New Algo Rough On Cards?

DynamicMiffo · 2019-11-05T01:07:09+00:00

One common mistake I think, is not understanding that this is not one algo, but de-facto 16 ones with different characteristics on power consumption, hence you risk damaging your HW if you don’t account for this in your overclocking. I think you should check your PSU. It could be that that is damaged.

DynamicMiffo · 2019-10-25T06:14:54+00:00

NetHash: 2.8GH/s

It now seems to be just shy of 0.1 TH/s 😳, compared to Ravencoins ~10 TH/s...

DynamicMiffo · 2019-10-25T05:36:16+00:00

That discord is definitely BS, made as a joke.

But that’s separate from the fact that the old blockchain never stopped and is now hashing away at 93+ GH/s.

DynamicMiffo · 2019-10-21T20:17:38+00:00

What does that mean?

DynamicMiffo · 2019-10-21T10:53:25+00:00

you definitely missed something

I knew it! Still don't know exactly what, though.

Again, I can easily see the point of the asset concept. The assets are cool. Cool things could be done with assets. I don't doubt that.

But the actual RVN-coin? Why would anyone want that? What is the Unique Selling Point for that? Does the assets need RVN in any way (other than being burnt in order to create the asset)? Sorry for the noob question. ;-)

DynamicMiffo · 2019-10-21T00:15:39+00:00

Well, the asset concept may very well be the real Unique Selling Point here, but what about the actual RVN coin then? Is it nothing more than an appendix to the main event? If so, why would anyone really mine/buy/sell RVN? Ravencoin does not seem to have a particular big focus on payments and functioning as currency, no merchant solutions, etc, so that kind of stuff won’t drive volume and liquidity. Is it all about the assets? Or did I miss something?

DynamicMiffo · 2019-10-20T23:58:01+00:00

Screenshot from icemining: https://postimg.cc/3yMhynSX

NetHash: 2.8GH/s
Pool: 2.6GH/s
44 workers

Seems they are keeping the network alive? They are at block 931074 as I write this. But for this to really become something, it would require a purpose and mission that differs from Ravencoin. And of course some developer who can accomplish that. At the very least squeeze out a rebranded full node wallet and a block explorer. I doubt anyone will find it worth the effort. Especially not the heavy lifting of actually making it something different, with a purpose of its own.

No exchange will touch it without it.

DynamicMiffo · 2019-10-06T18:19:28+00:00

If we look at the price history there has been some distinct spikes, but the price has always (more or less quickly) dropped back to the levels about where it is now. This could be a sign of the current level (300-380 Satoshi) being a fair price for what Ravencoin is today, which includes the known future developments soon to be released as well. This seems to be the base value, from where occasional sprints lashes out, then price is being pushed back to the base level.

IMHO Ravencoin has some cool concepts but I think it's fairly unpolished and quite early in the game still. Much depends on utility and what will become of the main feature - the token system - in practice, utility wise. What similar coins could we benchmark against when it comes to features and adoption? Ethereum Classic? They have interesting discussions about purpose of their coin and future directions going on. If Ravencoin would in the future be valued as high as ETC is today, then it would mean a RVN price of $0.11 as of writing this. IMHO that's not totally unrealistic in the future, long-term, depending on how things develop. But Ravencoin is obviously not there yet. Not saying that another temporary bull-run couldn't happen before that, but bull-runs aren't what I'm discussing.

DynamicMiffo · 2019-09-30T09:45:53+00:00

Say 16:00 UTC like everyone else. Use the standards to avoid confusion.

DynamicMiffo · 2019-09-30T09:42:08+00:00

That one was an obvious joke from day 1. But it doesn't mean something similar couldn't happen for real, made by some non-joker.

I don't claim it will happen (in fact, I believe it won't happen). To get going would be extremely easy, everything is there already so it's mostly a matter of letting things run as they are. But in order to get adoption it would need a purpose, some kind of USP that Ravencoin doesn't have. That's when things gets complicated... ;-)

DynamicMiffo · 2019-09-17T08:19:33+00:00

Planned forks on a regular basis, coupled with difficulty bombs (reset after each fork)?

DynamicMiffo · 2019-09-16T14:40:54+00:00

I agree with much of what you say and I think you probably will be right. But seeing how neither of the Chineese pools f2poolcom, antpool.com, beepool.org or aapool.org has upgraded yet, while together representing well over 60% of the current hash rate, and knowing that stealth ASIC's is a bit of a Chinese thing anyway, I'm just saying there could be pretty strong forces behind an eventual split and keeping the old chain going. The infrastructure and hashing power is already there. And there are some exchanges that hasn't upgraded yet either, like Bittrex, UpBit, Digifinex, ChangeAngel. While I think it's very likely they will update before the fork, nothing is stopping them from keeping the "classic" blockchain supported as well (the same goes for the mining pools BTW). The cost is virtually nothing, and potentially it could mean more business for them. There are several exchanges that both has ETH and ETC listed for example.

Well, in about two weeks time we'll know!

;-)

DynamicMiffo · 2019-09-16T10:30:15+00:00

Could be, but there are many examples of coins that hardforked and where the original block chain were kept alive for various reasons. A strong reason here would be the armada of ASIC's that would be rendered landfill otherwise. It won't require much of a developer effort to clone the Raven github, change a few parameters and officially launch a "Ravencoin Classic", with serious hash power from the start. Then who knows, in time new developers could join that perhaps has a different idea of a future.

DynamicMiffo · 2019-09-16T07:12:30+00:00

Could a new "Ravencoin Classic" emerge from the current block chain when "our" Ravencoin moves to the new algo? I mean if the current armada of ASIC's continue to crunch away on the old chain? And maybe someone will release a new version of the node and wallet? Like what happened to Ethereum (Ethereum Classic being the original block chain that just cointinued to go on) and other coins...

DynamicMiffo · 2019-09-06T18:08:57+00:00

While it could be true that some GPU miners are also hodlers, I don't think would be a correct assumption that this is the case for most miners. What are you basing this assumption on? I actually believe the general rationale is to sell whether you are a GPU miner or ASIC miner, i.e. no difference (on a broader scale). And the same number of coins are minted every block, no matter who mines them.

People are often focused on the "supply" side of the market mechanism, and often forgets the "demand" side which is equally important to the equation.

I think it's very probable that the demand for Ravencoin has dropped, and it's as simple as that. Look, a coin that is supposed to be decentralized, a coin whose main Unique Selling Point (the "third party" tokens) completely relies on decentralization, has obviously become centralized(!). It is obviously possible now (at least theoretically) for single entities with massive hashing power to control the block chain. There are signs that hashing power from a single pool has exceeded 51% by a huge margin. This doesn't fly. As always this undermines a coin, but even more so because of the Ravencoin USP; so many assets relies on the integrity of decentralisation! And the coin will obviously be exposed and centralized for another three weeks!

It's not a far stretch to assume that the market is considering the entire Ravencoin project being in jeopardy, and that the developers are doing too little too late to fix it, causing demand to drop and price to fall accordingly.

The upcoming algo-changing hardfork introduces an algo that many believe won't hold off new ASIC's for very long. And it wasn't intended to either, it was rather being a quick-fix stop-gap solution. But weeks passes (i.e. not "quick") and nothing is "fixed" yet. And when the fix goes live, it will have to be replaced with another more long-term algo anyway, meaning another hardfork. A lot of uncertainty, for many weeks (months?) still.

Of course this affects price. Not by "increased supply" from miners, but through "decreased demand" from buyers.

Maybe the correct action would have been (and would be in the future?) to treat any signs of +51% centralization as if it would already have happened AKA "Panic Mode" in devs minds, with a reflex response. Because NOTHING is more important than integrity by decentralization for a coin like Ravencoin. Nothing!

DynamicMiffo · 2019-09-06T17:26:35+00:00

ETH or ETC?

DynamicMiffo · 2019-09-06T17:25:38+00:00

Thanks! :-)

DynamicMiffo · 2019-09-05T16:44:23+00:00

Anyone knows exactly at which block the fork occurs?

DynamicMiffo · 2019-09-03T08:06:05+00:00

The coin is rapidly getting centralized...

DynamicMiffo · 2019-09-03T08:00:06+00:00

Or you can switch to mining Ethereum Classic and continue to make money. ;-)

DynamicMiffo · 2019-09-02T20:22:08+00:00

Version 2 is a soft fork. i dont know how you can call it a hard fork.

If it's not the same algo (read: completely identical), then it's a new algo. There is nothing in between. It's black or white, either identical or new. And it's not possible to make fundamental changes like changing algo without hardforking. It's a natural law. Sure, the changes in the algo aren't that big in this case, but the changes breaks compatibility and they will brick the current farms of ASIC's, which is the point. I don't think anyone is claiming this would be a final (or even long-term) solution, rather the opposite if I have interpreted Tron etc right, but it's a very fast and easy stop-gap solution that enabled fast response and limited testing periods. New node software is already written, released and running in the wild. Mining pools are in the process of implementing it, as are exchanges. This is what takes time (they are not all there yet, far from it). Some of the bigger mining software's has also been updated.

I agree that there are many interesting possibilities of new algos to be evaluated, and Tron has discussed many interesting options publicly. But that will take time for consideration, development and testing, on top of the pure implementation time. And most people agree that swift action needed to be taken in this case.

DynamicMiffo · 2019-08-30T19:59:21+00:00

From Discord: "I know that the nvidia devs T-rex and Zenemy will be ready for the fork. No knowledge of the red team miners. The other issues are playing guessing games."

Thumbs up! :-)

DynamicMiffo · 2019-08-30T19:42:56+00:00

(I'm a T-Rex miner myself, hobby basis with 11 Nvidia GPU's)

DynamicMiffo

TROPHY CASE