Goldmine.es, just add our friendly troll to your ignore list  My wallet is working *exactly* as advertised. I have already staked all but two of my blocks at 269 percent, with those last two due to stake in about three hours. So all that updating and fixing over the past week has been productive. It's really fortunate I am not planning to dump my seed because right now the blocks are at a snail's pace (which Cryptzo told us they would be) so my newly minted seeds are going to be tied up for a while Overall the first day of growth has been fabulous for me. It's also been very educational. |
|
|
|
Here is a example what not to do. Look at the guy with 27 seeds for sale at .033. Having all those on one price just scare buyers. If you want out, that's fine, but do it slowly, not all at once.
The main thing that's "scaring" me as a buyer right now is Cryptzo's message saying that if BitTrex was running one of the older wallets, we might not be able to send or receive Seed. When I saw that I canceled my buy order until further notice. So Cryptzo, is BitTrex current or not? |
|
|
|
Just so i am on the same page , how do you lock the wallet?
+1 doesn't seem there is a 'lock' option for the new update... Have you encrypted your wallet? Don't lose the password once you do. The Lock Wallet option is under settings. |
|
|
|
So locking the wallet and stopping stake prior to countdown is the correct action if less than 1 seedcoin? im reading that from wiser who I don't think is the dev.
That's a strategy I highly recommend at the moment. Yes. But at the same time, the more people that do this, the fewer blocks that there will be. There is one thing to be aware of. The very first person to stake after that clock ends will get run through the old code, and there's not much I can do about this, because I have to base the changeover on a block that already got accepted into the network. If I did it on the submitted block we'd end up in forksville again - in fact, that's exactly what happened on my first update and why everything went crazy. I learned from that mistake and we're not going there again. But only the first person? What about the second person? Do they stake normally? Being that lucky first would be like winning the lottery in reverse  |
|
|
|
Thanks for the update, with the new wallet is there any point of sending coins to another wallet as one transaction or is this issue fixed with the new release?
What's the issue with sending coins to another wallet as one transaction? I know there's an old issue with basically every POS coin where the coins are in so many pieces that you need to break it up into multiple transactions, but that's not something that can be fixed on it's own. I plan on working on a fix to the POS system itself so it doesn't create quite so many pieces in your wallet, but that will come later and certainly wont be rushed. I'm actually wondering if sending all my seeds to my 2nd wallet is the correct move. All of the seed in my wallet has been sent there in small chunks. Do you recommend sending one transaction to the new wallet? You can send to yourself, as in back into the same wallet--just use the receiving address. Those coins will be like new. Use the coin control feature to pick which exact coins you want to send so you can reset them as it were. |
|
|
|
|
Wow! I literally just unlocked my wallet and got two transactions at the 269 percent rate! Yippee!
We're off to the races...
|
|
|
|
So locking the wallet and stopping stake prior to countdown is the correct action if less than 1 seedcoin? im reading that from wiser who I don't think is the dev.
I am not the developer but have been following this thread closely. The reason to consider locking your wallet is that the fix doesn't go into effect until the counter runs out. This means that any small amount of coin that stakes before the counter runs out will do so at 1 percent (and then be unable to stake again for another 24 hours). Locking your wallet will hold them off from staking until after the fix takes effect and then they will stake at 269 percent. But locking the wallet is not required or anything. Large amounts of coin (larger than 1 seed) are not affected. To get a good picture of the sizes of your chunks of coin, you need to activate the coin control feature and then view it. Even more importantly, As Cryptzo said, be sure to update your wallet to version 1.0.4. |
|
|
|
Ok, I figured out what happened with the explorer. I sync'd a preliminary change to github for version 1.0.3.0 that had to be fixed. 1.0.4.0 fixed the problem, I created the commit, and built the wallets, and did the whole announcement, but I ended up syncing the change to the wrong (testing) branch.
All your wallets are fine. If you're stuck on a block before 10348 you'll need to delete your blockchain stuff and resync.
Basically anyone that compiled off the github got a slightly outdated copy of the code, and they staked with the new code creating a fork. No one running on the windows wallets should have any issue, and people on linux will get back on the right chain once they compile the latest source. Sorry >.<
Once again thanks for the hard work and effort put into this. When will the block explorer be back on the correct block? As soon as they update it. It's actually a little funny, since the fork is only two blocks long. 10330 is correct. Forked at 10331. Does this mean it's best to hold off on buying on BitTrex until you know for sure they are on the right wallet? What if seed gets purchased and they are on the wrong wallet? when will the block explorer get fixed? Asap, I've contacted them via twitter and pm. We're working on it. In the meantime /Satoshi:1.0.2/ 60013 124 63.3 % 63.3 % /Satoshi:1.0.4/ 60013 33 16.8 % 80.1 % /Satoshi:1.0.1/ 60013 31 15.8 % 95.9 % /Satoshi:1.0.0/ 60013 5 2.6 % 98.5 % /Satoshi:1.0.3/ 60013 3 1.5 % 100.0 % That's the current distribution of wallets. People running 1.0.0, well... they've forked off into oblivion already. 1.0.2 is the old wallet that will be useless in about 6 hours. 1.0.3 is wallets that were compiled with the testing source that didn't get updated properly. I'm trying to make sure bittrex isn't one of those three as well. If they are you can't send or receive coins from bittrex either. I might be one of the three, as I ran the 1.0.3 wallet recently enough to show up on that list, one is the explorer itself, and one is the person who staked off the github source at the time. Still, there's a LOT of 1.0.2's If you're not running 1.0.4, please update ASAP |
|
|
|
so what's the status with the people who have chunks of less than 1 Seed? I was thinking about downloading the new wallet on a dif comp and sending my seeds as one bulk transaction to my 2nd wallet. Is that is something that is recommended or are things fixed now? I staked at .00001 for few days. Some clarification on the status of a) the wallet b) the staking situation; would be appreciated. Cheers
I've read back 10 pages and can't find the current state of the situation. Can someone elaborate? Once you update to the new wallet (version 1.0. 4. 0), it's all good once this countdown ( http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?p0=136&iso=20141011T06&year=2014&month=10&day=11&hour=6&min=0&sec=0&msg=Staking%20Fix&csz=1) goes to zero. If you were having the issue of only staking 1 percent, you might consider locking your wallet until the countdown goes to zero. |
|
|
|
My wallet is stuck at block 3445.... it a windows wallet..... what steps do I take to correct this?
This: Ok, I figured out what happened with the explorer. I sync'd a preliminary change to github for version 1.0.3.0 that had to be fixed. 1.0.4.0 fixed the problem, I created the commit, and built the wallets, and did the whole announcement, but I ended up syncing the change to the wrong (testing) branch.
All your wallets are fine. If you're stuck on a block before 10348 you'll need to delete your blockchain stuff and resync.
Basically anyone that compiled off the github got a slightly outdated copy of the code, and they staked with the new code creating a fork. No one running on the windows wallets should have any issue, and people on linux will get back on the right chain once they compile the latest source. Sorry >.<
|
|
|
|
I have some buy orders in, but the price is holding higher than I was expecting, considering the issues so far and the negative posts. It will be an interesting experiment regardless.  It's a tough decision, actually, because you know the price will go down the next day just from the increased supply. However, if you wait until the next day, then you miss out on a staking period. Right now I'm just kind of watching it. You know how they say only invest what you can afford to lose... I'm about at that "can afford to lose" limit, but still tempted... EDIT: Hoo Boy! Glad I didn't buy 20 minutes ago! |
|
|
|
Wallets use UTC, which is currently actually an hour behind London currently - since they participate in daylight savings time.
Thanks. I'm glad I checked because otherwise I would be an hour off. I'm going to lock my wallet until that 24 hrs and 20 minutes has passed, then unlock it again. I'll be glad when the fix gets applied and I don't have to worry about it |
|
|
|
Few bumps in the road along the way, but as for quick fixes on a new idea, hats of to the dev, one of the hardest workers i have seen on the alt scene and also helpful this far in, best of luck to all in SEED
If the Dev can work at 50% of what he has after the main event then this coin will be a good hold into the future.
Beef
+1 I'm planning to hold most of mine for the time being, though at some point I'll sell off enough to recoup my investment (I got a bit happy with the mining LOL). I'm actually hemming and hawing about whether or not I should buy some more on BitTrex and try to stake them... Decisions, decisions! |
|
|
|
Hmm. If it's .99 then you need about 20 minutes of age on top of the 24 hours for it to stake properly. It's actually a little less than 20 minutes, but 20 minutes is safe. So as long as you calculate back the 24 hours, and then make sure you don't stake for 20 minutes after that today, you should be fine.
To do that accurately I need to know the time zone the wallet is on. I know it's not my timezone. Is it London Time? |
|
|
|
My larger block just staked at 269%  Yay! Do larger blocks stake first, given the same number of confirms? If it's the same number of confirms, it's likely that they will all stake at the same time. So then, do you count the total amount staked? Or each one separately? The reason I'm asking is that I have a chunk of .99 and one of 1.xxx, both with the same number of confirms. I think they are both up for staking within the hour, and I'm trying to figure out if I should be concerned that either one might only stake for 1 percent. |
|
|
|
My larger block just staked at 269% Yay! Do larger blocks stake first, given the same number of confirms? |
|
|
|
Okay, let me lay it out for you. Barabbas=IconicExpert.
IconicExpert M.O. = FUD the coin -> But the coin cheap -> Hype the coin.
After growth IconicExpert will hype this coin.
That's why he (along with a couple others) is on my ignore list... |
|
|
|
And I'm gaining valuable experience. It's not like I can't figure out solutions to the problems when they crop up. I can solve any problem. But it is much more difficult to anticipate a problem that hasn't happened yet when you're building on someone else's code.
Still, I wasn't as careful as I needed to be with the fixes we had earlier in the week, because every fix I make is extremely time sensitive given the nature of the coin. Once growth is past, I'll have time to test things more vigorously, and invite people to participate in beta testing on a larger network.
This was a relatively simple fix that I was actually able to test on the main network. It resulted in an orphaned block unfortunately, but it allowed me to verify that the numbers worked as expected in an extremely short period of time.
I think you're doing a good job. |
|
|
|
|
Cryptzo, I have a couple more questions:
1. What time zone is the wallet on? Is it London Time?
2. If I have two chunks of coin with the same transaction numbers, will the larger one stake first before the smaller one?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
