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

[Tranz]

  Help
 
   Need some good working  addnode

   All i have is
 
   addnode=5.249.152.30
   addnode=69.85.86.195
   addnode=74.196.48.62
 
    not working

http://hbn.cryptocoinexplorer.com/peerinfo

[1714853022]

1714853022

[1714853022]

1714853022

[1714853022]

1714853022

[1714853022]

1714853022

[1714853022]

1714853022

[CrazyLoaf]

I tried the "claim an address" feature on cryptocoinexplorer.com, but it looks like it's not showing up for some reason. I think Windows wanted to do an update right after this and the wallet shut off. I've tried resending a few times. Anything I can do? Thanks

[Tranz]

I tried the "claim an address" feature on cryptocoinexplorer.com, but it looks like it's not showing up for some reason. I think Windows wanted to do an update right after this and the wallet shut off. I've tried resending a few times. Anything I can do? Thanks

Not sure what you mean by send, but you don't need to send any coins, just use the sign page and then use that signed message on the website to verify.

[CrazyLoaf]

I tried the "claim an address" feature on cryptocoinexplorer.com, but it looks like it's not showing up for some reason. I think Windows wanted to do an update right after this and the wallet shut off. I've tried resending a few times. Anything I can do? Thanks

Not sure what you mean by send, but you don't need to send any coins, just use the sign page and then use that signed message on the website to verify.

Ah, sry. I meant I tried to use that verify thing a few times and it won't work. It worked on CAP. I don't know if since my first "signature" wasn't showing up on the list that subsequent ones on the same address won't work.

[Tranz]

I tried the "claim an address" feature on cryptocoinexplorer.com, but it looks like it's not showing up for some reason. I think Windows wanted to do an update right after this and the wallet shut off. I've tried resending a few times. Anything I can do? Thanks

Not sure what you mean by send, but you don't need to send any coins, just use the sign page and then use that signed message on the website to verify.

Ah, sry. I meant I tried to use that verify thing a few times and it won't work. It worked on CAP. I don't know if since my first "signature" wasn't showing up on the list that subsequent ones on the same address won't work.

I just did one as a test, no issues with the verify, it worked. But it didn't update on the top 1000, so perhaps that just takes some time for it to show up there.

[CrazyLoaf]

I tried the "claim an address" feature on cryptocoinexplorer.com, but it looks like it's not showing up for some reason. I think Windows wanted to do an update right after this and the wallet shut off. I've tried resending a few times. Anything I can do? Thanks

Not sure what you mean by send, but you don't need to send any coins, just use the sign page and then use that signed message on the website to verify.

Ah, sry. I meant I tried to use that verify thing a few times and it won't work. It worked on CAP. I don't know if since my first "signature" wasn't showing up on the list that subsequent ones on the same address won't work.

I just did one as a test, no issues with the verify, it worked. But it didn't update on the top 1000, so perhaps that just takes some time for it to show up there.

Alright cool. I did and verify check and it worked too. Don't know why CAP and HYP were so fast and HBN so slow. Thanks.

[dreamwatcher]

I tried the "claim an address" feature on cryptocoinexplorer.com, but it looks like it's not showing up for some reason. I think Windows wanted to do an update right after this and the wallet shut off. I've tried resending a few times. Anything I can do? Thanks

Not sure what you mean by send, but you don't need to send any coins, just use the sign page and then use that signed message on the website to verify.

Ah, sry. I meant I tried to use that verify thing a few times and it won't work. It worked on CAP. I don't know if since my first "signature" wasn't showing up on the list that subsequent ones on the same address won't work.

I just did one as a test, no issues with the verify, it worked. But it didn't update on the top 1000, so perhaps that just takes some time for it to show up there.

Alright cool. I did and verify check and it worked too. Don't know why CAP and HYP were so fast and HBN so slow. Thanks.

As mentioned in the instructions, the information will show up in the next database cycle.

After one verifies the address, it is immediately tagged in the address database.

However, the top 1000 balances refresh after the next block refresh, so it can take a few minutes to show up.

[Majormax]

Question for everyone.

I am going to be making a choice about IRC. There are 2 options that I see.

#1 Remove it completely from the code. It is already disabled and will only use IRC if the users forces it with -irc=1.
#2 Or we can also keep it in there and I can add to it, so it will connect to a IRC channel and allow users to chat with each other. The wallet will not use it to look for peers though.

Do we remove and forget about IRC, or keep it and expand it's usage?

My personal opinion is to lose it. As I don't think the wallet needs the extra bloat(code wise) and it could open up an additional security concerns. 

However it is probably mostly safe and could be a fun addition to have.

So I'll let you all decide.  Let me know.

Thanks!

I'm for having as basic a wallet as possible. No reason to have text chat, VoIP, video chat, and all this crazy stuff wallets are trying to do nowadays. Since a lot of these high PoS coins have pretty quiet communities, I'd recommend they all band together into a single high PoS channel, say #crazysteak or #posinvestors or something.

Good feedback. I am pretty much feeling the same way.

Is there anyone that wants it?  Speak now or forever hold your peace!

What about other features? Like market data, or watch only addresses, or other things. Are these something we want to try to get integrated?

High PoS is a niche mindset (which I support). I have found that the vast majority of posters/communities in other coins are completely impervious to the good arguments for high PoS (ie, they cannot understand it)

Therefore I do think it a good move to create a high PoS community.

[CrazyLoaf]

High PoS is a niche mindset (which I support). I have found that the vast majority of posters/communities in other coins are completely impervious to the good arguments for high PoS (ie, they cannot understand it)

Therefore I do think it a good move to create a high PoS community.

The fact of the matter is that most alts out there are merely a vehicle to more BTC and hence more fiat, at least to these "investor" types. Hell, look at how Ethereum has been deflating the BTC ecosystem with it's IPO fund cashouts.

Since there is nothing keeping people in most alts since they are driven by pure speculation, they create negative feedback loops. For example, you notice the price of your alt falling, perhaps dramatically (since a consortium is leaving the coin). Even if you have faith in the coin, you may cash out to "buy back later," exacerbating the price decline. Even worse is, when price/volume doesn't return to the coin and people just continue to dump or leave coins at sell orders, clogging the order books with sell orders, traders are unlikely to return.

High PoS, almost by design, recognizes these aspects and creates an ethical pump and dump cycle. Minters are attracted to the high PoS; they stake and "trickle" a portion of earnings onto exchanges. Buyers are attracted to high PoS as well, but the sell side is so thin they have to either eat into it for big blocks, trade OTC, or provide liquidity on the buy side. Coins are kept off exchanges to mint coins, and any movement to an exchange requires (1) more work than just clicking sell and (2) a decision made in relation to the stake age - "Hmmmm, I have another 6 hours on this block, maybe I'll just wait." It's also clear it attracts a different mindset, since high PoS coins with a good community are surprisingly resilient.

[Majormax]

High PoS is a niche mindset (which I support). I have found that the vast majority of posters/communities in other coins are completely impervious to the good arguments for high PoS (ie, they cannot understand it)

Therefore I do think it a good move to create a high PoS community.

The fact of the matter is that most alts out there are merely a vehicle to more BTC and hence more fiat, at least to these "investor" types. Hell, look at how Ethereum has been deflating the BTC ecosystem with it's IPO fund cashouts.

Since there is nothing keeping people in most alts since they are driven by pure speculation, they create negative feedback loops. For example, you notice the price of your alt falling, perhaps dramatically (since a consortium is leaving the coin). Even if you have faith in the coin, you may cash out to "buy back later," exacerbating the price decline. Even worse is, when price/volume doesn't return to the coin and people just continue to dump or leave coins at sell orders, clogging the order books with sell orders, traders are unlikely to return.

High PoS, almost by design, recognizes these aspects and creates an ethical pump and dump cycle. Minters are attracted to the high PoS; they stake and "trickle" a portion of earnings onto exchanges. Buyers are attracted to high PoS as well, but the sell side is so thin they have to either eat into it for big blocks, trade OTC, or provide liquidity on the buy side. Coins are kept off exchanges to mint coins, and any movement to an exchange requires (1) more work than just clicking sell and (2) a decision made in relation to the stake age - "Hmmmm, I have another 6 hours on this block, maybe I'll just wait." It's also clear it attracts a different mindset, since high PoS coins with a good community are surprisingly resilient.

Good points.

High PoS coins have a better chance of surviving the mass extinction of altcoins (which process we are in now) because the communities are more resilient, and less driven by speculation (as you said)

[otila]

git-148333a2f9 does not compile with gcc-4.9.1

Code:

src/rpcnet.cpp: In function ‘json_spirit::Value getnettotals(CWallet*, const Array&, bool)’:
src/rpcnet.cpp:313:68: error: conversion from ‘uint64 {aka long long unsigned int}’ to ‘const Value_type {aka const json_spirit::Value_impl<json_spirit::Config_vector<std::basic_string<char> > >}’ is ambiguous
     obj.push_back(Pair("totalbytesrecv", CNode::GetTotalBytesRecv()));
                                                                    ^
src/rpcnet.cpp:313:67: note: candidates are:
     obj.push_back(Pair("totalbytesrecv", CNode::GetTotalBytesRecv()));
                                                                   ^
In file included from src/json/json_spirit_reader_template.h:9:0,
                 from src/bitcoinrpc.h:15,
                 from src/rpcnet.cpp:7:
src/json/json_spirit_value.h:283:5: note: json_spirit::Value_impl<Config>::Value_impl(double) [with Config = json_spirit::Config_vector<std::basic_string<char> >]
     Value_impl< Config >::Value_impl( double value )
     ^
src/json/json_spirit_value.h:275:5: note: json_spirit::Value_impl<Config>::Value_impl(uint64_t) [with Config = json_spirit::Config_vector<std::basic_string<char> >; uint64_t = long unsigned int]
     Value_impl< Config >::Value_impl( boost::uint64_t value )
     ^
src/json/json_spirit_value.h:267:5: note: json_spirit::Value_impl<Config>::Value_impl(int64_t) [with Config = json_spirit::Config_vector<std::basic_string<char> >; int64_t = long int]
     Value_impl< Config >::Value_impl( boost::int64_t value )
     ^
src/json/json_spirit_value.h:259:5: note: json_spirit::Value_impl<Config>::Value_impl(int) [with Config = json_spirit::Config_vector<std::basic_string<char> >]
     Value_impl< Config >::Value_impl( int value )
     ^
src/json/json_spirit_value.h:251:5: note: json_spirit::Value_impl<Config>::Value_impl(bool) [with Config = json_spirit::Config_vector<std::basic_string<char> >]
     Value_impl< Config >::Value_impl( bool value )
     ^
src/json/json_spirit_value.h:219:5: note: json_spirit::Value_impl<Config>::Value_impl(json_spirit::Value_impl<Config>::Const_str_ptr) [with Config = json_spirit::Config_vector<std::basic_string<char> >; json_spirit::Value_impl<Config>::Const_str_ptr = const char*] <near match>
     Value_impl< Config >::Value_impl( const Const_str_ptr value )
     ^

[liteuser]

git-148333a2f9 does not compile with gcc-4.9.1

I use Ubuntu 14.04 and gcc version 4.9.1 (Ubuntu 4.9.1-1ubuntu2~14.04.3)

I've had no problems with rpcnet.cpp, but failed to compile main.cpp.

I had to add boost:: before int64_t in main.h:

Code:

bool IsFinalTx(const CTransaction &tx, int nBlockHeight = 0, boost::int64_t nBlockTime = 0);

and in main.cpp:

Code:

bool IsFinalTx(const CTransaction &tx, int nBlockHeight, boost::int64_t nBlockTime)

Since rpcnet.cpp now includes main.h, this may also fix your compilation problem.

[otila]

Since rpcnet.cpp now includes main.h, this may also fix your compilation problem.

That didn't help compiling net.cpp and rpcnet.cpp, but now it does..

Code:

diff --git a/src/net.cpp b/src/net.cpp
index 4179b42..f7b28ec 100644
--- a/src/net.cpp
+++ b/src/net.cpp
@@ -2157,13 +2157,13 @@ void CNode::RecordBytesSent(uint64 bytes)
     nTotalBytesSent += bytes;
 }
 
-uint64 CNode::GetTotalBytesRecv()
+uint64_t CNode::GetTotalBytesRecv()
 {
     LOCK(cs_totalBytesRecv);
     return nTotalBytesRecv;
 }
 
-uint64 CNode::GetTotalBytesSent()
+uint64_t CNode::GetTotalBytesSent()
 {
     LOCK(cs_totalBytesSent);
     return nTotalBytesSent;
diff --git a/src/net.h b/src/net.h
index f2770eb..06e395f 100644
--- a/src/net.h
+++ b/src/net.h
@@ -764,8 +764,8 @@ public:
     static void RecordBytesRecv(uint64 bytes);
     static void RecordBytesSent(uint64 bytes);
 
-    static uint64 GetTotalBytesRecv();
-    static uint64 GetTotalBytesSent();
+    static uint64_t GetTotalBytesRecv();
+    static uint64_t GetTotalBytesSent();
 };
 
 
diff --git a/src/rpcnet.cpp b/src/rpcnet.cpp
index 14ec275..448e247 100644
--- a/src/rpcnet.cpp
+++ b/src/rpcnet.cpp
@@ -312,6 +312,6 @@ Value getnettotals(CWallet *pWallet, const Array& params, bool fHelp)
     Object obj;
     obj.push_back(Pair("totalbytesrecv", CNode::GetTotalBytesRecv()));
     obj.push_back(Pair("totalbytessent", CNode::GetTotalBytesSent()));
-    obj.push_back(Pair("timemillis", GetTimeMillis()));
+    obj.push_back(Pair("timemillis", static_cast<uint64_t>(GetTimeMillis())));
     return obj;
 }

Also, what's the obsession in using boost in GetTimeMillis+GetTimeMicros?
Here's what it does:

Code:

21:15:29.740407 brk(0)                  = 0x1cb6000 <0.000010>
21:15:29.740447 brk(0x1cd7000)          = 0x1cd7000 <0.000011>
21:15:29.740487 brk(0)                  = 0x1cd7000 <0.000010>
21:15:29.740535 open("/etc/localtime", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3 <0.000016>
21:15:29.740589 fstat(3, {st_dev=makedev(252, 0), st_ino=12885149141, st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_nlink=1, st_uid=0, st_gid=0, st_blksize=4096, st_blocks=8, st_size=1883, st_atime=2014/03/21-01:01:58, st_mtime=2013/03/13-17:52:21, st_ctime=2014/03/20-18:11:40}) = 0 <0.000010>
21:15:29.740670 fstat(3, {st_dev=makedev(252, 0), st_ino=12885149141, st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_nlink=1, st_uid=0, st_gid=0, st_blksize=4096, st_blocks=8, st_size=1883, st_atime=2014/03/21-01:01:58, st_mtime=2013/03/13-17:52:21, st_ctime=2014/03/20-18:11:40}) = 0 <0.000010>
21:15:29.740747 mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0x7fd16fbe1000 <0.000012>
21:15:29.740792 read(3, "TZif2\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\5\0\0\0\5\0\0\0\0"..., 4096) = 1883 <0.000016>
21:15:29.740847 lseek(3, -1201, SEEK_CUR) = 682 <0.000011>
21:15:29.740887 read(3, "TZif2\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\6\0\0\0\6\0\0\0\0"..., 4096) = 1201 <0.000011>
21:15:29.740936 close(3)                = 0 <0.000013>
21:15:29.740979 munmap(0x7fd16fbe1000, 4096) = 0 <0.000022>

whereas gettimeofday does not even show up in strace

Code:

diff --git a/src/util.h b/src/util.h
index 98f9c7a..4c30446 100644
--- a/src/util.h
+++ b/src/util.h
@@ -353,14 +353,16 @@ inline int64 GetPerformanceCounter()
 
 inline int64 GetTimeMillis()
 {
-    return (boost::posix_time::ptime(boost::posix_time::microsec_clock::universal_time()) -
-            boost::posix_time::ptime(boost::gregorian::date(1970,1,1))).total_milliseconds();
+    timeval t;
+    gettimeofday(&t, NULL);
+    return ((int64) t.tv_sec * 1000) + (t.tv_usec / 1000);
 }
 
 inline int64 GetTimeMicros()
 {
-    return (boost::posix_time::ptime(boost::posix_time::microsec_clock::universal_time()) -
-            boost::posix_time::ptime(boost::gregorian::date(1970,1,1))).total_microseconds();
+    timeval t;
+    gettimeofday(&t, NULL);
+    return ((int64) t.tv_sec * 1000000) + t.tv_usec;
 }
 
 inline std::string DateTimeStrFormat(const char* pszFormat, int64 nTime)

[Tranz]

Thanks guys, sorry about that. I hadn't plan on moving all int64 to int64_t until 1.6, but looks like it is a bit of a mess, so I'll see about cleaning that up.

Here is my plan for finishing up these last few things before coding up the hard fork.

Add Traffic Network (done)
Add Peer Information(done)
Add some coin control updates
Add totaling of transactions
Add windows shutdown notification. Help prevent wallet corruption.
Fix a few of the things mentioned about S4C
Refactor the combine/split of stakes and allow more user control of it.
Update the Stake kernal, see NVC. This is still a maybe, as I have to test it out for a bit. But should require even less CPU to stake.
Change to int64_t
Add -reindex (maybe)

[CrazyLoaf]

Little more than 0.1 BTC until 8.9k sat. Go, go, go!

[mmfiore]

@ Tranz My 1.4.1 wallet seems to be locked up as of a few hours ago and will no longer sync to the network. Should I try reloading the block chain. I have a backup of it. Which files do I need to replace? Thanks for your help.

[vlajo]

hi,

HoboNickels wallet - out of sync

ver. 1.4.0.1

"No valid UPnP IGDs found" - is the last line on debug log

Any idea how to fix it?

Thank you!
 

[GreenDefender]

hi,

HoboNickels wallet - out of sync

ver. 1.4.0.1

"No valid UPnP IGDs found" - is the last line on debug log

Any idea how to fix it?

Thank you!
 

Hobo wallet v 1.4.8.0 works fine for me last 10 days ... maybe you try an update

[mmfiore]

What's the link for 1.4.8?

[PressF1]

What's the link for 1.4.8?

https://github.com/Tranz5/HoboNickels/releases/tag/1.4.8.0
works fine for me too. Good luck!