To start-off, I would like to clarify what I believe are the two generations of coins here.

First, as I see it, Bitcoins, Litecoins, Feathercoins, Mincoins, Worldcoins, etc... are all POW (Proof of work) Gen-1 coins. You mine them, you find blocks, you make tx's.

Second, as I see it, PPcoins, Bottlecaps, and other POW/POS (Proof of work/Proof of stake) Gen-2 coins. You mine them, you find blocks, you make tx's, and you gain rewards for holdings through staked coins.

Third, as I see it, would be a coin that does additional work, beyond POW/POS, like Primecoin, which (forgive my lack of knowledge here on the coin) seems to be additionally generating or solving portions of prime-calculations, but with no actual reward for that work, directly. (Not to the miners, though I am sure the programmer is getting credit or use from the calculations.)

Or...

Third, as I see it, would be a coin that takes previous knowledge of other coins short-falls and strengths, and finds alternatives to subdue the bad and enhance the good, in a semi-dramatic way. (Eg, not just changing values of times, blocks, rewards, or logos.)

My suggestions, as poor as they are, are for Gen-3 coins. As I am sure the suggestions would surely disrupt the long-standing value and familiarity with existing coins structures.

##############################
Feel free to skip past my observations (Marked below)
##############################

To this, I have to add the following observations...
- Block-time targets of less than 1 minute are not good for the network. They do not propagate fast enough, leading to many avoidable and undesired forks/orphans. This is partly due to the nature of mining, which anyone can find 10 or more blocks within the first-find, well before the first block has traversed the net. Each new block is a new lotto-ticket, and a 1000000-diff block has as much chance of being found as a 1-diff block. Though it is more rare... when 10 DO get found, that instantly creates a fork on half the network. Half mining on the 10-blocks ahead, and half mining on the 10-blocks behind. Issue also related to retargeting block times...

- Block retarget times of a fixed-length of blocks, which is non-adaptive per-block, is bad for the network. With the known issue of coin-jumpers, this becomes more clear, mostly to any new or slower coin. Waiting for x-blocks before a diff-change after a coin has been mined to hell, into the ground, makes constant miners leave. They do not want to stay and mine a coin that once offered them 200 a day, but now only offers them 50 a day, which it will offer them for the next x-blocks. The diff-adjustment would be fine, if the coin had a constant x-miners STILL hashing away at that speed, but they all leave once they drive the diff through the roof and value into the ground.

- Block rewards that decay with more power, or are too high. This, I have mixed feelings about, because this seems to be one of the most abused and least knowledgeable areas of the programmers focus. Sorry, but there are only about three coins that I have seen, with true "economic planning" with relation to this major core element of the coins. They just throw values into the program and "hope it all works out". I only see two instances where this is sort-of true, but it is an illusion hidden by denial. lol. The three instances which have taken this major issue into consideration, just failed to capture the reality of what they intended to do, though they did it the best they could, without having to rewrite the whole program.

- Single-chains that allow you to MINE while disconnected from "the majority", creating forks and allowing, time-warp attacks, 51% attacks, stall-attacks, and various other exploits. Not to mention tx's being delayed, ignored, dumped, erased, because of some of the above issues.

- Block-spending and tx-spending, without consideration for age of tx-origin or age of block-origin. This issue goes beyond user issues, and into exchanges. Naturally any tx from any block that appears on "the chain you are on", which is valid, is accepted. However, if there is a fork, and that young-tx comes from a young-block on this fork... The TX has a good chance to be erased, along with the block it originated from. However, and older block, and tx, even if it was in the fork... would simply just move to the other fork after a correction. (I believe), as those coins were not generated in the fork, and thus, have the ability to move. Having the ability to say, when a fork is detected or not, no I will not give you credit for this exchange until the fork has resolved... due to that specific coin coming from a block that is not below the hard-code... yet, still accepting a coin coming from a block below the hard-coded block... would greatly reduce a lot of spending issues.

- Fixed IP's never "trying" for more than the ones you constantly connect to, without regard for others being closer, or attempting to "confirm" that the ones you are connected to, have the correct chain. This is another problem that aids to the issues above. There does not seem to be any "trying" for more connections. There is no "stay connected to one slow connection", while also "staying connected to the "one closest and fastest responding connection". There is no warning about, "multiple block-heights detected, mine with caution.", or "Which block-height would you like to connect to." (For instances where selection is critical, or can be used to choose not to RISK mining on a wrong chain.)

###########################
End of observations
###########################

My suggestions for consideration... and why... (Not that all suggestions are good, or worth throwing into one coin, or clearly extrapolated.)

1: Non-decentralized block-height tracking and block-height confirmation. (Every n-th block, you check if the block-height you are mining is correct. If not, you get a link to someone with the correct block-height. The correct block-height is simply the tallest one, that audits-out correctly, which has been reported or tracked by the centralized sources, and spread through the decentralized mining network of nodes.)

2: Minimum block-time of 1 minute, from last block. Forget diff-settings. The best diff submitted, after 1 minute from the last blocks time, gets the solution. (Waiting for 30-seconds of mining, before attempting to submit solutions. Submitting the best of what you found, while you race yourself.) If a solution is submitted, you have to beat that solution, before the minute is up. The first best solution after a minute, is the new block solution you want to build off of. (The other best solution is dynamic diff adjustments. Using the target of 1-min, after every block, it adjusts to compensate. EG, one fast block found in 0.5 seconds, forces a diff for the next block to be real high. About half-height, since this was obviously a "lucky shot", but someone-else may have a "luck-shot" on the next block, and it would again adjust higher, to compensate. If not, then it reduces by half, and half again, and half again, until the target of 60 in the hour have been reached.)

3: Mandatory minimum and maximum tx volume, and mandatory minimum and maximum tx-fees. Except for internal moves, within your own wallet. (See below.) This would be as follows... Assume the minimum unit is 0.00000001 (8 decimals). Minimum tx being 0.00001 (5 decimals), with a minimum tx-fee of 0.00000001 (8 decimals) or 0.1%. {for the minimum tx volume, that would be 0.00000001 or 0.1%} Also having a maximum tx volume of 10,000 to limit theft and make attacks that spend fraudulent coins, less of an impact. EG, they would have to create TONS of fake transactions, not one giant transaction of 100,000,000. This fee being deposited into block 0, which can never be withdrawn from, but is always tracked. Used to eat-up coins, so creation of coins can be off-set by high-volumes of tx's, and also for block-height confirmation, for auditing.

4: Wallet-2-wallet moves, being a zero-tx move. One that is done by the wallet, without instruction, to consolidate coins to one location or address within the wallet, to reduce dust. No dust transactions. If dust is detected, then auto-move the funds into one address, prior to sending, without the dust-fees. It is the wallet that made the dust, beyond our control, but we get charged a penalty for the system creating dust. That is not needed. Nor is a "tax" on moving coins from one address in a wallet, to another, for consolidation and dust-removal.

5: Multiple chains, linked as one. I would personally use 8 or 10 or 16 or whatever, related to the last digit of the "sending" account. This way an attacker would need that many MORE computers to attempt to actually attack a network. All transactions moving forward, first withdrawn, if available... then in the next up-coming block, the deposit is made, which matches the initial withdraw. Each hashed to the block below, of the same ID... 2, 2, 2, 2, 2... as a column, and that also hashed to the adjacent block... 2->3->4->... 9->0 (0 of the next row, from 9 of the last row.) Like a giant knitted scarf. All transactions moving forward, so a withdraw from account xxxxxxxxxxx7 going to yyyyyyyyyy7 would be deposited in the next block up, since withdraws should NOT be in the same block as the deposits, in any chain.

6: Secondary rewards, that are realistic and not ones that will impact the system in a horribly negative way. Holding coins makes less available, yes... but that artificially increases the value, which leads to dumping large holdings. Unlike a bank, where your holdings are lent-out to others, which the banks offer you a "return on that money you let them borrow"... Holding these coins should NOT have rewards, unless those holdings are destroyed, to be payed-back, from TX gains, in the future. (See above). Abundance would be reduced, and depending on the quantity you destroy, the more you should make from the tx-fees. (In this case, your destroyed coins would be added to another account in block 0, so you would get those back later, along with coins from tx-fees, rewarded by the system.) EG, if you destroy 1000 coins, and that is 1/10,000th of the total destroyed coins, then you get rewarded with 1/10,000th of the last deposited tx-fees, and that same number of coins which you destroyed. If 1/10,000th of tx's was 100 coins, you would get back 200 coins, 100 from tx-fees that others paid, and 100 of your coins back, leaving you with 900 destroyed coins left to gain from.)

7: Third party rewards, lets say encryption services... you, while generating hashes, are creating a cypher-key for something like a website, for use in private strong encryption, that is disposable. They buy coins from anyone, and attach "work" to those coins. If you get that block, and solve that work, you get that coin as a reward, which replaces one of the normally "generated" coins from "nothing". Though it is not a direct reward to YOU, it is to the network as a whole. Because that is one less coin in circulation, and that was one coin that someone earned, possibly you, which was purchased for physical money, for real work. (Unlike prime-coins, which I am sure the programmers are making a killing off, but not offering that reward to the miners or the system, by destroying coins, or reducing coins created from "nothing".)

8: Block rewards should start super small, and rise with network growth but rewarding less per user, only decaying in the event of abundance or over-growth, for stability. Starting with a reward of 2000, when there are 10 people, then lowering to 200 when there are 100 people, then decaying further to 20 when there are 1,000 people, and ultimately going to 2 for 10,000 miners, and then zero... is just freaking stupid. That is zimbabweism in reverse. Just as going in the other direction is just as bad, growing to keep everyone mining and getting the same reward, no matter how many people mine. (I don't think anyone has done that yet, but I imagine someone will.) Having a coin value that adjusts to the power of the network, increasing to allow nearly the same reward, but slightly less with more power, encourages growth and use. EG, rewarding 1 for 1 miner, 0.9 per miner for 10 miners, 0.8 per miner for 100 miners, 0.7 per miner for 1,000 miners, 0.6 per miner for 10,000 miners... until it goes to 0.1, then it gets dramatic and goes to 0.05, 0.025, 0.0125, etc... With supplemented "coins from nothing", coming from "real work" or "transfer fees", to keep the "coins from nothing", limited. If there are more miners, then there are more people trading. If the price is not jumping all over creation, matching the production, then there will be more people trading. The more people trading, the more fees, the more fees, the less coins are created. That balances out. (If not, you make slight adjustments to the values... SLIGHT... ones that will not threaten transactions or mining, in a seriously negative way. EG, through public consensus.)

9: Reduce the need for pools. Solo-mining should be possible, at any point in time. Coins that spent so much time "trying to decentralize" and "trying to beat the man"... seem to only favor "centralized exchanges and pools" and "only favor the MAN with the biggest GPU army." Kind of defeats the purpose of the coins, almost as much as dust-fees and killing micro-transactions, which was the whole purpose of bitcoins in the first place... for micro-transactions. They didn't put all those decimals in there for fun. Much of the above, mostly #8, goes towards "solo mining", and it also goes towards coin-hoppers. If they hop, they get less. If they stay, they get more. Those that stay, don't get raped by the hoppers. The more the merrier, pools or solo.

10: Lock and hold transactions. This is for traders and exchanges and for escrow use, mostly... and for "trusted" stores that would like to reduce transfer overhead. You make a tx, but the money does not actually leave your wallet. It remains in your wallet, unlocked only to the recipient. They don't have to take it until they need it, or they can unlock it back to you, or forward and unlock it to a third-party. EG, You want to trade it at an exchange. You unlock it to them, they see it is available, but they don't take it until you actually trade it. Then, they can forward it to the new owner, only loosing one transfer fee, not two transfer fees. (One fee depositing it to the exchange, one fee depositing it to the new owner, after they withdraw it.) Also, the network has one less transaction to deal with, and if you decide not to trade, the exchange has the ability to just refund your coins back to you, without a fee, or with only one fee. Same for an escrow account, where you unlock it to the service, and the service unlocks it to the recipient, in the event that both parties are in agreement. Shops can leave funds there, returning them without loss, if they decide they can not send an item, or in the event that they legally have to return the funds due to shipping or other issues. But, for all intense purposes, that unlocked money is out of your wallet control, and in control of the new owner you unlocked it to. It is also your proof of payment, and proof that they got it, as it would indicate "collected". Like a receipt system, without the other party having to actually be online with a wallet, to give you a receipt, or without having to clutter the network with receipt transactions returning to the sender.

11: This one is a little harder... but... if the rewards were offered to "the best 100 submitted solutions", that would greatly increase the participation of those who solo-mine, and also make it nearly impossible for an attack, and make any attack easy to detect and reject. Spreading the wealth, demanding that only one "best solution per wallet" is submitted would also thwart any pools from mining, or massive coin-hopper individuals with uber solo-mining ability from disrupting the network. Keeping the "reward solutions" separate from the diff-1 tx solutions, would allow reward solutions to be able to be removed after every hard-coded block. (Since those solutions were all confirmed by 1000+ audits, and are no longer needed as proof of work to be used in the chain, only the short and simple diff-1 solutions that locked the tx-blocks are needed at that point, which holds the 100 accounts that submitted solutions.)

############################
End of my thoughts for consideration... You can wake-up now...
############################

I have 220 coins available to be staked. (22 mined blocks from the 3rd of last month. There was 31 days last month.)

I have since found 350 coins, (35 blocks), and have 0 staked coins.

Like I asked before... how random is "stake" coins generation, once they are available to be staked?

At this rate, if I get 1 stake-coin now... that is less than 1/200th. And I have to wait for 60-90 MORE days before that 1/200th produces 5/100th of a coin. That is 5% / 200 = 0.025% gain for holdings. (That is if I get 1 staked-coin now... Which I have not gotten yet.)

I don't know what the point of waiting an additional 60-90 days, after the first 30 days. Why not just make it 60-90 days to start-off? For such a small reward, it should just be 30 days, and 0.05%, for all holdings, not random rewards worth nano-cents. (Smaller block rewards would be better too. For increased value.)

FYI: I am buying CAP at every low. lol... it is cheaper than mining it. Some people just don't know how to value their earnings, or a lot of people just don't mind parting with a loss. My gain!

Thank-you for the MINTING and MINING thing... That helped a lot more than the other things, and clarifies a lot... (Though, mining results in minted coins... This just re-writes the definition. I got what you were saying.)

Mining, your coins solo, or in pool...
- Once they "stop moving" they "begin to age". (Move them to your wallet ASAP, from pools.)
- Once aged, they "have the ability to become/spawn staked coins" (That is still unclear. If you loose a coin to create a stake-coin.)
- Once a stake-coin is aged, it "has the potential to reward as a mint" (Unclear here... it creates a normal coin?)
- Staked coins are minting, not mining, and can only ALSO go into an unencrypted wallet or unlocked wallet. (If locked, the MINT will fail, just as MINING fails to a locked wallet.)


I am on block 57394, the one showing on "CoinChoose"... I have not had any problems mining.

Delete your blocks and rebuild.

This is my config...

splash=0
server=1
gen=0
testnet=0
daemon=1
maxconnections=10
listen=1

addnode=186.95.162.209
addnode=70.98.114.229
addnode=188.165.211.65
addnode=199.192.205.46
addnode=176.34.210.88
addnode=70.69.238.84
addnode=70.98.114.237

Only 2 of those connections above actually connect to me. The other 8 connections are just from listening. If you only have those connections, and tell it to only connect to 7, and do not listen... you will be like me. Waiting all day for a connection, because those are not responding to anyone. So much for "trusted", apparently they are not "listening" or are only listening to 100 connections out of the 1000 trying to connect.

This line contradicts what is said above... and the issue of confusion...

"held in wallet for 30 days"... got that... lots of coins past 30 days...

"unlocked for minting"... got that... I am a miner, I am always unlocked for minting...

"mint a POS block"... You said you don't have to be minting, just have it open for STAKE... Now you are saying we have to MINE a POS block to get STAKE rewards?

My question is... Do we get the 10-coins + stake-%, or just the stake-%?

My observation is this... If we are NOT SOLO MINING, we get no STAKE REWARD, even if all our coins are STAKE coins. (Coins that can NOT BE SPENT.)

The documentation still suggests that if I had 10 coins, and they "turn into" STAKE coins, thus I now have 0 normal coins and 10 stake coins. (Also implying that staked coins can not be spent, and they earn 0 if you are not MINING... Solo mining to your wallet, not mining in a pool, which earns the POOL staked credits from the staked coins.)

If my coins are going to start disappearing, turning into stake coins, that I could never mine solo in the future, then I fail to see how this offers any protection or is any form of encouragement to mine them. Unless the pools spread the earnings, based off mining work, for earnings from stake coins. If normal coins "turn in to" stake coins, then someone is going to be missing coins that they earned, unless the pools reserve all coins to not "turn in to" stake coins. (Since they "turn in" = "remove A and replace with B", pools will never be able to stake-mine, and solo mining won't be possible unless you have massive power. Thus, again, where is the security or incentive to mine them?)

Easier to understand...
Turn in to... = Turn windows 7 in to windows 8 = you have no windows 7 now, only windows 8 now...

Was that just a poor choice of words? "turn in to"?

BTW I have mined several blocks and have several blocks/coins that are "ready to stake" (30 days old)... Yet nothing indicates that any coins or blocks are being staked (0 staked coins)... How random is the selection? The wording suggests that "available for stake" coins will turn in to stake coins. There was no mention about THAT being random.

And, why does my wallet have to be unlocked and online... Is Santa Clause going to sneak in, and mine for me, turning my coins into staked coins... I have to leave the door open for him? Why does it not do this offline, or with a locked wallet, if we don't have to mine to be staked? How the hell do you know if our wallets are unlocked for mining, and have access? (Joke, but serious.)

This sounds like pool-mining will be useless to stake coins...

Pools get the stake-coins, not us... unless we remove them ASAP...

But...

If we are mining in a pool, we are never getting stake-coin value, because we are not mining on our wallets, solo... thus.... no stake-coins. I assume then, that, by your words... coins just turn into staked coins. However you don't get any value for them, until you mine, and when you find a block... that block is thrown away? That is still unclear? Or do you get the 10 coins still, PLUS a percentage of staked coins?

So if all 5000 of my coins eventually turn into staked coins, I have 0 coins. But I get 5% of 5000 = 250, when I find a block? (If they were all matured for earnings?)

If the wallet has 0 connections it should stop mining...

Should need 3 connections to mine...

Though I suspect the actual issue is that the three connections are not talking to the other wallets. (Not reporting "block found" to his wallet. (Thus, he had three connections to a computers which were also disconnected from the network.)

I don't know why the "mining" is 100% decentralized. That is just stupid. Doesn't take much to have one room or website that simply holds track of block-height & atomic-time... if your data doesn't match, or you don't get a response... then you shouldn't be mining.

Or, like I said... wallets should only be able to build one block, then have to wait for anyone else to find the next one, before they can build on that next block. Or only be able to build (confirm-qty - 1, block-height), before having to wait for ONE block to be built by another wallet. (Thus, they could never confirm any single tx/block alone.)

Should be hitting stake-coins today, around 10AM for me (gmt-5)... Or do they just turn into stake-coins?

My wallet count went up by one block, the chain went up by one block... the cgminer reported it as "approved"... (Nothing indicates "orphaned" blocks in the wallet. I would have to dig through the wallet to actually "see" the block info.)

The block I found was the one listed above, 28338. Even the coin-choose website indicated that was the new block-height, after I found it. (The one that I stated was just found, as I was typing.)

It could have just been a one-time orphan. I switched to another coin after that.

Testing again tonight...

If it orphans again, then there is a fork, and I am just on the wrong side of it. (Not sure how that works, if the wallet is the mining access, and the network it is talking to has identified it as an orphan, it should be moving me to the correct chain.)

The only thing weird I noticed, is that the wallet still said, "not synched", while I was mining that block. The block-height was the one listed on all the coin pages, to I took a risk and mined. Once it found that block, the orphan, my wallet finally said it was synced...

I will try registering on a pool later. It does not show you approved or rejected blocks, only approved or rejected shares. If that pool is on the right chain, then it would show with the other miners, since they are all mining to the same wallet for the same chain. (The pools wallet).

brb, trying to mine it again.

P.S. I am not worried about loosing one block, after the 60+ blocks (3000+ coins), I lost from the days of mining it after the 27th to the 29th... all those disappeared from my wallet.

lol... spoke too soon... I think...

Says I found a block, but nothing in my wallet... seems orphaned.

If I am on the right chain, and the other is the wrong one, then it should show later, once this one grows-up past the incorrect one. I assume that the other one my wallet sees is invalid, or it would have me mining on it. It must see it, or it would have added the found block to my wallet.

so... does that mean the other block is invalid... or it just isn't selecting the correct taller chain? (Could that be the bug? That it is selecting the second largest chain, or that the other guys are just not "talking", sending the taller chain, but still reporting the height?)

This is going to sound odd... but check that your variables are matched correctly...

28337 is what it seems stuck at...

See that all ints, units, longs, floats, doubles, etc... actually give what you expect in ranges.

Same with shift commands and masks... It is obviously related to processing of a "valid block"... Unless it is screwing-up the NONCE or the wrong value for the initial genesis-seed/block is being used. (Thus, rejecting all our work, because it is all invalid.)

I would bet that it is something silly, like cramming an int into a uint, and reading it back out as an int. (That alters the value when it shifts the byte for the negative-switch, to the last bit. Safe for small numbers but once you reach half-int, it changes.)

Though, it seems to be letting me mine. Will be sad if these blocks just disappear too... like my last days work mining.

As I typed, I found block 28338... now it says I am synched... I fixed it! lol... or just gonna eat my coins again!

When rebuilding the database...

addnode=70.79.24.157

was the only connection I got from YOUR list of nodes... This seems to be a rogue node.

Block-level is 53893 and rising... no other nodes in your list seem to have this height.

Time to look around and kill the rogue nodes, remove them from the many postings, and consider the following settings...

splash=0
server=1
gen=0
testnet=0
daemon=1
maxconnections=20
listen=1

Time to remove the addnodes... it is causing problems, because there is no way to enforce it, and the majority of large hashers seem to not be "listening" or "talking" to the network of your nodes. (Thus, they are building multiple solo chains, and not telling the outside world fast enough... or at all.)

Thus, many tall chains, from multi, from cryptsy, from anyone with three fast blocks or more, are creating branches that others see, only after the servers start talking to the outside world again. (After they have built stacks of private branches.)

If you don't add nodes, and LISTEN for more than the list of nodes you provide... (Obviously your nodes are not talking fast enough either... to each-other, or to the outside world.)... then you are aiding the issue. It only takes one person on both nodes to grab the longest one, and bring it back to the network, causing issues. Your nodes seem to ignore the fact that another chain is larger, and correct, forcing us to use the short ones they are attempting to "manage".

This issue goes back to the 27th... that is where the rogue node, listed above, stopped functioning. (Old code?)

Well, I am not golden, nor are many of the pools... And I think you only "think" you are golden... (You might have gotten on the right chain, by luck. But I assume you are on the chain that I was, when it looked "golden" to me... but was a dud-chain, producing blocks that were useless and invalid, though they showed in the wallet, as if they were valid.)

Doing all the above, results in fail.

Being 8 days behind, and not being able to mine, and when I can mine, the blocks that were valid, later disappear... is not "golden".

I will laugh when you find you have mined all week long, and all the coins you think you have mined, are all gone, the next time you restart the wallet.

Which block-explorer is right.... there are two, not the same results. Every pool I see is generating all orphans.

Current diffs showing as... 71960.69, 5183.834, and 5432311.847...

Which fork are you on, that you "think" is the right one?

Noticed all my mined coins were no longer showing as the same address...

I know this seems far-fetched... but...

Are you guys sure that someone didn't purposely release a "branch" or "update", that makes all miners mine on that address that seems to be getting all the coins? EG, using the credentials of that wallet, thus we are all essentially pool-mining into that one wallet for someones personal gain.

My wallet is filled with mined-blocks with addresses that don't appear on any block-chain. They were all confirmed, then now, mysteriously after the 44 update, they disappeared and no chains have "completed". (Deleted the entire block-chain and nodes, several times, redownloaded it several times, and it always says 8 hours left, and never gets the last 8 hours of blocks.)

Seems someone hard-coded in a fork that was invalid, and there are sooo many versions out there, creating more forks, which are also invalid. I don't think there is a legitimate fork anymore, to build off of. Might be why those who download from the beginning, can't connect, because we actually SEE the audited chain with the invalid block transactions... as opposed to those who are just building off an invalid chain that were once forks, and were not actually audited, since they were hard-coded, and the program told them the chain was correct.

Who exactly decides to add hard-coded blocks into the chain, and "pick" which fork is correct? Apparently they did it wrong, or did that on purpose. (The one reaping the rewards?)

Great, you compile the code yourselves... but do you actually look at the code? That is the whole purpose of compiling yourself... so you can be sure you are compiling something that is not tainted.

Wallets need a way to detect multiple chains, and let us select the ones to mine from. As opposed to just assuming the longest one is real, without actually auditing it, before joining it. (If only for times like this, where every block shows as an orphan, and there seems to be five hard forks. I have seen five "end-block" values in all my downloading... none that are valid, and matching any of the block-explorers, so the block-explorer is on the wrong side of the fence too.)

I am noticing something odd... (Noticed this after mining TRC, and my mined coins began showing in my wallet as an unfamiliar address. Turned-out that my mined coins in TRC may have been another persons info in my wallet.)

What I noticed in this CAP wallet, is that the coins I mine are not showing as the original address of the wallet. To date, I only have one address, I have not created more, for this wallet.

The odd part is... Though 99% of my mined coins are going to this "other address"... The 1% are going to another address in my wallet.

EG... When I created the wallet, there was one address "bob", and no other "created addresses". But my mined coin are going to the address "sue" 99% of the time, and 1% of the time they are going to address "joe". (I assume these addresses are from the stock-pile of "100 pregenerated addresses", that the wallet is created with.)

I just found it odd, that this wallet mines to something other than the original created address. Could be an issue for some people, if the mined addresses goes beyond the 100, and the wallet gets corrupted. It will be impossible to get the next sequence of addresses past the first 100. (Unless they purposely use a fixed-seed generation for each following set of "new addresses". You would have to create trillions of addresses before you eventually find those lost addresses again.)

Good job on this release... Whatever you did, fixed all the orphans and stales I was getting on the non-anon connections.

Tons of connections now too... I get up to 17 at times. (Takes a second, but once connected, you are really connected!)

So far, this is like a "better mincoin". (I know that may not seem like a compliment, but from a miners point of view, it is.)

Ideal reward, nice block-times, ok diff-adjustments, and great bonus of nearly true anonymity.

Can you go into specific details of "Bottlecaps Stake Mining". Those links to Stake-coins uses real vague and uncertain explanations that do not offer specifics enough to be applied to this coin.

EG...

Previously mined coins, which are eligible for Stake...
- If your balance was 1000, and 1 is "available for Stake"... Does your new balance show 999 coins and 1 as Stake? (Or would it be 990, and 10 Stake-coins?)
- Or, is Stake going to just show the "reward", Thus, the coins will be 2000 and Stake will just indicate % reward gains, as if they were coins...
- And... If mining, instead of getting a coin reward of 10, does it give us 0, and flags 10 of those available coins as "stake coins", for earning a reward?

There is nothing clear about the actual method, or this coins specifics to that unclear method.

It does hint that "Mining reward will be 0 coins when you find a block", and that somehow MAY potentially convert to a "1% to 3% Stake-coin", but then it says "of your total unspent coins", then implies that it is only the "total unspent staked coins". (Suggesting that the coins have to be "not just available to be staked, but have already been "staked". Thus, no reward for the block of a found block, which is what converts the coin to a stake-coin.)

To make it simple...
I have 1000 coins, they are all "available and ready to be used for stake-rewards"...
Now I mine a block...
- Do I now have 1010 coins, (10 from the found block) Plus ________ Stake?
or
- Do I now have 990 coins, because 10 coins were moved to Stake? Thus, Stake shows 10, and I actually just lost 10 coins... the 10 I just found. (Which the articles suggest.)
or
- Do I still have 1000 coins, and 10 stake coins, as 10 were moved to stake, and the 10 I just found were moved into the normal coins. (Thus, leaving only 990 of those 1000, left for moving to stake.)

In any event, the coins in stake are what is used to provide reward... does this reward go to the normal coins, or does it add to the stake-coins total? Or, is the stake area just going to show the "rewards earned" by the "staked coins", which always remain in the coins section...

I guess I can find-out, when I reach that 30-day point... But there is no real coin details to indicate staked coins, rewards, or other information that might actually be useful. The wallets are as vague as the article explaining them.

Would be nice to see another tab, where coins that are "staked" just move to... With another tab that shows the staked-earnings from those staked coins. With the ability to "remove from savings", instead of having to "reserve a portion for spending". It seems to be an "all or nothing" situation, or "lock and suffer losses" situation.

Also... it suggests that Staked coins will be 100% unspendable. Thus, "locked forever", or "disposed, but recorded as disposed"... Thus, we can only spend the 1-3% reward of the "total destroyed/locked coins", as the 1-3% arrives... 1-3% per day, per week, per month, per year? That part is unclear also...

Solution to above issue...

Delete everything in the roaming folder, except the wallet and the conf file... if you have one.

Then change the RPC port to anything OTHER THAN rpcport=9560 (I used 9666)

Seems there is an issue with using 9560 to mine? Also, the old database is NOT compatible AT ALL, with the new database.

Do this, and you are back to mining SXC again. Now get your asses in gear and find more places to spend it, or get it listed on exchanges. If the word "sex" bothers them, rename the coin to "Special-X coin", or "Super-X coin", or "Site-X coin". Not like you are going to loose anything by changing the name now.

The windows client is dead...

Keeps loading infinitely, trying to load ~320640 blocks+

Eg, you can't mine with it, because it never appears to be synced. There is not that many blocks, so something it corrupted in the windows compiled version.

Was a nice coin while it lasted. Sad that it just died...

Where are the updated windows files?

The link on the original first-post is to an older source than the one I have?

The link I had (I assume burried in one of the non-first posts), gave me a compiled version with 7/9/2013 "modified" dates. The link on the first page gives files that are "modified" on 6/18/2013... thus, older than what I have.

Tell your coder to check his computers time, if he is compiling with an older date than reality, or update the original link on the first post so we don't have to dig to find a program that works. Unless your target is just a minority of poor coders using free OS's, and not the majority of actual people with money using Windows. (Just some food for thought. Not insulting coders, or people not willing to pay for an OS. They have their reasons, I am sure. But they are NOT going to be the primary funding of a coin. If there was anything you should have learned from BTC, it is that internal support of a poor coder leaves you trading pennies, not dollars, for years, and poor structure with "making your program available", essentially kills coins. Just look at mincoin, chncoin, ezcoin, sexcoin, hypercoin, luckycoin, powercoin and anoncoin... You don't want to follow in footsteps that lead you to an open grave.)

With an 80% reject rate... devs might want to focus on mining quality, and focus less on rewards. Right now, it is a double-edge sword... less reward from mining-finds and more mining-rejects = quadruple kick in the teeth to miners. Try increasing the block-time to a 2-min target time, retargeting after every block found, using an hourly retarget formula. Eg, finding one block too fast, changes the retarget of the next block, making it "target" a 2-min + (2-min - last-found-seconds) block.

Even better to use a "half-value" retarget. Just incase it over-targets to too high a diff for any miner to want to keep mining. If it is truly still too high, it retargets up again by half, and half, and half... instead of the "shocker" diff that forces the mining value to be below mining-effort, which makes the majority of miners just jump onto another coin. (Same on the reverse, targeting down by half, if everyone leaves suddenly, so that it does not drop through the floor instantly, calling the hoppers back between every other retarget value.)

Seems the system that allows anon-mining is causing massive forks and rejections from the delays of tor use, for mining. Not quite the ideal setup.

You might want to remove the "fast block" times, since tor is anything other than fast.

The system is choking on soo many miss-matched times for block submissions, it is creating like 40 forks at once, each block.

Stick to non-anon mining, and only anon-tx's. If you can't sync time within 3-sec of "atomic time", then you should not be mining. (Also, forcing the miners to "not build off your own block", once you find one, would greatly limit forks and orphans. Making them "wait" until someone-else has built on the "potential" found block. Because if they are that far out of sync, they keep building fast on their own block, creating forks that have to be tested and rejected.)

This is why it sucks having only "one chain" to build on, with fast blocks. There is no time for the blocks to propagate through the "world wide" system. (This stuff isn't seen on a local system with <50ms response times.)