https://chainz.cryptoid.info/slm/ hosting expired   

On this new version of wallet, I didn't get any rewards from staking - does it have to wait more than on older version?
Because on older version I get staking rewards everytime I connect to the network.

Windows binary compiled from "develop" branch (incl PoS speedup, coincontrol and walletzap): https://minkiz.co/noodlings/slm/slimcoin-qt-v0.5.2-win32.zip

Cheers

Graham

Novaexchange's Slimcoin wallet is now out of maintenance and their BTC/SLM market is open for trading.

https://novaexchange.com/market/BTC_SLM/

Cheers

Graham

If a hard fork is needed, then I would support combining this fix with a transition to the Peercoin 0.6 codebase.

I've been running some kind of optimized PoS code for months. Back then, it didn't occur to me that the impact on the network would be this large...
The modifications I made are just performance improvements. There are no exploits in there and my blocks conform to the normal consensus rules. (The combine/split changes I made actually reduce the possible "PoS block production power" by creating txouts larger than what would be optimal if it weren't for the performance problems.)

Every node doing PoS staking needs to compute one PoS hash per second per wallet UTXO. Also, in order to maximize the blocks produced, the staking balance needs to be split into lots of small txouts so that each individual txout accumulate significant weight before being used in minting a block.
I believe that right now, many (most? all?) Slimcoin nodes on the network can't keep up with computing this many hashes each second due to the slow PoS code.
If this is true, most staking nodes are using a tiny fraction of the staking power their wallets would allow them to have. Thus, when my node actually manages to stake close to full capacity, it can generate more blocks than the other nodes. The fix would be to upgrade those slower nodes' PoS code so they can use their full staking capacity too.

I've turned off staking on my node for now so we can see how large the impact is going to be.

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/slm/

Syncing now . Big thanks to service of CryptoID, and my little contributions with small payment .

Hello all,

I have also noticed this issue with low hashrates on 1700x ryzen cpus, however the drop in hashrate seems from what have seen so far to be at least somewhat to do with a connection issue as the miners kept loosing connection to the daemon and the daemon itself seemed to become unresponsive. If I will keep looking to see if I can pinpoint anything.

Regards

Strange it's just happened 1-2 days ago.

Lowered thread count to 10 - stable enough to have 120kh/s.

I guess you refer to the fact that the wallet/client is slow when not using "reservebalance"?

The problem seems to be related to the PoW algorithm, so it's not easily "solvable".

Have you tried what is suggested on the Slimcoin website - consolidate your balance into one or a few UTXOs (outputs)? This can be done sending all your balance to another address you own. If it doesn't work because you have too many outputs, then you can try to send several big transactions. It would cost at much a couple of cents in transaction fees ...

A coin control solution would help here - but I remember Graham wrote it wasn't trivial porting the PPC coin control feature to Slimcoin ...

Well, if Nova really decided to block these SLM forever, that would be at least massively unprofessional, so I don't think they'd do that if they want to build confidence as a new player on the exchange market.

I mean to have read that for coins they delist they always gave a withdraw option. If the problem is related to change addresses, there is absolutely no excuse to not letting users withdraw their funds.

---

A little addition to the post about a "equilibrium PoB burn rate":

There is another option to change the equilibrium apart from PoB block frequency and PoB block reward: the "decay rate" of the "EffectiveBurntCoins" variable (explained at the end of the "ELI5" on the website). I can imagine a slightly faster decay rate could make sense at a first glance; that would mean that people would only burn coins if they see a ROI in the next ~3 months for example (and not in ~1+years like now). It would, however, also mean that the effect to reward long term engagement (first paragraph of the "Advantages" page on the Slimcoin website) would be smaller.

A faster decay rate would also decrease the average burn rate and make attacks on PoB easier*. The slow decay rate has an interesting side-effect: as "old burners" will try to find blocks at least until they make profit, the validator (=people that find blocks) set is pretty stable, and phases when few coins are burnt do not mean less security of PoB blocks.

Overall, I think the current PoB implementation is well thought out: it allows a high burn rate but doesn't make Slimcoin too deflationary to be useful as a currency.

*As the current protocol doesn't allow two PoB blocks in a row, a PoB-only attack can only try a double-spend to "scam" a person which accepts 1-confirmation transactions. As this is unlikely, PoB-only attacks are extremely unlikely, too - but they could be combined with a PoS nothing-at-stake or PoW 51% attack, so the security of PoB blocks has a lot of significance.

Novaexchange reports "integration issues between the SLM wallet and Nova" on their news page:

https://novaexchange.com/news/

I wonder what the problem could be, as the SLM wallet was working fine on Novaexchange before they closed down last year.

If the PoB itself is fine, how can we improve the implementation of it to make it viable?