eac3d231e4a0cd7d6e52350872336927f356a474b0b9
{
"hash" : "4ab117917969d896e962eac3d231e4a0cd7d6e52350872336927f356a474b0b9",
"confirmations" : 1,
"size" : 249,
"height" : 194492,
"version" : 2,
"merkleroot" : "6418cbb4e728bd63cdcb683571b2d420a371cf50e25d05223bd4ad2d3760682e",
"tx" : [
"6418cbb4e728bd63cdcb683571b2d420a371cf50e25d05223bd4ad2d3760682e"
],
"time" : 1422847904,
"nonce" : 15892272,
"bits" : "1c0116fb",
"difficulty" : 234.90891779,
"previousblockhash" : "b7396a43f6a92e2483b29b4de85cda44c69781b0b7bcc5652630ee2abb513a2c"
}
[root@dell ~]# guldencoind gettxout 6418cbb4e728bd63cdcb683571b2d420a371cf50e25d05223bd4ad2d3760682e 0
{
"bestblock" : "4ab117917969d896e962eac3d231e4a0cd7d6e52350872336927f356a474b0b9",
"confirmations" : 1,
"value" : 1000.00000000,
"scriptPubKey" : {
"asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 e96200b2643f6188c66305cd7b3a28923ab0bf0e OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex" : "76a914e96200b2643f6188c66305cd7b3a28923ab0bf0e88ac",
"reqSigs" : 1,
"type" : "pubkeyhash",
"addresses" : [
"Gf7wGAwJGDLfoHcNCRLKZqpk2EQU5ixA6c"
]
},
"version" : 1,
"coinbase" : true
}
[root@dell ~]# guldencoind getmininginfo
{
"blocks" : 194497,
"currentblocksize" : 0,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 324.09852217,
"errors" : "IMPORTANT: Shut down this wallet and download the new version 1.3.1! Very important and mandatory update!!\nBELANGRIJK: Sluit deze wallet af en download de nieuwe versie 1.3.1! Zeer belangrijke update!",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"networkhashps" : 4783660604,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false
}
EDIT: Now should we discuss Digi chain mining at a pace of 400 blocks per day?
Clever gone I see
Nice spreading of hashes http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/
And Digishield is kicking in right well I think http://guldencointrader.nl/moeilijkheid.php
Nice spreading of hashes http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/
And Digishield is kicking in right well I think http://guldencointrader.nl/moeilijkheid.php
looks like the difficulty has maintained more stable rate. looking good!
Don't want to spoil the positive spirit but I saw these kind of messages with the DGW change also...
- The signs atm show Clever is still on the old wallet so i hope he's mining for J. Doe
- The latter means the diff would have been more steady with or without Digi
- the fact 30% of the wallets are old DGW AND Clever not on this chain does not make me confident (chains are chosen on work not on proper calculated diffs)
- Digi is more nervous due to the other way of retargetting and due to that the average blocks an hour are way to low, not a big deal but not OK either
- The main reason Digi was a better choice was to equalize the chances for all miners and discourage Clever, not as a final fix keep that in mind
So yes it looks OK but thats about it, if Clever jumps back in we can see if Digi does what we expected it to do.
On the other hand, in the past weeks we got company of another - I guess jump pool - and if Bio and friends
are planning to cut back on hashpower and we don't get Multi hour blocktimes it's a good sign. Till then we have to wait and see...check it now and tell me things haven't changed. NLG and DIGI is good to go!
http://guldencointrader.nl/moeilijkheid.php
It is updated? The seeds that are NaN where a test if bad nodes (pre digi update) are getting banned if i remember correctly.
It is not available atm.
Edit: it's there again
Clever gone I see
Nice spreading of hashes http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/
And Digishield is kicking in right well I think http://guldencointrader.nl/moeilijkheid.php
Nice spreading of hashes http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/
And Digishield is kicking in right well I think http://guldencointrader.nl/moeilijkheid.php
looks like the difficulty has maintained more stable rate. looking good!
Don't want to spoil the positive spirit but I saw these kind of messages with the DGW change also...
- The signs atm show Clever is still on the old wallet so i hope he's mining for J. Doe
- The latter means the diff would have been more steady with or without Digi
- the fact 30% of the wallets are old DGW AND Clever not on this chain does not make me confident (chains are chosen on work not on proper calculated diffs)
- Digi is more nervous due to the other way of retargetting and due to that the average blocks an hour are way to low, not a big deal but not OK either
- The main reason Digi was a better choice was to equalize the chances for all miners and discourage Clever, not as a final fix keep that in mind
So yes it looks OK but thats about it, if Clever jumps back in we can see if Digi does what we expected it to do.
On the other hand, in the past weeks we got company of another - I guess jump pool - and if Bio and friends
are planning to cut back on hashpower and we don't get Multi hour blocktimes it's a good sign. Till then we have to wait and see...Clever gone I see
Nice spreading of hashes http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/
And Digishield is kicking in right well I think http://guldencointrader.nl/moeilijkheid.php
Nice spreading of hashes http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/
And Digishield is kicking in right well I think http://guldencointrader.nl/moeilijkheid.php
looks like the difficulty has maintained more stable rate. looking good!
Clever gone I see
Nice spreading of hashes http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/
And Digishield is kicking in right well I think http://guldencointrader.nl/moeilijkheid.php
Nice spreading of hashes http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/
And Digishield is kicking in right well I think http://guldencointrader.nl/moeilijkheid.php
coinmine op visits this thread? on 1.3.1?
They already updated on 1.3.1.
....
coinmine taking 5%, jumper Gazo1q taking 10% of the missing 15%.. which makes things interesting.. *IF* both clever and Gazo1q did not switch to 1.3.1, they've got about 50% of the hashrate..
...
coinmine taking 5%, jumper Gazo1q taking 10% of the missing 15%.. which makes things interesting.. *IF* both clever and Gazo1q did not switch to 1.3.1, they've got about 50% of the hashrate..
...
50% is not an issue in this split. The "correct" chain is the one with the correctly calculated difficulty, no matter how much hashing power you've got to say otherwise..
A few more hours. Hashes seem to spread nicely running up to the DIGI switch: http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/
15% of the blocks are not accounted for, I guess it's in the other multipool(s)?
15% of the blocks are not accounted for, I guess it's in the other multipool(s)?
There are 2 more pools with hashes:
https://nlg.hardcoreminers.com/
http://www.coinmine.pw/poolinfo.php?coinid=109
Yeah, but those can't make up 15% of the blocks, right?
special digi-day edition of http://nlgstats.iblogger.org
more miners covered and updates every minute.
coinmine taking 5%, jumper Gazo1q taking 10% of the missing 15%.. which makes things interesting.. *IF* both clever and Gazo1q did not switch to 1.3.1, they've got about 50% of the hashrate.. as long as they continue to jump they'll both be stuck once the 1.3.0 chains diff jumps.
coinmine op visits this thread? on 1.3.1?
Good luck guys! --Mark
Brace yourself, Digi is coming.
79 blocks to go: 3h 17m
Probably a bit longer than that. I estimate the change to digi will happen somewhere around 16:20 CET.
Monitoring closely. Join the chat at http://chat.guldencoin.com
Cheers!
79 blocks to go: 3h 17m
Probably a bit longer than that. I estimate the change to digi will happen somewhere around 16:20 CET.
Monitoring closely. Join the chat at http://chat.guldencoin.com
Cheers!
A few more hours. Hashes seem to spread nicely running up to the DIGI switch: http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/
15% of the blocks are not accounted for, I guess it's in the other multipool(s)?
15% of the blocks are not accounted for, I guess it's in the other multipool(s)?
There are 2 more pools with hashes:
https://nlg.hardcoreminers.com/
http://www.coinmine.pw/poolinfo.php?coinid=109
Yeah, but those can't make up 15% of the blocks, right?
I see NLG pool speed: 2.7545 Gh/s of http://www.coinmine.pw/poolinfo.php?coinid=109 Sometimes it is just tens of MH/s and then suddely more then 1 GH/s. Last day about 1,25 GH/s top.
Ah, ok. Last time I checked coinmine it was only a few MH/s. So that explains.
A few more hours. Hashes seem to spread nicely running up to the DIGI switch: http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/
15% of the blocks are not accounted for, I guess it's in the other multipool(s)?
15% of the blocks are not accounted for, I guess it's in the other multipool(s)?
There are 2 more pools with hashes:
https://nlg.hardcoreminers.com/
http://www.coinmine.pw/poolinfo.php?coinid=109
Yeah, but those can't make up 15% of the blocks, right?
I see NLG pool speed: 2.7545 Gh/s of http://www.coinmine.pw/poolinfo.php?coinid=109 Sometimes it is just tens of MH/s and then suddely more then 1 GH/s. Last day about 1,25 GH/s top average and short spikes of 2,8 GH/s.
A few more hours. Hashes seem to spread nicely running up to the DIGI switch: http://nlgstats.iblogger.org/
15% of the blocks are not accounted for, I guess it's in the other multipool(s)?
15% of the blocks are not accounted for, I guess it's in the other multipool(s)?
There are 2 more pools with hashes:
https://nlg.hardcoreminers.com/
http://www.coinmine.pw/poolinfo.php?coinid=109
Yeah, but those can't make up 15% of the blocks, right?
Jump to: