"MNs receive 45% of block reward, one MN at a time. They all stand in a queue 90% of a time and then there is last 10% which is probabilistic."
I have always wondered if is it possible for a miner to pick from the 10% of MNs ready for payment one that they control. In this way, miners could game the system by paying their MNs at a faster rate than the general population. I wish the payment scheme was a little more deterministic than 10%, which is almost 400.
No, miners can't choose MN on their own. It's probabilistic but it's also deterministic - it uses the same ranking algo and similar voting scheme so every node on the network should come to the same result who the payee is, blocks with incorrect payee are rejected. |
|
|
|
My apologies if these have already been asked and answered but I'm having difficulty getting definitive answers to the following:
1. When an InstantTX is initiated how are miners on the network notified that the output of a transaction already on the blockchain can only be spent by a transaction selected by a quorum of Masternodes? E.g. is a new block validation rule propagated across the network for the miners to follow?
2. Can an InstantTX reference a transaction which is in a miner's memory pool and not yet mined to a block in the way that transactions which have not yet been mined to a block can reference one another?
3. If there is a blockchain reorganisation because a longer chain is revealed to a part of the network is there a way to enforce the InstantTX is maintained. E.g. how long does the list of what InstantTX are valid remain cached with the Masternodes and miners?
4. How are master nodes remunerated for their services?
I can't really answer the questions the way you are asking them. I will give some details that might give you the answers you are looking for. 1,2,3. An InstanTX is a transaction that locks the input for the next 6 blocks. So it doesn't allow any transactions that would use that same input during those 6 blocks. This is all done in the masternode memory pool before it gets to the miners. The other part of this is that you can't initiate an InstanTX transaction until the input you want to spend has 6 confirmations. ... That's inaccurate unfortunately: - inputs are locked for 1 hour e.g. 24 blocks on average - all nodes (regular, masternodes, miners, etc) process and verify IX independently just like any other tx (or block, or whatever). @No_2 I gave an extended explanation there https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/questions-about-instanttx.9184/#post-97206 |
|
|
|
|
Quick note:
I've seen few blocks recently with very high fee included in block reward and there are indeed some huge transactions (5-10Kb in size each) which are paying a lot (0.1-0.2 DASH). If you are the one who is making this or similar transactions (like collecting multiple mining/masternoding rewards for example) and you are not running 0.12.0.58 please consider updating to lower your fee.
|
|
|
|
.... Hate to ask but could you possibly include a link to c2's main website from the block explorer, ive noticed on chat people saying that they cannot find any information on us due to the old thread and its links being defunct. The Website link is : http://www.coin2.us.... Done  Added link in top navigation menu, central logo icon should also link to official site now. |
|
|
|
lately i have a lot of problems with v2.1.2.0 and i cant sync it anymore, can someone point me to final wallet that runs fine?
The last available release is the 2.1.3.1 and it is working fine. It takes less time to open and it has more connection to other nodes. You will need to download the full blockchain again or to use the Bootstrap file after the upgrade. Here is the link: https://github.com/UdjinM6/Coin2.1/releases/tag/v2.1.3.1UPDATE:I have a sync issue today. My wallet 2.1.3.1 is not able to get a single connection. If you have the same problem, please post here and we will investigate. UPDATE 2:Solved issue on my side.I closed the wallet and I temporarily disabled AVAST antivirus. Then I launched the wallet again to get 8 connections a few minutes later. v2.1.2.0 worked for me til 3.6.2016. Now 1 connection is shown, but never syncing (waited 24 hours). So I'm not able to transfer my coins to polo. v2.1.3.1 running fine (synced using bootstrap, copied the wallet.dat file), but now I miss a lot of coins (more than 70k) there must be a bug, my coins are shown in the top 100 (without some unconfirmed) what to do ? You shouldn't have touch wallet.dat at all, it's fully compatible, only block data is incompatible and should be rebuild on 2.1.2->2.1.3.1 migration. Anyway, check if you have conflicted transactions and if you do use "-zapwallettxes" option to remove them. If however you erased your wallet.dat from data folder and used some wallet.dat from your very old backup it's quite possible that you lost your coins forever (if you are not able to restore that erased wallet.dat somehow) because during staking wallet can use new addresses which might be missing in old backup file. |
|
|
|
Have not run into this in the past when voting from the client. Voted on one proposal then tried another and got this message using the Vote-Many command. Waited a good 15 minutes and still getting this message.
"......" : {"result" : "time between votes is too soon - 198c2be3e156c2a.......6a5f66acf4bba1 - 1537\n"
Version info:
Dash Core version v0.12.0.56-7154cdf (64-bit)
How long do you have to wait?
You should be able to vote on a proposal you haven't voted yet without any timeout. Check the hash/proposal again - probably you already voted. To cast new vote on the same proposal you need to wait 1h iirc. EDIT: btw, have anyone noticed this recently?  https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/#!extraction |
|
|
|
Hello everyone, Latest few releases (0.12.0.57 and 0.12.0.58) were for maintenance purposes mainly, so there were no official announces from the team. Using 0.12.0.56 is completely fine for most users so far. If however you have some issues running current version of Dash Core which were mentioned on github releases page https://github.com/dashpay/dash/releases (please read full changelog there) or if you just want to use the very latest and hopefully the most stable one - please feel free to update. No protocol bump, no cold wallet MN start command issuing needed, should be fully compatible. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Well, I might be missing smth - where is it exactly? Developer Commission: Built into the protocol levels, gives a small decayed amount to developer addresses every block [~1 Niro] over 10 years amounting to a total of ~2.5% after 10 years, and starting at ~1.5% as a way to bring the benefits of pre-mines, without the risk to investors. This means developer account has no control over the currency as it will never be of a high enough %, but it allows funds to be distributed to development removing need for corruptible foundations such as the Bitcoin Foundation which was spawned to cover developmental costs. This ^^^? That's not a self-funding blockchain, that's a blockchain that sends funds to some predefined addresses of some (initial) developer(s) which is yet another form of premine/ico/etc and nothing more imo. To change these addresses you need to hardfork which is not very flexible way of funding, you know  source: tx output in coin generation: https://github.com/Nexusoft/Nexus/blob/master/src/core/mining.cpp#L687developer addresses hard-coded values: https://github.com/Nexusoft/Nexus/blame/master/src/core/global.cpp#L130 (these addresses never changed since initial commit) So imo it's not self-funding, not at all. Next thing is "first". Let's see. "Initial commit" https://github.com/Nexusoft/Nexus/commit/682227eeff811b72c284b4326b981e94c0beb00a authored on 29 Jul 2015. Compare that to "Reference Node / Stubbed Out Budget System" commit https://github.com/dashpay/dash/commit/969826c249195c731e0ab46ad2d8375fe6f78ed7 which was made on 22 Apr 2015 and outlined a way much more flexible and complex system than simply adding a round-robin of 10+ hard-coded dev addresses to coinbase transaction. So rather you statement is misleading, not the OP imo. |
|
|
|
Out of interest, why do whales receive more coins which lets them setup more masternodes? If I own 1 masternode or 10, my share of the supply is increasing at the same rate. Do you mean the whales can get the next node faster? But i can just put the difference into a shared service and take a 20% hit which is not much different?
There's faster compounding interest for whales since the wait time to setup the next MN is shorter. Yes, in theory one can use a fractional MN service to improve returns. In practice I bet it's not done very often due to needing to trust the MN hosting counterparty. And the 20% hit eats returns a little bit. But those whales are investing and risking a commensurately "larger" sum in order to obtain that "faster" interest. Whats the difference, economically? The opportunity and risk is there for any size investor. How is that different than large miners who reinvest their bitcoins into more mining rigs to get more bitcoins? They can accumulate the funds necessary to buy new rigs earlier than the small miner, which in turn allows them to be "faster" at finding blocks while the small miner stays the same. I agree with that. Moreover, larger investor have a lot more trouble "exiting" his investments, at lest currently - there is simply not enough liquidity. And that is not Dash specific - imagine someone selling 100.000 bitcoins for example if you think it is  And for Dash it would be "only" 100 MNs btw. |
|
|
|
One of my masternodes was not payed last time, it was in the top 10% for an random payment, but now it has not been payed and is back to 0 in the rank. I know there was some times where a mn could have bad luck and because of this it wont get payed, first time for me, so bad luck seems "ok", but where can i check if it was really because of bad luck and not something else, that could be perhaps fixed by me. Don't wanna be unlucky again  dashninja tells me: (4 times / 0 missed / 0 hijacked) but i definitely missed that payment .... last payment is 8 days, and rank on dashwhale is 0/38xx I saw a MN that waited 11 days to get payed, just don't touch it if it says ENABLED |
|
|
|
Anyone seen the new DASH fork, DNET? Focused on anonymous transactions and darknet?
Yes, I'm all in. Hmm.. Code wise I see this https://github.com/dashpay/dash/compare/master...Darknet-Crypto:master i.e.: 1. PoW -> PoW/PoS, Quark algo, tweaked few chainparams 2. Replace Dash -> darknet and DASH -> DNET all over the place 3. Rebrand DS and IX to Obfuscation and SwiftTX respectively without any change to the protocol 4. there is no 4 And that's it for the "cutting edge" development of this "crytpocurrency" (that's how they call it https://github.com/Darknet-Crypto/Darknet/blob/master/README.md) since Jan 30, 2016 so far. This could be a "litecoin" to Dash but these times are gone forever imo. Or are there any insights/whitepaper/code that I'm missing? Btw I looked through many Dash clones searching for socould safely grab it and incorporate to Dash... because I'm lazy at doing things others can do But this never happened and finally I had to rewrite/fix it myself, though visually it might look familiar. Thank you for chiming in @Udjinm6, I was looking for a review of the code. It's interesting they have an active community but no hint of what their road map is, already 6 months in, beyond "anonymous transactions". I agree that's a weakness in our implementation however, as coinjoin is slow and not that user friendly. On the other hand, your analysis clinches it for me and I will not be buying any DNET, at least until their plan is made public and proved sound. I am a big fan of Warren Buffet, who believes that it is better to miss out on the occasional great opportunity than to buy into a bunch of sucker bets trying to find one. I'm curious as to what other Dash clones their are though, this is the first one I have come across and I sort of do this for a living . Granted I rarely pay attention to coins that don't make it past a certain stage. Pablo. You are welcome Btw the only thing I was interested there is code/ideas and found none so far. Note, I'm not saying either to buy smth or not - it still might be a good speculative asset but don't look for financial advices from me, I suck at trading  |
|
|
|
Anyone seen the new DASH fork, DNET? Focused on anonymous transactions and darknet?
Yes, I'm all in. Hmm.. Code wise I see this https://github.com/dashpay/dash/compare/master...Darknet-Crypto:master i.e.: 1. PoW -> PoW/PoS, Quark algo, tweaked few chainparams 2. Replace Dash -> darknet and DASH -> DNET all over the place 3. Rebrand DS and IX to Obfuscation and SwiftTX respectively without any change to the protocol 4. there is no 4 And that's it for the "cutting edge" development of this "crytpocurrency" (that's how they call it https://github.com/Darknet-Crypto/Darknet/blob/master/README.md) since Jan 30, 2016 so far. This could be a "litecoin" to Dash but these times are gone forever imo. Or are there any insights/whitepaper/code that I'm missing? Btw I looked through many Dash clones searching for something we could adopt but the only good idea I "stole" so far is masternodes tab for 12.1. Funny enough that though this was implemented long time ago in some fork of Dash (with a middle finger in their roadmap I believe) and copied by others, the code was actually broken so I waited for some of them to fix it so that I could safely grab it and incorporate to Dash... because I'm lazy at doing things others can do But this never happened and finally I had to rewrite/fix it myself, though visually it might look familiar. |
|
|
|
Give it another year and by then the bitcoin blockchain will make more people drop their full nodes. Having a blockchain around 100+ GB isn't something to keep on your laptop just for the fun of it. I'll say that the trend of declining BTC nodes and Dash picking up more will continue and that we will probably pass bitcoin in 2017? Node count was actually more or less stable last year https://bitnodes.21.co/dashboard/?days=365 But I guess node count is irrelevant for Bitcoin now. Because of the blockchain pruning introduced in Bitcoin Core (it allows you to keep as little as 512mb of latest blocks iirc) I think many nodes could be actually pruned nodes and not real full-nodes. So Bitcoin node count could stay the same or even rise a bit imo because now it depends on how much/expensive bandwidth will be, not the storage. |
|
|
|
Firefox complained for me too but that's a false positive imo - it's the same pgp pubkey as it was (verified via my local gpg keychain) |
|
|
|
24K buy-order on Poloniex just moved from 0.0160000 to 0.01640000
Someone wants his coins And it's gone. It was taken down it looks like. This is troubling...obvious market manipulation? What the hell is going on with this dude? He just wanted to sell some... Mmm...I don't think so. Pretty dangerous game expose yourself during more than 3 hours with 550 btc to try to sell 3000 dash. Not dangerous at all, because most of the coins are locked in masternodes, and you can track big movements pretty easily by tracking their count. Well...almost 2700000 coins are out of masternodes and valuable in 43200 bitcoins at 0.016 dash price, so... Actually "coins locked in masternodes" are not that "locked" really and can be moved as easy as any other coins. Coins "locked" in masternodes are just "doing some work" i.e. generating income for the holder while coins in bitcoin or in any other pow currency just do nothing but sitting still in someone's wallets. |
|
|
|
Good talk on the Roundtable going on futuristic stuff in the pipelines  Im having trouble with one of my nodes. It keeps falling offline  Is there some troubleshooting guide out there  make sure block count is up to date, nodes stuck sometimes when they can't resolve some conflicts |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
