You tell me, lol? Trust is a very individual thing. Personally, I do think Viz is trustworthy; but, even from someone I trust, I don't trust closed-source cryptography. For others that would never look at or compiled the source code anyway, it might be entirely irrelevant.
i have to admit the closed source wallet was (and still is) a concern and posted it on this thread, but well, viz had a point about fearing cut&paste for yet another shit coin... however it's slowing coming the time to make the code public, as it would take the attention of those that don't trust binary blobs thus new miners... i doubt a stupid cut&paste of this coin would ever get traction at this point... |
|
|
|
I agree a block explorer would be nice to see - would be reasonably trivial to put together. However, without source to the wallet, I doubt anyone is going to spend the time to recreate all the hashing etc functions needed.
let's suppose viz would put together a block explorer by himself, would that be trustful enough? |
|
|
|
Wierdest thing happened to my evga gtx 970
x11 mining wise, it was stock 5600 khash and OC'd i hit 6000
After 2 days it seems it has 'lost' power, OC it will max out at 5600 now, so i just made it default again and the max its hitting now is 5000 khash
any ideas on what happened?
a crash, reboot and moderate oc |
|
|
|
AFTER i update to new wallet and resync i im at 109.245.142.48  ?? please finaly wahat is conf file and valid addresses ? addnode=69.195.149.114
addnode=204.27.62.234
addnode=69.195.148.42
addnode=204.27.62.242
addnode=69.195.148.34
addnode=204.27.62.226
addnode=62.219.98.129
|
|
|
|
|
sorry for insisting viz, but wouldn't a block explorer make everything more transparent thus trustful?
|
|
|
|
Please send your debug.log if you see FORK. This is for my own personal debugging, it will not cause any issues. It is purely there to help hone in on this issue. This issue was caused by the Coinbase TX Checks, and is now resolved. Current Block is 15802.
Viz.
unfortunately i've removed everything but wallet.dat before resyncing, even debug.log, sorry... |
|
|
|
|
thank you supercomputing, neojin and mumus, i'm back on the right chain now...
what did cause the fork? yesterday's wallet update? aren't checkpoints supposed to avoid this?
|
|
|
|
ended up on the same chain  could somebody post some sane nodes please? Try this: If you a forked, delete your appdata [minus wallet.dat] and resync.
Viz.
that's what i did... |
|
|
|
ended up on the same chain could somebody post some sane nodes please? |
|
|
|
[METERS] 26 Block(s) ACC=24 REJ=1| Height = 15693 | Diff = 5.518993 | 26:38:49
me on the wrong chain? apparently so. Diff should be staying close to six (typically above).  many hours of useless mining (and coins)... syncing from scratch, hopefully ending on the right chain... |
|
|
|
diff if suspiciously low this morning (5.47 at height 15644) even some miners missed the wallet update or are on the wrong chain...
 getmininginfo  { "blocks" : 15693, "difficulty" : 6.09262570, } [METERS] 26 Block(s) ACC=24 REJ=1| Height = 15693 | Diff = 5.518993 | 26:38:49
me on the wrong chain? {
"blocks" : 15701,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 5.48846680,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false
}[
{
"addr" : "204.27.62.226:9323",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1413034300,
"lastrecv" : 1413034724,
"conntime" : 1413020519,
"version" : 10100,
"subver" : "Coinshield Core[v0.1.0.1a - Beta]/ DB [0.1.1] PROTOCOL [v0.1.1]",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"height" : 15586,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "221.132.37.64:9323",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1413034724,
"lastrecv" : 1413034724,
"conntime" : 1413020520,
"version" : 10100,
"subver" : "Coinshield Core[v0.1.0.1a - Beta]/ DB [0.1.1] PROTOCOL [v0.1.1]",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"height" : 15586,
"banscore" : 0
}
] |
|
|
|
|
diff if suspiciously low this morning (5.47 at height 15644) even some miners missed the wallet update or are on the wrong chain...
viz, is there a block explorer on your todo list? it would avoid being on the wrong chain without noticing it...
|
|
|
|
I don't know about everyone else, but I just leave my wallet on and let it ride 24/7. I prefer to feel that, in the long run, the rate is optimized and I'm not losing out on too much return for doing this, since it is really protecting the network moreso than just opening the wallet once or twice a month.
This is indeed the correct attitude! i agree but wouldn't be more fair if everybody would get the same interest? if some developer (i'm not a coder) could implement what i've proposed in my previous posts nobody would need to bother about pos difficulty anymore and leave the miner running unlocked... The TEK is not only PoS coin in the market. If you don't like conditions then pick another one, or create your own. what a harsh and unconstructive anwer...  |
|
|
|
I don't know about everyone else, but I just leave my wallet on and let it ride 24/7. I prefer to feel that, in the long run, the rate is optimized and I'm not losing out on too much return for doing this, since it is really protecting the network moreso than just opening the wallet once or twice a month.
This is indeed the correct attitude! i agree but wouldn't be more fair if everybody would get the same interest? if some developer (i'm not a coder) could implement what i've proposed in my previous posts nobody would need to bother about pos difficulty anymore and leave the miner running unlocked... |
|
|
|
 this is the pos difficulty since block 300000... as we can see variance was low before the fork (before the hole) except for the spike short before block 400000.  after the fork difficulty variance is significantly higher with a lot of very high spikes thus a holder should think twice before letting the wallet stake. adding a customizable maximum difficulty limit to the wallet would definitely help to better distribute the difficulty over time. i'm sure a holder would prefer waiting some days and get an interest as close as possible to the promised 40% rather than staking exactly on the 30th day risking a much lower interest rate... |
|
|
|
There seems to be a block submission bug especially when blocks are coming in fast; most likely a carry over from the original miner. I will investigate further and keep you posted.
thank you for your effort, your miner solved 3 block in the past 6 hours on my single i7-3770 box and never crashed!  please put your csd address as a signature so me, like hopefully others, can send you some coins... |
|
|
|
is there a way to see staking difficulty history data?
i'm not sure but since staking happens just once every 30 days, it would make sense to have a maximum staking difficulty option into the wallet, this way holders can control (to some extents) the % instead of keeping the wallet encrypted and watching manually for the right diff...
edit: imvho, it would also avoid having lot of wallets staking at the same time thus having too high increases of staking difficulty, wouldn't it?
This is a really good idea, spreading those stakes out is good for the chain. I think something like this could be doable. Ill start passing the idea around devs i know see if we can work out he mechanics of how to accomplish something like this. As for tracking the past pos diff, not sure best way to do that. Much data prior to a last few days may not help since we are still recovering from the hardfork spike swings. I am staking daily atm to get a good baseline of data, though i expect pos diff to gradually trend down as we move a little farther from the bulk of hardfork rollover stakes. thank you thundertoe, i'll make some pos difficulty graphs if i can figure out how to use altexplorer.info's api... |
|
|
|
is there a way to see staking difficulty history data?
i'm not sure but since staking happens just once every 30 days, it would make sense to have a maximum staking difficulty option into the wallet, this way holders can control (to some extents) the % instead of keeping the wallet encrypted and watching manually for the right diff...
edit: imvho, it would also avoid having lot of wallets staking at the same time thus having too high increases of staking difficulty, wouldn't it?
well, the silence makes me believe i've proposed something that doesn't make sense and that i'm missing something... would somebody mind to explain me what i'm missing? i'll really appreciate it, thank you. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
