Yes its stuck on 33229 says downloaded 33229 and 22 hours behind, just restarted it again and the same thing. But yesterday it was sticking on about every 500 blocks ending in 29 strangely, but a restart solved it.... Sadly not today!
It's not that you are stuck, everyone is stuck. Devs: Can we please have an updated windows build? I have no clue where my stake is at because of the lack / wrong info in 1.0 |
|
|
|
sudo chmod 755 src/leveldb/build_detect_platform
then make
Thank you... knew it was simple but for some reason couldn't figure that one... feeling a bit stupid - it's been a while since I did linux. ok, now to get it running and synced, then the BE, then windows qt cross compile. |
|
|
|
We'll still need a block explorer to get Allcoin to update the wallet... My issue is currently that the wallet won't compile in linux for me... Tried fresh install of Ubuntu 10, 12, 14... no difference. I am able to compile a wallet, I successfully got HYP compiled and synced, so I know it's something to do with the way this co(i)n is configured... Building LevelDB ...
/bin/sh: 1: ./build_detect_platform: Permission denied
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/schwa/Techcoin/src/leveldb'
Makefile:18: build_config.mk: No such file or directory
make[1]: *** No rule to make target `build_config.mk'. Stop.
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/schwa/Techcoin/src/leveldb'
g++ -c -O2 -pthread -Wall -Wextra -Wno-ignored-qualifiers -Wformat -Wformat-security -Wno-unused-parameter -g -DBOOST_SPIRIT_THREADSAFE -I/home/schwa/Techcoin/src -I/home/schwa/Techcoin/src/obj -DUSE_UPNP=0 -DUSE_IPV6=1 -I/home/schwa/Techcoin/src/leveldb/include -I/home/schwa/Techcoin/src/leveldb/helpers -DHAVE_BUILD_INFO -fno-stack-protector -fstack-protector-all -Wstack-protector -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -MMD -MF obj/txdb-leveldb.d -o obj/txdb-leveldb.o txdb-leveldb.cpp
g++ -O2 -pthread -Wall -Wextra -Wno-ignored-qualifiers -Wformat -Wformat-security -Wno-unused-parameter -g -DBOOST_SPIRIT_THREADSAFE -I/home/schwa/Techcoin/src -I/home/schwa/Techcoin/src/obj -DUSE_UPNP=0 -DUSE_IPV6=1 -I/home/schwa/Techcoin/src/leveldb/include -I/home/schwa/Techcoin/src/leveldb/helpers -DHAVE_BUILD_INFO -fno-stack-protector -fstack-protector-all -Wstack-protector -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -o Techcoind obj/groestl.o obj/blake.o obj/bmw.o obj/skein.o obj/keccak.o obj/shavite.o obj/jh.o obj/luffa.o obj/cubehash.o obj/echo.o obj/simd.o obj/hamsi.o obj/fugue.o obj/alert.o obj/version.o obj/checkpoints.o obj/netbase.o obj/addrman.o obj/crypter.o obj/key.o obj/db.o obj/init.o obj/irc.o obj/keystore.o obj/miner.o obj/main.o obj/net.o obj/protocol.o obj/bitcoinrpc.o obj/rpcdump.o obj/rpcnet.o obj/rpcmining.o obj/rpcwallet.o obj/rpcblockchain.o obj/rpcrawtransaction.o obj/script.o obj/sync.o obj/util.o obj/wallet.o obj/walletdb.o obj/noui.o obj/kernel.o obj/pbkdf2.o obj/scrypt.o obj/scrypt-arm.o obj/scrypt-x86.o obj/scrypt-x86_64.o obj/txdb-leveldb.o -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,-z,now -Wl,-Bdynamic -l boost_system -l boost_filesystem -l boost_program_options -l boost_thread -l db_cxx -l ssl -l crypto -l miniupnpc -Wl,-Bdynamic -l z -l dl -l pthread /home/schwa/Techcoin/src/leveldb/libleveldb.a /home/schwa/Techcoin/src/leveldb/libmemenv.a
g++: error: /home/schwa/Techcoin/src/leveldb/libleveldb.a: No such file or directory
g++: error: /home/schwa/Techcoin/src/leveldb/libmemenv.a: No such file or directory
make: *** [Techcoind] Error 1
I get the same error with Firecoin, no real shock there. I'm sure it's an obvious solution that experienced devs would know, but so far all the solutions I've tried do not work. Help! |
|
|
|
Put a lot of weight on the network; staking away! I did notice that it showed a conflict of open ports when I first ran it, I changed the port numbers in the conf file to be +1 from TRK and now both wallets are running side by side just fine. add this to conf file: |
|
|
|
|
I only have a little, so I'm just hoping to hold for quite a while, such low total mintage should have been a decent increase... Just want what everyone wants when they buy in early.
As far as taking over, personally I'd rather not - I can contribute with ideas and actual changes to the code, but TECH is more broken, so that'll be my priority for now.
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking about that problem, in theory we could re-start PoW with 0 reward plus transaction fees, that way blocks can be produced without increasing the base supply. No incentive to mine except to get the chain moving, eventually PoS fully taking over again.
|
|
|
|
|
The only people with the power to do anything about his tactics are the bitcointalk operators. All WE can do is proactively ignore coins started by noobs with no reference to actual bct regular users, and try to fix and maintain the coins we've bought into the idea of. We've got more to gain than he does by keeping the coins going, especially if he totally dumped the premine, which is the only thing that makes sense to do when doing this kind activity, otherwise he would maintain the coins.
This blockchain could recover given enough time, it's got more momentum than TECH, but could really use the same kind of changes it got, reducing the number of blocks before stake is up, etc. TECH on the other hand could probably use the restarting of PoW more than this coin.
|
|
|
|
Curious, so if the min stake age was set to an hour in the latest version of the wallet, the blockchain measures time in blocks, not actual time correct? So these coins I withdrew would need not be eligible for 60 blocks, not literally an hour? If thats the case, then yeah, we need a fork and community takeover because we won't ever get that far.
That's correct, we need to fork and reduce nTargetSpacing to increase the rate at which blocks are generated. Reducing the stake age won't help with moving the blockchain. What about stake difficulty? Isn't that the reason it's taking so long to get the next block, kind of like PoW after big hash power leaves? The target time is 60 seconds, do we really want to reduce it to get things moving, then increase it later to correct the block rate? If we lower the initial difficulty that should get block time closer to 60s target, right? I think if we are determined to keep the coin as PoS only there are a bunch of numbers needing to change, but let's gather some more opinions on what numbers to change... I am new at this, so any info you have about other coins n stuff would help. I am also open to (and in favour of) re-starting PoW, mostly as a way to generate blocks and get transactions moving, using a very low block reward so that it's still primarily a PoS coin. The POS difficulty is 0.00024414. It doesn't really get much lower than that. I've been looking over the code and comparing it to other coins and I'm starting to think that this is a problem that isn't going to be fixed by coding, but by fixing the network. The first thing we need to do is identify nodes that are updated and consistently online. The only one I've found so far is 24.85.126.229:57697. We should also contact Bittrex and make sure they have the updated wallet. We also need to get a block explorer up and running so we can take a look at what's happening on the blockchain. Yeah, that guy... err... yeah  My weekend starts tomorrow, I should have enough time to learn what is needed to get a block explorer up. I guess we should start a new thread so that the latest version is in the OP, that might help, and establish the fact that this thread, and thus coin has been abandoned. |
|
|
|
Wow 6 BTC could buy all the coins at this price. Couldn't a dev take this coin over and to the suggestions that are said here?
On twitter again, not here, lol The amount of FUD in our BTCTalk Thread is beyond rediciulous. The ONLY reason there is any FUD is because the OP has no interest in being honest about who they are AND the coin appears to be failing... There is a VERY simple solution: Tell us about your previous works. |
|
|
|
Curious, so if the min stake age was set to an hour in the latest version of the wallet, the blockchain measures time in blocks, not actual time correct? So these coins I withdrew would need not be eligible for 60 blocks, not literally an hour? If thats the case, then yeah, we need a fork and community takeover because we won't ever get that far.
That's correct, we need to fork and reduce nTargetSpacing to increase the rate at which blocks are generated. Reducing the stake age won't help with moving the blockchain. What about stake difficulty? Isn't that the reason it's taking so long to get the next block, kind of like PoW after big hash power leaves? The target time is 60 seconds, do we really want to reduce it to get things moving, then increase it later to correct the block rate? If we lower the initial difficulty that should get block time closer to 60s target, right? I think if we are determined to keep the coin as PoS only there are a bunch of numbers needing to change, but let's gather some more opinions on what numbers to change... I am new at this, so any info you have about other coins n stuff would help. I am also open to (and in favour of) re-starting PoW, mostly as a way to generate blocks and get transactions moving, using a very low block reward so that it's still primarily a PoS coin. |
|
|
|
Still now reply from the dev, so how do we proceed now? And how can i help?
We'll need volunteers with certain levels of experience, for example I haven't had enough time to learn how to compile the windows binaries yet, so we'll need someone who can do that, someone to build mac binaries, and probably a block explorer if the pattern of non payment repeats. I have a domain and webhost, still learning how to compile wallet and set up block explorer though. If someone who has more time than me wants to maintain the OP of the new thread (even better if u can compile) that would be very helpful. We'll also need the usual suspects onboard; exchanges, pools, etc. Won't do much much good if they won't update. |
|
|
|
there are a glut of coins that were mined for fun/profit and just get dumped quickly if the price doesn't steadily creep up. that's the problem with a short intense PoW phase. it does allow the ones with small rigs to pick up a few extra coins super cheap though.  I have my fingers crossed that this coin will re-gain momentum, TEK was once shunned, it took some time to see how well it worked, now is quite valuable, although it has PoW forever which makes it more interesting (exposure/security wise) since it can always be mined as an entry point. |
|
|
|
|
Can you PLEASE host the windows wallet somewhere other than mediafire and put it on the first page? Downloading with Chrome is impossible since it reports that the file is malicious. I'm sure plenty of interested people have gone to download it and just don't bother after getting that report in the browser.
|
|
|
|
Would it be possible to do randomly chancing pos % so people would keep their wallet open in order to catch those high percentages?
Should be possible, not sure if it's needed though. It would be fun to try to make random 100% blocks so that over a year it's like 10%... seems like a lot of work for not much reward though. Probably noticed the source code fork... Nothing here of course, just twitter... |
|
|
|
Shit! If he did move there. Come on, BCT should have showed an IP address on each user post. Looking at the code, it is based on the changes I proposed in TECH, so I am even more certain it is the same person. Same exact formula, first two blocks are the premine, and PoS starts the second PoW ends. Formula for a scamtastic failure. |
|
|
|
I posted this and it got deleted, so probably... It would be reassuring to know what regular user the dev IS on the forum, obviously not actually a noob.
All the scammiest coins are put out with these noob accounts - easy to walk away without anyone knowing who to contact.
We don't need your real identity, that would be pointless here anyhow, but to trust that you aren't a fraudulent scam coin dev jumping from coin to coin, at least tell us about your previous work(s). |
|
|
|
you should fork this and reduce the slow confirmations...
Forked but I have not submitted a pull request to the "dev" yet. This is a big change to the fundamental ideas behind the coin... I say we bump the PoS reward to 10% so there is at least SOME incentive to stake, drop PoW reward on the floor and keep it going long-term. I tried keeping with the original ideas of TECHcoin when forking, but the original ideas were the failure point, as it seems this coin has them too. I know the coin total will grow a lot faster than originally proposed, but it should stabilize the usability, and therefore is a reasonable trade off. Best to do it all in one shot so there aren't a series of updates. What I propose (let me know if these changes are correct for what I want it to do please) https://github.com/edn247/Firecoin/compare/patch-1Change base PoW reward to 0.05 coins from 5 coins: 967 - int64_t nSubsidy = 5 * COIN; 967 + int64_t nSubsidy = 0.05 * COIN; Change last PoW block from 4k to 400M: 29 -static const int LAST_POW_BLOCK = 4000; 29 +static const int LAST_POW_BLOCK = 400000000; Change PoS reward to 10% (thinking having this reduce over time may be wise, will work on figuring how to make that work [first attempt: after a year /10, so back to 1%] https://github.com/edn247/Firecoin/commit/de5a340bca2233f45ca6f26f222007b0ba69cb4a) 39 -static const int64_t COIN_YEAR_REWARD = 1 * CENT; // 1% per year 40 -static const int64_t MAX_MINT_PROOF_OF_STAKE = 0.01 * COIN; // 1% annual interest 39 +static const int64_t COIN_YEAR_REWARD = 10 * CENT; // 10% per year 40 +static const int64_t MAX_MINT_PROOF_OF_STAKE = 0.1 * COIN; // 10% annual interest Thoughts on these and any other changes you think would help this coin are appreciated. Let's make this a community effort and discuss! |
|
|
|
+1 I vote for a drastic fork. I'll try to sort this mess out, to the best of my skills. |
|
|
|
|
This coin is suffering from dev neglect.
Finally have a word on the block explorer "block explorer is offline due to none payment"
should have posted that up in the forum when u took it down.
so, nothing was paid out, we can't expect it to be updated, nobody is gonna want to pay hundreds of dollars for it. Time to regroup and plan a community stakeholder takeover.
I am starting work on block explorer hosting since that will at least get Allcoin back on board. I have secured a cheap domain name, next is cheap hosting, then learning.
Block 5053 now "netstakeweight" : 143, <- still falling.
|
|
|
|
WTF is going on with this coin?? I bought 1.5 BTC worth of techcoin when it hit trex and now it's worth less than .1 BTC!! How the fuck does a coin even fall that much and what are the devs doing to repair it??
There is a problem with the staking transition from PoW... dev? well, they do compile updated windows wallets when we fix a problem, but so far...  not much for communication BEST NODES I SEE:fully up to date (software and blocks): 80.1.123.250:60311 98.234.71.71:54986 24.85.126.229:57697 60.231.2.86:60949 has the latest block but not the latest software 86.174.84.3:49524 203.166.232.99:50367 107.170.160.40:60591 82.245.42.49:57697 136.142.16.144:61266 All these should be OK to sync to for now. The difference between the latest and first update is just that it will let coins stake sooner, so first update can keep up with latest blocks right now but may not accept them eventually once newer coins stake. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
