Bottlecaps 2.1 UPDATE REQUIRED - HARDFORK JULY 4 2014 to 200% Annual PoS

[MobGod]

Is github up to date?  I just compiled the source from there and I'm getting the checkpoint warning.  Guess I'll try the google docs verison.

With the latest source you should not be receiving the checkpoint warning. If you have previously downloaded the chain you will need to delete and re download to sync with the new checkpoints. Ill add another checkpoint soon just in case

Hello John the github is up to date right now if so what do i need to delete before i run the new update ?

You will need to redownload the blockchain. What operating system?

Linux

[eBit]

I performed a clean install of this client v1.3 for Windows. I needed to manually add nodes to begin synching, but once completed, get the error message, "WARNING: Checkpoint is too old. Contact the development team."

I had the same problem. One of the added nodes was the cause of that problem. The problem node has been deleted from the original post and the following currently works:

addnode=186.95.162.209
addnode=70.79.24.157
addnode=70.98.114.229
addnode=188.165.211.65
addnode=199.192.205.46
addnode=176.34.210.88
addnode=70.69.238.84
addnode=70.98.114.237

Good to know. I was not at my pc to verify.

It looks like the node removed was:
addnode=69.85.86.195


I removed this from the .conf file, restarted the client, but the error message was still there. I'll wait for the next version. Everything else seems to work well.

[flound1129]

New US/EU pool available

stratum+tcp://pool1.us.multipool.in:3449
stratum+tcp://pool1.eu.multipool.in:3449

Thanks!

[butjust41day]

I performed a clean install of this client v1.3 for Windows. I needed to manually add nodes to begin synching, but once completed, get the error message, "WARNING: Checkpoint is too old. Contact the development team."

I had the same problem. One of the added nodes was the cause of that problem. The problem node has been deleted from the original post and the following currently works:

addnode=186.95.162.209
addnode=70.79.24.157
addnode=70.98.114.229
addnode=188.165.211.65
addnode=199.192.205.46
addnode=176.34.210.88
addnode=70.69.238.84
addnode=70.98.114.237

Good to know. I was not at my pc to verify.

It looks like the node removed was:
addnode=69.85.86.195


I removed this from the .conf file, restarted the client, but the error message was still there. I'll wait for the next version. Everything else seems to work well.

I deleted all except for the wallet and my .conf file (c/w with the revised addnodes) and re-downloaded the blockchain to correct the problem. I was able to re-create the problem on several different computers and cure it.

[John Eden]

Give Coin World CAP flip a try! http://flip.coinworld.us/CAP/

[John Eden]

Jays Jerky and Treats will now accept Bottlecaps

http://jaysjerkyandgoodies.com/

Support this great site as it accepts
BTC, LTC, FRK and now CAP's

[Damnsammit]

Glad to see other sites taking CAP! 

Unfortunately it doesn't look like my wed developer friend wants to go forward with this project, so I picked up a Python book and a PHP book... hopefully I am not too old to learn new tricks.

[John Eden]

Glad to see other sites taking CAP! 

Unfortunately it doesn't look like my wed developer friend wants to go forward with this project, so I picked up a Python book and a PHP book... hopefully I am not too old to learn new tricks.

Im sure you can handle it look forward to seeing your project! And thank you to all the bottlecaps supporters.

[eBit]

I performed a clean install of this client v1.3 for Windows. I needed to manually add nodes to begin synching, but once completed, get the error message, "WARNING: Checkpoint is too old. Contact the development team."

I had the same problem. One of the added nodes was the cause of that problem. The problem node has been deleted from the original post and the following currently works:

addnode=186.95.162.209
addnode=70.79.24.157
addnode=70.98.114.229
addnode=188.165.211.65
addnode=199.192.205.46
addnode=176.34.210.88
addnode=70.69.238.84
addnode=70.98.114.237

Good to know. I was not at my pc to verify.

It looks like the node removed was:
addnode=69.85.86.195


I removed this from the .conf file, restarted the client, but the error message was still there. I'll wait for the next version. Everything else seems to work well.

I deleted all except for the wallet and my .conf file (c/w with the revised addnodes) and re-downloaded the blockchain to correct the problem. I was able to re-create the problem on several different computers and cure it.

Okay, I deleted all files except wallet and conf and downloaded the entire blockchain again. I can assure you the problem is still there. I verified again that every ip in addnode is correct. If a new client is released and this is mentioned as a fix and some people still have problems, it's not gonna look good.  Running on Windows XP, virtual mode on Win7, client v1.3.

The only other thing I can think of is that I downloaded the associated dll's from one link, but since the client was not there, I downloaded that from the other link. I don't know if the issue could be in the DLL's, but in that case the update should probably be fine.

[John Eden]

Yes the checkpoint warning did come back into effect today. Its a protection only necessary in the early life of the blockchain.

I will go ahead and add the new checkpoints to the source and they will be included n the client released 7-30-13.

 There is nothing to worry about if you are receiving the warning it is just a notification to the developers that checkpoints are needed soon. All updated clients should have not seen the warning until just today. When PoS is fully active on the network the need for the checkpoints will decrease and we can implement another system

My apologies for your frustration. I will make announcements in the future if the warning will be present

As far as the new client not fixing the issue.

The warning was removed by the original developer. When i took over i felt this was not the correct way of going about it. I added the warning back in so we would stay notified of when checkpoints are needed. We are looking into a checkpointing system but want to keep it as decentralized as possible

[digitalindustry]

Hi I'm a little concerned about the Caps client -

Perhaps some advice / help ?

• The Checkpoint warning persists
• I sent 1101.531397 to an address the receiver has tried every way possible get the client to stop the warning but can not - regardless the destination client is in sync .
• But my transaction is sent out , (see below for Tran history) but under "transactions" has 0 of 6 confirmations and it has not arrived at the destination?
• the 1101 Caps have left this wallet but have 0 confirmations and not arrived at the other wallet
• both wallets show the same block downloaded block count

Transaction details :

Status: 0/unconfirmed
Date: 7/26/2013 12:43
To: digitalindustry-wallet F21vYmnvWRhmPSJ57s9J81TVgHi3etZQgM
Debit: -1101.531397 CAP
Transaction fee: -0.001 CAP
Net amount: -1101.532397 CAP
Transaction ID: af9cb93009791f900903d14cf3f338d7f34080cb38d60a7ddf46e01e1c84cd1a

Is this sort of behavior typical of a 51% type attack? - or could my wallet be having some sort of malfunction .

any help would be appreciated - i'd like not to lose the 1101 Caps as im saving for a new car energy cell.

[mercSuey]

Hi I'm a little concerned about the Caps client -

Perhaps some advice / help ?

• The Checkpoint warning persists
• I sent 1101.531397 to an address the receiver has tried every way possible get the client to stop the warning but can not - regardless the destination client is in sync .
• But my transaction is sent out , (see below for Tran history) but under "transactions" has 0 of 6 confirmations and it has not arrived at the destination?
• the 1101 Caps have left this wallet but have 0 confirmations and not arrived at the other wallet
• both wallets show the same block downloaded block count

Transaction details :

Status: 0/unconfirmed
Date: 7/26/2013 12:43
To: digitalindustry-wallet F21vYmnvWRhmPSJ57s9J81TVgHi3etZQgM
Debit: -1101.531397 CAP
Transaction fee: -0.001 CAP
Net amount: -1101.532397 CAP
Transaction ID: af9cb93009791f900903d14cf3f338d7f34080cb38d60a7ddf46e01e1c84cd1a

Is this sort of behavior typical of a 51% type attack? - or could my wallet be having some sort of malfunction .

any help would be appreciated - i'd like not to lose the 1101 Caps as im saving for a new car energy cell.

That behavior is typical of a wallet not in sync.  So if your wallet is in sync it leads me to believe your Tx is omitted from new blocks, and thus isn't being confirmed via PoW.  I would suggest to make sure your wallet is definitely in sync.  Next, perhaps a delete of blkindex.dat and peers.dat to force the Tx to be submitted into the CAP network.  If you have any CAP in that wallet, send 1 CAP to anyone.  Sometimes receiving/sending a PoS coin will trigger a quick scan of all past Tx with network and will force a re-submit of your Tx above.

-Merc

[Isotactic]

Is anyone else having difficulty with payouts from www.bottlecapspool.com?
I should have had 5 payouts from the site, but only 2 are actually showing up on the blockchain:

1089864   2013-07-26 09:44:34   Don_Fee          -0.10000000
1089864   2013-07-26 09:44:34   Debit_ATP   F4iiBtyq3bNpWoojxDYPnMdL9TUMLMHiV5      -15.12082583

1079121   2013-07-26 06:59:27   Don_Fee          -0.10000000
1079121   2013-07-26 06:59:27   Debit_ATP   F4iiBtyq3bNpWoojxDYPnMdL9TUMLMHiV5      -15.07787684

1067868   2013-07-26 04:26:41   Don_Fee          -0.10000000
1067868   2013-07-26 04:26:41   Debit_ATP   F4iiBtyq3bNpWoojxDYPnMdL9TUMLMHiV5      -15.03213076

1054597   2013-07-25 17:42:28   Don_Fee          -0.10000000
1054597   2013-07-25 17:42:28   Debit_ATP   F4iiBtyq3bNpWoojxDYPnMdL9TUMLMHiV5      -14.92989879

1043043   2013-07-25 10:08:30   Don_Fee          -0.10000000
1043043   2013-07-25 10:08:30   Debit_ATP   F4iiBtyq3bNpWoojxDYPnMdL9TUMLMHiV5      -14.9567508

http://bot.webboise.com:2760/address/F4iiBtyq3bNpWoojxDYPnMdL9TUMLMHiV5

It appears that the bottom two went through without any issues, but the top three are MIA.

[MobGod]

Does anyone want me to start a pool I can do p2pool or stratum

[snaidervp]

ATTENTION

Vern's pool is in the wrong chain?

[Isotactic]

Does anyone want me to start a pool I can do p2pool or stratum

Yes. If you can get p2pool working for botttlecaps I would immediately point hashpower your way

Edit:

ATTENTION

Vern's pool is in the wrong chain?

Yeah, it appears that got off about 12 hours ago. Real excited about wasting all that hash power 

[digitalindustry]

Hi I'm a little concerned about the Caps client -

Perhaps some advice / help ?

• The Checkpoint warning persists
• I sent 1101.531397 to an address the receiver has tried every way possible get the client to stop the warning but can not - regardless the destination client is in sync .
• But my transaction is sent out , (see below for Tran history) but under "transactions" has 0 of 6 confirmations and it has not arrived at the destination?
• the 1101 Caps have left this wallet but have 0 confirmations and not arrived at the other wallet
• both wallets show the same block downloaded block count

Transaction details :

Status: 0/unconfirmed
Date: 7/26/2013 12:43
To: digitalindustry-wallet F21vYmnvWRhmPSJ57s9J81TVgHi3etZQgM
Debit: -1101.531397 CAP
Transaction fee: -0.001 CAP
Net amount: -1101.532397 CAP
Transaction ID: af9cb93009791f900903d14cf3f338d7f34080cb38d60a7ddf46e01e1c84cd1a

Is this sort of behavior typical of a 51% type attack? - or could my wallet be having some sort of malfunction .

any help would be appreciated - i'd like not to lose the 1101 Caps as im saving for a new car energy cell.

That behavior is typical of a wallet not in sync.  So if your wallet is in sync it leads me to believe your Tx is omitted from new blocks, and thus isn't being confirmed via PoW.  I would suggest to make sure your wallet is definitely in sync.  Next, perhaps a delete of blkindex.dat and peers.dat to force the Tx to be submitted into the CAP network.  If you have any CAP in that wallet, send 1 CAP to anyone.  Sometimes receiving/sending a PoS coin will trigger a quick scan of all past Tx with network and will force a re-submit of your Tx above.

-Merc

Ok I will try this , yes the original wallet had a blkindex.dat error and would not open , so I moved the wallet.dat to a new client , then made the transaction .  It left my wallet but never arrived ?

This client seems to have a lot of issues , if I lose these caps , that's it for me . Have fun with bottlecaps.

[digitalindustry]

Does anyone want me to start a pool I can do p2pool or stratum

Yes. If you can get p2pool working for botttlecaps I would immediately point hashpower your way

Edit:

ATTENTION

Vern's pool is in the wrong chain?

Yeah, it appears that got off about 12 hours ago. Real excited about wasting all that hash power 

How is that even possible ?  Glad I wasn't mining , going to pause on bottlecaps , too many issues .

[pocesar]

Gotta love the Fallout game reference

[digitalindustry]

Hey  I have to say the transaction may have gone though ....

I'm blowing my own whistle here guys but Nibble is about the release one of the most stable clients currently out there

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=216637.0

Team digitalindustry nearly took Nibble PoS , I'm glad we did not bloat the client and , we are using an ultra low fee structure .

Feel free to come download have a look , we intend to show you how effective management can provide security and all that the end user wants .

A rising price and security , PoS provides no security against someone with no "stake motive" , the biggest threat to an active Cryptocurrency team is not stakeholders , but  Government agencies of course , that work directly for commercial fiat banking interests ,  none of this is addressed by PoS , and look at the fee structure , and client bloat ?

The user wants a Secure cryptocurrency with an efficient client , low fees , that is now/soon Nibble .

The time to be fixing this stuff is now, when if attacked we can roll back the BC , we know any attacker now  has not " stake motive " .