Bitcoin Forum
March 26, 2019, 11:15:22 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: How many BottleCaps do you own?
None - 86 (39.6%)
1-1k - 29 (13.4%)
1k-10k - 27 (12.4%)
More than 10k - 75 (34.6%)
Total Voters: 217

Pages: « 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 ... 213 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bottlecaps 2.1 UPDATE REQUIRED - HARDFORK JULY 4 2014 to 200% Annual PoS  (Read 342147 times)
mullick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 14, 2013, 03:25:12 PM
 #1381


Vern was still on 1.5.1 hes updating now
1553598922
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1553598922

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1553598922
Reply with quote  #2

1553598922
Report to moderator
+
=
Equity on offer
in the world's largest
crypto enabled
marketplace
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1553598922
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1553598922

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1553598922
Reply with quote  #2

1553598922
Report to moderator
1553598922
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1553598922

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1553598922
Reply with quote  #2

1553598922
Report to moderator
paulsltc123
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 55
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 14, 2013, 03:45:13 PM
 #1382


Vern was still on 1.5.1 hes updating now

Forget that...what he NEEDS to update are his servers so that miners are not constantly missing valid payments on random confirmed blocks!! This is STILL going on...months now...many believe it is blatant theft and not just "ongoing server/client problems"...I'm starting to lean that way now too as this is getting ridiculous and he says he knows and is "working on it" but nothing gets done.  Many people are losing a fair bit of their hard earned coins due to this....

Cone on VERN....get this fixed once and for all or be labelled a mining pool operator thief...

PS..its too bad CAPs keeps dropping in value..now in the 0.00007's..way under valued..and the mining has been well under 100 megahashes for long time now...hope to see rebound soon...
fractalbc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 192
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 14, 2013, 08:39:02 PM
 #1383

I just saw the dev has returned and posted to this thread.  I have upgraded my client to 1.5.2 and nuked my blockchain and peers.  I had a couple hundred people on one of the forks with me prior to this.

An hour later now that I have redownloaded the blockchain I find I am still on a different fork than http://bottlecaps.kicks-ass.net/block_crawler.php

My client sees:

bottlecapsd getmininginfo
{
    "blocks" : 160976,
    "currentblocksize" : 1000,
    "currentblocktx" : 0,
    "difficulty" : 0.44363437,
    "errors" : "WARNING: Checkpoint is too old. Redownload Blockchain. If warning persist contact the Development Team",
    "generate" : false,
    "genproclimit" : -1,
    "hashespersec" : 0,
    "pooledtx" : 0,
    "testnet" : false
}

but kick-ass.net sees: Block Count: 161,014

People are mining on this fork as the block count increases.  The branch I am on seems to be advancing faster than the one kick-ass.net is on .  Some people are not going to be happy that they are working on the wrong fork, but it is hard to tell which one is right any more.

I gotta tell you that it instils little confidence in a coin when the standard answer is "throw away your block chain and download mine, it is right ... really it is ... trust me.."  I suggest you figure out how to make them converge without requiring a block chain download if you want to be taken seriously.
murraypaul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 14, 2013, 09:06:19 PM
 #1384

FWIW, multipool is on the same chain as kick-ass

BTC: 16TgAGdiTSsTWSsBDphebNJCFr1NT78xFW
SRC: scefi1XMhq91n3oF5FrE3HqddVvvCZP9KB
dragon695
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100



View Profile
October 14, 2013, 09:38:18 PM
 #1385

Are there any p2pools for bottlecaps?

35.000.000 Tokens in public sale  ⚪  [ CINDX ] - REFORM HOW SELL & BUY CRYPTO  ⚪  [JOIN Pre-Sale]
WebsiteANNTelegramTwitterWPRedditMediumLinkedinYouTubeFacebook
dreamwatcher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1000


View Profile WWW
October 14, 2013, 09:40:26 PM
 #1386

The CCE3 block explorer: cap.cryptocoinexplorer.com is on the same chain as the Kick-ass crawler.

I did a git pull to make sure the CCE explorer was using the latest Bottlecaps version, and it is.


fractalbc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 192
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 14, 2013, 10:08:41 PM
 #1387

FWIW, multipool is on the same chain as kick-ass
Somebody is going to be disappointed.

Since the time I posted earlier to now the KAA fork has solved 113 blocks and the fork I am on has solved 104.  That's pretty close to an even split of work that half the people aren't gonna like the result of.  That probably includes me since my miners are on multipool since I am too lazy to manage them by hand.
mullick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 14, 2013, 10:21:49 PM
 #1388

A few people who didnt update to the lastest client which was released a few weeks ago ( 16 days to be exact ) were sent to  bad chain when the checkpointing server was switched on.

The reason the chains stay close in height id the difficulty algorithm which adjust reather quickly. the 2 chains have a wildy seperate difficulty with the correct chain having near 1 and the other ranging around .4

I made sure all pools and explorers were on the same chain and my node was showing 8 out of 61 peers left to upgrade which should have forced the supermajority but it appears someone generated a lot of stake that was rejected by the server and accepted by older peers. Banning them.

If you upgraded in the last 2 days and are on the wrong chain, close your client for a few hours delete the blockchain and redowload this way you will not be bannned by peers from the right network.

Perhaps i should have waited longer to turn it on or even hard forked it with the new key but i didn't want to do a hard fork unless necessary and 8 out of 61 peers after two weeks seemed like a good majority. As well as all pools and explorers ect being on the new client

The checkpoint too old message is designed to warn users that a software update is likely
flound1129
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1000


www.multipool.us


View Profile
October 14, 2013, 10:34:53 PM
 #1389

So what is going on exactly?  I have deposits in Cryptsy as recently as a few hours ago.

Multipool - Always mine the most profitable coin - Scrypt, X11 or SHA-256!
fractalbc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 192
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 14, 2013, 10:54:48 PM
 #1390

The reason the chains stay close in height id the difficulty algorithm which adjust reather quickly. the 2 chains have a wildy seperate difficulty with the correct chain having near 1 and the other ranging around .4
Good point.  I missed that.  So there is a lot more hash going to the right fork.

Right now I show 30 peers with getmininginfo compared to the 27 listed on kicks-ass.

I didn't wait after upgrading so my node is probably banned by kicks-ass which would explain why I locked onto the fork I did.  Is there any way the protocol will recover or is it a matter that requires manual intervention?
mullick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 14, 2013, 11:09:56 PM
 #1391

So what is going on exactly?  I have deposits in Cryptsy as recently as a few hours ago.

No need to worry for you vern is on track Wink

The reason the chains stay close in height id the difficulty algorithm which adjust reather quickly. the 2 chains have a wildy seperate difficulty with the correct chain having near 1 and the other ranging around .4
Good point.  I missed that.  So there is a lot more hash going to the right fork.

Right now I show 30 peers with getmininginfo compared to the 27 listed on kicks-ass.

I didn't wait after upgrading so my node is probably banned by kicks-ass which would explain why I locked onto the fork I did.  Is there any way the protocol will recover or is it a matter that requires manual intervention?

Ill keep bumping this thread. Im guessing whats left on the other chain is a lot of people stake minting and a few bigger hashers. If you did mine some on the old vlient I still have some donations i could distribute to you to ease the effects of this

In order to get on the right chain closing the client for a few hours or changing your ip will clear your bans and you can redownload thew blockchain to the correct one.

Ill be clearing the peers on the nodes listed in the op regularly

Pmalek
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 951



View Profile
October 14, 2013, 11:53:43 PM
 #1392

I hate to see Caps so low. This must be due to those issues with chains, probably investors waiting for things to resolve... Mullick, I think you should hard fork it like DGC and WDC did, finding the optimal POS/POW, coins, block time, diff settings... So we can resolve this once and for all and so the confidence in the coin returns...

.FORTUNE.JACK.
      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄████▀▀ ▄ ██████▄
  ████ ▄▄███ ████████
 █████▌▐███▌ ▀▄ ▀█████
███████▄██▀▀▀▀▄████████
█████▀▄▄▄▄█████████████
████▄▄▄▄ █████████████
 ██████▌ ███▀████████
  ███████▄▀▄████████
   ▀█████▀▀███████▀
      ▀▀██████▀▀
         
         █
...FortuneJack.com                                             
...THE BIGGEST BITCOIN GAMBLING SITE
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄█████████████████▄
  ▄█████████████████████▄
 ▄██
█████████▀███████████▄
██████████▀   ▀██████████
█████████▀       ▀█████████
████████           ████████
████████▄   ▄ ▄   ▄████████
██████████▀   ▀██████████
 ▀██
█████████████████████▀
  ▀██
███████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
#JACKMATE
WIN 1 BTC
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████████▀█████▀██████████
███████▀░░▀░░░░░▀░░▀███████
██████▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐██████
██████░░░░██░░░██░░░░██████
█████▌░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░▐█████
██████▄░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄░░▄██████
████████▄▄███████▄▄████████

███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
mullick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 15, 2013, 12:46:12 AM
 #1393

I hate to see Caps so low. This must be due to those issues with chains, probably investors waiting for things to resolve... Mullick, I think you should hard fork it like DGC and WDC did, finding the optimal POS/POW, coins, block time, diff settings... So we can resolve this once and for all and so the confidence in the coin returns...

Well the checkpointing server offers the greatest security against these sort of problems. Now that its active users of 1.5.2 are running on one of the most secure blockchains out there. Like ppc and nvc once sufficient coinage is sustained on the network the server will slowly be weakened. And Proof of stake allowed to take over

I dont think changing subisdy ect is a good move. In my opinion its just an attempt to raise the price and provide a larger early  adopter advantage which is exactly the opposite of what caps is about. Its designed so if you started mining today you have the same opportunity to acquire holding as you did if you mined block #1

Something i may be open too is a change in block times with a subsidy change to match keeping the same generation model and fairness it has always had. Maybe a poll is in order to decide the future. But i assure you 1.5.2 is extremely stable and reliable. Any changes from here on out will only be for the longevity of the chain

Crypto currency's are designed to be decentralized. Its one of the greatest advantages. Changing subisdy and generation models goes against everything a decentralized currency is about and is not something i am open to doing if it will cause an artificial rise in price

Changing the rewards for POS is something I would still like to do but if its done would be adopted later in the chain giving everyone a fair opportunity to asses the changes and decide if they would like to continue support of the currency. I suppose this is also changing the generation model but feel its not nearly as drastic as cutting the block reward and drastically decreasing the daily output of the chain

However this is not a dictatorship I am only here to provide a stable and reliable currency if the vast majority of users that make up the network decide it is necessary I will oblige. But it would require great discussion general consensus
mullick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 15, 2013, 05:38:29 AM
 #1394

Bump so people update
mullick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 15, 2013, 05:29:29 PM
 #1395

So what is going on exactly?  I have deposits in Cryptsy as recently as a few hours ago.

Dont know why that message was posted on multipool. Both explorers yourself and Vern were in agreement

Only clients that didnt update in time were affected
Balthazar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2576
Merit: 1041


Terran Emperor


View Profile WWW
October 15, 2013, 05:36:15 PM
Last edit: October 15, 2013, 05:49:20 PM by Balthazar
 #1396

No forks possible if there are no old clients running, simply because the checkpoints won't allow so.

However, it doesn't mean that everything is going well. It's clearly, that using the BCPs for the chain integrity maintaining isn't a normal practice. The block chain should be able to function without BCPs.

DrGoose
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 93
Merit: 10



View Profile
October 19, 2013, 05:49:09 AM
 #1397

Here is a make or break proposal for CAPs:
   Make the POS equivalent to at least 30% interest per year... for the next 10 years.
   For holders it means a doubling of their position every 3 years.

Why?

  Be bold. Capture the imagination and people will hold.

  Stay generic and conservative... and look forward to become irrelevant among most alt-coins.

===

Will the price crash? Who knows. The equilibrium between holders and what is left to trade might be an interesting experiment.

At this point I believe the design decision should be about *positioning* the coin among the holders.

Holders are the best at promoting and supporting a market. A coin needs "thousands" of evangelists to build confidence. A few dozen of developers and believers is not enough.

Of course inflation matters and some adjustment to POS beyond the 10 years has to be written in stone, but it is not a time to think conservatively.

Designing for the far future is irrelevant if a coin does not make it on short term.

It is about survival in the growing shadow of BTC... and a coin worth holding NOW could be among the few last still standing in people's wallet 10 years down the road.

Again:
   Be bold. Capture the imagination and people will hold.

(All IMHO)
gnode
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 492
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 26, 2013, 04:36:16 PM
 #1398

I think we should change the name to CryptoAPPs, or leave it bottlecaps and change the 3 letters to BTL
Sikon024
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 54
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 30, 2013, 01:09:12 PM
 #1399

Here is a make or break proposal for CAPs:
   Make the POS equivalent to at least 30% interest per year... for the next 10 years.
   For holders it means a doubling of their position every 3 years.

I didn't agree with this idea at first because of what PoS stake interest did to CENT's price.  However i could agree with a  15-20% per year PoS generation If it required 1 year to mature.  Or possibly a graduated system where investors stake 10% the first year, 15% the next and so on.  We need to find a balance between generating long term bag holders and watering down the coin supply.  I think the annual PoS bonus may do this.

I love the name bottlecaps but I see it's up for debate due to its impression on 'traditional' investors (Disclosure: I loved the game fallout so I have a biased opinion). I think the CAP acronym is still valuable.  Just to throw out some ideas: CryptoCapitol, CryptoCAP, and CAPcurrency are some mainstream options.

A slight diff adjustment to a 5-10% higher diff per mh/s (would spoil my good mining) but also deter the autosellers.  This would prevent the current GDC situation: It is still profitable to mine and dump gdc into oblivion.

Getting CAP on another exchange or two would help attract some more needed attention too.  Of course trading options, uses and services are key.

Just my two cents...
digitalindustry
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 1000


wubba lubba dub dub


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2013, 01:42:52 PM
 #1400

Here is a make or break proposal for CAPs:
   Make the POS equivalent to at least 30% interest per year... for the next 10 years.
   For holders it means a doubling of their position every 3 years.

I didn't agree with this idea at first because of what PoS stake interest did to CENT's price.  However i could agree with a  15-20% per year PoS generation If it required 1 year to mature.  Or possibly a graduated system where investors stake 10% the first year, 15% the next and so on.  We need to find a balance between generating long term bag holders and watering down the coin supply.  I think the annual PoS bonus may do this.

I love the name bottlecaps but I see it's up for debate due to its impression on 'traditional' investors (Disclosure: I loved the game fallout so I have a biased opinion). I think the CAP acronym is still valuable.  Just to throw out some ideas: CryptoCapitol, CryptoCAP, and CAPcurrency are some mainstream options.

A slight diff adjustment to a 5-10% higher diff per mh/s (would spoil my good mining) but also deter the autosellers.  This would prevent the current GDC situation: It is still profitable to mine and dump gdc into oblivion.

Getting CAP on another exchange or two would help attract some more needed attention too.  Of course trading options, uses and services are key.

Just my two cents...

Oh hey,  we are back to that old matter ....

: D

Obviously you know the answer.



Gee mullick I feel like some curse came down onto CAPs, I certainly hope I was not involved !

Well you know what they say.... , it was the worst of times it was the best if times....

I bet you know more about checkpoints and POS now ?



Dr goose , I think you're idea is bold , but one potentially negative effect could be the lack of new liquid CAPital {lol} , because such a policy,  would be detrimental to further development.

I could see how someone could turn around and say , " but Bitcoin" and talk about the centralized nature in which it exists, but there are other vectors to the equation,  big ones.

I dont think Cap Currency {lol} could bootstrap like that .

To investors,  price goes up price goes down , welcome to cryptocurrency, the value is what we all make it .

tiny rick !
- https://voat.co/v/Contact/
- Twitter @Kolin_Quark
Pages: « 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 ... 213 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!