When can we see some code in your github?
When the project is launched, all source will be released in the original thread's GitHub link. Here is the GitHub of the lead developer Presstab: https://github.com/presstabWe are also having our code verified by the Proof of Review team with their highest tier of verification. I can confirm that this is a project that my team is working on (as well as another team on the GUI side). Will definitely have the source out well in advanced of the launch. |
|
|
|
Having trouble getting any connections for clam. Does anyone have a list of nodes?
Happy to help ... Cheers Graham Thank you very much that got me syncing again from my backup state. |
|
|
|
Does anyone know what happened to the presstab chain explorer for CLAM?
Not sure. I noticed in the Google search description of the CLAM website it said that there was a payment due. I made that payment: a0a8664206501713f40e1ed46852c8b551187ae73a9b3cc08b388069145073ec https://blockchain.info/tx/a0a8664206501713f40e1ed46852c8b551187ae73a9b3cc08b388069145073ec"Clams's block explorer service expired on Mar 15 2018. To add another 3 months of funding to the block explorer send 0.00244152 BTC to 17L7awpjvxqFf649wGJ3kVMhF9H3osMPRQ · Contact presstab on bitcointalk to renew for a longer period of time with a lower rate." I've paid the asking price <3 I'd like to inquire about a longer contract perhaps as well. Respectfully, BAC I've not heard back yet... I'll message again. Had a disk failure that took down my OS as well as many coin daemons. Getting things back up and running now. Having trouble getting any connections for clam. Does anyone have a list of nodes? Edit: also... you sent bitcoin to a website that was down... by finding a bitcoin address on google and then were surprised that the explorer wasnt up and marked my account with a negative trust rating? WTH... lol you can take that off now. At this point just send me a refund address and I will just take clam off my site. |
|
|
|
Hello, when is planned the release of a new desktop wallet? Can’t install the latest version.
after installing the antivirus block the wallet continuosly…
false positive, make an exception, or kill bloody antivir, it's common in crypto I would seriously pay a few thousand USD for the solution to that damn problem. It has got to be a specific part of the code that triggers it. Hello DEV how are u ? ♥ I am DEVtastic  |
|
|
|
Hello, when is planned the release of a new desktop wallet? Can’t install the latest version.
after installing the antivirus block the wallet continuosly…
false positive, make an exception, or kill bloody antivir, it's common in crypto I would seriously pay a few thousand USD for the solution to that damn problem. It has got to be a specific part of the code that triggers it. |
|
|
|
Bathrobe: Yeah - It's been a patient building for sure. One that many of us have known is solid, and "markets" are now beginning to validate.
The amount of reach PIVX is setting up to have in 2018 is amazing.
I have a twitter wager going... I said around $80 by end of next year. Another is saying $100+. 11 PIV is on the line. Either way - whoever wins, we all win.
The rate we're expanding, I think $80 might be low...
I will include 2 main factors in my answer, crypto in 2018 and the tech. 1. 2018 is going to be huge for crypto. We see it unfolding and we have to include that here. 2. Pivx tech is on par with the two big top anon coins - Monero and Zcash. But once we are fully anon, next year is my guess, we will be a better deal than either. Especially since we are the only POS anon coin with the zerocoin protocol. We should be an easy 100 USD on tech alone, but 2018 is going to see a huge influx of money. I am calling, at a minimum, a $200 year end price. All top 50-100 coins plus are gonna fly and we are a top 3 anon coin. Been in this a while and I know a undervalued coin when I see one and then throw some 2018 crypto magic on it. Gonna go boom.... Hi there all you Pivx Guruus, just a simple question from a Newbie: What is so special about the zerocoin protocol? Is there a big advantage to all the competitors? Right now if you are spending using zPIV (zerocoin) and using the 1 zPIV denomination, you are essentially mixing your coins with over 10,000 other coins. I don't know of any other privacy coins that offer something similar to that scale. |
|
|
|
Different periods that the average is being taken... The entire blockchain vs the last 500 blocks. |
|
|
|
Well it's "up to 750%" but it's actually 134%. This "up to" is used as a marketing scam to fool the masses who don't read the small fonts, we don't need such things here. I don't mind up to 750% if you put the actual annual rate there as well. I just don't wanna see in the future posts like "omg, I was promised 750% and it's less than 100%, this is a scam!" because I know it's coming once it's more popular.
Excuse me,I thought that the annual interest rate is 750%, but is actually 134%?  I'm not good at English.(sorry this sentene written by google transtrate.) If you do not mind, please tell me where 134% is written? m(_ _*)m [/quote] Read the first post, it says quite a few times that 750% is the maximum amount, not the average. 2nd sentence in the post (obviously not hiding anything): Currently inflation is managed through the maximum stake reward of 1000 HYP per stake
Annual Stake Rate - up to 750% (see hyp.presstab.pw for avg paid rate)
Inflation control limits the maximum amount you can stake to 1,000 HYP for each block. This means that you will want to split your HYP blocks into the appropriate amount of HYP if you want to receive 750% reward, or else you will have your reward capped at 1,000 HYP. Reward is calculated by the following formula:
Code:
Reward = min(HYPamount * (7.5/365) * days-to-stake, 1,000)
Many of us have come to the conclusion that with such high difficulty, it is worth using bigger block size that will definitely hit max reward of 1,000, but will stake faster because of large size.
See the splitting blocks tutorial for assistance. Also visit the inflation control wiki page and the inflation prediction website.
|
|
|
|
|
I would support just removing the % based calculation in the code and making it 1,000 HYP for every stake. It would be way less confusing.
|
|
|
|
Resynced from scratch using nodes from explorer. Blocks do not match. Wallet = 3152 right now, explorer = 3213 Mined coins are at address, and on explorer, not in wallet... What is your block hash for 3152? |
|
|
|
Just lost the last connection.  . Did you add the items to your .conf that i suggested above? banscore=1000 bantime=10 Must have missed that. Just added and restarted. Getting 0 connections now though. There we go connected again, and blocks are sticking! And confirming! Great job presstab! Need to get some sleep will check on things in the morning! Thank you all! Happy to hear If you have more problems, you can always send me a PM it will come through to my email and I can be a lot quicker to figure out a solution for you. Now we need to start getting the swap running so that we can get enough coins to run masternodes and get rid of the "syncing masternodes" status. |
|
|
|
Just lost the last connection. . Did you add the items to your .conf that i suggested above? banscore=1000 bantime=10 |
|
|
|
The coin dev created the fud. Your pool was recomended to me by a friend. But maybe its your race to get the coin on your pool to get the miners that you walked into this situation. Its not your direct fault but the coin is not minable and should have never made it live two days in a row on your pool to mine. So take it as what is is. And yea im gonna call it a shitcoin due to the fact the the quality assurance fell on its face. seems like they put more time in the graphics on the roadmap than in the code on the platform.
It my opinion. Sinple. But take this as a sign.. There is something wrong here and there has been no clear picture put forth. And the answers that have been put forth are like a shot in the dark and hope they hit something. Again this is a sign. I also posted one question on how to solo mine the coin. There was not even an answer to this. So yea.. I say walk away.
If people continue to accept these kind of things then there is no limit in what the coin community will have to face as far as for developer putting out crap. this is crypto!! This has to be spot on. If the algo is hosed then it will get broken. So these rollout that fail.. Am i supposed to believe that the algo is solid? I think not. Again this is another sign.
We have to look at the big picture here. CV2 was a dud.. and we are seeing the same dud here.. Just with another name on it.. What aspect of release has been on target here? From what i see they failed to meet everything they said.
I am responsible for the code. It is a clone of PIVX, which is a Proof of Stake coin. COLX is primarily made to be PoS, and it will perform very well at that stage. The additional systems in COLX (masternodes, sporks, and budget/governance) make it a bit harder to launch than the typical coin source forked from bitcoin or similar. Feel free to be angry, but I am just doing my best here. I did test this out for two weeks before releasing, but my focus was primarily on those long term systems, not on the short PoW phase - which I assumed was working well. I only CPU mined it though, using the in wallet miner. I did not set up a mining pool to test it. I am not a PoW miner, so maybe that thought didn't occur to me, it should have. Sorry it got you upset enough that you had to create a sockpuppet account in order to post your feel bads. |
|
|
|
getblocktemplate works fine for me, try adding the items to debug i suggested before. ./colx-cli getblocktemplate
{
"capabilities" : [
"proposal"
],
"version" : 3,
"previousblockhash" : "0000000001f993e9af8d8ab39adcf8e6e2081c344da6ef4e7576d6a4be26d93a",
"transactions" : [
],
"coinbaseaux" : {
"flags" : ""
},
"coinbasevalue" : 237500000000,
"longpollid" : "0000000001f993e9af8d8ab39adcf8e6e2081c344da6ef4e7576d6a4be26d93a214",
"target" : "00000000027ceb00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
"mintime" : 1506374814,
"mutable" : [
"time",
"transactions",
"prevblock"
],
"noncerange" : "00000000ffffffff",
"sigoplimit" : 20000,
"sizelimit" : 1000000,
"curtime" : 1506375585,
"bits" : "1c027ceb",
"height" : 1757,
"votes" : [
],
"payee" : "",
"payee_amount" : "",
"masternode_payments" : true,
"enforce_masternode_payments" : true
}
Also anyone that wants to CPU mine can do so in their wallet. Use: setgenerate true <# of threads>
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I know, nobody is running masternodes yet, so masternodes will never be synced.
|
|
|
|
I am seeing some banning of peers in my logs for various reasons. If you drop down to a low connection count, it is probably due to various peer issues stemming from masternodes not being setup yet, and the peers repeatedly requesting masternode information. You can set your debug to not ban so easy: (also delete your peers.dat so that you start with fresh scores for each peer) I have 57 connections. |
|
|
|
pool still have problem
Shutting it down until we have a new release or a solution. Can't keep restarting forever. What is the problem? Are blocks not being propogated to the rest of the network? |
|
|
|
Hello,
Not sure if this is the right place for this but please redirect me if needed.
I have some problems with installing the wallet on a raspberry pi 3.
Installing of the library is ok.
The ./autogen.sh and ./configure looks ok.
Now with the make I got a lot of errors and warnings:
Making all in src
make[1]: Entering directory '/opt/hypercoin/HyperStake-1.1.3/src'
fatal: Not a git repository (or any of the parent directories): .git
CXX libbitcoin_common_a-key.o
In file included from key.h:14:0,
from key.cpp:10:
util.h:244:22: warning: invalid suffix on literal; C++11 requires a space between literal and string macro [-Wliteral-suffix]
return strprintf("%"PRI64d, n);
^
key.cpp: In function ‘int ECDSA_SIG_recover_key_GFp(EC_KEY*, ECDSA_SIG*, const unsigned char*, int, int, int)’:
key.cpp:81:28: error: invalid use of incomplete type ‘ECDSA_SIG {aka struct ECDSA_SIG_st}’
if (!BN_add(x, x, ecsig->r)) { ret=-1; goto err; }
^~
In file included from /usr/include/openssl/ecdsa.h:10:0,
from key.cpp:7:
/usr/include/openssl/ec.h:1039:16: note: forward declaration of ‘ECDSA_SIG {aka struct ECDSA_SIG_st}’
typedef struct ECDSA_SIG_st ECDSA_SIG;
....
Certain compilers are more strict than others. I need to run through the code and fix some of these cpp 11 rules, which I will be doing very soon as I will be building HYP using gitian. For now I would suggest checking out v1.1.3 and seeing how that compiles for you. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
