[ANN][HUC] Huntercoin - Worlds First Decentralized Game/World on the Blockchain

[redbeans2012]

Well I guess I found out one of the people in the middle. 

[BayAreaCoins]

Well I guess I found out one of the people in the middle. 

haha nah I'm going to be the one spawn killing once I can play within 5 minutes with a bot!

I just understand the markets right now and paper wallets.

I can't even get HUC to sync personally

[enhu]

redbeans2012 got a great idea. I believe that would be appropriate.

[domob]

Another domob bot question:

I set up runners, but i left the default of 10 threshold. If i change that, can i just delete runner.state, change the mainRunner.py threshold from 10 to whatever i want, then restart mainRunner and that will just adjust the threshold for the reserve guys? I wouldnt want them to start after a disaster and go back to cash in with only 10 coins. That seems like a time to stock up.... "I don't want it to create a whole new set of runners, i just want it to change the threshold on the existing reserve guys.

Note that the 10-HUC treshold does not apply to the "first" run - on the first run, hunters collect until no more coins are visible in range around their centre.  They only go back when they have both 10 HUC and no more coins are immediately lying around.  Maybe this resolves your question already.  Apart from that, I have to admit that I think it is not easily possible right now to change the configuration of the runner guys - since they are currently in registration, you would lose the name_new coins if you delete the runner.state file.

One solution is to remember the name/rand/txid values (found in the runner debug output) and then restart the process.  It will create new reserve players (costs you HUC again), but with your rand/txid values, you can always manually activate the others and make use of them in normal play (or for the gatherers, for instance).

[domob]

You are right. Although the modification is very easy, but the dev team can not see it's importance. The bot lib is important, but it is not necessary and urgent. The pruning is also not urgent. But the problem of double spending of wallet is very very urgent to be processed. They work hard here and there, but not hit the key problem.

Do you mean with "the modification" above the maximum carrying capacity or the "double spending" thing you call very urgent later on?  I fully understand and agree that the latter is important - it is actually my next todo.  If you want to help, please take a look at https://github.com/chronokings/huntercoin/issues/72 and give some feedback to the proposals.  Also, if you have a stuck wallet for me to look at, it would help me, too.  (I can reproduce a stuck issue, but it seems that it is not precisely what others are seeing - in my case, manually deleting all pending transactions from a wallet makes it "good" again.  MithrilMan wrote that this is not the case for this issue.)

Regarding the carrying capacity:  Sounds like an interesting idea for me and I could easily implement it - but I think we should discuss it more thoroughly before changing the game mechanics.  Also, I usually like to give snailbrain the "lead" in game mechanics.

[HostFat]

@snailbrain
What do you think about moving to the tech Mini-blockchain used on Cryptonite?
It seems very interesting

Cryptonite is the first implementation of the light weight mini-blockchain scheme. Nodes will never again spend days synchronizing with the network and the average user will not have to fear becoming a full node. This is possible because of our decentralized balance sheet approach.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=713538

[bigminner]

Do you mean with "the modification" above the maximum carrying capacity or the "double spending" thing you call very urgent later on?  I fully understand and agree that the latter is important - it is actually my next todo.  If you want to help, please take a look at https://github.com/chronokings/huntercoin/issues/72 and give some feedback to the proposals.  Also, if you have a stuck wallet for me to look at, it would help me, too.  (I can reproduce a stuck issue, but it seems that it is not precisely what others are seeing - in my case, manually deleting all pending transactions from a wallet makes it "good" again.  MithrilMan wrote that this is not the case for this issue.)

Regarding the carrying capacity:  Sounds like an interesting idea for me and I could easily implement it - but I think we should discuss it more thoroughly before changing the game mechanics.  Also, I usually like to give snailbrain the "lead" in game mechanics.

Thanks for domob's  great work, sorry for my misunderstanding and improper words.   The carrying capacity need to be discussed thoroughly, it is not urgent.  Another method to solve carrying capacity is that: when the character carry more coins, it's moving speed will become slower,which is  similar to real world, you will walk slower when you carry more things. All modifications of game mechanics have only one aim:balance.
The problem of double spending is very urgent. As I know, many old players can not  stand up for the wallet rescan when there is double spending in wallet again and again, then they have to leave.  if the problem of double spending is solved, BGB will come back, many old players will come back, that will be alive again.  

[BGB_HUC]

Thanks for domob's  great work, sorry for my misunderstanding and improper words.   The carrying capacity need to be discussed thoroughly, it is not urgent.  Another method to solve carrying capacity is that: when the character carry more coins, it's moving speed will become slower,which is  similar to real world, you will walk slower when you carry more things. All modifications of game mechanics has only one aim:balance.
The problem of double spending is very urgent. As I know, many old players can not  stand up for the wallet rescan when there is double spending in wallet again and again, then they have to leave.  if the problem of double spending is solved, BGB will come back, many old players will come back, that will be alive again.  

I haven't really left but am reluctant to run larger operations due to getting annihilated when I get pendings. There were many times when a general was 1huc I would send out an attack, then come back the next day to see my guys double spent and generated pendings causing a failed op. Wasn't a very big deal then, but is a little more now. I have been sending out gatherers after the disaster and let them run until they get killed off. Even with this strategy, fixing the double spends can be a daily routine.

Domob, I should have wallets lying around that have this problem in them, I'll dig one up tomorrow. In his defense this isn't something that has had enough detail until Mithril saw it happen and posted it. I suspected the problem, posted about it, but never had enough detail to be definitive about what was happening.

[mikeyfinn]

This is odd. After a restart because i had a stuck transaction that i deleted (new player creation, manually done), i seem to have "lost" 1 guy from each color! They are there, i see them on the map, but they are not in my player list or controllable by me. Is this the bug you all refer to?

[mikeyfinn]

This is odd. After a restart because i had a stuck transaction that i deleted (new player creation, manually done), i seem to have "lost" 1 guy from each color! They are there, i see them on the map, but they are not in my player list or controllable by me. Is this the bug you all refer to?

I closed the mithrilman edition and opened the qt and all my guys are there. Gonna go back and see if they are restored in ME.

[mikeyfinn]

I have over 3500 transactions in this wallet, so i thought of starting a new one. I can do that while having active players? I think i saw something about "transfer players" somewhere in this monster thread.....

Found it! =)

[mikeyfinn]

Ok, after a few hiccups, i managed to create a new wallet, transfer all my guys to the new wallet, change all the reward addresses to new wallet as well. I cant seem to get the 163 huc from it to go to the new wallet tho. I tried sending it to 3 different addresses in the new wallet, and it wont confirm, just sits there. 0/6 confirms for a while. i have cancelled, restarted and tried again and it just wont confirm.

Also, I cant restart the domob bot files without removing the 2 .state files, right? No way to make it work with the new wallet without creating all new runners and gatherers? I am also trying to figure out how to change the naming scheme.... not the prefix, thats cool, i just wanna change the rest. i see where, just gotta figure out the sequence. Google is my friend =)

[mikeyfinn]

Ok, after a few hiccups, i managed to create a new wallet, transfer all my guys to the new wallet, change all the reward addresses to new wallet as well. I cant seem to get the 163 huc from it to go to the new wallet tho. I tried sending it to 3 different addresses in the new wallet, and it wont confirm, just sits there. 0/6 confirms for a while. i have cancelled, restarted and tried again and it just wont confirm.

Also, I cant restart the domob bot files without removing the 2 .state files, right? No way to make it work with the new wallet without creating all new runners and gatherers? I am also trying to figure out how to change the naming scheme.... not the prefix, thats cool, i just wanna change the rest. i see where, just gotta figure out the sequence. Google is my friend =)

I consolidated some of my guys and sent them to cash in with my manual, non-bot guy. I deleted gather.state and started mainGather. it created new guys except it did find the one guy that was left over from before. However, they dont seem to be cashing in at 15 like i told them to. I keep having to send them manually.

[mikeyfinn]

Ok, after a few hiccups, i managed to create a new wallet, transfer all my guys to the new wallet, change all the reward addresses to new wallet as well. I cant seem to get the 163 huc from it to go to the new wallet tho. I tried sending it to 3 different addresses in the new wallet, and it wont confirm, just sits there. 0/6 confirms for a while. i have cancelled, restarted and tried again and it just wont confirm.

Also, I cant restart the domob bot files without removing the 2 .state files, right? No way to make it work with the new wallet without creating all new runners and gatherers? I am also trying to figure out how to change the naming scheme.... not the prefix, thats cool, i just wanna change the rest. i see where, just gotta figure out the sequence. Google is my friend =)

I consolidated some of my guys and sent them to cash in with my manual, non-bot guy. I deleted gather.state and started mainGather. it created new guys except it did find the one guy that was left over from before. However, they dont seem to be cashing in at 15 like i told them to. I keep having to send them manually.

I found the other place it was specified and now all seems to be well. I only wish i could transfer the last of my coins from the old wallet to the new. Now that I think of it, I wish I could somehow save the bunch of runners i had set before i changed wallets. It gives an error about "invalid or non-wallet transaction id".

[snailbrain]

So noone thinks limiting how many coins a player can hold is a good idea?  I'm not a gamer, but when I used to be there was always a limit before I had to deposit in the "bank".  

oh well just throwing out my thoughts.  

This wouldn't be at the top of my list, but I see your points . To continue the discussion, what kind of limit are you thinking? 50, 100, 500, 1000?

I was thinking around 100.  Make the big guys in the middle come back to the wallet more often.  Give others a chance to steal their coins more often.  I think it could balance things a bit more.  

I realize its not top priority, but maybe something to talk about more once other bugs etc are sorted out.

You are right. Although the modification is very easy, but the dev team can not see it's importance. The bot lib is important, but it is not necessary and urgent. The pruning is also not urgent. But the problem of double spending of wallet is very very urgent to be processed. They work hard here and there, but not hit the key problem.

This issue is being worked on??

try to follow github for issues and updates

[mikeyfinn]

So noone thinks limiting how many coins a player can hold is a good idea?  I'm not a gamer, but when I used to be there was always a limit before I had to deposit in the "bank".  

oh well just throwing out my thoughts.  

This wouldn't be at the top of my list, but I see your points . To continue the discussion, what kind of limit are you thinking? 50, 100, 500, 1000?

I was thinking around 100.  Make the big guys in the middle come back to the wallet more often.  Give others a chance to steal their coins more often.  I think it could balance things a bit more.  

I realize its not top priority, but maybe something to talk about more once other bugs etc are sorted out.

You are right. Although the modification is very easy, but the dev team can not see it's importance. The bot lib is important, but it is not necessary and urgent. The pruning is also not urgent. But the problem of double spending of wallet is very very urgent to be processed. They work hard here and there, but not hit the key problem.

This issue is being worked on??

try to follow github for issues and updates

"The pruning is also not urgent". What?!?! Of course it's important. You are having trouble as a large bot army user i assume, so you aren't making "enough" profit. However, no NEW people, who might drive the price of the coin up, are going to get into the game if it takes weeks to sync up. The pruning is surely of equal importance, and I know they are working on it.

I am talking to  bigminner, not snailbrain =)

[BGB_HUC]

"The pruning is also not urgent". What?!?! Of course it's important. You are having trouble as a large bot army user i assume, so you aren't making "enough" profit. However, no NEW people, who might drive the price of the coin up, are going to get into the game if it takes weeks to sync up. The pruning is surely of equal importance, and I know they are working on it.

I am talking to  bigminner, not snailbrain =)

These two items probably share equal importance. The pending problem is enough to likely frustrate new players. So lets say the pruning occurs and people can now play the game within minutes/hours instead of days/weeks. All these new players join, get attacked by the armies, and suddenly they can't play anymore because their wallets have double spend issues. Then the game starts losing new players.

The pruning is needed to hopefully attract new players. The pending issue fix is needed to retain them.

[mikeyfinn]

"The pruning is also not urgent". What?!?! Of course it's important. You are having trouble as a large bot army user i assume, so you aren't making "enough" profit. However, no NEW people, who might drive the price of the coin up, are going to get into the game if it takes weeks to sync up. The pruning is surely of equal importance, and I know they are working on it.

I am talking to  bigminner, not snailbrain =)

These two items probably share equal importance. The pending problem is enough to likely frustrate new players. So lets say the pruning occurs and people can now play the game within minutes/hours instead of days/weeks. All these new players join, get attacked by the armies, and suddenly they can't play anymore because their wallets have double spend issues. Then the game starts losing new players.

The pruning is needed to hopefully attract new players. The pending issue fix is needed to retain them.

I agree. And it seems like they are working on both, so all is well.

[MithrilMan]

"The pruning is also not urgent". What?!?! Of course it's important. You are having trouble as a large bot army user i assume, so you aren't making "enough" profit. However, no NEW people, who might drive the price of the coin up, are going to get into the game if it takes weeks to sync up. The pruning is surely of equal importance, and I know they are working on it.

I am talking to  bigminner, not snailbrain =)

These two items probably share equal importance. The pending problem is enough to likely frustrate new players. So lets say the pruning occurs and people can now play the game within minutes/hours instead of days/weeks. All these new players join, get attacked by the armies, and suddenly they can't play anymore because their wallets have double spend issues. Then the game starts losing new players.

The pruning is needed to hopefully attract new players. The pending issue fix is needed to retain them.

agree
btw if you can post here some details you found too, that would be good: https://github.com/chronokings/huntercoin/issues/72

[ahmed_bodi]

Is there a copy of the HUC blockchain that i can grab via WGET anywhere?