Topic: NA - page 436. (Read 893613 times)

You got me thinking about this... not sure if it will work. I guess those miners want BTC for their NLG... what if the community pays them a higher rate than the market rate... would that work?

The timestamps are in the block itself. The block explorer can easily process 50 blocks per second.
The "-1y" is a feature in displaying time that is in the future.. The timestamp in a block can be set in the future when the miner doesn't have his clock synced properly.

Right so I agree that Terk should throw less GH/s at NLG. But I don't want to ban IP's. Besides that there are literally thousands of ways to work around IP bans. Especially when it's about profit.
I think the fix should be governed by the software itself. A consensus between all nodes.
There's not too much smart stuff you can do with the diff re-adjustment; in the end the problem simply is that a jump pool cannot be predicted and that the diff re-adjusts towards 2.5 minute blocktime. It's really hard to take 200 GH/s into account.

Fuse (and others) what do you think about the formula that the block reward is 1000/150* with a max of 1000 per 150 seconds?
This makes sure that jumping with large GH/s is not profitible, because there's a max of 1000 coins being released per 150 seconds..
So IF the diff is low, a 300GH/s cluster could only be used to generate a block of 900-1000 coins close to the 2.5 minute mark, this doesn't affect the difficulty because blocks are mined at the correct time..
I think this, combined with DGW3, will cause a more stable blockchain.

A good change miners will return if Clever drop NLG for a while.
And... if 50 miners all add there 2 cents we have 1 nice Guilder!

That's like saying, "all we need to do is make a coin, be accepted, and strike it rich".  Obviously we need more dedicated miners, but we can't just do that overnight.  And we're not going to do that with Clevermining destroying us right now.

Setting up dedicated pools and all is a great idea, but we can't get people on any pool other than HCM.  So then we're talking buying gear that's dedicated to mining NLG.  Who owns that, where does the coin go?  Does it get destroyed, or does it go into someone's wallet?  That sounds more centralized to me than just working on getting CM out of the picture.



Absolutely correct.  I shut down mining when my pool topped 40% because I wanted miners to spread the hash.  Hardcore did the same at one point because he got too big.

-Fuse

Hash rate seems to have dropped a lot.

More dedicated miners is certainly a good thing but, as I'm sure most of you who mine NLG, as I do, are pushing the ROI limit at this point. I have watched my returns drop quite a bit in the last month or so but, NLG is one of 2 favorite coins I believe has a real future so, I keep mining but, my 20 to 40 MH/s, depending on rotation, can't compete with the multipool. So, emotionally, I will continue to mine NLG but, financially, it's a wash. Since I don't sell the coins I mine, it's easier for me to hang in there, others are more constrained to an immediate profit model.

I can tell you this, if I ran a multipool and a coin's Dev team asked me to quit while they planned an upgrade, I would certainly comply. For now, we could just ask them to drop NLG until a long term solution is found.

Just my 2 cents....

That was the conclusion that I came also to. Started renting hashing power, not sure if that will work in the long run.

The blockexplorer says Clever finds blocks in a few seconds. The truth is that they might find blocks much faster (about 12 blocks within a second?). That's faster then the blockexplorer can proces. I saw around 12 blocks with age -1Y at the same moment. Why is the algo allow that?

The difference in power between dedicated miners and Clever is way out of control. Boosting the dedicated miners I see as only solution. If we manage to mine the hard blocks quicker then the diff will not fall that much.

There's a lot of posts I want to comment on, but I'll stick to this one and build out of comments from here.

I want to say that I'm 100% behind this coin and the dev team.  As such, I will dedicate any resources I have to helping investigate what's going on here.  That being said, I do believe we can make DGW3 work for us.  Looking at this:



I can see the one way this can change.  We need the chart to look like this:

http://www.coinwarz.com/difficulty-charts/potcoin-difficulty-chart

The peaks in our difficulty chart are good, but the valleys aren't.  They are allowing too many blocks to be mined before the difficulty spikes up.  The difficulty needs to spike instantly.  This gives clever 1 block or 2 consecutive blocks before they get cut out.  Yes, we would still be in a situation where we're mining higher blocks, but we need to cut clevermining out of the picture.  I'm looking at the code right now, and I'll post a pull request if I can come up with something.

On to my second point.  Ban Clevermining from the network or get Terk to withdraw.  Stop being amicable.  It isn't centralizing mining, it's saving the coin from what is now centralized mining.  Terk told me in an original PM that he wouldn't stop mining NLG because he "had an obligation to his miners to make them money".  I read "I don't give a shit what my pool does to your coin because I'm making money".  We don't need this.  Ban by IP or tell him you'll ban by IP if he doesn't stop.  I'm sorry Terk, but you need to do the right thing... not say that you are and then continue to rape the shit out of us for the sake of your pockets.

My 2 cents...

-Fuse

Yes, Digishield won't solve this problem..

Hi all,

As everyone can see DGW3 is not working as good as epxected. It's still better than KGW, but not good enough.

Forcing the price down on the exchanges seems like a bad idea to me. We need a hgih and stable price so Guldencoin can become mainstream. Forcing the price down does not move us in the right direction.

Having a miners whitelist is very difficult solution. For starters, it will make the coin more centralized. Because we need someone to decide which miners get whitelist and which don't. I for one do not intend to be that person. I think we need solution that manages itself.

Difficulty adjustment between blocks will cause more blocks to be mined than actually required... So more than 1 block per 2.5 minute on average.
There are also more complicated problems when having diff adjustment between blocks.. (could be misused easily)

A different solution I'm thinking off is to change the blockreward to be 1000/150* with a maximum of 1000.
I need to do some research if this is actually possible and if it doesn't create more problems..

For now I'll contact Terk and ask if he can dial down the hashrate thrown at NLG again, this isn't in his best interest either.

I don't agree. When good news stays coming with new merchants coming months, price will rise in notime again to these levels. Keep the motivation high. When price drops too much, people also are waiting with buying goods, because they don't want to buy expencive. That is not good for the merchants. Keep the momentum. Price has dropped already   This was some panicselling of some. No need to do that. Only DGW3 is not working as expected, but all other things are good.

What is needed is a good marketing campaign to attract more miners and buyers. DGW3 is just as KGW a bit of a problem with the multipool, but rewards come eventually after a long blockfinding time. That is not only now, but will always be the case, when big miners come jumping in. Maybe there is a more stable solution for that, but a good campaign can help also.

Read the below:

I have to agree with Dutchyy above, I have removed all my buy orders, let the price fall to around 150 again. Give the devs and community time to grow the coin and let it rise slowly. Dogecoin went to 25 sat, look where it is now!!
Lets force the price down. I am even prepared to sell some off my coins to force it down, who is with me? This will get NLG off cleverminings list or at least they won't throw so much hash, this is not the time to be selfish and keep prices high!

Let it drop to under 200 , I think that will keep them off our backs. It really doesn't matter what the price of NLG is for the next 2 - 3 months. We all know in 3 years it's going to be big.

Thing is, price needs to drop and lower difficulty needs to rise (read: more dedicated miners). This way the switching miner will not be interested in NLG any more. The question is where these limits are?

Been working on this one to cope with the 51% problem. Technicaly it's no problem to use a whitelist, in my model I used the opposite and block miners with too much hashrate. But bottomline is you can't block pools, miners because they change clothes as you watch. When you block their wallet - easy to do - they change or even rotate wallets. When you block IP's the same story.

So, what is the break even point (exchange-rate wise) for this switching miner to stop mining NLG? Can anyone do an educated guess on that?

What about merged mining, could that help?

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/273/how-does-merged-mining-work

It is very harmful to NLG that its success depends on using a 3rd party processor to make transactions. This is my primary concern and has been since NLG started having extended block times.

3rd party payment processors only apply selling pressure to a coin since they carry the fiat risk of immediately converting NLG to fiat for the merchant reimbursement, they have to sell NLG at market price to offset any fluctuations in conversion rate. 3rd party processors are a band-aid fix for the real problem of NLG not being a working and usable currency.

Extended block times is crippling the adoption of NLG, it prevents wallet to wallet transfers for payments, which is absolutely essential for increased adoption of NLG. Dependence on a 3rd party processor for quick transactions limits the use of NLG to those merchants that use the 3rd party processor, which stifles circulation from wallet to wallet between users that would hold NLG for future payment of goods or services, instead transactions are funneled through payment processors that are putting the NLG on the market to fulfill fiat obligations.

I am not concerned about the price or the difficulty, my concern lies with the lack of usability.

There is not need to panic, this is not the end of NLG, but must be addressed effectively and urgently.

As I posted before, I believe that adopting the BTM diff algo is a very effective solution - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8870691