Quote from: hozer on May 25, 2015, 04:09:09 PM

Quote from: etblvu1 on May 20, 2015, 08:27:53 AM

Quote from: SlimePuppy on May 01, 2015, 11:03:35 PM

Quote from: Catcoiner on April 25, 2015, 02:05:23 AM

This should reduce the long block problems

Happy Caturday!

Nice try, Troy/hozer/tmagik, but stealing from the community is still not an option. No.

I do not agree with creating conflicting nodes as a means to decide which fork should "win" as way to decide the future of the coin. I also do not agree with the characterization that rejecting blocks which come too quickly after the previous block constitutes "stealing." If there is fair notice that this is the algorithm of the coin, nothing prevents the miner from developing pauses in the hashing (or move to hashing some other coin during the pause). Any hashing that is done by a miner during a time when it is known in advance any found blocks will be rejected, I would characterize as the miner not being sophisticated enough in the code yet, which can be fixed at any time by using one of the aforementioned techniques.

I would request all concerned to come to a consensus on the future of Catcoin that does not involve competing forks, and that does not involve mischaracterizing algorithms based on falsely assuming that miners cannot adapt to the algorithm to avoid performing mining calculations that get wasted.

Thank you,

Etblvu1

It appears there is a switchpool that is still using a 33 second minimum, and maybe two (or more) miners that appear to be running code that ignore anything under 3 minutes or so (Catcoiner's code?). So the way the consensus rules in the published code work, if the 33 second guy shows up for 10 blocks in 5 minutes and then leaves a stuck blockchain for a day and a half, the miners running 3-minute code end up continuing to find blocks. And when the chain work of the 3-minute fork gets to the point of exceeding the hung fork, *all* the nodes, agree, by consensus, that the 3-minute fork wins.

And then the profit switcher comes along on autopilot and starts mining again, to start the whole process over again. (Also please note, that when this happens, the profit-switcher is agreeing, by consensus, that the 3-minute fork wins, and is orphaning their previous blocks **by choice**, because they'd rather have one block get through than be on a dead fork)

So I could make an argument that the consensus *is* 3 minute minimum, and we just have some stragglers who either haven't noticed, don't care, or maybe even think it's more profitable to FUD.

This is also really determined by whether people buy catcoin, or sell it, and whether they mine, or not.

The problem is going to come if we have competing incompatible hardforks, and then it's going to come down to what code the exchanges run. It'd be a hilariously amusing case study in coin forking culture if we had two exchanges running different code. The problem is that's still a game of whomever has enough money to pay a couple of list-your-coins-for pay exchanges like Bittrex.

Or maybe to put this another way:

I'll understand a clear consensus for a hardfork-upgrade by who can raise real money to pay another exchange to list Catcoin. If the community believes in catcoin and is willing to invest money in listing on another exchange, then I think it will be good for everyone, and we can move on from this nonsense.

Troy.

You RIGHT HERE, are admitting that you are running code that has NOT BEEN APPROVED, AND CAN CAUSE A FORK. For the last time.

YOU HAVE BEEN EJECTED FROM THE COMMUNITY BY THE COMMUNITY.

All you ever talk about for CatCoin, is HOW CAN I LINE MY OWN POCKET, WHILE DISRUPTING THE REST OF THE MINERS

It is assholes like you that keep the stress levels high, and take away from other more important things in life.

Why don't you try this stuff with your Uro coin, and leave CatCoin alone, as you know you are not welcome!

Blak