[ANN] Androids Tokens v2.0 [Proof of Stake]

[tx42]

ADT is running 100% right now

That's not true. I tell you what, sync a fresh chain and tell me if it doesn't hang on block 55,126.

When it tries, watch your peers disappear. There are other problematic blocks and each will take it's bite out of your network.

And I know from the repo commits that your team knows about this issue.

What do you think happens to buy support when potential buyers try to sync a wallet and it starts hanging at 55,126? I'll tell you, they won't buy the coin. If you are wondering why the price has dropped, the inability to sync clients is one of the biggest causes.

And it will only get worse unless it is fixed because more problematic blocks will make it into the chain.

[1714641823]

1714641823

[zackclark70]

ADT is running 100% right now

That's not true. I tell you what, sync a fresh chain and tell me if it doesn't hang on block 55,126.

When it tries, watch your peers disappear. There are other problematic blocks and each will take it's bite out of your network.

And I know from the repo commits that your team knows about this issue.

What do you think happens to buy support when potential buyers try to sync a wallet and it starts hanging at 55,126? I'll tell you, they won't buy the coin. If you are wondering why the price has dropped, the inability to sync clients is one of the biggest causes.

And it will only get worse unless it is fixed because more problematic blocks will make it into the chain.

block 55126 is the block that most of the forks happened on ( cryptsy staked 57% of all coins around that block ) so everyone is on the correct chain up until that point once it gets to that block all connections on the wrong chains are lost but once those people are on the right blockchain it will be fine

[tx42]

block 55126 is the block that most of the forks happened on ( cryptsy staked 57% of all coins around that block ) so everyone is on the correct chain up until that point once it gets to that block all connections on the wrong chains are lost but once those people are on the right blockchain it will be fine

It doesn't have to do with being on the correct chain. That was simply a big mint and clients are rejecting it (not necessarily for being a big mint, per se). If that mint stays in the chain it will get rejected with the current clients. That's why you got the forks. So what do you do, take the transaction out of the chain?

That's a rhetorical question. No, you don't do that because you have to rewind the chain and really fork it.

Do you give the block a specific pass in the code?

That's also a rhetorical question. No, you don't do that because that doesn't really fix the underlying problem and a future issue like this is inevitable.

It's a valid block. Cryptsy didn't do anything wrong. It's the clients that are in error. They are rejecting perfectly good blocks. The correct answer is to fix the clients so they sync right up and people can stake as many coins as they have without worrying about forking the chain.

That's what I am here to do.


Other problematic blocks according to your clients: 19674, 20568

These types of blocks fragment the network and will cause forks sooner or later. They also drive away users.

[zackclark70]

block 55126 is the block that most of the forks happened on ( cryptsy staked 57% of all coins around that block ) so everyone is on the correct chain up until that point once it gets to that block all connections on the wrong chains are lost but once those people are on the right blockchain it will be fine

It doesn't have to do with being on the correct chain. That was simply a big mint and clients are rejecting it (not necessarily for being a big mint, per se). If that mint stays in the chain it will get rejected with the current clients. That's why you got the forks. So what do you do, take the transaction out of the chain?

That's a rhetorical question. No, you don't do that because you have to rewind the chain and really fork it.

Do you give the block a specific pass in the code?

That's also a rhetorical question. No, you don't do that because that doesn't really fix the underlying problem and a future issue like this is inevitable.

It's a valid block. Cryptsy didn't do anything wrong. It's the clients that are in error. They are rejecting perfectly good blocks. The correct answer is to fix the clients so they sync right up and people can stake as many coins as they have without worrying about forking the chain.

That's what I am here to do.


Other problematic blocks according to your clients: 19674, 20568

These types of blocks fragment the network and will cause forks sooner or later. They also drive away users.

that is what mullick is working on and that is why its taking time and why it shouldn't be rushed

[tx42]

Other problematic blocks according to your clients: 19674, 20568

These types of blocks fragment the network and will cause forks sooner or later. They also drive away users.

that is what mullick is working on and that is why its taking time and why it shouldn't be rushed

Well, I've got a fix for exactly this problem that I'll submit as a pull request to your repo at the time I originally said. If Mullick is busy, you should use my pull. I've been really teasing you guys, but all that aside, just put in the fix and the other features and make this a better coin.

[ahmed_bodi]

i am the owner of the repo and after looking over the patch i will gladly accept it

[zackclark70]

i am the owner of the repo and after looking over the patch i will gladly accept it

changes shouldn't be made to the main ADT repo without at lest 2 people looking over it as it means there is less likely to be any problems but you already know that as i had mullick and someone else look over your work it is nothing personal against anyone as i even get people to look over mullicks work
 

[ahmed_bodi]

Dont forget the CRC repo consists of around 5 members as it is. When something is added into there or a project is taken up it takes a majority approval.

[coinbloke]

sorry for not reading this entirely but are you guys saying you have a fix for the sync issue and that is to correct the previous faulty clients that were released until Mullick finishes the patch? Zack what nodes should we be on to fully sync as I have tried manual as well but does not work.

[ahmed_bodi]

correct. however zack seems to be against tx42. as the owner of the adt repo i will provide an unbiased opinion on the patch when its made and pulled into the main repo

[coinbloke]

hmm I understand why Zach is not willing to try/risk it but it would be nice to have a fix as the patch could be some time away. Zach would this be possible to get these guys do this fix or is it too risky in any way? No politics and emotions anymore please just black and white facts. Thanks

[Tranz]

i am the owner of the repo and after looking over the patch i will gladly accept it

changes shouldn't be made to the main ADT repo without at lest 2 people looking over it as it means there is less likely to be any problems but you already know that as i had mullick and someone else look over your work it is nothing personal against anyone as i even get people to look over mullicks work
 

I'll Q/C it as well. I can read and understand the code.

[ipadbroken]

please take over ADT I will personally pay you 250,000,000 ADT to do so

in return all you need to do is block zackclark70s 2+ bill coins from the blockchain

[cryptmebro]

please take over ADT I will personally pay you 250,000,000 ADT to do so

in return all you need to do is block zackclark70s 2+ bill coins from the blockchain

This is an alt of saveadt. He posted the same thing... Gtfo, no one is blocking any coins.

[coinbloke]

as requested no politics and crap please just answer the queries.

[tx42]

sorry for not reading this entirely but are you guys saying you have a fix for the sync issue and that is to correct the previous faulty clients that were released until Mullick finishes the patch? Zack what nodes should we be on to fully sync as I have tried manual as well but does not work.

In about 5 hours, I will release a fix with some cool features and submit the entire thing as a pull request. My vote won't matter, but I vote to put it in. It's up to the long term ADT devs to figure out what to do with it.

At the same time, I'll release unofficial wallets for Windows and Mac. It's up to users to use them if they trust me. If not, they can build themselves. I wouldn't have changed parameters of the coin except to drop PoW in a month. The wallets will still be useful and behave exactly as all others in the short term (except that they will build a better network). If the ADT devs don't like my removing PoW, it's easy enough to comment out after they pull. But PoW is a security liability and it is only good for pump and dumpers. That's my 2 cents.

Along with dropping PoW, I suggest upping the APR (yearly) interest to 20 - 25% for PoS. The current rate is 3%, which is a bit low. Changing the APR is one or two changes in the code depending on how responsive they want the interest to be to the total number of minters. They'd need to make one change to make the rate really responsive and encourage adoption, or two changes to make the rate unresponsive and encourage bag holding. For the long term value of the coin and rewarding current ADT holders, probably the former (one change, responsive) is the better option.

I will probably submit my ideal changes as a separate pull request.

I've had a good look at ADT, and it's a good coin. Outside of ending PoW and raising the interest rate, I wouldn't change much else except to add wallet features.

[coinbloke]

This is a good honest post however lets see what Zach says. Zach please be constructive and if this has any benefits we want to see your honest unbiased opinion. Thanks

[zackclark70]

This is a good honest post however lets see what Zach says. Zach please be constructive and if this has any benefits we want to see your honest unbiased opinion. Thanks

what tx 45 is doing is dropping POW when there was no plans at this time and forcing change that have not been fully approved by the majority of users

doing another patch just a few days after this one is going to cause hassle with users not being on the right new client 

there has been no real info given to the users on how all the changes are going to affect ADT

what if this patch screws ADT up even more and makes the patch mullick has been working on no longer work

there is so many things wrong with a user just showing up and forcing a patch with settings that are not approved by the majority of ADT holders

did anyone agree to the potential security risk of going pure POS ? ( pure POS is not totally proven YET )

right now anyone can download the windows QT and use it normally ( its just advisable to make sure your on the right blockchain when you send coins but that should be the case for any alt coin not just ADT )

so all this patch is suppose to do is fix the stain while out of sync add coin control and remove the POW that hasn't been approved by most users 


if I let this patch happen and it messes up ADT I will be the one that has to deal with it and if it does work there will be another patch in the next few days causing confusion the benefits do not out weigh the consequences

cryptsy would take a few days to update that's if they do agree to it by then there will be another patch causing an issue there 


 

[cryptmebro]

There's no point to this patch if mullick has one in the works already.  It's also bullshit how it's basically being forced upon us.

[fullhouse]

this coin wallet problem has been fixed?