Feathercoin Core Wallet 0.9.3 , Welcome you
-
Very nice! Lots of new features, great work!!!
One thing I dont like is the paper wallet. It looks like it was copied from Dogecoin. “Very New Address” “Much Spend” etc… Im also not crazy about the design, could it be changed to point to an image file in the feathercoin folder so it can be changed?
-
Well that might be a good idea as we could change it to the new paper wallet design that someone did a few weeks ago. It was awsome
-
That was my buddy who designed it. I can ask him to make one in the style the core wallet uses, if we can get the ability to change it.
-
Just finished compiling core 0.9.3 on a Raspberry Pi, its just syncing up now, so its good to know I can still maintain a full node even with the new core on a Pi using only 5W of electricity
-
I recommend to use the 0.9.3 version in test environments only, until interoperability tests with 0.7.X versions and the Android wallet are finnished.
-
Excellent stuff.
-
I will provide a 0.9.3 client locked to the testnet once I have it working locally with ACP and SX. Then we can mine some testnet Feathercoin and test SX safely on a network with SX mining nodes. Once we can see SX and ACP living happily together then we can go live, not before.
-
This is a start.
ACP/PoS can be dealt with later if we can make ACP play ball with SX.
Have we heard back from Lizhi yet?
-
I will provide a 0.9.3 client locked to the testnet once I have it working locally with ACP and SX. Then we can mine some testnet Feathercoin and test SX safely on a network with SX mining nodes. Once we can see SX and ACP living happily together then we can go live, not before.
In fact checkpointsync(ACP) has been added to the project, because SetBestChain function is old,it conflict in new version, so ACP do not work now.I still want to find a new way.Just hope everything goes smoothly!
I think ACP is a default option.
-
Wouldn’t just moving to PoS fix all this?
Keep the coin release schedule and use PoS.
Below is a summary of how Peercoins and NXTs PoS models differ.
https://wiki.nxtcryp…/Whitepaper:Nxt
In the Proof of Stake model used by Nxt, network security is governed by peers having a stake in the network. The incentives provided by this algorithm do not promote centralization in the same way that Proof of Work algorithms do, and data shows that the Nxt network has remained highly decentralized since its inception: a large (and growing) number of unique accounts are contributing blocks to the network[6], and the top five accounts have generated 35% of the total number of blocks[7].
The more tokens that are held in the account, the greater the chance that account will earn the right to generate a block. The total reward received as a result of block generation is the sum of the transaction fees located within the block. Nxt does not generate any new tokens as a result of block creation. Redistribution of Nxt takes place as a result of block generators receiving transaction fees, so the term forging (meaning in this context to create a relationship or new conditions[8]) is used instead of mining.
The security of the blockchain is always of concern in Proof of Stake systems. The following basic principles apply to Nxts Proof of Stake algorithm:
- A cumulative difficulty value is stored as a parameter in each block, and each subsequent block derives its new difficulty from the previous blocks value. In case of ambiguity, the network achieves consensus by selecting the block or chain fragment with the highest cumulative difficulty. This is covered in more detail in .
- To prevent account holders from moving their stake from one account to another as a means of manipulating their probability of block generation, tokens must be stationary within an account for 1,440 blocks before they can contribute to the block generation process. Tokens that meet this criterion contribute to an account’s effective balance, and this balance is used to determine forging probability.
- To keep an attacker from generating a new chain all the way from the genesis block, the network only allows chain re-organization 720 blocks behind the current block height. Any block submitted at a height lower than this threshold is rejected. This moving threshold may be viewed as Nxts only fixed checkpoint.
- Due to the extremely low probability of any account taking control of the blockchain by generating its own chain of blocks, transactions are deemed safe once they are encoded into a block that is 10 blocks behind the current block height.
Peercoin uses a coin age parameter as part of its mining probability algorithm. In that system, the longer your Peercoins have been stationary in your account (to a maximum of 90 days), the more power (coin age) they have to mint a block. The act of minting a block requires the consumption of coin age value, and the network determines consensus by selecting the chain with the largest total consumed coin age.
When Peercoin blocks are orphaned, the consumed coin age is released back to the blocks originating account. As a result, the cost to attack the Peercoin network is low, since attackers can keep attempting to generate blocks (referred to as grinding stake) until they succeed. Peercoin minimizes these and other risks by centrally broadcasting blockchain checkpoints several times a day, to freeze the blockchain and lock in transactions.
Nxt does not use coin age as part of its forging algorithm. An account’s chance to forge a block depends only on its effective balance (which is a property of each account), the time since the last block (which is shared by all forging accounts) and the base target value (which is also shared by all accounts).
In its current state, the Nxt network can process up to 367,200 transactions per day more than nine times Bitcoins current peak values. The planned implementation of Transparent Forging will allow for near instant transaction processing, drastically increasing this limit.
-
Please dont think i’m throwing a spanner in the works here. Just looking at other options while the testnet gets going.
-
I think the imlementation of PoS takes much more time than adapting ACP to work with 0.9.3 and we all want to release the new version of the wallet.
In the mid and long term ACP will be replaced by PoS, but that is the next step.
-
I think the imlementation of PoS takes much more time than adapting ACP to work with 0.9.3 and we all want to release the new version of the wallet.
In the mid and long term ACP will be replaced by PoS, but that is the next step.
Still, why not to skip first step and focus on the final solution now?
-
I thought the same thing.
Why not kill 2 birds with one “Proof of” scheme.
We can spend a little time now on a band-aid solution, or we can fix the issue at its root.
Might take an extra week or so, but why softfork then hardfork?
One last Hardfork and its done.
IF, getting ACP working with sx is very simple, then sure, we can do that then work on PoS, but were waiting on those test net results aren’t we?
-
I see different opinions here.
Lizhi is keen to get his core released, what is understandable as it has a whole bunch of exciting new features.
Other people want to use the new features as soon as possible.
The release of the new version could give Feathercoin some new speed, agility and life
The implementation of a new Po? schema will take some month as the coding takes time and the severe testing needed prior to release will take even more time and several rounds of code adaption to fine tune and fix problems found out during the tests.
Addaption of ACP probably can be implemented in weeks, as it is just an adaption to the new core and it is tested already, so only minor testing is needed prior to release
So my conclusion is, if the release of the 0.9.3 core is not urgend and time critical, let’s go for the final solution, otherwise let’s make a first step and implement ACP in 0.9.3
By the way, Calem implementing AC is not a soft fork, it’s no fork at all
-
I can not disagree with a thing you just said there…
+1 Wellenreiter
-
Right. Lets get this juicy core out.
PoS will take some polishing. In fact, I know for a fact that there are more details needing worked out for it.
-
Feathercoin Broadcast Transaction Service, It support normal transaction and stealth transaction.
-
I see different opinions here.
Lizhi is keen to get his core released, what is understandable as it has a whole bunch of exciting new features.
Other people want to use the new features as soon as possible.
The release of the new version could give Feathercoin some new speed, agility and life
The implementation of a new Po? schema will take some month as the coding takes time and the severe testing needed prior to release will take even more time and several rounds of code adaption to fine tune and fix problems found out during the tests.
Addaption of ACP probably can be implemented in weeks, as it is just an adaption to the new core and it is tested already, so only minor testing is needed prior to release
So my conclusion is, if the release of the 0.9.3 core is not urgend and time critical, let’s go for the final solution, otherwise let’s make a first step and implement ACP in 0.9.3
By the way, Calem implementing AC is not a soft fork, it’s no fork at all
I rewrite SetBestChain function, It work all right. I think core wallet have supported ACP
-
Top work Lizhi! Bravo.
