[ANN] [CAPS] BottleCapsPlus PoW+PoS high protected coin.

[Turrican]

Have you more nodeadress ? I see only 47.20.253.239

[1714181255]

1714181255

[1714181255]

1714181255

[1714181255]

1714181255

[1714181255]

1714181255

[1714181255]

1714181255

[vancefox]

Have you more nodeadress ? I see only 47.20.253.239

That's what I see... just one connection.



[
{
"addr" : "47.20.253.239:7682",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1513210928,
"lastrecv" : 1513210928,
"bytessent" : 23496,
"bytesrecv" : 324883,
"conntime" : 1513120980,
"version" : 60018,
"subver" : "/BottleCapsPlus:1.0.1.1/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 219,
"banscore" : 0,
"syncnode" : true
}
]

EDIT: Fixed.  Had to go in and forward port.  I'm using 7682 as well just to keep it consistent.


19:33:08

[
{
"addr" : "47.20.253.239:7682",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1513211566,
"lastrecv" : 1513211566,
"bytessent" : 1176,
"bytesrecv" : 864,
"conntime" : 1513211534,
"version" : 60018,
"subver" : "/BottleCapsPlus:1.0.1.1/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 523,
"banscore" : 0,
"syncnode" : true
},
{
"addr" : "5.103.138.97:53684",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1513211567,
"lastrecv" : 1513211566,
"bytessent" : 864,
"bytesrecv" : 358,
"conntime" : 1513211535,
"version" : 60018,
"subver" : "/BottleCapsPlus:1.0.1.1/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 522,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "188.146.161.144:43875",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1513211566,
"lastrecv" : 1513211553,
"bytessent" : 358,
"bytesrecv" : 236,
"conntime" : 1513211552,
"version" : 60018,
"subver" : "/BottleCapsPlus:1.0.1.1/",
"inbound" : true,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 523,
"banscore" : 0
}
]

[paramind22]

Will the first post tell us the current update when the rest of us are ready to download the wallet?

[vampirus]

CAPP started, in OP link to final version.

[dnp]

are you still accepting premine old-Cap addresses?
my lowly address of F3tPKJXbVMPVgoLZxUk5C3gVdxtchfAfBU would be nice

thanks

ps: my gratitude may get a cap+ daemon running on my fulltime linux server allowing incoming connections
     until the cap+ network is well established. *wink*

[vampirus]

are you still accepting premine old-Cap addresses?
my lowly address of F3tPKJXbVMPVgoLZxUk5C3gVdxtchfAfBU would be nice

thanks

ps: my gratitude may get a cap+ daemon running on my fulltime linux server allowing incoming connections
     until the cap+ network is well established. *wink*

I accept some time swap small balances, but how I calculate yours balance on November, 22?
You send, receive and PoS after that, and now balance only 3240 CAP (324 CAPP)

[dnp]

are you still accepting premine old-Cap addresses?
my lowly address of F3tPKJXbVMPVgoLZxUk5C3gVdxtchfAfBU would be nice

thanks

ps: my gratitude may get a cap+ daemon running on my fulltime linux server allowing incoming connections
     until the cap+ network is well established. *wink*

I accept some time swap small balances, but how I calculate yours balance on November, 22?
You send, receive and PoS after that, and now balance only 3240 CAP (324 CAPP)

hmmmm, good question.

so when making the capp source should i do USE_LEVELDB=1 ??
is mining possible now or is that for later blocks?

[Turrican]

i have now 10 peers 

Code:

addnode=60.245.64.162:65227
addnode=188.146.161.144:43912
addnode=104.220.116.150:59906
addnode=99.237.62.103:63710
addnode=62.64.86.44:52863
addnode=135.23.127.145:47400
addnode=24.115.136.174:7682
addnode=84.117.67.46:52406
addnode=[2001:0:9d38:90d7:14c2:8969:ab8a:bcd1]:7682
addnode=47.20.253.239:7682

[dnp]

are you still accepting premine old-Cap addresses?
my lowly address of F3tPKJXbVMPVgoLZxUk5C3gVdxtchfAfBU would be nice

thanks

ps: my gratitude may get a cap+ daemon running on my fulltime linux server allowing incoming connections
     until the cap+ network is well established. *wink*

I accept some time swap small balances, but how I calculate yours balance on November, 22?
You send, receive and PoS after that, and now balance only 3240 CAP (324 CAPP)

hmmmm, good question.

so when making the capp source should i do USE_LEVELDB=1 ??
is mining possible now or is that for later blocks?

okay, i have the daemon running fulltime accepting incoming connections.
in fact, i'm already in Turrican's nodelist

[vampirus]

Mining work now, and you may use USE_LEVELDB=1
but with db-6.2.23.NC or later (or you need some changes in db.cpp)

Code:

DbEnv(0).remove(strPath.c_str(), 0); //for old versions

DbEnv((u_int32_t)0).remove(strPath.c_str(), 0); //for new versions

[bitmaster1x]

No repair wallet dropdown option

[dnp]

Mining work now, and you may use USE_LEVELDB=1
but with db-6.2.23.NC or later (or you need some changes in db.cpp)

Code:

DbEnv(0).remove(strPath.c_str(), 0); //for old versions

DbEnv((u_int32_t)0).remove(strPath.c_str(), 0); //for new versions

seems odd. zero usually promotes/demotes gracefully.
oh well, my slackware linux has an ancient 4.8.30 db

i suggest using DbEnv::version to do a dynamic runtime test on which way
to make the call to avoid future builds by other people having this obscure problem.
if its frequently invoked code, could call it once to set a static variable for testing.

something like:

Code:

if (!fMockDb) {                                           
        if(db_vercheck(6,2,23) < 0)
            DbEnv(0).remove(strPath.c_str(), 0);              
        else
            DbEnv((u_int32_t)0).remove(strPath.c_str(), 0);   
    }

Code:

// MIT License
// Copyright (c) 2017 by Kenneth D. Dykes

#include "db_vercheck.h"

int db_vercheck(unsigned major, unsigned minor, unsigned patchlevel) {
        int dbmajor, dbminor, dbpatch;
        long long want, got;

                // assume none of the values exceed 3 digits (999)

        (void) db_version(&dbmajor, &dbminor, &dbpatch);  // c++ should be DbEnv::version(... , it was past my bedtime :)
        want = (major * 1000000LL) + (minor * 1000LL) + patchlevel;
        got = (dbmajor * 1000000LL) + (dbminor * 1000LL) + dbpatch;

        return (int) ((got - want) < 0 ? -1 : ((got - want) == 0 ? 0 : 1));
}

Code:

// MIT License
// Copyright (c) 2017 by Kenneth G. Dykes


#ifndef _D_DBVERCHECK
#       define _D_DBVERCHECK    1


                // will return negative if db_version is less than (older) than test values,
                // zero if version identical to test values
                // positive if version is greater (newer) than test values
                // assumes none of the values exceed 3 digits (999)
extern int db_vercheck(unsigned major, unsigned minor, unsigned patchlevel);

#include <db_cxx.h>

#endif

[dnp]

may i suggest the following be added to getinfo() output?
QT wallets usually give this info but non-gui daemons live in obscurity...

Code:

    obj.push_back(Pair("openssl_version", SSLeay_version(SSLEAY_VERSION)));                           
    obj.push_back(Pair("berkeleydb_version", DbEnv::version(NULL,NULL,NULL)));

and also

Code:

    obj.push_back(Pair("lastblock_time", (int)pindexBest->GetBlockTime()));

thanks!

[vampirus]

I see checkpoint server still not running.
@Tranz and @ReydeApio where is checkpoint server?

[paramind22]

I am getting "no suitable inputs found" and it doesn't seem to be staking.

[vampirus]

I am getting "no suitable inputs found" and it doesn't seem to be staking.

For staking, you need 3 days old input with 800 confirmations and 2 or more connections.
And reservebalance=0

[bitmaster1x]

@Vampirus What's with the two receive addresses (one long and one short)?

[vampirus]

@Vampirus What's with the two receive addresses (one long and one short)?

I say it before, long address for anonymous transactions, see Novacoin topic.

[olkah]

exchange

[olkah]

https://www.virustotal.com/ru/file/3b61d4a0df832ca2f95d2691a9f34bccabb9733c82233bddf8ba4e15bfc429e9/analysis/1513399178/