One suggestion for the wallet - would it be possible to set it up so when sending blocks to yourself, you don't have to type your passphrase every time? (obviously for only encrypted wallets) Mine's a long one, and it gets tiresome doing it every time  rpc command walletpassphrase<password> 9999999 If you don't set the final argument to true it is not set of unlock mint only and will not require password when sending. After done, just lock the wallet and then use the normal wallet unlock feature, to require password again. Some coins have this options as a checkbox in the gui for unlock. So it will either unlock for mint only, or unlock everything. |
|
|
|
Question, I know I can combine coins with coin control, but lets say I bought a 100,000 block and want to quickly break it into 1600 coin blocks with a few clicks or commands, is there any way to do that.. or do I have to sit and "send it to myself"? #Dev if this feature is not present, can it be added with next update?
Vegas
You can use the sendmany rpc command. Or Just click the plus sign(add recipient) on send coins tab. I was under the impression that send many only allows you to use one address one time. I'll have to look at that. Same with the gui, but you can still create a bunch of addresses and then break them up quickly using the gui. |
|
|
|
Question, I know I can combine coins with coin control, but lets say I bought a 100,000 block and want to quickly break it into 1600 coin blocks with a few clicks or commands, is there any way to do that.. or do I have to sit and "send it to myself"? #Dev if this feature is not present, can it be added with next update?
Vegas
You can use the sendmany rpc command. Or Just click the plus sign(add recipient) on send coins tab. |
|
|
|
|
Sorry for the lack up update recently. Worked on the new NVC faster stake for a while, but even after starting from scratch and trying on CAPs I wasn't successful. So I scratched it for now and moved on to make the code more compatible by switching to int64_t. Got that working and decided to go a few steps further and remove all the PRI64d stuff.
Well was on the last few updates, one of them called for a global replace. I used the IDE find and replace, instead of sed. And it severely messed up the code. I had failed to commit the changes up to that point, and my last backup was a 4 days ago. So lost a fair amount of work. Oh well, live and learn, although I have already learned this one a few times....
|
|
|
|
Probably should have written more on it.
Check Mark on Minimize to system tray
No Check Mark on Minimize on close
So when its maximized and I click the X to close, it minimizes to the system tray, even tho "Minimize on close" is not checked.
When I remove the checkmark in "Minimize to system tray" and i click the X, it closes out the Bottlecaps QT client. So it seems like when "minimize to system tray" is checked that its actually enabling both options.
Ahh ok, I follow you now. I'll look at it as time permits. Thanks for the bug report. |
|
|
|
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1000 HYP Contest! Closest stake to 999.99999 (w/o going over) wins.
Must stake between 9/22 and 10/12.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Not that it matters much, but I think this contest could be cheated. Add a bool to to say it is from yourself, in create coinstake. nCredit += GetProofOfStakeReward(nCoinAge, nBits, txNew.nTime, pIndex0->nHeight, true); In GetProofOfStakeReward Just change the max to be 999.999999 if fFromMe if (fFromMe)
nSubsidy = min(nSubsidy, 999.99999); //psuedo code
else
nSubsidy = min(nSubsidy, nSubsidyLimit);
CTransaction::ConnectInputs won't care as it only cares if the reward you give yourself is greater then calculated amount. if (nStakeReward > GetProofOfStakeReward(nCoinAge, pindexBlock->nBits, nTime, pindexBlock->nHeight) - GetMinFee() + MIN_TX_FEE) 6 days... |
|
|
|
Hi Tranz.
It seems in the current client if you enable the option for minimize to system tray, if you close the program by clicking X in the top right it just minimizes instead. Bug?
Well it is supposed to be a selectable option. Under Settings->options->window See if Minimize on Close is checked. You can still close the client with it on, but using the File->Exit menu.. |
|
|
|
Good thinking. Maybe Tranz will care about it after releasing Hobo wallet 1.5
Tranz cares now.  But I would like other people in the community to help out. Digitalindustry made a cool splash screen and the inspired me to add more functionality to the wallet. If we get some good new icons, I can add some of the things I did(doing) to HBN for 1.5. I am not much of a graphical designer. I pulled strong C's in art class.  So this is where you all come in. Here is what we have https://github.com/Tranz5/bottlecaps/tree/master/src/qt/res/iconsThe sizes should be close, but don't have match perfectly. And if you can't work github, just put them on the web somewhere. I can convert them and get them integrated. If you want to see something else, just create a quick proof mock up screen and we can go from there. |
|
|
|
|
This is news to me as well. They have never stated they will force verification. But I also have a feeling it might happen.
Regarding getting HBN on another exchange. I think this is a good idea. We have tried, we have succeed, and then once we get added there is no volume and eventually the coin is delisted.
I would like to see it on polo. Perhaps we can start a campaign for that.
|
|
|
|
I am trying to understand how this new split and combine threshold is going to work, but I guess I need some help.
I wonder what happens if you stake 8 coins. Will it split? I guess yes cause it's bigger than 5.
But will it combine again since the result is twice an amount lower than 5 coins.
Just curious
And good luck the the stake-improvement. I don't mind waiting a little longer.
The output of 8 coins that stake would be say 2 blocks of 4.2. One of those blocks could combine with a stake that is very small, say a .5 that staked. Assuming that didn't happen, those 4.2 would stake and not split, so you would be get 1 block of 4.4 the next time and then 4.8 and then eventually over 5. Once over 5 it will split, and since you ill then have smaller blocks, 2.6 ish, they would have a chance to combine with another block. If not they will stake but not split until over 5 again. Does that help? Yes, thanks, I think so! I never realized the combining was possibly done with other blocks than the ones just created after splitting. That brings up another question: how does the algorithm decides which block to pick to combine with? A block that brings the combined amount closest to 5 or a smaller block with as less coin age as possible? Here is the section of code that does the combining. // Attempt to add more inputs
// Only add coins of the same key/address as kernel
if (txNew.vout.size() == 2 && ((pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].scriptPubKey == scriptPubKeyKernel || pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].scriptPubKey == txNew.vout[1].scriptPubKey))
&& pcoin.first->GetHash() != txNew.vin[0].prevout.hash)
{
// Stop adding more inputs if already too many inputs
if (txNew.vin.size() >= 100)
break;
// Stop adding more inputs if value is already pretty significant
if (nCredit > nCombineThreshold)
break;
// Stop adding inputs if reached reserve limit
if (nCredit + pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].nValue > nBalance - nReserveBalance)
break;
// Do not add additional significant input
if (pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].nValue > nCombineThreshold)
continue;
// Do not add input that is still too young
if (pcoin.first->nTime + nStakeMaxAge > txNew.nTime)
continue;
txNew.vin.push_back(CTxIn(pcoin.first->GetHash(), pcoin.second));
nCredit += pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].nValue;
vwtxPrev.push_back(pcoin.first);
} So basically whatever block staked, the wallet will try to combine other blocks with it, that are the same key, are not going to put it over the limit, and have weight. |
|
|
|
I am trying to understand how this new split and combine threshold is going to work, but I guess I need some help.
I wonder what happens if you stake 8 coins. Will it split? I guess yes cause it's bigger than 5.
But will it combine again since the result is twice an amount lower than 5 coins.
Just curious
And good luck the the stake-improvement. I don't mind waiting a little longer.
The output of 8 coins that stake would be say 2 blocks of 4.2. One of those blocks could combine with a stake that is very small, say a .5 that staked. Assuming that didn't happen, those 4.2 would stake and not split, so you would be get 1 block of 4.4 the next time and then 4.8 and then eventually over 5. Once over 5 it will split, and since you ill then have smaller blocks, 2.6 ish, they would have a chance to combine with another block. If not they will stake but not split until over 5 again. Does that help? |
|
|
|
HBN on fire lately!!  And I am talking about the repo, not the price  Hehe Been working on getting the newest NVC fast(er) stake to work with HBN. So far no luck. Might have to scrap it for now, but feels like I am getting close. The method he used is pretty awesome. Cache the aged coins into memory, and run them through a lite stake hash check, if it is successful run it through the full stake test, then broadcast the block. Hopefully I can get it included in 1.5, as it should increase the ability to stake, and decrease the CPU usage. I'll give it a few more days.... |
|
|
|
should i update wallet or no need? im on windows
No need yet. I will be releasing a final beta version here soon, you can try it out then if you like. It will have everything except for the hard forks. You can also just wait for 1.5 officially, which should be the same as the beta 1.5s , minus any bugs found. I am looking forward to testing it! As for the VIP idea, being within top 20 range, I would still favor the same wallet for everyone. Feels better that way to me. You made me wondering though, maybe the same thing could be achieved in an other way without the need for a special wallet. Would it be possible to make the combine/threshold limit dependent on the size of the address staking? At this moment number 20 is about 50K, so if the threshold would be 0,05% of this amount, it would be 25. So you would end up being able to select between 5 to 20 or the percentage which only makes sense if you are a large stakeholder. I have no clue though if such thing is programmable. I am only being enthusiastic! Not a bad idea, I did think of this as well. I think it could only be done via a RPC command once the wallet(s) have been loaded. May not make it for 1.5, but will keep it in mind. |
|
|
|
should i update wallet or no need? im on windows
No need yet. I will be releasing a final beta version here soon, you can try it out then if you like. It will have everything except for the hard forks. You can also just wait for 1.5 officially, which should be the same as the beta 1.5s , minus any bugs found. |
|
|
|
I installed Wallet and won´t sync. (There is no *.conf in my battlecaps folder)
Click on Help->debug window->console type addnode 128.199.135.188 add addnode 54.244.118.104 add and a few more found from the page, just one post above yours! |
|
|
|
That's a good idea to set up user configurable stake split/combine thresholds. Not everyone can compile a modified wallet on their own. This works nice, I've experimented with my HBN tip jar in this regard.
Ghostlander your work on the split/combine in ORB spurred my thought process and ability to do this so quickly. Not sure I would've gone about it this way. But it was simple and effective! So thank you.
Thanks Tranz, for all this effort! As for me, I am especially happy with the possibility to choose where S4C-change is going to end up. Minimizes the risk of getting it sent to addresses you don't have a wallet back-up for. And the added control over combine and split stakes is a nice improvement too. I'd like to add that i think the selection from 5 to 20 coins is a balanced range.
All in all it's going to be much more attractive just to leave your stash staking away and thus improving the security of the network.
I've tried to find a happy medium between network security and useablity. I think 5 is good for most people, and 20 should work for bigger wallets. I was considering creating a VIP wallet for top 20 stake holders, which would allow a higher combine/threshold limit. Not sure or not, on that yet.. |
|
|
|
Thanks guys, sorry about that. I hadn't plan on moving all int64 to int64_t until 1.6, but looks like it is a bit of a mess, so I'll see about cleaning that up.
Here is my plan for finishing up these last few things before coding up the hard fork.
Add Traffic Network (done)
Add Peer Information(done)
Add some coin control updates
Add totaling of transactions
Add windows shutdown notification. Help prevent wallet corruption.
Fix a few of the things mentioned about S4C
Refactor the combine/split of stakes and allow more user control of it.
Update the Stake kernal, see NVC. This is still a maybe, as I have to test it out for a bit. But should require even less CPU to stake.
Change to int64_t
Add -reindex (maybe)
Just finished up another on the list. https://github.com/Tranz5/HoboNickels/commit/c9e91a0b800f3e20a1b84d5b7957626c1cb5b445 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
