Author

Topic: [UNOFFICIAL] [VNL] Vanillacoin 0.4.1 | Instant ▱ Incentivized ▱ Innovative - page 226. (Read 433405 times)

sr. member
Activity: 329
Merit: 250
No TX Fees #JustRaiBlocks
Any idea when the Android PoS Wallet will be tested?  Or has it already been done?

It is under continuous development and testing, jump on irc for daily information. Anyone can take part in the testing of the latest builds.

Okay, but is there a download link for de android pos wallet? I really want to test it.
legendary
Activity: 1049
Merit: 1001
Great community

This coin/project is on my top five list and FPGAs make this an even sweeter deal

I am excited about the possibility about learning more about and setting up some FPGA boards for long term low power environmentally friendly mining.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1001
180 BPM
Any idea when the Android PoS Wallet will be tested?  Or has it already been done?

It is under continuous development and testing, jump on irc for daily information. Anyone can take part in the testing of the latest builds.
member
Activity: 92
Merit: 10
Any idea when the Android PoS Wallet will be tested?  Or has it already been done?
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1001
180 BPM
Any news about ccex, or are we just SOL? Huh

C-cex pretty much sent round a message blaming everyone and everything they could instead of saying they fucked up. They won't refund anyting.

Their TOS also has a row basically saying that if problems arise they have 0 obligations.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."
Any news about ccex, or are we just SOL? Huh
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1001
180 BPM
News 05/15



Traumschiff - is there an idea on the hash rate of (1) mojo v3?  Just curious to determine how many I want to buy.

Thanks - pokeytex

In theory it could be as high as 150-250 MH/s with 5-10W energy consumption, but keep in mind that this is not yet tested, but rather an assumption based on the chips capabilities and the WPX hashing algo. You have to wait for John to finalise the software to get an exact number.

Currently with the diff that gpu's make and the reward schedule it would be obviously more profitable to buy directly, but than again these FPGAs don't really cost much in terms of electricity so it could potentially ROI (slowly though) with a future price rise.

On a second note, one could resell them at any point since they should have a really long lifespan and also have other good uses.
legendary
Activity: 1504
Merit: 1002
News 05/15



Traumschiff - is there an idea on the hash rate of (1) mojo v3?  Just curious to determine how many I want to buy.

Thanks - pokeytex
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1001
180 BPM
You are great!


John deserves the credits, we just help out as a community Smiley
member
Activity: 71
Merit: 10
News 05/15
You are great!


legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1001
180 BPM
News 05/15


member
Activity: 71
Merit: 10
iOS is now considered Beta.very beatfully!
legendary
Activity: 996
Merit: 1013
Ok, when I've got the time I'm going to dig deeper into
the source. TBH all this seems sensational, but many questions
arise (like possible attack vectors, and network problems that are
independent of the code).

However, if VNL has truly achieved a drastic improvement on
a such fundamental level then this

Quote
Some people wil crap themselves.

would be an understatement.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1001
180 BPM

Correct, you cannot do this with Bitcoin or derivatives without making it insecure. Neither Bitcoin or any other clones I have inspected have replaced the original mempool technology or surrounding communications sub-system. To answer your question though I have to ask:

What does "the most recent block gets replaced fairly often by accident" mean and why would this occur? Is this a bug in Bitcoin?

If I understand correctly, you are saying that the
improvements in network propagation of messages will
diminish the probability of forks occuring to a such a low
number that using 1/confirmation is safe?

If the Bitcoin system of reorganization is only a fix and
forking is just an artifact caused by communication lags,
then I think I would call the Bitcoin system kind of
a hack...

But Satoshi was one sly fellow, so I'm not subscribing
to this view just yet. Perhaps there are deeper reasons why he made
things as they are...  

In any case, glitches in network are sure to happen even if the
p2p is incredibly fast. And what about malicious attack with
a private chain?

John also wrote this on the VNL forums: https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/142/version-0-2-8-beta-release/5
legendary
Activity: 996
Merit: 1013

Correct, you cannot do this with Bitcoin or derivatives without making it insecure. Neither Bitcoin or any other clones I have inspected have replaced the original mempool technology or surrounding communications sub-system. To answer your question though I have to ask:

What does "the most recent block gets replaced fairly often by accident" mean and why would this occur? Is this a bug in Bitcoin?

If I understand correctly, you are saying that the
improvements in network propagation of messages will
diminish the probability of forks occuring to a such a low
number that using 1/confirmation is safe?

If the Bitcoin system of reorganization is only a fix and
forking is just an artifact caused by communication lags,
then I think I would call the Bitcoin system kind of
a hack...

But Satoshi was one sly fellow, so I'm not subscribing
to this view just yet. Perhaps there are deeper reasons why he made
things as they are...  

In any case, glitches in network are sure to happen even if the
p2p is incredibly fast. And what about malicious attack with
a private chain?
sr. member
Activity: 596
Merit: 251

It seems that it's already implemented?  I transferred some coins today and it appeared to complete after one transaction.

It can be implemented in just any coin
by simply altering the number of required confirmations,
but doing so you'll compromise the network security.

This is how the Bitcoin dev guide addresses this issue:

Quote
1 confirmation: The transaction is included in the latest block and double-spend risk decreases dramatically.
Transactions which pay sufficient transaction fees need 10 minutes on average to receive one confirmation.
However, the most recent block gets replaced fairly often by accident, so a double spend is still a real possibility.

How does VNL prevent the recent block being replaced by reorganization without
forking the chain?
Correct, you cannot do this with Bitcoin or derivatives without making it insecure. Neither Bitcoin or any other clones I have inspected have replaced the original mempool technology or surrounding communications sub-system. To answer your question though I have to ask:

What does "the most recent block gets replaced fairly often by accident" mean and why would this occur? Is this a bug in Bitcoin?

Thank you for your support.
sr. member
Activity: 596
Merit: 251
John is going to post an explanation soon on how secure single confirmation transactions are possible on VNL. Since VNL's codebase is different to Bitcoins or Peercoins this could be made possible without risking doublespends or any security issue.

Any news on this?

sounds awesome.. but how do you prevent multiple forks?
In order to prevent multiple forks they'd have to first exist, instead you prevent the cause of them. Cool

Thank you for your support.
legendary
Activity: 1894
Merit: 1001
So my wallet doesn't appear to be staking.  I don't know if it is because I have such a small amount (6.138654) or not.

 you'll need to accumulate some coin-age to get that stack to stake. just don't move them for some time. if i remember right max coinage is 365 days
member
Activity: 92
Merit: 10
So my wallet doesn't appear to be staking.  I don't know if it is because I have such a small amount (6.138654) or not.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1001
180 BPM

It seems that it's already implemented?  I transferred some coins today and it appeared to complete after one transaction.

It can be implemented in just any coin
by simply altering the number of required confirmations,
but doing so you'll compromise the network security.

This is how the Bitcoin dev guide addresses this issue:

Quote
1 confirmation: The transaction is included in the latest block and double-spend risk decreases dramatically.
Transactions which pay sufficient transaction fees need 10 minutes on average to receive one confirmation.
However, the most recent block gets replaced fairly often by accident, so a double spend is still a real possibility.

How does VNL prevent the recent block being replaced by reorganization without
forking the chain?

John stated that he will make an official explanation regarding how it exactly works, meanwhile he posted this on a few days ago: http://pastebin.com/fxLUsnPx

Thing is, John isn't really the man to explain everything in the smallest detail, but he never failed us with the features.

Let's wait a bit for his final words on this.
Jump to: