Um, no... but there is about 80 BTC sell wall at 0.05, while the buy walls keep moving down because people are selling into them. Time to take your profits (or cut your losses) and then watch as this all falls apart.

Urocoin: a promise of being used to buy/sell Urea, with claims of having conducted such a trade that cannot currently be verified. I would like to see a real news source with pictures and documents go and take pictures and do an interview with the parties involved here. Until that happens, I suggest extreme caution. I "invested" nearly $5 into URO recently, if that's any help. Hahahaha.... Don't come crying to me when URO ends up being similar to GTC.

He said it in IRC; IT MUST BE TRUE!

I bought 500 URO. I would like to trade that in for 500 MT of Urea please. How do I go about doing this?

And on a related note, I have 500 MT of Urea I'm willing to sell at an amazingly low price of just $100 per MT. That's 66% off the regular cost!

/sarcasm

Hi all,

I'm trying to make sure I properly understand the block reward structure for BBR, so please correct me if I'm wrong. The formula is easy enough to find:
But then when I dig deeper, what we're really saying is the reward is:
Okay, fine... but WTF value is used for already_generated_coins? I can look around online and see that currently there are around 657,687 BBR at the time of writing, but obviously we're not just using that number in the formula. There has to be a multiplier...
That looks like the proper base coin reward for block 0, but with 12 digits that should be to the right of the decimal point. So if I take the current number of "real" coins (as a user would think about them), multiply by a trillion (1,000,000,000,000), subtract that from 18262276632972456099, divide by 2^20 (shift right 20 bits), and finally divide by 1 trillion, I get the base block reward?

Or to simplify, I can use 18262277 as the maximum number of coins and forget about the multiplying by 1 trillion. Thus the base reward is approximately:
The reward will scale slightly for larger blocks (above the median size), but that should only be the case on blocks with multiple transactions, so as a baseline estimate the above formula would be sufficient, right? So when I plug in 657,855 as the current supply, I end up with 16.789 as the reward, which is reasonably close the the actual current block reward of 16.793937 BBR. I'm not quite sure why I appear to be off by 0.004 BBR, though; if anyone wants to fix that small error and tell me why, that would be great. :-)

Note: I was away for a couple days, but not too much else has happened so here's a response to an earlier post:

You're correct, and I suppose I phrased that wrong. Scrypt-Jane is a library and it can use a variety of mixing algorithms, of which Scrypt-Chacha was selected for all of the coins that use Scrypt-Jane implementations (YAC, YBC, UTC, CACH, MRC, THOR, etc.), at least as far as I'm aware. Basically, Scrypt-Jane instead of becoming a "library" just became a specific implementation in my opinion. Then Scrypt-N looked at things and said, "let's do something similar but change the way the Scrypt-Chacha N-Factors change" -- or maybe it's not really the same? Anyway, I don't worry too much about the distinction between the two approaches to adjustable N-Factor Scrypt as it's not really pertinent to most users.

As far as getting a rig mining with a specific N-Factor, in my experience it's far more easy to do this on the NVIDIA side than it is on the AMD side of things. Cudaminer/ccMiner is often not faster (though sometimes it is), but there's no mucking around with thread concurrency, intensity, etc. to worry about. Yes, the launch config can help, but I've always found it a little odd that we get HW errors in the first place -- I guess I don't know what they really mean, but an error suggests that the hardware performed all the calculations that were asked of it and somehow got the wrong answer. And with SGminer or whatever, if you go past certain levels of intensity these become very real, and also a real pain to debug. If you only have one rig, or perhaps if you have one type of rig (e.g. all of them are running R9 280X GPUs or similar), it's not the worst thing in the world, but if you have a variety of hardware (which I do), it means debugging on every single rig. It's why I eventually quit mining UTC/THOR/MRC/etc. (never mind that THOR ended up being a complete bust regardless).
I think the egalitarian viewpoint of things being "fairly" distributed just isn't going to happen in our current alt-coin world. Bitcoin and Litecoin had a chance at it (and still didn't succeed, because not enough people knew about it early on, or didn't bother, or whatever), but today? No way. Unless you can somehow force everyone to mine with some common set of hardware, and prevent anyone from renting servers (or mining rigs), and also stop people from mining with too many rigs, etc. what we now live in is a world where lots of people know enough that everything is always "unfair" to a large majority of the people. But do you know what? As a judge once told me, the concept of "fair" is usually just a lie perpetrated by people who simply want to get their way (or get more than others) often use as an excuse. "It's not fair that a doctor earns more money" is the same as saying "It's not fair that someone else got better grades on a test." Go read Harrison Bergeron for my perspective of what talk of "fairness" ends up becoming if taken too far. Forget the perception of being "fair" because at best you'll simply have a facade -- either the devs end up controlling an unfair percentage of coins, or the big miners do, or the IT professionals who take the time to set up multiple addresses do, or.... You get the point. The best thing for a coin is to have people use it for real stuff. Bitcoin is now at this point (I figure when Newegg is accepting BTC payments, we're basically at the level of mass acceptance), but everything else is lagging far behind.
It's not a question of whether Scrypt-Chacha is using less power as N-Factor increases, so much as it is a question of how much power Scrypt coins in general are using. Anyone that has been mining for a while knows that Scrypt was harder on GPUs and used more power than SHA256, and Scrypt-N is harder still and uses more power than Scrypt. Scrypt-Chacha tends to end up being somewhere between Scrypt and Scrypt-N in terms of power and stress on the GPUs. I think at one point you or someone else measured a decrease in power use of 7W going from NF-12 to NF-13 or something (maybe it was NF-9 vs. NF-13?) Anyway, let's say it's 7W less on a GPU that uses 225W. Now compare that with X11/X13/X14/X15/Cryptonight... all of these use about half as much power as Scrypt mining, the cards run cooler (and quieter), and long-term the hardware is thus less likely to fail.

Incidentally, I've had all of the fans on my dual-fan Sapphire 7950 cards fail thanks to Scrypt/Scrypt-N/Scyrpt-Chacha -- I replaced them with 120mm fans and box fans, as buying real replacements was a joke. ($40 for two small fans!? No thanks, and they'd just fail again in another 3-6 months.) I have a friend that purchased three single-fan 7970 cards and ended up having all three cards die after about six months (yes, overclocking was involved, so it's partly his fault). The number of R9 290X GPUs that have failed due to overclocking + mining is rather high considering the age of the Hawaii GPUs as well. But if you mine X11 or some other "less stressful" algorithm, it's more like running games in that the GPUs aren't pegged at 100% use and 85C+ temperatures 24/7.

Scrypt-Jane was a specific implementation of Scrypt-Chacha with pre-programmed N-Factor changes, and fundamentally my problem is that they were poorly chosen. Now we're at the point where things are slowing down, but it's also "too difficult" to get miners up and running, so only those that got in early are still worried about mining UTC. Really, can you imagine anyone new to the cryptocurrency scene saying, "Oh, look at UTC -- I wonder how I can get set up to mine at NF-13?" They can do Scrypt, X11, X13, etc. and mine any of a couple hundred coins, whereas Scrypt-Jane requires tweaking parameters for just one coin (or at least on N-Factor). It's a major pain in the butt! Scrypt-N is practically the same algorithm but with NF changes more widely spaced; in January the first Scrypt-N coin will move to NF-11, and most of the difficulties with that N-Factor are now known; the next change will be in another year or more, so SJ gets to pave the way with little reward for doing so.

The ironic thing is that all of this was done to "protect us from the evil ASICs", and yet I'm not even convinced ASICs are the real enemy here. This has become a big business, and that means the small fries (you, me, and anyone else that can't invest millions of dollars) are probably just lucky to have gotten in early enough to have made some good earnings. I don't think we'll actually see a fully functional Scrypt-N ASIC in a time frame that will be profitable for the buyers, but the manufacturers of the ASIC will still make money -- or just scam people and disappear with the coins they're paid. But how do you stop that from happening? Government oversight, laws, regulations, etc. are all things that BTC was trying to avoid early on, yet now we're trending more and more towards having all of them. Oops.

As far as PoS goes, it was basically designed as a way to reduce power requirements while keeping the network secure from a 51% attack, and it does well in that regard. The problem is that it doesn't encourage use of a coin, and there are all sorts of weird things that go on with PoS coins like scaling of the interest rates, or poor coding (cloning of a poorly coded implementation), etc. The rewards are also terribly stingy on many coins (Blackcoin), so if the idea is to have people leave the wallet running 24/7 to support the network, there needs to be a real incentive to do so. This fad that started with BC where it's somehow better to distribute all of the coins in a one week period and then shift to PoS strikes me as a huge money grab as well. At least UTC would have been around for a long time before making the switch, but of course it's going to require a hard fork again and people will get upset about fundamental changes to the design of UTC.

Really, in retrospect (yes, I know: hindsight is always 20/20), UTC was not designed properly. I can say the same of many coins, including BTC and LTC, but what's done is done. Block reward halving is convenient in terms of knowing the block reward for long periods of time, and it doesn't necessarily reward the first miners with the most coins, but slowly scaling down (e.g. sort of like DRK, though it could still be improved) seems better. Fast NF adjustments -- ever -- is just chaotic. As someone that mined a bunch of the SJ coins when they were new, almost every NF change would cause issues on every mining PC I have. The power efficiency issue is also real -- I have given up on Scrypt-N and anything else above NF-10 for that reason, and of course vanilla Scrypt is now in the domain of the Scrypt ASICs. And as for the block times... they're just too short, as I noted already.

So given all of the above, what's the "ideal" new coin? First and foremost, it has to bring something new. If you clone an existing coin and just tweak the parameters a bit and create a new image and name, you've created a coin that's basically just a money grab from the developers (and to an extent the whole cryptocurrency community). You need at least some sort of major new feature. For example, stuff like a built-in exchange system in the wallet would be useful, or at least a way to check the current prices; Stealth Transaction type features are also useful. Most other "additions" are just fooling around trying to pretend to be different. I don't think in-wallet games are useful, as that's just a time sink and people have lives they need to live (e.g. you can't have five different wallets with games running and expect a person to play/mine/whatever all of them at the same time).

If UTC is going to hard fork to PoS, they ought to look at some other fundamental changes. The coin went from what -- 6 seconds to 20 seconds to 30 seconds for the block times? 30 seconds might be okay now, but one minute still seems more reasonable to me, especially given PoS will be more consistent. Now add in something like Stealth Transactions (similar to the new VTC), and a built-in ABE-style block explorer, and the ability to do a VeriSend type of transaction (send BTC via UTC) and we're looking at something useful. At that point, if you can make all of those additions, is it better to fork from UTC or would it be best to just make a new coin? Or does the market really just want some of these features for an existing coin that is already well regarded (BTC, LTC, etc.)?

The coming alt-coin apocalypse is going to be messy, and I'd guess that less than 10% of alt-coins will really be doing anything worthwhile in another year -- and maybe even 5%. It's like a business that expands too rapidly and suddenly has 3000 retail locations, and then they realize they're not getting enough customers at each location and so a few years later they file for bankruptcy and close most of the stores. Cryptocurrencies have done basically that right now, and while not all of the coins were created in such a way as to be deemed "junk copies", there will be some "good" coins that die along with the "bad".

Okay, so the owner of the biggest pool for UTC back in the early days helped start CAI (with several other pool operators, though I'm not sure if any were related to UTC). Unfortunately, the editing and deleting of old posts makes it difficult to "check and investigate better". Stuhlman probably had a bunch of UTC, and he probably cashed out a long time ago as well. Such is life. But changing to 100% PoS is no panacea -- it just makes things messy and ultimately I don't think it's likely to do much other than allow all the GPU miners to quit supporting Ultra. That's fine I suppose -- let all the big bag holders continue to hold and try to figure out ways to get people to invest in UTC. But if you're trying to tell anyone that investing in UTC now is a good idea, I've got some beach front property in CA that I'll sell you for pennies on the dollar as well!

Look me up in another six months and feel free to apologize when UTC has only dropped further in value. Seriously, I don't have anything inherently against this coin, but it tried something new and basically it has failed. Now people want to try and rescue it, but that's like breaking up with your girlfriend and then proposing to her a week later! Going 100% PoS won't likely kill UTC any more than it has killed dozens of other coins, and UTC has to either give up completely or try to change, but if I'm looking for coins -- for speculation, mining, whatever -- then I'd much rather get in at the start of a new coin than wait for a revival of a dying coin.

R.I.P. UTC PoW; please take Scrypt-Jane with you while you're at it.

1) Hold on, wasn't the Caishen Project started by Ultracoin people? I know at least one of the CAI/CAIx major guys (Stuhlman) runs Nitro.org, and Ultra.Nitro.org was certainly one of the biggest UTC pools (though I haven't checked to see if that's still the case). I've been poking around trying to find an archived version of the CAI announcement thread but have not found one yet. Or is that what is meant by "the new managers"? If the original team is now gone (probably focusing on CAIx and their next great coin), that doesn't really change the fact that CAI was started by UTC people, then changed to 100% CAIx in the same way UTC is going to become 100% PoS. So at this stage, whether or not the UTC team is involved at all with CAI/CAIx is somewhat irrelevant, as the fact is the coin is basically being changed in a similar fashion: out with Scrypt-Jane, in with 100% PoS. (And as I said before: good riddance to Scrypt-Jane!)

2) If you don't think Ultracoin is old news, I'm sorry, but the coin was launched ages ago in Internet time. It's over six months old now, SJ has scaled N-Factor all the way up to 13 now, and rewards were changed from 50 to 15 UTC. Just reading the posts in this thread makes it pretty clear that the coin is languishing and people are trying to figure out how to make their UTC holdings actually have value again. If UTC had been increasing slowly in value over the past six months, sure, it would be exciting news; right now it's just continuing this slow downward spiral. Hence....

3) Cashing out is merely me pointing out that I don't have any stake one way or the other at this stage. If UTC goes "to the moon", I've missed that rocket -- just like I've missed the Vericoin rocket and many other so-called "rockets". But if they don't actually clear the gravitational well of Earth, rockets end up crashing into the ground, and I've missed a lot of those as well. I mined UTC for a solid two weeks I believe, and at the time it would have been worth around 10X the current value. I held onto it thinking at the time that the higher N-Factors would somehow increase the value of UTC, but obviously that was flawed thinking.

So why make a comment if I'm no longer involved? Why does anyone comment on the BCT forums? Hahaha.

Just for fun, I looked up another address. This is currently the richest non-exchange address I can find. The balance is 14,093,671 PIGGY (nearly 3% of all PIGGY). On 7/6 there were 31 PoS blocks mined, worth a total of just 31.35016905 PIGGY, and it looks like the wallet was offline for a full day -- meaning the stake weight should have been two days, not one. Anyway, returns for just one day of staking on that wallet are 0.0000222% for the day, or 0.00812% for the year. That would be off by a factor of at least 185X, and doubled (for two days of staking) it would be off by 370X. Not good, dev; not good at all....

Considering this same team created Caishen (CAI) and then abandoned that and switched to CAIx, which is a full PoS coin, I suppose either CAIx has done so well after the switch that they hope to accomplish the same thing with UTC, or else they're just grasping at straws. Here are a few thoughts:

1) The short block times of UTC sounded cool at first, but I'm not at all convinced having more blocks more frequently is a good thing, beyond a certain point. 10 minutes is too long I think most will agree, but I'm of the opinion that even 60 second block targets are too short -- two minutes (give or take) is a better balance, but 20 seconds is just creating a flood of blocks. Could this be part of the cause of the lengthy startup times for the Ultracoin client? Will this get better with the PoS switch?

2) The general attitude in the cryptocurrency world right now is to mine stuff when it's new, in the hope you'll find a few diamonds among all the coal. Since UTC is basically old news, no one is really interested in it, and I don't think changing algos will help at all. UTC will switch to PoS and there may be a short-term price spike, but long-term I suspect it will continue to trend down. In fact, the number of coins that have trended up long-term is pretty small, and breaking away from the pack of garbage alt-coins is almost as much luck as it is something inherent in the coin design.

3) Scrypt-Chacha was an interesting idea as well, but over time the market is concluding that both Scrypt-Jane/Chacha and Scrypt-N are less desirable than X11/X13/X14/X15/etc. SJ was the worst IMO, though, as the N-Factor scaled too quickly at the start, and it hits the point where it's difficult to get running well within a few months. I suspect when the Scrypt-N coins start hitting NF-12 we'll see a lot of complaining once again. If nothing else, moving away from a Scrypt-Jane implementation is a good thing in my opinion, though becoming non-mineable in the process is sort of two steps forward, two steps back.

4) Regarding PoS interest, I've noticed that on some (many?) PoS coins the actual annual interest scales according to some other factor. The result is that coins that claim 15% annual interest can end up with far lower returns than 15% -- or if not many people are staking, the returns can be higher than 15%. Since this same team did CAIx, I checked my interest so far and it does look as though scaling is not happening -- or if it is, it's slightly in my favor. Hopefully this would be true of UTC as well, as if there's one thing that will really upset people it's promising one level of returns and providing something else.

Anyway, I gave up on Ultracoin last week and cashed out. I had mined earlier and in a week or two I had only generated something like 1500 UTC. Right now, I could generate almost that many UTC in a single day. Thankfully the bag I was holding was pretty small.

Remind me to put my sell order in....

But seriously, the PoS interest bug is still hanging around after what, two weeks? And instead of fixing that, we're hearing about Piggyweek 2.0? I think the order of priorities is messed up here. Some are saying it's off by 100X, others say it's off by 10X. My own calculations suggest it's off by more than 10X, but how much more I'm not certain. And it does appear to be scaling according to some factor; look at these transactions. I moved all of my coins to a new address as a test; four days later a PoS block was mined, so after 4 days of staking the adjusted interest should be 0.1644%. For 212202 PIGGY that would be 348.8 PIGGY in interest, but what I received was only 0.82116963 PIGGY, so it was off by a factor of 425X!

I've tried to find where the scaling is taking place but can't seem to locate anything. Regardless, this is messed up so bad that the only thing you're going to teach parents and kids trying to learn about cryptocurrencies is that the developers can't be trusted. If your spec sheet is wrong, or if the code implements the spec sheet incorrectly, this is a huge problem -- like Asiacoin and Whitecoin huge. But everyone here is drinking the Kool-Aid and patting themselves on the back for being so wise as to have bought/mined PIG/PIGGY.

Another question on Stealth Transactions:

Where exactly are the coins in between the time you send them and when they show up on the block explorer? Are blocks with Stealth Transactions exclusively SX, or can SX be mixed with "normal" transactions in a block (I'm guessing this is the case)?

As far as I can tell, the problem right now appears to be that many (most?) VTC wallets/servers are not running the latest code, so they don't support SX and thus they won't relay any coins from an SX. So I guess what needs to happen is that a pool/miner that supports SX needs to find a block, and only then can the transaction show up. If that's the case, is there some way to find out the percentage of nodes being found by SX enabled pools/miners -- and probably light a fire under the pools that haven't updated?

Looks like a total scam to me as well. 1GH Scrypt-N? I guess that would make it 2GH Scrypt, right, or will ASICs that can do Scrypt-N not scale the same as GPUs? Also, isn't the first N-Factor adjustment coming in January? I would assume it's theoretically possible to make an ASIC that will handle any N-Factor, but it will still scale like GPUs (and it would need a lot of RAM I believe in order to be able to run higher N-Factors effectively).

I don't get it. The first time (in preparing for this test), the block chain was downloaded from the Internet through the wallet (which only took a couple hours over a sluggish connection), and things didn't work. If I copy a known-good block chain from one PC to another, which files store the scanned transactions? Can't I just run vertcoin-qt.exe -rescan? And if not, what's the point of the -rescan parameter!?

But fine, I deleted the entire block chain so the only thing left in AppData/Roaming/Vertcoin is wallet.dat. I've restarted, and since this PC is on a faster connection I'm nearly done with the download. From here I will then create a backup of that folder, then copy it to two different PCs, and see if either one of those work with grabbing that Stealth Transaction....

And I'm done. I've got two PCs with the appropriate wallet.dat, one Win7 and one Win8. Now I hit import... and they both work. Seriously? WTF. Again, see the first statement: this was a clean (newly downloaded) block chain as of yesterday when I went to start the test. Or, I suppose I should clarify: Vertcoin was on the PC from a few months ago, and when I started it the entire block chain appeared to be downloaded from scratch (it started at block 0 and counted up to 114K+). If that didn't result in a clean block chain, I have no idea what the PC was doing.

For the record, I tried doing this same thing but with an existing block chain; in both cases (Win7 and Win8) the "Import" button didn't seem to do anything. Starting with the -rescan option caused the wallet to have a very long delay at startup with the message that it was rescanning (which was expected), but it didn't ever allow any of the systems to properly pick up the SX. I tried turning on UAC; no change in behavior. Ugh.

Best guess right now is that the original download of the block chain yesterday was somehow corrupted -- either there were some old files from an earlier version of Vertcoin or something else, so even with a supposed download things didn't work. The only way to truly fix the problem was to start fresh. Anyway, let me offer some other comments before I disappear from this thread for a while.

Why did the -rescan option not fix the problem right from the start? Isn't the whole purpose of -rescan intended to validate the current blockchain and scan for any transactions (Stealth or normal) related to the wallet? If it can't do that, then some other option needs to be put in place that will find and correct problems of this nature. The block chain that was copied over clearly worked for my second test, and a rescan should have been sufficient. Furthermore, if there was corruption in the initial block chain, it would have taken place more than three weeks back (block chain time) as I don't believe Vertcoin-qt had been running on the system for a month or more. Unfortunately all of the files related to the original issue have now been deleted, so I have no way to try to reproduce the error.

So first off, I'm still baffled that nothing was happening when I pressed "Import", and yet there was no feedback. These buttons need to have tool tips as well as some sort of feedback -- like the status bar could show a message saying "Importing SX [xxx] of [yyy]..." and show the progress of the import, and the reset button could display a note to the effect of "Import index reset to [qqq]."

Second, it seems that right now when you first scan for SX using the import button, it starts from block 0 and goes through the current block. This is a waste of time, of course, as no SX can exist prior to...block 114000? Whatever the first block is where SX and Stealth Addresses are supported. I'd suggest the Reset button also reset to the appropriate block and not block 0 -- unless of course you want to add a GUI interface for accomplishing the -rescan task. And if the import is actually only scanning from the past few weeks or whatever, this could be really painful on new wallets in six months where the initial scan might take 10 minutes or more. If they download from scratch, I suppose that's not a problem, but cryptocurrencies in general need to find a way to "fast sync" to the current block on a new wallet.

Anyway, I now have my 5.3+ VTC back, I'll update my blog, and good luck with Vertcoin. I'm surprised it hasn't done better, but the cryptocurrency world is a fickle mistress as I'm sure you're well aware. :-)

I'm telling you: something is not working right, at least on some PCs, with the new wallet and Stealth Transactions. I installed and synced up the block chain on this PC yesterday, just before trying the Stealth Transaction. When I click on the "Import Stealth Address Transactions", nothing at all is happening -- no delay, no indication of processing the block chain looking for Stealth Transactions, etc. If I click "Reset Private Keys Status" and then click on import, again...NOTHING. No delays or any indication that the wallet did what it's supposed to do.

On a different PC, clicking import the first time causes a massive delay in the wallet where it becomes unresponsive for over a minute. The second time you click it, there is no delay, but if I click reset and then click import again: massive delay and a "frozen" wallet. Something is clearly happening here, and the successful Stealth Transaction did show up on this client.

Despite all of the above, I did try grabbing a new block chain yet again. Actually, I copied my "good" block chain (from the system that successfully received the SX) over to the other system. The results were the same, so again the conclusion is that for some reason the Import button is "broken" on this other PC. That being the case, let me give a few details of the PCs.

The "non-working" PC is running Windows 7 64-bit, fully updated to the latest patches from Microsoft Update. It has 8GB RAM, i5-4670K CPU, 128GB SSD, and three R9-280X GPUs that are busily mining -- and the CPU is busy as well. And it's definitely stable (as stable as a miner PC gets), usually going weeks between crashes. UAC is turned off.

The "working" wallet in contrast is on a laptop with Windows 8.1 64-bit (fully updated), it has 16GB RAM, i7-4702HQ CPU, 512GB SSD, and a GT 750M GPU. The GPU and CPU are also busy mining, not that it should matter one way or another. When I start the latest Vertcoin-QT executable, I do get a SmartScreen warning about running an unknown app, but I can bypass that.

My best guess right now: maybe UAC has something to do with the issue? That or it's just a Windows 7 problem that somehow got missed during testing. Just for giggles, I'm going to copy that wallet.dat over to two other PCs (one Win8 and one Win7) and try importing to see what happens. Be back in a little while with the results....

Hype for Stealth Transactions and someone tried to cause a bubble, and then others decided to cash out and take some short-term profits.

I did all that, and IT IS NOT WORKING. This is not really good news as far as I'm concerned. So right now there's a transaction that I sent to the following stealth address:
vJmtKDHvgLV5SD1KQ2a9BhUeZaBBNhhSrkrCvfTy7cZ16pjEAnEGii1kL35FzGGeGy6g64BCErHGbcz fExwcADZU43n8Y44fCGT9H9

That in turn gave me a transaction in my wallet that says ID 64b0f56d65ff44d39cd48792c35c320e236645cac03832056f941e9d3f15cfa4 and target address of VoehMYgeLy8UAAj5TQh17fv5iRQNkSu2Ep. On the receiving wallet, there's nothing -- I've repeatedly clicked on the "Import Stealth Address Transactions" button and nothing is happening. So, what happened to the 5.304 VTC in this transaction? Seems like a bug in the Windows VTC wallet with receiving the Stealth Transaction, and frankly I can't see how this happens. Tested on MON, tested on VTC, released on MON, released on VTC... and my first real Stealth Transaction breaks!? WTF?

Does it matter that the wallet that I sent the coins to is empty and has never had any VTC (until it was supposed to receive some in this transaction)? Anyway, I just sent 25.xxx VTC to a regular VTC address at that same wallet, and it instantly appeared in the uncomfirmed transactions. Maybe that will help...I'll report back, but someone needs to figure out why this transaction has so far failed.

Edit: Images for reference:

This is the two transactions from my end -- details below.



This is the "missing" stealth transaction, which worked but I can't seem to retrieve it.



This is a regular transaction that I just sent and it worked immediately.


Edit #2: And there really needs to be some sort of feedback when you click on the "Import Stealth Address Transactions" and "Reset Private Keys Status" buttons. I can't shake the feeling that whatever it is they're supposed to do when I click on them isn't actually happening. A message like, "Processed 55 Stealth Transactions; 0 Matching Transactions" would be great, and for the reset button something like "Private Keys Status reset to block 114000" would at least let me know it did something. When you click and nothing appears to happen... well, maybe it's because nothing is happening.


Edit #3: And just for fun, I took some of the 25+ VTC I just sent to the other wallet and tried to send it back to my wallet via a Stealth Transaction. I've got screenshots of the process this time, so let's all hope this works. And if it doesn't, it will give me something to write about. Hahaha....


Final Edit: Reversing the process and sending a Stealth Transaction back to my wallet from the other wallet was successful. Unfortunately the 5.3 or so VTC in my original test transaction are still missing. I'm almost sure there's a bug somewhere with the wallet, as on the successful transaction clicking the "Import Stealth Address Transactions" button caused the wallet to basically use one full CPU core for a couple minutes while it apparently processed the block chain looking for matching transactions. That's a bit slow and tedious, and the first time you do it I suspect could be super painful -- especially in a year or so, unless there's a way for a wallet to know where to start processing transactions. Anyway, I wrote up the whole experience and provided some other information on my blog. Enjoy!

Okay, I have a couple questions, but first some background. I have sent a test Stealth Transaction to another wallet. I used the big 102 character Stealth Address, and while it took a bit longer than a regular transaction, I can now see the transaction on the public block chain. Great.

Now, how do I actually receive the funds on the other end!?

I've clicked the "Import Stealth Address Transactions" many times, and it doesn't seem to do anything. And while I'm here, what does the "Reset Private Key Status" button do? I clicked it and it did the same as the Import Stealth Address Transactions button as far as I can see, which is to say it did nothing. There should be a manual for this stuff, or at least a "How To...", but I'll be darned if I can find it!

At this point, what's the time frame for a Stealth Transaction to fully confirm, or is there such a thing? If I can see the transaction on the block chain, it ought to be available to import, right? We also need some form of indicator that something has happened, and it wouldn't hurt to have a tool tip on the buttons telling users what they're for. As it stands, my 5.3xxx VTC transaction is on the block chain but not in the target wallet. Hmmm....