 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
I'm still hoping we can have an honest discussion on nothing at stake!  Here Here..! 1) Much is made of the 'wasted' and 'costly' electricity used to run the POW mining rigs.. People seem to think this number can increase 'INDEFINITELY' and somehow consume ALL the power in the whole world. This simply is not the case. The miners will spend what they can make from mining, they can't spend more.. or go out of business. The Market will determine what this will be. Personally, I really don't see it as an issue, at all. POS queries.. 2) What if all the coins in a POS system are distributed evenly, yippee!, so that there are very few, if any, whales. Everyone thinks they have an insignificant amount, for mining purposes, but in truth they are ALL minnows. Who would mine ? 3) If 10% of the stakeholders mine in POS, since I think 100% or even 50% seems unlikely, does that mean you need 5.1% to perform a 51% attack ? 4) In POS, can energy be expended searching more chain branches to find a valid chain on which you make more money ? If this is the case, won't future miners just spend money and expend energy until they spend slightly less than 1 block makes (same as POW) ? .. Good Luck NeuCoin! Well I've got blackcoin staking on my laptop as it uses minimal resources and I could probably run many staking wallets without noticing. There's no special hardware or software needed unlike with PoW so even if people only have a few coins there isn't much of a barrier to them staking. The biggest reason people wouldn't stake there coins is probably that they keep them on exchanges. Anyway the current money supply according to my wallet is 74841336 and the number of coins being staked on the network is 9444499. Also this means I'm running a full node verifying blocks as this is the only way to stake. PoW coins provide no incentive to run a full node as far as I can see. |
|
|
|
Have you tried leaving the wallet closed on one of your windows machines for a couple of weeks so it's forced to do a resync? Yes and it usually works fine. EXCEPTION: N5boost10filesystem16filesystem_errorE
boost::filesystem::remove: The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process: "C:\coins\cryptonite\blocks\index\000081.sst"
C:\coins\cryptonite\win64_cryptonite-qt_14091021.exe in Runaway exception The good news is you've provided a descriptive error message to help pinpoint the issue. The bad news is this seems to be a problem which has exist for several years in other altcoins such as litecoin and still hasn't been fixed: https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=10746.0EXCEPTION: N5boost10filesystem16filesystem_errorE
boost::filesystem:remove: The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process: "C:
\Users\Owner\AppData\Roaming\Litecoin\database\log.0000000001"
C:\Program Files (x86)\Litecoin\litecoinqt.exe in Runaway exception. My naive guess would be that you might have cryptonited already running in the background or something. I thought the code was forked from bitcoin rather than litecoin as that what it says in the description. I guess the other altcoins don't have the same need for resync as the don't use the mini blockchain scheme. Cryptonite seems to need a resync if a node hasn't connected for over a week. Looking back at the debug.log file the following error is from when I ran the client the other day:- 'Warning: saved state too old. Fast forward sync may not be possible. Run Resync!!!' This is when I clicked resync and after that it crashed with the error I posted before. It was the only copy of cryptonited running at the time, I don't think it's even possible to start two copies at the same time. After the crash I no longer have a blk00000.dat file so I get the following error messages when I try to start the client:- 2015-01-31 20:15:46 Unable to open file C:\coins\cryptonite\blocks\blk00000.dat 2015-01-31 20:15:46 ERROR: ReadBlockFromDisk : OpenBlockFile failed 2015-01-31 20:15:46 ReadBlockFromDisk: Could not find block 000000000669d21da5b787ed397a3e10600c5708cb89a227948d98d73409c9f8 2015-01-31 20:15:46 *** Failed to read block2 2015-01-31 20:15:57 Cannot fastforward chain because of connecttip fail: 000000000669d21da5b787ed397a3e10600c5708cb89a227948d98d73409c9f8 2015-01-31 20:15:57 Requesting shutdown It spends a while on the splash screen saying 'loading block index' and then it fails with 'failed to read block2' It should work if I do the usual trick of deleting everything bar the wallet.dat including the registry entries to re-install the client. But I'll leave it in the current state in case you need any more logs from it as I don't need to make any transactions now. |
|
|
|
bitfreak would you make the windows wallet less laggy/bugs please We can't fix it until we discover what is causing it. The bugs only seem to affect a small percentage of Windows machines so it's hard to diagnose. Cryptonite-Qt works absolutely fine on all my Windows machines so I have no clue what the issue is. And our main developer doesn't even use Windows. Have you tried leaving the wallet closed on one of your windows machines for a couple of weeks so it's forced to do a resync? That seems to be one of the main issues. I just opened up my wallet for the first time in two weeks and it crashed on a resync with the below error message:- EXCEPTION: N5boost10filesystem16filesystem_errorE boost::filesystem::remove: The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process: "C:\coins\cryptonite\blocks\index\000081.sst" C:\coins\cryptonite\win64_cryptonite-qt_14091021.exe in Runaway exception |
|
|
|
Hi, can someone help me with my wallet sync issues.
Last 2 days I'm trying to sync my wallet but with no luck, I deleted whole Cryptonite folder from Appdata.
When I open wallet progress bar completes "Downloading headers..." and "Downloading blocks..." but it allways hangs at "Downloading trie..."
I have tried adding nodes to cryptonite.conf, opened port 8253 and I also tried without conf file, on different pc also and it allways hangs on "Downloading trie..."
I tried at least 15 times to sync, every time I deleted everything from ~\AppData\Roaming\Cryptonite but no luck.
Try deleting all cryptonite entries from the registry. Just do a search in regedit for cryptonite. This seems to force it to do a clean install when you run the exe. Thank you man, finally I managed to sync after deleting registry entries!!! No problem, hopefully the next windows version of the wallet will have an uninstall option so people can easily do a clean install. There are probably people who gave up on the coin after having the same issue. |
|
|
|
Hi, can someone help me with my wallet sync issues.
Last 2 days I'm trying to sync my wallet but with no luck, I deleted whole Cryptonite folder from Appdata.
When I open wallet progress bar completes "Downloading headers..." and "Downloading blocks..." but it allways hangs at "Downloading trie..."
I have tried adding nodes to cryptonite.conf, opened port 8253 and I also tried without conf file, on different pc also and it allways hangs on "Downloading trie..."
I tried at least 15 times to sync, every time I deleted everything from ~\AppData\Roaming\Cryptonite but no luck.
Try deleting all cryptonite entries from the registry. Just do a search in regedit for cryptonite. This seems to force it to do a clean install when you run the exe. |
|
|
|
also, wow, this high hashrate is becoming more common. at that difficulty, its not profitable to sell under 10-12 satoshi!
Block Height: 80,997 Difficulty: 269.98 NetHashRate: 9.36GH/s Total Supply: 5,874,925,000
Yeah, kinda sad peoples still dump them for a single sat, or two which is better than one.. I mean.. uh.. but still not enough, yeah  I'll watching those wall collapsed and gone for good  I guess the profitability depends on how much you pay for electricity as I presume it's not worth mining scrypt on a botnet now there are scrypt asics. One possibility is that some people want doged anonymously rather than going through an exchange. It would be interesting to see if a shapeshift like service on tor would get any business as with the sell orders on the exchanges it doesn't seem worth doing any mining if you just want a load of doged. Another mining question, are there any plans to merge mine with litecoin like doge does so it has a huge hashrate to protect against 51% attacks? |
|
|
|
There is no newer wallet then this: win64_cryptonite-qt_14091021  Because this one is stuck for at least a month. If you're still struggling to connect to nodes, here are the ones I'm connected to:- "addr" : "206.72.193.148:8253", "addr" : "190.102.131.30:8253", "addr" : "98.234.226.206:8253", "addr" : "192.99.32.136:8253", "addr" : "66.45.239.67:8253", "addr" : "195.93.239.31:8253", "addr" : "46.165.208.136:8253", "addr" : "24.117.174.95:8253", So to add the first one run "addnode 206.72.193.148 add" from the debug console window. |
|
|
|
|
Any news on updated versions of the wallets as the coin could do with some positive news? There have been a lot of posts in this thread about syncing issues so a bug fixing release would be good. I'm sure it was on the roadmap a few weeks ago. Also I'm using the QT client on win7 and I've noticed that the GUI does not give options for withdrawal limits and purging the database, which is a shame as having these features in the GUI would show them off to new users. No point in hiding innovative features in the command line especially for us windows users :-)
Could we add a paper wallet generator to the roadmap? Some sort of bitaddress clone. It's not a big deal but a useful part of any coins ecosystem.
I was reading about account pruning and my understanding is that it isn't implemented yet and it's more of a long term project. I have an idea for how to make account pruning possible in the future for accounts which haven't been touched for along time to deal with coins in lost wallets.
'lasttransactionblock' would be a new variable for each account to record the last time the account sent or received a transaction. Miners would need to update the field for both sender and receiver for every transaction to the current block.
This can then be used later to prune addresses with no transactions for say 5 years to top up the coinbase account to pay miners rewards. So the inevitable lost coins can be used to pay for security without adding inflation or high transaction fees.
Obviously this new variable would need a hard fork as all the nodes would need to agree on it but this can be added to any future hard forks with important changes to address other issues such as mining pools.
|
|
|
|
I try to open crytponited-qt in Windows but it says
Incorrect or no genesis block found. Wrong datadir for network?
Has anybody a hint?
I had similar issues when a resync caused corruption issues. Try deleting everything apart the exe, the dll files and the wallet.dat if you have some xcn. You'll then need to do a search for cryptonite in the registry and delete any keys you find. I used regedit. I think the important one is the datadir key which seems to tell cryptonite to do a fresh install. You might also struggle connecting to any peers once it starts up so run 'addnode 206.72.193.148 add' from the console command line in cryptonite. |
|
|
|
Why are we not seeing any copycoins of this one? Is it somehow more difficult to clone? Yeah it's probably a bit more difficult to clone because the launch procedure is a bit different and you have to know how to deal with the first few weeks where it runs in "bitcoin mode". plus if you're going to do a copycoin for a pump and dump you chose a coin with a high market cap to try and get some of the people who missed out on buying the coin cheaply. But another possibility is a high market cap coin does a merger with xcn like darkcoin nearly did with shadowcoin as the mini blockchain would improve most of the top coins. |
|
|
|
Why do we need 3rd party users (miners) to confirm transactions and update the blockchain for us when anyone who has a valid copy of the blockchain can do it for themselves? By getting rid of 3rd party confirmations, transactions would be nearly instant and there would be no fees.
New coins can instead be generated as a % bonus to payees by an algorithm in the transaction process. Users could then 'mine' new coins by simply moving them between accounts and this appears exploitative at first but is necessary to compensate for deflation and create demand. Perhaps there are mechanisms that can minimize the consequences of abuse and keep it fair.
How would you pick a fork? Why not mine every fork then? The same way we do now- by consensus. You have to accept the blocks that are reported by the largest number of nodes. The greater the number of honest nodes there are on the network, the more difficult it is to pull off a 51% attack but, without the 3rd-party confirmation scheme (mining), the risk is isolated to you alone rather than the whole network and only while you are syncing. And it doesn't waste energy. It sounds like your arguing for a type of proof of stake based on number of nodes rather than longest block. Have a look at https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/alts.pdf for some criticisms of PoS from a bitcoin dev. You might also want to look at some of the PoS coins such as peercoin, blackcoin and nxt. If xcn hard forked to PoS now there would be an issue of how to fairly distribute the coins as the only way for new users to get any would be to buy off of existing holders. Also for my node to know that the fork is reported by the largest number of nodes wouldn't it need to connect to alot more nodes than the usual 8 or 16 limit? |
|
|
|
Are there any PoS coins without dev controlled checkpoints yet?
NXT has automatic rolling checkpoints, 720 blocks deep, controlled by software ("automatic rolling"), called blockchain re-org mechanism. Thanks for the reply, could you elaborate on how the checkpoints are 'controlled by software'? Is this some sort of consensus amongst nodes to agree the block 720 blocks ago can never be replaced even in a longer chain? Also out of interest how much time does it take to produce 720 blocks and many blocks are staking coins locked for? |
|
|
|
|
Are there any PoS coins without dev controlled checkpoints yet?
|
|
|
|
In the last couple of days my qt client on win7 64bit is having problems syncing up. Has the number of full nodes dropped or am I just unlucky? Its also prone to crash since I did a resync. It seems like an old miner has been running for a few days because it looks like there is an old fork being mined or something and I suspect that is contributing to the recent sync problems which several people other than yourself have reported. Just follow the suggestions I gave a few posts ago. I've been running 'addnode 206.72.193.148 add' which sometimes helps but it still takes a long time to get any peers. Are there any other known good peers that people can use? Looking in debug.log I'm getting a lot of the below messages for different peers. Have I ended up on the wrong fork? 2014-11-13 10:08:07 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader() : extended invalid chain 2014-11-13 10:08:07 ERROR: ProcessBlockHeader() : AcceptBlockHeader FAILED 2014-11-13 10:08:07 Misbehaving: 58.20.250.60:8253 (0 -> 100) BAN THRESHOLD EXCEEDED On the first issue could XCN pay for full nodes in the way it pays for miners? So say every 2000 blocks it could divide a special reward of XCN to all full nodes which have been up since the last reward. This would keep the number of full nodes from dropping as in other coins like BTC. That's actually a decent idea but it's more complicated than it sounds, you need to develop a protocol for proving who is a seed node and how long they've been online. You also need a way to ensure that they are actually seeding other nodes with legit data. Then you need to alter the protocol to allow those types of special rewards to be accepted by the network. Not simple at all, but it is a good idea. Yeah I realize it would be difficult to implement in a way which couldn't be cheated, it was something to think about to avoid the situation most coins have where all the coins go to the miners and none for the nodes or devs. Would people object if the protocol was changed so a percentage of the transaction fee went to a dev fund to pay for code improvements? This reminds me, the CPU utilization is much higher than my blackcoin wallet even when it's staking. I assume this is either a coding issue or the M7 PoW lacks the 'ease of verification' which sha256 has? This could cause scalability issues later. I'm unsure what you mean. Cryptonite doesn't use PoS, it's purely PoW. So if you're CPU mining than your CPU usage should be 100%, else you're not taking full advantage of your CPU. Sorry I should have been clearer, when win64_cryptonite-qt_14091021 is just running as a full node verifying blocks it uses more cpu than my blackcoin client when it stakes, so it's verifying and sometimes creating blocks . I've seen it get upto 25% so my worry was that your M7 PoW was more difficult to verify than the standard bitcoin sha256. It should be possible to run nodes on very low spec machines to encourage as many people as possible to run xcn and leave it running in the background to increase the network security. On the 2nd issue could we have an install and uninstall option or put all the config setting in a config file in the cryptonite directory rather than filling up the registry. The registry changes only happen if you're using Windows, I'm not entirely sure why, but the same thing happens with Bitcoin. If this get popular most people will be running this on windows ( unless we get a smartphone version) and being able to completely uninstall and then re-install could solve some of the sync issues. |
|
|
|
|
In the last couple of days my qt client on win7 64bit is having problems syncing up. Has the number of full nodes dropped or am I just unlucky? Its also prone to crash since I did a resync.
On the first issue could XCN pay for full nodes in the way it pays for miners? So say every 2000 blocks it could divide a special reward of XCN to all full nodes which have been up since the last reward. This would keep the number of full nodes from dropping as in other coins like BTC. This reminds me, the CPU utilization is much higher than my blackcoin wallet even when it's staking. I assume this is either a coding issue or the M7 PoW lacks the 'ease of verification' which sha256 has? This could cause scalability issues later.
On the 2nd issue could we have an install and uninstall option or put all the config setting in a config file in the cryptonite directory rather than filling up the registry.
It's a very interesting coin which certainly fixes some of the major issues with bitcoin. Imagine being able to run a full node with no third party involved on your smartphone. But it needs to stay flexible to fix other issues as everything needs to be right for a small coin to stand a chance.
|
|
|
|
|
I think this thread got side tracked by the financial talk when the issue of the wallet versions needed to be sorted. Hopefully lessons have been learnt as expecting every node to be updated with two days notice was never going to happen.
There was promise of a new version of the wallet to block peers causing issues as a getpeerinfo does not give enough clues to identify them but version 6006 is still on the front page and the announcement is from the 23rd.
Will we get a new wallet to fix the issues people are still having as a stable secure blockchain is the minimum requirement for any coin?
Version 6007 still seems a rushed version apart from the issue of getting stuck on a block before 50,000 as it's based on QT 4.8.5 and there are GUI glitches.
|
|
|
|
I used the zip one, and downloaded all the blockchain. First time it gets slow around block 50000, but with time it moved forward and synced. I closed it and open again, and it went back to block 49140, with 2501 blocks remaining, it looks stuck right now, can't sync. Do we need to add any node? did you delete everything except wallet.dat? if yes, then 1)go to debug and 2) do "getpeerinfo" you'll 3) find the problem node, then 4) block it in your firewall settings. I've re-downloaded, and it happened again. It syncs at first, then after closing and open again the wallet, I got those 2501 blocks missing... How do I find the node with problems? They all have same "startingheight: 51689", or should I look for something else? Here is my getpeerinfo:
"addr" : "67.212.70.89:8500",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1404143421,
"lastrecv" : 1404143437,
"conntime" : 1404143417,
"version" : 60006,
"subver" : "/NoirShares:1.9.1/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 51689,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "202.152.167.74:8500",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1404143430,
"lastrecv" : 1404143428,
"conntime" : 1404143419,
"version" : 60006,
"subver" : "/NoirShares:1.9.1/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 51689,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "115.29.53.115:8500",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1404143425,
"lastrecv" : 1404143436,
"conntime" : 1404143420,
"version" : 60006,
"subver" : "/NoirShares:1.9.1/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 51689,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "182.107.196.38:8500",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1404143425,
"lastrecv" : 1404143424,
"conntime" : 1404143421,
"version" : 60006,
"subver" : "/NoirShares:1.9.1/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 51689,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "76.126.117.233:8500",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1404143425,
"lastrecv" : 1404143425,
"conntime" : 1404143421,
"version" : 60006,
"subver" : "/NoirShares:1.9.1/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 51689,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "184.68.133.150:8500",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1404143429,
"lastrecv" : 1404143424,
"conntime" : 1404143422,
"version" : 60007,
"subver" : "/NoirShares:1.9.1/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 51689,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "23.249.161.254:8500",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1404143425,
"lastrecv" : 1404143423,
"conntime" : 1404143423,
"version" : 60006,
"subver" : "/NoirShares:1.9.1/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 51689,
"banscore" : 0
Mine does the same. Works fine on first run after deleting all but the wallet.dat. Once I close it and reopen it, only part of my NRS balance shows and it sits at 2588 Blocks remaining and will not sync again unless I delete everything and install again. Same here it downloaded fine when I deleted everything apart from the wallet and reinstalled. The full blockchain downloaded and even staked a block but after shutting it down and restarting it was out of sync and stuck at block 49247 so I don't know what it did with those extra blocks after 49247 it just had. A getpeerinfo only shows 1.9.1 clients either version 6006 or 6007 with blocks over 5000 so it doesn't look like an issue caused by connecting to old nodes. The debug file is full of entries like :- ERROR: CheckProofOfStake() : INFO: check kernel failed on coinstake 7d6ab2bc3589a0e44a993e984994d5004356ad8828ae70e79d06374835060b88, hashProof=0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 WARNING: ProcessBlock(): check proof-of-stake failed for block 0003cb6edeb1b33cfa29b73f62f1d44518c5e64f942b28778072da9668ca7256 It's looking like there was no quality control on the all PoS version of the wallet and not enough time to do it properly. As this was meant to be a major long term release why does it still use an old version of QT? |
|
|
|
|
I see I’m not the only one confused by the update. I think I’m updated but help --> about still shows version v0.1.3.0-g99999-Barwiz and qt version 4.8.5.
When I start the gui it’s out of sync and doesn’t show any transactions after the 17th as confirmed so it looks like I've lost half my balance and there is no icon to show how many blocks are downloaded. When it does sync up I get all the previously confirmed mining transactions confirmed again and the correct balance. The green tick in the bottom left corner to say the blockchain is upto date then appears.
Doing a getpeerinfo and a getinfo in the debug window seems to suggest that I’m updated but the version field in the new release wasn't updated.
getperinfo
"addr" : "x.x.x.x:8500",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1403687424,
"lastrecv" : 1403687259,
"conntime" : 1403687255,
"version" : 60006,
"subver" : "/NoirShares:1.9.1/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 47595,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "x.x.x.x:8500",
"services" : "00000000",
"lastsend" : 1403687451,
"lastrecv" : 0,
"conntime" : 1403687451,
"version" : 0,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : -1,
"banscore" : 0
getinfo
version" : "v0.1.3.0-g99999-Barwizi",
"protocolversion" : 60006,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : x,
"newmint" : 0.00000000,
"stake" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 50190,
"moneysupply" : 2374121.37840700,
"connections" : 6,
"proxy" : "",
"ip" : "x.x.x.x",
"difficulty" : 0.00257270,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1398943972,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"unlocked_until" : 0,
"errors" : "Info: Minting suspended due to locked wallet."
There were other peers with the same details as the first one, I’m guessing the second peer is using an old or corrupted wallet?
This also brings me a suggestion I've made for other coins. Could the client be made to do a simple check to see if any peers are reporting a higher version (subver?) number than its own? So if it does find a peer with a higher version it could prompt the user to check for an updated version of the client.
This would help make sure everyone knows about updated versions as one updated wallet would tell 8 peers which when updated would tell upto 8 other peers and so on...
|
|
|
|
|
