https://prohashing.com/explorer/Genstake/ is semi-functional and up to date.  I am connected to their wallet node and the block height is correct, although they are running an older version of the wallet.  The search transaction box works.  Search for transaction you have mined or minted and it works.  The address box doesn't always work.  Even if you click on your address in a block that you have found, the address page could show no transactions for a year.  Some addresses don't seem to have this problem.  I tried my yobit address and it didn't have any transactions for a year either, even though I have had transactions verified in the past week.

The PoW coins mined shown are the same high difficulty that I see with getmininginfo where there is 600+MH/s on netmhashps, so I am pretty confident that this is the correct chain.  You can connect to this node(and mine) by editing your genstake.conf file and adding the lines:

connect=coins.prohashing.com:6267
connect=157.161.128.53
connect=24.128.132.71

If your wallet has existing connections you can see those with the getpeerinfo command and add those as well.  I think that if you have connect=<ip> set in the .conf file it won't try to connect elsewhere, so add those to the file before you stop and start your wallet again.  My windows wallet shows the peer [2001:4060:4419:1::53]:9341 but I can't figure out how to connect to this using connect=.  It would be nice if the wallet had the addnode command.

I only use the windows wallet to manage it now.  The orange pi pc+ I am using has 1 gb of ram and only cost $30 with the case.  The power consumption and hardware cost is so low that I feel that it is worth the investment to have dedicated hardware for all staking wallets.

I totally agree with you about yobit.  I think there is a chance that their wallet works perfectly fine, but they just lost some coins to dice and are keeping it offline until they make it back staking.

The number of connections that you have makes me think that it could be a problem with the wallet.  I used to always be able to get over 10 connections.  My windows wallet has been open a day now and it only has 4 connections, and one of those is me.  The linux wallet only had 2 connections until I did getpeerinfo on the windows wallet and added them to the .conf file on the linux wallet with connect=

Could you please post a node list of the ips that print out when you do getpeerinfo?

I had a few coins that I sent to yobit 5 weeks ago when the wallet was on maintenance that got confirmed yesterday.  This is very interesting because it means that their wallet was syncing blocks recently and therefore was connected to someone.  The yobit wallet worked so well for so long it is sad.  It might have something to do with the connections that their wallet is making.  Yobit exchange wallets do not accept incoming connections and the nodes have to be hard-coded into the wallet. If the wallet that yobit tries to connect to is down, their wallet will remain down.

I did notice that my linux wallet did crash yesterday and had to be restarted.  It has been pretty stable running on my orange pi over the last few months though.  The windows wallet seems to be fairly stable once it is synced, although when it is loading blocks it does seem to crash.  My biggest complaint about the windows wallet is that it seems to use a lot of cpu resources and stops responding/hangs up/lags.

Mining on this coin is currently over 540MH/s so it is far from dead.

     LDOGE / BTC Last: 0.00000004 24High: 0.00000004 24Low: 0.00000001 24V: 3.88 BTC

Get your rally caps on guys 

The thing about computers is they advance so rapidly that what is impossible today is possible tomorrow.  Difficult isn't the same thing as impossible to make work at any cost.  Top of the line GPUs now have 4gb of ram, unlike when the algorithm was developed.  It would probably cost a few $million to make an entire batch of new asic chips to mine m7m, but it doesn't mean that the Chinese guy who works at the chip company couldn't make a prototype for a few $thousand and use it himself.  Money is a good motivation for people to make things work.

Exactly.  Miners just naturally like to go to one big pool because it makes their rewards more consistent and less dependent on luck.  Pool operators like getting their 2% cut.  Forcing the big miners to solo mine will just make it so the pools hardly ever find any blocks and the pool operators won't get their 2%.

Buy the price dips and stake the coins is probably a better strategy then hoping that mining with cpu will be profitable again.  It also isn't certain that all of this hash rate is due to the price rise.  The whole reason for the price pump could be that a person or group of people was planning on mining with lots of hashrate, so they made the price go up so they could mine profitably.

You can't assume that the electricity consumption for a mining whale is the same proportionally as the publicly available miner.  If they are truly a whale they can afford to pay 1 BTC for a GPU miner and never share it with anyone else.  9 MH/s is probably a single 6 AMD rx580 rig drawing about 880W. "GPU/ASIC resistant" never meant that it was impossible.  

I have noticed a lot of ASICS being offered for algos that used to be GPU only.  The Antminer D3 shipped 2 weeks ago for the last batch and people are probably starting to receive them.  Google the Baikal Giant X10.  All 7 of the supported algorithms used to be ASIC resistant.  Ethereum Asic miners (LIGHTMINER Z02, Geass miner, and maybe others)  and  are also out now but they are mostly not being shipped out of China yet, and probably won't be until they stop being profitable for the manufacturer to run themselves.

What I think is probably happening right now with 80MH/s on magi's network is that the new Chinese ASIC miners being "tested" by the manufacturer, or those like the Antminer D3 that recently shipped, are slamming those coins with huge hashrates.  GPU mining rigs, now unprofitable on their former coins, are being forced onto other coins like Magi in search of a coin that can still be mined at a profit.  At a high enough price, even 0.1 XMG blocks will be profitable for them and they won't go away because they don't have anything else to go back to.

Speeding limiting the public mining software would do nothing because not all mining software is public.  A speed limit would have to be coded into the wallet and would require another hard fork, but without other changes this also wouldn't stop anything.  Someone running a 9MH/s mining rig could just have the wallet running 30 different times and split the hash rate between each one.

It would definitely be more cost effective for you to just spend that money at an exchange to buy XMG.

Isn't it summer in Australia?  Summer is the worst time to mine in your house.  Here in Michigan it is currently -12 Celsius.  For my apartment to be comfortable at night I need to run my electric infrared fireplace, at least for part of the time.  It has a 700W low setting and a 1300W high setting.  I also have a really old ASIC mining rig of S1 antminers.  From a mining profitability prospective it is a HUGE loss to run these.  They are underclocked and have quiet fans, so they use 550W.  If my apartment is really cold, I can run the fireplace at low power and run the mining rig, and the room heats up pretty quick.  I would rather run the rig and the fireplace at low power because 1250W is less than 1300W.  Once the room starts to be a comfortable temperature, I turn the fireplace off first because 550W is less than 700W.  Then a little later I turn the rig off, because the only reason I turned it on in the first place was to heat the room.  Even though the mining rewards were small, did I spend any money on mining, or did I spend money on heating that I was already going to spend?  The marginal cost for running the mining rig in this case is very low.

The philosophy of Magi was to create a coin that minimizes electricity consumption, compared to Bitcoin where mining consumes more electricity then a majority of countries in the world.  Being incentivized to off turn an unnecessary computer is a feature of this coin, not a bug.  If you have a computer that already has to be on for some reason, it is going to consume power.  It isn't going to use that much extra power to mine in the background with 10% of CPU resources.  The marginal cost of mining would be the difference from the power consumption at 10% CPU minus the cost of running the computer at 0%.  This is much less then the cost of running the CPU at 100% for mining.

I think the problem with mining right now are the pools, because they have no incentive to limit hashrate.  They make a % based on how many blocks are mined, so the more blocks their pool finds the more they make.  It isn't rational to expect them to limit hashrate to potentially get higher block rewards, because they don't control other pools.  High hashrate miners will just go to a competitor and the pool operator will get less money.

In my opinion the way to fix this would be to make changes that encourage solo mining.  This could be done by making it so solo miners could find blocks with a lower hashrate at a higher proportional probability.  Maybe this could be done with a new version of PoW difficulty, where the difficulty required to find a block is modified by an individual wallets coin weight.  It could also be modified by finding PoS blocks where if a wallet has coins maturing, it becomes easier to find a PoW block.  At a minimum this would encourage pool operators not to sell off the coins that they collect as fees, because if they sell them they will lose miners to another pool that doesn't sell them off and stakes them.  It might also be possible to make the wallet require a higher difficulty hash if hashpersec on the wallet is higher then a certain threshold.  This would encourage a pool to run multiple instances of the wallet, but this countermeasure would be discouraged by the need for all of those instances to have coins staking to be competitive.  Big pools are a problem and leads to centralization.  It doesn't make any sense for more than 90% of all hashrate to be on two pools.  If they go down, the blockchain will slow to a crawl again.

It is pretty hard to buy more LDOGE when the wallet on yobit is in maintenance and the market on cryptopia has been paused for the last 9 hours.  It looks like when the market gets resumed on cryptopia the minimum orders are going to be 500 DOGE and 0.01 LTC.  Has the maintenance request for the new wallet version been put in yet at yobit?  This has to be done by the dev.  I think it is important to have as many working exchanges as possible.

Their wallet has been "in maintenance" for a couple month now, a long time before any news of the hard fork.  After everything is settled with this new fork it might be possible to get them to update.

My wallet wouldn't update block #1606950 and was stuck at #1606949 but minting was enabled.  I closed the wallet, reopened it, and it finished syncing the blockchain.  I enabled minting again and it crashed.  Downloaded 1.4.5.2 and it opens, but crashes after minting enabled.

Nice to hear from you too!  I have just been staking on a windows laptop over the past year and it has been working well when I remember to setstakesplitthreshold 3200 and setstakecombinethreshold 1200.  Any problems that I have had with coin input size management has been when my laptop resets and I forget to change them when I run the wallet again.  Is it possible to set these in the conf file so they are set when the wallet starts?

I have 2 Orange PI PC plus with custom cases with a fan and heatsink and 1 Orange PI zero currently being shipped from China.  I am looking forward to getting the wallet running on one of them for staking, because this will use much less power then the laptop and will be easier to keep on 24 hours/day.  I am going to put android on another one to use for streaming TV.  I plan to test to see if I can mine with that one while streaming at the same time, but it might take some process prioritization that I don't know how to do yet.  It would be really cool to figure out how to make a PI cluster for mining and to share a guide with the community, as the hash/watt with the ARM64 chip seems to be higher then PC cpus.

The new wallet is running on my laptop and is waiting for the fork.  It seems that there were only ~150 blocks since I went to bed so we might be waiting for a while.

I came here to check why staking was only making orphans.  Glad to hear a new wallet version is on its way.  I would like to make a request to make sure that it will be possible to compile the new wallet on ARM64 devices.  I have ordered some new PI devices that have been shipped, and I really want to run the magi wallet on a low power device that I can leave on all the time.  My existing ARM64 device does not have enough space on it to test the new version, but in the past when I tried to build the wallet it failed although I could build wallets for other coins.  If someone could test the new version on a Raspberry PI 3 or similar ARM64 device and post build instructions, it would be greatly appreciated.

Volume on yobit has been pretty good recently, but today the Wallet status: Maintenance.  Does anyone have any info about this?  I cancelled my buy order because I was concerned the order would never fill or I wouldn't be able to withdraw to stake if it did.

I couldn't get the staking to work on 64 bit until I reloaded the with the magic.conf


All seems to be working now, but it seems that coin age was reset.  I have 3 stakes so far with 1829.5 XMG being currently staked for a total reward of 0.0023 XMG.  I hope this version and the chain are stable now.

The recent withdrawal should be enough to let you know it is a scam.  There are no transaction IDs listed for the nice round numbers.  If you search for the address on explorer all have 0 transactions and 0 balance.

You could probably write an api that automatically buys coins on poloniex at the current price and then sends BTC back with the daily payment.  As long as more people want to use their 50k sats from pokebits to buy dogecoin then are selling, someone is going to have to arbitrage.  If it isn't you, orders are going to sit around until the coinmarket cap price goes up.

I made a comment about the fee for cancelled orders in the trollbox and feel I was misunderstood.  I want faucethub to collect fees.  I just don't think that the cancelled order fee maximizes the total fees collected.  Just like every other economic decision, there is an opportunity cost of lost profits somewhere else.  More fees are collected from a completed trade then a cancelled trade.  The cancel order fee discourages people from placing large buy orders because of the possibility that it won't fill in a reasonable amount of time.  Because fees are collected from both buyer and seller, each of these discouraged trades would have generated more fees if they were filled then if they were placed and then cancelled.

FusionSe7en sent you 0.04 BTC today.  Just give him the keys and let him take over.  That is more then anyone else will be willing to pay.

Is there going to be a way to set sell orders at a chosen price?  My concern is that there will not be enough sell orders at market price because of the deposit fee.  Lets suppose I buy BLK at the current 8985 sat price and send it to faucethub.  My breakeven price because of fees is now (8985 * 1.018 = ) 9147 sats.  If I can set a sell order at 9150 sats, there will be BLK available for purchase and it is likely that faucet owners would gladly pay that price because it would be less then what they would pay after fees for a smaller number of coins.  If the only way to sell is at coinmarketcap prices, there will be an artificial shortage until the price goes above the breakeven after fees threshold.