Oh yea thats the other thing I forgot to mention, when I use external port testers like the one above (ping.eu) they all report that my port is open. I also tried with upnp both disabled and enabled but it didn't seem to make a difference.

If you haven't already you will need to forward the port on your router and add an exception to your firewall.

Hi, I decided to "test the water" before I jump in by setting up a masternode but I am having a problem and was wondering if anyone could help me out?

I'm running on a windows 10 machine and setup the wallet and let is sync as per the guide (and a dozen others that I read while looking for a solution), I have added exceptions to the firewall for port 7209 and have forwarded the port in my router but after running 'goldminenode start-all' the node enters the PRE_ENABLED state then after an hour or so changes to EXPIRED followed by NEW_START_REQUIRED.

While start-all and list-conf return what you'd expect I do see an error when I use 'goldminenode status' which is 'Not capable goldminenode: Could not connect to XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:7209'. I've seen a fair few people with this problem with masternodes on various coins but haven't managed to find a solution yet.

Here are some of the settings and outputs I'm seeing;

Strange, whattomine.com is almost spot on for me, its within a couple of percent of what I'm getting which is well inside of normal variance.

IMO what was laid out 9 years ago doesn't have to be the be all and end all of bitcoin, over time, especially in the information sector, things change and grow. Segwit improves apon the origonal code in a way that perhaps Satoshi didn't even think about way back then, it fixes the malleability and quadratic scaling issues, increases transaction throughput and does this without the need of a hardfork. Its not about siding with whos smarter than who, you dont have to pick one team and block everyone else out, even entry level coders can come up with incredibly elegant solutions sometimes just because they aren't locked into the existing status quo.

None of the current proposals are good long term solutions and maybe bigger blocks will be necessary but its something that is being rushed unnecessarily at the moment. Personally for the main chain I believe that after segwit is activated we should wait and see what affect it has while continuing to work on other solutions like block size increases and other future bug fixes then, when and if it is deemed necessary, roll out as many of these improvemnts as possible in a single hardfork and only after the code has been thoroughly tested and peer reviewed. I dont think hardforking should be something that is taken lightly.

The beauty of bitcoin is that no one owns it and I can almost guarantee that is why Satoshi has publically dissapeared from the scene because he knows that if he were a public figure his opinion would be the final say on bitcoins future and I believe that in the end that goes against everything that he and bitcoin is about... decentralisation.

But that is exactly my point, masternodes alone aren't going to be enough to drive the value of the coin up, what I would like to know is what is the plan to do that?

I get that, but without anything driving the coin masternodes aren't going to be important i.e. master nodes are cheap so anyone can start one, as the number of masternodes increase the return decreases so unless there is something to drive the growth of the coin itself (and maternodes alone wont do that) investing in a masternode/the coin doesn't seem like a smart move.

My concern is without a purpose it seems like its just here to prey on people who think just because its a clone will mean it will have the same success. I was kind of hoping someone would give me an actual reason why people would use this coin over DASH.

The dev is not saying BTC (segwit) is inferior he is saying segwit2x is.

No offence but for someone so vehemently defending BCH you dont really seem to know whats going on.

Dont you mean
1 - BCC
2 - Segwit
3 - Segwit2x

I'm curious, what makes this different/better/worse than DASH? The OP makes it sound like a fork with no changes?

Read through some of the posts, there was a bug in the bot and the dev is working on sorting it out right now.

Maybe he thought you were being sarcastic, isn't deeponiond the daemon?

I am also wondering about this, masternodes are nice and all but is there any other reason for someone to buy in other than hoping to get some passive income? Without more I'm not sure how an ever growing network of masternodes is going to drive either value or utility.

When I look at those links they both show the same balance.

Gotta get that Bitcoin Cash Cash

According to coin.dance two days ago it was at 73%...

Interesting, that makes a lot of sense, thanks for the run down

And lol, yep, you would definitely have to be very thorough (and have balls of steel) to be pushing code to a userbase like the BTC network

I think you missunderstand the situation, core isn't against a block size increase they are just against doing it right now. Segwit increases the number of transactions that can be handled by a block something like 2x on average (depending on the transfers in the block), makes block scaling more viable and makes side chains like lightning network feasable (moving a lot of transactions off the blockchain and enabling fast, cheap, microtransactions). Core is against segwit2x because not only is it being rushed, they believe (and rightly so IMO) forking should only be used as an "emergency" measure, it would be far better to put off a fork untill it is nessisary and include as many fixes and longer term improvements to the code in a single fork as possable with proper, thorough testing and peer review.

From what I understand the segwit2x node blocking is being implemented to help avoid bogging down the network by preventing incompatable nodes from connecting to each other.

Personally I support core, I'm not against a block size increase (and nor do I think they are) but I would rather give segwit a chance to settle in and see how it affects the network before rushing out a block size increase too, IMO that is something that can be done later if needed and hopefully with more important code changes bundled in and solid testing and peer review to better justify a hard fork.

If it does fork I will probably end up holding both though, at least for the short term, mostly because this fork seems to be a lot more contentious than the BCH fork however I really hope the NYA signees will be willing to accept a more relaxed timeline now that BCH is a thing to avoid what could be quite a mess.

RIP, 5 hours of mining and the miner only mined a 1MB block

Pretty sure thats a bug, the blocks have been coming in much slower recently which indicates miners leaving (probably to try and force a downward difficulty correction), before it was 100-150%ish more profitable to mine the main chain and slower blocks on the BCH chain shouldn't make it less profitable to mine than the main chain