[MOJO] MOJOv3 has been taken over by new devs

[EBK1000]

If the code is well working, so it's not.possible to split to zero. Normally it will go back to one big pile. Almost all coins have this.

Steve

Good to hear this

Well, the split you are referring to is the UTXO after stake into different index numbers but the coin balance to still held in one single MOJO address. You still have the same amount you had before the stake reward + the stake reward as an unspent output in the same address. The index number doesn't really matter. I am investigating this. I don't think it's an issue that one UTXO in one address has several index numbers.

Also, this doesn't always happen and it seems to be an old issue. Have a look at this PoS TX where it doesn't happen.
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/mojo/tx.dws?60917.htm

The stake doesn't split into two different MOJO addresses. The index number is a 32 bit integer so you can have almost unlimited index numbers.

Does that make sense.

[1714063129]

1714063129

[1714063129]

1714063129

[1714063129]

1714063129

[1714063129]

1714063129

[1714063129]

1714063129

[1714063129]

1714063129

[GoldenEye]

If the code is well working, so it's not.possible to split to zero. Normally it will go back to one big pile. Almost all coins have this.

Steve

Good to hear this

Well, the split you are referring to is the UTXO after stake into different index numbers but the coin balance to still held in one single MOJO address. You still have the same amount you had before the stake reward + the stake reward as an unspent output in the same address. The index number doesn't really matter. I am investigating this. I don't think it's an issue that one UTXO in one address has several index numbers.

Also, this doesn't always happen and it seems to be an old issue. Have a look at this PoS TX where it doesn't happen.
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/mojo/tx.dws?60917.htm

The stake doesn't split into two different MOJO addresses. The index number is a 32 bit integer so you can have almost unlimited index numbers.

Does that make sense.

Although the UTXOs are after the stake in the same address, the count of index numbers could be doubled with each stake. This would mean, there could be a problem after a minimum of 32 days (because of the int32), if there are no more indexes.
But probably this is a theoretical problem. Your example shows no splitting. Here you can see the same:
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/mojo/address.dws?MAkVtpysByXLEQSYoRuFuaitgGN93XAcxD.htm

The coins only splits up to block 47683.
- maybe because of a maximum of indexes reached (here 4) or
- maybe splitting only takes place with coin amounts (per index) greater a treshhold (here between 2500 and 1250 MOJO)

The last point is more likely, because here you can see more then 4 indexes:
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/mojo/address.dws?M8Ap669FBWKTR2XaZTWPZtPj8aitsBmhH5.htm

[EBK1000]

If the code is well working, so it's not.possible to split to zero. Normally it will go back to one big pile. Almost all coins have this.

Steve

Good to hear this

Well, the split you are referring to is the UTXO after stake into different index numbers but the coin balance to still held in one single MOJO address. You still have the same amount you had before the stake reward + the stake reward as an unspent output in the same address. The index number doesn't really matter. I am investigating this. I don't think it's an issue that one UTXO in one address has several index numbers.

Also, this doesn't always happen and it seems to be an old issue. Have a look at this PoS TX where it doesn't happen.
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/mojo/tx.dws?60917.htm

The stake doesn't split into two different MOJO addresses. The index number is a 32 bit integer so you can have almost unlimited index numbers.

Does that make sense.

Although the UTXOs are after the stake in the same address, the count of index numbers could be doubled with each stake. This would mean, there could be a problem after a minimum of 32 days (because of the int32), if there are no more indexes.
But probably this is a theoretical problem. Your example shows no splitting. Here you can see the same:
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/mojo/address.dws?MAkVtpysByXLEQSYoRuFuaitgGN93XAcxD.htm

The coins only splits up to block 47683.
- maybe because of a maximum of indexes reached (here 4) or
- maybe splitting only takes place with coin amounts (per index) greater a treshhold (here between 2500 and 1250 MOJO)

The last point is more likely, because here you can see more then 4 indexes:
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/mojo/address.dws?M8Ap669FBWKTR2XaZTWPZtPj8aitsBmhH5.htm

Well, it seems to me that you could have 2147483647 different index numbers if it's a 32 bit number. i.e. 2 billion 147 million 483 thousands and 647. I think this index splitting that occurs on occasion is a 'red herring' and not an indicator of anything wrong. I am still looking into it.

[kurniajim]

can you add on bittrex or poloniex?

[GoldenEye]

Well, it seems to me that you could have 2147483647 different index numbers if it's a 32 bit number. i.e. 2 billion 147 million 483 thousands and 647. I think this index splitting that occurs on occasion is a 'red herring' and not an indicator of anything wrong. I am still looking into it.

2147483647  = 2^32 is not a big number. IF the coins of each index WOULD split every 24 hours, the end WOULD be reached after 32 days.
The index splitting does not occur on occasion, it is reproducible for coin amounts per index greater ~1250 MOJO.
See here: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/mojo/address.dws?MA8o6ZSKaAHwrAVqqwQXkXhKZzJeWQpC8Q.htm

But I think you're right, that seems not to be a problem.

[EBK1000]

Well, it seems to me that you could have 2147483647 different index numbers if it's a 32 bit number. i.e. 2 billion 147 million 483 thousands and 647. I think this index splitting that occurs on occasion is a 'red herring' and not an indicator of anything wrong. I am still looking into it.

2147483647  = 2^32 is not a big number. IF the coins of each index would split every 24 hours, the end WOULD be reached after 32 days.
The index splitting does not occur on occasion, it is reproducible for coin amounts per index greater ~1250 MOJO.
See here: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/mojo/address.dws?MA8o6ZSKaAHwrAVqqwQXkXhKZzJeWQpC8Q.htm

But I think you're right, that seems to not to be a problem.

No, you're missing the point, you can have 2,147,483,647 index numbers per a single transaction. The index number points to a balance "position" within that one transaction. So, unless an output splits into more than 2,147,483,647 index numbers in one transaction there is no issue.

This was only really an issue for masternodes as the masternode daemon will look for a single UTXO within one index number to verify your collateral. So, this problem was solved by setting the switch staking=0 for masternodes ONLY.

Does that make sense.

[GoldenEye]

Well, it seems to me that you could have 2147483647 different index numbers if it's a 32 bit number. i.e. 2 billion 147 million 483 thousands and 647. I think this index splitting that occurs on occasion is a 'red herring' and not an indicator of anything wrong. I am still looking into it.

2147483647  = 2^32 is not a big number. IF the coins of each index would split every 24 hours, the end WOULD be reached after 32 days.
The index splitting does not occur on occasion, it is reproducible for coin amounts per index greater ~1250 MOJO.
See here: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/mojo/address.dws?MA8o6ZSKaAHwrAVqqwQXkXhKZzJeWQpC8Q.htm

But I think you're right, that seems to not to be a problem.

No, you're missing the point, you can have 2,147,483,647 index numbers per a single transaction. The index number points to a balance "position" within that one transaction. So, unless an output splits into more than 2,147,483,647 index numbers in one transaction there is no issue.

This was only really an issue for masternodes as the masternode daemon will look for a single UTXO within one index number to verify your collateral. So, this problem was solved by setting the switch staking=0 for masternodes ONLY.

Does that make sense.

Ok, understand

[GoldenEye]

EBK1000, is there a chance to get the updated client today?

Otherwise I have to wait only 2 days (because of the splitting), then the positions are small enough to prevent overflow  .

[EBK1000]

EBK1000, is there a chance to get the updated client today?

Otherwise I have to wait only 2 days (because of the splitting), then the positions are small enough to prevent overflow  .

The latest one is v.2.2 (pre-release) that solves some problems. There are links in the OP. The next version is 2-3 weeks away.

[GoldenEye]

EBK1000, is there a chance to get the updated client today?

Otherwise I have to wait only 2 days (because of the splitting), then the positions are small enough to prevent overflow  .

The latest one is v.2.2 (pre-release) that solves some problems. There are links in the OP. The next version is 2-3 weeks away.

The v.2.2 (pre-release) does not solve the staking reward overflow bug  :
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1366963.msg15887506#msg15887506

[EBK1000]

EBK1000, is there a chance to get the updated client today?

Otherwise I have to wait only 2 days (because of the splitting), then the positions are small enough to prevent overflow  .

The latest one is v.2.2 (pre-release) that solves some problems. There are links in the OP. The next version is 2-3 weeks away.

The v.2.2 (pre-release) does not solve the staking reward overflow bug  :
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1366963.msg15887506#msg15887506

Yes, unfortunately, you will have to wait for the next full release, should be 2-3 weeks

[EBK1000]

IMPORTANT UPDATE
MANDATORY UPGRADE TO MOJO V.2.3 BEFORE BLOCK 84,000 (AROUND 28/08/16)

We have released the new source for v.2.3 w/ the following fixes and changes to the PoS / masternode system.

1. Fix from the PoS Reward. 1,5% >> see below for the updated PoS scheme
1.b Fix for PoS reward for big amounts (overflow error)
2. Add new POS Reward for Year 1-5 >> see below
3. Change the Masternode Reward for year 2-3 >> see below
4. Change POW Reward to 5 MOJO / block
5. Hardfork switch after block 84,000
6. MinCoinAgeError fix

This should resolve the staking issues and the below is new PoS / masternode sceheme:

PoS values:
Year1: 20% annually - 50% masternodes share (1 year from block 84,000)
Year2: 15% annually - 60% masternodes share
year3: 10% annually - 70% masternodes share
year4 onwards: 5% annually - 70% masternodes share

The MOJO v.2.3 for Windows is ready >> LINK

Mac-qt 2.3
You MUST UPGRADE TO VERSION 2.3 before block 84,000 (roughly 28/08)

Linux daemon v.2.3 will be out very soon.

Thank you

[Darooghe]

I sent some coins to yobit,coinexchange and livecoin with 200 confirmation but they haven't received in any one of them yet. what's the problem?

[metamorphin]

I sent some coins to yobit,coinexchange and livecoin with 200 confirmation but they haven't received in any one of them yet. what's the problem?

u transferred with v2.3?

[EBK1000]

I sent some coins to yobit,coinexchange and livecoin with 200 confirmation but they haven't received in any one of them yet. what's the problem?

We have advised against using YoBit. DO NOT USE YoBit. I have no idea what wallet version they are running. Livecoin and Coinexchange should be running 2.1 or 2.2 both of which are compatible.

You need to run at least 2.1 and now you need to upgrade to 2.3.

[yubit]

IMPORTANT UPDATE
MANDATORY UPGRADE TO MOJO V.2.3 BEFORE BLOCK 84,000 (AROUND 28/08/16)

We have released the new source for v.2.3 w/ the following fixes and changes to the PoS / masternode system.

1. Fix from the PoS Reward. 1,5% >> see below for the updated PoS scheme
1.b Fix for PoS reward for big amounts (overflow error)
2. Add new POS Reward for Year 1-5 >> see below
3. Change the Masternode Reward for year 2-3 >> see below
4. Change POW Reward to 5 MOJO / block
5. Hardfork switch after block 84,000
6. MinCoinAgeError fix

This should resolve the staking issues and the below is new PoS / masternode sceheme:

PoS values:
Year1: 20% annually - 50% masternodes share (1 year from block 84,000)
Year2: 15% annually - 60% masternodes share
year3: 10% annually - 70% masternodes share
year4 onwards: 5% annually - 70% masternodes share

The MOJO v.2.3 for Windows is ready >> LINK

Mac-qt 2.3
You MUST UPGRADE TO VERSION 2.3 before block 84,000 (roughly 28/08)

Linux daemon v.2.3 will be out very soon.

Thank you

Is it stable version? Thanks.

[cryptodv]

IMPORTANT UPDATE
MANDATORY UPGRADE TO MOJO V.2.3 BEFORE BLOCK 84,000 (AROUND 28/08/16)

We have released the new source for v.2.3 w/ the following fixes and changes to the PoS / masternode system.

1. Fix from the PoS Reward. 1,5% >> see below for the updated PoS scheme
1.b Fix for PoS reward for big amounts (overflow error)
2. Add new POS Reward for Year 1-5 >> see below
3. Change the Masternode Reward for year 2-3 >> see below
4. Change POW Reward to 5 MOJO / block
5. Hardfork switch after block 84,000
6. MinCoinAgeError fix

This should resolve the staking issues and the below is new PoS / masternode sceheme:

PoS values:
Year1: 20% annually - 50% masternodes share (1 year from block 84,000)
Year2: 15% annually - 60% masternodes share
year3: 10% annually - 70% masternodes share
year4 onwards: 5% annually - 70% masternodes share

The MOJO v.2.3 for Windows is ready >> LINK

Mac-qt 2.3
You MUST UPGRADE TO VERSION 2.3 before block 84,000 (roughly 28/08)

Linux daemon v.2.3 will be out very soon.



Thank you

Is it stable version? Thanks.

Can't open new Mac wallet, says wallet.dat is corrupt  

[metamorphin]

IMPORTANT UPDATE
MANDATORY UPGRADE TO MOJO V.2.3 BEFORE BLOCK 84,000 (AROUND 28/08/16)

We have released the new source for v.2.3 w/ the following fixes and changes to the PoS / masternode system.

1. Fix from the PoS Reward. 1,5% >> see below for the updated PoS scheme
1.b Fix for PoS reward for big amounts (overflow error)
2. Add new POS Reward for Year 1-5 >> see below
3. Change the Masternode Reward for year 2-3 >> see below
4. Change POW Reward to 5 MOJO / block
5. Hardfork switch after block 84,000
6. MinCoinAgeError fix

This should resolve the staking issues and the below is new PoS / masternode sceheme:

PoS values:
Year1: 20% annually - 50% masternodes share (1 year from block 84,000)
Year2: 15% annually - 60% masternodes share
year3: 10% annually - 70% masternodes share
year4 onwards: 5% annually - 70% masternodes share

The MOJO v.2.3 for Windows is ready >> LINK

Mac-qt 2.3
You MUST UPGRADE TO VERSION 2.3 before block 84,000 (roughly 28/08)

Linux daemon v.2.3 will be out very soon.



Thank you

Is it stable version? Thanks.

Can't open new Mac wallet, says wallet.dat is corrupt  

u have ur privatekey?

[cryptodv]

IMPORTANT UPDATE
MANDATORY UPGRADE TO MOJO V.2.3 BEFORE BLOCK 84,000 (AROUND 28/08/16)

We have released the new source for v.2.3 w/ the following fixes and changes to the PoS / masternode system.

1. Fix from the PoS Reward. 1,5% >> see below for the updated PoS scheme
1.b Fix for PoS reward for big amounts (overflow error)
2. Add new POS Reward for Year 1-5 >> see below
3. Change the Masternode Reward for year 2-3 >> see below
4. Change POW Reward to 5 MOJO / block
5. Hardfork switch after block 84,000
6. MinCoinAgeError fix

This should resolve the staking issues and the below is new PoS / masternode sceheme:

PoS values:
Year1: 20% annually - 50% masternodes share (1 year from block 84,000)
Year2: 15% annually - 60% masternodes share
year3: 10% annually - 70% masternodes share
year4 onwards: 5% annually - 70% masternodes share

The MOJO v.2.3 for Windows is ready >> LINK

Mac-qt 2.3
You MUST UPGRADE TO VERSION 2.3 before block 84,000 (roughly 28/08)

Linux daemon v.2.3 will be out very soon.



Thank you

Is it stable version? Thanks.

Can't open new Mac wallet, says wallet.dat is corrupt  

u have ur privatekey?

Yes

[cryptospreader]

If you have private key, just delete crashed the wallet.dat file. Then open the wallet again. It will create a new wallet.dat file. Then use importprivkey command to import the private key. Once it syncs, you will get your balances.