VladK
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 73
Merit: 11
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 23, 2017, 05:51:14 AM |
|
It's finally back online. We're sitting at about 200 satoshi right now.
Great! It's much better to keep HBNs in the wallet, not on Cryptopia balance.
|
|
|
|
Tranz (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1060
May the force bit with you.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 23, 2017, 05:10:45 PM |
|
Finished up 1.5.4.0. This will be for self compilers only. I will eventually release a FAQ on best pracites for watch-only. Short of it is, best to use the "New Wallet" Function and add your watch only to that wallet. Add all of them with the false rescan flag, and then add the last one with true rescan flag. Have to add both public address and public script script separately if you want to watch both send/receives and stakes. https://github.com/Tranz5/HoboNickels/commit/6a88e8f06508503d6e5efe2aaed5878bded2c138 Changes: Script Validation Change, must upgrade by March 1, 2018 Fix some mutability potential problems. Removed uneeded opcodes Removed getpubkey and validatepubkey, should be using getaddress and validateaddress instead Renamed threads to hobocoin Addnew script checking threads split and combine threashold now use all loaded wallets for max combine number. Bump Version and Bump protocol. Added WatchOnly ability Added importaddress used in watchonly addition Added
|
|
|
|
B3dr0ck
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 159
Merit: 11
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 24, 2017, 03:45:00 AM |
|
I rebuilt a HBN wallet on a different computer.
I checked, the new build sync'd fine, and staked. Then I noticed it wasn't encrypted. I remembered it being encrypted before.
Is it possible that: 1) I had a wallet.dat that was before I encrypted, and rebuilt the wallet to a state before encrypted? 2) I rebuilt the wallet and the encryption didn't transfer?
anyway that is possible?
I guess I could have just never encrypted the original wallet, but I had the key written down and everything...
|
|
|
|
forzendiablo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1000
the grandpa of cryptos
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 25, 2017, 12:58:46 AM |
|
cant we get good Windows wallet that wont freeze on opening ? it would help a lot, i still have some HBN (i thought i sold all but didnt) and keep it for better times
|
yolo
|
|
|
B3dr0ck
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 159
Merit: 11
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 25, 2017, 01:55:35 AM |
|
cant we get good Windows wallet that wont freeze on opening ? it would help a lot, i still have some HBN (i thought i sold all but didnt) and keep it for better times
My wallet opens fine on Windows. It does take 5-6 minutes. Just opened, it took 6:16. Loading the block index takes most of the time.
|
|
|
|
Tranz (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1060
May the force bit with you.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 25, 2017, 03:26:40 AM |
|
cant we get good Windows wallet that wont freeze on opening ? it would help a lot, i still have some HBN (i thought i sold all but didnt) and keep it for better times
Yes it is slower to open, so far I have only had it not open once. I killed it via task man and restarted it with no further problems. I can look into options for faster load times. I rebuilt a HBN wallet on a different computer.
I checked, the new build sync'd fine, and staked. Then I noticed it wasn't encrypted. I remembered it being encrypted before.
Is it possible that: 1) I had a wallet.dat that was before I encrypted, and rebuilt the wallet to a state before encrypted? 2) I rebuilt the wallet and the encryption didn't transfer?
anyway that is possible?
I guess I could have just never encrypted the original wallet, but I had the key written down and everything...
The wallet is stored in a different location then the executable, so rebuilding the wallet binary shouldn't have any effect on the wallet.dat Perhaps you used the startup switch -datadir= and started the wallet.dat in a different location when you encrypted it?
|
|
|
|
Rumhurius
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1672
Merit: 1046
Here we go again
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2017, 01:05:31 AM |
|
Is there any decent Windows Wallet that works?
Latest Win Wallet from the hp is still a mess in terms of connectivity and res usage for me. Why not Coinswapping it and simply forking a decent wallet with masternodes, like Pivx or something.
Exclusive Coin made a decent Cumback with a reset and a new wallet.
|
|
|
|
Tranz (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1060
May the force bit with you.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 27, 2017, 09:52:27 PM |
|
Is there any decent Windows Wallet that works?
Latest Win Wallet from the hp is still a mess in terms of connectivity and res usage for me. Why not Coinswapping it and simply forking a decent wallet with masternodes, like Pivx or something.
Exclusive Coin made a decent Cumback with a reset and a new wallet.
Be my guest. I will never do a swap. And if the community is serious, I will dump and leave. End of story on swaps. I will however continue to invest my time, what little there is, improving the current wallet. I run this on many computers, beside startup issues, addnodes and blockchain catch-up, the wallet keeps on staking and talking to peers. Things work pretty well for a 20 second block network.
|
|
|
|
z0rr0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 28, 2017, 01:48:16 AM |
|
Hobo no like swaps. Hobo likes his shack and cans and rusty coins.
Leave Hobo alone
|
|
|
|
Zels
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 28, 2017, 09:21:57 AM |
|
Be my guest. I will never do a swap. And if the community is serious, I will dump and leave. End of story on swaps.
I will however continue to invest my time, what little there is, improving the current wallet.
I run this on many computers, beside startup issues, addnodes and blockchain catch-up, the wallet keeps on staking and talking to peers. Things work pretty well for a 20 second block network.
Yes wallet work, but not anymore on small computer. My wallet can't run anymore on an old AMD A4-4000 (3.0 GHz). He does orphan 99% of the time, wallet not responding if your try to do anything with it, no way to do any transaction in coin control without having to wait 5min before wallet respond. Moved this wallet on an AMD FX-6300, and wallet use 50% of the cpu when stake is in progress and biger my wallet is slower it will be soon and won't be able to run it on this cpu too. ![Undecided](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/undecided.gif) ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FA18SvQY.png&t=665&c=rIymwnaZFplOsA) It was nice at the beggining of hbn, just start to have some coin, and forget about your wallet while is stake ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
|
|
|
|
FlungSpun
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 28, 2017, 12:40:53 PM |
|
Gonna have to face facts. Even with big blocks and huge weight orphans are strangling the process.
Minimum stake size or any other method to kill off the staking spam
I'm not convinced 90 second block times will help if the wallet continues to be so unresponsive.
I have recently aggregated all blocks into a new wallet and saved 6-700 MB of RAM can't say I'm noticing any improvements.
The wallet is thrashing 30% of a 4GHz quad core and falls into long periods of orphans on fixed by a wallet restart.
Also if everyone is creating so many potential POS solutions why are we always near 100% reward?
|
|
|
|
Tranz (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1060
May the force bit with you.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 28, 2017, 01:41:47 PM |
|
Gonna have to face facts. Even with big blocks and huge weight orphans are strangling the process.
Minimum stake size or any other method to kill off the staking spam
I'm not convinced 90 second block times will help if the wallet continues to be so unresponsive.
I have recently aggregated all blocks into a new wallet and saved 6-700 MB of RAM can't say I'm noticing any improvements.
The wallet is thrashing 30% of a 4GHz quad core and falls into long periods of orphans on fixed by a wallet restart.
Also if everyone is creating so many potential POS solutions why are we always near 100% reward?
Better staking algo and 90 sec block time will be a huge difference.. I have 1.5.5 just about ready. THis will be the first part to help staking. Plenty of other things to do, and then we can talk about hard forks for 1.6. I think 90 second block time HAS to be among them.
|
|
|
|
FlungSpun
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 28, 2017, 02:35:59 PM |
|
Gonna have to face facts. Even with big blocks and huge weight orphans are strangling the process.
Minimum stake size or any other method to kill off the staking spam
I'm not convinced 90 second block times will help if the wallet continues to be so unresponsive.
I have recently aggregated all blocks into a new wallet and saved 6-700 MB of RAM can't say I'm noticing any improvements.
The wallet is thrashing 30% of a 4GHz quad core and falls into long periods of orphans on fixed by a wallet restart.
Also if everyone is creating so many potential POS solutions why are we always near 100% reward?
Better staking algo and 90 sec block time will be a huge difference.. I have 1.5.5 just about ready. THis will be the first part to help staking. Plenty of other things to do, and then we can talk about hard forks for 1.6. I think 90 second block time HAS to be among them. OK I'll buy the improved algo part for sure, I'm neither here or there at 60-90 seconds to be honest. I've been doing a bit of tinkering over here and beginning to feel I'm on the outskirts of the network . There is a dude in Kiev helping me out but most peers have shocking ping times. (I believe some of the reported times are WAAAY off also) Could we flag which peers are in sync with the network in the peers info % or some such?
|
|
|
|
z0rr0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 28, 2017, 03:23:44 PM |
|
Yes wallet work, but not anymore on small computer. My wallet can't run anymore on an old AMD A4-4000 (3.0 GHz). He does orphan 99% of the time, wallet not responding if your try to do anything with it, no way to do any transaction in coin control without having to wait 5min before wallet respond. Moved this wallet on an AMD FX-6300, and wallet use 50% of the cpu when stake is in progress and biger my wallet is slower it will be soon and won't be able to run it on this cpu too. ![Undecided](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/undecided.gif) ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FA18SvQY.png&t=665&c=rIymwnaZFplOsA) It was nice at the beggining of hbn, just start to have some coin, and forget about your wallet while is stake ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) This is strange, my 1.5.3 HBN wallet when fully synced and staking takes no more then 10-15% on FX-8320E (stock). And orphan rates are usually no more then 10% on big stakes (2000-5000 HBN). Memory usage is big, yes. Im using this addnodes in hobonickels.conf if it may help someone: addnode=118.102.74.85 addnode=141.5.104.227 addnode=149.202.98.161 addnode=153.172.167.168 addnode=172.4.177.229 addnode=173.208.164.34 addnode=178.248.4.130 addnode=183.159.51.234 addnode=184.164.129.202 addnode=185.104.184.187 addnode=188.116.34.66 addnode=194.219.107.159 addnode=208.54.90.197 addnode=216.218.222.12 addnode=217.175.119.125 addnode=24.247.194.72 addnode=24.5.224.146 addnode=47.223.61.135 addnode=5.9.48.68 addnode=67.149.188.138 addnode=72.184.183.243 addnode=72.241.235.204 addnode=73.228.39.117 addnode=75.71.127.100 addnode=76.169.57.92 addnode=77.239.37.12 addnode=77.240.98.41 addnode=77.9.199.237 addnode=79.246.233.206 addnode=79.69.5.223 addnode=83.255.65.50 addnode=84.158.236.239 addnode=84.169.198.55 addnode=84.217.169.178 addnode=85.140.56.132 addnode=86.0.127.13 addnode=87.153.244.140 addnode=88.99.68.228 addnode=90.156.106.253 addnode=91.121.177.181 addnode=92.232.94.171 addnode=92.39.213.37 addnode=93.77.76.185 addnode=94.113.207.67 addnode=94.210.174.118 addnode=98.115.147.74 maxconnections=50
|
|
|
|
Rumhurius
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1672
Merit: 1046
Here we go again
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 28, 2017, 04:43:44 PM |
|
Is there any decent Windows Wallet that works?
Latest Win Wallet from the hp is still a mess in terms of connectivity and res usage for me. Why not Coinswapping it and simply forking a decent wallet with masternodes, like Pivx or something.
Exclusive Coin made a decent Cumback with a reset and a new wallet.
Be my guest. I will never do a swap. And if the community is serious, I will dump and leave. End of story on swaps. I will however continue to invest my time, what little there is, improving the current wallet. I run this on many computers, beside startup issues, addnodes and blockchain catch-up, the wallet keeps on staking and talking to peers. Things work pretty well for a 20 second block network. much appreciated here. I hope you can bring the client back to todays standards For me on a shitty i3 Netbook with 4gb ram its just a Mess at its current State. Will try the nodes above soon. Good luck and thank you for efforts. Make hobo great again.
|
|
|
|
FlungSpun
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 28, 2017, 08:25:33 PM |
|
Not having done this for a long time I think there might be a more fundamental issue than the staking algo
I have a synced client with a fresh and empty wallet.dat using 61% of an A6 6400. OK its only 2 cores but 4GHz
By my reckoning it should be doing next to nothing.
|
|
|
|
Tranz (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1060
May the force bit with you.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 28, 2017, 08:31:06 PM |
|
Not having done this for a long time I think there might be a more fundamental issue than the staking algo
I have a synced client with a fresh and empty wallet.dat using 61% of an A6 6400. OK its only 2 cores but 4GHz
By my reckoning it should be doing next to nothing.
Watch the debug log file tail -f using msys. You will notice each time a new block comes in the CPU spikes. Blocks roll in VERY fast so the CPU is high a lot. Ala 20 second block time. You can also turn off stake via version 1.5.4+ or by encrypting the wallet.
|
|
|
|
FlungSpun
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 28, 2017, 08:40:35 PM |
|
Not having done this for a long time I think there might be a more fundamental issue than the staking algo
I have a synced client with a fresh and empty wallet.dat using 61% of an A6 6400. OK its only 2 cores but 4GHz
By my reckoning it should be doing next to nothing.
Watch the debug log file tail -f using msys. You will notice each time a new block comes in the CPU spikes. Blocks roll in VERY fast so the CPU is high a lot. Ala 20 second block time. You can also turn off stake via version 1.5.4+ or by encrypting the wallet. So if I understand you correctly the wallet is crushing that machine simply accepting new blocks with nothing else to do? I wouldn't call it spiking exactly, more .. erm balls out. Come to mention it I don't think it was working that hard while it was syncing (I wasn't watching particularly) more CPU variance for sure So possible it could be current network activity making it work harder? Roll on improvements ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
|
|
|
|
Tranz (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1060
May the force bit with you.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 28, 2017, 08:49:25 PM |
|
Not having done this for a long time I think there might be a more fundamental issue than the staking algo
I have a synced client with a fresh and empty wallet.dat using 61% of an A6 6400. OK its only 2 cores but 4GHz
By my reckoning it should be doing next to nothing.
Watch the debug log file tail -f using msys. You will notice each time a new block comes in the CPU spikes. Blocks roll in VERY fast so the CPU is high a lot. Ala 20 second block time. You can also turn off stake via version 1.5.4+ or by encrypting the wallet. So if I understand you correctly the wallet is crushing that machine simply accepting new blocks with nothing else to do? I wouldn't call it spiking exactly, more .. erm balls out. Come to mention it I don't think it was working that hard while it was syncing (I wasn't watching particularly) more CPU variance for sure So possible it could be current network activity making it work harder? Roll on improvements ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) Mine idles at 1-2% CPU, then spikes to 50% with a new block, then back down in 5 seconds or less. This with the staking improvements I am testing! 90 sec block time and plus other improvement will use 1-5% of a core average over 24 hrs. ... I've been doing a bit of tinkering over here and beginning to feel I'm on the outskirts of the network . There is a dude in Kiev helping me out but most peers have shocking ping times. (I believe some of the reported times are WAAAY off also) ...
These are wallet to wallet ping times, not computer ping times. If their wallet is very busy, it could take a while to respond or it may never respond. You wallet will eventually drop any ping that that is too high
|
|
|
|
FlungSpun
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
July 28, 2017, 08:59:46 PM |
|
No this poor CPU was solid at 60-62% and it's been synced for hours now with a blank wallet.
Yeah I guessed the ping times may be software related as I added a node on my LAN which did seem to improve sync as one machine soon pushed 4M at the other but both were reporting some wayward pings from 10-15ms to 100s of seconds
I believe they did eventually part company as the connected time got reset along the way ...
|
|
|
|
|