Quote from: robrigo date=1417669260

Tried to compile the latest

n file included from /home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_tests.cpp:3:0:
/home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_fixture.hpp: In instantiation of ‘void chain_fixture::produce_block(T) [with T = std::shared_ptr<bts::client::client>]’:
/home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_tests.cpp:55:25:   required from here
/home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_fixture.hpp:231:59: error: ‘struct bts::blockchain::full_block’ has no member named ‘nonce’
       while( b.difficulty() < SPK_MIN_DIFFICULTY ) b.nonce++;
                                                           ^
make[2]: *** [tests/CMakeFiles/dev_tests.dir/dev_tests.cpp.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [tests/CMakeFiles/dev_tests.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2

Same here.  Anybody know a fix?

I am starting a new test network with a new mining algorithm based on ECC signature. 

Your wallet must be unlocked to mine with the private key.  This is designed to maximize decentralization and eliminate mining pools.

All blocks from the prior chain will be honored as well as the new chain.

Difficulty adjusts every 20 blocks and is rate limited to +/- 2%

Quote

4) Issuers can now optionally retain complete control over all balances in their asset. (Freeze accounts, etc) Needed for legal compliance.

Can you give us a comfort level that this won't apply to bitUSD, bitGOLD, or bitSILVER?

Quote from: bytemaster on December 01, 2014, 08:32:02 pm

We are bundling a lot of new features in the next release.

It should be out by Christmas.

0.4.25 will not be released until Christmas？

Quote from: Troglodactyl on December 01, 2014, 04:16:55 am

In short, everyone just has to assess their own risks in the context of their own circumstances.

This all makes sense, but I'm looking for specific examples to discuss.

Troglodactyl, what country are you in, and what might concern you about going public?

Quote from: arhag on November 30, 2014, 11:50:53 pm

Which is why sparkles shouldn't be improving (and thus introducing new risky unknowns) anything with the Proof-of-Waste algorithm so that he can advertise it as the same as Bitcoin. That is the only advantage this consensus algorithm has over DPOS (that it appeals to the irrational majority in the cryptocurrency community).

Interesting backwards-yet-logical point.

They'll get their PoW.. and have to eat it too

edit: For the record, I think Sparkle is a worthwhile experiment

Quote from: Troglodactyl on November 30, 2014, 11:38:23 pm

Quote from: ticklebiscuit on November 30, 2014, 11:20:00 pm

Doesnt mining still burn energy needlessly that could be put into the ecosystem?  What is the point of making blocks predictable like dpos when dpos is still better?  Just curious.

Yes.  The point is that there are lots of people who stubbornly oppose any alternative to POW, and that's a market worth serving.  I'd prefer selling them a better product too, but you just have to give them the best they're willing to take.

Which is why sparkles shouldn't be improving (and thus introducing new risky unknowns) anything with the Proof-of-Waste algorithm so that he can advertise it as the same as Bitcoin. That is the only advantage this consensus algorithm has over DPOS (that it appeals to the irrational majority in the cryptocurrency community).