HoboNickels - HBN - High Fast Stake - Version 2.0! More Secure, Less Intensive

[bones]

Just upgraded to the latest wallet.
I have a warning message.

"Warning.  Checkpoint is to old, wait for blockchain to download, or notify developers"

Thing is, I am fully synched , so there is no more blockchain to download.

Just thought I would let you know and check if I should do anything about it.

I am running win7 64

[MarketNeutral]

I've updated the wallets on my Linux, OSX, and Windows machines. All synched and working well. Thanks, Tranz.

[Tranz]

Just upgraded to the latest wallet.
I have a warning message.

"Warning.  Checkpoint is to old, wait for blockchain to download, or notify developers"

Thing is, I am fully synched , so there is no more blockchain to download.

Just thought I would let you know and check if I should do anything about it.

I am running win7 64

This will go away next time you restart the client.

[Tranz]

I've updated the wallets on my Linux, OSX, and Windows machines. All synched and working well. Thanks, Tranz.

Great, glad to hear. Thanks for the feedback.

[PressF1]

It seems for some reason, HBN stake diff. is getting lower again to levels not seen for quite some weeks. Anyone an idea why this could be?
Or some other thing that I don't understand: HBN stake diff was a lot higher than CAP stake diff but there are more CAP out there than HBN and on top of that, HBN-block time is half that of CAP, so twice as much HBN should be able to stake before it's stake diff should rise faster than CAP.

[Tranz]

It seems for some reason, HBN stake diff. is getting lower again to levels not seen for quite some weeks. Anyone an idea why this could be?
Or some other thing that I don't understand: HBN stake diff was a lot higher than CAP stake diff but there are more CAP out there than HBN and on top of that, HBN-block time is half that of CAP, so twice as much HBN should be able to stake before it's stake diff should rise faster than CAP.

It is a bit lower, but based on my calculations this should be right about where it should be. To me the .008 was pretty high, at least for the number of coins and the maturity.  It could be a few things that causes the fluctuation. Perhaps a big wallet or 2 went off line for a bit, or did some combining.

All true on what you say between CAP and HBN. Basically it all boils down to how many coins are actively staking and how big the average block size of those coins are. Look the the network weight between HBN and CAP. CAP is around 300,000 and HBN is around 1MM.  This simply means there are more coins in the HBN network that are actively staking, and/or the average block size of HBN is smaller.

This is also one of the reasons I am hesitant to release a wallet that will allow and keep HBN and CAP blocks to big. As the blocks are combined and the average of them is bigger, the number of coins participating in staking diminishes and the difficulty goes down.  But I also know there are user reason to keep them from staking and splitting down to dust, so it is a fine line.

[tokyoghetto]

I just put my wallet online a few days ago after being offline for 50 days. I have been working out here in the oil patch and I don't get stable internet so I can't stake on my laptop. I just got on some days off so I fired my client up.

[rgm108]

I just put my wallet online a few days ago after being offline for 50 days. I have been working out here in the oil patch and I don't get stable internet so I can't stake on my laptop. I just got on some days off so I fired my client up.

It's good to see you are still around TG.

[bones]

Could anyone explain this to me please ?
I withdrew apx 150 hbn from crptsy.

 cd562c71e9671d9253b4b1dcef63e2bc65401611d18ac9ad732fec8a66483b6b   txid

This block crawler shows it with over 4000 confirmations.

https://scrypt.io/explorer/hbn/block_crawler.php

But it is not showing in my wallet as an incoming payment.

Thanks in advance to anyone who is able to help.

[bones]

Possibly its a wallet issue.... this is an old wallet  1.3

It was showing as fully synched and was staking, but then shows 6000 blocks left to synch.

Seems to keep swithing between the 2 states.

I am guessing thats why they wont show as an incoming payment, as those blocks are not yet loaded.

Confused as to why the wallet keeps changing its mind on wether its synched or not.

any help appreciated.

[PressF1]

Possibly its a wallet issue.... this is an old wallet  1.3

It was showing as fully synched and was staking, but then shows 6000 blocks left to synch.

Seems to keep swithing between the 2 states.

I am guessing thats why they wont show as an incoming payment, as those blocks are not yet loaded.

Confused as to why the wallet keeps changing its mind on wether its synched or not.

any help appreciated.

Why haven't you switched to the 1.5 wallet? It probably solves your problem and more over, it's required for the fork on Jan. 17.

[bones]

I do have the new wallet. I installed a fresh copy on a new machine.

This is my old wallet, I was just getting the last few stakes before I combined blocks and moved them to the new wallet.

Never had an issue like this before, so to be honest, was not expecting a problem...

Just odd that the wallet is staking, but shows 7000 blocks behind...

[PressF1]

It seems for some reason, HBN stake diff. is getting lower again to levels not seen for quite some weeks. Anyone an idea why this could be?
Or some other thing that I don't understand: HBN stake diff was a lot higher than CAP stake diff but there are more CAP out there than HBN and on top of that, HBN-block time is half that of CAP, so twice as much HBN should be able to stake before it's stake diff should rise faster than CAP.

It is a bit lower, but based on my calculations this should be right about where it should be. To me the .008 was pretty high, at least for the number of coins and the maturity.  It could be a few things that causes the fluctuation. Perhaps a big wallet or 2 went off line for a bit, or did some combining.

All true on what you say between CAP and HBN. Basically it all boils down to how many coins are actively staking and how big the average block size of those coins are. Look the the network weight between HBN and CAP. CAP is around 300,000 and HBN is around 1MM.  This simply means there are more coins in the HBN network that are actively staking, and/or the average block size of HBN is smaller.

This is also one of the reasons I am hesitant to release a wallet that will allow and keep HBN and CAP blocks to big. As the blocks are combined and the average of them is bigger, the number of coins participating in staking diminishes and the difficulty goes down.  But I also know there are user reason to keep them from staking and splitting down to dust, so it is a fine line.

Thanks for elaborating! I had the same feeling, that 0.008 was a little high. I guess because it built up to that level rather fast.
What you say about your hesitation towards releasing a wallet that enables the possibility of keeping blocks too big I do understand.
Only a few big blocks in stead of many small would fuel inflation and diminish network security. Is what I make of it. But almost every wallet, CAP/HBN in the top ten range manually recombines at the moment so their blocks would only diminish in size. Since the default split level will stay rather low (5 HBN, 10 CAP commit) I wouldn't expect much of a change in average staking-blocksize. In fact, like before, I think you found a sound balance.

Only the difference between HBN and CAP: the user allowable max start up split level, HBN at 4 times default (20) and CAP at 20 times default (200). That I don't quite get.
 

[poncho32]

I do have the new wallet. I installed a fresh copy on a new machine.

This is my old wallet, I was just getting the last few stakes before I combined blocks and moved them to the new wallet.

Never had an issue like this before, so to be honest, was not expecting a problem...

Just odd that the wallet is staking, but shows 7000 blocks behind...

Perhaps it's connected to a node that's running 7000 blocks behind. You can check by using getpeerinfo in the console.

Has anyone posted a good list of nodes lately?

[bones]

I would guess if I can not get it sorted in 24 hrs, I could just export my priv key and import it to the new wallet.

Or just abandon that 150hbn, not the end of the world.

Got it all sorted... just moved my .dat file over to other pc   still not sure what was going on, does not really matter now, repair wallet found my coin.

[*Sakura*]

I would guess if I can not get it sorted in 24 hrs, I could just export my priv key and import it to the new wallet.

Or just abandon that 150hbn, not the end of the world.

Got it all sorted... just moved my .dat file over to other pc   still not sure what was going on, does not really matter now, repair wallet found my coin.

Yeah, "repairwallet" is a Great command!

[Tranz]

Thanks for elaborating! I had the same feeling, that 0.008 was a little high. I guess because it built up to that level rather fast.
What you say about your hesitation towards releasing a wallet that enables the possibility of keeping blocks too big I do understand.
Only a few big blocks in stead of many small would fuel inflation and diminish network security. Is what I make of it. But almost every wallet, CAP/HBN in the top ten range manually recombines at the moment so their blocks would only diminish in size. Since the default split level will stay rather low (5 HBN, 10 CAP commit) I wouldn't expect much of a change in average staking-blocksize. In fact, like before, I think you found a sound balance.

Only the difference between HBN and CAP: the user allowable max start up split level, HBN at 4 times default (20) and CAP at 20 times default (200). That I don't quite get.
 

Honestly the difference between them is mostly me experimenting a bit. Also CAP will inflate faster than HBN, so the extra combining in CAP will even out a bit.

[cryptmebro]

I think it's absolutely insane how low the price is.

[PressF1]

Thanks for elaborating! I had the same feeling, that 0.008 was a little high. I guess because it built up to that level rather fast.
What you say about your hesitation towards releasing a wallet that enables the possibility of keeping blocks too big I do understand.
Only a few big blocks in stead of many small would fuel inflation and diminish network security. Is what I make of it. But almost every wallet, CAP/HBN in the top ten range manually recombines at the moment so their blocks would only diminish in size. Since the default split level will stay rather low (5 HBN, 10 CAP commit) I wouldn't expect much of a change in average staking-blocksize. In fact, like before, I think you found a sound balance.

Only the difference between HBN and CAP: the user allowable max start up split level, HBN at 4 times default (20) and CAP at 20 times default (200). That I don't quite get.
 

Honestly the difference between them is mostly me experimenting a bit. Also CAP will inflate faster than HBN, so the extra combining in CAP will even out a bit.

Cool. I am looking forward to see how these differences will play out in the long run!

[Armis]

I have a question for the community:   is there any interest in having a resource to buy or sell HBN directly for fiat?