[ANN][TZC] TrezarCoin Super-Secure-PoW/PoS

[statt]

Is there a plan to get listed on other exchanges? Cryptopia is a nightmare and cannot find anything on website. Thx

Yes, there have been many applications submitted as well as communication with multiple exchanges.
If you would like to follow more regular commentary about this, please feel free to join the Slack or Discord.

[1713533371]

1713533371

[1713533371]

1713533371

[1713533371]

1713533371

[1713533371]

1713533371

[1713533371]

1713533371

[1713533371]

1713533371

[circle8crypto]

Any way of deleting an account using "trezarcoind" from the linux command line. I want to delete one of the accounts listed using "./trezarcoind listaccounts"

[statt]

Any way of deleting an account using "trezarcoind" from the linux command line. I want to delete one of the accounts listed using "./trezarcoind listaccounts"

I'm not aware of one, but it may be out there.

Here is one area of the codebase where CLI parameters and commands are listed:
https://github.com/TrezarCoin/TrezarCoin/blob/e113208108d6e62f8ff892cc360580a247aa2929/src/init.cpp#L251

You could also try looking around for further options.
For example, the console commands would be in a different area.

[vygge]

Count me as another that does not like cryptopia. Maybe it is tzc that can't get the wallet straight with them so that might be where my anger should be focused. As I type this I have a withdraw from cryptopia worth about 5k tzc in pending and it has been that way for well over 24 hours. I sure wish those coins were added to the coins I am staking with.

[statt]

Count me as another that does not like cryptopia. Maybe it is tzc that can't get the wallet straight with them so that might be where my anger should be focused. As I type this I have a withdraw from cryptopia worth about 5k tzc in pending and it has been that way for well over 24 hours. I sure wish those coins were added to the coins I am staking with.

I will be completely honest and say there are some uptime aspects to the wallet that could be improved.
And those aspects are being addressed--they're on the to-do list for core wallet updates.

However, I think it would be fair to say that given the vast number of complaints about Cryptopia across many coins, that this is more likely to be a Cryptopia issue. Of course, that is speculation, but seem to be a fair one.

[vygge]

I get that. Please don't take me as one to spread fud or whatever.

I believe that there is work being done on the wallet and other aspects of this coin. That's why I'm still buying and mining more.

Hopefully soon it will get listed on a more reliable exchange.

[SHBlizzard]

Count me as another that does not like cryptopia. Maybe it is tzc that can't get the wallet straight with them so that might be where my anger should be focused. As I type this I have a withdraw from cryptopia worth about 5k tzc in pending and it has been that way for well over 24 hours. I sure wish those coins were added to the coins I am staking with.

I will be completely honest and say there are some uptime aspects to the wallet that could be improved.
And those aspects are being addressed--they're on the to-do list for core wallet updates.

However, I think it would be fair to say that given the vast number of complaints about Cryptopia across many coins, that this is more likely to be a Cryptopia issue. Of course, that is speculation, but seem to be a fair one.

cryptopia is a shit show right now - Byteball users have had their wallets locked for months now. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2948513.0

they've locked the wallets of so many coins its ridiculous - hopefully TZC gets on a new exchange soon, just for the sake of security and liquidity (i know its been worked on) GL

[statt]

Courtesy of ChekaZ:

Rock/Paper/Scissors is LIVE! - It is the first TrezarFundMe project to go live.
Thanks to @Totenfluch for the work!

Please feel free to stop by the Slack to try it out!

Commands:
/rps  @username <amount>

Wager limits: 0.1 < amount < 100
RPS is linked with the Tipbot, so if you want to play, you have to load funds into your TipAccount.

Happy playing!

[bitsnift]

Is there a headless wallet for Linux? Source on Github appears to be daemon and qt wallet only.

One of the guides available on the website is for Headless Wallet on VPS Ubuntu...
https://trezarcoin.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Wallet-PoS-wallet-on-VPS.pdf

Actually that's not headless. The commandline wallet is missing. In order to stake you need to run the wallet, and the graphical qt wallet has to be displayed on a XServer (or similiar). A commandline wallet could just run in a screen session without any display attached.

[Noruka]

@dev: found a minor issue.

after you had a bluescreen or a freezed computer the trezar wallet crashes on startup. you have to resync the entire chain. this is the only wallet with such issues.

There are a lot of such wallets. Some are more resistant to falling systems, some less resistant.

It's indeed very annoying. But isn't there some bootstrap file available for the blockchain so you don't have to download it entirely from scratch?

Yes, this does happen to some wallets and it does appear related to ungraceful wallet shutdowns (eg, PC power failures, etc.). The dev team has acknowledged this concern and have expressed that it is on the radar for future improvement.

In the meantime, most users have had great success using the following suggestions:

• Run the wallet with the -rescan and/or -reindex parameters (be aware reindex may take many minutes possibly 20+ for some).
• Backup wallet.dat and rename or move the /data folder. This is like a reinstall and will re-download the blockchain. When it completes, close wallet and swap out wallet.dat and then reopen application.

People have also suggested periodically making a copy of the (I believe) /blktree and /blocks folder to keep around as a semi-bootstrap to shorten resync times.
You could also try simply backing up the entire /data folder (which contains the folders above) periodically.

Best of luck!

Is there any estimation from the devs when they will find the time to improve the situation? I feel like many newbies will give up very quickly if they can't get the wallet to run properly and that means forgone potential for the community to grow.

[KhunChan]

The purse is working properly. An error may occur as a result of improper shutdown of the computer. But this is not the fault of the wallet.

[statt]

The purse is working properly. An error may occur as a result of improper shutdown of the computer. But this is not the fault of the wallet.

I agree. But then again, some more robustness would be nice.

@Noruka:
AFAIK, such improvements are on the docket. Unfortunately, some of the issues have been tricky to reproduce in development environments, so it's been a difficult process to debug. But should be coming down the pipeline.

[MagicSmoker]

The purse is working properly. An error may occur as a result of improper shutdown of the computer. But this is not the fault of the wallet.

I agree. But then again, some more robustness would be nice.

@Noruka:
AFAIK, such improvements are on the docket. Unfortunately, some of the issues have been tricky to reproduce in development environments, so it's been a difficult process to debug. But should be coming down the pipeline.

Not sure what other issues you are referring to, but the one where the wallet is fatally compromised if the computer is shutdown improperly or locks up is pretty easy to reproduce. I'm no programmer, but it seems to me this is the result of leaving files open that have been written to/modified, rather than only opening them for long enough to write/update then close them again.

Also, I am going to reiterate my earlier comments to this thread about the absolutely useless data reported in the Penrose triangle: even after reading the whitepaper I still have no idea what, "inputs weighing x coin days," means; this bunch of gobblydegook that only a C programmer could love should be replaced with something like, "estimated daily* chance of receiving a block from staking: %"

Basically, as long as it is made clear that receiving a block from staking is a probabilistic event, and not something guaranteed to happen after x days with n coins, then there shouldn't be too much confusion. Frankly, arguing that your clients/customers/users are too stupid to understand what you are offering never struck me as sound business (even if it is true...).


* - or weekly, monthly, etc...

[statt]

I agree. But then again, some more robustness would be nice.

@Noruka:
AFAIK, such improvements are on the docket. Unfortunately, some of the issues have been tricky to reproduce in development environments, so it's been a difficult process to debug. But should be coming down the pipeline.

Not sure what other issues you are referring to, but the one where the wallet is fatally compromised if the computer is shutdown improperly or locks up is pretty easy to reproduce. I'm no programmer, but it seems to me this is the result of leaving files open that have been written to/modified, rather than only opening them for long enough to write/update then close them again.

Also, I am going to reiterate my earlier comments to this thread about the absolutely useless data reported in the Penrose triangle: even after reading the whitepaper I still have no idea what, "inputs weighing x coin days," means; this bunch of gobblydegook that only a C programmer could love should be replaced with something like, "estimated daily* chance of receiving a block from staking: %"

Basically, as long as it is made clear that receiving a block from staking is a probabilistic event, and not something guaranteed to happen after x days with n coins, then there shouldn't be too much confusion. Frankly, arguing that your clients/customers/users are too stupid to understand what you are offering never struck me as sound business (even if it is true...).


* - or weekly, monthly, etc...

Sorry, I was referring to a different bug--not the one you described.
And yes, that one should be more straightforward and it is being worked on AFAIK.

Your input about the wallet information output is duly noted--a few other people have had similar thoughts.
I am not aware of this being planned for the next update, but it is something that is being mentioned periodically as something to improve sooner than later.

And finally, I'm not sure what you mean by "arguing that your clients/customers/users are too stupid to understand"...
I don't recall any messages, particularly recently, implying anything like that? 

I personally agree, for what it's worth, and hope that the documentation and software will continue to improve such that we can serve a reasonable lowest-common-denominator of users. 

[MagicSmoker]

Sorry, I was referring to a different bug--not the one you described.
And yes, that one should be more straightforward and it is being worked on AFAIK.

Yeah, a Windows wallet pretty much needs to be able to deal with "unexpected reboots," because Windows...  

Your input about the wallet information output is duly noted--a few other people have had similar thoughts.
I am not aware of this being planned for the next update, but it is something that is being mentioned periodically as something to improve sooner than later.

And finally, I'm not sure what you mean by "arguing that your clients/customers/users are too stupid to understand"...
I don't recall any messages, particularly recently, implying anything like that?  

I personally agree, for what it's worth, and hope that the documentation and software will continue to improve such that we can serve a reasonable lowest-common-denominator of users.  

I direct you back to msg #2481 where you basically said that it might not be a good idea to put a staking estimator/calculator in the wallet because it might confuse people or make them think they were entitled to a certain reward, etc. I may have employed a bit of hyperbole in my previous post when I characterized this as essentially calling your clients/customers/users stupid, but it's not too far off the mark.

EDIT - so I just found this document on setting up the Linux wallet for staking and something in it really tweaked my knobs:

If you send a transaction from a staking wallet, every input time will reset to 0. So you should have a regular wallet
and a PoS one (you can follow the Local Wallet + PoS Headless Wallet on VPS for setting up such confguration).

What the... If I send TZC from my wallet all of my coins will be reset to minimum age?!? What is the point of punishing people for actually using a coin, or does the dev team think we should "hodl forever!1!!1!"?

[statt]

And finally, I'm not sure what you mean by "arguing that your clients/customers/users are too stupid to understand"...
I don't recall any messages, particularly recently, implying anything like that?  

I personally agree, for what it's worth, and hope that the documentation and software will continue to improve such that we can serve a reasonable lowest-common-denominator of users.  

I direct you back to msg #2481 where you basically said that it might not be a good idea to put a staking estimator/calculator in the wallet because it might confuse people or make them think they were entitled to a certain reward, etc. I may have employed a bit of hyperbole in my previous post when I characterized this as essentially calling your clients/customers/users stupid, but it's not too far off the mark.

With all due respect, I strongly disagree with that assertion--I do not believe it is anywhere near the mark.
IMO, looking out for customers/clients and trying to make things intuitive or easy for them to use is NOT at all the same thing as saying or believing they are "too stupid to understand"... Extending that logic to the consumer/retail world would mean companies like Apple that distinguish themselves by creating easier to use, intuitive products are, likewise, insisting their customers are "too stupid". Although I personally do not care for Apple, I find that assertion ill-fitting and at best misleading.

EDIT - so I just found this document on setting up the Linux wallet for staking and something in it really tweaked my knobs:

If you send a transaction from a staking wallet, every input time will reset to 0. So you should have a regular wallet
and a PoS one (you can follow the Local Wallet + PoS Headless Wallet on VPS for setting up such confguration).

What the... If I send TZC from my wallet all of my coins will be reset to minimum age?!? What is the point of punishing people for actually using a coin, or does the dev team think we should "hodl forever!1!!1!"?

No, if you send any coins from an input (i.e., consume that input), then all the coins IN THAT ONE INPUT are reset.
Either the author you quoted choose poor phrasing to communicate a point, or misunderstood how inputs/UTXO get reset when consumed.

Rest assured, you do not need to worry about other coins in the same address or elsewhere in your wallet getting their ages reset. 

[MagicSmoker]

I direct you back to msg #2481 where you basically said that it might not be a good idea to put a staking estimator/calculator in the wallet because it might confuse people or make them think they were entitled to a certain reward, etc. I may have employed a bit of hyperbole in my previous post when I characterized this as essentially calling your clients/customers/users stupid, but it's not too far off the mark.

With all due respect, I strongly disagree with that assertion--I do not believe it is anywhere near the mark.
IMO, looking out for customers/clients and trying to make things intuitive or easy for them to use is NOT at all the same thing as saying or believing they are "too stupid to understand"... Extending that logic to the consumer/retail world would mean companies like Apple that distinguish themselves by creating easier to use, intuitive products are, likewise, insisting their customers are "too stupid". Although I personally do not care for Apple, I find that assertion ill-fitting and at best misleading.

We seem to be veering off into the weeds here, and I suspect you are taking my insouciant style a little too seriously. I am merely trying to emphasize that the wallet for a PoS coin absolutely needs to provide an estimate of the time to find a block from staking. It's basically a core function of a PoS wallet, the way I see it.

EDIT - so I just found this document on setting up the Linux wallet for staking and something in it really tweaked my knobs:

If you send a transaction from a staking wallet, every input time will reset to 0. So you should have a regular wallet
and a PoS one (you can follow the Local Wallet + PoS Headless Wallet on VPS for setting up such confguration).

...

No, if you send any coins from an input (i.e., consume that input), then all the coins IN THAT ONE INPUT are reset.
Either the author you quoted choose poor phrasing to communicate a point, or misunderstood how inputs/UTXO get reset when consumed.

Rest assured, you do not need to worry about other coins in the same address or elsewhere in your wallet getting their ages reset. 

Okay, well, what is an input and which coins are assigned to it?

NB - I have the whitepaper pulled up now and can see what an input is, but the wallet does not tell me this, nor does it allow me to chose to send my newest coins should I wish to conduct a transaction.

[statt]

We seem to be veering off into the weeds here, and I suspect you are taking my insouciant style a little too seriously. I am merely trying to emphasize that the wallet for a PoS coin absolutely needs to provide an estimate of the time to find a block from staking. It's basically a core function of a PoS wallet, the way I see it.

Ok, sounds good to me.
Just didn't want someone to think that there was condescension or judgment when there wasn't any...

Okay, well, what is an input and which coins are assigned to it?

NB - I have the whitepaper pulled up now and can see what an input is, but the wallet does not tell me this, nor does it allow me to chose to send my newest coins should I wish to conduct a transaction.

Inputs/outputs/addresses are all pretty fundamental aspects of blockchain and I regularly encourage participants in crypto to take 5-10 minutes to read some wikis on them. IMHO it only takes that long to get the basic concept, and it's very good knowledge to have if you are involved in this space. (A thorough, in-depth understanding would take much longer for most people--however that is not really necessary or as much positive cost/benefit, IMHO.)

The semi-short answer is an input is an incoming amount to an address.

One address can "hold" multiple inputs.
One analogy is to consider inputs like "bills" or "coins" in a physical wallet... except that since this is digital/non-tangible, it is not constrained by what denominations are printed. So, if today someone send you 1.629 coins, you will now have a 1.629-sized input associated with the address where you received the coins. These inputs (also sometimes called UTXO) are "consumed" when you yourself make payments from your wallet.

It's very easy to see and manage your inputs if you enable Coin Control.
Go to Options --> Display --> Enable the Coin Control (beta)
Then you will be able to see a Coin Control button in the Send section of your wallet.

Hope that helps!

[Noruka]

I agree. But then again, some more robustness would be nice.

@Noruka:
AFAIK, such improvements are on the docket. Unfortunately, some of the issues have been tricky to reproduce in development environments, so it's been a difficult process to debug. But should be coming down the pipeline.

Not sure what other issues you are referring to, but the one where the wallet is fatally compromised if the computer is shutdown improperly or locks up is pretty easy to reproduce. I'm no programmer, but it seems to me this is the result of leaving files open that have been written to/modified, rather than only opening them for long enough to write/update then close them again.

Also, I am going to reiterate my earlier comments to this thread about the absolutely useless data reported in the Penrose triangle: even after reading the whitepaper I still have no idea what, "inputs weighing x coin days," means; this bunch of gobblydegook that only a C programmer could love should be replaced with something like, "estimated daily* chance of receiving a block from staking: %"

Basically, as long as it is made clear that receiving a block from staking is a probabilistic event, and not something guaranteed to happen after x days with n coins, then there shouldn't be too much confusion. Frankly, arguing that your clients/customers/users are too stupid to understand what you are offering never struck me as sound business (even if it is true...).


* - or weekly, monthly, etc...

Sorry, I was referring to a different bug--not the one you described.
And yes, that one should be more straightforward and it is being worked on AFAIK.

Your input about the wallet information output is duly noted--a few other people have had similar thoughts.
I am not aware of this being planned for the next update, but it is something that is being mentioned periodically as something to improve sooner than later.

And finally, I'm not sure what you mean by "arguing that your clients/customers/users are too stupid to understand"...
I don't recall any messages, particularly recently, implying anything like that? 

I personally agree, for what it's worth, and hope that the documentation and software will continue to improve such that we can serve a reasonable lowest-common-denominator of users. 

Your answer is much appreciated. I am good for now and my intention isn't to put any pressure on you. Just keep going as you did but I would like to see those issues resolved if you find the time as I am not the only one suffering from it. Again, keep up the good work!

[statt]

Your answer is much appreciated. I am good for now and my intention isn't to put any pressure on you. Just keep going as you did but I would like to see those issues resolved if you find the time as I am not the only one suffering from it. Again, keep up the good work!

Please don't worry about pressure.
It is a good thing IMHO to periodically make inquiries--the squeaky wheel gets greased.
All I would ask is that people try to be reasonable and think things through before posting--you seem to do both, so don't hesitate to say what's on your mind. 

Although I am not a dev, I can confidently say that the code developers are aware of the issue. (For anyone else reading this response, we are discussing a suspected wallet-crash bug that occurs semi-infrequently and is not related to improper PC-shutdown, etc.) It is my understanding that they have been "casting nets" to catch and diagnose the potential problem. Unfortunately, it seems to be a fairly tricky one to isolate. The devs are very experienced, established blockchain programmers, not crypto-newcomers--so hopefully one can assume a certain level of competence.