OK, the question I've got here is: Is the way blocks are generated actually coded uniquely for DigiCube or is the difference just with the usual things like maturing and block time, number of confirmations and the staking environment? If the 'backbone' code wasn't altered then Bittrex might be correct in saying that the unique characteristics of DigiCube might have favored the resulting problems but the fault itself is actually present in any coin using these block generating techniques and confirms transactions in less than that day it took Bittrex to correct itself. The 'only' thing for them between alright and exploit is the ability of people to reproduce the factors leading to the problem for a given coin and exchange.
If there is a deep problem in this coin, it will be in every coin that has ever been based off Peercoin Hint: There's not. Checkpoints are created for a reason. All the invalid blocks they confirmed had no new checkpoints, while everyone on the correct chain with checkpoints continued as normal It is what it is Thanks for confirming this, again, as it could be read out of your previous posts about this. Bittrex, or any other exchange dismissing checkpoints for that matter, is in deep trouble if someone finds out how to lure them on a fork. Richie's response is 'the wallet confirms checkpoints' - While true, that means nothing to this. If you don't validate that they are recent, then what good are they..? You would think a site trying to act like a financial institution would actually pay attention to the tools they are given, though.. Checkpoints are there for a reason. If you don't check that they are recent and valid, then you are not using the tools available to secure user funds that people trust you to secure It's literally 10 lines of code to pull checkpoints from the daemon and compare timestamps to see how recent it is. If it's longer than an hour or so, you should probably check to make sure nothing is wrong.. This goes for all coins. A site holding millions of dollars of other people's money, you would hope, has at least this very simple fail-safe in place.. |
|
|
|
Hint: There's not. Checkpoints are created for a reason. All the invalid blocks they confirmed had no new checkpoints, while everyone on the correct chain with checkpoints continued as normal
It is what it is
at least trex, ccex and all nodes which made 500k+ (in total) deposits on trex during those 1721 blocks were on the "wrong" chain. not trex fault Right, so in that full day of the problem (1700 blocks), not one other person moved coins. Only one place lost any coins, but you're right.. the coin must be fucked |
|
|
|
Well you know sometimes to lose is also to win. CUBE on Bittrex was the best place for it and without it we are left struggling.
Not apologizing for something that wasn't my, or the coin's, fault. That's ludicrous. I could not care less if they got their feelings hurt Side note.. why the fuck would you guys want to be on an exchange that already demonstrated it confirms invalid transactions..? I would rather have less volume knowing that the coins being traded actually exist, unlike the phantom CUBE Bittrex was trading.. |
|
|
|
OK, the question I've got here is: Is the way blocks are generated actually coded uniquely for DigiCube or is the difference just with the usual things like maturing and block time, number of confirmations and the staking environment? If the 'backbone' code wasn't altered then Bittrex might be correct in saying that the unique characteristics of DigiCube might have favored the resulting problems but the fault itself is actually present in any coin using these block generating techniques and confirms transactions in less than that day it took Bittrex to correct itself. The 'only' thing for them between alright and exploit is the ability of people to reproduce the factors leading to the problem for a given coin and exchange.
If there is a deep problem in this coin, it will be in every coin that has ever been based off Peercoin Hint: There's not. Checkpoints are created for a reason. All the invalid blocks they confirmed had no new checkpoints, while everyone on the correct chain with checkpoints continued as normal It is what it is |
|
|
|
BITTREX SLACK DISCUSSION WITH BITTREX-RICHIE
XXXXXXXXX [4:11 AM]
Hi BITTREX. I have a special request regarding DIGICUBE. On behalf of the team, I request that DIGICUBE should not be delisted from BITTREX. We need to resolve this issue. Isn't there any way to RELIST DIGICUBE back to BITTREX? We still have till 15th June to resolve this issue.
bittrex-richie [4:14 AM]
XXXXXXXXX: i’d rather have that conversation in public if you really want to have it
[4:15]
but bottom line, the dev thinks theres nothing wrong with the blockchain… i think otherwise… and up to this point hes insulted and then threatened us even when i tried to explain the issue.
[4:17]
It could be settled with a chat over beers ? Spots don't let us down. Don't let all the hard work goto waste. we’ve already posted on the thread what the issue is. They think the chain is broken while we have hundreds of users agreeing on blocks that it's not. There's not much left for me to say I think they wanted an apology from you last time I read the posts from Bittrex. For what? I don't give a fuck if I hurt someone's feelings when they are wrong and trying to blame the coin. Toughen up, buttercup |
|
|
|
BITTREX SLACK DISCUSSION WITH BITTREX-RICHIE
XXXXXXXXX [4:11 AM]
Hi BITTREX. I have a special request regarding DIGICUBE. On behalf of the team, I request that DIGICUBE should not be delisted from BITTREX. We need to resolve this issue. Isn't there any way to RELIST DIGICUBE back to BITTREX? We still have till 15th June to resolve this issue.
bittrex-richie [4:14 AM]
XXXXXXXXX: i’d rather have that conversation in public if you really want to have it
[4:15]
but bottom line, the dev thinks theres nothing wrong with the blockchain… i think otherwise… and up to this point hes insulted and then threatened us even when i tried to explain the issue.
[4:17]
It could be settled with a chat over beers ? Spots don't let us down. Don't let all the hard work goto waste. we’ve already posted on the thread what the issue is. They think the chain is broken while we have hundreds of users agreeing on blocks that it's not. There's not much left for me to say  "synccheckpoint" : "3ac5aa0c29d59258805527affa1d7c103d8e7a6279c640b051a36db823d49963",
"height" : 794696,
"timestamp" : "2016-06-08 20:00:43 UTC", There is absolutely nothing wrong. At all |
|
|
|
|
I'm just going to leave it as is for now, the response has been too negative to move forward with it. I think it's safe to say Bittrex has all but killed CUBE with their nonsense..
|
|
|
|
|
Just so you guys know.. we are going to be setting up a new multipool that will combine hash (for more blocks for all users) of all payout coins, and will allow you to choose which coin you want to be paid in: CUBE, PRIME, and SPOTS will be available payout options
|
|
|
|
|
Just so you guys know.. we are going to be setting up a new multipool that will combine hash (for more blocks for all users) of all payout coins, and will allow you to choose which coin you want to be paid in: CUBE, PRIME, and SPOTS will be available payout options
|
|
|
|
|
Just so you guys know.. we are going to be setting up a new multipool that will combine hash (for more blocks for all users) of all payout coins, and will allow you to choose which coin you want to be paid in: CUBE, PRIME, and SPOTS will be available payout options
|
|
|
|
The reason why I want CUBE to be exchanged to another CUBE clone is that the reason behind this coin was the 5.47% interest a day and now its turning into a lotto coin which has more like the COINZ update to SPOTS. CUBE was about the daily stake and that's the reason I bought CUBE so please try and keep it to the reason why I got into this coin in the first place and CUBEZero is a cool name ?
Then in a few months, you'll be in the same place you are now wanting me to do the same thing again |
|
|
|
Can't you make another CUBE clone with the same specs and do a coin swap for the amount of CUBE divided by 10000 ?
This is a good idea - send a PM to the DEV. I would assume that this would be a time consuming task for the DEV, probably the DEV might decide to fork this coin to updated specifications. You don't have to PM me every post, I follow the threads.. |
|
|
|
So what will happen with DigiCube in the future ? Check the thread |
|
|
|
Not even close at all
OK, then sorry for any inconvenience and I try to get it tomorrow after getting some sleep.  The only time you will have a penalty is if you are below the cutoff. At no other point will you have any chance of a negative stake EDIT: Actually re-reading, you're closer than I thought at first read, so maybe you do have it right |
|
|
|
Details on the upcoming fork
Planning for Block 800k, but block number may change Stake Threshold Changes- Minimum Coin Age Threshold has been increased by a factor of 10
- Formula for the maximum possible block reward remains unchanged
Stake Reward Changes- Variable Stake Rate (1% - 500%), calculated at time of stake and determined by individual input coin age
- Having coin age below the minimum threshold will now reward -0.1% of current block number worth of CUBE
- Blocks that currently reward 1 CUBE will subtract 0.1% of current block number CUBE from your balance post-fork
- These coins will be burned from moneysupply, not paid to any miners or stakers. They will be completely destroyed
- The penalty for staking too few coins, or too low of coin age, will scale long-term and increase as block number increases
- As always, DigiCube will retain the No-Fee model, instead relying on under-minimum coin age blocks to burn coins long-term
TL;DR - Make sure you are above the new staking minimum coin age threshold or else you are going to be really pissed off at the coin
I will leave discussion on this topic open for one week before I start getting new wallets ready. Get your input in soon if you want it heard I like this concept, it will force small holders to dump their coins into the hands of REAL INVESTORS. Things would look different if DIGICUBE has a market cap exceeding $1,000,000., so that 1 CUBE = a few pennies/cents. At this price, penalties will appear annoying and frustrating.
Also, at higher market cap, the POS rewards will become more meaningful, even if POS = 1%The goal is to encourage small holders to increase their hand, rather than dump them Trouble is if the target they have to reach is too far away they loose sight of it, throw everything and go. But that isn't the reason I don't think I like that new fork plan. If I got things and quick calculations right this would mean that the count of rewarded blocks would currently be around 54 at maximum a day and I doubt many people would support the chain with enough extra blocks if they have to pay, currently 785 cubes per block. This doesn't sound like that good an idea to me, but I might've gotten something wrong here. If not, perhaps do it: 101-500% with coinage > 2*block number 11-50% at (current) coinage > 0.2*block number 1-5% at coinage > 0.02*block number pay if below and/or make it a lottery. Like 10% chance of money back (twice the fee back would be possible as well), 1% chance for 10*fee, 0.1% chance for 150*fee and finally 0.01% chance of 4000*fee. These payouts would average to 75% (85% with 2*fee on the lowest level) of the fees collected, the remaining 25% still get burned. That reduction of burnt coins wouldn't be too bad since, again if I got things right, at current block time the fees at full chain speed would burn about twice the maximum amount of coins possible to be staked with reward. So if it encourages people to play staking lottery the amount of coins might still even be reduced each day, although maybe it should be ensured the lottery only applies for blocks that people paid for, especially in combination with the other suggestion above. Not even close at all |
|
|
|
Details on the upcoming fork
Planning for Block 800k, but block number may change Stake Threshold Changes- Minimum Coin Age Threshold has been increased by a factor of 10
- Formula for the maximum possible block reward remains unchanged
Stake Reward Changes- Variable Stake Rate (1% - 500%), calculated at time of stake and determined by individual input coin age
- Having coin age below the minimum threshold will now reward -0.1% of current block number worth of CUBE
- Blocks that currently reward 1 CUBE will subtract 0.1% of current block number CUBE from your balance post-fork
- These coins will be burned from moneysupply, not paid to any miners or stakers. They will be completely destroyed
- The penalty for staking too few coins, or too low of coin age, will scale long-term and increase as block number increases
- As always, DigiCube will retain the No-Fee model, instead relying on under-minimum coin age blocks to burn coins long-term
TL;DR - Make sure you are above the new staking minimum coin age threshold or else you are going to be really pissed off at the coin
I will leave discussion on this topic open for one week before I start getting new wallets ready. Get your input in soon if you want it heard I like this concept, it will force small holders to dump their coins into the hands of REAL INVESTORS. Things would look different if DIGICUBE has a market cap exceeding $1,000,000., so that 1 CUBE = a few pennies/cents. At this price, penalties will appear annoying and frustrating.
Also, at higher market cap, the POS rewards will become more meaningful, even if POS = 1%The goal is to encourage small holders to increase their hand, rather than dump them |
|
|
|
-snip-
So we need a minimum of 1.5 million CUBE in order to get a reward ? Why change to lottery ? No longer 5.47 % ? 1.6 milion, even more with every next day, and I see only 5 coins holder, who can lay claim to the daily reward, and since stake rate fall a significantly, a new one will appear a long way from. I would be interested in more detail this item "Variable Stake Rate (1% - 500%)''Variable Stake Rate = CoinAge modulo 500 + 1 |
|
|
|
Details on the upcoming fork
Planning for Block 800k, but block number may change Stake Threshold Changes- Minimum Coin Age Threshold has been increased by a factor of 10
- Formula for the maximum possible block reward remains unchanged
Stake Reward Changes- Variable Stake Rate (1% - 500%), calculated at time of stake and determined by individual input coin age
- Having coin age below the minimum threshold will now reward -0.1% of current block number worth of CUBE
- Blocks that currently reward 1 CUBE will subtract 0.1% of current block number CUBE from your balance post-fork
- These coins will be burned from moneysupply, not paid to any miners or stakers. They will be completely destroyed
- The penalty for staking too few coins, or too low of coin age, will scale long-term and increase as block number increases
- As always, DigiCube will retain the No-Fee model, instead relying on under-minimum coin age blocks to burn coins long-term
TL;DR - Make sure you are above the new staking minimum coin age threshold or else you are going to be really pissed off at the coin
I will leave discussion on this topic open for one week before I start getting new wallets ready. Get your input in soon if you want it heard So we need a minimum of 1.5 million CUBE in order to get a reward ? Why change to lottery ? No longer 5.47 % ? You will need a minimum of that amount of coin age, not coins themselves. Meaning you could have 1/2 of that and just lock wallet for two days. Lowering stake rate like this will drop the average reward to nearly 10x lower than currently, while still giving a chance to hit a nice 500% stake rate block for large rewards We will no longer reward small holders or small input sizes, but rather punish it. I will probably change the amount that is penalized before it goes live, but it will for sure be a negative amount. If I had to guess, I would say that I will scale it on coin age, rather than block number, but we'll see what happens in testing |
|
|
|
Details on the upcoming fork
Planning for Block 800k, but block number may change Stake Threshold Changes- Minimum Coin Age Threshold has been increased by a factor of 10
- Formula for the maximum possible block reward remains unchanged
Stake Reward Changes- Variable Stake Rate (1% - 500%), calculated at time of stake and determined by individual input coin age
- Having coin age below the minimum threshold will now reward -0.1% of current block number worth of CUBE
- Blocks that currently reward 1 CUBE will subtract 0.1% of current block number CUBE from your balance post-fork
- These coins will be burned from moneysupply, not paid to any miners or stakers. They will be completely destroyed
- The penalty for staking too few coins, or too low of coin age, will scale long-term and increase as block number increases
- As always, DigiCube will retain the No-Fee model, instead relying on under-minimum coin age blocks to burn coins long-term
TL;DR - Make sure you are above the new staking minimum coin age threshold or else you are going to be really pissed off at the coin
I will leave discussion on this topic open for one week before I start getting new wallets ready. Get your input in soon if you want it heard |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
