 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »
|
I can't keep explorer on for long because it is having too many difficulties being indexed up to date because of the 4.2 seconds block time sorry  |
|
|
|
Don'T believe everything you read on the internet  |
|
|
|
Hello!
You help me please.
I want to mine the SCY coint
But I can't find a wallet for it
Please tell me where I can download the wallet
I look forward to your reply.
Thank you:
Peter
Hi, you can get the wallet there: https://github.com/ScrytExchange/Scryt/releases |
|
|
|
|
Haters gonna hate, just ignore them they're not worth it
|
|
|
|
I could except the pull request if submitted again withe the block size increase but keep transaction size at 60 Bytes I want to see if that would work. I'm in
I've tested it with 60 Bytes and transactions weren't possible unfortunately unless people sends only 0.1 coin and less than this at each other. PLease test it and let me know maybe i'm wrong, maybe it is due to an incoherence in the main.h between all the edited infos from litecoin, but yeah that didn't work at all sadly I do not have much coins actually i had only maximum 700 or 800 coins from pool rewards, the rest was to the miners, i didnt mine any blocks maybe 15 blocks max only for the tests. Also i've deleted my wallet.dat and that chain already from node The project might be ruined because the fork I don't understand why someone would fork like that.that was selfish to just takeover we need unselfish miners with big hashing power to help secure the network from others.
Why would you think that  It was actually a gift from giving you the pull requests and the informations about how to fix your project. You didn't even know transactions weren't working, i 've tried to help you..  , I'm sorry it did not.  |
|
|
|
The developer said mining was fine from the start. Some of us worked hard to mine it and that was fair. It's not my fault the chain went funny.
So I see no reason why a 1 to 1 exchange is not fair. Or just update the chain.
True but how to verify who mined how many coins respectively and etc..? Since there were also maybe 2 or 3 forks mining in the way, somebody could claim for XX coins and could also be a lie. Anybody at this point can make a fork in few minutes, have more than 90,000 coins with a decent screenshot and even a video to prove it and claim a 1:1 swap. That's why maybe a new start would be the best without swap unfortunately it would be more "fair" in that way |
|
|
|
but on top of that the wallet has a virus that was uploaded so that has to be re compiled and scanned.
You meant the wallet i've put online? If so, there was no virus in it at all. The alerts from virustotal are the usual false positive alerts for Intern Miners from old compiled source wallets. If we remove the nodes in the code, we have less alerts too, but that would be too bad removing them. Regarding the hashpower, it was ASICS on scrypt algorithm, not computers  this coin moves really fast only 8 years
I think you are wrong, if there is a block every 4.2 seconds, then it would be a 657.6199 days of mining (approximatively) so that would be about 1.8 years |
|
|
|
I noticed two chains yesterday. Something odd happened around 3 pm.
What happened yesterday is because i've shut down the main node. People kept mining while being connected at each other and some been disconnected and the pool reconnected from here and there peers which created another fork and orphan blocks Also the 4.2 seconds block time is not helping I think that swaping the coins would not be a great idea, if the dev makes a final version, it would be simplier and more fair for new miners to just start it from scratch again. It is my fault i should not had made changes in code, i was very sure the dev would accept those changes i've made at this point since no transactions were possible and had to change it so the mining process in pool was becoming possible. I wasn't expecting it making a hard fork too, maybe only a soft fork but not a hard one, sadly it is what it does  |
|
|
|
( but starting over might be the way to go.)
if that happens, will all miners lose all coins already mined?
Yes because that would be a hard fork |
|
|
|
good idea i'm working on something now I have to re-plan things a little and push it back. smh i might be able to turn this around the way it is. but starting over might be the way to go.
Do you need help for compiling wallets? Also for the rest with the issues on transaction, just put values like there are in the pull requests except the maximum block size, keep it at 600 like you wanted, but change at least the maximum transaction size so people can send coins at each other. Also the source code needs a node (2 would be the best) so people stay on the same chain. |
|
|
|
Well its pretty much out of my control because i'm using old laptops. So i'm gone try to keep the block size small but keep going like ya'll said move forward instead of back but who am I. smh There already deleting my posts and stuff so ya i'm definately going to start the own forum website fasho. I figured there would be resistance... people are already calling it a shhhh coin lol I'm suppose to be the developer right? thre misjudging because cryptocurrency has a bunch of selfish, scamming, scary, weirdo people hiding on their computers but im gone reveal myself as things go on more and more. they called the Pi coin a shh coin and they called Piece that. I didnt make the wallet with the virus in it so the coin might have turned into a sh!t coin now. but hey who am i?
Nobody called it shit coin here, and nobody claimed to find out a virus into wallet neither Your project is great, everybody here loves it don't you worry about it |
|
|
|
So the edits already happened based on the wallet posted almost a week ago. Move forward not backward.
Yes exactly, the wallet i've posted already have the edits in it, you can verify by its version: it is the version 1.0.0, while source code is still at 0.8.7.5 guys slow down I had to take the wallet down from the site i had no idea that ya'll put the edits in it. I'll do the requests but i'm not increasing the block size yet intill after the first halving. slow down lol dammit i'm hyped too but i have day to day things and i a have day job and maybe a night job soon. so be patient!! ! so everybody who got the wallet keep mining if you want but I still haven't posted the official wallets. And I didnt mine the first block smh Oh ok, should i stop the node and coin in pool? |
|
|
|
So the edits already happened based on the wallet posted almost a week ago. Move forward not backward.
Yes exactly, the wallet i've posted already have the edits in it, you can verify by its version: it is the version 1.0.0, while source code is still at 0.8.7.5 |
|
|
|
everything looks ok accept the increased block size I will probably do that later but I'm trying to give the Pi Network a chance to get it before the first halving but after that I think i'll increase it. I wanted it to fit on cheap cell phones with low HD space. But if they don't move then I probably will do that Can't wait too long
Without those changes, the transactions aren't possible, the maximum size before changes allows only 0.1 coin per transaction, which is not realistic in a context of mining eg: payouts from pools, or any transactions in a general way considering the block reward is 1. The only reasons people are still mining it at the moment is because of the changes which have been made since the beginning. Without those changes, they wouldn't have been paid from mining pool and would had stop mining a long time ago already. Even without pool for example and only people mining from the wallet directly, it would had been impossible to make transactions or listing in an exchange if the transaction's maximal size allows only 0.1 coin |
|
|
|
Hold on everything looks ok accept the increased block size I will probably do that later but I'm trying to give the Pi Network a chance to get it before the first halving but after that I think i'll increase it. I wanted it to fit on cheap cell phones with low HD space. But if they don't move then I probably will do that Can't wait too long...
Hi, people are mining from this version the pull requests are since the beginning actually i think it will be mandatory at this point to edit the source code with those changes edit ?? and then where do you think those coins will be after editing  I suggest you look at the edits on the pull requests before jumping on conclusions |
|
|
|
Hold on everything looks ok accept the increased block size I will probably do that later but I'm trying to give the Pi Network a chance to get it before the first halving but after that I think i'll increase it. I wanted it to fit on cheap cell phones with low HD space. But if they don't move then I probably will do that Can't wait too long...
Hi, people are mining from this version the pull requests are since the beginning actually i think it will be mandatory at this point to edit the source code with those changes |
|
|
|
No trojan, it's false positives |
|
|
|
Hi! I'm currently developing a test altcoin in educational purposes, and can't for some reason generate first pow blocks after generating genesis block. Couple of years ago i successfully made workable fork of fork of dash (or something similar with terribly outdated codebase), but I'm totally unable to reproduce it with modern codebase. So, to the point. I used PIVX repo, changed chainparams.cpp accordingly: - removed old checkpoints; - generated new keys; - updated ports all over the codebase; - changed pchMessageStart numbers; - updated unixtime; - changed coin name all over the codebase; - generated genesis (and it was correct, i checked it many times); - compiled it; - launched coind; - launched cpuminer, and it failed with the following in log: 2019-02-28 16:55:09 ERROR: CheckProofOfWork() : hash doesn't match nBits
2019-02-28 16:55:09 ERROR: CheckBlockHeader() : proof of work failed
2019-02-28 16:55:09 ERROR: CheckBlock() : CheckBlockHeader failed
2019-02-28 16:55:09 CreateNewBlock() : TestBlockValidity failed I re-generated genesis with code in chainparams.cpp - it was the same as with genesis generator. I tried gen=1 and setgenerate true, and again received the same error, and hashespersec=0 in getmininginfo. I started searching the web, and found a lot of same questions without any answer. For example, this one looks absolutely same - https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/79767/cannot-mine-genesis-first-block-pivx-fork-cloneI tried the kind of solution from this thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2152157.0;prev_next=next - but without any success too. I assumed that maybe i'm missing something, and tried to do the same with some other PIVX forks. The first one was this - https://github.com/IchibaCoin/ICHIBA - with the same error. The second one was this - https://github.com/cruxcoinsource/CruxCoin - with the same error too. Then i scratched my head, thought deeply, and run diff for all files in /src/ folder of both coins with my testcoin. Files were totally same and differed only where they were different between crux and ichiba. I tried all possible combinations of bools in this part of chainparams.cpp: fMiningRequiresPeers = true;
fAllowMinDifficultyBlocks = false;
fDefaultConsistencyChecks = false;
fRequireStandard = true;
fMineBlocksOnDemand = false;
fSkipProofOfWorkCheck = false;
fTestnetToBeDeprecatedFieldRPC = false;
fHeadersFirstSyncingActive = false; And when fMineBlocksOnDemand was set to true, command setgenerate true returned that wallet keypool is empty, and keypoolrefill command had no effect. What am i doing wrong?..))) Have you solved it? |
|
|
|
|
