Hi,
I have problem with my wallet on morning I had ~38890 NEVA but now it's about 34400 . on blockchain one of my addresses have 36035 coins but my wallet is less than it. what can I do ?
Solved :
I used repairwallet function from my wallet
Glad to hear you fixed it!  |
|
|
|
UPDATE
SOFT FORK IMPLEMENTED
UPDATE NOW
READ OP
Updated. Compiled fine. Peers.dat deleted. Back online and looking good Sweet as honey! Thanks bro. I'll add your seednode back in when I update the checkpoints. Diff is low, around 200. Going solo for now to push the chain forward... Keep up the good work |
|
|
|
UPDATE
SOFT FORK IMPLEMENTED
UPDATE NOW
READ OP
Updated. Compiled fine. Peers.dat deleted. Back online and looking good |
|
|
|
Yes. I read about solo but I'm throwing the same hardware errors. Is there any update sgminers? The only solution at the moment is to set up your own pool and "solo" mine. I was planing on patching NOMP to make it compatible with sha256t but did not manage yet. Once I get to it I will post it here... |
|
|
|
be very careful you guys, this address 14WmnQJK2oN5mPyyQ88J9HyyxPf6NLrEuM stole from me 400+ coins by putting his address in supernova.
you guys need to change the password right now, check to see if your pay out address is right and check anything you recently download need to watch
If I understand correctly someone guessed your suprnova pool login and also the PIN? Did you use a very simple password? Or are you trying to say there is some security bug with suprnova making all passwords at risk? |
|
|
|
I was mining NEVA on yiimp yesterday. I had only a NEVA address in my .bat and I had c=NEVA in the options. However for some reason I earned a honey reward, no idea what they are going to do with that reward since it cannot be sent to a NEVA address. But this obviously means that not 100% of my hashes are going to the coin I want and I do not like that. So the only way I am currently mining NEVA is solo, the only way I mine NETKO is on suprnova.cc and honey I also only solo now. That's all I have to say about that.
You can use https://aikapool.com/ for dedicated NEVA mining. Maybe aikapool would add Honey too? Anyone tried contacting aikapool for honey? |
|
|
|
That is not true about yiimp anymore. What you described is completely what happens at Zpool. Epsylon3 made some changes so you direct mine the coin you want, only once in a while does your hash bleed into another coin since they are on the same port. So yiimp can help support the network.
I did not know that. Thanks for the information |
|
|
|
Lol  Might be a good idea for marketing for Nivea |
|
|
|
Thanks.
What should I do to avoid such conflicts?
You actually cant avoid them, this happens on all blockchains as PoW and PoS is a competition. You can however improve your connection to the network by port forwarding tcp port 7391 or your router to your PC/MAC (and of course add the port exception on your local firewall). This will give you a better connectivity to the other nodes around the world and therefore faster inform other nodes that you mined a PoS block. But keep in mind it still is a competition and you are only improving your odds with this and at the same time you help new users sync the blockchain when the start their NevaCoin wallet. Tnx for the support @staysecure |
|
|
|
When using this pool please use as the password to use your hash for only HONEY. This will support the network. That is not true and these switching pools are to blame for the instability IMO. There is not enough dedicated hashrate. And these two pools point their blake2s hashes at honey when the diff is low, pump up the diff, then it stops being profitable, they start mining others (neva, verge, taj, netko...) making the honey chain stall. the c=honey only means you will get payed in honey, it does not mean your hashes will go towards the honey chain. Since I learned this I stopped mining Nevacoin at yiimp and zpool, only use dedicated pools or solo if you want to support the network. Honey needs a dedicated pool. |
|
|
|
What does this really mean anyways? Will it boost the value of the coin because in the last days all I have seen it just go down in value. Bought at 0.001btc each and sold at 0.0004btc. Lost over half of what i bought them for in the 3 days of holding them was long enough for me.  Its a new coin. The dev is trying hard to optimize it. Sorry to hear about you losses, you can't blame the dev for market actions... |
|
|
|
Please visit HONEY thread below:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1823432.0Please update your wallets to Honey v1.0.2.1-HoneypotQuote from HONEY DEV THERE WILL BE A SOFT FORK AT BLOCK 22000 IMPLEMENTING DGWv3THIS SHOULD FIX THE DIFFICULTY ISSUES AND BLOCK TIMESIF YOU HAVE A MAC WALLET PLEASE SEND YOUR COINS TO THE EXCHANGE OR BUILD FROM SOURCEMore news coming soon! Really curious how this will work out. Might implement it on Nevacoin if it works well Getting a compile error on ubuntu (14.04): miner.cpp: In function ‘CBlock* CreateNewBlock(CReserveKey&, bool, int64_t*)’:
miner.cpp:106:5: error: ‘unique_ptr’ was not declared in this scope
unique_ptr<CBlock> pblock(new CBlock());
^
miner.cpp:106:22: error: expected primary-expression before ‘>’ token
unique_ptr<CBlock> pblock(new CBlock());
^
miner.cpp:106:43: error: ‘pblock’ was not declared in this scope
unique_ptr<CBlock> pblock(new CBlock());
^
miner.cpp: In function ‘void ThreadStakeMiner(CWallet*)’:
miner.cpp:558:9: error: ‘unique_ptr’ was not declared in this scope
unique_ptr<CBlock> pblock(CreateNewBlock(reservekey, true, &nFees));
^
miner.cpp:558:26: error: expected primary-expression before ‘>’ token
unique_ptr<CBlock> pblock(CreateNewBlock(reservekey, true, &nFees));
^
miner.cpp:558:75: error: ‘pblock’ was not declared in this scope
unique_ptr<CBlock> pblock(CreateNewBlock(reservekey, true, &nFees));
^
miner.cpp: In function ‘void HoneyMiner(CWallet*)’:
miner.cpp:608:9: error: ‘unique_ptr’ was not declared in this scope
unique_ptr<CBlock> pblocktemplate(CreateNewBlock(reservekey, false, &nFees));
^
miner.cpp:608:26: error: expected primary-expression before ‘>’ token
unique_ptr<CBlock> pblocktemplate(CreateNewBlock(reservekey, false, &nFees));
^
miner.cpp:608:84: error: ‘pblocktemplate’ was not declared in this scope
unique_ptr<CBlock> pblocktemplate(CreateNewBlock(reservekey, false, &nFees));
^
miner.cpp: In function ‘CBlock* CreateNewBlock(CReserveKey&, bool, int64_t*)’:
miner.cpp:373:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]
}
^
make: *** [obj/miner.o] Error 1 |
|
|
|
Haha, the moon awaits Been looking at the block explorer a bit: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/oc/#!overview Quite a lot of transactions per day for such a inactive coin. Probably mostly pool -> wallet transactions though. |
|
|
|
Any ideas why the price is climbing so much? Did I miss something? This one is easy to answer. An honest active developer working on an awesome algo and community sees this and that means trust. Everything in life becomes better, more valuable when trust is established. I should know  i trust you 100%. You can trust me, but can you trust the Chinese miners and future blake2s asic producers lol Tnx for the trust though! |
|
|
|
Well I just checked, no blocks found (around 20 hours). So sgminer solo does not work. Just a bunch of HW errors. Will try testnet too...
Nothing? Nope. sgminer is obviously broken for mining solo. Only works with stratum. |
|
|
|
about Dash premine:
yes it existed. I admit. But everyone takes money home.
Satoshi Nakamoto of Bitcoin pocketed 1 million BTC.
Vitlik Buterin of Ethereum pocketed 600,000 Ethers.
Evan Duffield of Dash pocketed about 1 million Dash.
===
Same for the big corporations:
Bill Gates of Microsoft pocketed a ton of MS shares
Zuckerberg of Facebook pocketed a ton of Facebook shares
..and so on.
For me a crypto-coin is both a digital gold coin and a share in the network
Basically I see nothing wrong with it, as long as it is a partial pre-mine, rather than 100% centralized pre-mine (like Ripple XRP).
Dash follows Satoshi's vision, and Dash is Bitcoin done Right !
You sir was brainwashed with their propaganda. An "honest" announced premine is one thing (ICOs, XRP, etc...) but this DASH launch is just straight out scamming and lying. I soon fixed this issue at block 4500, but none of us realized the amount of coins that had been issued at the time. At that point we didn’t even have a block explorer yet. How the hell can a "core developer" write something like this publicly. Block explorers are for grandmas looking at their transactions, not for devs launching a coin. How does he dare to say that, blaming the absence of a block explorer for the instamine? "Ups, look at all those blocks flying around every second, a shame I dont have a block explorer to check if the network is ok. Oh well, I guess I will just sit here now" A "core developer" would know exactly how to check the amount of blocks and the money supply. (a simple getinfo rpc call gives you everything you need to know and tailing the debug log) This claim linked above is obviously a filthy lie to cover up the fact that it was planed in advance to instamine the shit out of that coin. |
|
|
|
It is really easy to see that we the token hodlers are caught in the middle of a fight between Godzilla and King Kong. Because PoW is not decentralization!
You keep repeating that, but it is important what is the comparison. Nothing is something without a comparison to how that something is not nothing. Bitcoin is not competing with perfect. It is competing with the legacy banking/financial infrastructure. I would say that PoW is not perfect unicorn land decentralization. But that PoW is more decentralized than the existing system. If it were all that simple and if that statement was true (that PoW is not decentralization) a scaling solution would be forced much faster. |
|
|
|
|
Anyone hashing this? Seems to be stuck on block #20111
|
|
|
|
A good idea right now would be for some competent developer(s) to fork the core code (leave everything as it is) and insert another signaling option (2MB blocks for example or whatever). And keep it up to date with the core branch for any security patches not related to the scaling stuff. And still call the version BitcoinCore, just with SegWit + "xy signaling option(s)".
Well I found one: https://bitcoinec.info/ |
|
|
|
The biggest problem in all this is that both solutions are somewhat shitty in their feature set. Why are we at a point where only two solutions exist? The good thing about signaling is you could signal multiple options, within one "dev camp"/bitcoin client. Core should give more options for example: - SegWit + no block increase - SegWit + block increase to 2MB - NO SegWit + increase to 2MB - xxx some other option That way the network would decide and the Core team would not damage their reputation by "forcing" SegWit as the only option. I still consider Core the most competent of taking care of the code, but I can't get my head around this, why not provide an alternative option to signal... The problem with only two solutions is that one usually gets picked, even if both are bad. (I am not counting the 8MB solution as an option since its just lazy and too extreme ) Edit: I read through the whole thread, good reading That's perhaps the biggest problem many people have with Core. It's their way or the highway. There have been lots of meetings, conventions, and dialogues of all sorts where they pretended to negotiate. It soon became clear that the negotiations were just stalling tactics, and they haven't given an inch to anyone, nor did they ever intend to. I agree that they're probably the most competent code caretakers, but they're absolutely terrible at management and community relations. Seems there is another option missing in all this. A good idea right now would be for some competent developer(s) to fork the core code (leave everything as it is) and insert another signaling option (2MB blocks for example or whatever). And keep it up to date with the core branch for any security patches not related to the scaling stuff. And still call the version BitcoinCore, just with SegWit + "xy signaling option(s)". If the change gets voted on, core can still continue maintaining the code. One of the reasons I dislike BU as much as I do, is not so much the actual block size implementation solution, but more about the rest of the stuff that might be buggy in the BU client. The network needs more (reasonable - not so extreme - small step change - well maintained client) choices. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
