[ANN] microCoin MRC - alcurEX - Scrypt-Jane - nFactor

[Nutnut]

Yowsers!!! After a 14 hour battle of wills, 2 new server builds, 3 DB migrations and a bunch of other stuff to boot.... were back on the air!!

All shares, coins (what little coins there are ), blocks etc are accounted for as mining was not affected.

The pool is running through the backlogs but it may take a while.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Nut

[Bansheroom]

Yowsers!!! After a 14 hour battle of wills, 2 new server builds, 3 DB migrations and a bunch of other stuff to boot.... were back on the air!!

All shares, coins (what little coins there are ), blocks etc are accounted for as mining was not affected.

The pool is running through the backlogs but it may take a while.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Nut

Thank you for your hard work nutnut, next codefix is coming soon, so you will not get out of practice  .

[Nutnut]

Yowsers!!! After a 14 hour battle of wills, 2 new server builds, 3 DB migrations and a bunch of other stuff to boot.... were back on the air!!

All shares, coins (what little coins there are ), blocks etc are accounted for as mining was not affected.

The pool is running through the backlogs but it may take a while.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Nut

Thank you for your hard work nutnut, next codefix is coming soon, so you will not get out of practice  .

Yaye! look forward to it. 

So, reading through the posts, it looks like we still don't have a working code version?

[Hilux74]

I'm surprised there has not been a bigger dump on the exchanges yet.  I'd get out before this coin goes Corgi down to single digits on the LTC market.   

[trogdorjw73]

Addendum to my above post: I had some more bad math. Hahaha... it's why I'm not the developer. :-)

Basically, the 160000-309999 case was returning 150000 to 0 coins, not 160000 to 10000 coins. I've edited my post (changed 310000 to 320000 on that one line), but you can see the incorrect code quoted above me.

fixed it so noone can copy wrong code, seems to be very complicated to code.

On a separate note: does Proof of Stake for sure never kick in? Has anyone taken a closer look at that code? I'll be honest: MRC is going nowhere fast right now, but maybe it can still recover somewhat -- basically, any coin that's creating 100 billion coins is going to run into some serious problems IMO (hello <1 satoshi trading). But I see some stuff in the code like GetProofOfStakeReward, and I believe MRC is not supposed to have any PoS stuff going on. It's pretty telling that the coin developers didn't even take the time to properly remove stuff like GetProofOfStakeReward. I fear that MRC -- and Alcurex along with it -- are going to be a money losing venture.

[snguyen]

OMG, I did not notice that the following code was removed without any reason

else if(nHeight >= 160000 && nHeight < 310000) // decreasing block size on every blocks -1.  ** Blocks: 160001 - 310000
{
nSubsidy = (160000 - (nHeight -160000) ) * COIN;
}         

You can see the change at this commit:
https://github.com/microcoinsource/microcoin/commit/4a6de77b362881b184445630475912538ebf744b

I am very sorry that I did not read the whole block when halibit asked me for reviewing. I did only read the part I suggested to add. I am feel very bad about this, I apologise again  .

Halibit, please add that block back to the code and compile the new code.

[snguyen]

Code:

	// Erroneous 0.01 block rewards (wrong logic again, but we need to keep it because it's already happened)
	else if (nHeight <= 318000)
	{
		nSubsidy = (3100 - ((nHeight * 0.01) - 310000)) - 300000;
		// NOTE: Seriously!? Who came up with this code as the "fix"? It's the same as:
		// nSubsidy = 13100 - nHeight * 0.01;
		// That's so utterly wrong and confusing to begin with, it's no wonder things broke.
	}

If you follow the story, you will understand why we need to keep that ugly and shit code. Because the new version need to be compartable with the old versions. If there is a logic, which even is wrong as coin spec, but it's already happend, we need to keep it for sure.

That's why removing an existing code from the original code is a very bad bug, so hopefully hallibit will fix this as very soon as possible.

I still do not know why that part (160,000 - 310,000) was removed But first of all, I need to blame myself for my terrible reviewing skill.

[Del137]

YET new wallet have troubles for new users, i may upload all blocks DAT files for today, to use wallet until it will be fixed.

[trogdorjw73]

Code:

	// Erroneous 0.01 block rewards (wrong logic again, but we need to keep it because it's already happened)
	else if (nHeight <= 318000)
	{
		nSubsidy = (3100 - ((nHeight * 0.01) - 310000)) - 300000;
		// NOTE: Seriously!? Who came up with this code as the "fix"? It's the same as:
		// nSubsidy = 13100 - nHeight * 0.01;
		// That's so utterly wrong and confusing to begin with, it's no wonder things broke.
	}

If you follow the story, you will understand why we need to keep that ugly and shit code. Because the new version need to be compartable with the old versions. If there is a logic, which even is wrong as coin spec, but it's already happend, we need to keep it for sure.

That's why removing an existing code from the original code is a very bad bug, so hopefully hallibit will fix this as very soon as possible.

I still do not know why that part (160,000 - 310,000) was removed But first of all, I need to blame myself for my terrible reviewing skill.

My point wasn't the fact that it gave the wrong block reward and now needed to be there; it was why did anyone write...

nSubsidy = (3100 - ((nHeight * 0.01) - 310000)) - 300000;

...in the first place? It's the same with the line that says:
nSubsidy = (160000 - (nHeight -160000) ) * COIN;

Really, why are we doing such crappy math? (320000 - nHeight) * COIN is not only more concise, but it's also more easily understood, especially with a well-placed comment. Programming should be reduced to the simplest form possible, not expanded with useless additions. Otherwise why don't we write:

nSubsidy = (32 * (nHeight + 5000) - (nHeight -160000))) * COIN - nHeight * 32 / COIN;

Or perhaps:

nSubsidy = (32 * (nHeight + 5000 - nThisIsStupid) - (nHeight -160000))) * COIN - (nHeight * 32 + 544 * (nThisIsStupid / 17)) / COIN;

I don't even know if I did that math properly, but you get the point I hope: adding numbers and complexity to an expression doesn't help.

[Del137]

Here you go, its ALL files needed except wallet.dat file with blocks calculated for today for microcoin_client2_1_1_2

Its like 315 Mb. All working, enjoy: http://yadi.sk/d/Wti85ZbbPDRSM

[randywald]

It's nice to see that many people are helping if problems exist. I wouldn't say that the coins future is affected but we should see it as an amber light to do all things with still more care .

[snguyen]

My point wasn't the fact that it gave the wrong block reward and now needed to be there; it was why did anyone write...

nSubsidy = (3100 - ((nHeight * 0.01) - 310000)) - 300000;

...in the first place?

Hehe, yes you are totally right about that very ambiguous code, but it is not my code My suggestion patch is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=458732.msg6522098#msg6522098

(The formula could be shortened as: nSubsidy = (6900 - nHeight * 0.01) * COIN. Both of them are the same, but the original way looks more understandable.)

If MRC/halibit followed my suggested code at the first place without inventing this piece for the 1st fork (and then deleting an existing corrected code for the 2nd fork), this mess would never happen.

However I think it is not time to complain, it is time to work together to fix the mess. We need more patience, kind of patience we have showed all during the history of this coin.

[snguyen]

Here you go, its ALL files needed except wallet.dat file with blocks calculated for today for microcoin_client2_1_1_2

Its like 315 Mb. All working, enjoy: http://yadi.sk/d/Wti85ZbbPDRSM

+1. Thank you for the upload.

I did not delete anything so still working fine with the version 2_1_1_1. But we still need to fix definitely.

[Sunmini]

so good, look like nice.

[halibit]

Oh dear.
I will start with new fix.
Have anyone windows compiler ready with new SSL?
Just think if we compile new windows wallet with that.

[Nutnut]

Any news? looking at the block rates i'm gonna be sleeping when 318000 hits.

Need a fixed wallet if you guys want the pool to continue unless we are staying at 0.01 for longer.

Seriously MCR... come on. pull your finger out. We can try to be all rainbows and butterflies here but the reality is, this is getting ridiculous!

PS. whilst your fixing the code, can you fix the fact that the daemon sits blasting one of my CPU cores up to ~60% permantly?

Nut

[bitcodo]

Soon the code will get so complicated that I will need new PC to run the wallet (with every new version of wallet, it needs longer to fully load).

Just stop this and make pure POS coin. If it can't be done with this code, make another premined coin and exchange MRC for new POS coin.

[Don007]

Don't completely change the code of this coin..

It would be great if the current problems are fixed. As soon as the new version is working, let's keep it that way.  @Bitcodo; there are already too many coins..

[reftop123]

old coin？

So old... looks like dead now.

[Don007]

old coin？

So old... looks like dead now.

MicroCoin isn't dead. As you obviously can see..

It just has some trouble with the current client.  As soon as this is fixed, there are no problems with it.   Yes, many MicroCoins have been dumped since. But I still think it has potential, and that's why I keep all my MicroCoins (and buy some more soon ).