Well I meant just the code he worked on, which it looks like from the Git commit was just the wallet.cpp. The recombining was originally from Reddcoin and it apparently made its way into a lot of other coins that copied it.

Thanks for putting in the work to correct this. Such a lame thing for the devs to overlook...you looked at the code more thoroughly than I did was it a straight copy and paste from Reddcoin?

I think I should add that legality at this point probably has very little to do with the success or failure of Potcoin. Bitcoin has and continues to be available to anybody who wants to accept crypto. But Bitcoin has left the door open for competitors and I think in the future we will have a situation where multiple blockchains are in use every day by many people for a variety of purposes. They may even have vastly differently properties between them so they can each serve their own purpose. Potcoin is attempting to carve out a niche for a specific market. But it depends entirely on the success of Bitcoin. If Bitcoin fails, then probably so does Potcoin.

Glad I could help. I think this should improve staking performance slightly. In the current design not all outputs are treated equally for the purposes of recombining. There isn't really a purpose to this behavior that I can see. Why should anybody care that two outputs originated from the same hash and why would they want to prevent them from recombining?

Thanks, to be honest there are a lot more than I was expecting. I have not paid enough attention to Dash in the last several months and I thought the fastest way to get a feel for network health is to look at masternode count/location. Its 3000+ which is definitely encouraging

Perfect, thank you

Does anybody know if there exists a masternode visualizer like the one blockchain runs: https://blockchain.info/nodes-globe

Or even just a list with master node count, locations, etc.

I'm pretty sure PoSv was created for Reddcoin. I found the same line from the POT wallet in the Reddcoin source:

https://github.com/reddcoin-project/reddcoin/blob/master/src/wallet.cpp#l1671

Also in my 5 minutes of googling for Reddcoin I found a nice website that explains PoSv for any of you who want to understand how its different than POS:

http://agroff.github.io/posv/

I think so yes. But then again something still doesn't really make sense here. If the outputs are from the same transaction then fine they don't recombine. But if they're below the threshold why are they splitting again? I would think they should do nothing in that case, just sit there. No splitting, no recombining. But it appears that doesn't happen.

Without having looked at the Potcoin source code I don't know how much help I will be but there was a similiar issue with the Clams wallet that was solved by BTCtalk user dooglus.

Basically the problem was the nStakeCombineThreshold was being ignored if two outputs were from the same transaction. e.g. if the value of nStakeCombineThreshold is 5000 and you have an output at 8000 that splits into two 4000 outputs, it will split them again even though they're below the threshold. It was solved by allowing outputs from the same transaction to recombine. I don't know if this is the problem here but seeing the code posted reminded me about it. There was some discussion about it in the Clams thread at the time but I found this on Github that talks about it:

https://github.com/nochowderforyou/clams/issues/20

Even with the $50 discount for full members these will probably never ROI at the price you are asking.

https://i.imgur.com/GRG41uX.png

The calculation above assumes you pay nothing in electricity, the difficulty will never rise, you pay no additional costs for the Power Supply, cables, etc. and I included the $50 price cut in the initial cost. Even with all of those perfect mining conditions (which lets be honest will never happen for anybody) it would take a year to make your money back in LTC.

Count me in. I was shocked to see my activity was 420 too when i read your post. i think its a sign

Lack of tangible progress recently has left room for our competitor...CANN

Not sure what the Potcoin devs are up to these days but it feels like its been awhile since there was major positive news.

Ridiculous price your asking...

http://zoomhash.com/collections/asics/products/zeusminer-thunder-x3-28-30mh-s-scrypt-asic-miner

it does look better, but there seems to be one thing missing...the logo. So much effort was put into creating a recognizable logo that can be used a variety of places...but its not on the OP?

On the check pointing issue, it shouldn't be a big deal to put in. The bitcoin core devs select blocks buried in the block chain (usually with hundreds of confirms) to serve as check point blocks. It means that they have existed in the block chain for a long time and have been available for scrutiny. The likelihood of miners rejecting the check point is low, because its a block that has existed for a long time already. And any potential attacks would be missing a check point from way in the past, a sure sign of an attack.

Pm'ed

Bump

What do these pull at the wall?

Bump. Open to offers

You can see the large spikes in production cost corresponding to difficulty hikes. This would explain why big miners are jumping on and off the network