Re: [AXIOM] AxiomMemHash, Schnorr Sigs Implemented, APOS 3.0, AXH 2.0 Proposed

[jc12345]

for the people saying the top 100 isn't accurate, My wallet is reading exactly as the block explorer is

Yours may be accurate; mine are not even remotely close (a 40% difference, in fact). The same goes for the stakes. Completely random.

Try this.

It seems that coins found with solo mining are stored in the addresses that generated the solo blocks in the sizes of the emission curve at the time. Each block has its own address and sometimes a few blocks originate from the same address but a different address than your wallet receiving address. There will be many addresses with 500 coins for example. If you only solo mined and did not pool mine, then your wallet receiving address will not appear on the rich list at all. The solo block originating addresses are however linked to your wallet receiving address as far as your wallet is concerned as well as for coinage purposes. If you create a second address in your wallet and move your coins there, then the rich list will be updated and be accurate on the new address because in the transaction list all your originating solo block addresses will be debited and your 2nd wallet address credited. Coins that come from a pool address will not suffer the same phenomenon because by withdrawing from a pool the pool transaction debits the originating block addresses and credits your wallet address. This is why rich lists for many coins do not mean that much because a top wallet address could not appear on it if all his coins were solo mined and spread over 1000 small solo block addresses for example. I dont know if this is just something with certain block explorers and if other explorers actually pick up that the coins are linked to your receiving address like your wallet does.

If you look at the pie chart and the little table above it on the top 100 page you will notice that the % adds up to about 78% at the moment. The difference is 22% which is the grey area in the pie chart and is not listed in the table. These coins seem to be the solo blocks in their originating addresses. If all holders move all their coins to new addresses, the grey block (22%) will disappear and table will add up to 100%.

With lots of testing this theory is the only one that makes sense to me. Please test and see if you find the same. Just note however that if you move your coins, you wil reset your coinage for staking.

[1714610699]

1714610699

[1714610699]

1714610699

[1714610699]

1714610699

[1714610699]

1714610699

[barabbas]

for the people saying the top 100 isn't accurate, My wallet is reading exactly as the block explorer is

Yours may be accurate; mine are not even remotely close (a 40% difference, in fact). The same goes for the stakes. Completely random.

Try this.

It seems that coins found with solo mining are stored in the addresses that generated the solo blocks in the sizes of the emission curve at the time. Each block has its own address and sometimes a few blocks originate from the same address but a different address than your wallet receiving address. There will be many addresses with 500 coins for example. If you only solo mined and did not pool mine, then your wallet receiving address will not appear on the rich list at all. The originating addresses are however linked to that address as far as your wallet is concerned as well as for coinage purposes. If you create a second address in your wallet and move your coins there, then the rich list will be updated and be accurate on the new address because in the transaction list all your originating solo block addresses will be debited and your 2nd wallet address credited. Coins that come from a pool address will not suffer the same phenomenon because by withdrawing from a pool the pool transaction debits the originating block addresses and credits your wallet address. This is why rich lists for many coins do not mean that much because a top wallet address could not appear on it if all his coins were solo mined and spread over 1000 small solo block addresses for example. I dont know if this is just something with certain block explorers and if other explorers actually pick up that the coins are linked to your receiving address like your wallet does.

If you look at the pie chart and the little table above it on the top 100 page you will notice that the % adds up to about 78% at the moment. The difference is 22% which is the grey area in the pie chart and is not listed in the table. These coins seem to be the solo blocks in their originating addresses. If all holders move all their coins to new addresses, the grey block (22%) will disappear and table will add up to 100%.

With lots of testing this theory is the only one that makes sense to me. Please test and see if you find the same. Just note however that if you move your coins, you wil reset your coinage for staking.

I only mined solo, no pool. And what use is a block explorer that supposedly has the current exact balance of every wallet, if on check it shows a difference, let alone a 40% or so difference?

[jc12345]

I only mined solo, no pool. And what use is a block explorer that supposedly has the current exact balance of every wallet, if on check it shows a difference, let alone a 40% or so difference?

All I am saying is that with other coins where the same happened if I moved the coins the new address appears accurate on the explorer. My current receiving address does not appear on the rich list at all. I dont want to move my coins because it will reset the coinage. Perhaps you or someone else could test it by moving their coins to a second address and see if that then shows accurate?

Perhaps the wallet knows that it has found a block and the chain will honor that, but perhaps block explorers in general or maybe only certain block explorers do not know that or does not do that check or is not that advanced to link the address of the block reward to your wallets receiving address.

[ozboy2014]

my receiving address IS on the list but 40% less

[jc12345]

my receiving address IS on the list but 40% less

Move your coins to a new address and see if that address is accurate on the rich list, or perhaps move to an exchange and back and see if your receiving address is then showing at 100%.  When you move it to an exchange for example, look at the detail of the tx to the exchange in the block explorer and see how many debits there were - there should be many entries of small addresses of the block reward size of when you mined them which are then consolidated to the total amount. If you move them back the tx should have only a couple of entries consisting of the total and block reward.

You will also note that when you have lots of solo mined blocks that first consolidation transaction when you move it to an exchange for example has a large transaction fee because of all the processing that has to be done. The transaction back many times have no tx fee. Also, with some coins if you have many small reward size solo blocks and you want to send a too large an amount, the tx becomes too large and the wallet gives an error, then you have to send it in smaller chunks. I also have a theory that is why pool withdrawals sometimes get stuck with some coins if the withdrawal size is too big. I dont have a pool so I cannot test that theory.

EDIT: I am thinking off the cuff here with another theory completely untested at this point, that perhaps POW and POS work differently in that the one method's rewards are in its own unique addresses and the other method is in your receiving address. This could explain a 40% total in the rich list because you might have mined 60% POW and 40% POS and the rich list only shows the POS portion.

[ozboy2014]

my receiving address IS on the list but 40% less

Move your coins to a new address and see if that address is accurate on the rich list, or perhaps move to an exchange and back and see if your receiving address is then showing at 100%.  When you move it to an exchange for example, look at the detail of the tx to the exchange in the block explorer and see how many debits there were - there should be many entries of small addresses of the block reward size of when you mined them which are then consolidated to the total amount. If you move them back the tx should have only a couple of entries consisting of the total and block reward.

You will also note that when you have lots of solo mined blocks that first consolidation transaction when you move it to an exchange for example has a large transaction fee because of all the processing that has to be done. The transaction back many times have no tx fee. Also, with some coins if you have many small reward size solo blocks and you want to send a too large an amount, the tx becomes too large and the wallet gives an error, then you have to send it in smaller chunks. I also have a theory that is why pool withdrawals sometimes get stuck with some coins if the withdrawal size is too big. I dont have a pool so I cannot test that theory.

EDIT: I am thinking off the cuff here with another theory completely untested at this point, that perhaps POW and POS work differently in that the one method's rewards are in its own unique addresses and the other method is in your receiving address. This could explain a 40% total in the rich list because you might have mined 60% POW and 40% POS and the rich list only shows the POS portion.

coins mined are only 5%

[kahir]

my receiving address IS on the list but 40% less

Move your coins to a new address and see if that address is accurate on the rich list, or perhaps move to an exchange and back and see if your receiving address is then showing at 100%.  When you move it to an exchange for example, look at the detail of the tx to the exchange in the block explorer and see how many debits there were - there should be many entries of small addresses of the block reward size of when you mined them which are then consolidated to the total amount. If you move them back the tx should have only a couple of entries consisting of the total and block reward.

You will also note that when you have lots of solo mined blocks that first consolidation transaction when you move it to an exchange for example has a large transaction fee because of all the processing that has to be done. The transaction back many times have no tx fee. Also, with some coins if you have many small reward size solo blocks and you want to send a too large an amount, the tx becomes too large and the wallet gives an error, then you have to send it in smaller chunks. I also have a theory that is why pool withdrawals sometimes get stuck with some coins if the withdrawal size is too big. I dont have a pool so I cannot test that theory.

EDIT: I am thinking off the cuff here with another theory completely untested at this point, that perhaps POW and POS work differently in that the one method's rewards are in its own unique addresses and the other method is in your receiving address. This could explain a 40% total in the rich list because you might have mined 60% POW and 40% POS and the rich list only shows the POS portion.

coins mined are only 5%

we are in a long POW/POS 5 Axium rewards for next lets say 130k BLocks

[danilo303]

my receiving address IS on the list but 40% less

Move your coins to a new address and see if that address is accurate on the rich list, or perhaps move to an exchange and back and see if your receiving address is then showing at 100%.  When you move it to an exchange for example, look at the detail of the tx to the exchange in the block explorer and see how many debits there were - there should be many entries of small addresses of the block reward size of when you mined them which are then consolidated to the total amount. If you move them back the tx should have only a couple of entries consisting of the total and block reward.

You will also note that when you have lots of solo mined blocks that first consolidation transaction when you move it to an exchange for example has a large transaction fee because of all the processing that has to be done. The transaction back many times have no tx fee. Also, with some coins if you have many small reward size solo blocks and you want to send a too large an amount, the tx becomes too large and the wallet gives an error, then you have to send it in smaller chunks. I also have a theory that is why pool withdrawals sometimes get stuck with some coins if the withdrawal size is too big. I dont have a pool so I cannot test that theory.

EDIT: I am thinking off the cuff here with another theory completely untested at this point, that perhaps POW and POS work differently in that the one method's rewards are in its own unique addresses and the other method is in your receiving address. This could explain a 40% total in the rich list because you might have mined 60% POW and 40% POS and the rich list only shows the POS portion.

coins mined are only 5%

we are in a long POW/POS 5 Axium rewards for next lets say 130k BLocks

All needed right now for moon is a relevant update from the dev.

[ozboy2014]

my receiving address IS on the list but 40% less

Move your coins to a new address and see if that address is accurate on the rich list, or perhaps move to an exchange and back and see if your receiving address is then showing at 100%.  When you move it to an exchange for example, look at the detail of the tx to the exchange in the block explorer and see how many debits there were - there should be many entries of small addresses of the block reward size of when you mined them which are then consolidated to the total amount. If you move them back the tx should have only a couple of entries consisting of the total and block reward.

You will also note that when you have lots of solo mined blocks that first consolidation transaction when you move it to an exchange for example has a large transaction fee because of all the processing that has to be done. The transaction back many times have no tx fee. Also, with some coins if you have many small reward size solo blocks and you want to send a too large an amount, the tx becomes too large and the wallet gives an error, then you have to send it in smaller chunks. I also have a theory that is why pool withdrawals sometimes get stuck with some coins if the withdrawal size is too big. I dont have a pool so I cannot test that theory.

EDIT: I am thinking off the cuff here with another theory completely untested at this point, that perhaps POW and POS work differently in that the one method's rewards are in its own unique addresses and the other method is in your receiving address. This could explain a 40% total in the rich list because you might have mined 60% POW and 40% POS and the rich list only shows the POS portion.

coins mined are only 5%

we are in a long POW/POS 5 Axium rewards for next lets say 130k BLocks

All needed right now for moon is a relevant update from the dev.

So active then......  There are many questions that need to be addressed.. GPU, white paper, block explorer..

[megalox]

my mining only got 104 H/s

this algo seem to be the slowest..but i hope it will stay like this...so hard to get the coin..

[mitchellmint]

CryptoID is a great community Block Explorer, anyone can do it.  Just tweet @cryptoid_info that you want a block explorer.  They take micropayments.  .05 BTC a month is all it takes.

The rewards are low right now.  Make sure you understand the calculations and rewards before investing.  There will be a culling at 169000 but on the other side, if there is interest, you could make a boat load.  My guess is there will be a hard fork to eliminate the GPU ability.  The rewards have declined so its not a priority right now.  When you are a Dev, the hardest part is to prioritize.

PoS rewards is what TRUSTplus is all about.  We mine coins and collect PoS.  We support the devs of the coins we mine with nodes, simple support, exchange support and RPi Stakers.  Axiom is now on our list.  We will know our investments worth at block 156420, until then, we will be mining.

Congratulations on getting to block 18000!

[Nassau]

CryptoID is a great community Block Explorer, anyone can do it.  Just tweet @cryptoid_info that you want a block explorer.  They take micropayments.  .05 BTC a month is all it takes.

My guess is there will be a hard fork to eliminate the GPU ability.

Would be pointless to do that at that point. Gpu miner will be opensourced.

[timertrainer]

I still don't get what's wrong with the block explorer that the devs have provided. Why is a CryptoID block explorer necessary?

[Nassau]

block explorer works for me

[chrysophylax]

I still don't get what's wrong with the block explorer that the devs have provided. Why is a CryptoID block explorer necessary?

necessity is not what this is about ... its about functionality ...

its probably one of the best and most upto date and accurate block explorers available today ...

and a good price ...

#crysx

[bitspill]

Even with that, can't some hacker just generate a rainbow table? They would compare their rainbow table to the blockchain, and when they get a match, just import the private key into their wallet and steal those coins? Or would that be too unwieldy?

http://directory.io <-- bitcoin
http://buttcoins.com <-- bitcoin, clamcoin, dogecoin, litecoin

Start searching. Those websites contain every possible address and private key.

[mokahless]

anyone here running the 8-core AMD FX-8320 CPU ? I get 4 H/s out of 2 cores, and the rest barely crack 1.2 H/s.  If I reboot, they all go to 4 H/s 

I do. I get 8H/s per core. I'm using the terminal windows miner in OP. I am using only 4 cores though. I think I recall the hashrate being something like 7.5 or 7.75 per core when I was using 6 cores. Do note that I am overclocked to 4.1GHz, however.

You should still be higher than you are listing on stock though. Are any other programs taking up processor time in task manager on your computer? Also download CPU-z and check that there's no downclocking going on. You can use coretemp to monitor the temperatures.

[mrsalve]

Is there working wallet for win 64? Cus I can't get any connections even with conf file.

[hashbrown9000]

ah, i see. i just tried the miner from the first page.  it seems tpruvot's version is slower and buggy on my processor.  i'm now getting 6.8-7.1 H/s per core, running at stock 3.5 GHz. thanks for the heads up

[jc12345]

Even with that, can't some hacker just generate a rainbow table? They would compare their rainbow table to the blockchain, and when they get a match, just import the private key into their wallet and steal those coins? Or would that be too unwieldy?

http://directory.io <-- bitcoin
http://buttcoins.com <-- bitcoin, clamcoin, dogecoin, litecoin

Start searching. Those websites contain every possible address and private key.

Those sites are probably fake or maybe contains only a tiny fraction of the keyspace. It is not possible to create a rainbow table for Bitcoin with today's technology. It will take too much time and energy and storage space. There are so many links to quote where people have already answered why this is not possible at this point. Just google it. Ill past a few:

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3