Just sold out,Pos no future.
Great, the more weak hands we shake out, the better. The error message is no longer showing on my wallet and when I do a 'getinfo' it no longer says any errors. So it the network now in agreement and all the exchanges going to be able to send coins again? I would think so. As I posted to mullick on reddit, a fresh sync of a wallet on laptop last week didn't show that error. Polo and Bleu have been online for about a week now, its bitt and cryptsy that have been dragging their feet. I now believe that cryptsy was waiting for the error to go away when I don't think it will without a fresh sync, either with bootstrap or from scratch. I had to do a fresh sync from scratch (bootstrap DL was not working) to get the error to go away in one of my wallets. |
|
|
|
Made a change in the source to reduce the max split from 2mil to 20K: https://github.com/CartmanSPC/Potcoin/commit/2565767d115867bcc37fe20963f41ce305558630Heading out for a few hours but will post a compiled Linux wallet upon my return. If someone has instructions on how to compile a Windows version please post. Note: This is a test. Although it should not cause any problems or lost coin be warned that you are using it at your own risk. If we find the new value works then I will issue a pull request to the main code. Here are instructions on how to build for Windows: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149479.0I don't have time to do it at the moment. Link for the unix daemon (potcoind): https://mega.nz/#!iwpQwbTQ!wpZo4rKyoEbOJsrustACTuZQkz_C8llp6k2AIzq37mI |
|
|
|
Made a change in the source to reduce the max split from 2mil to 20K:https://github.com/CartmanSPC/Potcoin/commit/2565767d115867bcc37fe20963f41ce305558630Heading out for a few hours but will post a compiled Linux wallet upon my return. If someone has instructions on how to compile a Windows version please post. Note: This is a test. Although it should not cause any problems or lost coin be warned that you are using it at your own risk. If we find the new value works then I will issue a pull request to the main code. it was that easy? so what should we expect with the new #'s? You need to be running a wallet that has those #s as part of the source, we all don't benefit just because he will test a local wallet he compiled himself. As to what can be expected, we should see those with 40k+ balances staking multiple blocks rather than 1 giant one. This means that people with 1million+ balances should see 50+ blocks actively staking, this will make the network more secure and smooth out the block times. Is it possible for the devs to merge this hack? Or will they just ignore it? It's not a hack  ...just a change to a constant/value. |
|
|
|
Made a change in the source to reduce the max split from 2mil to 20K: https://github.com/CartmanSPC/Potcoin/commit/2565767d115867bcc37fe20963f41ce305558630Heading out for a few hours but will post a compiled Linux wallet upon my return. If someone has instructions on how to compile a Windows version please post. Note: This is a test. Although it should not cause any problems or lost coin be warned that you are using it at your own risk. If we find the new value works then I will issue a pull request to the main code. |
|
|
|
Based on simple division/ratios. I would say that 10k is a good round # for the split threshold. How did I get there? 2million split for a coin with 21billion in circulation, pot has 211million, 1/100th of reddcoin, take the 2million divide by 100 gives you 20k, drop it to 10k because it sounds like a better #  . I can attempt to compile for windows if I can get cygwin installed, I tried the other day and it kept failing, I think win10's networking drivers are borked. Wait...doesn't POT have a Max supply of: 420 million ...at least that's what it says on the OP. |
|
|
|
If we can get someone else aside from the devs to compile a wallet, we can start getting people to use it and get things moving like they should be.
I could real quick but your the only one who responded with what we should change the values to  |
|
|
|
Another update. I have mined a block on the old chain. It needs to mature, but its in my wallet Now what do I with it? I suppose the argument could be made that people are rejecting the change to PoSv. The POW chain is longer....I think it only has about 8Mh/s on it though? Not a whole lot...but their chain is longer. Only because it took a while to get PoSv working and now because of the splitting issue but still. |
|
|
|
For the hell of it, IE for shits and giggles, I launched 0.8.6.4. Its currently reindexing the blockchain but I have at least 9 connections out and they are all running the old wallet.
I am nowhere near well versed in the attacking of blockchains, but I am going to use my imagination and see what I can do, if anything with the old wallet and chain.
Once it's resynced check to see how much hashrate is still on it...and what block they are on. I recommend you specify a different data folder so it doesn't mess with your 8.7 version. |
|
|
|
I'm going to retract my position now. I'm looking at the code now, and it looks like they did add the min protocol version to the new wallet. They changed the protocol to 70420. This was done 10 days ago. So I'm arguing an invalid point. I was going with the assumption that if they were going to make that change, they would have addressed the pull request. I went ahead and closed the pull request for the devs.
Oh, yea that would do it. Glad to see that was done...I remember seeing it now and thinking "that's cute". |
|
|
|
wasn't POT's pow block reward next to nothing at the end of pow?
They would use the wallet version before PoSv to do the attack. It would not be all that hard to do. The wallet before PoSv had no idea about the accelerated halfing and the switch to PoSv. I imagine it is conceivable that some miners could still be mining to it and if that chain is longer it would win....that would be tragically funny. Not everyone monitors these threads 24/7 or even monthly. Some people take months off at a time and leave their gear running on autopilot.
Cryptsy is doing the right (responsible) thing in my opinion.
Edit: Thinking about it more...since the PoSv chain was stuck on 974999(?) for days I'm sure the other chain is longer and technically the "correct" chain if it has ANY hashrate still...also seeing as the PoSv chain is going slower than expected it will have a hard time surpassing it.....that is if the other chain still has anyone mining to it.
Edit2: Just restored wallet version 0.8.6.4 from backup....think that was the version right before 8.7.1...maybe I will get some time to see if there are any wallets still running...just curious to see what block they are on and how much hashrate (if any) it has. |
|
|
|
I have been told flat out that the devs will NOT get to it anytime soon. Apparently they have other things they are working on that are way more important than fixing this. Its also quite clear that they don't have the grasp on the bigger picture that some of us do. Its up to us to get the ball rolling, once we can get the network up to speed, more wallets and coins should start coming online to keep it going.
Ok, I will look/test this out. Can only compile/test on Linux though so don't ask for a Windows client...but if someone has good instructions on how to compile for Windows I might give it a go. Can we come to a consensus on an appropriate number for nStakeCombineThreshold? It is currently set to 2000000 * COIN: 23 // we split the coinstake output in two to avoid concentrating
24 // too many coins in one output. currently almost always split.
25 unsigned int nStakeSplitAge = 45 * 24 * 60 * 60; // 45 days
26 // avoid concentrated transactions. on average, each block contains:
27 // generated interest ~= 27b * 5% / 365 / 1440 ~= 2.5k
28 // corresponding stake ~= 27b / 365 / 1440 ~= 50k
29 // optimally each output stakes once every week so 50k * 52 = 2.6m
30 // but only a fraction of the total money supply is staked on the network
31 int64 nStakeCombineThreshold = 2000000 * COIN;
I included the relevant part of the code above. I also want to highlight nStakeSplitAge as perhaps someone can determine the right amount of time if it should not be 45 days. Here is the part of the code that does the splitting: 1650 if (GetCoinAgeWeight(block.GetBlockTime(), (int64)txNew.nTime) < nStakeSplitAge && nCredit >= nStakeCombineThreshold)
1651 txNew.vout.push_back(CTxOut(0, scriptPubKeyOut)); //split stake
Also, looks like it will stop at 100 inputs: 1673 // Stop adding more inputs if already too many inputs
1674 if (txNew.vin.size() >= 100)
1675 break;
Stops adding inputs if it reaches nStakeCombineThreshold 1676 // Stop adding more inputs if value is already pretty significant
1677 if (nCredit >= nStakeCombineThreshold)
1678 break;
etc. 1679 // Stop adding inputs if reached reserve limit
1680 if (nCredit + pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].nValue > nBalance - nReserveBalance)
1681 break;
1682 // Do not add additional significant input
1683 if (pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].nValue >= nStakeCombineThreshold)
Line 31 is the ticket...lets figure out the appropriate amount. Would prefer to do this on testnet but since we don't have that yet guess I will have to risk real coin....not that big of a risk though. Edit: The comments on lines 23-30 should be updated for POT too. |
|
|
|
Sounds like a plan. I'm thinking about switching my Scrypt miners over to Nyan soon, as Myriad scrypt is going auxpow soon, so that way I can solo mine Nyan and Myr at the same time  Better yet...run a NYAN p2pool node and merge mine Myriad+doge+syscoin+viacoin+a few others at the same time. Source code: https://github.com/CartmanSPC/p2pool |
|
|
|
|
Very interesting! Someone at Innosilicon spent some time designing a new PCB for that form factor. Once again impressed with Innosilicon.
If only I had more power available I would be looking at some Farm Boys or some more A2 Mega Terminators. The comments from Toomim Brothers on the steel used for the Terminators is accurate. They are built like a tank...unnecessarily so.
I too think they should offer the A2 Mega Terminators without power supplies but due to their overly heavy construction I doubt it would save much on shipping.
|
|
|
|
|
Question...not necessarily specific to POSv. What happens if you have the same wallet.dat file running on two different computer?
|
|
|
|
This transaction occured during the switchover to POS:
Status: conflicted
Date: 2015-08-21 14:26
From: unknown
To: P9HPU3HsjuKYx8pFRAUZaE55hj7ZnrMwcy
Credit: 11.42627039 POT
Net amount: +11.42627039 POT
Transaction ID: 593274e0e6861078684655b62588ebf3d32df7aa63f7270628703da1e122bd8f
Wallet transaction status shows Unconfirmed (-1 of 3 confirmations)
tried -rescan on restart no change.
Nowhere to be found in blockchain... gone to never never land?
Do what rdyoung said and you should be fine, I just sent you the amount you lost incase you can't get it back though Thank you for the coins. The posting was more to make aware that something amiss was happening during the transition from PoW to PoS. The tranction was small for me, but I am not sure if others are lost in the blockchain. Since I have not even received a responce from the mining pool, should I mention who is not responding to keeping the sanctity of the coin and the blockchain. Do we expose the non-responding party, or just drop it as ancient history? While testing a possible POSv fix I sent 1001 POT to the test wallet in two transactions. It was received on the test wallet but since that blockchain was abandoned the transaction never really happened on the right blockchain. My wallet on the right blockchain was showing Unconfirmed (-1 of 3 confirmations) on those two transactions. I was able to fix it by using -salvagewallet on launch. PLEASE backup your wallet.dat file before trying this! I have had one occurrence where using -salvagewallet on a wallet cause it to not recognize my passphrase. |
|
|
|
Bittrex should be up soon, they were told by the devs to resync from scratch to get rid of the upgrade error, that should have taken them a day or 2 so they should be back online sometime soon.
TLDR; Please calm the hell down and go smoke a bowl. Being angry with the world won't make things go the way you want them, you need to learn which battles to fight and which ones to just let go.
LOL, liking your TLDR's As far as resyncing to get rid of the error I am in the process of doing so myself. It has taken longer than expected. I'm on day 2 with about 14 weeks to go on a wallet in the top 200. It didn't help that the bootstrap download on the potcoin web site was/is broken. I know you offered an alternative but I decided to just do without since I didn't have time to mess around with it any longer...just now almost back online due to a Windows 10 activation issue  I am going setup the bootstrap to sync to another service as well, have it upload to box or bitcasa, etc. Box is probably the better choice as I have several 50gig accounts with them What activation issues did you have with win10? My POS server refused to activate until they had reenabled the activation servers and I upgraded it to RTM. Figured out why it was taking so long to sync. I only gave the virtual machine hosting the wallet access to 4% of the virtual servers processor.  Temporarily gave it access to more. Syncing faster now  |
|
|
|
Bittrex should be up soon, they were told by the devs to resync from scratch to get rid of the upgrade error, that should have taken them a day or 2 so they should be back online sometime soon.
TLDR; Please calm the hell down and go smoke a bowl. Being angry with the world won't make things go the way you want them, you need to learn which battles to fight and which ones to just let go.
LOL, liking your TLDR's As far as resyncing to get rid of the error I am in the process of doing so myself. It has taken longer than expected. I'm on day 2 with about 14 weeks to go on a wallet in the top 200. It didn't help that the bootstrap download on the potcoin web site was/is broken. I know you offered an alternative but I decided to just do without since I didn't have time to mess around with it any longer...just now almost back online due to a Windows 10 activation issue |
|
|
|
Glad to see DGC kicking...the IRC community for DGC is the best |
|
|
|
|
I believe godaddy is blocked by china. If you host your email domain with godaddy that may explain why you might not get a response.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting....thanks fairglu!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
