Author

Topic: [UNOFFICIAL] [VNL] Vanillacoin 0.4.1 | Instant ▱ Incentivized ▱ Innovative - page 214. (Read 433405 times)

legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1001
what are staking rewards ?

is good to put in stake VNL or it's too small rewards?


Staking is always an incentive, when I stake I get between 0.001 VNL & 0.1 VNL, now times the larger amount by 10x stakes and you have yourself 1 VNL, it's even more energy efficient if you use it on your Smartphone or Iphone.
legendary
Activity: 1414
Merit: 1005
what are staking rewards ?

is good to put in stake VNL or it's too small rewards?
member
Activity: 71
Merit: 10
legendary
Activity: 1193
Merit: 1000
Peaky Blinder
Nice dump, just bought more. When POW resumes there will be more opportunities to buy.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1001
180 BPM
340 blocks left till' POW mining resumes!
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1001
180 BPM
When does PoW mining start again and what is the latest free optimized miner ?

Both fastest public miners are in the OP:

Quote
win | AMD - Smelter miner by Smolen - highest hash currently for AMD

Nvidia - MrM4D/xCore's miner - 30% faster and open source
legendary
Activity: 1193
Merit: 1000
Peaky Blinder
When does PoW mining start again and what is the latest free optimized miner ?

ABOUT 17,5 H
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1001
180 BPM

Interesting, but it also reminds me of the way the master nodes work in Dash. Differences?

As I understand it... Masternodes are basically mixer nodes, but VNL does not
employ this kind of anonymity. Also the paper cites as reference
the "transaction locking" feature that was added later to masternodes,
but the mechanism is different, as with VNL the locking happens
through synchonization of "global transaction pool".

However, the paper speaks about "storage nodes" and "slots" without
defining them. A node (an "ordinary" one, I presume) must get information
about a given transaction from a set of storage nodes before it can consider the
transaction safe to spend.

A nonprofessional in P2P technology like myself can certainly get an impression
that the storage nodes are some kind of masternodes with special functions and privileges.
But perhaps they are simply the same as full nodes in Bitcoin, ie nodes that relay and retain transactions.

The way I read it is that you are on the right track with "global transaction pool". The whole pool is a distributed p2p pool of ordinary nodes and at any one time some nodes act / emulate "super peers", "storage nodes" etc. They are not distinct or permanant entities and the roles move around between nodes as time progresses. The network as whole therefore acts as a distributed p2p application in real time and therefore is a truly distributed p2p decentralised system.
Yes it is as "distributed" as you can get, DNS is even removed from the equation. Heavily compressed and encrypted data is constantly moving in a piggy-back formation allowing nodes to learn about the topology quickly and adapt to abrupt changes, keeping synchrony to a degree measured in milliseconds. These nodes are everyone and no-one at the same time.  The network is 100% "self governed" so it cannot be taken down by any entity large or small. Much code and many white-papers to come. Cool

Thank you for your support.

Sweet to know. I guess it will be almost effortless to maintain the system for any given role so they won't need any special treatment for that, so this will be a fair system.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
When does PoW mining start again and what is the latest free optimized miner ?
sr. member
Activity: 596
Merit: 251

Interesting, but it also reminds me of the way the master nodes work in Dash. Differences?

As I understand it... Masternodes are basically mixer nodes, but VNL does not
employ this kind of anonymity. Also the paper cites as reference
the "transaction locking" feature that was added later to masternodes,
but the mechanism is different, as with VNL the locking happens
through synchonization of "global transaction pool".

However, the paper speaks about "storage nodes" and "slots" without
defining them. A node (an "ordinary" one, I presume) must get information
about a given transaction from a set of storage nodes before it can consider the
transaction safe to spend.

A nonprofessional in P2P technology like myself can certainly get an impression
that the storage nodes are some kind of masternodes with special functions and privileges.
But perhaps they are simply the same as full nodes in Bitcoin, ie nodes that relay and retain transactions.

The way I read it is that you are on the right track with "global transaction pool". The whole pool is a distributed p2p pool of ordinary nodes and at any one time some nodes act / emulate "super peers", "storage nodes" etc. They are not distinct or permanant entities and the roles move around between nodes as time progresses. The network as whole therefore acts as a distributed p2p application in real time and therefore is a truly distributed p2p decentralised system.
Yes it is as "distributed" as you can get, DNS is even removed from the equation. Heavily compressed and encrypted data is constantly moving in a piggy-back formation allowing nodes to learn about the topology quickly and adapt to abrupt changes, keeping synchrony to a degree measured in milliseconds. These nodes are everyone and no-one at the same time.  The network is 100% "self governed" so it cannot be taken down by any entity large or small. Much code and many white-papers to come. Cool

Thank you for your support.
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1007
You seem to forget that the blockchain also secures
the transaction history in a decentralized manner.

History and transparency are an important features, I agree. Primarily, the blockchain was conceived of to solve the double spending problem, tho.
legendary
Activity: 996
Merit: 1013
Although now I'm again somewhat lost on why full nodes that do
retain transactions in mempool and database need to depend
on these storage nodes, since the global tx pool was supposed to
do away with forking and double spend issues.

You might also legitimately ask why the blockchain even exists here, because *that* is designed to address exactly those issues as well.

You seem to forget that the blockchain also secures
the transaction history in a decentralized manner.

If the tx database was, say, a flat list of inputs and
outputs, there would no way to tell what is the correct
history in the absence of cumulative PoW or PoS.
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1000
IN LESS THAN TWO DAYS POW BACK AGAIN, SO THERE WILL BE MORE COINS. NOW IT'S FU..ING HARD TO BUY BELOW 15K

we've still had 22k more each day,and we're going to have 22k in a pow phase a day until block 150k who we gonna have 19k a day on hand.

So nothing to change...still you can put you're buy order in expectation to buy lower Smiley

It will only grab more visibility Pow...more miner,more eyes,more buyer Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1007
Although now I'm again somewhat lost on why full nodes that do
retain transactions in mempool and database need to depend
on these storage nodes, since the global tx pool was supposed to
do away with forking and double spend issues.

You might also legitimately ask why the blockchain even exists here, because *that* is designed to address exactly those issues as well.
legendary
Activity: 1193
Merit: 1000
Peaky Blinder
IN LESS THAN TWO DAYS POW BACK AGAIN, SO THERE WILL BE MORE COINS. NOW IT'S FU..ING HARD TO BUY BELOW 15K
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000

The storage nodes will all tie into DarkPP , hosting a sort of tor like network, hosted completely on these storage nodes of vanilla coin.

They will likely have special functions, not just relaying and retaining transactions but all sorts of information , websites and the likes. i would assume they wouldn't have any special privileges as such  , Most likely nodes hosting information are likely to be unable to know what information it is exactly they are transmitting (this is for security reasons and safety) having all information sent across the nodes being encrypted.  

Thanks for shedding light on this!

Although now I'm again somewhat lost on why full nodes that do
retain transactions in mempool and database need to depend
on these storage nodes, since the global tx pool was supposed to
do away with forking and double spend issues.

Personally I find a system with nodes that have special statuses (like masternodes)
a little lacking in aesthetics since decentralization to me implies an
equality of sorts among nodes. But if the barrier for entry/exit to
a special status is very low, then that is not a big deal... like in
Millenniumcoin, where you just announce your intention to become
a special node (not shilling, but mentioning for illustration)

Furthermore, I strongly feel that the storage nodes ought to have either
privileges or some other incentives. In the case of Tor, there is a continuous
dearth of relaying nodes, which leads to a serious vulnerabilities, and this is
because (sadly!) there are too few people who are ready to share out their
resources for purely idealistic reasons. I don't think for a second that
this could work in crypto, so some rewards are needed.




From my understanding , Bitcoin nodes relay transactions, the transactions are all different depending on which nodes relay which transaction until it reached the blockchain.

With vanilla all node transactions are synced together, they all relay the same transactions using UDP tables to sync them all up before pushing forward into the blockchain. so when a transaction is relayed , all nodes in the network are aware of the transaction at the same time, this prevents collusion between bad acting nodes trying to push thru false transactions or making a longer chain to compete and take over /double spending
legendary
Activity: 996
Merit: 1013

The storage nodes will all tie into DarkPP , hosting a sort of tor like network, hosted completely on these storage nodes of vanilla coin.

They will likely have special functions, not just relaying and retaining transactions but all sorts of information , websites and the likes. i would assume they wouldn't have any special privileges as such  , Most likely nodes hosting information are likely to be unable to know what information it is exactly they are transmitting (this is for security reasons and safety) having all information sent across the nodes being encrypted.  

Thanks for shedding light on this!

Although now I'm again somewhat lost on why full nodes that do
retain transactions in mempool and database need to depend
on these storage nodes, since the global tx pool was supposed to
do away with forking and double spend issues.

Personally I find a system with nodes that have special statuses (like masternodes)
a little lacking in aesthetics since decentralization to me implies an
equality of sorts among nodes. But if the barrier for entry/exit to
a special status is very low, then that is not a big deal... like in
Millenniumcoin, where you just announce your intention to become
a special node (not shilling here... just mentioning for illustration)

Furthermore, I strongly feel that the storage nodes ought to have either
privileges or some other incentives. In the case of Tor, there is a continuous
dearth of relaying nodes, which leads to a serious vulnerabilities, and this is
because (sadly!) there are too few people who are ready to share out their
resources for purely idealistic reasons. I don't think for a second that
this could work in crypto, so some rewards are needed.

hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000

Interesting, but it also reminds me of the way the master nodes work in Dash. Differences?

As I understand it... Masternodes are basically mixer nodes, but VNL does not
employ this kind of anonymity. Also the paper cites as reference
the "transaction locking" feature that was added later to masternodes,
but the mechanism is different, as with VNL the locking happens
through synchonization of "global transaction pool".

However, the paper speaks about "storage nodes" and "slots" without
defining them. A node (an "ordinary" one, I presume) must get information
about a given transaction from a set of storage nodes before it can consider the
transaction safe to spend.

A nonprofessional in P2P technology like myself can certainly get an impression
that the storage nodes are some kind of masternodes with special functions and privileges.
But perhaps they are simply the same as full nodes in Bitcoin, ie nodes that relay and retain transactions.


The storage nodes will all tie into DarkPP , hosting a sort of tor like network, hosted completely on these storage nodes of vanilla coin.

They will likely have special functions, not just relaying and retaining transactions but all sorts of information , websites and the likes. i would assume they wouldn't have any special privileges as such  , Most likely nodes hosting information are likely to be unable to know what information it is exactly they are transmitting (this is for security reasons and safety) having all information sent across the nodes being encrypted.  
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1001
180 BPM

Interesting, but it also reminds me of the way the master nodes work in Dash. Differences?

As I understand it... Masternodes are basically mixer nodes, but VNL does not
employ this kind of anonymity. Also the paper cites as reference
the "transaction locking" feature that was added later to masternodes,
but the mechanism is different, as with VNL the locking happens
through synchonization of "global transaction pool".

However, the paper speaks about "storage nodes" and "slots" without
defining them. A node (an "ordinary" one, I presume) must get information
about a given transaction from a set of storage nodes before it can consider the
transaction safe to spend.

A nonprofessional in P2P technology like myself can certainly get an impression
that the storage nodes are some kind of masternodes with special functions and privileges.
But perhaps they are simply the same as full nodes in Bitcoin, ie nodes that relay and retain transactions.

The way I read it is that you are on the right track with "global transaction pool". The whole pool is a distributed p2p pool of ordinary nodes and at any one time some nodes act / emulate "super peers", "storage nodes" etc. They are not distinct or permanant entities and the roles move around between nodes as time progresses. The network as whole therefore acts as a distributed p2p application in real time and therefore is a truly distributed p2p decentralised system.

My 2 cents: This seems to be accurate. Also there will probably be no financial gain implemented into the system for superpeers (ie masternode and their bonus from tx's) so there should also be no entry barrier for peers (ie coins needed for masternodes).

An entry barrier could be a strong bandwidth or visibility settings (firewall,no VPN, whatever) so you can hold a high number of connections to the network. This would be therefore a decentralized network with volunteers that can be randomly chosen as superpeers. You just have to hit certain criteria, but this can be easily achieved for most people already in the modern world.
Jump to: