that copy of chain is quite old, there's a better one in thread somewhere else. and i seem to recall it is necessary to use one for syncing purposes. |
|
|
|
|
and some bumba loving vouchers !!
CBF-BUMBA-NWSH6EAK46WIMIY5Q6DAKC2OZPKXH67E
CBF-BUMBA-5SPHE662GBCRWHVLJPMQ4KBTP7MHQAEP
|
|
|
|
Guys, what do you think about the ICO? do you think the minimum cap will be reached?
the ICO does have another 15 years to run before we are concerned about reaching the minimum cap of $23. until then we will continue to bumbaclot on. |
|
|
|
It's almost Halloween time. What are the rest of you Bumbas going as?
If anyone posts a pic of them in a costume, holding a bumba address I'll send them 200 BUMBA. Please no photoshopping, real pic
this is the happy bumba family halloween photo shoot  |
|
|
|
2.0.1.1: ten hours, 45 connections, thousands of orphans, but still stuck on block 158308 :~( 2.1.2.0 didn't show any activity even in debug.log ):
go back a couple of pages, there's a bootstrap . unfortunately that's the only way to sync to correct chain. |
|
|
|
|
There are a few people who havent updated to the new wallets.
v1002 is the current necessary wallet to be running.
|
|
|
|
Cryptopia has halved its rate for Nova coins. Can Honey get listed on Cryptopia now?
give the recent releases cant sync without a bootstrap/copy of the chain, it's unlikely that cryptopia would list until it's fixed. |
|
|
|
looks like I am stupid... still 0 connection to network... Strangely I can work with reddcoin, sprouts, b2 coin well... this tryed like 273863672747times and always 0 active connections... Tryed 4 different wallets... Your config file does not work unfortunately.. And still have 0 idea what password or username should be... If i leate it as is “yourusername” and “yourlassword” if you say it’s not important can be left that right?...
I asked if its password of the wallet if i encrypt ot... i did not it is not encrypted so password is not existamt I do not have it...
So once again username and passworrd whatvalues should be there?... some step by step wallet setup would be really great... I feel dumb as fuck
you don't need username and password with the windows qt, but if you do have one it can be anything you want. the main things is to make sure it's called stronghands.conf has a bunch of addnodes and you can also add and change to  you dont really need a full debug happening  |
|
|
|
Hello guys, hope all the community is well. I have some million stronghands and i always supported this coin, despite the fact that it need some improvements. I consider myself as a tech noob but because i love this coin i spend some time trying to improve windows wallet. Not serious changes but i like it much more than the older. Also, i added some checkpoints. In a while, i ll upload the wallet so y can see it, review it and tell me if y dont like something about it (ofc with virustotal scan). P.S. 1. I dont claim that i am dev in any coin or that i want to become dev of this coin. I m just a stronghands community member (didnt fork it or change parametres, only adding checkpoints). 2. Bumbacoin, i dont have github, but if y want to give y the folder with the changes i ve made let me know. 3.Tell me if y can open it or y face problems (in 2 windows pc i tried it, it works fine). Hope y like it  sure pm me a link to it as i might forget to look here for some time .. |
|
|
|
frogecoin?  more details soon... worth every penny |
|
|
|
another way to help with connnecting to the network is to use inbuilt IRC you''ll need to add to your electracoin.conf on start-up yr client will then connect to irc, and join a dedicated electracoin chatroom to look for other clients |
|
|
|
Each input starts counting for stake (earning weight) 24 hours after its creation. Block reward is 1/730 of the CoinDays redeemed – that includes the first 24 hours. Each input that earns reward within the first 11 days after its creation is split at output (including block reward) in 2 new inputs of equal size. There is a possibility to auto-merge inputs at reward, but this has been observed only for very small inputs. All inputs that get reward are rewarded for the full coin-age – irrespective of how long the wallet has been offline. There is no maximal coin age to get reward (AFAIK).
There seems to be an inbuild bias towards slowing down reward – frequently smaller inputs that get less reward, or relatively young inputs that can still be split, are rewarded earlier than those within the same wallet that would get more reward. This was probably designed that way to create a sufficient supply of staking nodes and keep the network weight high.
Some of the best performers among stakers seem to have only a small number of inputs and keep their wallet offline for some time (>11 days). This tendency seems to have increased recently, so that the network weight actually declined.(at least for some time) This tactic, of course, runs against the purpose of staking, because it reduces the number of nodes that are actually active.
This is a field where I really see a necessity of some technical improvement: Reduce maximum age for splitting (e.g. <3 days) – introduce auto merging of older inputs (e.g. >9 days) – and exclude inputs that are mostly offline from reward (e.g. all inputs with more than 30 days coin age – a transition period of a few thousand blocks would be required here). A further area of technical improvement is the block time – while the OP states that the target is 288 / day, we rarely get >210, although many inputs are expecting reward. It seems that there is a flaw in the difficulty adjustment formula, which increases fast – but decreases slow, and thus often leads to large distances between blocks – up to one hour. Here I’d suggest to keep the adjustment for every block, but not calculated from the last block, but from a rolling average (let’s say 12 blocks / one hour back).
the best scenario for a fixed PoS network is to have a high network difficulty created by many inputs. so yes, the current code does encourage the wallet to split and slow down rewards, but as you say leaving your wallet offline for >11 days gets around this. adjusting wallet combine/split/age thresholds is relatively easy and only requires compiling new clients. it's unclear whether that would actually positively effect the network as it might end up reducing difficulty and make it more susceptible to attack. reducing max stake age is a hard fork, as is changing difficulty adjustment also a hard fork is changing to a fixed reward to encourage constant staking with many inputs i quite like fixed reward, this also has the effect of reducing effective inflation rate over time. ie current inflation rate is 50% which equates to ~10783349272/year, (although the real effect of 50% pos is not actually 50%) converting that to a constant reward of 100,000 coins/block gives roughly the same apparent inflation rate, for now, but as the coin supply increases the % value of that reward decreases difficulty adjustment will never be perfect :/ there are many attempts at getting the perfect system, but especially when the network is prone to large fluctuations in stake weight (wallets offline for much time) it will continue to vary widely. . |
|
|
|
Actually I did a different wallet 3 months ago (before you guys posted) that had this secp256k1 library however the original dev had coded an #ifdef around all the secp256k1 instances so it was possible to optionally exclude it when compiling. I wonder now if he had coded around it just to get it to compile with mingw if needed....
Anyway Thanks so much!
some bases have the #ifdef some dont :p |
|
|
|
what block is that up to? |
|
|
|
oh that's cool.
what happens if you divided your 900 trillion (lol) into 9 different addresses (for example),
the wallet would give -ve value but you can see positive balance in coin control ?
Each individual input will display a positive balance but collectively it will still read a negative with no possible way to continue staking. I hate to have to admit it but this wallet is seriously broken. But then again I didn't exactly try nine addys, I tried three and concluded that it wouldn't matter if I had 100 addys, the outcome would still be the same. I'll try nine the next time the wallet is full and see what happens. nine isnt really a magic number or anything, just trying to get an idea where the problem might lie, if three didnt work, then it seems that the overall wallet balance is the primary reason why staking doesnt work. it should be straight forward enough to fool the wallet, just a matter of time and doing it :p can you add debug=1 to your conf file, then send some output from your debug.log (in yr datadirectory) please |
|
|
|
It is not possible to stake this coin past 900 trillion on a single wallet. The balance becomes negative and the only fix is to send coins to a different wallet.
issue is when the input is too large/too old. so you could split coins in multiple addresses, inputs on different addresses will not combine. it's an interesting issue, i've created a thread to discuss it here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2275380.new#newThe issue for me and many other users isn't the large inputs, it is the actual limit of coins that can be held on one dat file. The limit is 900 trillion. Any more than that you get stuck with a negative balance that corrects only if you send coins away to a completely different wallet. The last few posts on this thread will help me explain the problem: https://bitcoingarden.org/forum/index.php?topic=12494.45As for the staking issue I solved mine by adding these two lines to the conf file stakesplitthreshold=20000000000000 stakecombinethreshold=5000000000000 This allows any amount over 20 trillion to split into smaller blocks upon staking. This works just fine, staking every hour until I reach the 900 trillion total amount limitation. After that point the wallet will incorrectly read a negative number until I send a few trillion away to a different wallet. So to reiterate, this particular problem is not the input size, but the actual total limit of coins that can sit in your wallet. Once the total passes 900 trillion it goes negative then stops staking. Coins are still there but it won't read correctly until you send enough coins away to read under 900 trillion. oh that's cool. what happens if you divided your 900 trillion (lol) into 9 different addresses (for example), the wallet would give -ve value but you can see positive balance in coin control ? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
community here dont have time for new member?
