✪✪✪ VIRTUAL COIN ✪✪✪ | P2P VIRTUAL MONEY | VC | X11 | ReLaunch: Date Feb 2017 ✪✪

[MineP.it]

With a difficulty on 0.8, im trying to solo mine as much as I can.
I have calculated that I will find 1/11 blocks.
Network: 28 MHash

It's getting miserable though.. Minep.it are still on another fork, with network 35MH/s.

Who has the right to claim the right fork? Isn't it normally the longest or strongest chain?

So, the Windows binaries and Linux compiles are ending up on different networks, is that correct?

I think this might be the end of this coin.

I really want this coin to be successful, but it's just not happening. We've run well over 100 pools in total on our site and no other coin has seen this many forks. There's clearly something fundamentally wrong somewhere. I'm no coin dev, and don't fully know the ins-and-outs of running a coin network, but it really seems to me that there needs to be a master node somewhere that all wallets should connect to.

The fact that hardly anybody's wallet syncs without having to download blockchain files and peers lists shows that something is not right at the most basic level.

I'll have to stop our pool again and just hope that we can get these issues sorted out once and for all.

[1715196539]

1715196539

[1715196539]

1715196539

[1715196539]

1715196539

[molecularfir]

With a difficulty on 0.8, im trying to solo mine as much as I can.
I have calculated that I will find 1/11 blocks.
Network: 28 MHash

It's getting miserable though.. Minep.it are still on another fork, with network 35MH/s.

Who has the right to claim the right fork? Isn't it normally the longest or strongest chain?

So, the Windows binaries and Linux compiles are ending up on different networks, is that correct?

I think this might be the end of this coin.

I have to agree. I've been trying to work out how to get on the right fork to continue mining but there aren't any answers coming from the dev. I was on the same fork as the pools which as far as I'm concerned was the "right" fork because it didn't get stuck and was on a higher block number. Why the dev reverted to the shorter chain is unknown and now after following his instructions my wallet won't sync at all....I'm on the verge of giving up on this coin.

[j4r3k]

Used your updated git and stuck at 27974.

[Kenta]

It would be nice to have a blockexplorer, to "set the standard" for correct chain

[trademark]

It would be nice to have a blockexplorer, to "set the standard" for correct chain

+1

[v.coinz]

This is really killing us, it is not an issue with master node etc, but rather code which somehow does not work well with some linux versions.

ERROR: AcceptBlock() : incorrect proof of work
ERROR: ProcessBlock() : AcceptBlock FAILED

once a while Linux wallet produce invalid hash, while validation checks blocks it in Windows OS, but not so in Linux.

The only solution I see if either someone with deep knowledge of bitcoin protocol identify & help with correction or We move to X13 code. This needs to be resolved before be start with exchange.

If everyone or most decide to go with X13 route, it will take me around 1 week time to rewrite code & expect a new launch.

I hope someone senior with bitcoin code experience can help out.

[trademark]

This is really killing us, it is not an issue with master node etc, but rather code which somehow does not work well with some linux versions.

ERROR: AcceptBlock() : incorrect proof of work
ERROR: ProcessBlock() : AcceptBlock FAILED

once a while Linux wallet produce invalid hash, while validation checks blocks it in Windows OS, but not so in Linux.

The only solution I see if either someone with deep knowledge of bitcoin protocol identify & help with correction or We move to X13 code. This needs to be resolved before be start with exchange.

If everyone or most decide to go with X13 route, it will take me around 1 week time to rewrite code & expect a new launch.

I hope someone senior with bitcoin code experience can help out.

Thanks for the update Dev.  If it takes moving onto X13 to fix these issues. I'm down for it.  Might as well throw in POS while you're at it. 

[billotronic]

ffs... I've been at this off and on for the past week and for the life of me I cannot get the damn abe block explorer to work.

All I can say is I gave it 100% but sometimes thats just not good enough.

[e1ghtSpace]

Please update github with these updated source files.
https://mega.co.nz/#!DdBSDJSb!t0V6y5_SasEu1Hn0GQbuxdpriKAmFLz7EY3-iQtXNRs


Also comment out following code in main, as some Linux OS have issues & end up causing forking, but MAC OS or Windows OS builds should NOT be commented out.

Code:

else {
if (nBits != GetNextWorkRequired(pindexPrev, this))
return state.DoS(100, error("AcceptBlock() : incorrect proof of work"));
}

Rightio.

One thing though, I am not a programmer so bare with me, there are two instances of that code in main.cpp, do they both need to be commented out? And wouldn't said commenting effect mac and win builds ?

In your current code: line 2325-2329 needs to be commented (it is already commented out in your source), but if building Windows or MAC builds, comment needs to be removed. I hope it makes sense.

ha yeah, thats what was kinda screwing with me as I thought it already was.

Ok, so let me see if I have this straight, if someone wanted to pull and build this source on win they would have to modify main.ccp?

yes, so that's why I am building Windows build myself. For some reason as I mentioned some time back in this thread that some versions of Linux OS have a bug that caused it to fail & thus cause forking.

Is this the problem?

[v.coinz]

Please update github with these updated source files.
https://mega.co.nz/#!DdBSDJSb!t0V6y5_SasEu1Hn0GQbuxdpriKAmFLz7EY3-iQtXNRs


Also comment out following code in main, as some Linux OS have issues & end up causing forking, but MAC OS or Windows OS builds should NOT be commented out.

Code:

else {
if (nBits != GetNextWorkRequired(pindexPrev, this))
return state.DoS(100, error("AcceptBlock() : incorrect proof of work"));
}

Rightio.

One thing though, I am not a programmer so bare with me, there are two instances of that code in main.cpp, do they both need to be commented out? And wouldn't said commenting effect mac and win builds ?

In your current code: line 2325-2329 needs to be commented (it is already commented out in your source), but if building Windows or MAC builds, comment needs to be removed. I hope it makes sense.

ha yeah, thats what was kinda screwing with me as I thought it already was.

Ok, so let me see if I have this straight, if someone wanted to pull and build this source on win they would have to modify main.ccp?

yes, so that's why I am building Windows build myself. For some reason as I mentioned some time back in this thread that some versions of Linux OS have a bug that caused it to fail & thus cause forking.

Is this the problem?

yes, it has been disabled, so it can bypass in Linux, where as Windows OS does not have this issue using same code.

[e1ghtSpace]

Please update github with these updated source files.
https://mega.co.nz/#!DdBSDJSb!t0V6y5_SasEu1Hn0GQbuxdpriKAmFLz7EY3-iQtXNRs


Also comment out following code in main, as some Linux OS have issues & end up causing forking, but MAC OS or Windows OS builds should NOT be commented out.

Code:

else {
if (nBits != GetNextWorkRequired(pindexPrev, this))
return state.DoS(100, error("AcceptBlock() : incorrect proof of work"));
}

Rightio.

One thing though, I am not a programmer so bare with me, there are two instances of that code in main.cpp, do they both need to be commented out? And wouldn't said commenting effect mac and win builds ?

In your current code: line 2325-2329 needs to be commented (it is already commented out in your source), but if building Windows or MAC builds, comment needs to be removed. I hope it makes sense.

ha yeah, thats what was kinda screwing with me as I thought it already was.

Ok, so let me see if I have this straight, if someone wanted to pull and build this source on win they would have to modify main.ccp?

yes, so that's why I am building Windows build myself. For some reason as I mentioned some time back in this thread that some versions of Linux OS have a bug that caused it to fail & thus cause forking.

Is this the problem?

yes, it has been disabled, so it can bypass in Linux, where as Windows OS does not have this issue using same code.

I meant, are you sure this guy updated the files?

[billotronic]

'THIS' guy is not completely stupid (but plenty green lol)

https://github.com/billotronic/vcoin/commit/f07d393add5600fd713ab114736637ff6348330d

[e1ghtSpace]

'THIS' guy is not completely stupid (but plenty green lol)

https://github.com/billotronic/vcoin/commit/f07d393add5600fd713ab114736637ff6348330d

Sorry Billotronic, just making sure.

[Iffy]

Sooo VC was forked from what code originally?
Has the dev looked into the old/new code to see what is different?
Dev's instant solution is to fork to an even less known/proven algo, and this will help how?
At worst we can't take a proven to work X11 wallet (eg: DRK) and make it our own then?

[billotronic]

'THIS' guy is not completely stupid (but plenty green lol)

https://github.com/billotronic/vcoin/commit/f07d393add5600fd713ab114736637ff6348330d

Sorry Billotronic, just making sure.

Rightio bud

[j4r3k]

Don't switch to x13, I don't think anyone would like to lose their mined coins.

[v.coinz]

It was originally forked from DarkCoin.

[v.coinz]

I may be able to rewrite the code & prevent starting from fresh. However, keep in mind, it will start from ~27900 where it split with some pools. so any coins after that will not be counted. Just use caution if mining, wait for an updated code.

[gregofdoom]

Don't switch to x13, I don't think anyone would like to lose their mined coins.

There is no such option, I do not want to lose my coins. 

[trademark]

I may be able to rewrite the code & prevent starting from fresh. However, keep in mind, it will start from ~27900 where it split with some pools. so any coins after that will not be counted. Just use caution if mining, wait for an updated code.

This isn't good.  So I've been mining for the past 1 1/2 days for nothing?  Since launch, I've lost over a thousand VCs due to pool and fork issues.