Thanks but WINE is buggy as hell for using with wallets. I think it would have made more sense to have all the wallets finished before moving on with a hardfork. Right now mac users are screwed.
Wine was buggy with the old wallet but the new one is working much better. Mine has been running/staking for a day without errors Use this http://winebottler.kronenberg.org/Thanks but I've had major issues with WINE in the past so wouldn't really touch it again unless I absolutely have to. With this big a change coming it seems strange that mac users would be left out. |
|
|
|
The Mac Os version will be released after anon system has been launched.
Yes I did see that. That is the problem. |
|
|
|
We still have not had any news whether transactions are safe again.
I guess the hard fork has not occured yet. Still waiting for more people to start the new client?
Bittrex will probably only allow deposits and withdrawals once that is complete. Makes sense
But they could have kept the link to their NAV trading section. I don't see why they don't.
Would help if there was a mac wallet, but seems us mac users don't get to participate in the new wallet. Hi Soul Eater. I tried the mac wallet but it seems to be that osx kernels for staking are quite weak (lots of orphans...don't ask me why) But I found a way around. There's a soft called "Wine'' that can be downloaded for free and creates a Windows XP infrastructure within OSX which allows you to run the Windows wallet. Thanks but WINE is buggy as hell for using with wallets. I think it would have made more sense to have all the wallets finished before moving on with a hardfork. Right now mac users are screwed. |
|
|
|
We still have not had any news whether transactions are safe again.
I guess the hard fork has not occured yet. Still waiting for more people to start the new client?
Bittrex will probably only allow deposits and withdrawals once that is complete. Makes sense
But they could have kept the link to their NAV trading section. I don't see why they don't.
Would help if there was a mac wallet, but seems us mac users don't get to participate in the new wallet. |
|
|
|
A single PoS block minting 365 coins is rare with our small supply but obviously we will implement the fix. Changes like this submitted with a fix are rewarded from the buy back fund as outlined in the ANN for contributions which is why the code fix is being paid.
Well if that's the policy fair enough. Might be a good idea to allow additional donations to the fund to ensure there is always enough to pay out. I also think it might be useful to reward people separately for pointing out errors and providing fixes. This would encourage full transparency as some errors may take time to be fixed but that should not act as a barrier to them being sought out and reported. +1 Otherwise people might refrain from reporting bugs until they have fixed it on their own - which might take longer than it would take if they reported it at once. Exactly:) |
|
|
|
A single PoS block minting 365 coins is rare with our small supply but obviously we will implement the fix. Changes like this submitted with a fix are rewarded from the buy back fund as outlined in the ANN for contributions which is why the code fix is being paid.
Well if that's the policy fair enough. Might be a good idea to allow additional donations to the fund to ensure there is always enough to pay out. I also think it might be useful to reward people separately for pointing out errors and providing fixes. This would encourage full transparency as some errors may take time to be fixed but that should not act as a barrier to them being sought out and reported. |
|
|
|
Thank you for the contribution to this. I don't think we have seen a wallet this bug but will submit the change to our repo and have the wallet updates for this. This is the great community effort to submit a fix to a seen problem in open source code. DM me your wallet address for some SMAC. How can there be a buffer overflow? 64 bit integer max val is 9223372036854775807.
Or is there any other function overflowing this stack position? i must writing on the most significant bit hens the negative number.
The result of nCoinAge * nRewardCoinYear for 300 coins is 10950000000000000000 (or higher depending on coinage). Buffer overflow. Easy fix though: #include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
int main(void) {
// SMAC
int64_t nDays = 1;
int64_t nCoins = 300;
int64_t CENT = 1000000;
int64_t COIN = 100000000;
int64_t MAX_MINT_PROOF_OF_STAKE = 1 * CENT ;
int64_t nRewardCoinYear = 365 * MAX_MINT_PROOF_OF_STAKE; // Month 1 - 365% interest
int64_t nCoinAge = nDays * nCoins; //MODIFIED CODE
int64_t nSubsidy = nCoinAge * nRewardCoinYear / 365; // SMAC code - MODIFIED CODE
printf("nSubsidy= %lld\n", nSubsidy);
}
Problem solved.
Those it matter? If the same rule applies to everybody then it really doesn't matter at all, less coins, so value is higher. Maybe less staking but more trading, is that bad? Of course not.
Jesus. Of course it fucking matters. Yes, it does. Fixing needed asap. I think Julian should receive some reward as well as he was the one who initially pointed out the specific issue. In addition I think a fund to pay out bounties for code errors would be a good idea - it is community minded individuals like JYAP & Wurstglee who help protect those of us like me who don't have the ability or the patience to go through the code. We should welcome their input and make sure that they are rewarded. This only serves to improve the code and hence the currency for everyone. |
|
|
|
So anyway, there's a buffer overflow in the Proof of Stake implementation which I've mentioned before but I guess I'm getting ignored. This basically means if you are staking a block of 253 or more coins, you won't receive a full Proof of Stake payout based on 365% interest. Here's some simulation code based on staking 300 coins. #include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
int main(void) {
// SMAC
int64_t nDays = 1;
int64_t nCoins = 300;
int64_t CENT = 1000000;
int64_t COIN = 100000000;
int64_t MAX_MINT_PROOF_OF_STAKE = 1 * CENT;
int64_t nRewardCoinYear = 365 * MAX_MINT_PROOF_OF_STAKE; // Month 1 - 365% interest
int64_t nCoinAge = nDays * nCoins * COIN;
int64_t nSubsidy = nCoinAge * nRewardCoinYear / 365 / COIN; // SMAC code
printf("nSubsidy= %lld\n", nSubsidy);
}
So that is a buffer overflow. Result is: nSubsidy = -205390248 Actual result should be: nSubsidy = 300000000 Or 3 SMAC. So if you can find a block which has paid out more than 3 SMAC in Proof of Stake interest during the 365% interest period, you can prove me wrong. Well to be exact, if you can find a PoS payment of more than 2.53 SMAC during the 365% interest period, you can prove me wrong. The worst case scenario is for people staking more. I feel bad for those people as their investment isn't fully paying out. For example with 3000 SMAC, staking for 1 day you should receive 30 SMAC. For 30000 SMAC, staking for 1 day you should receive 300 SMAC.... So yes, 1% per day since minimum stake age is 1 day. Thanks for spotting this. Hopefully this can be sorted out soon. I'm not too bothered about lower stakes but others might be so it is best to get it corrected. |
|
|
|
Just a couple of points I feel are relevant to SMAC:- I've used Shapeshift.io ( http://shapeshift.io) multiple times and it has worked really well. Shapeshift is a decentralised/trustless exchange platform. You pick what cryptocurrency you want to exchange, put in your addresses and the transfer is done as instantly as the relevant blockchains allow. It's very useful if you're in a hurry and don't want to mess around on regular exchanges/fighting bots etc. It also allows you to buy in large quantities without it pushing the price around. Might be a bit premature but it would be great to get SMAC on there. I've already mentioned it to them on chat and they have said that they are looking at adding more cryptos based on interest. The more people that request it the higher it should be on their radar. Also SendChat are looking for alt coins to add to their platform ( https://twitter.com/SendChat/status/575182733061808128) - this might be a good fit for SMAC. Might be an idea to respond to their tweet and let them know as with shapeshift. |
|
|
|
I will also confirm that the SMAC staking is working as designed. The only difference why this is less than the 1% is that these coins were not all sent in the same TX so their ages are different. Otherwise, my staking is right about 1% as promised in the original code....
I too can confirm that my staking appears to be working correctly. |
|
|
|
Can we keep the thread clean and stop yelling. This is not helping. It doesn't help you, it doesn't help the coin, it doesn't help anybody.
It's an ongoing feud between @boxxa and @crazy_crypto (kaduwall). I do wish they would stop it and make up because it is the rest of us who end up paying the price for this kind of thing. |
|
|
|
My rewards now come in more frequent and those are bigger. I suspect that PoS is working fine and 1% per day is possible with current wallet.
Me too. I think I've received several hundred in the last couple of days. |
|
|
|
So guys, lets say hypothetically I want to move nearly 8M DGB from the exchange that they are currently on and lets say that when I attempt this, it fails because the transaction is too large. In fact it turns out that even a transaction as low as 100K DGB is too large but I did manage to pull a small amount close to 33K DGB off. I'm starting to feel a bit boxed in, 100K too big 24.9K too small?
The exchange support report the reason for this is that;
"The issues with the DGB are due to wallet fragmentation on it. There are too many small inputs in the wallet currently and it simply cannot combine them into a single transaction with 512kb in size. You can try smaller amounts - 100-200K usually go through without a hickup. We have no intention of holding your coins in any way - this issue is common to all the ctrypto currencies, as there is a working mechanism to make smaller inputs out of larger ones, but no working mechanism to reverse the process. We apologize for any inconveniences. "
Surely you don't expect me to make a few hundred 2FA transactions to retrieve my funds I ask.
not at all they say, this is what they said;
"Your best bet would be to sell the DGBs off for other currency, such as BTC for example and withdraw them - that is if you need the coins right away. Other option is to try once in a while. There is a very small turnover in the DGB wallet, which causes it to be fragmented. But when someone makes a big deposit - that usually solves the problem. Really this is an issue with all the coins in essence - it just does not happen much on the more popular ones because transactions go in and out all the time and keep the inputs refreshed."
What do you think about this guys?
That's pretty crappy. This could be fixed with coin control/wallet maintenance. Glad I don't use CCEX anymore. |
|
|
|
|
I noticed that SMAC wasn't on Coinmarketcap yet so have submitted a form to them with reference to SMAC-Media if they need any further info.
|
|
|
|
Some updates would be appreciated!
I am also an investor, and of course I want updates too. However, I'm not sure it's fair to the dev team to expect multiple updates per day or even daily updates . We know they have aquired 2 accounts so far and we know the plan is on track and we know that they are responsive and from all indications they are honest and extremely competent. So at this point, my suggestion would be to stake your coins and try to be patient and let the devs do their thing. Updates will come soon enough  Also, if you look at the rich list, you will see that there are VERY few investors at this point. Just imagine what will happen to the price as more and more people start learning about SMAC and wanting a piece of the action! Wise words. I can understand that people are impatient but multi-billion dollar companies with thousands of people doing their PR don't provide daily updates so it's a bit strange expecting that from a team of a few people involved in a (currently) small project that is only a few weeks old. If they were posting daily updates I'd be concerned that they were making things up because in the real (as opposed to online world) things don't move that fast. |
|
|
|
My guts are saying that some pump group is accumulating silently these days. It's pity I have no more BTC to catch all low dumps. I bought at 11K ICO price, then 7K, today 8K.
Actualy, if I got BTC deposited in time, I'd by those 20k. Just to f*** up that person. If only I had the BTC I'd have a go at trying to nab some of that too! |
|
|
|
As I said before, largest amounts are fake (self trades).
...aim isn't reached yet. Hope he lost on that manipulation
Yes. That's the problem when there is low volume in a market. It's my major irritation at most exchanges although I'm not sure anyone can really do much to stop it. These people sell back and forth between their own accounts and it seems a lot of the time they succeed in making those little investors without balls (or brains) panic sell - I have no sympathy for those people (manipulators or those who fall for their tricks) and the sooner they are out the better as they generally do nothing for a crypto except crash the price. |
|
|
|
Thank you devs for the updates!!!  Question....I have had my wallet open and unlocked for over 24 hours (I even disabled sleep mode and lock screen on my computer to be certain!) and it says "staking" in the bottom right hand corner of the wallet but as far as I can tell I haven't received any coins. Is there something else I need to be doing in order to get the coins? Thank you! Does it say an amount under STAKE (right under where it says SPENDABLE)? It should have an amount showing how many coins are staking (as opposed to the spendable coins above). If the STAKE value is greater than 0 then you should be staking. I've noticed it can take a while for the amounts that are "mined" via staking to appear on the right hand side transaction list but as long as that value is not 0 something should be appearing within 24 hours. Might also be worth double checking that the wallet is definitely unlocked - I've had a couple of occasions where I thought it was, checked and it wasn't! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
