Topic: Vertcoin - First Scrypt N | First Stealth Address - Privacy without mixer - page 636. (Read 1232701 times)

Brilliant news!

r0ach - I actually think 0.00025 could be way too pessimistic, peercoin for example has just over 20 million units in circulation and it will take 2 years for that many VTC to be mined.

By the way, we have some more false positives. The ones on www.vertcoin.org itself seem to be resolved (on virustotal) following our reports to the AV providers, but the following is showing up for the windows build of cgminer:

Baidu-International    Trojan.Win32.BitCoinMiner.D    20131213
ByteHero    Trojan.Malware.KillAV.Gen.001    20140114
DrWeb    Tool.BtcMine.83    20140120
ESET-NOD32    a variant of Win32/BitCoinMiner.D    20140120
McAfee    Artemis!9EF5B1E554AA    20140120
TrendMicro-HouseCall    TROJ_GEN.F47V0113    20140120
VIPRE    Trojan.Win32.CoinMiner.ba (v)    20140120

I know these are common false +ves, but it would still be good if everyone could report them - maybe at least a few of the AV providers will mark the file as not malicious. I am not so worried about the ones that make clear in the alert name that they are flagging a mining app, it's more the ones like McAfee and Trend which are flagging as a generic trojan.

+1 to this statement. vtc can be a threat to many scrypt coins if everything goes well
vtc is raising slowly but steady on coinedup.com (around 0.00009 atm)

VTC is still highly undervalued.  If it even reaches marginal success, it should peak at 0.00025.  At that point, people are going to start looking at it as a possible solution for what Litecoin did not accomplish in ASIC defense, and there's no telling what will happen then.

first vertcoin p2pool -> http://p2pool.vertco.in/

Vertcoin added to coinmarketcap.com !!  

Regarding CPU miners being presently left out:

(and I'm writing this because I am one of them, or will be shortly as hash rate increases, but I certainly have not read earlier discussions of such designs).

Is there a testnet with a larger N-factor (call it N+K-factor)?  People with fast CPU's and lots of memory (say, 32G) might be able to run the algorithm.  Where is the N-factor specified in the vertcoind code?

The problem with using N+K-factor is that all network nodes seem to need to verify all the hashes.  Is it really impossible for older CPU's to evaluate the NK-hash in a reasonable time?  Or perhaps the NK design will be such that they only need to verify N-hashes.

The goal is to find something useful for N+K-factor miners (NK-miners) to do, and a way to reward them for doing it.  One useful purpose is to make it adequately hard for the new generation of hardware to rewrite the early block chain, without depending on a central authority to set checkpoints.

Since the NK-hash is hard to calculate, we will specify say 50 NK-chains, each running 50 times slower than the N-chain.  (Think of 50 as a parameter, named with digits instead of some Greek letter).  Name the NK-chains NK₁ through NK₅₀, or NK_k for k in 1 to 50.  The NK-blocks of NK₁ link to N-blocks 1, 51, 101, etc.  The NK-blocks of NK_k link to N-blocks k, k+50, etc.  Of course, block x of an NK-chain links back to block x-1 of that chain, but it also links to a block of each of the other NK-chains.  The block is orphaned if any of these 51 linked blocks is orphaned, but conversely, the existence of the block may inhibit the orphaning of the linked blocks, since the height of each is increased.

NK-miners may work on whichever chain they think will be most profitable, but to extend NK_k to x blocks, the N-chain must be at least at block k+50*x, and the other NK-chains must be at most one or two blocks back. The miner would decide to link to the latest block on a chain if he mined that block, or because choosing later blocks raises the height of his working block, or he might pick an earlier one to avoid being orphaned should the other NK-block be orphaned.

Thus, when a new N- or NK- block arrives which extends one of the side-chains the miner is linking to, the miner might decide to link to it from his current block, or he might continue linking to the predecessor of the new block.  If a block arrives extending his own NK-chain, he would probably switch unless it orphans an earlier block owned by the miner.

As usual, each NK-miner writes his own payout address into the NK-block he is working on, say block x of NK_k.  This payout will not occur until an N-miner links back to NK-block x, and includes the transaction, but N-miners will want to do this for two reasons:  they get part of the payout, and the height of their block increases because it extends the NK-chain as well as the N-chain.  Balancing this is the risk that the NK-block could be orphaned.  Each N-miner might want to consider this when deciding whether to switch to extending the new N-block, or to try to replace it.

Calculation of the height of a given N-chain branch includes any NK-chain blocks it links to.  Conversely, an N-block is invalid if it links to an NK-chain containing any invalid NK-hashes.  So N-miners need to check the NK-chain before they can safely accept the height increase and block reward arising from linking to it.  If they cannot check it, or they decide to spend the time N-hashing instead, either they guess it is valid, or they forgo the height increase and extra block reward.

Clearly this can't be implemented quickly, but it could be a retrofit, and the NK-chains could start much later than the N-chain.

Meanwhile, it looks like I will receive 7.983990 vertcoins from ny.vertco.in and 2.962639 from la.vertcoin.org for about a day of mining.

Thank you for your reporting. it helps us alot.

just for info:

i'm using kaspersky av and if i use the link for cpu miner (Get the CPU miner for Windows or source code, points to http://kilovolt.co.uk) at the official site (http://vertcoin.org/#mining)
kaspersky is blocking the link for securtiy reason.

i'm sure this will scare some miner or people intrested in vtc away
so u maybe want to remove the link or get in touch with kaspersky

if i access the CPU enabled CGMiner for Vertcoin from my pool (http://ny.vertco.in) i have no messages from kaspersky av

cheers gonzzo

Thank you for contacting us. You request has been sent to our Virus Labs for analysis. We’ll get back to you as soon as the process is completed. Have a great day!

Thanks, still no reply here to the earlier reports. I'll chase them up tomorrow if I haven't heard back by then.

Just revisited the thread to keep the pressure on!

Everyone keep voting at https://cryptsy.freshdesk.com/support/discussions/topics/64057/ if you'd like to trade VTC at Cryptsy.

I have reported them too.

Just posted on the thread suggesting LTC & BTC - VTC pairs

I just reported it as a false positive at http://www.bitdefender.com/site/Main/automaticSampleUploader/

Please can other people do the same. I also submitted www.vertcoin.org which bitdefender has now started classifying as malicious for some reason.


Can people also email [email protected] who I emailed earlier today but have not had a response from, and tell them that they are one of only 2 out of 50 something anti-malware products which is erroneously reporting www.vertcoin.org as malicious.

How to unblock it ? Fals positive ?

Antivirus BitDefender Total Security says that we are not safe.

Done

Sounds like a really cool coin!

I'm having a little problem however, every time i try to launch the modified cpu miner it just instantly shuts down again..

Could some miner with a few spare megahashes please point some to http://la.vertcoin.org so that the pool wins a block or two today?  And why isn't there a pie chart of vertcoin mining pools?