Hi, I read back some pages, but my knowledge is lacking, so I wasn't able to piece anything useful together.  My old address is  1Q5......   Do the new wallets not read this anymore?  The explorer didn't like my address either. Thanks.

I am seeing protocol 70713 on the Windows wallet v2.0.1.1-gcbcb549 (32-bit) whereas the one on Linux that I downloaded shows 70714.  Will they be able to talk with each other properly?

Is there a mandatory upgrade?  I only see a pre-release on github.

That is my case. I am running 2.0.0.4 linux masternode on VPS with Windows controller using 2.0.0.5.  Couldn't get 2.0.0.5 to work for linux masternode.  Didn't try Windows masternode + Windows controller both using 2.0.0.5.

Has anyone tried to withdraw from Bitttex yet?  I wasn't able to.  Wonder if I'm doing something wrong.  Rise addresses (from wallet 0.1.1) are like 1040xxxxxx225R, correct?  I tried transferring to such an address from my account but Bittrex showed an error.

EDIT : Sorry, nevermind.  It was a user error.  Withdrawal works fine.

Thank you.

Hi Dev, can you recommend a GBX miner for AMD?  Or is that not a good idea?

10k mh/s = 10Gh/s, right?  What configuration are you using to get that?

I have some AMD RX480's that I would like to try mining with.  I wonder if they're worth mining GBX.  Not sure what mining software works best either.  Any recommendations?

In that case, there's a fair chance it will come back online soon.  Wish they would have given a reason and/or timeframe though.

3. sounds pretty bad. Has there been any precedent for this action?  Any other coins that have gone through 3 before?

I just came back to check on RISE last night, so didn't get much notice.  Didn't think I would have to move them right away.

Thanks for clarifying.  As with the other person above, I have RISE at Bittrex and it just went offline. There wasn't a deadline to move coins out was there?  Hope it's not going to be stuck there until TBD.

Might have been asked and answered already, but why is Rise deslisting from Bittrex?

If the install was successful you should end up with craved in your crave-ng/src directory.  You need to go to that directory.

Don't know where you installed from.  Maybe try      cd /home/crave-ng/src   and see if it's there.

Once you find it, you could also copy craved and crave-cli into /usr/local/bin to make it easier to access.

When you unlocked the wallet, did you check the box "For anonymisation and staking only"?

Are you still getting your rewards regularly?  If so, then don't worry about it.  Sentinel checks for the votes periodically, so eventually they should be resolved and the masternode reverts back to Enabled, in time to not get expired.  Just make sure you continue to get rewards within every 2 days or so.  That's from my experience.

Am I correct in assuming this is the new Crave on CoinExchange?

Running Windows masternode directly with 2.0.0.5 was fine.  In hot/cold configuration is where it fails to start the hot node properly.  I compiled from 2.0.0.5 sources.  Using 2.0.0.3 in VPS and 2.0.0.5 Windows client seems to work, but that defeats the purpose.

You will get 2.8 PHR each time from staking versus 4.2 for a masternode.  You need to go to Settings->Unlock Wallet, and click the checkbox "For anonymisation and staking only" and enter your passphrase to unlock the wallet.  The wallet should be unlocked in staking mode, locked for a masternode.  If you move your mouse over the lock icon at the bottom right you should see it show your wallet is unlocked and encrypted, and next to it that it is staking.  I haven't staked in a while, so someone with more recent stats can give you better info on the frequency of rewards and amounts.

Yes, of course, there's no doubt SW / LN should have it's own thread.  It's a separate technology.  I meant references as it pertains to BCH discussions concerning fees and so forth.  No one should have to come to BCH forum to learn about SW, or how to use LN.

Ever since the very beginning of this thread it was painstakingly pointed out that BCH was superior to BTC because it would have bigger blocks and it would have no need for SEGWIT and Lightning.

All the virtues of big blocks were pointed out versus the inferiority of SW / Lightning.  It was obvious that BCH was doing better than BTC with the bigger blocks.

Other than hundreds of pages of name-calling and crazy price speculation and telling people to buy BCH NOW and so forth, rarely will you come across a useful post in this thread.  There have been some, but notably, recently there have been quite a few posts about progress in Segwit and LN.

If all that has been said about BCH being better because there is no need for SW+LN (fees and speed), lets hear it from both camps.  It was exclusively brought up by proponents of BCH that SW+LN was a failure and the cause of the fork.  Well, let us understand why and what's going on.  In the context of BCH, since other coins support SW+LN as well.  I don't want to go to a LN thread for that info.  If BCH is to be THE Bitcoin, it better be better with or without SW+LN, as has been claimed all along.

Knowledge is important.  As long as real information is being shared, that's good.  I just hope that truth is being parlayed, but that's kind of difficult to expect, especially in this forum, and with such strong emotions involved.  But I for one see this discussion being much more valuable than all the name-calling and BUY orders that have been outright wrong 99% of the time. 

I just need facts, I have no use for advice.