Topic: NobleCoin[NOBL] - 8% PoS | 1Yr+ | MARKETPLACE | PAY | GIFT | CHARITIES/MERCHANTS - page 235. (Read 1053098 times)

Thanks

Don't feel like anyone is rushing you, take your time.

Let me know if I can help, I am only a java dev, but if you have anything you need let me know.

I'm not to sure I understand what your meaning is here, I'll reread it when I have some time. Off to casino for a few days shortly.

As far as I have seen there is no push to rush and everyone agrees that doing things once correctly is far more efficient than pushing out failure.

I can add that no problem at all.  Please everyone continue to have patience though, I am trying to accomplish everything very methodically and test at every step. Naturally this slows things down.  Also any help is always welcome.

I like that option too. +1

Hello,

I'm a little excited by the idea of queued-mining, but I'm still blinded by the flaws I see. Help me shine a light on it and clear the way =)

The quoted justification still isn't valid to me. A malicious user could still use multiple VMs to get multiple blocks per round. If he had more development resources he could do even worse things, like using as little hash-rate as possible to have the maximum number of wallets. Say for example he has 1MH/s, what would prevent him from splitting them in one thousand 1KH/s wallets? Even if it was IP address limited, all that he needed to do was create a website that when accessed would use JavaScript to use the viewer's IP address to queue blocks, making botnets even easier.

I think there probably exists a clear explanation of this type of attack prevention, but I don't know where. Is there a whitepaper or something?

Thanks,

Janito

Hello,

I would like to add a little to this point, but I'd like to remind that I'm a noob here and this is based on my limited understanding.

The idea quoted is indeed great, the execution that's difficult to be done.

The simplest execution today would be to hard-fork every algorithm change, if I understood correctly. Rofo has already listed some arguments against hard-forks, and why he only wants to do the current planned hard-fork as an emergency measure. As far as I understood hard-forks require synchronization of all wallet versions, so all users participating in the coin's community have to have the wallet properly updated. This is not a problem for most enthusiast users or those that follow the community discussions, but not for the public that the coin is trying to achieve: non-enthusiast, non-technical, normal people. If they don't update the wallet for a hard-fork, or even if one of the "services" they use don't update the wallet (merchant, exchange, etc.) there is a real possibility of money loss.

That said, if there is another way to execute it, I think it's worthy of discussion. As a simple attempt: I would suggest that the algo be scriptable, and all wallets have a peer-to-peer way of determining the active script and therefore algo. Also, any person could submit new scripts implementing new algos, and the community would allow the switch to the new script without needing to change the wallet.

How to do this execution is beyond me. Consider for example it can't be a simple "vote", because otherwise SHA-1 farms would pressure the coin to keep the SHA-1 algo.

Anyway, I hope that this might help a little in the advance of the discussion regarding the point quoted in the beginning.

Thank you,

Janito

This is quite useful too

http://www.peercoin.net/minting

If you are reading the thread from the beginning......yes like all coins there were issues.....queue mining started over a month ago. Another thing hotcoin developer also did some programming regarding time. This stopped blocks being created in under 2 minutes. You can see the time of block creation in the blockchain.

Hotcoin developer also confirmed that in order to do 100 wallets, one would need to have so many computers and consume so much electricity.

Think of it in this way.

When one is using their computer for social uses, like browsing the internet, work, etc, one is already consuming and paying for their electricity. If one adds an anti-virus software, do the consumption of electricity go up? Very, very little, maybe £2 extra a year. When Hotcoin does the same through queue mining, very, very little extra electricity is consumed. POW require another separate set of mining rig that consume another set of electricity in addition to one's home computer.

A request...

Can we have the "Unlock wallet for PoS" option that is in the HBN wallet?

Otherwise it is a pain to have to unlock it regularly to mine.

Further discussions, including initial specifications that were proposed for first round of testing.

Please keep in mind I'm posting these as conversations because that's what they are. Nothing official or formal, but put out there because it's what is currently under discussion.

http://pastebin.com/expQa2MF (edit: 2nd lot added)

Further readings I personally found helpful:
http://wiki.hobonickels.info/index.php?title=Proof_of_Stake
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/proof-of-stake-investment-hbnphstekcap-and-more-498739
http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=2976

Stakeholder on PoS & NOBL: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7470259

Thanks for the clarification on everything. I was under the impression that there was a consultation on IRC about where this was going, but this is obviously not the case.

In regards to keeping everyone up to date, I think maybe when things are decided, a small amount of reasoning could be put in here. Just so that if someone new to Noble came here it would be obvious why the decisions were made and made it clear how much planning and work you put into this, as I am not sure it comes across fully.

As far as PoS goes, I think it is a shame that you have been forced to take a route that was not planned, but in the end Noble has never been about the tech, it has always been about the message it sends and the usability of the coin.

And the gay photo comment made me laugh too

No need for a unregulated thread, we all trust you guys 100%

Yep, nice to have this

Thx for the logfile. Interesting read.

NobleCoin Community: Thank you for your continued support at Austin Global Exchange. We've launched the AGX Referral Program where you can create a Bitcoin income stream for referring new users. Check it out at agx.io or at the AGX Tumblr, http://austinglobal.tumblr.com/post/89720045847.

Thanks again for being part of AGX.

- The Austin Global Team

Find us at:
agx.io
reddit.com/r/AustinGlobalExchange/
twitter.com/AustinGlobalX
austinglobal.tumblr.com

Latest pastebin from mIRC for those so inclined. Mostly just me answering personal questions & what I know of PoS decisions at this point. Will get in touch with Presstab and we can release preliminary specs. for discussion/debate.

http://pastebin.com/dZ5CF1Jd

Just realised I swear more in mIRC than on the forums, apologies - suits the environment a little more. Probably not the best description of Dynamic Interest either, we'll sort that.

No worries. The thread also talks consistently of 51% attacks, 100s of orphaned blocks & block times of 7 seconds (when queue mining is supposed to be 2 minutes?). Was any of this resolved satisfactorily? I'm still reading.

If someone does that then the cost of running 100 wallets has to be taken into account. Each wallet would have to be mining at 1 thread (CPU), 50% or 100%. I do not see how one can efficiently do 100 wallets. I have passed on your question to Hotcoin developer.

We gave 2-4 weeks with these first 2 discussion/testing and then a 2 week period before the fork. Most would rather have it done sooner than later.

#'s haven't been finalized. I'm leaving this in the hands of those with more PoS experience for balance/security reasons. Keep in mind we're still in the process of actually making sure we can do a clean transition and everything works.

Myself I'd like to see PoW phased out over a month or two and go pure PoS, but again that's up to the guys who I'm certain will prioritize security. We're sticking with scrypt because we're already doing a PoW/PoS fork, the coins added via mining will be reduced, adding an algorithm change on top of that at the same time is another variable, x11/x13 are dominated by FPGAs/botnets and because GPU miners have had 6 months to mine/distribute/buy (more often sell) the coins they wanted.

I'm sure once we confirm the switch has worked on testnet/private fork we will have more than enough time to debate the specifics and answer PoS specific questions related to security & distribution.

So if I have this straight, the current thinking is fork to POS/POW for a "Yet undetermined" time? Is there any range that is currently being considered? A week, a month, a year?

How many total coins will be POW ATM with this change?

Is staying with Scypt written in stone? If so please explain why.