Everyone running a p2pool node will need to update/change one line of code at or around block 575000: 266 - SUBSIDY_FUNC=lambda height: 50*100000000 >> (height + 1)//3153600, 266 + SUBSIDY_FUNC=lambda height: 10*100000000,
Also seen here: https://github.com/CartmanSPC/p2pool/commit/da937f7a6ec3fe000ce427207f724b520a92fe10Just change that one line in p2pool/bitcoin/networks.py and restart. Try to do it as close to block 575000 as possible.
|
|
|
MANDATORY UPDATE TO v1.3.0.0 - HARDFORK OCCURRED AT BLOCK 546250
A hardfork occurs when the new coin specs go into effect...not when you release a new client version with it set to change after a certain point. So the question is...when does the hardfork actually occur....could look at the source but just wanted to point out the hardfork did not actually take effect yet. Edit: To answer my own question...hardfork will actually take effect at block 575000. Update before then or you will be on the wrong chain.
|
|
|
Yea, I was kidding about the 3 months but...no matter how much time it took discussing the fork we should allow ample time for clients to update once it is released. It's not like everyone is waiting and checking for a new client...some go months without doing so...I know I have been guilty of this at times...we all take breaks from the crypto world to keep our sanity 10 days IMO is aggressive and welcomes the condition of yet another blockchain. We could be faced with similar situation like that one exchange that did not update causing more discontent in Casinocoin. Think the validity of the blockchain takes precedence over a reduced block reward. Not a big deal to me either way...just cautioning based on observations.
|
|
|
New full node added on my server, addnode=10.0.2.15
Let's make this one of the dns seeds after the upgrade. 10.0.2.15 is not a valid (internet routable) address. It's a private class A address similar to the more commonly known private class C addresses in the 192.168.0.0/16 range. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_IP_addressCould this be because it is installed on the same server as another casinocoin wallet ? Do you use NAT? Maybe that's your internal address. Yes, that is your internal address. Is 10 days enough notification for a hard fork? This is not an emergency so make it more like 3 months
|
|
|
New full node added on my server, addnode=10.0.2.15
Let's make this one of the dns seeds after the upgrade. 10.0.2.15 is not a valid (internet routable) address. It's a private class A address similar to the more commonly known private class C addresses in the 192.168.0.0/16 range. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_IP_address
|
|
|
Cassey, Couple recommendations. Set the author donation to 0 as the payout address is most likely not valid. Make sure you have a unique IDENTIFER and PREFIX. If you like I can generate some for you but directions on how to do it are in the p2pool settings post I made somewhere on this board. Do not leave them the same or you may end up working on a different chain... Edit: Found the post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=457574.0
|
|
|
Wow, he's right!
Not factoring in electricity cost for my hashrate:
LTC - $4.09/day BTC - $4.54/day
DOGE - $4.48/day
According to coinwarz
|
|
|
Thank you for the campaign and payment...but did you perhaps send it to the wrong address? My address: 1JGfsM7nGdLR8W1bApbPGTMAw11Je4FxF1 TX ID: 774948fd801b226f6513ace12a56b21b49fc2cfdf65fc00b0d49e8d9606051c0 Receiving address appears to be: 1M8yDwc2FFzmJBG3JK8yeaoKBxStFcoWnG It appears that he write the same tx id for some user (lines 5,6,7 and 9,10,11) And after checking your address, i guess this is your payout tx id http://blockr.io/tx/info/88441f102679c5d1d54f8762998e735c5e58289064ac22b28fdcdd83f3c6b546Thanks! It appears that block 308924 is not yet on blockchain.info. I would not have posted if it was. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Thank you for the campaign and payment...but did you perhaps send it to the wrong address? My address: 1JGfsM7nGdLR8W1bApbPGTMAw11Je4FxF1 TX ID: 774948fd801b226f6513ace12a56b21b49fc2cfdf65fc00b0d49e8d9606051c0 Receiving address appears to be: 1M8yDwc2FFzmJBG3JK8yeaoKBxStFcoWnG
|
|
|
Try taking out:
mintxfee=0.00001 minrelaytxfee=0.00001
and see if that improves your latency. It is mostly likely the source of it.
Edit: Also I'm not familiar with rpcthreads or gen but I don't use them..I also don't use maxblocksize.
|
|
|
C-CEX: Why don't you revert all trades since the fork? Cryptsy does that sometimes in this situation.
After you can see which users have negative balances and it would be up to them to make their account right by transferring more in.
|
|
|
Weird thing just happened to my wallet. Looks like it lost all peers and was not able to connect to anyone until I added the list from the OP. It was working up until last Saturday. I imagine the new wallet coming out with working seed nodes will fix this but just thought I would report. Edit: I see that 1.2.1 with updated seed nodes has been release in source form. Updating... Edit2: xpool.net updated to 1.2.1
|
|
|
Do you have a list of supported coins?
|
|
|
Ok. we had some days for discussion. Now to put final resolution we need CSC dev's to make their decision. Dev, please write Your decision about this problem and I will write then ours.
Popcorn time...this should be entertaining To keep things in perspective...were only talking about $4k worth of CSC at current market. If I was c-cex I would put in some low buy orders. They seem to be filling with the auto exchange pools selling. C-Cex is probably looking at it from the perspective that it will take a long time to make back that $4k with exchange fee's.
|
|
|
Anyone catch the big jump to 1282? The sell side is small so there is little in the way to bring the price back up.
|
|
|
Have been using CPUMiner with Gridseed GC3355 Support by siklon for a while. It works great.
Thanks for posting the dmaxl version! I didn't know there was a version of cgminer that supports dual mining!
|
|
|
I can't find CSC on c-cex anymore. Everyone should take this occurrence as a learning experience about what happens when a coin forks and an exchange does not know about it...or in c-cex's case they thought they were updating to the right version due to an outdated thread. Unfortunately the responsibility of that oversight is the cost of doing business as an exchange. I feel an exchange has the responsibility to ensure they are on the right blockchain for any coin they support. Checks and balances need to be in place to verify they are on the right blockchain. The reason the loss is so large is due to the length of time they spent on the wrong blockchain. C-Cex asking the devs to cover THEIR losses is them mitigating those losses. I suppose it's worth a shot for them to try. The scarier part is that the devs are actually entertaining the thought.
|
|
|
Sorry to see this happen but them are the breaks.... Cryptsy has had to eat it when this has happened to them in the past. Would think it's part of the risk you take on when running an exchange. I've had it happen to me personally on other coins so I understand the frustration.
Don't mean to sound "frank" but those are my thoughts. I realize it is an extraordinary case and don't know the right answer but to dilute the coin by making code changes does not seem like the right way to solve it. I'm already uncomfortable with all these coins changing their distribution/reward lately.
|
|
|
|