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

[feeleep]

I've got plenty of error messages:

ERROR: mempool transaction missing input

any idea what it can be?

[justin7674]

A corrupt wallet could do that. Means that your wallet has a transaction stored in it that is incomplete.

[emunebtk]

Updated and synced yet still have 11 CAPs unconfirmed? How do i get that back?

[justin7674]

That means that your wallet was on the wrong chain. There is no way to get it back without mining.

[feeleep]

A corrupt wallet could do that. Means that your wallet has a transaction stored in it that is incomplete.

indeed - i restored wallet from backup and its OK now

[emunebtk]

That means that your wallet was on the wrong chain. There is no way to get it back without mining.

Then what would be the best way of getting rid of the unconfirmed 11 Caps so I don't have to keep staring at the missing number of coins in my wallet? Will it eventually die or if I use that same wallet address for another pool will it just do a override?

[justin7674]

Yes it will eventually go away after the block chain extends a little further

[Jaden]

What's up with Silverwolf's pool?

[erk]

CAP seems a little under-priced atm considering the fork problem is pretty much over.

[emunebtk]

CAP seems a little under-priced atm considering the fork problem is pretty much over.

give it a moment to settle out and I am sure it will start to rise..err at least I hope!

[erk]

CAP seems a little under-priced atm considering the fork problem is pretty much over.

give it a moment to settle out and I am sure it will start to rise..err at least I hope!

Yeah, I have been sitting there snapping up all the little sell orders from the dumb miners that are too cheap

[BitJohn]

CAP seems a little under-priced atm considering the fork problem is pretty much over.

give it a moment to settle out and I am sure it will start to rise..err at least I hope!

Yeah, I have been sitting there snapping up all the little sell orders from the dumb miners that are too cheap

You and me both brother

[ISAWHIM]

I am noticing something odd... (Noticed this after mining TRC, and my mined coins began showing in my wallet as an unfamiliar address. Turned-out that my mined coins in TRC may have been another persons info in my wallet.)

What I noticed in this CAP wallet, is that the coins I mine are not showing as the original address of the wallet. To date, I only have one address, I have not created more, for this wallet.

The odd part is... Though 99% of my mined coins are going to this "other address"... The 1% are going to another address in my wallet.

EG... When I created the wallet, there was one address "bob", and no other "created addresses". But my mined coin are going to the address "sue" 99% of the time, and 1% of the time they are going to address "joe". (I assume these addresses are from the stock-pile of "100 pregenerated addresses", that the wallet is created with.)

I just found it odd, that this wallet mines to something other than the original created address. Could be an issue for some people, if the mined addresses goes beyond the 100, and the wallet gets corrupted. It will be impossible to get the next sequence of addresses past the first 100. (Unless they purposely use a fixed-seed generation for each following set of "new addresses". You would have to create trillions of addresses before you eventually find those lost addresses again.)

[butjust41day]

I am noticing something odd... (Noticed this after mining TRC, and my mined coins began showing in my wallet as an unfamiliar address. Turned-out that my mined coins in TRC may have been another persons info in my wallet.)

What I noticed in this CAP wallet, is that the coins I mine are not showing as the original address of the wallet. To date, I only have one address, I have not created more, for this wallet.

The odd part is... Though 99% of my mined coins are going to this "other address"... The 1% are going to another address in my wallet.

EG... When I created the wallet, there was one address "bob", and no other "created addresses". But my mined coin are going to the address "sue" 99% of the time, and 1% of the time they are going to address "joe". (I assume these addresses are from the stock-pile of "100 pregenerated addresses", that the wallet is created with.)

I just found it odd, that this wallet mines to something other than the original created address. Could be an issue for some people, if the mined addresses goes beyond the 100, and the wallet gets corrupted. It will be impossible to get the next sequence of addresses past the first 100. (Unless they purposely use a fixed-seed generation for each following set of "new addresses". You would have to create trillions of addresses before you eventually find those lost addresses again.)

I can confirm this....I've noticed if I close the wallet and start again that a new address is created for my mined coins.

[Lauda]

I am noticing something odd... (Noticed this after mining TRC, and my mined coins began showing in my wallet as an unfamiliar address. Turned-out that my mined coins in TRC may have been another persons info in my wallet.)

What I noticed in this CAP wallet, is that the coins I mine are not showing as the original address of the wallet. To date, I only have one address, I have not created more, for this wallet.

The odd part is... Though 99% of my mined coins are going to this "other address"... The 1% are going to another address in my wallet.

EG... When I created the wallet, there was one address "bob", and no other "created addresses". But my mined coin are going to the address "sue" 99% of the time, and 1% of the time they are going to address "joe". (I assume these addresses are from the stock-pile of "100 pregenerated addresses", that the wallet is created with.)

I just found it odd, that this wallet mines to something other than the original created address. Could be an issue for some people, if the mined addresses goes beyond the 100, and the wallet gets corrupted. It will be impossible to get the next sequence of addresses past the first 100. (Unless they purposely use a fixed-seed generation for each following set of "new addresses". You would have to create trillions of addresses before you eventually find those lost addresses again.)

I can confirm this....I've noticed if I close the wallet and start again that a new address is created for my mined coins.

Possible bug in new release or earlier?

[mullick]

I am noticing something odd... (Noticed this after mining TRC, and my mined coins began showing in my wallet as an unfamiliar address. Turned-out that my mined coins in TRC may have been another persons info in my wallet.)

What I noticed in this CAP wallet, is that the coins I mine are not showing as the original address of the wallet. To date, I only have one address, I have not created more, for this wallet.

The odd part is... Though 99% of my mined coins are going to this "other address"... The 1% are going to another address in my wallet.

EG... When I created the wallet, there was one address "bob", and no other "created addresses". But my mined coin are going to the address "sue" 99% of the time, and 1% of the time they are going to address "joe". (I assume these addresses are from the stock-pile of "100 pregenerated addresses", that the wallet is created with.)

I just found it odd, that this wallet mines to something other than the original created address. Could be an issue for some people, if the mined addresses goes beyond the 100, and the wallet gets corrupted. It will be impossible to get the next sequence of addresses past the first 100. (Unless they purposely use a fixed-seed generation for each following set of "new addresses". You would have to create trillions of addresses before you eventually find those lost addresses again.)

I can confirm this....I've noticed if I close the wallet and start again that a new address is created for my mined coins.

Possible bug in new release or earlier?

Im looking into if it could become an issue. Looking through my wallet history (solo mining since launch pretty much ) It has happened since the start. Also noticed in other wallets as well exp. Bitgem

[BitcoinFX]

The latest release v1.4 is crashing when sending coins from an encrypted wallet, when encrypting the wallet and on successfully changing the pass phrase.

"Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime Library

This application has requested the Runtime to terminate it in an unusual way.

Please contact the application's support team for more information."

Problem signature:
Problem Event Name:APPCRASH
Application Name:BottleCaps-qt.exe

Problem sigs. from QtCore4.dll and msvcrt.dll

Not had the time to investigate yet. However, I've tried multiple wallets, re-installed MS Redistributable's, re-downloaded the block chain and tested on 2x Windows 7 machines and on XP with the same crash results.

Could just be a bad compile ? Anyone else with this issue ?

New build / release soon please. Still planning on 5% PoS ?

[mullick]

The latest release v1.4 is crashing when sending coins from an encrypted wallet, when encrypting the wallet and on successfully changing the pass phrase.

"Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime Library

This application has requested the Runtime to terminate it in an unusual way.

Please contact the application's support team for more information."

Problem signature:
Problem Event Name:APPCRASH
Application Name:BottleCaps-qt.exe

Problem sigs. from QtCore4.dll and msvcrt.dll

Not had the time to investigate yet. However, I've tried multiple wallets, re-installed MS Redistributable's, re-downloaded the block chain and tested on 2x Windows 7 machines and on XP with the same crash results.

Could just be a bad compile ? Anyone else with this issue ?

New build / release soon please. Still planning on 5% PoS ?

Hm ill look into it. The changes made in 1.4 should not effect the issues you are having. Ill do a debug before 1.4.1 just to make sure. But yes 1.4.1 has been only slightly delayed due to the recent events. Still planned for 5% pos reward

[ISAWHIM]

When rebuilding the database...

addnode=70.79.24.157

was the only connection I got from YOUR list of nodes... This seems to be a rogue node.

Block-level is 53893 and rising... no other nodes in your list seem to have this height.

Time to look around and kill the rogue nodes, remove them from the many postings, and consider the following settings...

splash=0
server=1
gen=0
testnet=0
daemon=1
maxconnections=20
listen=1

Time to remove the addnodes... it is causing problems, because there is no way to enforce it, and the majority of large hashers seem to not be "listening" or "talking" to the network of your nodes. (Thus, they are building multiple solo chains, and not telling the outside world fast enough... or at all.)

Thus, many tall chains, from multi, from cryptsy, from anyone with three fast blocks or more, are creating branches that others see, only after the servers start talking to the outside world again. (After they have built stacks of private branches.)

If you don't add nodes, and LISTEN for more than the list of nodes you provide... (Obviously your nodes are not talking fast enough either... to each-other, or to the outside world.)... then you are aiding the issue. It only takes one person on both nodes to grab the longest one, and bring it back to the network, causing issues. Your nodes seem to ignore the fact that another chain is larger, and correct, forcing us to use the short ones they are attempting to "manage".

This issue goes back to the 27th... that is where the rogue node, listed above, stopped functioning. (Old code?)

[Damnsammit]

Can someone point me to a breakdown of what the hell "5% PoS" means? 

I read an entire article on the Bitcoin wiki about Proof of Stake and I don't think I understood any of it