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

[rdyoung]

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.

Based on simple division/ratios. I would say that 10k is a good round # for the split threshold. How did I get there? 2million split for a coin with 21billion in circulation, pot has 211million, 1/100th of reddcoin, take the 2million divide by 100 gives you 20k, drop it to 10k because it sounds like a better # .

I can attempt to compile for windows if I can get cygwin installed, I tried the other day and it kept failing, I think win10's networking drivers are borked.

[rdyoung]

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.

The devs have hopefully told cryptsy that POW is over, its now POSv, aside from unknown attack vectors, to attack the coin costs BTC to do so.

[spectrem1]

So what's the fix, devs?  Do you at least have the issue identified?

It would be nice if we could get an update on what's going on.

-Fuse

Yes we have identified the problem.

As we've said, we are working on fixing the issue.

Your patience is appreciated

The last correspondence from DEV (Potlabs to Fuse) was August 21. Ten days is a long time and a lot of patience without comment on the "issue". According to Cryptsy, they are waiting for the pot dev team to supply the fix. They (Cryptsy) had no eta on the fix but offered to keep the support ticket open and contact me when there was a fix.
Dev - ? What does working on fixing the issue mean. How much more time? I want my coins out of Cryptsy and in my wallet. Thanks -M

[PotCoin]

So what's the fix, devs?  Do you at least have the issue identified?

It would be nice if we could get an update on what's going on.

-Fuse

Yes we have identified the problem.

As we've said, we are working on fixing the issue.

Your patience is appreciated

The last correspondence from DEV (Potlabs to Fuse) was August 21. Ten days is a long time and a lot of patience without comment on the "issue". According to Cryptsy, they are waiting for the pot dev team to supply the fix. They (Cryptsy) had no eta on the fix but offered to keep the support ticket open and contact me when there was a fix.
Dev - ? What does working on fixing the issue mean. How much more time? I want my coins out of Cryptsy and in my wallet. Thanks -M

We have been in contact with Cryptsy and they have NOT informed us of any issues or a needed fix.

To quote cryptsy's responce to PotCoin "we would like to ask for your patience as we work on getting the wallet back online. As soon as we are done with the work, a representative from our technical support team will send you a note."

We are all eager for the transfers and trading to resume.

PotCoin

[codypanama]

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  

ya i just sent some to bleutrade, got there real slow hehe

Coins made it to polo Yes :-)

how many you looking for @ what price ?

[ny2cafuse]

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.

The devs have hopefully told cryptsy that POW is over, its now POSv, aside from unknown attack vectors, to attack the coin costs BTC to do so.

It doesn't matter if they told them the POW mining is over or not.  The wallet code still says that wallets with the protocol version held when we were POW mining are still valid nodes.  Thus the network update error... if that is what is causing all this fuss.

However, if anyone really wanted to, they could spin up a bunch of POW wallets via docker and CoreOS, throw some MH at it and create running forks that would disrupt the chain.  In fact, they wouldn't even need to mine on this separate network.  They would just need enough nodes running so that when a POSv wallet tries to confirm a block, the POW wallet nodes invalidate the blocks.

This isn't rocket science.  The devs should have addressed this as a possible security concern.  It's already a concern with the exchanges.  Devs - Patch the minimum protocol version pull request that I posted to the potcoin github and move on.

-Fuse

[spectrem1]

So what's the fix, devs?  Do you at least have the issue identified?

It would be nice if we could get an update on what's going on.

-Fuse

Yes we have identified the problem.

As we've said, we are working on fixing the issue.

Your patience is appreciated

The last correspondence from DEV (Potlabs to Fuse) was August 21. Ten days is a long time and a lot of patience without comment on the "issue". According to Cryptsy, they are waiting for the pot dev team to supply the fix. They (Cryptsy) had no eta on the fix but offered to keep the support ticket open and contact me when there was a fix.
Dev - ? What does working on fixing the issue mean. How much more time? I want my coins out of Cryptsy and in my wallet. Thanks -M

We have been in contact with Cryptsy and they have NOT informed us of any issues or a needed fix.

To quote cryptsy's responce to PotCoin "we would like to ask for your patience as we work on getting the wallet back online. As soon as we are done with the work, a representative from our technical support team will send you a note."

We are all eager for the transfers and trading to resume.

PotCoin

Tue, 01 Sep 2015 16:26:28 +0000 [12:26:28 PM EDT]
Delivered-To:  me
From:  "Cryptsy.com" <support@cryptsy.com>
Hello M,  We are currently experiencing a problem with the PotCoin chain and we are still waiting for a fix from the coin's development team.  Unfortunately, we do not have an ETA as to when the coin will be back online yet. However, I can send you a note as soon as it is up. Will this work for you?
Sincerely,  
Stephanie  Cryptsy.com
Stephanie's Trade Key  09aa480347b4b9f42bf0e36dfc20a9b48e73080b


Conflicting statements. It seems nothing is being done except the waiting for something to be done. A proactive approach by you on our behalf does seem in order.  I will also add that I noticed that Cryptsy has 54 coin wallets in "maintenance mode". I have coins at Bitrexx also but I have not written to their support team yet. Maybe everyone should fill out support tickets. What do you say Dev?

[cryptothreads]

So if anyone has any ideas what they would want in a PotCoin t-shirt let me know in a PM , or here 

[fonzerrellie]

honestly I don't know who I'd believe cryptsy or dev... 1 thing I do know is that Poloniex has been around for a long time and is 2nd or 3rd in trusted altcoin exchanges in my book I use cryptsy and bittrex a lot more lol but thats probably more out of habit than anything else. So if Polo thinks POT is safe enough to run the wallet I have no problem giving them my business. cryptsy chronically has tons of wallets in maintenance like MINT and AC as well (and MINT is also up and running on polo) but Bittrex is normally pretty good about keeping up with wallets... so I don't know what to think, I don't know code so wouldn't be able to look for the issue if I tried so a big THANKS to those trying help and sharing their opinions.

for someone to want to waste the time and money to try to fork it, wouldn't there need to be something to be gained by it? wasn't POT's pow block reward next to nothing at the end of pow?

then again this is the "wild west" and if someone had enough of a competing pot themed coin they might be crazy enough to think forking it would hurt it enough to make the other weedcoins look better... so I guess the possibility of someone trying is there but would cost time and money and the more people staking and gaining weight the more expensive it would be to overpower it with pow (if I understand it correctly)

 lol now to Polo to see if anyone sold into my lil buys 

[CartmanSPC]

wasn't POT's pow block reward next to nothing at the end of pow?

They would use the wallet version before PoSv to do the attack. It would not be all that hard to do. The wallet before PoSv had no idea about the accelerated halfing and the switch to PoSv. I imagine it is conceivable that some miners could still be mining to it and if that chain is longer it would win....that would be tragically funny. Not everyone monitors these threads 24/7 or even monthly. Some people take months off at a time and leave their gear running on autopilot.

Cryptsy is doing the right (responsible) thing in my opinion.

Edit: Thinking about it more...since the PoSv chain was stuck on 974999(?) for days I'm sure the other chain is longer and technically the "correct" chain if it has ANY hashrate still...also seeing as the PoSv chain is going slower than expected it will have a hard time surpassing it.....that is if the other chain still has anyone mining to it.

Edit2: Just restored wallet version 0.8.6.4 from backup....think that was the version right before 8.7.1...maybe I will get some time to see if there are any wallets still running...just curious to see what block they are on and how much hashrate (if any) it has.

[rdyoung]

So what's the fix, devs?  Do you at least have the issue identified?

It would be nice if we could get an update on what's going on.

-Fuse

Yes we have identified the problem.

As we've said, we are working on fixing the issue.

Your patience is appreciated

The last correspondence from DEV (Potlabs to Fuse) was August 21. Ten days is a long time and a lot of patience without comment on the "issue". According to Cryptsy, they are waiting for the pot dev team to supply the fix. They (Cryptsy) had no eta on the fix but offered to keep the support ticket open and contact me when there was a fix.
Dev - ? What does working on fixing the issue mean. How much more time? I want my coins out of Cryptsy and in my wallet. Thanks -M

The post your quoting is in reference to the borked transition from POW to POSv, turns out they forgot the difficulty algorithm

I am in contact with redrhino007 who is in constant contact with the exchanges, he says bitt will back soon™ cryptsy is cryptsy, no clue there.

[rdyoung]

honestly I don't know who I'd believe cryptsy or dev... 1 thing I do know is that Poloniex has been around for a long time and is 2nd or 3rd in trusted altcoin exchanges in my book I use cryptsy and bittrex a lot more lol but thats probably more out of habit than anything else. So if Polo thinks POT is safe enough to run the wallet I have no problem giving them my business. cryptsy chronically has tons of wallets in maintenance like MINT and AC as well (and MINT is also up and running on polo) but Bittrex is normally pretty good about keeping up with wallets... so I don't know what to think, I don't know code so wouldn't be able to look for the issue if I tried so a big THANKS to those trying help and sharing their opinions.

for someone to want to waste the time and money to try to fork it, wouldn't there need to be something to be gained by it? wasn't POT's pow block reward next to nothing at the end of pow?

then again this is the "wild west" and if someone had enough of a competing pot themed coin they might be crazy enough to think forking it would hurt it enough to make the other weedcoins look better... so I guess the possibility of someone trying is there but would cost time and money and the more people staking and gaining weight the more expensive it would be to overpower it with pow (if I understand it correctly)

 lol now to Polo to see if anyone sold into my lil buys 

The part I bolded is the key to this entire mess. As far as I understand it, any wallets that didn't update to the POSv transition wouldn't be able to see the current blockchain, and yes, as of 975000 for anyone running the POSv wallet, there are no rewards. In theory you could run an older version and keep churning out blocks at the old halving schedule, but your wasting time because no one can or will buy that coin on a forked chain.

[rdyoung]

wasn't POT's pow block reward next to nothing at the end of pow?

They would use the wallet version before PoSv to do the attack. It would not be all that hard to do. The wallet before PoSv had no idea about the accelerated halfing and the switch to PoSv. I imagine it is conceivable that some miners could still be mining to it and if that chain is longer it would win....that would be tragically funny. Not everyone monitors these threads 24/7 or even monthly. Some people take months off at a time and leave their gear running on autopilot.

Cryptsy is doing the right (responsible) thing in my opinion.

Edit: Thinking about it more...since the PoSv chain was stuck on 974999(?) for days I'm sure the other chain is longer and technically the "correct" chain if it has ANY hashrate still...also seeing as the PoSv chain is going slower than expected it will have a hard time surpassing it.....that is if the other chain still has anyone mining to it.

Edit2: Just restored wallet version 0.8.6.4 from backup....think that was the version right before 8.7.1...maybe I will get some time to see if there are any wallets still running...just curious to see what block they are on and how much hashrate (if any) it has.

I am pretty sure all of this is moot. When upgrading to POSv we had to reindex, the older wallets shouldn't be able to send coins to this chain even if they can connect, in theory it shouldn't accept any POW blocks because we are past the POW final block #.

[jheaton]

This he said she said shit is killing me. may as well go watch court tv.

[ny2cafuse]

I am pretty sure all of this is moot. When upgrading to POSv we had to reindex, the older wallets shouldn't be able to send coins to this chain even if they can connect, in theory it shouldn't accept any POW blocks because we are past the POW final block #.

I didn't need to reindex.  I just started up the new wallet, once they added the difficulty algorithm.  No bootstrap or anything, just a clean start.

Your theory is incorrect.  The new wallets still consider the old wallets a valid node.  As such, there are conflicting code rules on which blocks to accept.  The old wallets say that POW blocks are correct and the new wallets say that POSv blocks are correct.  Whoever controls a majority of whatever version is the winner now.  From Cryptsy's standpoint, keeping the wallet offline is the right thing to do, just like CartmanSPC said.  If Canna or Weed or any other MJ based coin wanted to cause havoc with the chain, they could, and Cryptsy would be setting themselves up for a big glaring hole.  Just because the new version named a final POW block, it doesn't mean that it's written as law.  Old versions, which are still accepted as valid nodes, say that things should have continued past that block.

Until the code specifically blocks out all old versions, the blockchain will still believe those versions are correct.

This is literally a simple number change that effects nothing else with POSv transition.  It won't change staking, sending or receiving coins, or anything else.  It will just block old wallet versions and plug the security hole.  Patch it and move on.

-Fuse

[Rumhurius]

entertaining show...

Now fix this shit.
ffs

[jheaton]

entertaining show...

Now fix this shit.
FFS

I AGREE.. can't one of you brain'iacs just become a volunteer dev for a few day's and fix it?  

Will the devs not let anyone like you guy's who seem to know what the hell is going on have access to mess with the code? I don't know how it works.

[rdyoung]

I am pretty sure all of this is moot. When upgrading to POSv we had to reindex, the older wallets shouldn't be able to send coins to this chain even if they can connect, in theory it shouldn't accept any POW blocks because we are past the POW final block #.

I didn't need to reindex.  I just started up the new wallet, once they added the difficulty algorithm.  No bootstrap or anything, just a clean start.

Your theory is incorrect.  The new wallets still consider the old wallets a valid node.  As such, there are conflicting code rules on which blocks to accept.  The old wallets say that POW blocks are correct and the new wallets say that POSv blocks are correct.  Whoever controls a majority of whatever version is the winner now.  From Cryptsy's standpoint, keeping the wallet offline is the right thing to do, just like CartmanSPC said.  If Canna or Weed or any other MJ based coin wanted to cause havoc with the chain, they could, and Cryptsy would be setting themselves up for a big glaring hole.  Just because the new version named a final POW block, it doesn't mean that it's written as law.  Old versions, which are still accepted as valid nodes, say that things should have continued past that block.

Until the code specifically blocks out all old versions, the blockchain will still believe those versions are correct.

This is literally a simple number change that effects nothing else with POSv transition.  It won't change staking, sending or receiving coins, or anything else.  It will just block old wallet versions and plug the security hole.  Patch it and move on.

-Fuse

You had to reindex when upgrading from 8.6 to 8.7.x, that is what I am talking about, you can't wreak havoc on a chain that the wallet doesn't understand. So long as the exchanges are running the latest wallet, which they have to be able to operate, they shouldn't have any risk of seeing POW blocks from the 8.6.x, seeing as we are now officially way past the # that is in 8.7.x for the transition.

If you really think that its possible, please do it in proof of concept and then reality, then show the devs what needs fixed so we can move forward.
Bittrex said they would bring theirs online when the upgrade error went away, it did. Now there is something else that is holding them back, I doubt its still the older versions on the chain.

[rdyoung]

entertaining show...

Now fix this shit.
FFS

I AGREE.. can't one of you brain'iacs just become a volunteer dev for a few day's and fix it? 

Will the devs not let anyone like you guy's who seem to know what the hell is going on have access to mess with the code?

They can submit a change via github, but in the past that code has been rejected by the devs. Hopefully this time it won't.

[jheaton]

the dev's are prob buying up a bunch of cann right now. hehe