there seems a fork from the end of POW update. both Novaexchnage and Yobit seem to be on POW chain. i'm on version 60014 and block 26478. using version 60015 could only sync up to 20353 ( ithink) here's the old windows version. (i got this from the thread earlier, i assume it's 60014) https://mega.nz/#!U8BnVKpC!zBUW49tQW5PhT5DAAasqVbot9EHgZrp92J2t432br5kgiven that at least two exchanges are still on POW, i'd recommend to keep on mining. someone is. i have downloaded your version and it has stuck on block 20353 again.. can you search the thread and look for a working version ? i'm not on windows. hopefully the dev can also give a link to older windows version. |
|
|
|
there seems a fork from the end of POW update. both Novaexchnage and Yobit seem to be on POW chain. i'm on version 60014 and block 26478. using version 60015 could only sync up to 20353 ( ithink) here's the old windows version. (i got this from the thread earlier, i assume it's 60014) https://mega.nz/#!U8BnVKpC!zBUW49tQW5PhT5DAAasqVbot9EHgZrp92J2t432br5kthis link seems to be the wrong version  given that at least two exchanges are still on POW, i'd recommend to keep on mining. someone is. edit communicated with coinexchange.io seems they're also on the POW fork. "version" : "v1.0.0.0", "protocolversion" : 60014, "walletversion" : 60000, "newmint" : 0.00000000, "stake" : 0.00000000, "blocks" : 26484, again, i recommend going with the POW chain, and using version 60014. |
|
|
|
you mean the wallet isnt there? that link is wrong http://bolicoin.com/download/bolivarcoin-win-v1.zipor you need some nodes to connect to the blockchain? addnode=103.253.43.162 addnode=108.61.10.90 addnode=149.202.54.249 addnode=162.255.117.105 addnode=171.25.177.215 addnode=190.97.254.35 addnode=192.99.62.23 addnode=198.27.81.25 addnode=43.243.39.80 addnode=5.189.144.97 addnode=5.9.36.211 addnode=54.89.21.44 addnode=78.70.227.24 addnode=80.236.18.96 addnode=82.44.44.253 addnode=91.121.77.74 addnode=91.134.233.254 addnode=94.175.27.83 |
|
|
|
can you not convert to dash code base?
keeping the same chain ..
I am sorry to say, but the idea of masternodes for mixing is deeply flawed and it doesn't work for DASH either. Although DASH is 'big' it does not offer any real privacy and I think it was that realisation that brought on the shift towards a different view on privacy. I have done a lot of reading lately on privacy and I think DASH and other coins based around the masternode mixing idea will survive until users realise that they don't offer what they claim. Anonymous transactions is a game changer and we would be left behind with the current code base. There is nothing to say that a coin have to religiously stick to a current code base if there is another option that will be better for what we are trying to do. fair enough  |
|
|
|
|
can you not convert to dash code base?
keeping the same chain ..
|
|
|
|
any nodes for new wallet ?? |
|
|
|
You are better off making more local rules with wallet files
seems that modding the miner would be far simpler than changing wallet rules. i canna see anything that would lend itself to easy modification. |
|
|
|
it occurs to me that some simple tweaking of wallet code would make negative stakes a non-event. if one were to change the minimum stake age to include coinage, then you could make the wallet only attempt to stake inputs that will result in positive stakes. i've made a thread with an effort to come up with appropriate code to change. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1640587.msg16501519#msg16501519o wow, i like that. i mean it wont make much dif with cube as its a "for profit" coin (with spots as the "profit"), but it could make a dif it future coins. i should make sure comment something every few days if anything just to bump it haha Thx for that, course i dont touch this coin or yours as im too smart but the code u wrote still sweet take care! hahah thanks. the obvious thing with a lot of staking coins, is working out how to best stake for max rewards, adding extra wallet staking elements to control thresholds is commonplace for other serious staking coins, the sort of adjustment i proposed is obvious now that i think of it |
|
|
|
it's plausible that it'd be best to create another variable for the stake miner to use, while the subsidy creation would use original. i'm unsure whether changing the min_stake_age as above would invalidate -ve stakes from other miners. .. so instead changing this https://github.com/iGotSpots/DigiCube/blob/ced6fd7627fce29b08d2f1d00564e977e2cc0f9c/src/kernel.cpp#L318 if (nTimeBlockFrom + nStakeMinAge > nTimeTx) // Min age requirement
return error("CheckStakeKernelHash() : min age violation"); then only the miner would reject any stakes that are too young, |
|
|
|
it occurs to me that some simple tweaking of wallet code would make negative stakes a non-event. if one were to change the minimum stake age to include coinage, then you could make the wallet only attempt to stake inputs that will result in positive stakes. i've made a thread with an effort to come up with appropriate code to change. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1640587.msg16501519#msg16501519 |
|
|
|
this is specifically related to CUBE but I can see uses beyond this particular coin, i wasnt sure where to put such a question ( oops i meant to put this in development and technical discussion ). currently CUBE can return negative stakes if coinage of staked coins is less than a certain value, just wondering how to build a client that would only try to stake inputs of a certain age. it occurs to me that the simplest way would be modify the minimum stake age, the question is what format should the code be in to make this happen. here is the code giving the negative stake https://github.com/iGotSpots/DigiCube/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L995 if (nHeight > 1020000) {
nSubsidy = nVariableStakeRate * nCoinAge * 33 / (365 * 33 + 8);
nSquish = nSubsidy / 1000000;
if (nSquish > nMaxReward) {
nSubsidy = nMaxReward * COIN;
}
if (nCoinAge < nHeight * 2) {
nSubsidy = (nCoinAge - (nCoinAge * 1.25)) * COIN;
}
}and STAKE_MIN_AGE is declared https://github.com/iGotSpots/DigiCube/blob/master/src/main.h#L46static const int STAKE_MIN_AGE = 60 * 60 * 24;
seemingly then if you were to set the min age as, (60*60*24)+(nHeight*2) this would prevent the wallet from attempting to stake coins less than required age for positive stakes?? seems this is the line to change https://github.com/iGotSpots/DigiCube/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L37unsigned int nStakeMinAge = STAKE_MIN_AGE;
to int nStakeMinAge(int nStakeMinAge, int64 nCoinAge)
{
nPositiveStakeAge = nStakeMinAge + (nHeight * 2);
return nPositiveStakeAge;
} ?? note, by changing this particular variable seems the least intrusive way to do it. also reducing the load of staking inputs. |
|
|
|
out of sheer excitement here's a mac wallet built from current source Nyancoin-Qt-OSX-v1300 https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5j8d4FSc7drR1Z0MkY4TWlfUUk. i have to admit it's built with qt4 as using qt5 made the dock icon not work proper. i hope to look at it later and see what the problem was . and the OP mentions having two links to 32-bit windows, but one is actually 64 bit o_O |
|
|
|
|
i cant keep up.
are we pepe again?
meme coin was the worst
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
