Forum Home
    • Register
    • Login
    • Search
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular

    Changing the hashing algorithm

    Technical Development
    58
    482
    344662
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • S
      scruffters last edited by

      …And back on topic, I think you made a good point about widening the net to other coin devs too.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • V
        Vidicus Regular Member last edited by

        I like where this idea is headed. Keeping the mining distributed over a wider selection people is beneficial not only from a blockchain security perspective, but also from an adoption perspective.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • E
          eaxvac Regular Member last edited by

          MegasCrypt :D

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • kris_davison
            kris_davison last edited by

            Seeing as keccack won the sha3 competition because it was innovative in its design but ultimately slower than the skein entry could this be a candidate for scrypt replacement.?

            Edit:
            I see darkcoin use this as well.
            Greedy darkcoin. Lol

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • Bushstar
              Bushstar last edited by

              I read the graph that Calem posted wrong, the lower score is better with Blake2 coming out best. Blake is actually the evolved version of Salsa that we are currently using. I’m happy to take Ghostlander’s advice on what is most suitable as he is the most informed person on this and he came up with this ingenious idea. Right now I do not believe that this is urgent, GPU miners will only start looking for alternatives when the Scrypt hash starts climbing rapidly and their kits stop generating a profit like we saw with Bitcoin.

              If we can come up with a working specification then we can take this to the altcoin forum on Bitcointalk to gain interest of other altcoin devs.

              Donate: 6hf9DF8H67ZEoW9KmPJez6BHh4XPNQSCZz

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • lizhi
                lizhi last edited by

                OK , Can we consider adding POS system ? POW + 25%POS . This is another way can be selected.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • F
                  flcph Regular Member last edited by

                  the NeoScrypt

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • MrWyrm
                    MrWyrm administrators last edited by

                    I was thinking more about names last night. Another suggestion that’s much less obvious. “Idavoll”, from what I remember it’s a place in norse mythology untouched by the battle of Ragnarok (end of the world). Those that meet up there take the seeds of Idavoll and use them to reseed the scorched lands.

                    If you think of ASIC landing as an ‘end of the world’ event, it works.

                    Like what I do: 6uuy6isbrW1SBF191Bzgui1gWxPdNKx2PB

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • kris_davison
                      kris_davison last edited by

                      I was thinking more about names last night. Another suggestion that’s much less obvious. “Idavoll”, from what I remember it’s a place in norse mythology untouched by the battle of Ragnarok (end of the world). Those that meet up there take the seeds of Idavoll and use them to reseed the scorched lands.

                      If you think of ASIC landing as an ‘end of the world’ event, it works.

                      Nice!

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • Wellenreiter
                        Wellenreiter Moderators last edited by

                        It should be possible to create installable binaries together with a basic configuration… :D

                        Feathercoin development donation address: 6p8u3wtct7uxRGmvWr2xvPxqRzbpbcd82A
                        Openpgp key: 0x385C34E77F0D74D7 (at keyserver.ubuntu.com)/fingerprint: C7B4 E9EA 17E1 3D12 07AB 1FDB 385C 34E7 7F0D 74D7

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • ghostlander
                          ghostlander Regular Member last edited by

                          OK , Can we consider adding POS system ? POW + 25%POS . This is another way can be selected.

                          If you mean Peercoin PoS, it breaks existing FTC coin distribution model and offers unlimited coin stake generation over time. Peercoin controls inflation by destroying transaction fees.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • S
                            slavco Regular Member last edited by

                            Or implementing unique PoW that really solves some problems that require processing power ( Primecoin like )

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • lizhi
                              lizhi last edited by

                              Improved algorithm relies on the CPU . XPM is a reference.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • Bushstar
                                Bushstar last edited by

                                If you mean Peercoin PoS, it breaks existing FTC coin distribution model and offers unlimited coin stake generation over time. Peercoin controls inflation by destroying transaction fees.

                                I have seen that sometimes the destroyed transaction fees are greater than the stake generated.

                                Something that occurs to me, it is presumed that we are attacked by resources that are intended for Litecoin. Warren from Litecoin said as much when he took the time to attack us on the Litecoin forum when he thought we were going to be removed from BTC-e. Moving to a new algo stops a huge amount of hash easily being thrown our way to toy with our difficulty. We need to get out of Litecoin’s shadow as the pioneer’s for altcoins are not altcoin friendly. Oh the irony.

                                On a side note Warren appears to be an excellent dev who has made good progress with Litecoin, he may not like us but we can still like him :)

                                Donate: 6hf9DF8H67ZEoW9KmPJez6BHh4XPNQSCZz

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • ChekaZ
                                  ChekaZ last edited by

                                  I kinda changed my mind about changing the algo. I think if we do a switch to a new algo which isnt present at the moment, we could come out big of this.

                                  But Ive got some concerns about that:

                                  At the time we switch to a new algo, all hashing power will be rejected, everyone needs to update to a new miner to continue mining

                                  • How would we calculate the new difficulty?

                                  • How long would it take, cause in this switching time, nobody could sent/receive any Feathercoin at that certain point.

                                  • If we stay at the same diff ~200 and not all are switching to our new algo or not fast enough, it would roughly take a good bunch of minutes to solve the first block to proceed transactions again.

                                  • Next Question is, a new algo means a new/different hashingpower - or would it stay the same? If it wouldnt, its needed to recalculate the whole difficulty to transport it to the same level as we left it on the algo switch.

                                  BUT if that can be managed that well, that the transfer is one smooth transition, we gonna rule the #world (jk but yeah that would be awesome)

                                  Just my opinion.

                                  BTC: 1Ges1taJ69W7eEMbQLcmNGnUZenBkCnn45
                                  FTC: 6sxjM96KMZ7t4AmDTUKDZdq82Nj931VQvY

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • Wellenreiter
                                    Wellenreiter Moderators last edited by

                                    very valid points, ChekaZ

                                    I think, we are just in the initial phase, where an idea is born. Then there will be a developement, a test and an implementation phase.

                                    Some of your questions can’t answered right now, but will be later.

                                    Regarding the new difficulty calculation,with the new algorithm, that will be implemented with 0.8.6.1 the difficulty adapts much faster to hash rate changes and therefore it should be no problem, even if we would start with a very low hashrate, let’s say 50.

                                    If we assume, that the real hashrate would be ~3Ghash after the change, the difficulty would adapt in 3-4 blocks and we would start with 2blocks mined very fast and then come back to the 2.5 minutes interval again.

                                    The bigger proble I see, is that we may end up with 2 different branches of the blockchain, one with the old version and another one with the new one.

                                    How could a wallet decide,which one to use, when sending ftc?

                                    Feathercoin development donation address: 6p8u3wtct7uxRGmvWr2xvPxqRzbpbcd82A
                                    Openpgp key: 0x385C34E77F0D74D7 (at keyserver.ubuntu.com)/fingerprint: C7B4 E9EA 17E1 3D12 07AB 1FDB 385C 34E7 7F0D 74D7

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • Bushstar
                                      Bushstar last edited by

                                      @CheckaZ

                                      When the new algo hits everyone would need to stop their miners and start them back up again. We would probably want some miners running the new algo before hand which would generate rejected shares until the change. The difficulty is probably the hardest thing to get right. Some of the large mining pools may not follow us to start with and there will be no multipools switching on to us anymore so our difficulty will need to drop drastically. We could drop our difficulty 10 fold and it might still not be enough! It is probably safer to drop our difficultly too far than have it too high, there may be some fast blocks it will work out the new difficulty quick enough that way, leave the difficulty too high and we may be waiting an hour a block!

                                      Ghostlander’s suggestion on how to change algo would give us a solution that behaves in the same way as the current one. I look forward to seeing a lower diff without attackers toying with it and multipools stripping us,

                                      @Wellenreiter

                                      I would not to consider changing the hashing algorithm without something like ACP to cover the vulnerabilities during that period. Hopefully in the long term this change means that we can disable ACP by default but during the change we need this protection more than ever. An attacker could really run riot while everyone tries switching algo.

                                      Donate: 6hf9DF8H67ZEoW9KmPJez6BHh4XPNQSCZz

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • Wellenreiter
                                        Wellenreiter Moderators last edited by

                                        I’m not against ACP and I agree, that we should keep it during the first phase of the new hashing algorithm.

                                        Regarding difficulty, I don’t see a realy big problem here. We just should start with a lower than expected difficulty, so the fist blocks with the new algorithm are found faster than the 2.5 minutes.

                                        I did a quick simulation starting at diff 10 with 3 Ghash and after 12 minutes or 15 blocks we’d reach a block spacing of 1.9 Minutes, after 18 blocks or ~ 19 minutes we would reach the 2.5 minutes target spacing.

                                        The trick is to start on the low side, so the first blocks are found faster than 2.5 minutes.

                                        But I’m definitively talking about future problems. Before we should worry about difficulty, we should do a lot of other things, if we really change the hashing algorithm 8)

                                        Feathercoin development donation address: 6p8u3wtct7uxRGmvWr2xvPxqRzbpbcd82A
                                        Openpgp key: 0x385C34E77F0D74D7 (at keyserver.ubuntu.com)/fingerprint: C7B4 E9EA 17E1 3D12 07AB 1FDB 385C 34E7 7F0D 74D7

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • ghostlander
                                          ghostlander Regular Member last edited by

                                          Switch point can be set to UTC rather than block number, so the people know when to switch their miners.

                                          How could a wallet decide,which one to use, when sending ftc?

                                          Not a problem. Old nodes will be disconnected after the switch by protocol version.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • C
                                            Chap2212 last edited by

                                            How soon is this possibly going in to effect ? Have stayed mining FTC only since I first started mining the beginning of this year, and am looking forward to the change. The manipulation lately has had me thinking of changing to a different cryto, but I really believe in this community and refuse to give up.

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post