[UNOFFICIAL] [VNL] Vanillacoin 0.4.1 | Instant ▱ Incentivized ▱ Innovative - page 219.

hokus_pokus

member

Activity: 113

Merit: 10

Quote from: ?? on ??

ill just leave this here Cool

"if you follow the design i have put in front you'll see i created an encrypted dark net"

"vanilla with UDP will be 100% a dark network"

Wow...I knew about this from the beginning but with UDP implementation that takes this to another level. Darker than dark baby! And phone application lite...excellent work

traumschiff

legendary

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1001

180 BPM

Quote from: monsterer on June 13, 2015, 06:06:01 AM

Quote from: YarkoL on June 12, 2015, 11:00:25 AM

New block comes in. For every transaction in the block:
Does the transaction conflict with one in the database?
Yes. Reject it.
No. Does it conflict with one in the mempool?
Yes. Reject it (here's the difference with btc).
No. Check next transaction if this is not the last one.

It bitcoin, when a new block 'comes in' all the transactions have already been mined from the mempool and committed to the blockchain. What you are suggesting is that the miner of block B also revalidates all transactions from block A against the mempool - this leads to a situation where miner B will generate a fork of N blocks if a disagreement occurs (N = 2 in this example).

Jump on IRC, John is here if you would like to have a discussion with him.

https://kiwiirc.com/client/irc.kiwiirc.com/vanillacoin

monsterer

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1007

Quote from: YarkoL on June 12, 2015, 11:00:25 AM

New block comes in. For every transaction in the block:
Does the transaction conflict with one in the database?
Yes. Reject it.
No. Does it conflict with one in the mempool?
Yes. Reject it (here's the difference with btc).
No. Check next transaction if this is not the last one.

It bitcoin, when a new block 'comes in' all the transactions have already been mined from the mempool and committed to the blockchain. What you are suggesting is that the miner of block B also revalidates all transactions from block A against the mempool - this leads to a situation where miner B will generate a fork of N blocks if a disagreement occurs (N = 2 in this example).

pallas

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 1094

Black Belt Developer

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: traumschiff on May 25, 2015, 10:19:34 AM

PSA

Since BCT passwords and usernames were compromised please don't forget to change your passwords here and on the other services reused them.

also remove the security question.

BTW: http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/25/google-security-question-study/

This is the second time someone posts exactly the same thing I did some days before.
Clearly they are new users trying to get some trust by posting. Makes me think they are scammers or trolls so beware.

YarkoL

legendary

Activity: 996

Merit: 1013

Quote from: monsterer on June 12, 2015, 07:08:40 AM

That's the opposite of what you said in your last reply.

How so?
New transaction comes in.

Does transaction conflict with one in the database (in blockchain)?
Yes. Reject it.
No. Does it conflict with one already in the mempool?
Yes. Reject it. No. Accept it.

Eventually it shows up
in a block and is removed from the mempool.

New block comes in. For every transaction in the block:
Does the transaction conflict with one in the database?
Yes. Reject it.
No. Does it conflict with one in the mempool?
Yes. Reject it (here's the difference with btc).
No. Check next transaction if this is not the last one.

SquidsIn

full member

Activity: 236

Merit: 100

Quote from: dedmaroz on June 09, 2015, 02:59:21 AM

i have some ZTEX FPGA with Spartan 6. Can i mine with this board: http://www.ztex.de/usb-fpga-1/usb-fpga-1.15y.e.html

I would be very interested in this too, I also have some Quad Spartan 6 Cairnsmore CM1's.

For now I shall just buy VNL at these low prices but it would be nice to mine some for posterity, this ones a keeper.

monsterer

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1007

Quote from: YarkoL on June 12, 2015, 06:10:29 AM

Quote from: monsterer on June 12, 2015, 06:04:35 AM

So that means that any new transaction which is accepted in the mempool can cause the entire blockchain to reorg, all the way back to the genesis block?

AFAICS it will not be accepted if it conflicts with the ones
already in the chain.

That's the opposite of what you said in your last reply.

YarkoL

legendary

Activity: 996

Merit: 1013

Quote from: monsterer on June 12, 2015, 06:04:35 AM

So that means that any new transaction which is accepted in the mempool can cause the entire blockchain to reorg, all the way back to the genesis block?

AFAICS it will not be accepted if it conflicts with the ones
already in the chain.

monsterer

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1007

Quote from: YarkoL on June 12, 2015, 04:57:52 AM

That's right Wink

New transactions are checked against block database
first as usual. But block is only accepted if the transactions that it contains
(apart from coinbase) did not conflict with the ones
in mempool.

It's different in Bitcoin, where the block contents override the mempool.

So that means that any new transaction which is accepted in the mempool can cause the entire blockchain to reorg, all the way back to the genesis block?

YarkoL

legendary

Activity: 996

Merit: 1013

Quote from: monsterer on June 12, 2015, 03:32:45 AM

Quote from: YarkoL on June 11, 2015, 09:07:59 AM

Apparently mempool takes precedence, so conflicting transactions
whether in block or not are rejected. So no conflict remains.

The only way that would work is for every single transaction that was ever made to remain in the mempool. Now, what kind of collection of objects do you know of that behave that way? (hint, it has 'chain' in the name)

That's right Wink

New transactions are checked against block database
first as usual. But block is only accepted if the transactions that it contains
(apart from coinbase) did not conflict with the ones
in mempool.

It's different in Bitcoin, where the block contents override the mempool.

monsterer

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1007

Quote from: YarkoL on June 11, 2015, 09:07:59 AM

Apparently mempool takes precedence, so conflicting transactions
whether in block or not are rejected. So no conflict remains.

The only way that would work is for every single transaction that was ever made to remain in the mempool. Now, what kind of collection of objects do you know of that behave that way? (hint, it has 'chain' in the name)

najzenmajsen

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Quote from: TheProf on June 11, 2015, 09:28:12 AM

Nice move on price... Wink

Indeed, and best of all it seems to be a natural uptrend and not a pump.

etoque

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1000

Good uptrend... with not so much volume... Could see new ATH soon Cheesy

TheProf

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Nice move on price... Wink

YarkoL

legendary

Activity: 996

Merit: 1013

Quote from: monsterer on June 11, 2015, 08:15:42 AM

edit: what is the point of having transactions remain in the mempool after they've been written to blocks? You cannot have two different, conflicting consensus mechanisms.

Apparently mempool takes precedence, so conflicting transactions
whether in block or not are rejected. So no conflict remains.

monsterer

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1007

Quote from: john-connor on June 11, 2015, 05:42:56 AM

Transactions can stay in the global transaction pool for up to 72 hours before being completely removed. Even if it were to be removed both the sender and recipient rebroadcast it every 120 seconds until it is satisfied. Obviously since the subject block is conflicting with the global transaction pool it is rejected by all recipients. No amount of hash-power can obtain more than 1/3 of the consensus by design so the hash argument is moot here. The source code is freely available for inspection. Bitcoin doesn't to my knowledge do any of this extra protection. Cool

Thank you for your support.

edit: what is the point of having transactions remain in the mempool after they've been written to blocks? You cannot have two different, conflicting consensus mechanisms.

john-connor

sr. member

Activity: 596

Merit: 251

Quote from: monsterer on June 10, 2015, 05:41:35 AM

Quote from: bitspill on June 10, 2015, 03:30:38 AM

I think the way john is implementing it is such that the offending block will never be mined because the original transaction in the mempool will cause that block to be rejected

Transactions leave the mempool once they get mined.

Transactions can stay in the global transaction pool for up to 72 hours before being completely removed. Even if it were to be removed both the sender and recipient rebroadcast it every 120 seconds until it is satisfied. Obviously since the subject block is conflicting with the global transaction pool it is rejected by all recipients. No amount of hash-power can obtain more than 1/3 of the consensus by design so the hash argument is moot here. The source code is freely available for inspection. Bitcoin doesn't to my knowledge do any of this extra protection. Cool

Thank you for your support.

Levole11

hero member

Activity: 566

Merit: 500

Quote from: etoque on June 10, 2015, 12:32:43 PM

there's a stake calculator ? How much time to stake ?

There's not a specific time I believe, it can take a few days, but it'll stake, dont worry

etoque

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1000

there's a stake calculator ? How much time to stake ?

liulby

member

Activity: 71

Merit: 10

It's good news to list bittrex.com
https://www.bittrex.com/Market/Index?MarketName=BTC-VNL

Topic: [UNOFFICIAL] [VNL] Vanillacoin 0.4.1 | Instant ▱ Incentivized ▱ Innovative - page 219. (Read 433405 times)