It's likely synchronised, when does it say last block was received?  The network is painfully slow at the moment which triggers the wallet UI to say it's some hours behind the network, when in fact it's not.

You can verify by checking the block height in your client, and comparing to the last block on the explorer.

If it is a network sync issue, simply close and reopen your client and it should connect to one of the master seed nodes and resolve the problem.

Congratulations!  Milestone achieved

There are 361 blocks left to diff change, renting some hash for a couple of days would make BTM retarget to low diff, which would make it fairly profitable to mine and resolve the slow chain issue for the foreseeable future.



Foundation balance fully restored with transaction 6987ebe301f9ecf90659c2a888a1445a51f85f6b5c491ecf6ef785066b5979bd . We need to setup an x of y address for the foundation with several people holding the keys and move all funds to it.

Fixed it early this morning, the server had crashed.  ANN updated to remove pools which no longer exist or support BTM.  Further updates later today.

+1

Let's not do this.  Over the course of the project I have performed well, and at other times not so well.  People are free to make any observation they may, and Melvin has helped the project also.

All anybody really cares about here is making some measurable progress and people marking, then indirectly success of the currency or idea based on this.  Let us focus on that

Today is the day most people prepare to get back to work, and tomorrow is the day they dive in to another year of work.  It is no different here.

As EsteNuno says, I have been a little ill since Christmas, nothing serious merely run down after last year and when I stopped I caught a cold and flu. I'm feeling much better now, and more importantly, it appears that this is one ship that cannot sail without a captain, time to get things sorted out and back up to full steam!

The tax was scrapped before the currency was created We are funded by donations, and I personally am 100% committed to the project for several years to come, regardless of funding.  Many of us are here every day, and available in slack the majority of each day, any of you are welcome to drop in at any point.

http://www.cryptoshop.co/product/bitmark-2/ - Buy Bitmark with Paypal

Thank you Johndec2.

We are making steady progress now, all components including the UI for markthis are coming together nicely.

The 1.3 million coins not yet mined are merely delayed.  Interestingly the shortfall makes space for a natural S curve of adoption, should the network start growing day after day, then blocks will roll out slightly faster than planned, giving space for coin supply to "catch up".

It is possible to send quickly, it is however very slow to confirm.

We have discussed difficulty algorithms at length for many weeks.  We've discussed every approach of every moderately successful currency, and many other new proposals in addition to this.

Every proposal comes at the cost of increasing supply when demand is low, or opening the chain to attack vectors, or introduce larger compounded problems which damage the economy as a whole both now and in the future.

The community still wishes to find a difficulty algorithm which does not alter the coin emission, but as yet we have not found one.  That includes AntiGravityWave, KGW, DGW, and everything else implemented in other currencies, they all keep a relatively stable block time, at the cost of lowering the production cost and maintaining a constant supply of currency regardless of demand.

Our difficulty calculation is the same as Bitcoin, if the hashrate of Bitcoin ever drops, they will experience the same, compounded over a much longer period since their diff change is far less frequent than our 720 block change.

The issue is self resolving over time, as demand raises so does price-tag due to limited supply, as does liquidity, which increases mining profitability (fallacy, you can't calculate this), which brings in miners.  Once market liquidity increases due to demand then hashing stabilizes and diff changes become less severe.  Increasing usage is key.

The alternative is to reduce production cost to match price-tag on market, which creates excess supply, and pushes market price downwards - go to beginning of sentence and repeat.   Please do check the metrics of all PoW currencies with modified diff algorithms, and see the pattern for yourself.

Without changing difficulty, we have the cost of slow transaction confirmations on a barely used network, and the benefit of a greatly reduced coin supply when demand is low. BTM Supply: 925,820 BTM, and we had planned: 2,242,480 BTM by this time - there is 1,316,660 less BTM in the world.  Hoarding and market crashing is greatly reduced whilst we work to increase usage.  When BTM is being used, it will naturally be more liquid and mined more consistently.

As EsteNuno says, the client is synchronized, you can verify this by checking the time of the last block on the explorer and comparing to your last block received.

I've noticed a new pool at http://pool.gamers-coin.org/ and lots of commits in github to the GMC source code, is there a new version coming soon?

Technically nothing, socially it depends how the burn is operated, and whether those coins/inputs can be identified.  If dev has them all in a known address on the chain, or in a known account by bittrex, they could be excluded.

This is more of a philosophical question, the same question was asked of DPR seized coins on the Bitcoin chain.  General consensus was that chain technologies were designed to be democratic and free, an alternative client could have been made that rejected all the associated inputs, and the majority could have switched to it, but that never happened.

It would also be sending out a strong message of centralization and control, "we can exclude anybody we choose, and invalidate your holdings", that's no different from the balance skimming and seizing banks we're trying to move away from.

Notice there is a "Minting" section under MS, coins could be added as required.  The effect on the economy is identical, the only difference is that whilst price stays the same, market capitalization instantly jumps (as you see with ripple) when a new chunk is minted.

Of course you could all proactively start looking at projects to fold in immediately, the more you have joining forces the quicker supply will deplete, and the more momentum you will gain.

Great news, very excited for you guys, so much potential.

+1, joining ORA would be a very wise career move.

Update

I have spoken further with Ritchie, his strong preference goes to having a new wallet based on a proven codebase.  Even if the specific issue is patched, OctoCoin as it stands is based on a nearly year old unmaintained pre-aux doge client called Inutoshi. Many bugs have been found, and improvements made to major code bases since then, it can be considered legacy.


I would encourage you to discuss these points further.  From an outsiders perspective you have two redeeming features: 1) Community 2) Brand (888)

Forget about coin/qt features, and concentrate on uses. Every coin needs a purpose, a reason to validate it's existence, find this, then create or modify apps and software which will allow it to be used for that purpose.  If you concede that it does not have a (non profit making) purpose, then consider moving on.

If a new OctoCoin were created, it may be feasible to organize a pre-mine and burn, where people could opt-in to the new OctoCoin by burning their balance at bittrex.  After the burn period was over, an equivalently sized pre-mine could be distributed to those who opted in; thereby replacing old coin with new, and invalidating any previous dev's holdings.

Please discuss how to take this forward, as opposed to ways to move the overriding problem to somebody else by getting the coin enabled at bittrex and dumping, that doesn't help anybody and is quite unfair.  Apportioning blame is also human nature, but we know it's not conducive to building a positive future.

Merging communities and abandoning the currency is also a possibility.  There are other active coins and some good developers around such as defaced, btcdrak, jl777, crypto_zoidberg, bitcoin devs, dogecoin devs, to name just a few.  Additionally there are projects such as Kora which may soon be merging in communities to create a large starfish community where all folded in projects receive a fair portion of a group-wide currency.  Crypto is fractured, anybody concerned with longevity or who sees crypto as having a strong future, may be best placed to consolidate their communities around or in to high(er) quality projects with proven activity.

Honestly, try to determine if this is a community of ill fortuned bag holders, or if you have active productive members who can create or sponsor software, business, apps, and respective marketing - without those things no amount of branding, good will, or coin development will help the bigger situation.

I sincerely hope this conveys as positive, and will watch and contribute thoughts or code where warranted.

Many Regards,

Mark

Clarification: if I help with code, donations after any release would always be welcomed, but don't worry about raising a bounty or escrow, I offered help to a community and a friend, I did not take on a freelance project or bounty assignment.

Regarding the Bittrex bug, I've been trying to track it down for several hours, and can pinpoint the following:

When a tx is added to the wallet it calls AddToSpends(hash); which in turn calls https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.9/src/wallet.cpp#L281

    // We want all the wallet transactions in range to have the same metadata as
    // the oldest (smallest nOrderPos).
    // So: find smallest nOrderPos:

copyTo->mapValue = copyFrom->mapValue; <--- this copies comments.

Which explains "There is no reason why a sendtoaddress call made with a comment is replaced with a comment from a transaction from over 6 months ago."

So, after a bit more research, octocoin appears to be based on inutoshi, an unmaintained recreation of dogecoin from earlier in the year, and it doesn't have any of the updates from the past 7-8 months, which includes nicer handling of conflicted transactions and some changes to wallet locking.

I can't pin point the exact combination of updates which resolve this at this time, but can reasonably assert that that the problem boils down to existing conflicted transactions, and the timeout.

I'm assuming both the conflicts and timeouts would be resolved by doing a send to self of the full balance, to create a single new input, which would resolve both of these issues quickly, and allow you to re-enable octocoin, or at least gracefully send everybody their coins back and delist it.

I've updated Rirchie and will liaise further to see what can be done.

Community, as far as OctoCoin is concerned, you need a developer who will either update the code to current well known good version(s) and maintain it, or simply recreate it with the same chain setup from something maintained and new (like pfennig).

All the best,

Mark

Strange, please close and reopen once or twice, it should fix it automatically.

The problem is likely that one of the seed nodes has gone down.  The code picks one at random to try on the first time you ever connect, if you are unfortunate enough to get one which has went offline, then you get this issue.  Simply restarting should fix it.  In the meantime, thank you for making us aware, I'll check all the main seed nodes to ensure they're running.

I offered to help patch this, feel free to communicate the problem to me via PM, and I'll patch the octocoin daemon to resolve the double pay bug.  It's an interim step, but at least it resolves the current status quo until something else is forthcoming.

Regards,

Mark