AuxPoW Proposal: Soliciting community feedback

A community for developers and users of NewYorkcoin.
User avatar
GregoryGHarding
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2017 3:01 pm
Contact:

Re: AuxPoW Proposal: Soliciting community feedback

Postby GregoryGHarding » Fri May 25, 2018 11:12 am

any movement on this?
--------------------------------->Join the Prohashing Slack Group Here<--------------------------------
User avatar
moonshot
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: AuxPoW Proposal: Soliciting community feedback

Postby moonshot » Sun May 27, 2018 1:11 pm

GregoryGHarding wrote:any movement on this?

The NewYorkCoin dev team is pushing ahead.
There is no public branch at this time.
I'll post an update once the dev team has deployed on the testnet.
User avatar
moonshot
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: AuxPoW Proposal: Soliciting community feedback

Postby moonshot » Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:54 pm

Steve Sokolowski wrote:The pool targets the assignment of dynamic miners so that no more than 50% of the network is mined by us. In addition to avoiding control of any one coin, it also doesn't make sense for a single pool to mine more than 50% of the blocks. Otherwise, it just pushes up the difficulty of its own blocks, causing the coin to become less profitable. It mathematically makes more sense to mine less than 50% of the network and assign extra miners to slightly less profitable coins.

The remaining 7% of miners were solo miners, which we can't limit because they can just decide to switch to another pool when they want to mine NewYorkCoins.

Other pools, especially single coin pools, probably don't have the 50% limit in their code, so they simply mine as many blocks as possible and push up the difficulty as a result. That's why you see more volatility in those periods.


Steve, the algorithm doesn't appear to work as described:

Image

Live View:

https://stats.nycoin.info/d/000000002/nycoin-hobbyist-pool?refresh=30s&orgId=1
Last edited by moonshot on Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CSZiggy
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:44 pm

Re: AuxPoW Proposal: Soliciting community feedback

Postby CSZiggy » Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:23 pm

why bother, no one cares.
Last edited by CSZiggy on Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Steve Sokolowski
Posts: 2968
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:27 pm
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: AuxPoW Proposal: Soliciting community feedback

Postby Steve Sokolowski » Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:06 am

moonshot wrote:
Steve Sokolowski wrote:The pool targets the assignment of dynamic miners so that no more than 50% of the network is mined by us. In addition to avoiding control of any one coin, it also doesn't make sense for a single pool to mine more than 50% of the blocks. Otherwise, it just pushes up the difficulty of its own blocks, causing the coin to become less profitable. It mathematically makes more sense to mine less than 50% of the network and assign extra miners to slightly less profitable coins.

The remaining 7% of miners were solo miners, which we can't limit because they can just decide to switch to another pool when they want to mine NewYorkCoins.

Other pools, especially single coin pools, probably don't have the 50% limit in their code, so they simply mine as many blocks as possible and push up the difficulty as a result. That's why you see more volatility in those periods.


Steve, the algorithm doesn't appear to work as described:

Image

Live View:

https://stats.nycoin.info/d/000000002/nycoin-hobbyist-pool?refresh=30s&orgId=1


This is because there are static coin miners who are mining NewYorkCoins here. These are miners who, if we didn't offer the service, would just set up their own wallets, so we can't really limit them. The dynamic coin miners will never exceed 50% of a network.

The increase recently is likely due to changes we made to the "live coin status" data. It's against our terms of service to use the data in that chart with bots, but we discovered that there were more subscriptions to the channel than there were website viewers. The data was changed to make it unusable for bots, so what appears to have happened is that people who were illegally using that data are mining single networks for longer periods of time. They have likely discovered that NewYorkCoins are profitable coins and have pointed a lot of hashpower towards them.

But I do have a concern with how this image is created. Someone asked us how to track blocks we mine the other day. We ourselves store all the block data for tax records, so if we ever get audited we can send the 10TB of data to the IRS and let them have at it. This isn't secret data, it's just too expensive to store it all on fast disks online, and we can't afford to run queries on it for people who ask without a large fee.

The data in the database is the only authoritative source of our blocks because we select random text to place in the coinbase transactions of blocks rather than a signature. The purpose of that is so that when we resend an existing block to miners, they don't think it's the same job and send duplicate work. A side effect is that there isn't a signature that makes it easy to track our blocks, and therefore the best this chart could do is to make an estimate, I think.
User avatar
GregoryGHarding
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2017 3:01 pm
Contact:

Re: AuxPoW Proposal: Soliciting community feedback

Postby GregoryGHarding » Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:41 pm

i have 2 gh on NYC for a few weeks
--------------------------------->Join the Prohashing Slack Group Here<--------------------------------

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest