|
otila
|
 |
April 27, 2014, 03:38:33 PM |
|
I've discovered the problem.
Since today we've made some major fixes genesis id had changed(and thats why we've restarted the net again). The wallet keeps (in wallet_name.bin file) his own block chain(not full blocks, just block ids) to be able to handle some splits in daemon.
So you probably have been generated your wallet with sources before todays fixes. It's not a big problem - just remove your wallet_name.bin file (DO NOT KILL wallet_name.bin.keys file) and reopen wallet. This case is not a typical problem - genesis block is not subject to change in normal life. But, it is now possible to open the wallet from different network (such as bytecon or bitmonero) that will cause the same errors, so we will add extra info to wallet to avoid this.
Let me know if problem is not gone.
Worked! Thanks. Height 117, transaction <e11e044b06958061a80ae5fbf698b058e62a39fa1ee7b7d0d912918d76ec1266>, received 100000.00000000
Refresh done, blocks received: 169
balance: 4432793.33000000, unlocked balance: 4432793.33000000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
otila
|
|
April 27, 2014, 03:45:08 PM |
|
post some addresses, I try sending  |
|
|
|
|
|
crypto_zoidberg (OP)
|
|
April 27, 2014, 03:51:34 PM |
|
apply a random number of rounds 1 through 10 that go to developers.
It will be pure tax. Not an option in reality, you do not need crowd funding. this will relegate you to secondary currency. you knowledge and early participation will assure your profits. while a fair launch without taxes will attract miners which will improve you success.
How many abandoned coins is here, even with good ideas ? We want to have fair start, fair net, but possible miners support is not enough to put the project on the business rails. Probably SlyWax is right - decentralisation could be a problem, even if we swear on the blood that we would not make pool - nobody cares. May be reducing it to 1% makes situation better (still having it as donation). |
|
|
|
|
otila
|
|
April 27, 2014, 04:25:18 PM |
|
Save command in simplewallet is unreliable. it should first make a temp file with mkstemp, then write data there, then (fflush+)fsync, close, and then rename tempfile (maybe also remove original wallet in Windows) to original wallet. C++ does not seem to have portable way to do fsync.
Now there can be 30 seconds (with vm.dirty_expire_centisecs=3000 on Linux) during which wallet is not necessarily written to disk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SlyWax
|
|
April 27, 2014, 07:51:39 PM |
|
apply a random number of rounds 1 through 10 that go to developers.
It will be pure tax. Not an option in reality, you do not need crowd funding. this will relegate you to secondary currency. you knowledge and early participation will assure your profits. while a fair launch without taxes will attract miners which will improve you success.
How many abandoned coins is here, even with good ideas ? We want to have fair start, fair net, but possible miners support is not enough to put the project on the business rails. Probably SlyWax is right - decentralisation could be a problem, even if we swear on the blood that we would not make pool - nobody cares. May be reducing it to 1% makes situation better (still having it as donation). 1% seems to be the bare reasonable maximum. The problem is also that it's tied to you "at vitam eternam". May be you should make a system that will allows others to be candidates for the donation. Of course it could not be any address, otherwise miner would donate to themselves. You could implement a voting system like memorycoin (shareolder voting : memorycoin.org) but witch will only allow an address to be eligible for the donation, for example with 33% (this number could be higher in the beginning to avoid early cheat), then the miner decide who he chose. ... ok, I'm realising that because of the technologies involved (anonymous balance) it could be a little bit harder to implement the voting system. A must have for this kind of donation, is that the coin are un-spendable for at least several months. This will avoid the early dump, and restore confidence. You are here for the long run anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
TTM
|
|
April 27, 2014, 08:12:24 PM |
|
Can we get exact time for this launch ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
April 27, 2014, 11:55:31 PM
Last edit: April 28, 2014, 03:25:01 AM by smooth |
|
If you really want the donation to be fair and effective as a business model, you need to allow the miners to choose not only how much they donate, but also to whom they donate. If the original develoeper(s) do a bad job, the miners need to be able to fire them (by vote) and have all the donations go to someone else. (The Invictus coins implement something like this.)
Otherwise this is just a scheme for you to collect donations from lazy or ignorant miners (who do not know how to or do not bother to disable donations) forever regardless of whether you actually continue do useful work.
For that matter this is part of the essence of crowdfunding. I should be able to donate, but only if you convince a sufficient number of the other miners to donate as well. If too few are convinced, then you shouldn't get anything, including my donation or those from lazy or ignorant miners who donate by default. In practice a vote-to-fire system is largely the same and easier to implement.
Failing all that, provide an easy mechanism for miners to donate but leave it off by default. If you add value miners will turn it on.
I will support this coin if you get rid of the donations-by-default scam. EDIT: And also address the GPU minability issue below.
Changing the name would help too. You mentioned in one of your earlier posts that you are not a native English speaker and that your language is quite different. You should realize that in English HoneyPenny is an atrocious name for a cryptocurrency. I mean this in the most constructive way possible. Rename is a priority if you want this to succeed.
|
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
April 28, 2014, 12:04:54 AM
Last edit: April 28, 2014, 03:25:46 AM by smooth |
|
I'm curious about the smaller scratchpad. Does that make this coin GPU minable? I would guess that it does (because the scratchpad will now fit in GPU caches), but I have not studied the algorithm that carefully.
Reducing the cache size reminds me of the choice of parameters in Scrypt that made Scrypt coins extremely GPU (and now ASIC) mineable, even though scrypt itself is a well designed memory-hard algorithm.
GPU minebility isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it raises issues of fairness, secret GPU miners, and a concentration of mining power.
A GPU minable coin should have an open source GPU miner available at launch otherwise it is just a race to see who can develop a hidden GPU miner first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
BitRock
|
|
April 28, 2014, 01:24:16 AM |
|
will the Linux version be available? |
|
|
|
|
|
otila
|
|
April 28, 2014, 06:51:03 AM |
|
will the Linux version be available?
Yes. Type command "make" and you may get one version. |
|
|
|
|
|
danteT
|
|
April 28, 2014, 09:24:21 AM |
|
will the Linux version be available?
Yes. Type command "make" and you may get one version. not so easy, it requires boost 1.53 or newer that is only on Ubuntu > 13. |
|
|
|
|
|
crypto_zoidberg (OP)
|
|
April 28, 2014, 09:39:11 AM |
|
Can we have a time for the release date please?
Core development is finished, so we ready to start. But we've decided to go with this test network for a while, to be sure. I'll post exact time in this tread not later than one day before. |
|
|
|
|
crypto_zoidberg (OP)
|
|
April 28, 2014, 10:10:36 AM |
|
1% seems to be the bare reasonable maximum.
The problem is also that it's tied to you "at vitam eternam".
May be you should make a system that will allows others to be candidates for the donation.
Of course it could not be any address, otherwise miner would donate to themselves.
You could implement a voting system like memorycoin (shareolder voting : memorycoin.org) but witch will only allow an address to be eligible for the donation, for example with 33% (this number could be higher in the beginning to avoid early cheat), then the miner decide who he chose.
... ok, I'm realising that because of the technologies involved (anonymous balance) it could be a little bit harder to implement the voting system.
Not a big deal to implement this - there are an option with tracking secrete key, which can be published with public address, it's allow everyone to check if money was transfered to given address, but will not allow to spend it until you don't have spend secrete key. We used this in donations - donation address hardcoded with tracking key, and core able to do all necessary checks. A must have for this kind of donation, is that the coin are un-spendable for at least several months.
This will avoid the early dump, and restore confidence. You are here for the long run anyway.
I don't mind, but locktime is attribute of transaction (not an out attribute apparently, design lack may be) - so if miner lock coinbase with donations, he locked his earning as well. |
|
|
|
locogee
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
April 28, 2014, 01:45:19 PM |
|
If you want to donate to someone else, just send 0% to dev and make a transaction to this someone else...
Dev : Do we choose the % of donation before finding a block or when we find a block?
|
|
|
|
|
locogee
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
April 28, 2014, 01:53:44 PM |
|
Hello friends.
We are pleased to introduce HoneyPenny
A better name maybe ? Maybe. Ready to pay our first "pennies" for good project name (and place "thanks to" to main projects page)! But we don't want another "blabla"-coin, so much xxxcoins here. Feel free to post name candidates here or send in private. What about Shadowcoin? Nightcoin? |
|
|
|
|
locogee
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
April 28, 2014, 02:00:03 PM |
|
Does POS fit in this cryptonote technology?
|
|
|
|
|
|
crypto_zoidberg (OP)
|
|
April 28, 2014, 02:46:01 PM |
|
If you really want the donation to be fair and effective as a business model, you need to allow the miners to choose not only how much they donate, but also to whom they donate. If the original develoeper(s) do a bad job, the miners need to be able to fire them (by vote) and have all the donations go to someone else. (The Invictus coins implement something like this.)
We thought about this approach before, but concluded that it may broke a team. It could make possible to developers to be self-seeking. When every man for himself - it is not a team, it is a crowd. Otherwise this is just a scheme for you to collect donations from lazy or ignorant miners (who do not know how to or do not bother to disable donations) forever regardless of whether you actually continue do useful work.
For that matter this is part of the essence of crowdfunding. I should be able to donate, but only if you convince a sufficient number of the other miners to donate as well. If too few are convinced, then you shouldn't get anything, including my donation or those from lazy or ignorant miners who donate by default. In practice a vote-to-fire system is largely the same and easier to implement.
Failing all that, provide an easy mechanism for miners to donate but leave it off by default. If you add value miners will turn it on.
I will support this coin if you get rid of the donations-by-default scam.
Alright!Alright!Alright!(c) Agree with you here, to be honest to the end - better do make it disabled by default. EDIT: And also address the GPU minability issue below.
In next post i'll try to explain hash-function approach, i dont think it is GPU-mineble. Changing the name would help too. You mentioned in one of your earlier posts that you are not a native English speaker and that your language is quite different. You should realize that in English HoneyPenny is an atrocious name for a cryptocurrency. I mean this in the most constructive way possible. Rename is a priority if you want this to succeed.
Looking for a suitable name. |
|
|
|
|
SlyWax
|
|
April 28, 2014, 03:18:16 PM |
|
A must have for this kind of donation, is that the coin are un-spendable for at least several months.
This will avoid the early dump, and restore confidence. You are here for the long run anyway.
I don't mind, but locktime is attribute of transaction (not an out attribute apparently, design lack may be) - so if miner lock coinbase with donations, he locked his earning as well. Can't you make 2 coinbase transaction, one for mining the other for donation ? |
|
|
|
|
|
SlyWax
|
|
April 28, 2014, 03:41:30 PM |
|
Another issue :
Giving donation choice to miner is increasing the power of the miner, witch in POW coin is already too big.
The best thing would be to implement a bounty system :
Miners would donate to a bounty address to fill it with coin.
This bounty address is unspendable by normal procedure.
Each bounty address would correspond to a certain task ( ie 1 bounty for one job/task ).
When someone fulfil the bounty task, the shareholders vote to distribute the coin to the winner.
This is very important to pay people after the task is completed, because otherwise people are not motivated any-more when they already got their money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
