[ANN] [MINT] Mintcoin (POS / 5%) [NO ICO] [Fair distro, community maintained]

[sgk]

What is the average confirmation time for a transfer?

I made a transaction more than 2 hours back and it has received 0 confirmations.

[1713969685]

1713969685

[1713969685]

1713969685

[1713969685]

1713969685

[1713969685]

1713969685

[1713969685]

1713969685

[1713969685]

1713969685

[MarSas]

Sgk, there is an issue with the network.

[Derek492]

So we are basically stuck at block 1051199 until a fix comes out? What exactly caused this though, something quirky in the code?
 

[Derek492]

It could be issue:
https://github.com/zeitcoin/zeitcoin/issues/7

- we have to fix it, too.

Good luck!

Ray

The PoS blocks since block #1051200 would be rejected by the network as GetProofOfWorkReward is called with different nHeight argument value for the same block in CreateCoinStake and ConnectInputs functions.

So what are all the available options for fixing this?

[Rent_a_Ray]

Somewhere here starts the issue:
https://github.com/mintcoinproject/mintcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L967

Followed by:

Code:

if(nHeight < YEARLY_BLOCKCOUNT)
nRewardCoinYear = 4 * MAX_MINT_PROOF_OF_STAKE;
else if(nHeight < (2 * YEARLY_BLOCKCOUNT))
nRewardCoinYear = 3 * MAX_MINT_PROOF_OF_STAKE;
else if(nHeight < (3 * YEARLY_BLOCKCOUNT))
nRewardCoinYear = 2 * MAX_MINT_PROOF_OF_STAKE;'

nHeight is the blockcount since genesis block (0)...

I'm not sure if the below will work as a fix for our problem - it's from JackPotCoin:

https://github.com/mintcoinproject/mintcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1392

    - if (nStakeReward > GetProofOfStakeReward(nCoinAge, pindexBlock->nBits, nTime, pindexBlock) - GetMinFee() + MIN_TX_FEE)
    + if (nStakeReward > GetProofOfStakeReward(nCoinAge, pindexBlock->nBits, nTime, pindexBlock->pprev) - GetMinFee() + MIN_TX_FEE)

BEE7:
But as you already hit the first PoS reward decrease you need to insert the conditions and make a hardfork. I would consider to rework the fix if I were you. It makes the GetProofOfStakeReward calling context the same in all cases: then the GetProofOfStakeReward is called always on 'previous' block. So, the condition is changed for adjusting the reward for a single block in the whole chain and always make +1 to the number of previous PoS blocks. I already counted two clones of your work, so it could make sense.

Cheers,
Ray

PS:
https://github.com/rtc29462/JackpotCoin/commit/a33ee2d792922887573780e9427c69b52026b9c0#diff-7ec3c68a81efff79b6ca22ac1f1eabbaR1379

Looks like +1 issue between create and verification.

[coolbeans94]

Somewhere here starts the issue:
https://github.com/mintcoinproject/mintcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L967

Followed by:

Code:

if(nHeight < YEARLY_BLOCKCOUNT)
nRewardCoinYear = 4 * MAX_MINT_PROOF_OF_STAKE;
else if(nHeight < (2 * YEARLY_BLOCKCOUNT))
nRewardCoinYear = 3 * MAX_MINT_PROOF_OF_STAKE;
else if(nHeight < (3 * YEARLY_BLOCKCOUNT))
nRewardCoinYear = 2 * MAX_MINT_PROOF_OF_STAKE;'

nHeight is the blockcount since genesis block (0)...

I'm not sure if the below will work as a fix for our problem - it's from JackPotCoin:

https://github.com/mintcoinproject/mintcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1392

    - if (nStakeReward > GetProofOfStakeReward(nCoinAge, pindexBlock->nBits, nTime, pindexBlock) - GetMinFee() + MIN_TX_FEE)
    + if (nStakeReward > GetProofOfStakeReward(nCoinAge, pindexBlock->nBits, nTime, pindexBlock->pprev) - GetMinFee() + MIN_TX_FEE)

BEE7:
But as you already hit the first PoS reward decrease you need to insert the conditions and make a hardfork. I would consider to rework the fix if I were you. It makes the GetProofOfStakeReward calling context the same in all cases: then the GetProofOfStakeReward is called always on 'previous' block. So, the condition is changed for adjusting the reward for a single block in the whole chain and always make +1 to the number of previous PoS blocks. I already counted two clones of your work, so it could make sense.

Cheers,
Ray

PS:
https://github.com/rtc29462/JackpotCoin/commit/a33ee2d792922887573780e9427c69b52026b9c0#diff-7ec3c68a81efff79b6ca22ac1f1eabbaR1379

Looks like +1 issue between create and verification.

That bit about the yearly block count
So does the wallet think that a year has gone by already? Does that mean that we are already at the point where the block reward is supposed to be reduced to 15%?

[Rent_a_Ray]

That bit about the yearly block count
So does the wallet think that a year has gone by already? Does that mean that we are already at the point where the block reward is supposed to be reduced to 15%?

That's a fact! It's hardcoded. Mint was going to switch to 15% as the chain died.
It's too early for Mintcoin and Zeitcoin. Someone did fail at math
But that's not the issue.

[litemaster]

My mintcoin wallet is not syncing either.
Is anyone working for a cure for this ill?

[mintcointeam]

My mintcoin wallet is not syncing either.
Is anyone working for a cure for this ill?

#Mintcoin wallets stuck at block 1051199 - anyone willing to assist please pm me asap.

[Rent_a_Ray]

My mintcoin wallet is not syncing either.
Is anyone working for a cure for this ill?

#Mintcoin wallets stuck at block 1051199 - anyone willing to assist please pm me asap.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=450381.msg9867283#msg9867283

Cheers,
Ray

[cryptomommy]

My mintcoin wallet is not syncing either.
Is anyone working for a cure for this ill?

#Mintcoin wallets stuck at block 1051199 - anyone willing to assist please pm me asap.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=450381.msg9867283#msg9867283

Cheers,
Ray

Sending over to Robo Guy to look at - thanks!

[coolbeans94]

Any idea on when this will be fixed? I have a minting, that is stuck in limbo right now and we need to get moving again for it to be fully confirmed.

I'm assuming there will be a new wallet released because of this, correct?

Is there anyone that is not stuck at 1051199?

[cryptomommy]

Robo guy is working on it. I will upload as soon as we are ready.

Any idea on when this will be fixed? I have a minting, that is stuck in limbo right now and we need to get moving again for it to be fully confirmed.

I'm assuming there will be a new wallet released because of this, correct?

Is there anyone that is not stuck at 1051199?

[coolbeans94]

Robo guy is working on it. I will upload as soon as we are ready.

Glad to hear it is not the end of the world 

[cryptomommy]

From RoboGuy:

Ok, I have figured out what Ray was saying about the issue. We are at block 1051199 which the next block would have been only a 15% stake. There is some code that is checking that someone doesn't report a block reward greater than the allow reward. But the code generating the translations is using the current block reward limit. So no blocks were accepted at the transition.

So have a decision to make:
Do we adjust this block transition height to be closer to April of next year? Do we go ahead and transition to 15% stake?
I am also unsure the best way to resume the chain. There are a few checks for the blocks being recent. If you hear from Ray or someone else on how to resume a chain that would help.

I personally believe we should keep the 15% PoS as originally programmed - what are everyone elses thoughts?

[coolbeans94]

From RoboGuy:

Ok, I have figured out what Ray was saying about the issue. We are at block 1051199 which the next block would have been only a 15% stake. There is some code that is checking that someone doesn't report a block reward greater than the allow reward. But the code generating the translations is using the current block reward limit. So no blocks were accepted at the transition.

So have a decision to make:
Do we adjust this block transition height to be closer to April of next year? Do we go ahead and transition to 15% stake?
I am also unsure the best way to resume the chain. There are a few checks for the blocks being recent. If you hear from Ray or someone else on how to resume a chain that would help.

I personally believe we should keep the 15% PoS as originally programmed - what are everyone elses thoughts?

Well, what about the next few years as well? Will they be "shortened" too? What about fixing the network so this doesn't happen again, I mean, does this mean the network will come to a halt every year when the reward is supposed to decrease? I think we should set it up so that we get a full year at 20% as previously claimed, if the original programmed math is off, it should be fixed to match the intended design of a full year. Since it goes by block count and not an actual "timer", then all we can do is a close estimate anyway, right? Can we just add in 400,000 blocks to it or something to extend it to February? I'm all for the switch to 15% coming in February of 2015, as long as it means the network doesn't stop like this again. Add in enough blocks in each year so that we make it at least 360 days each year (maybe some extra time. Is that doable?

Thoughts?

[litemaster]

From RoboGuy:

Ok, I have figured out what Ray was saying about the issue. We are at block 1051199 which the next block would have been only a 15% stake. There is some code that is checking that someone doesn't report a block reward greater than the allow reward. But the code generating the translations is using the current block reward limit. So no blocks were accepted at the transition.

So have a decision to make:
Do we adjust this block transition height to be closer to April of next year? Do we go ahead and transition to 15% stake?
I am also unsure the best way to resume the chain. There are a few checks for the blocks being recent. If you hear from Ray or someone else on how to resume a chain that would help.

I personally believe we should keep the 15% PoS as originally programmed - what are everyone elses thoughts?

If you keep the original originally programmed date for the POS reduction to 15% will this happen again at the next change time? Or will it be fixed?
If you can keep the original parameters and fix the issue it would be best, but fixing expeditiously one way or the other is best for the coin itself. IMHO

[MarSas]

The formula should be fixed so the drop in POS reward coincides with the original plan.

[deepcreek]

I can remember we had similar thing happening when the coin was just released, it should have been a 5 week mining period. But the amount of blocks where reached after 3 weeks because they did not count the coins minting after week 2. So possibly at this moment it is still that same problem because the last devs did not think ahead. It would be better to just fix it now so this will not affect us in the future.`

[Rent_a_Ray]

This Block was estimated for one year POS. It will never exactly match.
There is another issue in your code, that may have an influence - but I'm not sure.

How long was Mintcoin's POW time?

Cheers,
Ray