CACHECOIN 2.0 - Community integration (Scrypt-Jane - PoW, PoS and PoN)

[AizenSou]

There's an issue somewhere.  My test transactions from this new wallet still hadn't posted to craptsy.  Just checked the explorer and they are not showing up on there.


Status: 93 confirmations
Date: 5/27/2015 23:14
To: Craptsy CKhvXVjqEDQgnhoLUpKWhxnV6YzjU4cBZV
Debit: -0.001 CACH
Transaction fee: -0.01 CACH
Net amount: -0.011 CACH
Transaction ID: 4ee261022ac653966da8019f2d2903b34991f602969e5940ae7ecd5d910ab511

Status: 93 confirmations
Date: 5/27/2015 21:25
To: Craptsy CKhvXVjqEDQgnhoLUpKWhxnV6YzjU4cBZV
Debit: -0.01 CACH
Transaction fee: -0.01 CACH
Net amount: -0.02 CACH
Transaction ID: 46531b186022ac7b86c21e41caaa97895a81478fef9bc9d444a5b09a4c6d4dce

Status: 93 confirmations
Date: 5/27/2015 21:25
To: Craptsy CKhvXVjqEDQgnhoLUpKWhxnV6YzjU4cBZV
Debit: -0.001 CACH
Transaction fee: -0.01 CACH
Net amount: -0.011 CACH
Transaction ID: ff7deb0c551015c44678b31c741e75aeef23cc9a1acb209823d84f71e3125727


Wallet is on block 86302 as of May 29, 2015, 02:35:59 AM (time posted on the forum header)

Yes you are on the wrong chain. That's the problem we talked about. The new client caused a fork and we don't know the reason yet.

[1714498008]

1714498008

[1714498008]

1714498008

[myagui]

I'd also love to know if the PON will require collateral and if so, how much.

Thanks Vertoe.

@MyFarm PoN requires no collateral except that your node must be running. There is no need for having a balance at stake for PoN to work.

I'm not sure about the details, but without collateral this could become a candy for botnet owners, this approach might be undesirable. I would prefer nodes to require collateral, it also ensures certain level of quality.

While we wait for Vertoe to speak up re: the forking issues, I just wanted to express that I also would prefer that there is some collateral requirement in order to generate PoN blocks. A small'ish figure would be fine, perhaps something between 5K ~ 10K CACH (as opposed to some ridiculously high number with the sole purpose of inflating prices).

Also, by design, one of the neat incentives with PoS, in that by holding more you get a greater reward. But PoS does lack in that many times people just run their wallets for the short period needed to get a stake, then close them up again, and so these are not providing a long lasting, reliable node service.

The idea is that PoN with a collateral requirement promotes the concept of a miner-holder, in contrast with the usual miner-dumper, and so I think this is the ideal approach.

@Vertoe: Would much appreciate if you would start organizing the schedule/venue for community meetings. Obviously, the ongoing fork needs urgent attention, but once that settles, it would be great if we could all start engaging feature/future discussions more interactively.

[jjiimm_64]

While we wait for Vertoe to speak up re: the forking issues, I just wanted to express that I also would prefer that there is some collateral requirement in order to generate PoN blocks. A small'ish figure would be fine, perhaps something between 5K ~ 10K CACH (as opposed to some ridiculously high number with the sole purpose of inflating prices).

Also, by design, one of the neat incentives with PoS, in that by holding more you get a greater reward. But PoS does lack in that many times people just run their wallets for the short period needed to get a stake, then close them up again, and so these are not providing a long lasting, reliable node service.

The idea is that PoN with a collateral requirement promotes the concept of a miner-holder, in contrast with the usual miner-dumper, and so I think this is the ideal approach.

@Vertoe: Would much appreciate if you would start organizing the schedule/venue for community meetings. Obviously, the ongoing fork needs urgent attention, but once that settles, it would be great if we could all start engaging feature/future discussions more interactively.

I agree about needing a collateral for PoN.  HOWEVER, 5 or 10k is NOT a smallish amount  at 10K you will limit the number of PoN in the entire system to less then 250!!!

"moneysupply" : 2476086.41995300

[myagui]

I agree about needing a collateral for PoN.  HOWEVER, 5 or 10k is NOT a smallish amount  at 10K you will limit the number of PoN in the entire system to less then 250!!!

"moneysupply" : 2476086.41995300

I confess that I didn't do that math specifically, was only going by the ATH exchange values from the last couple of weeks, and working out a reasonable "cost" in fiat terms. Plenty of nodes is definitely the desired goal, so perhaps within the lower boundary, around 5K?

At current mining rates (and mining will continue for a good while), there are enough new coins generated per day for such a node.
In other words, if mining returns remain relatively stable, and assuming a collateral of 5K coins, we'd be talking about a theoretical maximum number of about 500 PoN nodes today, with the potential for a new one to be added with each passing day.

More reasonable?

Also, let's remember that not all nodes need to be mining PoN. Regular (traditional) clients running a PoS node are also participating in the backbone of the network. Actually, we should also first clarify if PoN would prevent (or strongly discourage) pool mining for PoN blocks. With pools, we're back at the starting point, with new & fancy terminology, but in practice, the mining process would remain largely centralized.

I guess this is where we need to wait for the whitepaper 

[AizenSou]

From cryptsy:

Our wallet is currently offline due to issues with the coin's blockchain.

vertoe could you have a look at this problem? We have multiforks right now.

[Thirtybird]

Can we get some sort of confirmation on whether cach.catcoin.cz is on the new wallet, old wallet, right fork or wrong fork?

[Siggi84]

Can we get some sort of confirmation on whether cach.catcoin.cz is on the new wallet, old wallet, right fork or wrong fork?

cach.catcoin.cz should be on the right fork.

The Explorer (http://explorer.cach.co) can you take to compare. The should also be right

[jjiimm_64]

I agree about needing a collateral for PoN.  HOWEVER, 5 or 10k is NOT a smallish amount  at 10K you will limit the number of PoN in the entire system to less then 250!!!

"moneysupply" : 2476086.41995300

I confess that I didn't do that math specifically, was only going by the ATH exchange values from the last couple of weeks, and working out a reasonable "cost" in fiat terms. Plenty of nodes is definitely the desired goal, so perhaps within the lower boundary, around 5K?

At current mining rates (and mining will continue for a good while), there are enough new coins generated per day for such a node.
In other words, if mining returns remain relatively stable, and assuming a collateral of 5K coins, we'd be talking about a theoretical maximum number of about 500 PoN nodes today, with the potential for a new one to be added with each passing day.

More reasonable?

Also, let's remember that not all nodes need to be mining PoN. Regular (traditional) clients running a PoS node are also participating in the backbone of the network. Actually, we should also first clarify if PoN would prevent (or strongly discourage) pool mining for PoN blocks. With pools, we're back at the starting point, with new & fancy terminology, but in practice, the mining process would remain largely centralized.

I guess this is where we need to wait for the whitepaper 

Yes on the whitepaper...

We still dont know what the benefits of running for PoN.  Having unique IP for each can be some work...  How is it different then just regular staking, doesn't that mean your running a node?

is having the PoN subnet preparation for a mixing service? if so, there should be a cost to run one.  Can we have PoW against a staked wallet? SPoW.... so many questions...


on the fork issue, anyone reading this that is not on the same fork as http://explorer.cach.co/ should shut down, reindex with addnodes pointed to nodes on the proper fork.. possibly revert back to the older client.

my info:


{
"version" : "v5.4.0.0-g32a928e-cach-wm-alpha",
"protocolversion" : 90001,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : xx.51758500,
"newmint" : xx.09000000,
"stake" : xx.16883300,
"blocks" : 86465,
"moneysupply" : 2483666.74463100,
"connections" : 5,
"proxy" : "",
"ip" : "xx",
"difficulty" : 0.00587187,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1428895696,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}

my getpeerinfo:

14:32:56

getpeerinfo


14:32:58

[
{
"addr" : "5.9.39.9:2225",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1432924245,
"lastrecv" : 1432924245,
"conntime" : 1432847556,
"version" : 90001,
"subver" : "/CACHecoin-WM:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 86294,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "46.42.46.35:2225",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1432924247,
"lastrecv" : 1432924245,
"conntime" : 1432848286,
"version" : 90000,
"subver" : "/CACHecoin-WM:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 86295,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "82.6.255.43:2225",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1432924259,
"lastrecv" : 1432924272,
"conntime" : 1432848449,
"version" : 90000,
"subver" : "/CACHecoin-WM:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 86296,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "37.205.9.209:2225",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1432924245,
"lastrecv" : 1432924245,
"conntime" : 1432874880,
"version" : 90000,
"subver" : "/CACHecoin-WM:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 86330,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "78.46.66.139:2225",
"services" : "00000000",
"lastsend" : 1432920136,
"lastrecv" : 1432923167,
"conntime" : 1432920136,
"version" : 0,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : -1,
"banscore" : 13
}
]

[coins101]

From cryptsy:

Our wallet is currently offline due to issues with the coin's blockchain.

vertoe could you have a look at this problem? We have multiforks right now.

just sent pm to vertoe

edit



https://www.cryptsy.com/pages/status

[GREEDYJOHN]

From cryptsy:

Our wallet is currently offline due to issues with the coin's blockchain.

vertoe could you have a look at this problem? We have multiforks right now.

just sent pm to vertoe

edit



https://www.cryptsy.com/pages/status

I hope you know that it is VERY HARD to get hold of vertoe?

[jjiimm_64]

Everyone should just run the older version and addnodes to nodes that have the right chain..

[Thirtybird]

From cryptsy:

Our wallet is currently offline due to issues with the coin's blockchain.

vertoe could you have a look at this problem? We have multiforks right now.

just sent pm to vertoe

edit



https://www.cryptsy.com/pages/status

I hope you know that it is VERY HARD to get hold of vertoe?

such confidence inspiring!

[1qaz]

Everyone should just run the older version and addnodes to nodes that have the right chain..

ok ^ this right chain or now ?



Config

rpcuser=moon
rpcpassword=moon
rpcallowip=192.168.*.*
rpcallowip=127.0.0.1
server=1
listen=1
discover=1
maxconnections=32
addnode=78.46.66.139
addnode=188.40.57.201
addnode=207.30.158.106
addnode=204.11.237.235
addnode=207.30.158.106
addnode=178.249.125.94
addnode=5.9.39.9
addnode=5.9.86.18


getpeerinfo
 
{
"addr" : "78.46.66.139:2225",
"services" : "00000000",
"lastsend" : 1432973987,
"lastrecv" : 1432974646,
"conntime" : 1432973987,
"version" : 0,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : -1,
"banscore" : 4
},
{
"addr" : "188.40.57.201:2225",
"services" : "00000000",
"lastsend" : 1432973988,
"lastrecv" : 1432974646,
"conntime" : 1432973988,
"version" : 0,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : -1,
"banscore" : 4
},
{
"addr" : "5.9.39.9:2225",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1432979715,
"lastrecv" : 1432979904,
"conntime" : 1432976839,
"version" : 90001,
"subver" : "/CACHecoin-WM:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 86609,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "37.205.9.209:2225",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1432979900,
"lastrecv" : 1432979904,
"conntime" : 1432977668,
"version" : 90000,
"subver" : "/CACHecoin-WM:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 86610,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "5.9.86.18:2225",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1432979375,
"lastrecv" : 1432979904,
"conntime" : 1432977754,
"version" : 90001,
"subver" : "/CACHecoin-WM:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 86610,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "82.6.255.43:2225",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1432979905,
"lastrecv" : 1432979832,
"conntime" : 1432977769,
"version" : 90000,
"subver" : "/CACHecoin-WM:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 86610,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "24.112.247.7:2225",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1432979888,
"lastrecv" : 1432979905,
"conntime" : 1432978008,
"version" : 90001,
"subver" : "/CACHecoin-WM:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 86610,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "84.90.149.57:2225",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1432979888,
"lastrecv" : 1432979904,
"conntime" : 1432979146,
"version" : 90001,
"subver" : "/CACHecoin-WM:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 86614,
"banscore" : 0
}


and http://explorer.cach.co/rich/ - not correctly display the balance wallet ^ just me ?

[FamousRocky]

bookmarked 

[defunctec]

Has the dev team left the project because of the fork? I see no reply's concerning the current fork?

[Vlad2Vlad]

Has the dev team left the project because of the fork? I see no reply's concerning the current fork?

Maybe this was a pump and dump and the dump just happened.  Cause we had a huge drop in price a couple days ago on a massive dump.

I hope not - Vertoe seemed like a legit dev with a plan. 

[CHAOSiTEC]

Has the dev team left the project because of the fork? I see no reply's concerning the current fork?

Maybe this was a pump and dump and the dump just happened.  Cause we had a huge drop in price a couple days ago on a massive dump.

I hope not - Vertoe seemed like a legit dev with a plan. 

that would not be vertoe's style, he has shown to be a man of integrity in the past...

[defunctec]

Has the dev team left the project because of the fork? I see no reply's concerning the current fork?

Maybe this was a pump and dump and the dump just happened.  Cause we had a huge drop in price a couple days ago on a massive dump.

I hope not - Vertoe seemed like a legit dev with a plan. 

that would not be vertoe's style, he has shown to be a man of integrity in the past...

The network forked days ago now, and no word from any dev? It's like a big fuck you to the community. I don't hold any cache, just amazed by the incompetence vertoe has shown.

[CODERsp]

It seems like Vertoe comes here once a month to make some announcement for P&D and goes out. Many people critisized Evan Duffield for his job and deified Vertoe. These people now can get pleasure.

[1qaz]

Now, the main thing do not panic, we wait vertoe  

P.s. the track of weekend
Have you heard ‘Rich (Edit) (Ft. Anndreyah Vargas)’ by Cosmo Sheldrake  - https://soundcloud.com/cosmosheldrake/rich

P.s.1 and yes, split chains began after the announcement new ANN ^ before the announcement all was well between version - "v5.4.0.0-g32a928e-cach-wm-alpha" and version - "0.7.5.9-toe" ^ under identical configs

P.s.2 who then replaced the configuration of nodes from new list http://cach.co/api/peers.txt ?