Changing the hashing algorithm
-
PostScrypt or TranScrypt
-
Or even better, SuperScrypt
*edit* or should that be SuperScrypt
-
PostScrypt or TranScrypt
Ha! +1,
Both of those sound kinda appropriate!
Although we could wait till weve settled on the algo mix first and try derive a name from that?
I’m kewl either way :D
-
PostScript already exists in the print world, so perhaps Post_Scrypt_ is a little too similar/confusing… maybe not though, it just sounded wrong to me.
The name game is fun though!
Maybe:
NuScrypt
FeatherScrypt (obviously links it to the currency that it evolved from)
-
SubScrypt and SuperScrypt
-
PostScript already exists in the print world,
That’s kinda why I liked it haha.
-
*edit* or should that be SuperScrypt
That’s epic also :D
-
FeatherScrypt seems a little like we are taking ownership of it and this should be for everyone. Cryptocoin communities are far to segregated and this may put some off.
As Scrypt with Chacha and SHA-3 seem a possibility there is a miner that is for Yacoin that could be easily ported if not simply work.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=247782.0
It is by mikaelh the same chap who created the HP miner for Primecoin and now works with SunnyKing on Primecoin. mikaelh would be the person to have on board when it comes to an optimised miner.
-
Brilliant.
-
could we talk with a few other coins and make this a movement away from scrypt rather than us out on our own? maybe PXC as I see ghostlander has commented in this thread already?
-
Retaining the word ‘scrypt’ in the name will help maintain familiarity. Asking people to move from Scrypt to
SuperScrypt would seem like a logical progressive step.
-
maybe PXC as I see ghostlander has commented in this thread already?
I was actually thinking about that before… maybe pxc changed with us?
SuperScrypt would seem like a logical progressive step.
Makes sense to me. I don’t see much harm in changing the name at a later date if it was decided.
“SuperScrypt” sounds like a fine project name.
-
FeatherScrypt seems a little like we are taking ownership of it and this should be for everyone. Cryptocoin communities are far to segregated and this may put some off.
Presumably it’ll wear a GPL license anyways? … in that case I don’t know that it’d matter that much. You make a good point, but for a community that talks about marketing and spreading the word… just being devils advocate Bush-man >:D
That’s kinda why I liked it haha.
haha fair play, it is kinda cool I guess 8)
I’m sure whatever you lot choose it’ll be a perfect fit.
-
-
http://www.mathematik.hu-berlin.de/~schliebn/dl/Blue-Midnight-Wish.pdf
DarkCoin uses eleven different hashing functions, the BMW one you linked in being one of them. Thinking about it we should probably aim for the better known solutions as the extra exposure should reduce the risk of undiscovered vulnerabilities.
-
DarkCoin uses eleven different hashing functions, the BMW one you linked in being one of them. Thinking about it we should probably aim for the better known solutions as the extra exposure should reduce the risk of undiscovered vulnerabilities.
I think good idea will be implementing single hashing function ( not used until now and BMW was just an example ) and giving support for it via CPU and GPU cuda + opencl based miners. This way we will be original, will be ready to get the old + new GPU users and there won’t be a reason for someone to point at feathercoin as not original or stealers… This way if we reach the point of building ASIC processors for it we will be one #win coin.
Another important thing we fail to deliver is support software and services for fethercoin ( blockchain dot info, coinbase like services, wallets mobile + desktop ). Yup I’m aware that this services must be delivered by investors…
-
could we talk with a few other coins and make this a movement away from scrypt rather than us out on our own? maybe PXC as I see ghostlander has commented in this thread already?
I welcome this idea, though it needs to be discussed with our development team members. Maybe other coin developers would also like to join this adventure.
Presumably it’ll wear a GPL license anyways? … in that case I don’t know that it’d matter that much. You make a good point, but for a community that talks about marketing and spreading the word… just being devils advocate Bush-man >:D
Any GPL code isn’t acceptable because it cannot be integrated into the BSD/MIT licenced code of Bitcoin and its derivatives.
-
Any GPL code isn’t acceptable because it cannot be integrated into the BSD/MIT licenced code of Bitcoin and its derivatives.
I didn’t know it was MIT! Thanks for the correction. I made a silly assumption…
-
…And back on topic, I think you made a good point about widening the net to other coin devs too.
-
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.
