Topic: [XPM] [ANN] Primecoin Release - First Scientific Computing Cryptocurrency - page 111. (Read 688812 times)

We are in need of a tool which will group found blocks by IP address, XPM address. That will show us how many users are there who get the most blocks.

Edit: There is a possibility to get info about IP if you are a node, is it?

Hmm... Interesting trend on the money supply graph so far. Looks to be exponentially increasing which surely is not desirable. I wonder if the difficulty adjustment is working as intended.

I've added primecoin to my charts website:

http://cryptometer.org/primecoin_96_hour_charts.html
http://cryptometer.org/primecoin_90_day_charts.html

I left the "Network Hashrate" chart in even though it's a bit weird for this coin.  I haven't done the work yet to make it "Network prime-chains per second" as it should be.  I'd need to know the chances of a number being the origin for a Cunningham chain of length D (difficulty).  I'll need to do more research before working on that.

So right now, network hashrate is just showing how many hashes/sec would be necessary to obtain that many blocks at that difficulty *for bitcoin*.  It's not useless.  The primecoin paper indicates that the primecoin difficulty linearly affects prime-chain finding probability just as bitcoin's difficulty linearly affects it's block finding probability.  So my chart is simply off by some constant factor -- the proportions are accurate but don't pay attention to the actual numbers.

(Edit: ignore the "Network Hashrate" chart for now.  See below for more info.)


Also... I've been mining this for days and I've got nothing... ARy4JFrdeKSst42iS3kcxwdB81t7Vmrvc7

The linearity I am referring to is the 'difficulty model'. For the difficulty number you see in getdifficulty, it's the target length, which gets exponentially harder. With current estimate length 8 target is ~30 times harder than length 7 target.

So right now, network hashrate is just showing how many hashes/sec would be necessary to obtain that many blocks at that difficulty *for bitcoin*.  It's not useless.  The primecoin paper indicates that the primecoin difficulty linearly affects prime-chain finding probability just as bitcoin's difficulty linearly affects it's block finding probability.  So my chart is simply off by some constant factor -- the proportions are accurate but don't pay attention to the actual numbers.

This in essence is not true, so you are jumping to conclusions a bit. Already at this moment, with many transactions set to no fees and minimal Bitcoin economy, transaction fees are already 1/2 BTC per new block in average. Go check yourself if you don't believe me. I can easily imagine, with growing BTC economy and reduction from 25 to 12.5 BTC per new block in 4 years, that transaction fees in every new block in 5 years can be worth more than worth of new coins. All that without forcing larger transaction fees to anyone. In 8 years (6.25 new coins per block) I have no doubt transaction fees will be worth more than new coins.

So ending supply of new coins probably wont have any effect on mining. Satoshi Nakomoto figured that one perfectly.

lucasjkr, unfortunately I can't answer every point, but here's a rebuttal of the major one on the evils of finite supply and lack of incentives for mining:

Transactions fees. Transactions fees will be the bread and butter of future miners when block rewards become negligible.
Yes, transaction costs will go up due to crowding, so there will be less transactions. The cheaper transactions will live in another blockchain - Litecoin or perhaps Primecoin.

I have a Gentoo ebuild for primecoind in my overlay:

https://github.com/salfter/portage/

I built it first on my VPS, which has 8 Xeon E5-2670 cores available to it, but immediately upon starting, it bombs out with an "Illegal instruction" error.  I then built it for my home workstation, which runs a Core 2 Quad Q6600. As I write this, it's syncing the blockchain.

The VPS is an x86 Gentoo build, as it used to be memory-constrained (with 1 GB, maybe it still is somewhat).  The home workstation is an AMD64 Gentoo build.

Does primecoind not run on 32-bit systems, or is there something my ebuild is doing wrong?

(Hmm...just tried my bitcoind ebuild on the VPS, and it's also crashing right away with an "Illegal instruction" error. Must be something it's telling the compiler to do.)

Set your CFLAGS on your prod server to that of your dev server, if your dev server is known to work. You're using -march=native on your prod server, which depends on gcc correctly detecting CPU features from the host. There was a thread on this list just a few days ago about how that can fail in virtualized environments. (You can enable/disable exposed features piecemeal, which could well confuse the heck out of gcc's detection heuristics...)

Chroot into a stage3 build for x86_64 with glibc-2.15-r3 does not work on a xen based linode VPS with a Xeon E5-2630L due to linode disabling AVX in xen.

Chroot fails with the following error message: "Illegal instruction".

Linode probably is not going to enable avx, as "debian/ubuntu have gone the libc patch route ... https://launchpadlibrarian.net/101306417/eglibc_lucid_fix979003.debdiff" (quoting someon from the linode channel)

The primes...no.

The Cunningham chains, well there is certainly some notoriety for finding new ones but I don't think anyone would pay for them?

Not sure if this has been asked, but is there inherent value in the primes themselves? Can we extract them and sell them?

No, I am not said botnet owner.


He's said to me that he wouldn't, that it's petty and pointless, so I'm fairly sure he wouldn't. Also, his words imply that EVERY botnet is used for DDoSing, which is ridiculous. I'm just pointing out that I know of one that isn't.

...

Right now, miners are encouraged to mine because of the reward for finding new blocks and new coins. And that serves all of us, because their action of doing so is what validates transactions across the block chain. Currently, transcations are essentially free because miners get compensated elsewhere. Once the supply of coins has dried up, those dynamics will change. Vastly. A transfer that costs a fraction of a penny to complete right now will not cost that little in the future. How much, though, is anyone's guess. And the low costs associated with bitcoin transactions are a much bigger selling point (in my mind) than a fixed supply limit. So once the limit is reached, transactions will be cost all around. Will bitcoin be competitive with credit cards at that point? We have no idea...it could cost even more, for all we know, especially if there are relatively few transactions for miners to validate because people are holding their coins tight to their chests in the hopes that they'll appreciate further. I'd rather incentive miners to process transactions by creating more coins to pay them with than have them pass through fees to us; if people hesitate because of those fees, then miners will shut down and then there's no one around to make sure transactions actually go through.

...

Saying "the botnets" are used for DDoSing the exchanges is ignorant. I personally know a botnet owner who would never DDoS anything.