[POT]PotCoin - Banking for the Legal Cannabis Industry ✦ ✦ ✦Grow With Us ✦ ✦ ✦

[rdyoung]

simply use coin control  and send 5- 20k coin blocks to your own wallet.

Should help a lot.

thats what i did.

If your wanting to help give the network a nudge, you need to use separate addresses for each input. Those txs you created will eventually get lumped back together.

[1715458516]

1715458516

[1715458516]

1715458516

[fonzerrellie]

bluetrade seems to be totally down...

[rdyoung]

bluetrade seems to be totally down...

I am not the only one getting a blank page? Good, thought it was something local for a minute.

[rdyoung]

How to use Coin Control to split huge Blocks for noobs.
https://youtu.be/DysuL1dnhY4

Yeah i know my desk is a mess

Can tip me some pot if you want
PVYLQRUFMKHuojtGuntcQANkz83b2QwefD

With the 2million threshold, splitting within the same address is a waste of time and coin age. I will repeat, if your looking to help push the network, you NEED to be using a SEPARATE address for EACH INDIVIDUAL OUTPUT.

[Rumhurius]

How to use Coin Control to split huge Blocks for noobs.
https://youtu.be/DysuL1dnhY4

Yeah i know my desk is a mess

Can tip me some pot if you want
PVYLQRUFMKHuojtGuntcQANkz83b2QwefD

With the 2million threshold, splitting within the same address is a waste of time and coin age. I will repeat, if your looking to help push the network, you NEED to be using a SEPARATE address for EACH INDIVIDUAL OUTPUT.

nah i am not going to create 40 addys just to help when its basicly just a line of code to change

So i deleted the vid and post again.

i only thought that it will stake more often so it creates more blocks anyway.

i should read carefully before i post. lel

[jheaton]

where the vid go

[Rumhurius]

where the vid go

deleted it cause he said its useless

[rdyoung]

How to use Coin Control to split huge Blocks for noobs.
https://youtu.be/DysuL1dnhY4

Yeah i know my desk is a mess

Can tip me some pot if you want
PVYLQRUFMKHuojtGuntcQANkz83b2QwefD

With the 2million threshold, splitting within the same address is a waste of time and coin age. I will repeat, if your looking to help push the network, you NEED to be using a SEPARATE address for EACH INDIVIDUAL OUTPUT.

nah i am not going to create 40 addys just to help when its basicly just a line of code to change

So i deleted the vid and post again.

i only thought that it will stake more often so it creates more blocks anyway.

i should read carefully before i post. lel

I have been told flat out that the devs will NOT get to it anytime soon. Apparently they have other things they are working on that are way more important than fixing this. Its also quite clear that they don't have the grasp on the bigger picture that some of us do. Its up to us to get the ball rolling, once we can get the network up to speed, more wallets and coins should start coming online to keep it going.

[rdyoung]

where the vid go

deleted it cause he said its useless

Not useless, just not applicable to potcoin until they change the threshold.

[Rumhurius]

where the vid go

deleted it cause he said its useless

Not useless, just not applicable to potcoin until they change the threshold.

yeah its not a bad thing if everybody would split up a little each 1 or 2 days.
If anybody does it, the Chances that the Stake got mixed up in a single Block again would go down over time anyways right ?

[rdyoung]

where the vid go

deleted it cause he said its useless

Not useless, just not applicable to potcoin until they change the threshold.

yeah its not a bad thing if everybody would split up a little each 1 or 2 days.
The Chances that the Stake got mixed up in a single Block again would go down over time anyway right ?

Quite the opposite, the wallet actively looks for inputs to combine, over time your chances of multiple inputs being swept into 1 output increase.
Last check on cryptoid says we have 629 actively staking addresses, to account for those that may be brought offline again after they stake, if an avg of 10 of us get 30 addresses with separate coins actively staking, we could get the network up to speed in the next 24 hours or so. Last count has us at 105'ish from 3 of us here and I am actively working on upping my contribution to 100-200 addresses.

Edit: When all is said and done, I will have 292 addresses actively staking in one wallet. If this doesn't get us going, nothing will.

[Rumhurius]

i have my coins splitted up anyway and i stake almost daily.
So i will watch if the stake ends up on the same block.

Man why is everything so complicated

[rdyoung]

Man why is everything so complicated

Because.....

[spectrem1]

I sent a support ticket to Cryptsy about getting my coins out. They said they are waiting for a fix from the dev. They have no idea when the wallet will be working. What the heck kind of "Fix"? -M

[fonzerrellie]

I just put some btc up on polo if anyone wants to sell me some POT... seems to be the only good exchange with an updated wallet 

[ny2cafuse]

I sent a support ticket to Cryptsy about getting my coins out. They said they are waiting for a fix from the dev. They have no idea when the wallet will be working. What the heck kind of "Fix"? -M

The fix that blocks older wallet versions.  Until that happens, any Tom, Dick or Harry can run an older version of the wallet and keep the exchanges locked up.  I posted the fix weeks ago, but no one from the dev team wanted to address it.

-Fuse

[rdyoung]

I sent a support ticket to Cryptsy about getting my coins out. They said they are waiting for a fix from the dev. They have no idea when the wallet will be working. What the heck kind of "Fix"? -M

The fix that blocks older wallet versions.  Until that happens, any Tom, Dick or Harry can run an older version of the wallet and keep the exchanges locked up.  I posted the fix weeks ago, but no one from the dev team wanted to address it.

-Fuse

While we agree that it is needed, it doesn't explain why polo and bleu are both up and running and bitt and cryptsy are dragging their feet. michelem posted an issue with the wallet that I believe may be whats holding them back, they are getting a segmentation fault and crash when it receives an rpc call, running with -disablewallet stops that from happening. I have a funny feeling that this is whats holding them back and neither the exchanges nor the devs are willing to come clean about it. It still doesn't explain polo+bleu, but with 1s and 0s anything is possible, including quantum flux.

[CartmanSPC]

I have been told flat out that the devs will NOT get to it anytime soon. Apparently they have other things they are working on that are way more important than fixing this. Its also quite clear that they don't have the grasp on the bigger picture that some of us do. Its up to us to get the ball rolling, once we can get the network up to speed, more wallets and coins should start coming online to keep it going.

Ok, I will look/test this out. Can only compile/test on Linux though so don't ask for a Windows client...but if someone has good instructions on how to compile for Windows I might give it a go.
Can we come to a consensus on an appropriate number for nStakeCombineThreshold?

It is currently set to 2000000 * COIN:

Code:

23 // we split the coinstake output in two to avoid concentrating 
24 // too many coins in one output. currently almost always split. 
25 unsigned int nStakeSplitAge = 45 * 24 * 60 * 60; // 45 days 
26 // avoid concentrated transactions. on average, each block contains: 
27 // generated interest  ~= 27b * 5% / 365 / 1440 ~= 2.5k 
28 // corresponding stake ~= 27b / 365 / 1440 ~= 50k 
29 // optimally each output stakes once every week so 50k * 52 = 2.6m 
30 // but only a fraction of the total money supply is staked on the network 
31 int64 nStakeCombineThreshold = 2000000 * COIN; 

I included the relevant part of the code above. I also want to highlight nStakeSplitAge as perhaps someone can determine the right amount of time if it should not be 45 days.

Here is the part of the code that does the splitting:

Code:

1650                 if (GetCoinAgeWeight(block.GetBlockTime(), (int64)txNew.nTime) < nStakeSplitAge && nCredit >= nStakeCombineThreshold) 
1651                     txNew.vout.push_back(CTxOut(0, scriptPubKeyOut)); //split stake 

Also, looks like it will stop at 100 inputs:

Code:

1673             // Stop adding more inputs if already too many inputs 
1674             if (txNew.vin.size() >= 100) 
1675                 break; 

Stops adding inputs if it reaches nStakeCombineThreshold

Code:

1676             // Stop adding more inputs if value is already pretty significant 
1677             if (nCredit >= nStakeCombineThreshold) 
1678                 break; 

etc.

Code:

1679             // Stop adding inputs if reached reserve limit 
1680             if (nCredit + pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].nValue > nBalance - nReserveBalance) 
1681                 break; 
1682             // Do not add additional significant input 
1683             if (pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].nValue >= nStakeCombineThreshold) 

Line 31 is the ticket...lets figure out the appropriate amount. Would prefer to do this on testnet but since we don't have that yet guess I will have to risk real coin....not that big of a risk though.

Edit: The comments on lines 23-30 should be updated for POT too.

[ny2cafuse]

While we agree that it is needed, it doesn't explain why polo and bleu are both up and running and bitt and cryptsy are dragging their feet. michelem posted an issue with the wallet that I believe may be whats holding them back, they are getting a segmentation fault and crash when it receives an rpc call, running with -disablewallet stops that from happening. I have a funny feeling that this is whats holding them back and neither the exchanges nor the devs are willing to come clean about it. It still doesn't explain polo+bleu, but with 1s and 0s anything is possible, including quantum flux.

Because polo and bleu aren't as cautious as Cryptsy.  It isn't Cryptsy dragging their feet... it's Cryptsy following their own protocol.  I can recall a few times in the past when Cryptsy got burned on wallet transitions and upgrades, specifically with forks.  I know people that benefited on Cryptsy from the TAG forks.  They won't turn it on until they are 100% sure there isn't a possibility for an attack on the chain with defunct code in the wallet.

Now if there is another issue with the RPC calls, that's another issue that needs to be addressed.  Running -disablewallet seems to be an awfully inconvenient "fix" just to get a wallet up and running.  Either way though, if there was a seg fault, why would the exchange want to hide that fact?  I think they would be the first to say "not us" and put the onus on the devs.  Sounds like the devs have some explaining to do.

-Fuse

[Cogitorium]

Crytsey Responce to me,
[–]ny2cafuse 1 point an hour ago
Crypsty is pretty cautious when it comes to wallet updates. They are offline under the premise that the entire network isn't updated, and there is a chance for a fork if enough hashing power was put into a POW wallet version. Fact of the matter is that the devs should have included code that blocked older wallet versions. This would have blocked the POW wallets from connecting to other nodes, and Cryptsy POT wallets would have been online a long time ago.