Abc Software Issues

On By In Home

Links to other agencies and organizations that have related issues with ABC.

Abc Software Issues

Pros: The reporting options and the flexibility in creating events - Cons: We addressed some of the limitations of the software with the staff and they are working to help us expand its use - We really appreciate Ron and Leslie Overall: ABC Sign Up is user-friendly and it met our camp registration needs. But even better than the software is the staff. They are helpful, accommodating, friendly, knowledgable - I can certainly go on - Working with them has been a pleasure - They always help and when we call, they are always attentive. Comments: We had a great experience from the start talking with customer support representative. He took time to understand what we wanted and how we would use the system and ensured we were getting what we needed. To help us with training and set up was Leslie.

As I started the building of the system for what we needed, I contacted her and she was always available. She still is as we are adding additional functions to our system. What's great is how Learning Stream appreciates feedback so if a suggestion for improvement or addition can be made to their system, they work to see if it's feasible to add as a feature to the system. They want to ensure the customer is receiving what they need. Once set up, it was a 'set it and forget it' system.

Easy to add additional courses and great for the reporting we require. Besides the consultation with representative, what sold me was the connection to WebEx so we could track attendance.

What keeps customers are the relationships built, and working with customer support representatives have been a pleasure. Pros: ease of use, and superior customer support Cons: Sometimes hard to figure out how to make certain features work in our environment. Overall: We started out small, using Learning Stream as a convenience for customers wanting to register on line (before the internet was an everyday necessity. As we have needed to grow and add classes, change focus, restructure offerings, and provide superior customer service - what Learning Stream has made available has grown with us. Newer features keep coming that even add to what options we have. But most important we have been impressed with their outstanding customer support - real people getting back to you quickly, with real solutions.

Recommendations to other buyers: It is flexible and fits a wide variety of class types, situations and love the reporting! Pros: The support team is excellent.

Event duplication is a real time saver. Cons: The registration interface is a bit troublesome for registrants when using the Cart feature. The registrant has too many steps to follow to register for an event. Default notifications copy into a new event, but not the evaluation form.

The text editor should be improved. Name badge options should be expanded to reflect most labels on the market.

Overall: I'm a new customer with Learning Stream. The support team has been phenomenal by providing assistance with new event structure, website appearance, reference material and general hand holding. I am pleased with the product and my audience finds it simple to register for workshops and events. Comments: For internal use, this registration software moves quickly from screen to screen which serves our purpose for quick data entry.

It is also equipped with multiple detailed reports which can capture data in a variety of formats and can be easily exported to Excel. For external users, this software works well for online registrations and interfaces nicely with PayPal for online billing and payments. Their technical support has been extremely efficient, friendly and readily available.

We have required several customize reports to be developed, so this has been a huge advantage for us. Comments: The Pros Learning Stream is easy to utilize, anyone with basic database experience will be able to transition into using its features with comfort. When I experience trouble have a predicament or run into an unknown issue I have always been able to resolve any problem with Learning Stream customer service department.

(Mainly Leslie Stum) The staff has always been extremely helpful, give detail directions and assistance. I have found them to be patience and respectful. I feel I can always contact them and will be able to get answers or assistance in a timely manner. Not only are they knowledgeable, they are professional, efficient and respectful. The cons I would like to be able to format sign-in sheets and name tags. The software does not allow users to manipulate the appearance of the sign-in sheet.

Font size number of lines per page.) Overall, I would highly recommend Learning Stream. Comments: We have used Learning Stream for several years for small to large registrations including professional training experiences and summer school. The staff is available, receptive and always willing to work with us to find solutions for our needs. The software is very versatile and provides capabilities for most any needs we have encountered. In addition, the staff has worked with us to find the most effective or efficient ways of setting up events, handling registrations or getting reports when we have question. Learning Stream continues to build out the UI to make the process more streamlined and visually appealing. This platform and the support staff have been a valuable partner to our school district.

Comments: I enjoy many features of this product. It is simple to use for our needs regarding payment, course listing, etc. And I love the financial detail reports as well as the class listings. However, the product is not pretty or modern. It looks like a very dated website and is yet to be responsive to tablets and smartphones, which I view as a major issue. So many parents complain about their inability to use their phone or tablet at home, especially those who no longer have a desktop in their home.

I also struggle with the inability to capture one invoice for one registrant. If you can pull a concise financial history report, why isn't there a function to pull a concise invoice?

At some points, this program is not able to keep up with the multitude of our program. But our program is very heavy with the amount of events we offer and how often we are changing our course listing (38 options 6 times a year).

The company itself is very quick to respond if you need help or have questions, which is great. Comments: Daytona State College was already committed to purchasing ABC Sign Up when I was hired as the Training Coordinator. I must admit that I was a little skeptical that a tool with such a reasonable price point was going to be comprehensive enough to handle the diversity of application we needed. I started to leverage the tool's capabilities as I established myself in my new position and quickly learned that this was going to be a tremendous asset to me as a training professional and to the college community as a whole. As the complexity of how I used it evolved, I never ceased to be amazed that ABC Sign Up could handle just about everything I threw at it. It was almost as if we had a customized tool without the associated cost and effort! The interface of ABC Sign Up is very intuitive and easy to learn.

As an Administrator, setting up the registration process, the creation and scheduling of learning events and evaluating learning effectiveness is at my fingertips. Many processes that were previously so time consuming are now automated. Without question, it has elevated our impact and effectiveness and is an indespensible part of demonstrating our value-add to the college. I would be remiss if I didn't recognize the exemplary customer service I receive from Leslie Stum. She considers herself to be my partner in success and has continually demonstrated the utmost professionalism.

I would not hesitate to recommend ABC Sign Up to any organization, regardless of size or business focus. It has exceeded my expectations in terms of both functionality and customer support. Comments: We began using the Learning Stream tool summer of 2014. It works very well. We are very pleased with how much value it adds to our administrative processes. We operate a boarding kennel and dog training school with several classes, special events and activities operating on different schedules. Easy to use after initial training.

Started with the basics and plan to increase use of other services. Do wish it had a mobile registration option since many of our customers now reach us on their smartphones. One can access the registration page from the phone's web browser, but the display is not as easy to use as the site reached on a laptop or desktop web browser. Comments: We host a lot of meetings throughout the country and Learning Stream has simplified and streamlined our whole registration process. Prior to using them years ago, we spent tons of staff time in securing details for our guests.

Learning Stream eliminated that process and now we only have to handle the exceptional request. Downside is that it is a robust system so it takes time to learn as does any system.

Upside is that it is intuitive and they have shown us great support so that was at a minimum. We've been very happy with it and I we're a eight year plus user. Comments: The product has been a huge help with our training department. It's easy to learn and use, and it covers very well every aspect of student registration. I haven't had to use customer service too often because it's pretty straight forward, but when I did, they did a great job at meeting my needs and replying in a timely manner.

The only con I can think about is, the calendar views available to pick from are kind of limited. It would be nice to have more options on how the list classes/ courses is displayed to the end user. Vendor Response by ABC Signup on May 28, 2015 NWIESC is one of ABC Signup's first customers and as such, we can never properly express our gratitude for taking a chance on us and growing with us over the past decade plus.

We do offer a very in-depth registration management system, possibly the most complete solution on the market. We're stepping up our efforts to help users learn everything they can about its capabilities by supplementing our initial training sessions and monthly new user seminars with tips in our newsletter and blogs and a series of video tutorials. And we're always open to additional ideas to help you continue to get the most value from our software. Pros: ABCSignUP is very robust in its broad application of uses.

Our school district continues to use the system in a variety of ways beyond registration management for better efficiency and effectiveness for data tracking, credit card transactions and evaluations. We have found the customer service to be exceptional; Ron Smith has been responsive, and creative in our problem solving questions. Cons: I appreciate the help page, Ron's assistance, but I suspect there are a number of ways we could be utilizing ABCSIgnUP in more ways. It's a matter of not knowing what you don't know.

I was introduced to ABC after the implementation period, so in the beginning I wished there was a class we could take to learn all the features of ABC. Now, I've become more self-taught, and Ron helps me think through the challenges that I can't figure out. Overall: I highly recommend the software as it has increased our productivity an effectiveness. I wish our scheduling software was a robust~ Thank you, Kim Green. Pros: Our organization has used Learning Stream since 2008, and we continue to enjoy how easy it is to use, and find new uses for the many features that this online registration software provides. It is easy to use, makes great reports, and the customer service is outstanding.

Cons: More themes would be a great addition to the product. Overall: Our organization highly recommends Learning Stream for anyone who wants to streamline online registration and save time and money. It is a great bargain for all of the features it provides.

The difficulty drop consensus rule creates an interesting scenario as follows: Consider the following simple scenario: • Miners wait for difficulty to down significantly low (they can mine BTC meanwhile) • They mine 2016 blocks very fast. • Back to step 1 With a stable hash rate (stable referring to amount of hash power such that 2016 blocks are mined in 2 weeks), miners can wait for some periods of 12 hours and then mine. Assuming stable hash rate, some basic calculations I did showed that it is possible mine 2016 blocks in 6.3 days while maintaining the same difficulty across periods. I think the problem is even worse because the potential hash power(BTC + BCH) which can mine bitcoin cash is atleast 5 times higher than stable hash power.

I think such a faster rate of coin generation is problematic as it would lead to faster halving(less than 2 years), which leads to faster rise of transaction fees. This leads to the very problem for which bitcoin cash was created to solve.

Furthermore, faster generation of coins will also lead faster into unexplored lands of comparable transaction fees overcome block reward incentive. This is a big problem because if 95% hash power can meetup at a place, it is quite easy to collude for this profit as it fits perfectly in the consensus rules for Bitcoin Cash. Miners are also not necessarily bound to Bitcoin Cash, since they have main bitcoin to fall back on. A simple solution would be remove the rule by adding a Soft Fork. I am sure that that the scenario has been considered before designing REQ-7 of UAHF spec, but I feel these consequences do not justify the rationale.

I intended this for a mailing list discussion, but I can't seem to references to it in bitcoinabc.org or bitcoincash.org. To add to this, Miners can easily manipulate timestamps in history to produce fake difficulty drops while continously mining blocks. As an example, • They create blocks 2016 blocks with timestamps at t+1 sec. T +2016 secs.

• Difficulty bumps up 4 times. (difficulty can bump up maximum 4 times) • Miners mine blocks at t + 2016 sec + 2 *k hours(k=1,2,3,4,5,6.) till the difficulty goes significantly low again. They have gained this time in 'real world' by manipulating timestamps in 'blockchain time'.

Fast Mining is also highlighted by the last period of 2016 blocks which should have lasted 2 weeks but was very short(3 days?). Miners follow the profit and the profitability depends on the price and difficulty. The price can change very quickly (global crypto-market attracts big money as we know:) ). In order to balance the profitability quickly the difficulty has to ajust quickly as well. The solution has to include the reduction of a target interwal to a small amount of blocks (down from 2016).

Small block target number means stable system. I am new to GitHub and have only registered to participate in your discussion. How will the decision be made whether to make the appropriate adjustment or not?

I think the adjustment system should reflect the old as much as possible, so it retains as many of the same properties as (pre-fullblock era) bitcoin as possible. But it should be updated. The 2016-block average has seemed to work well as a basis to set target, and minimized opportunities to game the system, however it is a little too coarse. A better way to do it, while keeping the same properties, would be retain the 2016 block average, but adjust the target on a more regular basis, perhaps every 144 blocks. This would make the network a little more responsive to changes in hashpower, while retaining as many of the good properties of the original difficulty adjustment as possible. (This would be post-HF to remove EDA, once the price/hashpower disequilibrium quiets down.). Download Mortal Kombat 9 Pc Game there.

Uint32_t GetNextWorkRequired( const CBlockIndex *pindexPrev, In summary: diff = old_diff * (2 weeks) / (interval) but old diff is the difficulty after EDA. A better scheme would be to calculate the total POW over the adjustment period and the total time over the adjustment period. Time_interval = previous.time - previous_2016.time work_done = previous.chain_work - previous_2016.chain_work Target = ((time_interval) * (2^256 / (work done))) / (2 weeks in seconds) (You would also need to limit the changes to X4 and /4) I think EDA should be kept for emergency changes. If at least one chain has step changes and miners hyper transfer, then it doesn't seem like there is much of a reasonable way to keep things stable.

That approach seems riskier, since it means miners would constantly be mining at a different difficulty level, so this could: • create more orphan blocks, since it'll be more likely different nodes mine at different diffs. • change the behavior of on/off decisions of miners based on profitability. (Could be good or bad) • incentivize block timestamp manipulation that will help profitability. • open up an DDOS attack surface to get miners mining at different diffs. I could be wrong about any or all of those, however a more conservative approach just seems less likely to screw with market forces I don't think anyone fully understands. A big chance of unintended consequences, in other words.

Nba 2k11 Patch Accessories4less there. Create more orphan blocks, since it'll be more likely different nodes mine at different diffs. The difficulty of a block still depends on the parent (and the rest of the chain). There could be problems with forks that are more than 1 block long, but those are rare anyway. Change the behavior of on/off decisions of miners based on profitability. (Could be good or bad) I think good, since they would switch to and from the chain more gradually. Incentivize block timestamp manipulation that will help profitability I think this balances out.

If it is a problem MTP could be used instead. Open up an DDOS attack surface to get miners mining at different diffs. The total chain work is what matters anyway. Two miners mining on the same parent will have the same difficulty anyway. Again using MTP would help here. Well, every block has a unique and well-defined history.

So there will always be consensus about whether a particular block has the correct difficulty. There is no extra chance of orphaning since the validity of a block is independent of external factors. The profitability could very well change, but it would only become more gradual.

For example, currently an oscillating effect could occur: • Period 1: High difficulty, low profitability. • After 2016 blocks a downward adjustment occurs. • Period 2: Low difficulty, higher profitability, more miners.

• After 2016 blocks an upward adjustment occurs. Calculating every block would mitigate this and make profitability more predictable. Incentivize block timestamp manipulation that will help profitability. There isn't any difference in the DDOS attack surface since every miner with the same history agrees about the difficulty of the next block. If they aren't mining on top of the same block they will produce blocks incompatible with the other chain anyway. I agree with Deadalnix.

The EDA is not really broken, but it's causing this issue because of the situation and relationship BTC and BCH share. Because at one point the profitability for BCH is higher than that of BTC's it makes perfect sense for miners to start mining BCH and liquidate for BTC.

However, this drives the price down obviously. The issue is the wild swing of the network hashrate from one network to the other. Bitcoin Cash needs to be able to scale the difficulty back up when needed for cases like these. This problem is not really specific to this adjustment algorithm.

With this specific algorithm, faster inflation rate would lead to faster halvings which would lead to higher fees. The wild swing will stop either when both chains HF to some smoother difficulty adjustment, or one of the chain dies. As mentioned above, this is way bigger issue for BCH than for BTC. If both chains are to survive, BCH would be highly inflationary and this should be fixed.

As mentioned in the issue OP, a soft fork to remove EDA can be deployed. This should atleast fix the faster coin generation issue, but could the chances of BCH chain dying. Thanks a lot for your fantastic work on Bitcoin ABC / Cash. In my view this was needed to save the real Bitcoin.

As well EDA was necessary to make sure BCH survive. EDA indeed seems to lead to a little bit of inflation and eventually inflation manipulation. What do you think would be the best way to mitigate this? More frequent difficulty adjustments (every 128 blocks rather than every 2016 blocks?) or/and maybe symetric EDA? • EDA is very important and clever because it ensures that the chain is saved even when the hashrate drops, you probably need to acknowledge that. • I disagree with what you say You say that: 1>'faster inflation lead to faster halving ' yes as always, for Bitcoin and other cryptos emission curves. You probably mean that the EDA is asymmetric and faster inflation periods are not symmetrically compensated with lower inflation periods of similar length.

2>'faster halvings which would lead to higher fees' faster halving doesn't lead to higher fees. Fee is voluntary, not miner driven (Higher fee is triggered by full blocks, nothing else, should come when global adoption arrive) My take I'm against EDA removal, but I agree we need to work to fix the inflation manipulation byproduct. A huge amount of time has been invested on developing difficulty adjustment algorithms for the altcoins that respond quickly to changes in hashpower without over-correcting and inducing oscillations. Rather than try to reinvent the wheel, I suggest that we replace both the regular and emergency difficulty adjustment algorithms in Bitcoin Cash with one of these existing algorithms: • Dark Gravity Well (DGW) -- Used in DASH. • Digishield V3 -- Used in Zcash. • Multi-Interval Difficulty Adjustment System (MIDAS).

: There is discussion on Bitcoin Cash roadmap is taking place on which is open for anyone to to join. Not enough people are aware of this yet. There is also a thread on the difficulty adjustment problem there, see for example Some people have been submitting proposals for changes affecting Bitcoin Cash as a whole via the UAHF spec website, which is also fine (e.g. Though it's probably more effective to raise the issues directly on the mailing list (bitcoin-ml) because devs from the initial implementations are all on there. Some ABC devs monitor other forums related to issues/support as well, such as BTCfork slack, where we've also been having some discussion on the EDA topic.

Again, that's also open to anyone to join ( ). You know very well Bitcoin Core isn't going to adopt any hard forks anytime soon, whereas Bitcoin ABC seems to have multiple threads on its mailing list and issue tracker seriously considering further hard forks in the not so distant future. This is one of them. I was genuinely offering a suggestion that I thought would help solve your problem and make your chain long-lasting without causing any further strife or aggravation here or in the wider crypto currency community. I was even going to offer to help write it if it was something this community wanted. But I don't think I'm welcome here, so goodbye and good luck.

It will require a HF anyway to make a change. Original BTC difficulty algo is kind of 'dumb,' meaning it was made a long time ago. I think it can be improved on quite a bit. Have a true 'emergency' difficulty adjustment is a good feature to have. Think if certain governments decided to ban Bitcoin mining, or WW3, etc., this makes it resilient. The problem we see now with BCC is its being 'gamed' and in a long term time period, there is much more than 2016 blocks per 2 week period (1 block per 10 minutes) because of this. What is DigiShield & How it Works to Retarget Difficulty We created DigiShield after seeing the threat that multi-pools pose to a crypto currency when they start mining a coin at a very low difficulty in relation to their net pool hash.

This allows many coins to be quickly and easily mined before the difficulty increases. Sounds exactly like what we have after each EDA. The secret to DigiShield is an asymmetrical approach to difficulty re-targeting. With DigiShield, the difficulty is allowed to decrease in larger movements than it is allowed to increase from block to block. This keeps a blockchain from getting 'stuck' i.e., not finding the next block for several hours following a major drop in the net hash of coin. The attack vector envisioned by Mr. Todd is easily detectable, and further it is an attack based on a false premise endemic to Core's philosophical roadmap, and on a fundamental misunderstanding of Bitcoin.

It is false that your personal wallet-with-chain, (full node), is the best protection against attack. This notion is the worst kind of centralization, individualism. While the notion of individualism appeals to many of us, it hazards an unnecessary and undesirable single point of failure, oneself. The best protection against such fraud attacks is a broad consensus among your trading partners, with whom you hope to spend these coins! If it matters, check block explorers at a minimum. You aren't so likely to spend them to yourself, and if you do, it doesn't matter until you attempt to spend them with your trading partners.

Trace Mayer recently quipped how your full-node is your sword and shield. If so, broad consensus among your peers is a machine-gun. EDA is a helpful improvement on Bitcoin.

It provides for a swifter recovery of Bitcoin in case of global emergencies. Consider how fortunate Bitcoin Cash is, that this improvement was left undone by the former gatekeepers of Bitcoin's reference implementation. I'd question the premise of this thread.

What proof has been offered that the EDA will ever have to change? If it is only because of the situation of the moment, please notice that with each oscillation, Bitcoin Cash comes closer to stability. It seems to be doing what it is designed to do, which is to protect Bitcoin from failure. Core ought to adopt it, but they won't out of pride, which goes before a fall. EDA is helpful, but there were smarter options available. EDA is good for the network in the case of something like a WW III, but not good in the current situation.

Perhaps with every oscillation the difficulty adjustments become ever closer to stability, but how long will that take? It's been less than a week since the issue has been noted and the BCC chain is already 1,595 blocks ahead of Bitcoin's chain, which should not have happened. This issue needs to be fixed otherwise the halving will be reached much sooner and the inflation will keep lowering BCC's worth. Bitcoin Cash will die because of EDA if the current situation is not fixed. The EDA could stabilize, but whose to say how long that will take. If it takes another 5 days then another 20,000 BCC will be mined in that time. BTC Core is not dumb, (although we'd like to think so) but maybe they didn't adopt for a reason.

I'd rather keep EDA until it stabilizes than switching to untest difficulty retarget algorithm. We already played way more than enough with the protocol as it stands. BTC retarget has a 8 years impeccable track record. @jiosephnld no it does not stabilize at all, or nowhere close to fast enough. We are 1600 blocks ahead, excluding whatever BTC was already ahead at the time of the fork. That's 20k coins that reach the market more than whatever core trolls dumps suppressing the price. We got through last difficulty cycle as quick as the other one, it's ridiculous.

I'm all for ditching EDA ASAP (November/December) without changing regular diff. Please let's not fall into the 'HF are hard.' Core narrative here. Also I'd like to consider BCC a serious project, meaning not replacing a huge important part of it with an extensive testing phase by untested or barely tested algorithm (DGW which is flawed anyway/Digishield).

The idea is to stay as close to bitcoin as possible, not getting creative and introducing all kind of shit. There's the thing, how fast does it need to stabilize? What are the metrics? Bitcoin Core is unusable all the time because of fees. Bitcoin Cash is unusable for one day out of four for now because of block time, later one of five, then six. Changing it in December if it isn't stable enough makes sense, I'll be surprised to have been wrong about this, and agree.

Doubly surprised if Core has resolved the fee issues by then. Cash has a viability advantage with EDA that Core lacks, and may come to regret not having implemented when they could have done it without their pride getting in the way. The accelerated emission provides a slight economic advantage later with a sooner halving. The 20k additional coin in the near term (maybe 50-100k+ before stabilization) are a nice early adopter bonus. The economic effect is an increased scarcity to the later adopters and more coin at a lower price to those who are paying attention.

In the end it comes down to survival fitness. The economics in the current environment favor EDA as is, especially as another chain fork is looming for the Core chain. I like the concept of DigiShield.

The core concept, which is having a larger magnitude of downward difficulty adjustment and a smaller magnitude of upward adjustment is interesting. This could be helpful in dealing with a sudden hashrate drop-off, without relying on the unstable EDA. The issue I see with EDA is that you need to accurately time it. Too few EDAs, you don't reduce the difficulty enough; too many, you welcome a massive influx of hashrate. Since BTP.top operator over-slept recently and missed the mark, I say we plan a sunset of EDA. But I also agree that we should wait until difficulty and hashrate stablizes first.

And we have to go through extensive testing too.