Topic: [Ultracoin] [Est. Feb 2014] ~ ASIC Resistant & Ultrafast 6 Second Transactions! - page 86. (Read 381018 times)

Good on you Paul - 

Lets get this thing humming.

Many thanks - usukan



 

It will be an extra addittional donation dear Usukan 

@Valpe - thanks and noted via PM your contribution is sent and confirmed.

Your strong support for Ultracoin very much appreciated by all.

Have a great weekend.

Cheers - usukan

@wtfc360 - thanks and noted via PM your contribution is on its way.

Your continued strong support for Ultracoin very much appreciated by all.

Cheers - usukan

I have sent my contribution to the UTC Dev Fund account.

https://blockchain.info/address/1LpFmfieMBH63ivFA1Us5ju1jnH9CSccKZ

0.312 BTC

I encourage others who have already pledged - or those who have not indicated their support yet - to follow.

As you might have noticed - I like to keep moving forward.


Thanks - usukan

I am thinking that a better way to organise this work with PressTab may be to take it in stages so we can get him started - and we don't lose him to other jobs/clients.

My proposal is this:

We pay PressTab for the diff re-targetting work right now - and get him started.
It will take him approx a week to complete this work.
We would need to pay him 1.2 BTC
We have enough pledges to cover this now with a small excess.

Before he finishes this - we need to raise enough in the UTC Dev Fund to cover a further 1.2 BTC - so we can pay him to move on to fixing up the code.
This work will take a further week.

By 2 weeks - we need to target to complete our goal of raising a total of 3.12 BTC so he can finish off with the liteStake implementation.

Then we can advise miners/Bittrex/Alenevaa and general users, distribute the new wallet - and fork 2 weeks after that.

This way we follow our priorities:
First Priority – Retarget Fix
2nd Priority – Tidy Up Code
3rd Priority – liteStake

We get the wheels turning and ensure we don't lose PressTab to other clients

We stick to our available budget - and can fork after the first 2 stages (Re-target Fix and Tidy up Code) since the liteStake does not require a hardfork to implement.

Does that sound a reasonable proposition?

Cheers - usukan

Excellent - many thanks Valpe

Half way there...

Another five volunteers to help this coin regain the position it so deserves...come on folks, you kow it makes sense...

Cheers,

Roister

10% donation, also from me for this project.

Valpe

Great - thanks Paul

@PaulR1 - Can I just confirm if this 10% is to be taken from the UTC Dev fund which has 0.37 BTC from your previous donation - or is this a donation in addition to this? A new contribution.
https://blockchain.info/address/1LpFmfieMBH63ivFA1Us5ju1jnH9CSccKZ



Thanks everyone - we are about halfway there.

usukan
Roister01
wtfc360
PaulR1
(maybe balance from UTC Dev Fund)

Tot - BTC 1.618

We need approx another 5-6 contributors x 10% to get this project off the ground.

at present we are targeting Option 1

1 – Retarget fix, Tidy up code, add liteStake (TOTAL COST – approx. 3.12 BTC)

so a 10% contribution = 0.312 BTC

I don't want to leave PressTab waiting too long on this or he may move on to other work.

So please let me know ASAP if you are willing to contribute.



Cheers - usukan

10% donation, also from me for this project !

Nice work Usukan.

 


Working URL: Ethereum Partners with R3CEV on Lizardcoin, Bringing Together the Best of Centralized Finance and Blockchain Technology

Great stuff - thanks wtfc360

Your support is duly noted and highly appreciated.

Cheers - usukan

I love a sense of humour - this is the 2nd time now Alenevaa (1st - UTC Stealth address on the pool - dammit almost believed you)

I really liked this one

https://blog.Athereum.org/2016/04/01/Athereum-partners-with-r3cev-on-lizardcoin-bringing-together-the-best-of-centralized-finance-and-blockchain-technology/
Edit - damn - they took it down.  ETH had been taken over by the banks and r3cev.



Cheers - usukan

I go for option nr 1, i´m in for 10 % donation like Usukan and Roister01.

The pool fee has been raised to 25% since Friday, April 1st 0:25 am

Hi Roister - thanks for your support here.

This is how I see things in terms of overall viability of UTC.

When I stepped in here we had a "working" coin but it was limping badly.

The foundations of the coin were in disarray.  The re-targeting issue had ruined our fast reliable transaction claims (since transactions are delayed in high diff periods) and the code was causing trouble in several areas but most especially the wallets. The re-targeting had also screwed up mining and most miners had left and a few miners were opportunistically picking up a windfall during very low diff periods.

We just could not build any future on these foundations. It was a dead end case.

My mission here was to rebuild the foundations so we can get started again on building UTC up again.

An important part of the foundations was a block explorer - we did better than that - we got a full Ultracoin Dashboard.

So - in answer to your question - if we don't fix the foundations - there can be no future viability for UTC.  We don't have a reliable resource to build upon.

The 3.12 BTC fixes all the foundation issues.

That puts us back in business. At this stage we are as good as many other ALTs worth far more than UTC.  But we are still not real special.

As we get moving we will further improve the foundations to cater for specific use cases.

From there its up to us to make UTC useful and attractive in real world applications - this is the VISION bit.  This is the important step and it will determine the long term viability and value of UTC. This is where we make UTC REAL SPECIAL.

Cheers - usukan

 

Thanks for the hard work that you have put in there Usukan...

I must bow to the obviously superior knowledge of most folk on here, but would just like to ask:

If the 3.12BTC work is carried out, how would this impact on the overall viability of the coin as a going concern? If we all think that it is worth it, I too am willing to chip in 10% of the total, whichever way folks decide to go...

Cheers,

Roister

Here is the update on PressTab and the proposed fixes to Ultracoin.

I have had a lot of discussions with press so far and we have got to a point where we can present these details.

First we need to appreciate what we have in the UTC code so far – in press’s words
“To be honest there is a lot of crazy code that was hacked together in a very unorganized way which makes it hard for other programmers to follow.”

This has made it rather difficult and complex to determine what the best courses of action are to fix the bloat in the code and to pick the best diff retarget scheme.  I have had to rely on press’s professional advice which I believe we are very lucky to have.

NOTE
All costs are PressTab estimates – its unlikely, but they may change slightly.
PressTab terms of engagement are strictly “payment up front”


After much deliberation – these are press’s suggestions.


Difficulty Retarget

PressTab proposes to implement the "normal" diff adjustment which would be an update of the typical PPC (Peercoin)  implementation.
This is PressTabs professional advice to us – over the other options of reversion to Ultracoin V3 retargeting or Digishield.

This would take about 10 hrs @ $50/hr (approx 1.2 BTC)
This requires a hardfork.
This 10 hours covers not only the diff adjustment change, but also the supporting code for a clean, safe hardfork and ensuring a smooth hard fork, which includes the troubleshooting and debugging of the code, as well as standing by during the actual hard fork in case any quick response code would be needed.
This could be completed in about a week by PressTab.
The hardfork should be a couple of weeks after this so miners/pools/exchanges and user wallets can be updated and in place. We only have one pool (Alenevaa) and 1 exchange – (Bittrex).  
It would be our (UTC Committee) responsibility to inform all stakeholders on the hardfork.



Tidy up Ultracoin code

This is the really tricky one.  To clean up all the code it would really take a lot of time to get everything to an updated “clean state”. Its practically a rewrite.

Press suggests a general tidy up and proposes to target areas where he suspects the most gain can be made. Its however a gamble. We could tidy up the code but it may not make any perceivable difference to wallet users.

One issue is that it also takes time to comb through the code and identify specific areas that might be causing problems. There is very messy code all over the place, but just because it is messy does not necessarily mean that it is causing excess resource load.
One thing to keep in mind here is that UTC will always be much slower than other coins:
- because it has 1.6m blocks
- because it has a difficult hashes algorithm.
 
Press estimates that it would take about 10 hrs @ $50/hr (approx 1.2 BTC) to comb through the code in more detail, identify key target areas and modify the code.

Understood - this is not updating all code to a clean state and we may see little appreciable difference in the user experience – but at least we would have tidier and more legible code to work from in the future.
This would probably take up to an additional week and would best be done with the diff retarget hardfork.
  


liteStake code

PressTab has one further suggestion for UTC to improve staking and drastically reduce resource load from wallets during staking.  

This is to replace the current UTC staking code with his own “liteStake” code which is used successfully on several other coins (notably HyperStake). This typically has reduced CPU consumption from hashing from 15% to around 1% depending on the exact coin. This will likely prevent the “lock up” issue in the wallet while staking.

This would dramatically reduce CPU usage when staking.
This does not require a hardfork
This would take approx 6 hrs @$50/hr (approx 0.72 BTC)


So – we need discussion and some decisions from the Community on the above options.


In Summary - The options are:

1 – Retarget fix, Tidy up code, add liteStake (TOTAL COST – approx. 3.12 BTC)

2 – Retarget fix, Tidy up Code (TOTAL COST – approx. 2.4 BTC)

3 – Retarget fix (TOTAL COST) – approx. 1.2 BTC


Of course we could also add an option 4 - Retarget fix and liteStake (TOTAL COST – approx. 1.92 BTC)


The priorities I see for UTC are as follows:

First Priority – Retarget Fix
2nd Priority – Tidy Up Code
3rd Priority – liteStake


Of course everything depends on the available funds from Community support.


My vote would be to go for Option 1

1 – Retarget fix, Tidy up code, add liteStake (TOTAL COST – approx. 3.12 BTC)


Of course Option 2 with a later move to liteStake is feasible since liteStake does not require a hardfork to implement.


I will contribute 10% of whatever option the Community may decide.



Cheers - usukan

Please note

After I deliver the proposition here with PressTab to the community - I will hand the helm back over to Steven to continue our journey.

I will still be here as part of the Committee and will contribute to the costs of the work PressTab will do to fix up UTC.

Truth of the matter is that I have a busy period looming in my other life and we need to hand back to Steven/Committee so we can get a range of things more organised.

Steven - are you all good with this?

Cheers - usukan