Bitcoin Forum

Alternate cryptocurrencies => Announcements (Altcoins) => Topic started by: Deff on November 04, 2018, 04:16:56 AM



Title: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on November 04, 2018, 04:16:56 AM
Reorganization of the topic https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1927335.0

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DeffM/DeffM.github.io/master/assets/images/cache-project.jpg
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DeffM/DeffM.github.io/master/assets/images/specification.jpg
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DeffM/DeffM.github.io/master/assets/images/VALM.jpg
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DeffM/DeffM.github.io/master/assets/images/control.jpg
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DeffM/DeffM.github.io/master/assets/images/POS.jpg
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DeffM/DeffM.github.io/master/assets/images/bitcointalk/HardForkInfo.jpg
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DeffM/DeffM.github.io/master/assets/images/bitcointalk/NewBlockChainProtocol.jpg


======================
                                                                                                 
CACHE-Project about (https://cache-project.com/index.html#header5-9o)

======================



CACHE Project LINKS(Information from the site)

CACHE Project - WEBSITE
 ▷ Go (https://cache-project.com/index.html)
CACHE Project - DOWNLOADS
 ▷ Go (https://cache-project.com/Downloads.html)
CACHE Project - EXCHANGES
 ▷ Go (https://cache-project.com/Exchanges.html)
CACHE Project - BLOCKCHAIN EXPLORER
 ▷ Go (https://cache-project.com/Explorer.html)
CACHE Project - POOLS
 ▷ Go (https://cache-project.com/Pools.html)
CACHE Project - TEAM
 ▷ Go (https://cache-project.com/Team.html)

CACHE Project RESOURCES

CACHE Project - FORUM DISCORD
 ▷ Go (https://discord.gg/nyWc4J8)
CACHE Project - GOOGLE PLUS
 ▷ Go (https://plus.google.com/communities/103670069028227506620)
CACHE Project - TWITTER
 ▷ Go (https://twitter.com/cache_project)

CACHE Project IN THE PRESS

▷ https://nulltx.com/the-cachecoin-project
▷ https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/cachecoin
▷ https://finance.yahoo.com/news/asic-resistant-cryptocurrency-cachecoin-features-060600796.html
▷ https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/legal-action-taken-in-alleged-cachecoin-fraud-pump-dump-scam
▷ https://bitcoinprbuzz.com/asic-resistant-cryptocurrency-cachecoin-features-accessible-mining-and-pos-pow-algorithm
▷ https://prudournews.com/2018/10/cachecoin-cach-crypto-24-hour-volume-reaches-102-as-price-down-to-0-008513
▷ https://cointelegraph.com/news/de_geeking_begins_cachecoin_opens_mining_to_wider_community
▷ https://icobrothers.media/2018/10/26/cachecoin-price-changed-by-43-43-percent


MARKET ANALYSIS, COMPARING(OTHER)

▷ https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/cachecoin
▷ https://info.binance.com/en/currencies/cachecoin
▷ https://www.coingecko.com/en/price_charts/cachecoin/btc
▷ https://www.investing.com/crypto/cachecoin
▷ https://www.worldcoinindex.com/coin/cachecoin
▷ https://currencio.co/cach
▷ http://coincost.net/en/currency/cachecoin
▷ https://cryptoslate.com/coins/cachecoin
▷ https://neironix.io/cryptocurrency/cachecoin
▷ https://www.coinhills.com/market/cach
▷ https://coinclarity.com/coin/cach
▷ https://ratesviewer.com/chart/cach-usd/year
▷ https://coinpaprika.com/coin/cach-cachecoin
▷ https://coinlib.io/coin/CACH/Cachecoin
▷ https://bitcoinnews.blog/cryptocurrencies/CACH
▷ https://digitalcoinprice.com/coins/cachecoin
▷ http://nyatla.jp/ccsatoshi.info/coin_spec.php?id=70
▷ https://walletinvestor.com/forecast/cachecoin-prediction
▷ https://www.crixfeed.com/currencies/CACH/cachecoin
▷ https://www.cryptocompare.com/coins/cach/overview/BTC
▷ https://coinbuddy.co/coins/cachecoin
▷ https://cryptocoincharts.info/coins/show/cach
▷ https://whattomine.com/coins/97-cach-chacha-nf18
▷ https://xbt.net/currencies/CACH/cachecoin
▷ http://forextrading.company/coin/cachecoin
▷ https://criptoeconomia.com.br/cotacoes/cachecoin-cach
▷ https://www.kurzy.cz/komodity/cachecoin-graf-vyvoje-ceny
▷ https://coindata.vc/coins/cachecoin
▷ https://www.ratingtoken.io/ico/CACH-1?hl=en
▷ https://coinranking.com/coin/cachecoin-cach
▷ https://crcurrency.com/cachecoin
▷ https://www.tokenpals.io/currencies/CACH/cachecoin
▷ https://cryptorival.com/coins
▷ https://bigmarketnews.com/currencies/CACH/cachecoin
▷ https://athda.com/coin/cachecoin
▷ https://athcoinindex.com/currencies/cachecoin
▷ https://tradingbeasts.com/price-prediction/cachecoin
▷ https://cryptoindex.co/cachecoin
▷ https://www.marketbeat.com/cryptocurrencies/cachecoin
▷ https://www.upfolio.com/asset/cachecoin-cach
▷ https://cryptominded.com/coin/cachecoin


Title: Re: [ANN]CACHE Project[VALM-Cache, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: Imaha486 on November 04, 2018, 04:19:33 AM
Why you created new topic?


Title: Re: [ANN]CACHE Project[VALM-Cache, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: Deff on November 04, 2018, 04:26:07 AM
Why you created new topic?

I'm currently working on a project


Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: brian_nguyen on November 04, 2018, 02:36:12 PM
Good luck with the project. I remember cache coin back in the days.


Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: Deff on November 04, 2018, 02:55:20 PM
Good luck with the project. I remember cache coin back in the days.

Yes, Cryptsy, Cryptorush, the modest Poloniex and the first network attacks. :)


Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: brian_nguyen on November 04, 2018, 03:03:47 PM
Good luck with the project. I remember cache coin back in the days.

Yes, Cryptsy, Cryptorush, the modest Poloniex and the first network attacks. :)

Nothing beats Fibonacci for me, was hoping for a nice Scrypt miner and lost some Cache in the process


Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: Deff on November 19, 2018, 01:20:38 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, visualization of the Spam-Hash Control function

Version : v6.1.1.1
Version of git : 0.7.5.70
Subversion : 0.7.6.15

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.1



Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: crazyer1976 on November 19, 2018, 01:32:07 PM
Do I understand correctly that today your coin can be bought (or sold) only on a single exchange: https://www.coinexchange.io/market/CACH/BTC ahhh! I think the project needs new exchanges, monopoly is bad.


Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: Deff on November 19, 2018, 01:40:42 PM
Do I understand correctly that today your coin can be bought (or sold) only on a single exchange: https://www.coinexchange.io/market/CACH/BTC ahhh! I think the project needs new exchanges, monopoly is bad.

That's right, now everything is bad .. I like the project, I will continue to work on it. Perhaps with time it will come to best lifes ...
 :)


Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: f1lia on November 24, 2018, 06:58:28 AM
Do I understand correctly that today your coin can be bought (or sold) only on a single exchange: https://www.coinexchange.io/market/CACH/BTC ahhh! I think the project needs new exchanges, monopoly is bad.

That's right, now everything is bad .. I like the project, I will continue to work on it. Perhaps with time it will come to best lifes ...
 :)

hello
any addnode ? i cant connect to any in explorers node list


Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: Deff on November 29, 2018, 12:23:04 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, implemented transactions verification using the ProcessMessage function

Version : v6.1.1.2
Version of git : 0.7.5.72
Subversion : 0.7.6.16

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.2


Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: Deff on November 29, 2018, 01:08:39 PM

 Log....


Code:
2018-11-29 12:29:41 UTC received: inv (73 bytes)
  got inventory: tx 7405f2ab32944cfac5b0  new
askfor tx 7405f2ab32944cfac5b0   0 (00:00:00)
  got inventory: tx 180a0250c01c3a1e101f  have
sending getdata: tx 7405f2ab32944cfac5b0
sending: getdata (37 bytes)
2018-11-29 12:29:41 UTC received: tx (7112 bytes)
ERROR: 'Transaction' - ThreadAnalyzerHandler() : 7405f2ab32 prev tx b214565474 index entry not found
strCommand 'tx' - The executor of the rules performed the work
ProcessMessage(tx, 7112 bytes) FAILED
trying connection 188.120.239.144:2225 lastseen=811,0hrs
connection timeout
trying connection 81.200.245.198:2225 lastseen=693,9hrs
Flushed 4 addresses to peers.dat  51ms


Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: Deff on December 06, 2018, 12:00:49 PM
  Does anyone know a coin with decentralized checkpoints? Or a similar option.


Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: Deff on December 13, 2018, 12:36:52 PM
New version available

CACHE-Project, Inputs checking using function ProcessMessage implemented. Implemented partial spam filtering at the level of the function "inv". Repeated spam is not distributed to other nodes on the network

Version : v6.1.1.4
Version of git : 0.7.5.74
Subversion : 0.7.6.18

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.4

Explanatory log

Code:
2018-12-12 07:17:00 UTC received: inv (37 bytes)
  got inventory: tx 7405f2ab32944cfac5b0  new
  spam hash previous: Until now spam activity is absent - outofstock
askfor tx 7405f2ab32944cfac5b0   0 (00:00:00)
sending getdata: tx 7405f2ab32944cfac5b0
sending: getdata (37 bytes)
trying connection 91.210.200.12:2225 lastseen=3,9hrs
2018-12-12 07:17:01 UTC received: tx (7112 bytes)
ERROR: 'Transaction' - ThreadAnalyzerHandler() : 7405f2ab32 prev tx b214565474 index entry not found
strCommand 'tx' - The executor of the rules performed the work
  previous spam hash: 7405f2ab32944cfac5b0 - outofstock
  actual spam hash: 7405f2ab32944cfac5b0 - outofstock
ProcessMessage(tx, 7112 bytes) FAILED
connection timeout

Code:
2018-12-12 08:32:23 UTC received: inv (37 bytes)
strCommand 'inv' - The executor of the rules performed the work
  spam hash previous: 7405f2ab32944cfac5b0 - outofstock
  spam hash actual: 7405f2ab32944cfac5b0 - outofstock
ProcessMessage(inv, 37 bytes) FAILED
ResendWalletTransactions()
connection timeout


Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: GREEDYJOHN on December 20, 2018, 10:04:23 AM
I hope that you plan to update all the exchanges with your update?


Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: Deff on December 20, 2018, 10:17:41 AM
I hope that you plan to update all the exchanges with your update?

One exchange - Coinexchange.io. Exchange uses the actual version of the wallet.


Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: Deff on December 23, 2018, 10:42:35 AM

New version available

CACHE-Project, The spam hash list is extended to 100 lines. Checks optimization

Version : v_6.1.1.5
Version of git : v_0.7.5.77
Subversion : v_0.7.6.19

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.5



Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: Deff on December 23, 2018, 11:11:34 AM

   For today. All spam is filtered out when executing the 'tx' command on the ProcessMessage level.
Additionally, the spam package hash is saved to the spam list. When re-receiving 'inv' with such data,
the package is blocked based on the stored data.

  Why it is needed. Spam is observed in many networks and projects, especially POS. It hinder the rapid
dissemination of information about new blocks and transactions. As a result, a large number of orphaned
blocks are formed, this creates the possibility of double spending as well as unreasonably high POS reward.

 The presence of spam can be viewed in debug.log
The similarity of this ...

Code:
connection timeout
ERROR: FetchInputs() : 77c01bb195 mempool Tx prev not found d82f384072
stored orphan tx 77c01bb195 (mapsz 1)
ERROR: FetchInputs() : 232e3ad4eb mempool Tx prev not found 7305c2bbb6
stored orphan tx 232e3ad4eb (mapsz 2)
ERROR: FetchInputs() : 8ee218abb3 mempool Tx prev not found 77c01bb195
stored orphan tx 8ee218abb3 (mapsz 3)
ERROR: FetchInputs() : 8d46091608 mempool Tx prev not found 8ce31acefa
stored orphan tx 8d46091608 (mapsz 4)
ERROR: FetchInputs() : d00e372090 mempool Tx prev not found 8d46091608
stored orphan tx d00e372090 (mapsz 5)
ERROR: FetchInputs() : fe0f1a9c0a mempool Tx prev not found 01200c5384
stored orphan tx fe0f1a9c0a (mapsz 6)
ERROR: FetchInputs() : 27712e34e4 mempool Tx prev not found c577996957
stored orphan tx 27712e34e4 (mapsz 7)
ERROR: FetchInputs() : cc41f90986 mempool Tx prev not found c0ea949a19
stored orphan tx cc41f90986 (mapsz 8)
ERROR: FetchInputs() : 5a8a23adb5 mempool Tx prev not found 99ec48c825
stored orphan tx 5a8a23adb5 (mapsz 9)
ERROR: FetchInputs() : 0cc9ee7471 mempool Tx prev not found 5a8a23adb5
stored orphan tx 0cc9ee7471 (mapsz 10)
trying connection 76.121.62.235:8922 lastseen=3.2hrs
connection timeout



Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: f1lia on December 26, 2018, 01:04:51 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, The spam hash list is extended to 100 lines. Checks optimization

Version : v_6.1.1.5
Version of git : v_0.7.5.77
Subversion : v_0.7.6.19

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.5



hi can you compile new windows qt? i cant sync on old version (


Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: Deff on December 26, 2018, 02:39:16 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, The spam hash list is extended to 100 lines. Checks optimization

Version : v_6.1.1.5
Version of git : v_0.7.5.77
Subversion : v_0.7.6.19

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.5



hi can you compile new windows qt? i cant sync on old version (

Already easy ... :)


Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: Deff on December 26, 2018, 03:52:11 PM
Windows

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.5


Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: four3200 on January 03, 2019, 05:11:25 AM
Good luck with the project. I remember cache coin back in the days.

Yes, Cryptsy, Cryptorush, the modest Poloniex and the first network attacks. :)

A CLASSIC CRYPTO
+unique algo  ;)
Cool to see it reOrgAnizing and surviving.


Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 03, 2019, 06:13:53 AM
Good luck with the project. I remember cache coin back in the days.

Yes, Cryptsy, Cryptorush, the modest Poloniex and the first network attacks. :)

A CLASSIC CRYPTO
+unique algo  ;)
Cool to see it reOrgAnizing and surviving.

Crypto is trying to survive - I'm trying to help her  :)


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: EXLLY on January 12, 2019, 04:12:55 AM
EXLLY EXCHANGE (https://exlly.com)

CACHECOIN [CACHE] is listed : https://exlly.com/market/BTC-CACHE

https://twitter.com/ExllyExchange/status/1083939660475367424



TRADE (https://exlly.com) || TWITTER (https://twitter.com/ExllyExchange) || SUPPORT (https://exlly.com/support) || ADDCOIN (http://contact@exlly.com) || REFERALS PROGRAM (https://exlly.com/referals)


Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: tbearhere on January 12, 2019, 12:36:17 PM
Good luck with the project. I remember cache coin back in the days.

Yes, Cryptsy, Cryptorush, the modest Poloniex and the first network attacks. :)

Ah yes... memories.  :)  Good luck with this.  :)


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 13, 2019, 02:29:08 AM
EXLLY EXCHANGE (https://exlly.com)

CACHECOIN [CACHE] is listed : https://exlly.com/market/BTC-CACHE

https://twitter.com/ExllyExchange/status/1083939660475367424



TRADE (https://exlly.com) || TWITTER (https://twitter.com/ExllyExchange) || SUPPORT (https://exlly.com/support) || ADDCOIN (http://contact@exlly.com) || REFERALS PROGRAM (https://exlly.com/referals)
Thanks you!!! Welfare to this exchange!


Title: Re: CACHE Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, Spam-Hash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 13, 2019, 02:37:38 AM
Good luck with the project. I remember cache coin back in the days.

Yes, Cryptsy, Cryptorush, the modest Poloniex and the first network attacks. :)

Ah yes... memories.  :)

Then everything was based on enthusiasts - now on the money.. :)


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: EXLLY on January 13, 2019, 03:07:14 AM
EXLLY EXCHANGE (https://exlly.com)

CACHECOIN [CACHE] is listed : https://exlly.com/market/BTC-CACHE

https://twitter.com/ExllyExchange/status/1083939660475367424

TRADE (https://exlly.com) || TWITTER (https://twitter.com/ExllyExchange) || SUPPORT (https://exlly.com/support) || ADDCOIN (http://contact@exlly.com) || REFERALS PROGRAM (https://exlly.com/referals)
Thanks you!!! Welfare to this exchange!

Thank you for your support and long life at ChacheCoin !


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 28, 2019, 04:29:02 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, WatchOnlyAddress function added, Added the ability to monitor one address with a balance check

Version : v_6.1.1.6
Version of git : v_0.7.5.79
Subversion : v_0.7.6.20

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.6




Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 29, 2019, 01:30:02 AM
 
Adding an address for viewing is permissible in two ways.

1. The command from the console - importwatchonlyaddress <cacheprojectwatchonlyaddress> - with the search for all
    transactions in the address.
2. Make an entry in the address book with a label - watchonlyaddress - to view the transactions from the current time.

 Transactions are displayed with zero values, for information look the tab - detail.

 The balance of the observed address can be viewed with the command - getwatchaddressbalance.

 Initially, the idea was to create a hardfork control function not tied to the exact time. This version of the client is an
intermediate step to the idea.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 29, 2019, 05:33:43 AM
Hardfork Transaction Driven

  The function of date management Hardfork in some cases, or rather is always, irreplaceable.
The reasons for the time shift of the intended and strictly prescribed HardFork are many.
Exchange did not install the update. Football on TV. Ill child. Any sudden bugs in the code, etc.
In a word, the Hardfork Transaction Driven is a necessary function.


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on February 17, 2019, 10:15:12 AM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Hard-fork time management function added, Added the ability to view transaction amounts in the monitoring address

Version : v_6.1.1.7
Version of git : v_0.7.5.82
Subversion : v_0.7.6.21

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.7



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on February 17, 2019, 11:34:26 AM

  The Hard-fork time management controls the number of coins in the hardfork control address.
When reducing the amount in the address to the set values, the functions are switched on one by one..
Code:
int  nHardForkOneValue = 15 * COIN;
int  nHardForkTwoValue = 10 * COIN;
int  nHardForkThreeValue = 5 * COIN;
bool fHardForkOne = false;
bool fHardForkTwo = false;
bool fHardForkThree = false;
-------------------------
Code:
    if (nValueHardForkControlAddress <= nHardForkOneValue)
    {
        fHardForkOne = true;
        printf(" 'CWallet' - fHardForkOne = true\n");
    }
    if (nValueHardForkControlAddress <= nHardForkTwoValue)
    {
        fHardForkTwo = true;
        printf(" 'CWallet' - fHardForkTwo = true\n");
    }
    if (nValueHardForkControlAddress <= nHardForkThreeValue)
    {
        fHardForkThree = true;
        printf(" 'CWallet' - fHardForkThree = true\n");
    }

  In the transactions to WatchOnlyAddress is displayed:

Credit()
Deposit (taking into account the related addresses of the wallet)
Transactions to myself ()
POW blocks generation ()
POS blocks generation (the full coins amount of WatchOnlyAddress is displayed)

https://cachecoin.net/assets/images/bitcointalk/WatchOnlyAddress.jpg



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on February 19, 2019, 11:05:45 AM

  The idea of using the Hard-fork time management function.

Need function automatically save check point (for example, with a lag of 24 hours). And in the event of an
emergency situation that threatens the entire project, such as a major embezzlement from the exchange,
it is possible to activate one of the Hard-Forks and roll back the blockchain to a saved checkpoint.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on February 21, 2019, 06:02:16 AM

  The idea of using the Hard-fork time management function.

Need function automatically save check point (for example, with a lag of 24 hours). And in the event of an
emergency situation that threatens the entire project, such as a major embezzlement from the exchange,
it is possible to activate one of the Hard-Forks and roll back the blockchain to a saved checkpoint.



Idea with overdone.

It is enough to stop the block chain to analyze the situation and make a decision. But in any case, using the Hard-fork
time management function this operation can be carried out in a few minutes ..




Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on February 25, 2019, 05:13:58 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Reorganization of check functions

Version : v_6.1.1.8
Version of git : v_0.7.5.83
Subversion : v_0.7.6.22

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.8



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on February 27, 2019, 09:55:45 AM

  New algorithm for recalculating the difficulty of "VALM-Cache" - logical analysis, mathematically variable.
Code...
Code:
static const int64 nTargetSpacingWorkMaxPow = 12 * nPowTargetSpacing; // 14400
static const int64 nTargetSpacingWorkMaxPos = 12 * nPosTargetSpacing; // 7200
static const int64 nTargetTimespanPow = nTargetSpacingWorkMaxPow * 6 * 12; // 1036800  matrix
static const int64 nTargetTimespanPos = nTargetSpacingWorkMaxPos * 6 * 12; // 518400   matrix

// ppcoin: find last block index up to pindex
const CBlockIndex* GetLastBlockIndex(const CBlockIndex* pindex, bool fProofOfStake)
{
    while (pindex && pindex->pprev && (pindex->IsProofOfStake() != fProofOfStake))
        pindex = pindex->pprev;
    return pindex;
}
const CBlockIndex* GetLastBlockIndexPow(const CBlockIndex* powpindex, bool fProofOfWork)
{
    while (powpindex && powpindex->pprev && (powpindex->IsProofOfWork() == fProofOfWork))
        powpindex = powpindex->pprev;
    return powpindex;
}
const CBlockIndex* GetLastBlockIndexPos(const CBlockIndex* pospindex, bool fProofOfStake)
{
    while (pospindex && pospindex->pprev && (pospindex->IsProofOfStake() != fProofOfStake))
        pospindex = pospindex->pprev;
    return pospindex;
}
Code:
unsigned int GetNextTargetRequiredPos(const CBlockIndex* pospindexLast, bool fProofOfStake)
{
    CBigNum bnTargetLimitPos = bnProofOfStakeHardLimit;

    if (pospindexLast == NULL)
        return bnTargetLimitPos.GetCompact(); // last block
    const CBlockIndex* pospindexPrev = GetLastBlockIndexPos(pospindexLast, fProofOfStake);
    if (pospindexPrev->pprev == NULL)
        return bnInitialHashTarget.GetCompact(); // first block
    const CBlockIndex* pospindexPrevPrev = GetLastBlockIndexPos(pospindexPrev->pprev, fProofOfStake);
    if (pospindexPrevPrev->pprev == NULL)
        return bnInitialHashTarget.GetCompact(); // second block 1
    const CBlockIndex* pospindexPrevPrevPrev = GetLastBlockIndexPos(pospindexPrevPrev->pprev, fProofOfStake);
    if (pospindexPrevPrevPrev->pprev == NULL)
        return bnInitialHashTarget.GetCompact(); // second block 2
    const CBlockIndex* pospindexPrevPrevPrevPrev = GetLastBlockIndexPos(pospindexPrevPrevPrev->pprev, fProofOfStake);
    if (pospindexPrevPrevPrevPrev->pprev == NULL)
        return bnInitialHashTarget.GetCompact(); // second block 3
    const CBlockIndex* pospindexPrevPrevPrevPrevPrev =
                                            GetLastBlockIndexPos(pospindexPrevPrevPrevPrev->pprev, fProofOfStake);
    if (pospindexPrevPrevPrevPrevPrev->pprev == NULL)
        return bnInitialHashTarget.GetCompact(); // second block 4
    const CBlockIndex* pospindexPrevPrevPrevPrevPrevPrev =
                                            GetLastBlockIndexPos(pospindexPrevPrevPrevPrevPrev->pprev, fProofOfStake);
    if (pospindexPrevPrevPrevPrevPrevPrev->pprev == NULL)
        return bnInitialHashTarget.GetCompact(); // second block 5

    int64 nLastCoinSearchTime = GetAdjustedTime();

    if(pospindexPrev->IsProofOfStake() && pospindexPrevPrev->IsProofOfStake() &&
       pospindexPrevPrevPrev->IsProofOfStake() && pospindexPrevPrevPrevPrev->IsProofOfStake())
    {
    nLastCoinPosSearchInterval = ( nLastCoinSearchTime - PosPindexPrevPrevTime ) -
                                                                   ( nLastCoinSearchTime - PosPindexPrevTime );
    nLastCoinPosSearchIntervalPrev = ( nLastCoinSearchTime - PosPindexPrevPrevPrevTime ) -
                                                                   ( nLastCoinSearchTime - PosPindexPrevPrevTime );
    nLastCoinPosSearchIntervalPrevPrev = ( nLastCoinSearchTime - PosPindexPrevPrevPrevPrevTime ) -
                                                                   ( nLastCoinSearchTime - PosPindexPrevPrevPrevTime );
    }

    nUnixCachChainTime = nLastCoinSearchTime - 1 + nNewTimeBlock;

    double nPosTargetSpacingTest = 0;
    if(pospindexPrev->GetBlockTime() > nPowForceTimestamp && pospindexPrev->GetBlockTime() < nPowForceTimestamp + NTest)
       nPosTargetSpacingTest = nPosTargetSpacing / nPosTargetSpacing * 600;
       else
           nPosTargetSpacingTest = nPosTargetSpacing;
    int64 nActualTimeIntervalLongPosVeryFirst = nLastCoinPosSearchInterval;
    if(nActualTimeIntervalLongPosVeryFirst < 0)
       nActualTimeIntervalLongPosVeryFirst = nPosTargetSpacingTest / 100 * nSpamHashControl;
    int64 nActualTimeIntervalLongPosFirst = nLastCoinPosSearchIntervalPrev;
    if(nActualTimeIntervalLongPosFirst < 0)
       nActualTimeIntervalLongPosFirst = nPosTargetSpacingTest / 100 * nSpamHashControl;
    int64 nActualTimeIntervalLongPosSecond = nLastCoinPosSearchIntervalPrevPrev;
    if(nActualTimeIntervalLongPosSecond < 0)
       nActualTimeIntervalLongPosSecond = nPosTargetSpacingTest / 100 * nSpamHashControl;
    double nActualSpacingTotalsPos = ( nActualTimeIntervalLongPosVeryFirst + nActualTimeIntervalLongPosFirst ) / 2;
    double nActualTimeIntervalNvar = nActualTimeIntervalLongPosVeryFirst;

    // cacheproject retarget
    // VALM-Cache /logical analysis - mathematically variable/
    int64 nActualSpacingPos = 0;
    double nVar = nPosTargetSpacingTest / 3;
    int64 nNonAccelerating = 0; // sec +0-
          PosPindexPrevTime = pospindexPrev->GetBlockTime();
          PosPindexPrevPrevTime = pospindexPrevPrev->GetBlockTime();
          PosPindexPrevPrevPrevTime = pospindexPrevPrevPrev->GetBlockTime();
          PosPindexPrevPrevPrevPrevTime = pospindexPrevPrevPrevPrev->GetBlockTime();
          nLastCoinPosTwoInterval = nActualSpacingTotalsPos;
          nActualSpacingPos = ( nActualSpacingTotalsPos + nActualTimeIntervalLongPosSecond ) / 2;
    if(nActualTimeIntervalNvar >= nNonAccelerating && nActualTimeIntervalNvar < nPosTargetSpacingTest - nNonAccelerating)
       nPosTargetSpacingVar = (( nPosTargetSpacingTest - 1 + nVar ) -
                                                              ( nActualTimeIntervalNvar * nVar / nPosTargetSpacingTest ));
       else if
              (nActualTimeIntervalNvar > nPosTargetSpacingTest + nNonAccelerating &&
                                                  nActualTimeIntervalNvar <= nPosTargetSpacingTest * 2)
               nPosTargetSpacingVar = (( nPosTargetSpacingTest + 1 + nVar ) -
                                                  ( nActualTimeIntervalNvar * nVar / nPosTargetSpacingTest ));
               else if
                      (nActualTimeIntervalNvar > nPosTargetSpacingTest * 2)
                       nPosTargetSpacingVar = nPosTargetSpacingTest - nVar + 1;
                       else
                           nPosTargetSpacingVar = nPosTargetSpacingTest;
    double nSTSp = nPosTargetSpacingTest; // 1200 sec
    int64 posUppermin = 0;
    double posUppermax = nSTSp - nNonAccelerating; // 1199 sec
    double posLowermin = nSTSp + nNonAccelerating; // 1201 sec
    int64 posLowermax = nTargetSpacingWorkMaxPos;  // 2400 sec
    if(nActualTimeIntervalLongPosVeryFirst > posLowermin && nActualSpacingTotalsPos < posUppermax)
       nActualTimeIntervalXUXLpos = nActualTimeIntervalLongPosVeryFirst;
       else if(nActualTimeIntervalLongPosVeryFirst > posLowermin && nActualSpacingTotalsPos > posLowermin)
               nActualTimeIntervalXUXLpos = min((double) nActualTimeIntervalLongPosVeryFirst, (double) nActualSpacingTotalsPos);
       else if(nActualTimeIntervalLongPosVeryFirst < posUppermax && nActualSpacingTotalsPos < posUppermax)
               nActualTimeIntervalXUXLpos = max((double) nActualTimeIntervalLongPosVeryFirst, (double) nActualSpacingTotalsPos);
       else if(nActualSpacingTotalsPos < posUppermax && nActualSpacingTotalsPos > nActualSpacingPos)
               nActualTimeIntervalXUXLpos = nActualSpacingTotalsPos;
       else if(nActualSpacingTotalsPos > posLowermin && nActualSpacingTotalsPos < nActualSpacingPos)
               nActualTimeIntervalXUXLpos = nActualSpacingTotalsPos;
               else
                   nActualTimeIntervalXUXLpos = nActualSpacingPos;
    double nNix = nSTSp / 100 * 70;
    double nReverseEffectPos = 0;
    if(nActualTimeIntervalXUXLpos < nNix)
       nReverseEffectPos = nActualTimeIntervalXUXLpos / nNix;
       else if(nActualTimeIntervalXUXLpos > nSTSp && nActualTimeIntervalXUXLpos <= nSTSp + ( nSTSp - nNix))
               nReverseEffectPos = ( nSTSp / nSTSp ) / 2;
       else if(nActualTimeIntervalXUXLpos > nSTSp + ( nSTSp - nNix) && nActualTimeIntervalXUXLpos < posLowermax)
               nReverseEffectPos = (( nSTSp + ( nSTSp - nNix )) / nActualTimeIntervalXUXLpos ) / 2;
               else
                   nReverseEffectPos = 1;
       posUpperLower = ( nSTSp / 2 ) * nReverseEffectPos; // interval sampling 2:1 variable
    if(nActualSpacingTotalsPos < nNix / 1.30 && nActualTimeIntervalLongPosVeryFirst < posUppermax)
       posUpperLower = posUpperLower * (( nNix / 1.30 ) / nActualSpacingTotalsPos );
    double XUXL = nPosTargetSpacingTest / 100 * 4;
    double U = 0;
    double L = 0;
    double XU = XUXL + ( posUppermax * posUpperLower / nSTSp ); // 100.9166 +%
    double XL = XUXL + ( nSTSp * posUpperLower / posLowermin ); // 100.9167 +%
    double nBalance = 1.0;
    double nN = XUXL - ( XUXL / nBalance );
    int64 nTargetTimespanMin = nTargetTimespanPos / XL - 1; // min
    int64 nActualTimeIntervalXU = nActualTimeIntervalXUXLpos;
    int64 nActualTimeIntervalXL = nActualTimeIntervalXUXLpos;
    if(nActualTimeIntervalXU >= posUppermin && nActualTimeIntervalXU < posUppermax)
       U = nN + (( XU - ( nActualTimeIntervalXU * posUpperLower / nSTSp )) / nBalance );
       else U = 1;
    if(nActualTimeIntervalXL > posLowermin && nActualTimeIntervalXL < posLowermax)
       L = XL - ( nSTSp * posUpperLower / nActualTimeIntervalXL );
       else if(nActualTimeIntervalXL >= posLowermax)
               L = XL / 2;
               else L = 1;
    int64 nTargetTimespanControlu = nTargetTimespanPos / U; // min
    int64 nTargetTimespanControll = nTargetTimespanPos / L; // min
    if(nTargetTimespanControlu >= nTargetTimespanMin)
       XUpperPos = U;
       else if(nTargetTimespanControlu < nTargetTimespanMin)
               XUpperPos = XU;
               else
                   XUpperPos = 1;
    if(nTargetTimespanControll >= nTargetTimespanMin)
       XLowerPos = L;
       else if(nTargetTimespanControll < nTargetTimespanMin)
               XLowerPos = XL;
               else
                   XLowerPos = 1;
    CBigNum bnNewPos;
    bnNewPos.SetCompact(pospindexPrev->nBits);
    double nTargetTimespanBn = nTargetTimespanPos / max( XUpperPos, XLowerPos );
    double nInterval = nTargetTimespanBn / nPosTargetSpacingTest;
    if(pospindexPrev->GetBlockTime() > nPowForceTimestamp)
    {
       if(pospindexPrev->GetBlockTime() > nPowForceTimestamp && pospindexPrev->IsProofOfStake())

       bnNewPos *= (( (int64) nInterval - 1) * (int64) nPosTargetSpacingVar + (int64) nActualTimeIntervalXUXLpos +
                                                                                  (int64) nActualTimeIntervalXUXLpos);
       bnNewPos /= (( (int64) nInterval + 1) * (int64) nPosTargetSpacingVar);

       if(bnNewPos > bnTargetLimitPos)
          bnNewPos = bnTargetLimitPos;
       //if(bnNewPos < bnTargetLimitPos + bnTargetLimitPos)
          //bnNewPos = bnTargetLimitPos;
    }
    return bnNewPos.GetCompact();
}

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/blob/534d970af686005a46ac7b412835fa9aca4ab885/src/main.cpp#L1149




Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 04, 2019, 08:12:03 AM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Fix minor bugs

Version : v_6.1.1.9
Version of git : v_0.7.5.84
Subversion : v_0.7.6.23

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.9




Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 14, 2019, 07:25:47 AM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Peers with bad behavior will now disconnect. With the subsequent perm…, Reduced consumption of system resources(Stable)

Version : v_6.1.1.10
Version of git : v_0.7.5.101
Subversion : v_0.7.6.24

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.10



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 14, 2019, 08:22:26 AM
 Forwarded the question to the Russian-speaking branch.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5062548.msg50155239#msg50155239


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 16, 2019, 01:17:30 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Unification of functions ProcessMessage, ProcessMessages, ThreadAnalyzer into one functional object. With the integration of Spam Hash List on 250 lines(with line shift)

Version : v_6.1.1.11
Version of git : v_0.7.5.103
Subversion : v_0.7.6.25

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.11



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: toboho on March 16, 2019, 02:19:15 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Unification of functions ProcessMessage, ProcessMessages, ThreadAnalyzer into one functional object. With the integration of Spam Hash List on 250 lines(with line shift)

Version : v_6.1.1.11
Version of git : v_0.7.5.103
Subversion : v_0.7.6.25

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.11





{
    "version" : "v6.1.1.11-g32a928e-cache-2018-beta-one",
    "protocolversion" : 91001,
    "walletversion" : 60000,
    "balance" : 0.00000000,
    "newmint" : 0.00000000,
    "stake" : 0.00000000,
    "blocks" : 0,
    "moneysupply" : 0.00000000,
    "connections" : 0,
    "proxy" : "",
    "ip" : "113.79.74.120",
    "difficulty" : 0.00024414,
    "testnet" : false,
    "keypoololdest" : 1552745652,
    "keypoolsize" : 101,
    "paytxfee" : 0.01000000,
    "errors" : ""

0 node!
In China


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: toboho on March 16, 2019, 02:34:54 PM
addnode=31.43.218.102
addnode=31.43.218.102
addnode=31.43.218.102
addnode=31.43.218.102
addnode=145.239.189.106
addnode=92.47.17.164
addnode=31.43.218.102
addnode=195.200.244.73
addnode=104.167.2.136
addnode=5.9.77.113
addnode=95.216.23.211
addnode=63.142.251.194
addnode=109.194.51.160
addnode=109.194.51.160
addnode=77.235.199.6
addnode=109.194.51.160
addnode=109.194.51.160
addnode=91.210.200.12


Eureka


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 16, 2019, 03:40:57 PM
addnode=31.43.218.102
addnode=31.43.218.102
addnode=31.43.218.102
addnode=31.43.218.102
addnode=145.239.189.106
addnode=92.47.17.164
addnode=31.43.218.102
addnode=195.200.244.73
addnode=104.167.2.136
addnode=5.9.77.113
addnode=95.216.23.211
addnode=63.142.251.194
addnode=109.194.51.160
addnode=109.194.51.160
addnode=77.235.199.6
addnode=109.194.51.160
addnode=109.194.51.160
addnode=91.210.200.12


Eureka

Bugs - only now manifested. Looking.


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: danycoman on March 17, 2019, 10:30:29 AM
No dowload blocks


"version" : "v6.1.1.11-g32a928e-cache-2018-beta-one",
    "protocolversion" : 91001,
    "walletversion" : 60000,
    "balance" : 0.00000000,
    "newmint" : 0.00000000,
    "stake" : 0.00000000,
    "blocks" : 0,
    "moneysupply" : 0.00000000,
    "connections" : 5,
    "proxy" : "",
    "ip" : "185.203.118.177",
    "difficulty" : 0.00024414,
    "testnet" : false,
    "keypoololdest" : 1552818485,
    "keypoolsize" : 101,
    "paytxfee" : 0.01000000,
    "errors" : ""


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 17, 2019, 01:45:38 PM
No dowload blocks


"version" : "v6.1.1.11-g32a928e-cache-2018-beta-one",
    "protocolversion" : 91001,
    "walletversion" : 60000,
    "balance" : 0.00000000,
    "newmint" : 0.00000000,
    "stake" : 0.00000000,
    "blocks" : 0,
    "moneysupply" : 0.00000000,
    "connections" : 5,
    "proxy" : "",
    "ip" : "185.203.118.177",
    "difficulty" : 0.00024414,
    "testnet" : false,
    "keypoololdest" : 1552818485,
    "keypoolsize" : 101,
    "paytxfee" : 0.01000000,
    "errors" : ""


 Yes, yes - there is such a thing. Soon there will be an update, found the reason ..



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: toboho on March 18, 2019, 06:34:59 AM
{
    "version" : "v6.1.1.11-g32a928e-cache-2018-beta-one",
    "protocolversion" : 91001,
    "walletversion" : 60000,
    "balance" : 0.00000000,
    "newmint" : 0.00000000,
    "stake" : 0.00000000,
    "blocks" : 0,
    "moneysupply" : 0.00000000,
    "connections" : 3,
    "proxy" : "",
    "ip" : "113.79.75.25",
    "difficulty" : 0.00024414,
    "testnet" : false,
    "keypoololdest" : 1552745652,
    "keypoolsize" : 101,
    "paytxfee" : 0.01000000,
    "errors" : ""
}


me to


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 18, 2019, 12:49:19 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Unification of functions ProcessMessage, ProcessMessages, ThreadAnalyzer into one functional object. With the integration of Spam Hash List on 250 lines(with line shift) - 2

Version : v_6.1.1.12
Version of git : v_0.7.5.104
Subversion : v_0.7.6.26

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.12



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: ButtCracked on March 18, 2019, 09:35:23 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Unification of functions ProcessMessage, ProcessMessages, ThreadAnalyzer into one functional object. With the integration of Spam Hash List on 250 lines(with line shift) - 2

Version : v_6.1.1.12
Version of git : v_0.7.5.104
Subversion : v_0.7.6.26

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.12


Wallet doesn't sync.

Code:
2019-03-18 21:30:18 

BAD MSGCOMPLETE - BREAK

2019-03-18 21:30:18 ProcessMessages(inv, 18003 bytes) : CHECKSUM ERROR - CONTINUE nChecksum=d71a6c94 hdr.nChecksum=bd8897b2


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 20, 2019, 03:07:29 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Unification of functions ProcessMessage, ProcessMessages, ThreadAnalyzer into one functional object. With the integration of Spam Hash List on 250 lines(with line shift) - 2

Version : v_6.1.1.12
Version of git : v_0.7.5.104
Subversion : v_0.7.6.26

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.12


Wallet doesn't sync.

Code:
2019-03-18 21:30:18 

BAD MSGCOMPLETE - BREAK

2019-03-18 21:30:18 ProcessMessages(inv, 18003 bytes) : CHECKSUM ERROR - CONTINUE nChecksum=d71a6c94 hdr.nChecksum=bd8897b2

 The next version will be better.  :)


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 21, 2019, 03:11:41 AM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Unification of functions ProcessMessage, ProcessMessages, ThreadAnalyzer into one functional object. With the integration of Spam Hash List on 250 lines(with line shift) - 3

Version : v_6.1.1.13
Version of git : v_0.7.5.105
Subversion : v_0.7.6.27

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.13



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 21, 2019, 05:16:46 AM
 
 What is it for....
Before this update, you could see in the log file -

Code:
2019-03-18 04:39:22 UTC received: inv (73 bytes)
  got inventory: tx a95eb73d454b8469705b  new
  strCommand 'inv' - spam hash previous: ck 34ffd65274414510f - outofstock
askfor tx a95eb73d454b8469705b   0 (00:00:00)
  got inventory: tx bdfacc80ed0878f1f235  new
  strCommand 'inv' - spam hash previous: ck 34ffd65274414510f - outofstock
askfor tx bdfacc80ed0878f1f235   0 (00:00:00)
sending getdata: tx a95eb73d454b8469705b
sending getdata: tx bdfacc80ed0878f1f235
sending: getdata (73 bytes)


BAD MSGCOMPLETE - BREAK

ProcessMessages(tx, 56096 bytes) : CHECKSUM ERROR - CONTINUE nChecksum=35ed1baf hdr.nChecksum=c49b7f72


BAD MSGCOMPLETE - BREAK

ProcessMessages(tx, 56096 bytes) : CHECKSUM ERROR - CONTINUE nChecksum=7772b533 hdr.nChecksum=c49b7f72
2019-03-18 04:39:22 UTC received: tx (56096 bytes)
trying connection 91.82.212.214:2225 lastseen=152,3hrs
'CTxMemPool - Accept' - ThreadAnalyzerHandler() : accepted a95eb73d45 (poolsz 1)
strCommand 'tx' - AcceptToMemoryPool: xxx.xxx.xxx.73:51090 /CACHEProject 2018:0.7.6.21/ : accepted a95eb73d454b8469705bc8ddffb749161c3ca41b0c3f6a210d1f043dc49b7f72 (poolsz 1)
connect() failed after select(): B coeдинeнии oткaзaнo
trying connection 194.154.78.195:2225 lastseen=36,5hrs
connection timeout

At first glance, everything is fine - with a few small errors. After the last update, it is not so harmless.

Code:
2019-03-20 14:08:00 UTC received: inv (73 bytes)
   Switch test mode ('inv' contains more than one transaction)
ThreadRPCServer method=gettransaction
  got inventory: tx a95eb73d454b8469705b  new
  strCommand 'inv' - spam hash previous:  Spam is missing now - outofstock
askfor tx a95eb73d454b8469705b   0 (00:00:00)
  got inventory: tx bdfacc80ed0878f1f235  new
  strCommand 'inv' - spam hash previous:  Spam is missing now - outofstock
askfor tx bdfacc80ed0878f1f235   0 (00:00:00)
sending getdata: tx a95eb73d454b8469705b
sending getdata: tx bdfacc80ed0878f1f235
sending: getdata (73 bytes)
ThreadRPCServer method=getblock
ProcessMessages(tx, 56096 bytes) : BAD MSGCOMPLETE IF CHECKSUM ERROR - CONTINUE nChecksum=2c043ff7 hdr.nChecksum=c49b7f72
2019-03-20 14:08:00 UTC received: tx (56096 bytes)
ERROR: 'Transaction - CheckTransaction' - ThreadAnalyzerHandler() : vout empty
strCommand 'tx' - The executor of the rules performed the work
  strCommand 'tx' - spam hash previous: 63d6de921f25bff5da96 - outofstock
  strCommand 'tx' - spam hash actual: 63d6de921f25bff5da96 - outofstock
ProcessMessage(tx, 56096 bytes) FAILED
ThreadRPCServer method=gettransaction
disconnecting node xxx.xxx.xxx.73:60833
ThreadRPCServer method=getblock
trying connection 194.154.78.195:2225 lastseen=94,0hrs
Code:
2019-03-16 06:01:25 UTC received: inv (37 bytes)
  got inventory: tx 7405f2ab32944cfac5b0  new
  strCommand 'inv' - spam hash previous:  Spam is missing now - outofstock
askfor tx 7405f2ab32944cfac5b0   0 (00:00:00)
sending getdata: tx 7405f2ab32944cfac5b0
sending: getdata (37 bytes)


BAD MSGCOMPLETE - BREAK

ProcessMessages(tx, 7112 bytes) : CHECKSUM ERROR - CONTINUE nChecksum=23dce890 hdr.nChecksum=7adc7b94
2019-03-16 06:01:25 UTC received: tx (7112 bytes)
ERROR: 'Transaction - CheckTransaction' - ThreadAnalyzerHandler() : vout empty
strCommand 'tx' - The executor of the rules performed the work
  strCommand 'tx' - spam hash previous: ff86c6d8341aa8fab74b - outofstock
  strCommand 'tx' - spam hash actual: ff86c6d8341aa8fab74b - outofstock
ProcessMessage(tx, 7112 bytes) FAILED
disconnecting node xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:2225
connection timeout

I do not know who the author is, but this code has this vulnerability.

Code:
bool ProcessMessages(CNode* pfrom)
{
    //CDataStream& vRecv = pfrom->vRecv;
    //if (vRecv.empty())
    //    return true;

    static int64 nTimeLastPrintMessageStart = 0;
    if (fDebug && GetBoolArg("-printmessagestart") && nTimeLastPrintMessageStart + 30 < GetAdjustedTime())
    {
        string strMessageStart((const char *)pchMessageStart, sizeof(pchMessageStart));
        vector<unsigned char> vchMessageStart(strMessageStart.begin(), strMessageStart.end());
        printf("ProcessMessages : AdjustedTime=%" PRI64d" MessageStart=%s\n", GetAdjustedTime(), HexStr(vchMessageStart).c_str());
        nTimeLastPrintMessageStart = GetAdjustedTime();
    }

    bool fOk = true;

    if (!pfrom->vRecvGetData.empty())
        ProcessGetData(pfrom);

    // this maintains the order of responses
    if (!pfrom->vRecvGetData.empty())
        return fOk;

    //
    // Message format
    //  (4) message start
    //  (12) command
    //  (4) size
    //  (4) checksum
    //  (x) data
    //

    std::deque<CNetMessage>::iterator it = pfrom->vRecvMsg.begin();
    while (!pfrom->fDisconnect && it != pfrom->vRecvMsg.end())
    {
        // Don't bother if send buffer is too full to respond anyway
        if (pfrom->vSend.size() >= SendBufferSize())
        {
            printf("\n\nSENDSIZE > SENDBUFFERSIZE - BREAK\n\n");
            break;
        }

        CNetMessage& msg = *it;

        if (!msg.complete())
        {
            printf("\n\nBAD MSGCOMPLETE - BREAK\n\n");
            break;
        }

        it++;

        // Scan for message start
        if (memcmp(msg.hdr.pchMessageStart, pchMessageStart, sizeof(pchMessageStart)) != 0)
        {
            printf("\n\nPROCESSMESSAGE: INVALID MESSAGESTART - BREAK\n\n");
            fOk = false;
            break;
        }

        // Read header
        CMessageHeader& hdr = msg.hdr;
        if (!hdr.IsValid())
        {
            printf("\n\nPROCESSMESSAGE: ERRORS IN HEADER - CONTINUE %s\n\n\n", hdr.GetCommand().c_str());
            continue;
        }
        string strCommand = hdr.GetCommand();

        // Message size
        unsigned int nMessageSize = hdr.nMessageSize;

        // Checksum
        CDataStream& vRecv = msg.vRecv;
        uint256 hash = Hash(vRecv.begin(), vRecv.begin() + nMessageSize);
        unsigned int nChecksum = 0;
        memcpy(&nChecksum, &hash, sizeof(nChecksum));
        if (nChecksum != hdr.nChecksum)
        {
            printf("ProcessMessages(%s, %u bytes) : CHECKSUM ERROR - CONTINUE nChecksum=%08x hdr.nChecksum=%08x\n",
            strCommand.c_str(), nMessageSize, nChecksum, hdr.nChecksum);
            continue;
        }

        // Message size - addr
        std::string wait("addr"), addr(strCommand.c_str());
        if (wait == addr)
        {
        if (nMessageSize > ADR_MAX_SIZE)
        {
            printf("ProcessMessages(%s, %u bytes) : PEERS.DAT EXCEEDS THE ALLOWABLE SIZE - CONTINUE\n", strCommand.c_str(), nMessageSize);
            continue;
        }
        }

        // Process message
        bool fRet = false;
        try
        {
            {
                LOCK(cs_main);
                fRet = ProcessMessage(pfrom, strCommand, vRecv);
            }
            boost::this_thread::interruption_point();
        }
        catch (std::ios_base::failure& e)
        {
            if (strstr(e.what(), "end of data"))
            {
                // Allow exceptions from under-length message on vRecv
                printf("ProcessMessages(%s, %u bytes) : Exception '%s' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length\n", strCommand.c_str(), nMessageSize, e.what());
            }
            else if (strstr(e.what(), "size too large"))
            {
                // Allow exceptions from over-long size
                printf("ProcessMessages(%s, %u bytes) : Exception '%s' caught\n", strCommand.c_str(), nMessageSize, e.what());
            }
            else
            {
                PrintExceptionContinue(&e, "ProcessMessages()");
            }
        }
        catch (boost::thread_interrupted) {
            throw;
        }
        catch (std::exception& e) {
            PrintExceptionContinue(&e, "ProcessMessages()");
        } catch (...) {
            PrintExceptionContinue(NULL, "ProcessMessages()");
        }

        if (!fRet)
            printf("ProcessMessage(%s, %u bytes) FAILED\n", strCommand.c_str(), nMessageSize);

        break;
    }

    // In case the connection got shut down, its receive buffer was wiped
    if (!pfrom->fDisconnect)
        pfrom->vRecvMsg.erase(pfrom->vRecvMsg.begin(), it);

    return fOk;


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 24, 2019, 02:28:43 AM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Unification of functions ProcessMessage, ProcessMessages, ThreadAnalyzer into one functional object. With the integration of Spam Hash List on 250 lines(with line shift) - Final -+ CTxMemPool::CheckTxMemPool added

Version : v_6.1.1.14
Version of git : v_0.7.5.108
Subversion : v_0.7.6.28

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.14



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 30, 2019, 07:07:07 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Added control of peers on spam activity

Version : v_6.1.1.16
Version of git : v_0.7.5.112
Subversion : v_0.7.6.30

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.16



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on April 01, 2019, 03:13:17 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Update, bug fixes

Version : v_6.1.1.17
Version of git : v_0.7.5.113
Subversion : v_0.7.6.31

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.17



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on April 07, 2019, 07:06:17 AM
New version available

CACHE-Project, Hurried, walked fast to forward, putting the mistakes behind. I fixit it. I hope that starting from this version everything will be OK

Version : v_6.1.1.18
Version of git : v_0.7.5.116
Subversion : v_0.7.6.32

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.18



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on April 14, 2019, 05:26:23 AM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Eliminated some of the causes of stops during block synchronization

Version : v_6.1.1.19
Version of git : v_0.7.5.122
Subversion : v_0.7.6.33

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.19



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: four3200 on April 25, 2019, 03:02:05 PM
can't say no dev here  ;D
cool to see solid activity for CACHE, old project that goes back to cryptsy days.


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on May 01, 2019, 12:33:51 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Modifying the block chain request rule in case of transmission failure during synchronization

Version : v_6.1.1.25
Version of git : v_0.7.5.133
Subversion : v_0.7.6.37

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.25



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on May 06, 2019, 03:54:19 PM
 A second website organized using Shift Project Phantom dApp

http://shiftphantom.cachecoin.net

https://wallet.testnet.shiftnrg.org/ipfs/QmNaN3abndyddukwDSwcRY37MvLzNbXidDqd1nHv9k6HTG/index.html



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on May 14, 2019, 01:34:44 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, All features are enabled and available

Version : v_6.1.1.27
Version of git : v_0.7.5.136
Subversion : v_0.7.6.39

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.27



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on May 14, 2019, 03:05:36 PM
  The inclusion of many features was tied to the "debug" setting and was not written about this. In this version, this dependency is removed.
Synchronization of blocks is implemented in three modes -

1)
setreload=0
setreconnecting=0
2)
setreload=0
setreconnecting=1
3)
setreload=1
setreconnecting=0

Coinexchange.io installed the latest version of the wallet and synchronized the blockchain from the zero block to check the balance.


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: brian_nguyen on May 16, 2019, 09:31:17 PM
 The inclusion of many features was tied to the "debug" setting and was not written about this. In this version, this dependency is removed.
Synchronization of blocks is implemented in three modes -

1)
setreload=0
setreconnecting=0
2)
setreload=0
setreconnecting=1
3)
setreload=1
setreconnecting=0

Coinexchange.io installed the latest version of the wallet and synchronized the blockchain from the zero block to check the balance.

Thank you for your dedication to this project Deff. Without you this coin would have died many moons ago. Cheers!


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on May 17, 2019, 03:13:54 AM
 The inclusion of many features was tied to the "debug" setting and was not written about this. In this version, this dependency is removed.
Synchronization of blocks is implemented in three modes -

1)
setreload=0
setreconnecting=0
2)
setreload=0
setreconnecting=1
3)
setreload=1
setreconnecting=0

Coinexchange.io installed the latest version of the wallet and synchronized the blockchain from the zero block to check the balance.

Thank you for your dedication to this project Deff. Without you this coin would have died many moons ago. Cheers!

Thanks for thanks, dear friend!
 :)


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on May 17, 2019, 05:30:36 AM

 According to the tests results:
The optimal mode -

setreload=0
setreconnecting=1

Extreme mode -

setreload=1
setreconnecting=0



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on May 20, 2019, 02:00:49 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, SetControlRealTime added

Version : v_6.1.1.28
Version of git : v_0.7.5.138
Subversion : v_0.7.6.40

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.28



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on May 20, 2019, 03:30:37 PM

 New settings and what they are for.

 Options - ("setreload" "setreconnecting") - used when synchronizing blocks.

1) default
Synchronization mode with disconnection from peers sending incorrect data.

setreload=0
setreconnecting=1

2)
Use in cases where some members of the network are not interested in the presence of a large number of synchronized nodes and if they interfere with the completion of synchronization.
Synchronization mode with ignoring all transactions with the current(real) time stamp and disconnection from peers who send incorrect data.

setreload=1
setreconnecting=0


 The "setreconnectpresenttime" option is used after synchronization is complete. Reconnects the wallet to another peer in the absence of a new block within the specified time.
The option "timeupreconnectpresenttime" sets the time in seconds.

Used in many cases, for example, to counter the module "TARPIT".

1) default

setreconnectpresenttime=1
timeupreconnectpresenttime=60*20






Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on May 21, 2019, 03:23:08 AM
 
 These additions are implemented to eliminate the possibility of repeated use of the same coins. This is exactly what happened on the Cryptopia Exchange. For double spending, coins with a small number of connections and a small network hash rate or POS coins were chosen. Moreover, an attack of 51% is not obligatory, it is enough to tear off the exchange's wallet from its main network. Coins with which this focus was repeated many times and were delist from the Cryptopia.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on May 30, 2019, 04:31:54 AM
 
  Job the filter - log ..

Code:
accepted connection 167.86.103.109:53424
disconnecting node 167.86.103.109:53424
accepted connection 167.86.103.109:53443
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 1
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 1
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 2
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 3
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 4
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 5
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 6
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 7
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 8
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 9
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 10
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 11
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 12
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 13
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 14
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 15
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 16
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 17
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 18
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 19
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 20
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 21
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 22
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 23
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 24
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 25
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 26
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 27
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 28
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 29
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 30
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 31
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 32
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 33
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 34
disconnecting node 167.86.103.109:53443
accepted connection 167.86.103.109:53654
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 35
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 36
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 37
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 38
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 39
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 40
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 41
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 42
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 43
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 44
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 45
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 46
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 47
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 48
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 49
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 50
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 51
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 52
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 53
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 54
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 55
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 56
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 57
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 58
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 59
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 60
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 61
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 62
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 63
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 64
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 65
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 66
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 67
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 68
socket closed
disconnecting node 167.86.103.109:53654
accepted connection 167.86.103.109:53810
disconnecting node 167.86.103.109:53810
accepted connection 167.86.103.109:53814
disconnecting node 167.86.103.109:53814
accepted connection 167.86.103.109:53816
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 69
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 70
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 71
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 72
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 73
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 74
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 75
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 76
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 77
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 78
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 79
  ProcessMessages - !msg.complete(): 167.86.103.109 - error count: 80
  ProcessMessages - spam ip actual: 167.86.103.109
disconnecting node 167.86.103.109:53816
connection from 167.86.103.109:53882 dropped (IsGlobalIpBanned)



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on May 30, 2019, 12:56:12 PM

  Work function "setreconnectpresenttime" - log.

Code:
trying connection 188.163.45.132:2225 lastseen=331,3hrs
     For a long time without new blocks - queue: 0 loops from: max
disconnecting node 185.220.101.26:35056
     Start block sync



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on June 05, 2019, 02:12:41 PM
New version available

CACHE-Project, Adding new features and correcting errors in the balance calculation

Version : v_6.1.1.29
Version of git : v_0.7.5.147
Subversion : v_0.7.6.41

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.29



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on June 05, 2019, 02:37:06 PM

  Fixed balance calculation errors. Added new features for analyzing addresses and wallet accounts.
New features -

"fixerrorgetbalancefunction"
"getaddressbalance"
"getbalancealladdresses"
"getbasebalancealladdresses"
"getreceivedbyalladdresses"
"getsenttobyalladdresses"
"getstakebalancealladdresses"



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on June 09, 2019, 01:04:42 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Changing the parameters of the "setcontrolrealtime" function. Implemented stop the transfer of a chain of blocks in case of a socket error

Version : v_6.1.1.30
Version of git : v_0.7.5.149
Subversion : v_0.7.6.42

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.30



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on June 09, 2019, 01:25:15 PM
  
  To enable the function "setcontrolrealtime", you must specify the parameter "setcontrolrealtime=1".
This function changes the limit on the number of transmitted blocks. In the case when the sent "inv"
has one size, and the received "getdata" the other limit is set to 10. Additionally, when transferring
blocks with a height of more than 150000, the limit is set to 30.
  Starting from the previous version, in the event of a socket error, the transfer of a chain of blocks is
interrupted on the block with an error.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on October 29, 2019, 09:38:14 AM

  Upcoming changes ...

1) Adaptation of difficulty for NF19 - 20 / min = 0.00024 -> 0.00000096 /



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on October 30, 2019, 04:09:12 PM
 Upcoming changes ...

2) If the "ChainTrust" matches, the network will not wait for the child block from the competitor’s node. Code..

Code:
// New best
    if (pindexNew->bnChainTrust > bnBestChainTrust)
    {
        if (!SetBestChain(state, txdb, pindexNew))
            return false;
    }
    else if (pindexNew->bnChainTrust == bnBestChainTrust && fHardForkOne && pindexPrevPos->GetBlockHash() >=
        pindexPrevPrevPos->GetBlockHash())
    {
        printf(" 'CBlock' - BestChainTrust %s\n", bnBestChainTrust.ToString().c_str());
        printf(" 'CBlock' - NewChainTrust %s\n", pindexNew->bnChainTrust.ToString().c_str());
        if (((pindexNew->IsProofOfStake() && pindexBest->IsProofOfStake()) ? (pindexNew->GetBlockHash() >
            pindexBest->GetBlockHash()) : (hash > pindexBest->GetBlockHash())) ||
            (pindexBest->IsProofOfWork() && pindexNew->IsProofOfStake()))
        {
            printf(" 'CBlock' bnChainTrust = bnBestChainTrust - Block accepted\n");
            if (!SetBestChain(state, txdb, pindexNew))
            {
                return false;
            }
        }
        else
        {
             printf(" 'CBlock' bnChainTrust = bnBestChainTrust - Block not accepted\n");
             return false;
        }
    }
    else if (pindexNew->bnChainTrust == bnBestChainTrust && fHardForkOne && pindexPrevPos->GetBlockHash() <
             pindexPrevPrevPos->GetBlockHash())
    {
        printf(" 'CBlock_' - BestChainTrust %s\n", bnBestChainTrust.ToString().c_str());
        printf(" 'CBlock_' - NewChainTrust %s\n", pindexNew->bnChainTrust.ToString().c_str());
        if (((pindexNew->IsProofOfStake() && pindexBest->IsProofOfStake()) ? (pindexNew->GetBlockHash() <
            pindexBest->GetBlockHash()) : (hash < pindexBest->GetBlockHash())) ||
            (pindexBest->IsProofOfWork() && pindexNew->IsProofOfStake()))
        {
            printf(" 'CBlock' bnChainTrust = bnBestChainTrust - Block accepted\n");
            if (!SetBestChain(state, txdb, pindexNew))
            {
                return false;
            }
        }
        else
        {
             printf(" 'CBlock' bnChainTrust = bnBestChainTrust - Block not accepted\n");
             return false;
        }
    }
    txdb.Close();




Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on November 04, 2019, 07:08:41 AM
 
 Upcoming changes ...

Often there are situations in which a chain of blocks with a later timestamp but with greater trust replaces the earlier found blocks.
I do not like such situations, and I consider this vulnerability. In the updated code, a chain of blocks with a larger time stamp loses its trust.
Code ...
Code:
CBlockIndex* pblockindex = NULL;
    int nPossibleHeight = pindexNew->pprev->nHeight + 1;
    if (fDebug)
        printf(" 'AddToBlockIndex()' - The new block pretends to a height %d, block chain height %d\n", nPossibleHeight,
               pindexBest->nHeight);

    if (nPossibleHeight < pindexBest->nHeight && fHardForkOne)
    {
        if (nPossibleHeight <= pindexBest->nHeight - nTriggerDepth)
        {
            if (fDebug)
                printf(" 'AddToBlockIndex()' - The new block pretends to a height %d, maximum allowed block height for a competing chain %d\n", nPossibleHeight,
                pindexBest->nHeight - nTriggerDepth);
            pindexNew->bnChainTrust = 0;

        }

        pblockindex = FindBlockByHeight(nPossibleHeight);
        if (pindexNew->GetBlockTime() > pblockindex->GetBlockTime())
        {
            if (fDebug)
                printf(" 'AddToBlockIndex()' - Generation time of a new block date=%s later than available in the database date=%s\n",
                DateTimeStrFormat("%x %H:%M:%S", pindexNew->GetBlockTime()).c_str(), DateTimeStrFormat("%x %H:%M:%S",
                pblockindex->GetBlockTime()).c_str());
            pindexNew->bnChainTrust = 0;
        }
        else if (pindexNew->GetBlockTime() < pblockindex->GetBlockTime())
        {
                 if (nPossibleHeight < pindexBest->nHeight && nPossibleHeight > pindexBest->nHeight - nTriggerDepth)
                 {
                     if (fDebug)
                         printf(" 'AddToBlockIndex()' - The generation time of a new block date=%s earlier than the one in the database date=%s\n",
                         DateTimeStrFormat("%x %H:%M:%S", pindexNew->GetBlockTime()).c_str(), DateTimeStrFormat("%x %H:%M:%S",
                         pblockindex->GetBlockTime()).c_str());
                     bnBestChainTrust = pblockindex->pprev->bnChainTrust;
                 }
        }
    }



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on November 07, 2019, 06:14:58 AM
 
  Implemented a new principle of consensus in a dispute between blocks for placement in the main chain. Confidence comparison is used only when the time stamps of competitor blocks are exactly the same. In other cases, the check for the formation of a fork and for the presence of disputed blocks is carried out constantly with the advent of each new block in the network. The check is carried out at the specified depth and can be changed in the settings. When disputed blocks are found, information about the parent block is entered into the log file, and the hash and timestamps are logged for posterity. The block with the earlier timestamp wins. As far as I know, this method has not been used yet, but maybe I'm wrong. It is possible in the  this mode the use of check points will not be appropriate.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on November 07, 2019, 06:27:30 AM

  Log of work ...

Code:
received block 1652a05972b98e678461
CheckStakeKernelHash() : using modifier 0x35d696e7b209ef80 at height=349401 timestamp=2019-08-28 19:25:00 UTC for block from height=348699 timestamp=2019-08-19 21:11:31 UTC
CheckStakeKernelHash() : check protocol=0.3 modifier=0x35d696e7b209ef80 nTimeBlockFrom=1566249091 nTxPrevOffset=158 nTimeTxPrev=1566249091 nPrevout=1 nTimeTx=1572903179 hashProof=000001c1e2aca427813ef37c1bc66380e10d2afa0ba691c41d6947d2a4637ced
ComputeNextStakeModifier: prev modifier=0x3c2eb5bf4d3202fd time=2019-11-04 18:08:03 UTC
 'AddToBlockIndex()' - The new block pretends to a height 357245, block chain height 357285
 'AddToBlockIndex()' - A fork is formed, the height of the parent block 357233, hash child blocks hash(1)=46cba156 hash(2)=000084f2, creation date block(1)=04.11.2019 20:04:19 block(2)=04.11.2019 19:19:17,
  priority has a second block, NewChainTrust=0 down
 'AddToBlockIndex()' - Generation time of a new block date=04.11.2019 21:32:59 later than available in the database date=04.11.2019 20:19:24
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED POS BLOCK
2019-11-06 19:34:49 UTC received: getblocks (997 bytes)

Code:
received block 0001b495e8c947f2aa67
ComputeNextStakeModifier: prev modifier=0x1673d3f6dc47f14c time=2019-11-07 00:10:33 UTC
 'AddToBlockIndex()' - The new block pretends to a height 357365, block chain height 357366
 'AddToBlockIndex()' - A fork is formed, the height of the parent block 357364, hash child blocks hash(1)=0001b495 hash(2)=045a8855, creation date block(1)=11/07/19 03:58:09 block(2)=11/07/19 03:59:48,
  priority has the first block, BestChainTrust=769420279357256 down
 'AddToBlockIndex()' - The generation time of a new block date=11/07/19 03:58:09 earlier than the one in the database date=11/07/19 03:59:48
REORGANIZE
REORGANIZE: Disconnect 2 blocks; 0d7c1fab0c6ac8e5150a..5729d05204aef49d6c0c
REORGANIZE: Connect 1 blocks; 0d7c1fab0c6ac8e5150a..0001b495e8c947f2aa67
     Delete redundant memory transactions that are in the connected branch
REORGANIZE: done
SetBestChain: new best=0001b495e8c947f2aa67  height=357365  trust=769420279357257  date=11/07/19 03:58:09
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED POW BLOCK
2019-11-07 04:08:04 UTC received: block (335 bytes)

Code:
received block 0001b6228706fd79e42d
Flushed 123 addresses to peers.dat  31ms
ComputeNextStakeModifier: prev modifier=0x1673d3f6dc47f14c time=2019-11-07 00:10:33 UTC
 'AddToBlockIndex()' - The new block pretends to a height 357349, block chain height 357349
 'AddToBlockIndex()' - A fork is formed, the height of the parent block 357348, hash child blocks hash(1)=0001b622 hash(2)=5416c057, creation date block(1)=11/07/19 02:16:20 block(2)=11/07/19 02:19:22,
  priority has the first block, BestChainTrust=769144828228136 down
REORGANIZE
REORGANIZE: Disconnect 1 blocks; 741dae93a19fd2a2df2d..5416c057bc5860a31b1c
REORGANIZE: Connect 1 blocks; 741dae93a19fd2a2df2d..0001b6228706fd79e42d
     Delete redundant memory transactions that are in the connected branch
REORGANIZE: done
SetBestChain: new best=0001b6228706fd79e42d  height=357349  trust=769144828228137  date=11/07/19 02:16:20
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED POW BLOCK



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on November 07, 2019, 06:48:36 AM
  Code being tested for today ..

Code:
    CBlockIndex* pblockindex = NULL;
    int nPossibleHeight = pindexNew->pprev->nHeight + 1;
    if (fDebug)
        printf(" 'AddToBlockIndex()' - The new block pretends to a height %d, block chain height %d\n", nPossibleHeight,
               pindexBest->nHeight);

    nMaxDepthReplacement = GetArg("-maxdepthreplacement", 50);

    int nFixPrev = 0;
    CBlockIndex* newblockindex = pindexNew;
    int nFixPindexBestnHeight = pindexBest->nHeight;
    if (fHardForkOne)
    {
        if (pindexBest->nHeight > nPossibleHeight)
            nFixPindexBestnHeight = nPossibleHeight;
        if (nPossibleHeight > pindexBest->nHeight)
        {
            nFixPrev = nPossibleHeight - pindexBest->nHeight;
            for (int i = nFixPrev; i > 0; i--)
            {
                 if (i == i)
                 {
                     newblockindex =  newblockindex->pprev;
                 }
            }
        }

        for (int k = nFixPindexBestnHeight; k > nFixPindexBestnHeight - nMaxDepthReplacement; k--)
        {
             CBlockIndex* bestblockindex = FindBlockByHeight(k);
             if (k == k)
             {
                 if (newblockindex->pprev->GetBlockHash() == bestblockindex->pprev->GetBlockHash())
                 {
                     if (nPossibleHeight <= pindexBest->nHeight - nMaxDepthReplacement)
                     {
                         pindexNew->bnChainTrust = 0;
                         if (fDebug)
                             printf(" 'AddToBlockIndex()' - The new block pretends to a height %d, maximum allowed block height for a competing chain %d\n", nPossibleHeight,
                             pindexBest->nHeight - nMaxDepthReplacement);
                         break;
                     }
                     else if (newblockindex->GetBlockTime() > bestblockindex->GetBlockTime())
                     {
                              pindexNew->bnChainTrust = 0;
                              if (fDebug)
                                  printf(" 'AddToBlockIndex()' - A fork is formed, the height of the parent block %d, hash child blocks hash(1)=%s hash(2)=%s, creation date block(1)=%s block(2)=%s,\n",
                                  bestblockindex->pprev->nHeight, newblockindex->GetBlockHash().ToString().substr(0,8).c_str(), bestblockindex->GetBlockHash().
                                  ToString().substr(0,8).c_str(), DateTimeStrFormat("%x %H:%M:%S", newblockindex->GetBlockTime()).c_str(), DateTimeStrFormat("%x %H:%M:%S",
                                  bestblockindex->GetBlockTime()).c_str());
                                  printf("  priority has a second block, NewChainTrust=%s down\n", pindexNew->bnChainTrust.ToString().c_str());
                              break;
                     }
                     else if (newblockindex->GetBlockTime() < bestblockindex->GetBlockTime() &&
                              nPossibleHeight > pindexBest->nHeight - nMaxDepthReplacement)
                     {
                              bnBestChainTrust = bestblockindex->pprev->bnChainTrust;;
                              if (fDebug)
                                  printf(" 'AddToBlockIndex()' - A fork is formed, the height of the parent block %d, hash child blocks hash(1)=%s hash(2)=%s, creation date block(1)=%s block(2)=%s,\n",
                                  bestblockindex->pprev->nHeight, newblockindex->GetBlockHash().ToString().substr(0,8).c_str(), bestblockindex->GetBlockHash().
                                  ToString().substr(0,8).c_str(), DateTimeStrFormat("%x %H:%M:%S", newblockindex->GetBlockTime()).c_str(), DateTimeStrFormat("%x %H:%M:%S",
                                  bestblockindex->GetBlockTime()).c_str());
                                  printf("  priority has the first block, BestChainTrust=%s down\n", bnBestChainTrust.ToString().c_str());
                              break;
                     }
                 }
                 newblockindex =  newblockindex->pprev;
             }
        }
    }

    if (nPossibleHeight < pindexBest->nHeight && fHardForkOne)
    {
        pblockindex = FindBlockByHeight(nPossibleHeight);
        if (pindexNew->GetBlockTime() > pblockindex->GetBlockTime())
        {
            if (fDebug)
                printf(" 'AddToBlockIndex()' - Generation time of a new block date=%s later than available in the database date=%s\n",
                DateTimeStrFormat("%x %H:%M:%S", pindexNew->GetBlockTime()).c_str(), DateTimeStrFormat("%x %H:%M:%S",
                pblockindex->GetBlockTime()).c_str());
            pindexNew->bnChainTrust = 0;
        }
        else if (pindexNew->GetBlockTime() < pblockindex->GetBlockTime())
        {
                 if (nPossibleHeight < pindexBest->nHeight && nPossibleHeight > pindexBest->nHeight - nMaxDepthReplacement)
                 {
                     if (fDebug)
                         printf(" 'AddToBlockIndex()' - The generation time of a new block date=%s earlier than the one in the database date=%s\n",
                         DateTimeStrFormat("%x %H:%M:%S", pindexNew->GetBlockTime()).c_str(), DateTimeStrFormat("%x %H:%M:%S",
                         pblockindex->GetBlockTime()).c_str());
                     bnBestChainTrust = pblockindex->pprev->bnChainTrust;
                 }
        }
    }

    // New best
    if (pindexNew->bnChainTrust > bnBestChainTrust)
    {
        if (!SetBestChain(state, txdb, pindexNew))
            return false;
    }
    else if (pindexNew->bnChainTrust == bnBestChainTrust && fHardForkOne && pindexPrevPos->GetBlockHash() >=
             pindexPrevPrevPos->GetBlockHash())
    {
             printf(" 'AddToBlockIndex()' - BestChainTrust %s\n", bnBestChainTrust.ToString().c_str());
             printf(" 'AddToBlockIndex()' - NewChainTrust %s\n", pindexNew->bnChainTrust.ToString().c_str());
             if (((pindexNew->IsProofOfStake() && pindexBest->IsProofOfStake()) ? (pindexNew->GetBlockHash() >
                 pindexBest->GetBlockHash()) : (hash > pindexBest->GetBlockHash())) ||
                 (pindexBest->IsProofOfWork() && pindexNew->IsProofOfStake()))
             {
                 printf(" 'AddToBlockIndex()' bnChainTrust = bnBestChainTrust - Block accepted\n");
                 if (!SetBestChain(state, txdb, pindexNew))
                 {
                     return false;
                 }
             }
             else
             {
                  printf(" 'AddToBlockIndex()' bnChainTrust = bnBestChainTrust - Block not accepted\n");
             }
    }
    else if (pindexNew->bnChainTrust == bnBestChainTrust && fHardForkOne && pindexPrevPos->GetBlockHash() <
             pindexPrevPrevPos->GetBlockHash())
    {
             printf(" 'AddToBlockIndex()_' - BestChainTrust %s\n", bnBestChainTrust.ToString().c_str());
             printf(" 'AddToBlockIndex()_' - NewChainTrust %s\n", pindexNew->bnChainTrust.ToString().c_str());
             if (((pindexNew->IsProofOfStake() && pindexBest->IsProofOfStake()) ? (pindexNew->GetBlockHash() <
                 pindexBest->GetBlockHash()) : (hash < pindexBest->GetBlockHash())) ||
                 (pindexBest->IsProofOfWork() && pindexNew->IsProofOfStake()))
             {
                 printf(" 'AddToBlockIndex()_' bnChainTrust = bnBestChainTrust - Block accepted\n");
                 if (!SetBestChain(state, txdb, pindexNew))
                 {
                     return false;
                 }
             }
             else
             {
                  printf(" 'AddToBlockIndex()_' bnChainTrust = bnBestChainTrust - Block not accepted\n");
             }
    }



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on November 08, 2019, 06:47:38 AM
  Added two modes ..

Set virtual decentralized checkpoint - setvirtualdecentralizedcheckpoint=1
Ignore later found blocks - ignorelaterfoundblocks=1

Enabled by default.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on November 11, 2019, 07:26:29 PM
 
  The decentralized checkpoint opened up opportunities that had not previously seemed possible to me. I envisioned a case in which a wallet or group of wallets for some reason delayed information about a new block. Now a new block having an earlier time stamp with a delay of information about itself, the network will accept, provided that the delay is no more than two new blocks. For blocks with an earlier timestamp and even greater delay, the “ChainTrust” counting is turned on and at a lower value the chain will be rejected by the protocol. Since the code now knows about the height of the parent block of the fork, it exits on its own by setting checkpoint to the longest chain.




Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on November 12, 2019, 11:45:59 AM
 Log of work ...

Code:
received block 6e0658f4f18135a77546
CheckStakeKernelHash() : using modifier 0x2b2f729637db0a62 at height=339249 timestamp=2019-05-21 00:55:54 UTC for block from height=338167 timestamp=2019-05-12 04:58:51 UTC
CheckStakeKernelHash() : check protocol=0.3 modifier=0x2b2f729637db0a62 nTimeBlockFrom=1557637131 nTxPrevOffset=158 nTimeTxPrev=1557637131 nPrevout=1 nTimeTx=1573505536 hashProof=0000e001dd9b09bea137ae463421f1702647d647c5d37e28b44b199a96adf262
ComputeNextStakeModifier: prev modifier=0x6e653eb3b765c0ff time=2019-11-11 20:43:04 UTC
 'AddToBlockIndex()' - The new block pretends to a height 357787, block chain height 357790
 'AddToBlockIndex()' - The protocol registered a new block with a height 357787, with an erarlier timestamp, but the information delayed, the height of the blockchain 357790, 'Trust' control enabled
 'AddToBlockIndex()' - A fork is formed, the height of the parent block 357781, hash child blocks hash(1)=d04031bf hash(2)=98a169c6, creation date block(1)=09.11.2019 12:08:47 block(2)=09.11.2019 13:11:43
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED POS BLOCK

Code:
CheckStakeKernelHash() : using modifier 0xd396e9c53ce62d66 at height=348314 timestamp=2019-08-17 00:11:03 UTC for block from height=347143 timestamp=2019-08-08 04:29:58 UTC
CheckStakeKernelHash() : check protocol=0.3 modifier=0xd396e9c53ce62d66 nTimeBlockFrom=1565238598 nTxPrevOffset=158 nTimeTxPrev=1565238598 nPrevout=1 nTimeTx=1573505724 hashProof=0000de94d4e3453f043e6ed7b123cd7f2e9f3445a4ed0ab429fd71de2c81954b
ComputeNextStakeModifier: prev modifier=0x6e653eb3b765c0ff time=2019-11-11 20:43:04 UTC
 'AddToBlockIndex()' - The new block pretends to a height 357788, block chain height 357790
 'AddToBlockIndex()' - A fork is formed, the height of the parent block 357781, hash child blocks hash(1)=d04031bf hash(2)=98a169c6, creation date block(1)=09.11.2019 12:08:47 block(2)=09.11.2019 13:11:43
  priority has the first block, BestChainTrust=777261130088649 down
REORGANIZE
REORGANIZE: Disconnect 9 blocks; 8e3fd276723312c0e77b..00006e90cf1c1fcb7307
REORGANIZE: Connect 7 blocks; 8e3fd276723312c0e77b..27e58419356e66197085
     Delete redundant memory transactions that are in the connected branch
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
REORGANIZE: done
SetBestChain: new best=27e58419356e66197085  height=357788  trust=777356722574480  date=11.11.2019 20:55:24
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED POS BLOCK

Code:
received block 00008f9925cf1d2c07da
ComputeNextStakeModifier: prev modifier=0x95578fb9bd55c0ff time=2019-11-12 00:07:49 UTC
 'AddToBlockIndex()' - The new block pretends to a height 357829, block chain height 357809
 'AddToBlockIndex()' - This fork has an earlier timestamp, but the information was spread late - switching to a longer branch, the height of the blocks is 357809, the maximum height of the blocks is 357828
 'AddToBlockIndex()' - A fork is formed, the height of the parent block 357788, hash child blocks hash(1)=0001249b hash(2)=dc212e6b, creation date block(1)=11.11.2019 21:01:09 block(2)=11.11.2019 20:58:42
REORGANIZE
REORGANIZE: Disconnect 21 blocks; 27e58419356e66197085..6cc4aa9235efae01400c
REORGANIZE: Connect 41 blocks; 27e58419356e66197085..00008f9925cf1d2c07da
     Delete redundant memory transactions that are in the connected branch
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
REORGANIZE: done



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Duncan.Idaho on November 13, 2019, 03:33:29 AM
Very Old Project!

Perhaps age has value?  ;)


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on November 25, 2019, 12:48:35 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Pre hard fork version

Version : v_6.1.1.31
Version of git : v_0.7.5.156
Subversion : v_0.7.6.43

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.31



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on November 28, 2019, 03:27:21 PM
 
  I had to abandon the calculation of the trust. Today, the new code does not allow double spending, even the to owner of 100% hash power.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on December 17, 2019, 04:49:26 AM

Transferring the image to the next page ..




Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 04, 2020, 01:31:03 PM

New version available - Hard Fork version

CACHE-Project, Hard Fork date is set in this version. Block - 364000, Version fixing

Version : v_6.1.1.33
Version of git : v_0.7.5.190
Subversion : v_0.7.6.45

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.33



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 04, 2020, 07:17:07 PM

  Hard Fork Block - 364000



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 21, 2020, 09:06:56 AM

New version available - Hard Fork version

CACHE-Project, HardFork stable version, new protocol testing

Version : v_6.1.1.34
Version of git : v_0.7.5.195
Subversion : v_0.7.6.46

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.34



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 21, 2020, 11:00:56 AM
 
   Solo....
https://github.com/JayDDee/cpuminer-opt/releases



taskkill /F /IM cpuminer-opt.exe

cpuminer-opt.exe -h

Pause

start cpuminer-opt.exe -a scryptjane:19 -o http://127.0.0.1:2224 -u USER -p PASS -t 8 --cpu-affinity ff --randomize --no-redirect -b 0 --no-gbt --coinbase-addr=address

exit



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on January 22, 2020, 01:11:32 PM
Hi, would you mind letting me know which version of linux this compiles on please.
Tried, Ubuntu 19.10, Mint 19.3 both fail with "big_num" errors"
I'm not a "linux" guy, but can start from scratch with any version, and follow instructions....also love "GUI versions" :)

Thanks
J




New version available - Hard Fork version

CACHE-Project, HardFork stable version, new protocol testing

Version : v_6.1.1.34
Version of git : v_0.7.5.195
Subversion : v_0.7.6.46

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.34




Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 22, 2020, 09:32:20 PM
Hi, would you mind letting me know which version of linux this compiles on please.
Tried, Ubuntu 19.10, Mint 19.3 both fail with "big_num" errors"
I'm not a "linux" guy, but can start from scratch with any version, and follow instructions....also love "GUI versions" :)

Thanks
J




New version available - Hard Fork version

CACHE-Project, HardFork stable version, new protocol testing

Version : v_6.1.1.34
Version of git : v_0.7.5.195
Subversion : v_0.7.6.46

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.34



  Hi!! Use under Windows, a newer version will be released tomorrow.

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/download/v_6.1.1.34/cacheproject-qt_Windows_x86.zip
https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/download/v_6.1.1.34/cacheprojectd_Windows_x86.zip



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 22, 2020, 10:09:57 PM
Code:
05:08:43

getdifficulty


05:08:49

{
"proof-of-work" : 0.00000486,
"search-interval-powblock" : 276,
"search-twointerval-powblock" : 323,
"search-full-result-powblock" : 323,
"pow-target-spacing-variable" : 1107,
"UpperLower-pow" : 346,
"XUpper-pow" : 257,
"XLower-pow" : 1,
"proof-of-stake" : 3.07751346,
"search-interval-posblock" : 192,
"search-twointerval-posblock" : 193,
"search-full-result-posblock" : 193,
"pos-target-spacing-variable" : 735,
"UpperLower-pos" : 230,
"XUpper-pos" : 180,
"XLower-pos" : 1,
"search-interval-without pow block" : 2230,
"search-interval-without pos block" : 679,
"UnixCachChainTime" : 1579730840,
"study" : 0.00000000,
"studys" : 0.00000000
}



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 23, 2020, 08:00:22 AM

New version available - Hard Fork version

CACHE-Project, New protocol testing, To me already like

Version : v_6.1.1.35
Version of git : v_0.7.5.197
Subversion : v_0.7.6.47

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.35



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on January 23, 2020, 08:50:58 AM
Hi Deff,

I finally managed to compile, and started syncing...but, do you have the correct nodes please. I added the ones i found from the explorer, and had synced with only 96,000 to go, but now i still have over 126,000 to go.

Also noticed you have updated to v6.1.1.35, so have that compiled too.

These are the peers i am connected too
   {
        "addr" : "145.239.189.106:2225",
        "services" : "00000001",
        "lastsend" : 1579769360,
        "lastrecv" : 1579769380,
        "bytessent" : 44726,
        "bytesrecv" : 519863,
        "conntime" : 1579769167,
        "version" : 91004,
        "subver-tx" : "/CACHEProject 2018:0.7.6.45/",
        "subver" : "/'CACHE'Project 2018:0.7.6.45/",
        "inbound" : false,
        "releasetime" : 0,
        "startingheight" : 365131,
        "banscore" : 0
    },
    {
        "addr" : "63.142.251.194:2225",
        "services" : "00000001",
        "lastsend" : 1579769173,
        "lastrecv" : 1579769170,
        "bytessent" : 242,
        "bytesrecv" : 241,
        "conntime" : 1579769169,
        "version" : 91001,
        "subver-tx" : "/CACHecoinWM:0.7.6.14/",
        "subver" : "/CACHecoin-WM:0.7.6.14/",
        "inbound" : false,
        "releasetime" : 0,
        "startingheight" : 364024,
        "banscore" : 0
    },
    {
        "addr" : "31.43.218.102:2225",
        "services" : "00000001",
        "lastsend" : 1579769382,
        "lastrecv" : 1579769382,
        "bytessent" : 187,
        "bytesrecv" : 338,
        "conntime" : 1579769382,
        "version" : 91004,
        "subver-tx" : "/CACHEProject 2018:0.7.6.46/",
        "subver" : "/'CACHE'Project 2018:0.7.6.46/",
        "inbound" : false,
        "releasetime" : 0,
        "startingheight" : 365131,
        "banscore" : 0

its taken over 12 hours so far to sync this much....any ideas how i can speed it up please.

Thanks
J

oh yeah...i had to use Ubuntu 16.04.6 LTS, and i can't get the cloned version to compile (git clone https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin.git) but can get the source to work (https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/archive/v_6.1.1.35.tar.gz)
I can't remember the errors since i've been at it for hours....but i think in the end this worked for me

sudo apt-get install build-essential libssl-dev libboost-all-dev libdb5.3 libdb5.3-dev libdb5.3++-dev libtool automake libevent-dev bsdmainutils -y
sudo apt-get install git ntp make g++ gcc autoconf cpp ngrep iftop sysstat autotools-dev pkg-config libminiupnpc-dev libzmq3-dev -y
sudo apt-get install libqt5gui5 libqt5core5a libqt5dbus5 qttools5-dev qttools5-dev-tools libprotobuf-dev protobuf-compiler libqrencode-dev -y
chmod +x build_release.sh
./build_release.sh

I have the following versions
gcc (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.12) 5.4.0 20160609
OpenSSL 1.0.2g  1 Mar 2016
libboost1.58-dev


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 23, 2020, 09:22:20 AM
Hi Deff,

I finally managed to compile, and started syncing...but, do you have the correct nodes please. I added the ones i found from the explorer, and had synced with only 96,000 to go, but now i still have over 126,000 to go.

Also noticed you have updated to v6.1.1.35, so have that compiled too.

These are the peers i am connected too
   {
        "addr" : "145.239.189.106:2225",
        "services" : "00000001",
        "lastsend" : 1579769360,
        "lastrecv" : 1579769380,
        "bytessent" : 44726,
        "bytesrecv" : 519863,
        "conntime" : 1579769167,
        "version" : 91004,
        "subver-tx" : "/CACHEProject 2018:0.7.6.45/",
        "subver" : "/'CACHE'Project 2018:0.7.6.45/",
        "inbound" : false,
        "releasetime" : 0,
        "startingheight" : 365131,
        "banscore" : 0
    },
    {
        "addr" : "63.142.251.194:2225",
        "services" : "00000001",
        "lastsend" : 1579769173,
        "lastrecv" : 1579769170,
        "bytessent" : 242,
        "bytesrecv" : 241,
        "conntime" : 1579769169,
        "version" : 91001,
        "subver-tx" : "/CACHecoinWM:0.7.6.14/",
        "subver" : "/CACHecoin-WM:0.7.6.14/",
        "inbound" : false,
        "releasetime" : 0,
        "startingheight" : 364024,
        "banscore" : 0
    },
    {
        "addr" : "31.43.218.102:2225",
        "services" : "00000001",
        "lastsend" : 1579769382,
        "lastrecv" : 1579769382,
        "bytessent" : 187,
        "bytesrecv" : 338,
        "conntime" : 1579769382,
        "version" : 91004,
        "subver-tx" : "/CACHEProject 2018:0.7.6.46/",
        "subver" : "/'CACHE'Project 2018:0.7.6.46/",
        "inbound" : false,
        "releasetime" : 0,
        "startingheight" : 365131,
        "banscore" : 0

its taken over 12 hours so far to sync this much....any ideas how i can speed it up please.

Thanks
J


Synchronization takes more than a day.
If you need faster -

Windows and noWindows BD
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15kvCVv9lLfmLDuUIM12sfP-Fv_baoDWH?usp=sharing



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 23, 2020, 09:30:47 AM

sudo apt-get install -y git build-essential libssl-dev libdb5.3-dev libdb5.3++-dev libminiupnpc-dev libboost-all-dev qt4-qmake libqt4-dev qt5-qmake libqt5gui5 libqt5core5a libqt5dbus5 qttools5-dev-tools libcurl4-openssl-dev
sudo apt-get install -y build-essential libssl-dev libboost-all-dev libdb5.3 libdb5.3-dev libdb5.3++-dev libtool automake libevent-dev bsdmainutils
sudo apt-get install -y git ntp make g++ gcc autoconf cpp ngrep iftop sysstat autotools-dev pkg-config libminiupnpc-dev libzmq3-dev
sudo apt-get install -y libqt5gui5 libqt5core5a libqt5dbus5 qttools5-dev qttools5-dev-tools libprotobuf-dev protobuf-compiler libqrencode-dev



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on January 23, 2020, 11:30:52 AM
All up and running. Thankyou


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 23, 2020, 11:51:49 AM
All up and running. Thankyou

It's good.. :)



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 23, 2020, 01:27:19 PM
  Now every fork or reorganization of the blockchain is visible  and every situation can be analyzed.

https://cachecoin.net/assets/images/bitcointalk/Orphans.jpg
Code:
2020-01-22 10:15:16 UTC  'ProcessMessage()' - received: inv (invSize() = 2 lines, string 1)
 'ProcessMessage()' - block 0003e339c343ea874d05  new
askfor block 0003e339c343ea874d05   0 (00:00:00)
sending getdata: block 00067c6996633e9eac22
sending getdata: block 0003e339c343ea874d05
sending: getdata (73 bytes)
2020-01-22 10:15:18 UTC received: block (265 bytes)
 'ProcessMessage()' - received block 00067c6996633e9eac22
 'CBlock->ValidationCheckBlock()' - Entry at block height=364941, accepted
ComputeNextStakeModifier: prev modifier=0xd9009cff46c2ddfb time=2020-01-22 06:19:39 UTC
 'CBlock->AddToBlockIndex()' - The new block pretends to a height 364941, block chain height 364942
 'CBlock->AddToBlockIndex()' - A fork is formed, the height of the parent block 364940, hash child blocks hash(1)=00067c69 hash(2)=0007c52e, creation date
block(1)=01/22/20 10:04:49 block(2)=01/22/20 10:05:45

  priority has the first block, BestChainTrust=864114458946373 down
 'REORGANIZE':
 'REORGANIZE': - Disconnect 2 blocks; 0000b7ec33e4c371a727..da5f8a1e6f8a3f5ef964
 'REORGANIZE': - Connect 1 blocks; 0000b7ec33e4c371a727..00067c6996633e9eac22
     Delete redundant memory transactions that are in the connected branch
 'REORGANIZE': - OK done
 'CBlock->SetBestChain()' - new best=00067c6996633e9eac22  height=364941  trust=864114458946374  date=01/22/20 10:04:49
 'ProcessBlock()' - ACCEPTED POW BLOCK



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on January 24, 2020, 12:42:09 AM
Hi Deff,
I know i am being a pain, but any chance you can code this to work on new versions of Ubuntu and Mint.
Apart from being easier for me, i'm pretty sure your new target audience will be running either 18, or 19.

Thanks
J


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 25, 2020, 06:26:23 AM

New version available - Hard Fork version

CACHE-Project, New protocol testing, Added response to equal timestamps of competitor blocks

Version : v_6.1.1.36
Version of git : v_0.7.5.198
Subversion : v_0.7.6.48

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.36



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 25, 2020, 07:36:54 AM
https://cachecoin.net/assets/images/bitcointalk/HardForkInfo.jpg
https://cachecoin.net/assets/images/bitcointalk/NewBlockChainProtocol.jpg



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on January 30, 2020, 11:38:56 AM
Hi,
Been using Version : v_6.1.1.35, all synced no issues, until a few hours ago, now ZERO connections
Upgraded to Version : v_6.1.1.36, and same, ZERO connections

Has something Happened?

J


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on February 02, 2020, 04:15:26 AM
Hi,
Been using Version : v_6.1.1.35, all synced no issues, until a few hours ago, now ZERO connections
Upgraded to Version : v_6.1.1.36, and same, ZERO connections

Has something Happened?

J

 When testing the protocol, I saw two vulnerabilities, and the block chain explorer went into defense, I'm preparing a modified version.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on February 02, 2020, 04:27:04 PM
Hi,
Been using Version : v_6.1.1.35, all synced no issues, until a few hours ago, now ZERO connections
Upgraded to Version : v_6.1.1.36, and same, ZERO connections

Has something Happened?

J

 When testing the protocol, I saw two vulnerabilities, and the block chain explorer went into defense, I'm preparing a modified version.


Thank you


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on February 09, 2020, 05:30:58 PM

New version available - Hard Fork version

CACHE-Project, New protocol testing, Protocol optimization

Version : v_6.1.1.37
Version of git : v_0.7.5.211
Subversion : v_0.7.6.49

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.37




Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on February 12, 2020, 03:08:44 PM

 The wallet of the previous version - Subversion: v_0.7.6.48 - has an error when generating POW blocks
and when analyzing branching into one block. Please upgrade to the latest version.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on February 13, 2020, 01:01:07 PM
 

  During protocol testing, stops and pseudo-hard-forks are possible.
For convenience, the full blockchain will be periodically updated on Google Drive.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=15kvCVv9lLfmLDuUIM12sfP-Fv_baoDWH



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on February 18, 2020, 06:04:49 PM

 Upcoming changes.

  "WachonlyAddress" removing, "GetBalanceOfAnyAdress" adding. The function of scanning the blockchain when searching
for transactions in the address of interest is placed in a separate stream and does not interfere with the functioning of
the wallet. Access to information about the scanning process is organized through a file. The file is located in the working
directory, the file has the same name with the scan address. After interruption of the scanning process, it will continue from
the point of interruption.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on February 18, 2020, 06:43:23 PM
 
 POS generation and blockchain scanning are coexist.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on February 20, 2020, 05:37:35 PM

  It was expected that the "GetBalanceOfAnyAdress" function would have high performance and scanning
speed, in theory. In practice, the result exceeded expectations. The function is completely self-sufficient.
In this regard, I added the function of calculating the balance of all addresses.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on February 20, 2020, 06:15:23 PM

  The function worked for a fixed time, 30 minutes. During this time, the function
processed 92,000 blocks, scanned all transactions confirmed in these blocks,
and added 89500 addresses to the list. Very fast..



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on February 22, 2020, 09:29:44 AM

  Based on the code described above, the function "importprivkeyfast" is added. Features

1. For the first time.
2. The function works in an additional stream.
3. The scanning process is monitored (block number).
4. Transactions appear immediately.
5. Scanning is performed in the opposite direction (very convenient).
6. After the interruption continues from the stopping point.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on February 25, 2020, 06:09:48 AM
 
  Returned the updated watchonlyaddress function. Real-time control, only.

Characteristics.

Works with raw transactions, only.
Scans outgoing transactions.
Scan incoming transactions.
Scans transactions in its address, even if the address is different.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 01, 2020, 07:26:41 PM

  Upcoming changes.

  Added the function of saving to a file and reloading virtual "Check Points". The algorithm is in test mode.
Today it is used only to prohibit transactions in the presence of a fork in the dispute zone. The principle
of working with virtual "Check Points" has been changed. The table contains the hashes of the parent block
and the fork successor block, and not the height of the blocks with the hash values. Using a single "Check
Points" card is not planned, therefore, for different situations and nodes, these tables will have differences



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on March 04, 2020, 08:08:41 AM
Hi Deff,
How's things?

I have finally managed to mine a few coins, about 200...but the never appear in the "stake" part of the wallet only ever as "Balance"
Is there something i need to do to stake them?

J


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 05, 2020, 10:45:12 AM
Hi Deff,
How's things?

I have finally managed to mine a few coins, about 200...but the never appear in the "stake" part of the wallet only ever as "Balance"
Is there something i need to do to stake them?

J

Hi! minerja

Are the coins ripe? After full confirmation -

nStakeMinAge =  60 * 60 * 24 * 7;  // minimum age for coin age - 7 days
nStakeMaxAge = 60 * 60 * 24 * 30; // stake age of full weight   - 30 days



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on March 05, 2020, 11:19:55 AM
Hi Deff,
How's things?

I have finally managed to mine a few coins, about 200...but the never appear in the "stake" part of the wallet only ever as "Balance"
Is there something i need to do to stake them?

J

Hi! minerja

Are the coins ripe? After full confirmation -

nStakeMinAge =  60 * 60 * 24 * 7;  // minimum age for coin age - 7 days
nStakeMaxAge = 60 * 60 * 24 * 30; // stake age of full weight   - 30 days


Argh !
My newest wallet...no, only mined since 1st March
Older wallet been there since 21st Jan 2020, so over 30 days old, but still never staked....


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 05, 2020, 01:39:19 PM
Hi Deff,
How's things?

I have finally managed to mine a few coins, about 200...but the never appear in the "stake" part of the wallet only ever as "Balance"
Is there something i need to do to stake them?

J

Hi! minerja

Are the coins ripe? After full confirmation -

nStakeMinAge =  60 * 60 * 24 * 7;  // minimum age for coin age - 7 days
nStakeMaxAge = 60 * 60 * 24 * 30; // stake age of full weight   - 30 days


Argh !
My newest wallet...no, only mined since 1st March
Older wallet been there since 21st Jan 2020, so over 30 days old, but still never staked....



 Is there a tick to enable the POS mode?
Or gave a command - setposgenfull



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 05, 2020, 02:41:25 PM

  For today..
Virtual control points are saved, loaded, during synchronization are polled and, if necessary,
the block is rejected. However, I missed something, I am 99.9% sure of this.

File structure - "VirtualCheckPointHash"
Code:
939dcde51e97c46c941d37e9d1ee6bf44ec8926cec06644ee3747cf569aad866 ::: FORK PARENT
00015447f0e3ed43cde551a1376a603fc9e3ccc5fa2012b929e4d226b09fadd9 ::: PARENT'S CHILD
00015447f0e3ed43cde551a1376a603fc9e3ccc5fa2012b929e4d226b09fadd9 ::: FORK PARENT
00020e31868a07588f4309a04f8ca5eb746e6f779484dd557d543d7f01e94bf2 ::: PARENT'S CHILD
00020e31868a07588f4309a04f8ca5eb746e6f779484dd557d543d7f01e94bf2 ::: FORK PARENT
00023efcf3ce63796d0f6828b8b377be3c571317978e968544ad5cae32330561 ::: PARENT'S CHILD
00023efcf3ce63796d0f6828b8b377be3c571317978e968544ad5cae32330561 ::: FORK PARENT
7a9769b4dd509866bf9e555a2a576f9003b112f7dee069e85100419f4e5b8cd4 ::: PARENT'S CHILD
7a9769b4dd509866bf9e555a2a576f9003b112f7dee069e85100419f4e5b8cd4 ::: FORK PARENT
000234830426a93c976e903e243fabf448cd52d3a56f0626e0594c28f5738a06 ::: PARENT'S CHILD
000234830426a93c976e903e243fabf448cd52d3a56f0626e0594c28f5738a06 ::: FORK PARENT
717586403c463819bc6cd355f0422b8880a0cecf98f9530916506f3cc5b265b1 ::: PARENT'S CHILD


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 07, 2020, 04:35:15 AM

  For today...

  Activated the function "VirtualCheckPoint". By default, the function is disabled, to enable usevirtualcheckpoint=1
Remaining unresolved question - what will happen under the conflict of two control points.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 10, 2020, 04:16:21 AM

  For today...

  Activated the function "VirtualCheckPoint". By default, the function is disabled, to enable usevirtualcheckpoint=1
Remaining unresolved question - what will happen under the conflict of two control points.



 The conflict will arise in the case of the formation of three heirs from one block-parent of the fork.


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 12, 2020, 06:23:40 AM


New version available

CACHE-Project, New features added, old features updated

Version : v_6.1.1.38
Version of git : v_0.7.5.227
Subversion : v_0.7.6.50

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.38





All the functions described above are involved.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on March 12, 2020, 01:32:17 PM
Hi Deff,

Sorry mate, but don't like the latest update.
1st. no windows wallet
2nd, have compiled it on 3 different linux pc's and in all cases it has insisted i delete everything apart from wallet.dat
I have done so, and then once it has started to download the chain, i have tried various ways to copy the "fullchain" back over the top, all no no avail...it has to be an empty folder or it fails.
So now i'm looking at hours to re download the wholechain again.
It's already being going 3 hours and still 290,000 blocks on a 200mbps connection.

Sorry to bitch, cos usually your upgrades are spot on.
J


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 12, 2020, 03:13:37 PM
Hi Deff,

Sorry mate, but don't like the latest update.
1st. no windows wallet
2nd, have compiled it on 3 different linux pc's and in all cases it has insisted i delete everything apart from wallet.dat
I have done so, and then once it has started to download the chain, i have tried various ways to copy the "fullchain" back over the top, all no no avail...it has to be an empty folder or it fails.
So now i'm looking at hours to re download the wholechain again.
It's already being going 3 hours and still 290,000 blocks on a 200mbps connection.

Sorry to bitch, cos usually your upgrades are spot on.
J

Please, more precisely. What was he complaining about? Db?

What software do you use to generate POW blocks?



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on March 12, 2020, 06:28:11 PM
Hi Deff,

Sorry mate, but don't like the latest update.
1st. no windows wallet
2nd, have compiled it on 3 different linux pc's and in all cases it has insisted i delete everything apart from wallet.dat
I have done so, and then once it has started to download the chain, i have tried various ways to copy the "fullchain" back over the top, all no no avail...it has to be an empty folder or it fails.
So now i'm looking at hours to re download the wholechain again.
It's already being going 3 hours and still 290,000 blocks on a 200mbps connection.

Sorry to bitch, cos usually your upgrades are spot on.
J

Please, more precisely. What was he complaining about? Db?

What software do you use to generate POW blocks?



Sorry was away
error is

"Error initializing database environment /home/miner2/.CACHEproject! To recover, BACKUP THAT DIRECTORY, then remove everything from it except for wallet.dat."
J


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 13, 2020, 04:25:07 AM
Hi Deff,

Sorry mate, but don't like the latest update.
1st. no windows wallet
2nd, have compiled it on 3 different linux pc's and in all cases it has insisted i delete everything apart from wallet.dat
I have done so, and then once it has started to download the chain, i have tried various ways to copy the "fullchain" back over the top, all no no avail...it has to be an empty folder or it fails.
So now i'm looking at hours to re download the wholechain again.
It's already being going 3 hours and still 290,000 blocks on a 200mbps connection.

Sorry to bitch, cos usually your upgrades are spot on.
J

Please, more precisely. What was he complaining about? Db?

What software do you use to generate POW blocks?


Sorry was away
error is

"Error initializing database environment /home/miner2/.CACHEproject! To recover, BACKUP THAT DIRECTORY, then remove everything from it except for wallet.dat."
J

Thank you, I’m checking it now .....



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 15, 2020, 03:53:59 PM
Hi Deff,

Sorry mate, but don't like the latest update.
1st. no windows wallet
2nd, have compiled it on 3 different linux pc's and in all cases it has insisted i delete everything apart from wallet.dat
I have done so, and then once it has started to download the chain, i have tried various ways to copy the "fullchain" back over the top, all no no avail...it has to be an empty folder or it fails.
So now i'm looking at hours to re download the wholechain again.
It's already being going 3 hours and still 290,000 blocks on a 200mbps connection.

Sorry to bitch, cos usually your upgrades are spot on.
J

 This bug is not associated with this version, it is old and rare. You met him, that helped me, thanks ..



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 24, 2020, 06:05:54 PM

  I have a desire to find a way to accelerate blockchain synchronization. Due to Script-Jane,
known methods are not effective. Today I do not see a way to implement this.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 25, 2020, 03:29:35 AM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Optimization, Change "KernelStakeModifier" - no hard fork, New features added, Old features updated

Version : v_6.1.1.39
Version of git : v_0.7.5.241
Subversion : v_0.7.6.51

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.39



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 26, 2020, 04:31:39 AM

 Possible solution for accelerated blockchain synchronization.

Push off.
1. The checkpoints map contains the hashes of only verified blocks that must trust.
2. Blocks whose hashes are in the checkpoint map can be excluded from the scan.
3. Thanks to the "VirtualMapCheckPoint" function any number of hashes of checked blocks can be in the map of checkpoints.
4. Thanks to the "VirtualMapCheckPoint" function, such a map can be formed.

If you leave only the necessary checks, such as: scanning transactions for "IsMine" "IsFromMe", calculating "hashProofOfStake", etc -
the synchronization time should be significantly reduced.

Need to implement and test.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 27, 2020, 01:32:19 PM

  The file size with a map of checkpoints is obtained in the region of 70 mb. If at the same
time the synchronization time is reduced at least twice, it will be excellent.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on April 02, 2020, 06:54:37 AM

 The synchronization time with a large number of transactions in wallet.dat was almost halved ..

Activate quick sync mode:

Copy the file "VirtualCheckPointHash" to the working folder
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sDly8-7DFqeA-1-HxWTfw1cawMBD_Nsw

and set the flag -
usevirtualcheckpoint=1

In order not to process parallel streams with data from all peers, you can specify the parameter -
useonepeertosync=1

Description of new features.

listaddressgroupingsother - Exact calculation taking into account all entrances and exits.
fixerrorgetbalancefunction - Returns error balance all cacheprojectaddresses.
getreceivedbyaddressother - Returns the total amount received by <cacheprojectaddress>.
getaddressbalance - Returns the balance <cacheprojectaddress>.
totaltokensforalladdresses - Returns received balance by all cacheprojectaddresses.
totalsenttokensinalladdresses - Returns total sent tokens in all cacheprojectaddresses.
getbalanceallitsaddresses - Returns balance all cacheprojectaddresses(its).
getmintbalanceinalladdresses - Returns mint balance in all cacheprojectaddresses.
getminebalanceinalladdresses - Returns mine balance in all cacheprojectaddresses.
getreceivedbyaccountother - Returns the total amount received by addresses with <account>.
getbalanceother - Exact calculation taking into account all entrances and exits.
getbalanceofanyadress - Returns the balance of any <cacheprojectaddress>(The long one is rescan of the whole blockchain).
getbalanceofalladress - Returns the balance all <cacheprojectaddress>(The long one is rescan of the whole blockchain).




Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on April 02, 2020, 07:30:41 AM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Fast Sync Mode adding, Adding new features

Version : v_6.1.1.40
Version of git : v_0.7.5.249
Subversion : v_0.7.6.52

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.40



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on April 06, 2020, 10:25:40 AM

The first exchange after a long break.
Testing now.
Thanks to the FreiExchange team for their help and support.

https://cachecoin.net/assets/images/bitcointalk/FreiExchange.jpg



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on April 13, 2020, 03:22:57 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, Elimination of uncritical errors, Code optimization

Version : v_6.1.1.41
Version of git : v_0.7.5.252
Subversion : v_0.7.6.53

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.41





Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on April 14, 2020, 11:41:19 AM
 
 In synchronization mode with NF 19, time is spent on processing one block: POS ~1700ms, POW ~ 600ms in normal mode
and POS ~ 450ms, POW ~ 50ms in accelerated synchronization mode.

Activate quick sync mode:

Copy the file "VirtualCheckPointHash" to the working folder of the wallet
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sDly8-7DFqeA-1-HxWTfw1cawMBD_Nsw

and set the flag -
usevirtualcheckpoint=1

In order not to process parallel streams with data from all peers, you can specify the parameter -
useonepeertosync=1



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on April 19, 2020, 02:05:00 AM

 I do not like the system of accrual of rewards for ProofOfStake coinage.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on April 27, 2020, 03:56:59 PM

  To date, I have not decided what will be indexed, only the Bitcoin address or the entire "CTxOut". The pursued idea...
When generating a new block "ProofOfStake" , all blocks related to the new block and its address for the previous 366 days will be searcheds.
Based on the calculated number of blocks and timestamps of these blocks, the code will be able to find out how they were generated.
1) The wallet has been turned on constantly.
2) Wallet is not always on.

Based on this data, interest for one year will be variable.
1) The wallet has been turned on constantly - two percent per annum.
2) Wallet is not always on - one percent per annum.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on May 03, 2020, 05:22:29 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, The new ProofOfStake reward protocol, Testing, Work on the log file only

Version : v_6.1.1.43
Version of git : v_0.7.5.258
Subversion : v_0.7.6.55

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.43



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on May 04, 2020, 04:04:10 PM

  The operation of the algorithm is information from the log file.

Code:
 
'CBlock->AddToBlockIndex()' - The new block pretends to a height 384608, block chain height 384607
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Now 2020 year, is 366 days
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Studied Bitcoin Address CHa8F8KzVtd1JHz3qiTFdAN8ecQZL5BF6Y
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Total time in the study period 3297
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Total blocks generate during the study period(Total   ) 8
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Total blocks generate during the study period(Analysis) 7
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Total minted during the study period(Total   ) 142,696
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Total minted during the study period(Analysis) 142,696
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - ProfitabilityGen 87,5
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - ProfitabilityMint 100
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - ProfitabilityTotal 87,5
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Pos Target Spacing Calculated(Analysis) 471
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Pos Target Spacing Adjusted Tolerance(Analysis) 529,875
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Graphics builder 0
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Graphics builder 113,125
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Graphics builder 113,125
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Graphics builder 410,125
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Graphics builder 410,125
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Graphics builder 410,125
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Graphics builder 410,125
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Excellence Minting Coins, as a percentage(100) 0,471788
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Excellence Minting Coins, as a percentage(ProfitabilityTotal) 0,412815
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - RewardCoinYear Old 50000
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - RewardCoinYear New 32888
 'CTransaction::AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Reward New Value 17332260
     'CBlock->SetBestChainInner()' - Delete redundant memory transactions
     'CBlock->SetBestChainInner()' - Delete redundant memory transactions
 'CBlock->SetBestChain()' - new best=683d3b3a875c0e1e7205  height=384608  trust=1044073969692216  date=05/04/20 15:51:43
NoOtherInitialBlockDownload


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on May 13, 2020, 06:30:16 AM

  Today I am sure that the task is realizable, the time spent on data collection and calculation is reduced to a minimum.
Completely indexing "CTxOut" does not make sense, only an address is needed.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on May 20, 2020, 10:11:22 AM
 
  I like the idea of paying rewards for POS coinage based on the age of the transactions. However, in the old version, I do not like the way
this function is implemented. In this function, the amount of remuneration is not calculated exactly, especially with small output amounts.
This circumstance is pushing some miners to split their balances into smaller ones in order to get more profit. It was decided to change the
principle of calculating the age of coins. In the preliminary calculation, I temporarily assumed that the reward for one year will be 100 percent
of the previous transaction amount. Then we calculate the time difference between the current and the previous transaction.

int64 nTimeDiff = (int64)tx.nTime - nPrevTxTime;

Next, we calculate how many coins will be credited for the calculated period "nTimeDiff" at the rate of one hundred percent for one year.

bnCoinTimeDiffTemp = CBigNum(nValueIn) * COIN / nOneYear * nTimeDiff; // 31622400

Now we need a fixed percentage of remuneration from the temporarily calculated "bnCoinTimeDiff".

bnSubsidy = bnCoinTimeDiffTemp / 100% * 5%;

All of these changes require testing.




Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on June 10, 2020, 02:47:28 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, PPAPOS(Previous Period Activity Proof Of Stake) implementation, HardFork not assigned

Version : v_6.1.1.44
Version of git : v_0.7.5.271
Subversion : v_0.7.6.56

A re-synchronization of the block chain is required

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.44



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on June 13, 2020, 05:54:06 PM

  Indexing "Stake" addresses allowed a different way to manage HardFork date. It is enough to set a condition under which HardFork will be
considered included in the case of the generation of the first block by a specific address. That is, after updating the wallet, a hard fork can
be executed at any time, without additional implementation.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on June 17, 2020, 02:47:36 PM

    The operation of the algorithm is information from the log file.

Code:
IsOtherInitialBlockDownload
 'CBlock->SetBestChain()' - Hard Fork Switching Thresholds 0
 'ProcessBlock()' - ACCEPTED POS BLOCK, 83 Millis() for processing one block
2020-06-16 14:36:42 UTC received: block (527 bytes), sent a peer 145.239.189.106:2225
 'ProcessMessage()' - received block 498a76ee59d41ab0b927
CheckStakeKernelHash() : using modifier 0x78ab964f7d4fcf53 at height=14825 timestamp=2014-04-10 12:13:08 UTC for block from height=13907 timestamp=2014-04-01 15:04:56 UTC
CheckStakeKernelHash() : check protocol=10.0 modifier=0x78ab964f7d4fcf53 nTimeBlockFrom=1396364696 nTxPrevOffset=157 nTimeTxPrev=1396364696 nPrevout=1 nTimeTx=1407365387 hashProof=0000012107ce7db9ffb93391f2a9ab27ca12bbe6eaf8157710e5ccb917eaa235
 'CheckProofOfStake()' - Added Bitcoin Address CTxOut(nValue=5,5316, scriptPubKey=0267bbc371260b6ff4f61d734a96f930fe6a19f1ed25059f95639b7035f6bb270f OP_CHECKSIG) - COutPoint(203d68aa35, 1)
ComputeNextStakeModifier: prev modifier=0xfcb96406968504cf time=2014-08-06 18:38:34 UTC
 'CBlock->AddToBlockIndex()' - The new block pretends to a height 32028, block chain height 32027
 'CTransaction->GetAnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Now 2014 year, is 365 days
 'CTransaction->AnalysisGetCoinAge()' - nValueIn 5531600
 'CTransaction->AnalysisGetCoinAge()' - nPrevTxTime 1396364696
 'CTransaction->AnalysisGetCoinAge()' - nTxTime 1407365387
 'CTransaction->AnalysisGetCoinAge()' - nTimeDiff 11000691
 'CTransaction->AnalysisGetCoinAge()' - nCoinTimeDiff 1929576204855
 'CTransaction->AnalysisGetCoinAge()' - nValueIn 4856984
 'CTransaction->AnalysisGetCoinAge()' - nPrevTxTime 1394459379
 'CTransaction->AnalysisGetCoinAge()' - nTxTime 1407365387
 'CTransaction->AnalysisGetCoinAge()' - nTimeDiff 12906008
 'CTransaction->AnalysisGetCoinAge()' - nCoinTimeDiff 3917269214959
 'CTransaction->AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Studied Bitcoin Address CUg1ihrexK395bEFqxTP8XqDky9zsFnGby
 'CTransaction->AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Total time in the study period 15762351
 'CTransaction->AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Total blocks generate during the study period(Total   ) 11611
 'CTransaction->AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Total blocks generate during the study period(Analysis) 3598
 'CTransaction->AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - ProfitabilityGen 30,988
 'CTransaction->AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Pos Target Spacing Calculated Total(Analysis) 1357,536043
 'CTransaction->AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Pos Target Spacing Calculated(Analysis) 4380,864647
 'CTransaction->AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Matched Parameter 69,01214366
 'CTransaction->AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Pos Target Spacing(Preparing) 3023,32860362
 'CTransaction->AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Pos Target Factor 1,33247782275
 'CTransaction->AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Pos Target Spacing Adjusted Tolerance(TargetSpacingCalculated) 1497053,05779
 'CTransaction->AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Tolerance limit exceeded
 'CTransaction->AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Graphics builder 2193429
 'CTransaction->AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Excellence Minting Coins, as a percentage(100) 46,73
 'CTransaction->AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - Excellence Minting Coins, as a percentage(ProfitabilityTotal) 32,249
 'CTransaction->AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - RewardCoinYear Old 5(percent)
 'CTransaction->AnalysisProofOfStakeReward()' - RewardCoinYear New 3,34553(percent), max New 4,7(percent)
CTransaction->CheckInputsLevelTwo() : reward 195623 > analysis reward 131053
     'CBlock->SetBestChainInner()' - Delete redundant memory transactions
     'CBlock->SetBestChainInner()' - Delete redundant memory transactions
 'CBlock->SetBestChain()' - new best=498a76ee59d41ab0b927  height=32028  trust=14394568699840  date=06.08.2014 22:49:47
IsOtherInitialBlockDownload
 'CBlock->SetBestChain()' - Hard Fork Switching Thresholds 0
 'ProcessBlock()' - ACCEPTED POS BLOCK, 59 Millis() for processing one block
2020-06-16 14:36:42 UTC received: block (6400 bytes), sent a peer 145.239.189.106:2225
 'ProcessMessage()' - received block 000000013fcca17c4a40
ComputeNextStakeModifier: prev modifier=0xfcb96406968504cf time=2014-08-06 18:38:34 UTC
 'CBlock->AddToBlockIndex()' - The new block pretends to a height 32029, block chain height 32028



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on June 21, 2020, 01:50:56 AM

New version available

CACHE-Project, PPAPOS(Previous Period Activity Proof Of Stake) implementation, HardFork pre activated - Sun, 21 Jun 2020 00:31:50 GMT

Version : v_6.1.1.45
Version of git : v_0.7.5.275
Subversion : v_0.7.6.57

Full activation will occur when a ProofOfStake block is generated with the address "CP7N2wZmkqKkowQsPfUfbJFuXYRBSUxZiG"

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.45



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on July 05, 2020, 03:04:39 AM

 Transaction to HardFork activation address.

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/cache/address.dws?CP7N2wZmkqKkowQsPfUfbJFuXYRBSUxZiG.htm
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/cache/tx.dws?c17629560c56971134496ab2fbccf074ab8b690b7cf6750c65c3e7fae71f1fb6.htm



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on August 24, 2020, 08:58:04 AM
Hi Deff,
Hows things?

I have just built a new mining pc, and started from scratch with Win 10, and wallet "v6.1.1.45-g32a928e-cache-2018-beta-one"

I couldn't find a bootstrap, so i just started from zero, have to say, quickest sync so far, i think it took less that 8 hours, which seems a great improvement on the older wallets...

However, slightly concerned....i have ben mining in the wallet (setgenerate true 8) for over 30 hours, and not a single block....

{
"blocks" : 406288,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.00000095,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : true,
"genproclimit" : 8,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"networkhashps" : 0,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false,
"Nfactor" : 19,
"N" : 1048576,
"powreward-new" : 40.00000000,
"powreward-old" : 100.00000000
}

The wallet permanently says "out of sync", and you can see my hashrate says "0"

So i have duplicated this on 2 other PC's
1) i have tried cpuminer-opt 3.14.3 ...i get " json_rpc_call failed, retry after 10 seconds" error...
2) I have tried ccminer, and it "finds a block within a few minutes, but always fails
"[2020-08-24 09:16:00] NVML GPU monitoring enabled.
[2020-08-24 09:16:00] NVAPI GPU monitoring enabled.
[2020-08-24 09:16:00] 1 miner thread started, using 'scrypt' algorithm.
[2020-08-24 09:16:00] scrypt block 406289, diff 0.00
[2020-08-24 09:16:00] GPU #0: 32 hashes / 4096.0 MB per warp.
[2020-08-24 09:16:01] GPU #0: using launch configuration T1x1
[2020-08-24 09:16:01] GPU #0: Intensity set to 5, 32 cuda threads
[2020-08-24 09:16:01] scrypt factor set to 19 (1048576)
[2020-08-24 09:41:30] accepted: 0/1 (diff 0.001), 5.73 H/s booooo solved: 1
"

I've checked the block explorer, and its seems we haven't had a POW block for over 2 days, but several POS blocks.
Yet someone managed to mine over 60 blocks in 24 hours.....3 days ago. That's more blocks than i have mined in 3 years ! (on / off, not continuous)
How can this be?

I think you have simply made this algo to "hit and miss"...sorry mate, but i can't say it any other way. I really hope you can fix it, cos i love scrypt:N coins, and TBH, this is about last man standing.

I have just had a look at the richlist and it is actually really depressing reading.
The top wallets are staking more coins than i can mine in a week...
What incentive does that give any new miner?

Remember months ago, you helped me compile a linux version...well that wallet, i managed to mine a total of 1000 coins in just over 1 week, bringing my 3 year total upto just over 3500 coins.
That wallet mined slowly, but consistently each day, until it lost all connections, and has never re-connected since (yes it has all the current live nodes)
That was the last time i gave in.

The new wallet i cna't get to compile on any versions of linux, so i tried the latest windows wallet, well you can see my results above...zero.

I honestly think, if you want to encourage any new miners, that this whole chain needs a start over....
Split to a "live" chain and a "test" chain, we can all dedicate a thread or 2, just to keep the test chain ticking over, so you can do your tweaks, but please lets get back to a chain that a normal small miner has some chance on.
As for the exsisting wallets...well thats hard, but how can someone with less that a 100 / 1000 coins be expected to compete with the 100K / 1 mil wallets?
Without a pool, virtually no chance to even get a coin nevermind a block.

Perhaps, look at say the most recent 50 wallets, total their balances, and do a new chain, premine that balance + 10% (10% for you), then distribute that balance to those 50 wallets...
That may give newbies some slight incentive to start mining.

Sorry to be so harsh, but lets face it, if there is no pool, and you cant mine a single block with 8t cpu in 36 hours, then i think the coin is dead.....or, you reward the current major share holders, and give up on POW altogether....the rich will get massively richer, and the rest...well......

J

BTW, it you're up for talking me thru compiling on either Ubuntu or Mint (versions 18/19/20) or my new fav LinuxLite 5 (much better for mining) , then i will happily try mining for another 36 hours....


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on August 24, 2020, 09:18:29 AM
HI Deff,

Just been looking under "Options"
I see there are "Enable POW cpu mining", and "Enable POS cpu mining" optoins.
Should the POW be ticked or unticked for use with external miner? I have tried both ways, and neither affects the green status of POW, POS in the bottom right corner of wallet?
I'm guessing ticking / unticking them should do something?

I am also trying all the versions i can of cpuminer -opt..... now i see a
"JSON-RPC call failed: Unable to sign block, wallet locked?
[2020-08-24 10:17:16] submit_upstream_work json_rpc_call failed
[2020-08-24 10:17:16] ...retry after 10 seconds"

I simply "run" the wallet, on its defaults, it is not "encrypted, etc"

Any ideas?
Can you recommend an external miner?

Thanks
J


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on August 24, 2020, 12:35:38 PM
Hi miners.

Just wondering guys n gals.
Who else here, is actually mining this coin ?

I'd love to hear your experiences, what hash rate you have, what rig you have, and roughly how many coins a day you are mining.

Also, same with the staking people....
How much, get you how much?
What would i get with roughly 3000 coins?

The only 2 addresses i can see who have won blocks in the past 24 hours, are
1 address with 42,000+ coins --- got 42+ coins in last 24 hours
2 address with 2,000,000+ coins --- get 760+ coins in the last 24 hours. and got over 3400 coins the day before.

That second address is staking more a day than i have ever mined !

From the figures, it seems this is pretty much a 1 horse POS coin (Proof Of Stake - not Piece of...)

J


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on August 27, 2020, 03:20:00 PM
HI Deff,

Just been looking under "Options"
I see there are "Enable POW cpu mining", and "Enable POS cpu mining" optoins.
Should the POW be ticked or unticked for use with external miner? I have tried both ways, and neither affects the green status of POW, POS in the bottom right corner of wallet?
I'm guessing ticking / unticking them should do something?

I am also trying all the versions i can of cpuminer -opt..... now i see a
"JSON-RPC call failed: Unable to sign block, wallet locked?
[2020-08-24 10:17:16] submit_upstream_work json_rpc_call failed
[2020-08-24 10:17:16] ...retry after 10 seconds"

I simply "run" the wallet, on its defaults, it is not "encrypted, etc"

Any ideas?
Can you recommend an external miner?

Thanks
J

Hi! Now I'm testing a new algorithm for rewarding POS coin minting. I will check your problem as soon as possible.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on September 22, 2020, 04:27:26 AM
 
 Switching to a new algorithm in 40 days (approximately)



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on November 25, 2020, 03:32:45 PM

New version available

CACHE-Project, PPAPOS(Previous Period Activity Proof Of Stake) implementation, HardFork pre activated - Sun, 21 Jun 2020 00:31:50 GMT

Version : v_6.1.1.45
Version of git : v_0.7.5.275
Subversion : v_0.7.6.57

Full activation will occur when a ProofOfStake block is generated with the address "CP7N2wZmkqKkowQsPfUfbJFuXYRBSUxZiG"

https://github.com/DeffM/CACHeCoin/releases/tag/v_6.1.1.45



Hi Deff,
I'm getting slightly concerned about mining this project.

I am using this wallet
"version" : "v6.1.1.45-g32a928e-cache-2018-beta-one",
"protocolversion" : 91004,
"walletversion" : 60000,

Which came from your link above...i compiled it on
OS: Ubuntu 18.04.5 LTS x86_64
 Kernel: 5.4.0-53-generic

If i mine from the wallet, it literally finds 1 block a day, yet on the same PC if i use say cpuminer-opt i find a few blocks a day....
However, my main concern is....on days when the reported hash is say 2H/s, and i am mining with say 20H/s so 10x the hashrate, i still lose out blocks to to other miners...no idea why, also, i have only 1 connection
According to https://chainz.cryptoid.info/cache/#!network wallet /'CACHE'Project 2018:0.7.6.57/ has this node addnode=195.200.244.73

In fact these all the nodes from the last 24 hrs...
addnode=195.200.244.73 /'CACHE'Project 2018:0.7.6.57/

addnode=185.153.44.81 /'CACHE'Project 2018:0.7.6.55/
addnode=195.24.145.246 /'CACHE'Project 2018:0.7.6.55/

addnode=63.142.251.194 /'CACHE'Project 2018:0.7.6.52/

addnode=176.120.220.206 /'CACHE'Project 2018:0.7.6.51/
addnode=78.156.235.93 /'CACHE'Project 2018:0.7.6.51/
addnode=85.19.25.38 /'CACHE'Project 2018:0.7.6.51/
==========================================================
Yet the only wallet i ever connect to is addnode=63.142.251.194 /'CACHE'Project 2018:0.7.6.52/
==========================================================
i see this in my debug.log
connected 195.200.244.73:2225
send version message: version 91004, blocks=339519, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=195.200.244.73:2225, peer=195.200.244.73:2225
socket closed
disconnecting node 195.200.244.73:2225

So my worries are
1) Am i using the correct wallet?
2) Why do i have only 1 connection, and to a diff wallet version, when there is clearly 1 peer using same wallet as me
3) Am i on the correct chain? Has the chain split?
4) When i have 10x the network hashrate why am i still losing blocks?
5) Why do i have to mine 24/7   when for most of the day the POW part is "locked" seems like i am wasting electricity in those periods? Does the internal miner only mine when it needs to? According to my external miner i find more blocks when the POW is RED than GREEN so they get rejected
6) Is there any point in any of us actually mining when these are peoples STAKING rewards....(bearing in mind when the hashrate is below 10H/s and i am mining @ 20-30H/s and only get say 500-600 coins a day - most days is more like 200-300 coins)
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/cache/block.dws?422732.htm (486.353279 CACHE )
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/cache/block.dws?422716.htm (35,164.533266 CACHE

Look at that last stake 35000 coins in 1 day, thats like 30-40 days mining.

For me, 1st thing 1st....can you confirm i am on the correct chain (what is the seed node)
Then can you please look at the reward system....it seems to me it doesnt much matter if i mine with 5H/s or 50H/s i get virtually same random blocks....which is nuts, mining all day when wallet is locked for 60% of time seems very UN-enviromentally friendly, and the STAKING, well hows about higher interest rates for small pots and less for larger pots, at least just for a while to try and even out the "RICHLIST"
The 35000 coins STAKER has acheived that value ruffly each day this week, so thats heading towards 6 months worth of mining in 4 days....makes mining this coin completely pointless.

Also, if 1 miner is getting 35000coins+ a day, i can only imagine what will happen to the price if they dump them.....

Hope you have some good ideas cos this is about the only original coin still going...

J



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: brian_nguyen on November 25, 2020, 03:41:45 PM
...
6) Is there any point in any of us actually mining when these are peoples STAKING rewards....(bearing in mind when the hashrate is below 10H/s and i am mining @ 20-30H/s and only get say 500-600 coins a day - most days is more like 200-300 coins)
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/cache/block.dws?422732.htm (486.353279 CACHE )
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/cache/block.dws?422716.htm (35,164.533266 CACHE

Look at that last stake 35000 coins in 1 day, thats like 30-40 days mining.

For me, 1st thing 1st....can you confirm i am on the correct chain (what is the seed node)
Then can you please look at the reward system....it seems to me it doesnt much matter if i mine with 5H/s or 50H/s i get virtually same random blocks....which is nuts, mining all day when wallet is locked for 60% of time seems very UN-enviromentally friendly, and the STAKING, well hows about higher interest rates for small pots and less for larger pots, at least just for a while to try and even out the "RICHLIST"
The 35000 coins STAKER has acheived that value ruffly each day this week, so thats heading towards 6 months worth of mining in 4 days....makes mining this coin completely pointless.

Also, if 1 miner is getting 35000coins+ a day, i can only imagine what will happen to the price if they dump them.....

Hope you have some good ideas cos this is about the only original coin still going...

J



That is just the block of coins that staked. Whomever had that 35,000 coins only generated 0.871 CACHE for that transaction.

0.0 CACHE
Generation + Fees
Included in following transaction(s)
0.871052 CACHE


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on November 25, 2020, 03:50:18 PM
...
6) Is there any point in any of us actually mining when these are peoples STAKING rewards....(bearing in mind when the hashrate is below 10H/s and i am mining @ 20-30H/s and only get say 500-600 coins a day - most days is more like 200-300 coins)
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/cache/block.dws?422732.htm (486.353279 CACHE )
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/cache/block.dws?422716.htm (35,164.533266 CACHE

Look at that last stake 35000 coins in 1 day, thats like 30-40 days mining.

For me, 1st thing 1st....can you confirm i am on the correct chain (what is the seed node)
Then can you please look at the reward system....it seems to me it doesnt much matter if i mine with 5H/s or 50H/s i get virtually same random blocks....which is nuts, mining all day when wallet is locked for 60% of time seems very UN-enviromentally friendly, and the STAKING, well hows about higher interest rates for small pots and less for larger pots, at least just for a while to try and even out the "RICHLIST"
The 35000 coins STAKER has acheived that value ruffly each day this week, so thats heading towards 6 months worth of mining in 4 days....makes mining this coin completely pointless.

Also, if 1 miner is getting 35000coins+ a day, i can only imagine what will happen to the price if they dump them.....

Hope you have some good ideas cos this is about the only original coin still going...

J



That is just the block of coins that staked. Whomever had that 35,000 coins only generated 0.871 CACHE for that transaction.

0.0 CACHE
Generation + Fees
Included in following transaction(s)
0.871052 CACHE

OK, happy to put my hand up and say i'm wrong, but thats even more confusing so 35000 coins only gets a stale of 0.87 coins, yet the few 1000 coins when it finally does stake gets me more like 10-20 coins....so confusing...


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: brian_nguyen on November 25, 2020, 03:56:54 PM
...
6) Is there any point in any of us actually mining when these are peoples STAKING rewards....(bearing in mind when the hashrate is below 10H/s and i am mining @ 20-30H/s and only get say 500-600 coins a day - most days is more like 200-300 coins)
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/cache/block.dws?422732.htm (486.353279 CACHE )
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/cache/block.dws?422716.htm (35,164.533266 CACHE

Look at that last stake 35000 coins in 1 day, thats like 30-40 days mining.

For me, 1st thing 1st....can you confirm i am on the correct chain (what is the seed node)
Then can you please look at the reward system....it seems to me it doesnt much matter if i mine with 5H/s or 50H/s i get virtually same random blocks....which is nuts, mining all day when wallet is locked for 60% of time seems very UN-enviromentally friendly, and the STAKING, well hows about higher interest rates for small pots and less for larger pots, at least just for a while to try and even out the "RICHLIST"
The 35000 coins STAKER has acheived that value ruffly each day this week, so thats heading towards 6 months worth of mining in 4 days....makes mining this coin completely pointless.

Also, if 1 miner is getting 35000coins+ a day, i can only imagine what will happen to the price if they dump them.....

Hope you have some good ideas cos this is about the only original coin still going...

J


That is just the block of coins that staked. Whomever had that 35,000 coins only generated 0.871 CACHE for that transaction.

0.0 CACHE
Generation + Fees
Included in following transaction(s)
0.871052 CACHE

OK, happy to put my hand up and say i'm wrong, but thats even more confusing so 35000 coins only gets a stale of 0.87 coins, yet the few 1000 coins when it finally does stake gets me more like 10-20 coins....so confusing...

It depends on the age of the coins as well I believe, so if you wait 10 days and unlock your wallet then you get more than a 35K coin block that is constantly stake and it's looking that way.


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on November 25, 2020, 03:59:39 PM
...
6) Is there any point in any of us actually mining when these are peoples STAKING rewards....(bearing in mind when the hashrate is below 10H/s and i am mining @ 20-30H/s and only get say 500-600 coins a day - most days is more like 200-300 coins)
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/cache/block.dws?422732.htm (486.353279 CACHE )
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/cache/block.dws?422716.htm (35,164.533266 CACHE

Look at that last stake 35000 coins in 1 day, thats like 30-40 days mining.

For me, 1st thing 1st....can you confirm i am on the correct chain (what is the seed node)
Then can you please look at the reward system....it seems to me it doesnt much matter if i mine with 5H/s or 50H/s i get virtually same random blocks....which is nuts, mining all day when wallet is locked for 60% of time seems very UN-enviromentally friendly, and the STAKING, well hows about higher interest rates for small pots and less for larger pots, at least just for a while to try and even out the "RICHLIST"
The 35000 coins STAKER has acheived that value ruffly each day this week, so thats heading towards 6 months worth of mining in 4 days....makes mining this coin completely pointless.

Also, if 1 miner is getting 35000coins+ a day, i can only imagine what will happen to the price if they dump them.....

Hope you have some good ideas cos this is about the only original coin still going...

J


That is just the block of coins that staked. Whomever had that 35,000 coins only generated 0.871 CACHE for that transaction.

0.0 CACHE
Generation + Fees
Included in following transaction(s)
0.871052 CACHE

OK, happy to put my hand up and say i'm wrong, but thats even more confusing so 35000 coins only gets a stale of 0.87 coins, yet the few 1000 coins when it finally does stake gets me more like 10-20 coins....so confusing...

It depends on the age of the coins as well I believe, so if you wait 10 days and unlock your wallet then you get more than a 35K coin block that is constantly stake and it's looking that way.

So, rather than mine in 1 wallet and then send them to my staking wallet, you seem to be suggesting i will be better just mining and staking from the same wallet?


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: brian_nguyen on November 25, 2020, 04:06:18 PM
...
6) Is there any point in any of us actually mining when these are peoples STAKING rewards....(bearing in mind when the hashrate is below 10H/s and i am mining @ 20-30H/s and only get say 500-600 coins a day - most days is more like 200-300 coins)
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/cache/block.dws?422732.htm (486.353279 CACHE )
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/cache/block.dws?422716.htm (35,164.533266 CACHE

Look at that last stake 35000 coins in 1 day, thats like 30-40 days mining.

For me, 1st thing 1st....can you confirm i am on the correct chain (what is the seed node)
Then can you please look at the reward system....it seems to me it doesnt much matter if i mine with 5H/s or 50H/s i get virtually same random blocks....which is nuts, mining all day when wallet is locked for 60% of time seems very UN-enviromentally friendly, and the STAKING, well hows about higher interest rates for small pots and less for larger pots, at least just for a while to try and even out the "RICHLIST"
The 35000 coins STAKER has acheived that value ruffly each day this week, so thats heading towards 6 months worth of mining in 4 days....makes mining this coin completely pointless.

Also, if 1 miner is getting 35000coins+ a day, i can only imagine what will happen to the price if they dump them.....

Hope you have some good ideas cos this is about the only original coin still going...

J


That is just the block of coins that staked. Whomever had that 35,000 coins only generated 0.871 CACHE for that transaction.

0.0 CACHE
Generation + Fees
Included in following transaction(s)
0.871052 CACHE

OK, happy to put my hand up and say i'm wrong, but thats even more confusing so 35000 coins only gets a stale of 0.87 coins, yet the few 1000 coins when it finally does stake gets me more like 10-20 coins....so confusing...

It depends on the age of the coins as well I believe, so if you wait 10 days and unlock your wallet then you get more than a 35K coin block that is constantly stake and it's looking that way.

So, rather than mine in 1 wallet and then send them to my staking wallet, you seem to be suggesting i will be better just mining and staking from the same wallet?

That wasn't what I implied, if you're sending the coins to a staking wallet then it will help keeping the new wallet.dat small. You probably get the same stake amount regardless.


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on November 25, 2020, 04:15:03 PM
...
6) Is there any point in any of us actually mining when these are peoples STAKING rewards....(bearing in mind when the hashrate is below 10H/s and i am mining @ 20-30H/s and only get say 500-600 coins a day - most days is more like 200-300 coins)
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/cache/block.dws?422732.htm (486.353279 CACHE )
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/cache/block.dws?422716.htm (35,164.533266 CACHE

Look at that last stake 35000 coins in 1 day, thats like 30-40 days mining.

For me, 1st thing 1st....can you confirm i am on the correct chain (what is the seed node)
Then can you please look at the reward system....it seems to me it doesnt much matter if i mine with 5H/s or 50H/s i get virtually same random blocks....which is nuts, mining all day when wallet is locked for 60% of time seems very UN-enviromentally friendly, and the STAKING, well hows about higher interest rates for small pots and less for larger pots, at least just for a while to try and even out the "RICHLIST"
The 35000 coins STAKER has acheived that value ruffly each day this week, so thats heading towards 6 months worth of mining in 4 days....makes mining this coin completely pointless.

Also, if 1 miner is getting 35000coins+ a day, i can only imagine what will happen to the price if they dump them.....

Hope you have some good ideas cos this is about the only original coin still going...

J


That is just the block of coins that staked. Whomever had that 35,000 coins only generated 0.871 CACHE for that transaction.

0.0 CACHE
Generation + Fees
Included in following transaction(s)
0.871052 CACHE

OK, happy to put my hand up and say i'm wrong, but thats even more confusing so 35000 coins only gets a stale of 0.87 coins, yet the few 1000 coins when it finally does stake gets me more like 10-20 coins....so confusing...

It depends on the age of the coins as well I believe, so if you wait 10 days and unlock your wallet then you get more than a 35K coin block that is constantly stake and it's looking that way.

So, rather than mine in 1 wallet and then send them to my staking wallet, you seem to be suggesting i will be better just mining and staking from the same wallet?

That wasn't what I implied, if you're sending the coins to a staking wallet then it will help keeping the new wallet.dat small. You probably get the same stake amount regardless.

No idea what you were trying to explain then, sorry.


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: brian_nguyen on November 25, 2020, 04:26:38 PM
..

That wasn't what I implied, if you're sending the coins to a staking wallet then it will help keeping the new wallet.dat small. You probably get the same stake amount regardless.

No idea what you were trying to explain then, sorry.
[/quote]

Look for the Coin Age part here:
https://academy.binance.com/en/articles/proof-of-stake-explained


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: thirstygerry on January 20, 2021, 09:30:50 AM
Hey guys

Is cachecoin still alive?


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on January 20, 2021, 12:42:01 PM
Hey guys

Is cachecoin still alive?

Yes. This is my hobby. Update coming soon.



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on March 20, 2021, 06:27:27 PM
Hi guys,
Just noticed that some of you are selling cache very cheap....whilst i appreciate that we live in a free market space, can i just say, that this is one of only a handful of old, genuine small miner coins.
It has stood the test of time, and is a great starter coin for any newbie.
I really feel selling it off at under 10 sats is crazy....heck to be honest anything under 100 sats is mad.
Lets keep it unique, and cherish its value, better to promote its presence and build it, rather than let it die as a 1 sat coin.
If you think i'm mad...just take a look at 42 coin, its always around 3 BTC per coin, and was a simple "scrypt" mineable coin....
50-100 sats feels a good range for Cache....

Just my 2 cents worth


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: Deff on March 30, 2021, 02:19:34 PM
Hi guys,
Just noticed that some of you are selling cache very cheap....whilst i appreciate that we live in a free market space, can i just say, that this is one of only a handful of old, genuine small miner coins.
It has stood the test of time, and is a great starter coin for any newbie.
I really feel selling it off at under 10 sats is crazy....heck to be honest anything under 100 sats is mad.
Lets keep it unique, and cherish its value, better to promote its presence and build it, rather than let it die as a 1 sat coin.
If you think i'm mad...just take a look at 42 coin, its always around 3 BTC per coin, and was a simple "scrypt" mineable coin....
50-100 sats feels a good range for Cache....

Just my 2 cents worth

  Now POW mining is done by almost one person, using only the processors.

From the above -

86400 (sec) / 900 (interval) = 96 block

96 x ~50 = 4800 CACHE

4800 x 0.00000003 x 58000 = 8.352 $



Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on March 30, 2021, 07:06:55 PM
Hi guys,
Just noticed that some of you are selling cache very cheap....whilst i appreciate that we live in a free market space, can i just say, that this is one of only a handful of old, genuine small miner coins.
It has stood the test of time, and is a great starter coin for any newbie.
I really feel selling it off at under 10 sats is crazy....heck to be honest anything under 100 sats is mad.
Lets keep it unique, and cherish its value, better to promote its presence and build it, rather than let it die as a 1 sat coin.
If you think i'm mad...just take a look at 42 coin, its always around 3 BTC per coin, and was a simple "scrypt" mineable coin....
50-100 sats feels a good range for Cache....

Just my 2 cents worth

  Now POW mining is done by almost one person, using only the processors.

From the above -

86400 (sec) / 900 (interval) = 96 block

96 x ~50 = 4800 CACHE

4800 x 0.00000003 x 58000 = 8.352 $



LOL, I love your enthusiasm, BUT, mining this coins IS SO RANDOM...
Over the last 6-8 weeks i have managed to mine just under 100K, using 8 cores (ryzen 1800x the extra threads have zero impact on CACHE), and that was awesome.
I clearly was wining most blocks, most days. (Sorry to the other miners)
Then it all changed, and for all of March, i am lucky to get 10 blocks a day, so i assume the other guy is getting over 80, but its crap !!! Sometimes the nethash is 1-2h/s yet my 30H/s gets me zero blocks all day, then sometimes when the nethash is between 70-100h/s i get 10 blocks....
It is just so random to mine...and the POS simply doesn't work, or is way too complicated....with 100k coins i got nothing for weeks, then all of a sudden, i was getting more in stakes than mining, then for last 3 weeks, not 1 stake....
I guess i have mis-read things, but please make the POW and POS more staight forward.....might as well play darts with my eyes closed......

It also desperately needs a pool, cos its either win a bock or lose a block at the moment, and with literally 2-3 of us minnig it, 1 of us is winining hugely disproportionate amounts,a nd the other miners really are simply wasting their time.....


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: amirselimov on April 02, 2021, 11:06:29 PM
Hi guys,
Just noticed that some of you are selling cache very cheap....whilst i appreciate that we live in a free market space, can i just say, that this is one of only a handful of old, genuine small miner coins.
It has stood the test of time, and is a great starter coin for any newbie.
I really feel selling it off at under 10 sats is crazy....heck to be honest anything under 100 sats is mad.
Lets keep it unique, and cherish its value, better to promote its presence and build it, rather than let it die as a 1 sat coin.
If you think i'm mad...just take a look at 42 coin, its always around 3 BTC per coin, and was a simple "scrypt" mineable coin....
50-100 sats feels a good range for Cache....

Just my 2 cents worth

  Now POW mining is done by almost one person, using only the processors.

From the above -

86400 (sec) / 900 (interval) = 96 block

96 x ~50 = 4800 CACHE

4800 x 0.00000003 x 58000 = 8.352 $


Deff, what is the next for cachecoin? This season after Bitcoin halving was good for every altcoin, but Cache. If the price doesnt grow obviously Cache would be died to the next season. It would be good to list cachecoin on the most popular exchanges. Now we standing on the same place. In 2017 Cache were on several exchanges, and it had a good effect. Listing it on Yobit or Binance for example will overturn this situation. Now it seems like long cryptofuneral.

P.S. I couldn't contact to you via telegram


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: 1qaz on May 04, 2021, 07:48:32 PM
UP !


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on May 05, 2021, 08:44:39 AM
Looks like the chain is stuck

I'm on block 451589 have been for last 3-4 days
216863 without block (POW) secs
328632 without block (POS) secs

Is there still an explorer for this coin?

Can anyone fix this please.

Thanks


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: 1qaz on May 11, 2021, 01:20:27 PM
It all seems to be working.

 explorer requires payment , it was paid until February 2021. If anyone is ready to share in the payment for one year, we need to cooperate

UP !


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: BK777 on May 25, 2021, 05:50:04 PM
I tried to download different wallets from the website and from github as well, none connect successfully to be able to create addresses and withdraw 10,000 coins to my wallet. Until now still Out of sync! How to fix that and connect or bootstrap at least ?

Any help appreciated!! I need to withdraw my coins before its too late!


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: BK777 on May 25, 2021, 06:12:23 PM
I just need to open QT client to connect wallet and send my coins but its out of sync all the time! is there speciall ports or configuration ?


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: BK777 on May 29, 2021, 12:12:28 AM
Now after I finally got the romaing folder from another member , can not open the client keep giving me error opening block database ...I tried -reindex but nothing .. Any ideas would be really appreciated!


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: minerja on January 17, 2024, 06:17:26 PM
Hi there,
Does anyone having any working nodes please?

Thanks
J


Title: Re: 'CACHE'Project [VALM-Cache difficulty recalculation algorithm, SpamHash Control]
Post by: 1qaz on February 22, 2024, 02:05:21 AM
Hi there,
Does anyone having any working nodes please?

Thanks
J

unfortunately, without paid hosting for Blockchain Explorers , network not work , my node online but conection 0 ((((