Yes, this was a tough issue with Vault 2; being a completely new codebase for Vault 3, so far it is running at a stable 500 megs RAM requirement. Public testing will be the final test to positively conclude if this problem is finally eradicated, but I'm pretty sure we won't see it again.

There is a fair amount of ‘super wallet anxiety’ in the crypto world, the issue being amplified when dealing with a coin with a limited supply (such as CBX) as at any time (most likely when the price starts to rise) a super wallet owner could dump their collection on an exchange and walk off with everyone's money, crashing the price in the process. I would like to believe that the majority of CBX holders at this point are in it for the long haul, the trouble is there is no way (currently) of knowing what a super wallet owner is planning to do in the future...

To solve this I would like to propose the addition of a publicly verifiable (block-chain based) voluntary fund locking mechanism for individual wallet addresses. The idea being that someone who has a large (or small) collection of coins can selectively ‘time lock’ a portion of their total wallet’s contents for a defined period of time; the amount chosen is then totally un-spendable until the period chosen by the user expires. This period could be weeks, months or even years but provides a literally unbreakable public, verifiable contract that n coins cannot be moved for x time. New coins can be still be transferred into this ‘locked’ address but not removed - providing a secure ‘savings’ account that can still accumulate the 2% interest but not be moved or spent.

The key to all of of this is making it publicly verifiable on the block chain, so if you were a new investor in CBX you would look at the total supply but also (crucially) you would look at the total supply that was still liquid/unlocked. If you are a super wallet holder (lucky you!) you could lock your coins away for a set period to encourage investment by others and perhaps even get a slightly higher rate of interest on the locked coins than on free floating ones.

I don't want to be a party pooper but chainz.cryptoid.info/bela/ has not reported a new block in 4 hours 8 minutes - and beladgw.com is reliant on new block being reported from this site...

Bela the dog is stuck!

Has the block chain got stuck or is chainz.cryptoid.info a bit unwell?

FR

I understand you perfectly FR, my point however is that we have speed now, why abandon that if not necessary.

Blockchain bloat has a workable solution at this time and we will be improving that further with the upcoming fork. The new Vaults will have the memory usage issue solved and will incorporate the 1-click solution bootstrap installer directly into them. All a new or old non-synced user would need to do is click a button in their Vault to download the most recent updated blockchain bootstrap.

i disagree its not lack of excitement over inflation, most of the dedicated stakers are doing so because they want to support the network not stake crazy amounts to dump every day.  The idea of CBX as a store of value is more important then being produced generate more coins every day.  When the value of CBX goes up so does the value of those returns on staking so it not necessary to try to compensate for it now by increasing the annual amount of coins created.   Also there little value in have stakers that are only interested in a quick return, the focus should be on long term holders and stakers and improving the wallet and network for them. (eg: optimizng the wallet, fixing bugs, updating the base code with newer btc source)  


and if it is just about a psychological effect then you can do this with option 1 and then change the block time target so they evenly spaced out to be at least 2-3 minutes apart or even 4-6 minutes apart instead of the current where we can have multiple blocks within the same minute with any spacing out, and then increase the block reward to stay within 2% inflation.  This would kill 2 birds with one stone, a higher reward per block and the increase in blockchain bloat/size from new blocks could be reduced by at least 50% which is important to keep CBX PoSP decentralized by ensuring anyone can run a node on minimal hardware.

There also the memory issue that still need to be resolved, an issue with they how the wallet is not orphaning blocks when a wallet splits off from the network,this prevents it reconnecting and adopting the longest chain that other nodes are on and leads to downtime as we have to take the wallet offline and resync from our last backup or snapshot.   I've had to do this twice in the last month.

I would also suggest looking at adoption or reworking the Blackcoin code as this is most advanced and most stable PoS coin of all imho.  There is not that much difference between the effects on supply of Blackcoin PoS3.0 vs PoSP except that PoSP uses an interest rate instead of set reward.  

I would suggest looking at a complete rebase to blackcoin code and then make the changes required to continue with the existing CBX blockchain and provide a more stable environment for us CBX stakers. ( I also run BLK node alongside CBX node, and it uses alot less memory and never have issues with needing to resync/getting cut off from network etc)


I voted option 1 as well.