Hippie Tech
aka Amenstop
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1624
Merit: 1001
All cryptos are FIAT digital currency. Do not use.
|
 |
June 01, 2014, 02:57:37 PM |
|
Raskul just lost the plot with all the fudders before and flipped out and joined them. He's a nice dude tho in the end. I just dont think we need a 'community leader'..What coin has that? Much weird  lol t'was a nice experiment.  all I see from the 'community leader' here is snide comments, lack of intellect and a dictator-style approach to people's opinions, where is he/she doesn't like something, it gets deleted. basically, we have been told Sync is a long term investment. I'm more than happy to hold it and wait for that to be realised, but in the meantime, all i've done is voiced legitimate concerns... remember we've still to see a neutral party look into block 0, and this is still one of my ongoing concerns with this coin. Block 0 had 0 coins, whats your point/ agenda? prove it. Sync your wallet, go to console window and type: The hashnumber you get is the id of block 0. Use that number to inspect the block: getblock 00000aa052f62125efeea66496e52277fbc84d162f9d2243ea53b8cf65c44127 The result indicates that nothing was minted in that block. If you inspect the transacion in that block by typing: gettransaction a87d9a593e3e65e96f44be39270e0d0e604e26f1fd567d72306579f3f34c19dd You won't find any transaction because this is the genesis block and there was nothing to transfer from or to, e.g. no accounts/wallets existed at that time. If you move on, inspecting block 1, you'll find that nothing were minted there as well, but a 0 transaction were performed to the very first wallet: SeSdxid5YnU5P5hCRfT8RFp3jAJJQtMv4u The first minted coins happened in block 2 and that was 5.00000000 SYNC only. All transferred to SeSdxid5YnU5P5hCRfT8RFp3jAJJQtMv4u, which I believe is the dev-address.. Proof enough? Wrong.. Instead of labelling them as "newly generated coins", Block 1 and 2 each had 5 SYNC TX fees. Has anyone checked to see if this applies here ? --->> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=444775.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
raskul
|
|
June 01, 2014, 03:09:47 PM |
|
Its 100% + money supply per year, its clear that the money supply is not capped at 1000, but PoW was... i recall seeing MAXMONEY in the code is capped at 10000; see below Meanwhile, it's good to see Nite69 has added some checkpoints, https://github.com/MsCollec/sync/commit/7157c7a688ae6e340c6a54246a309039535d0975static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE_GEN = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/2;
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/50;
static const unsigned int MAX_ORPHAN_TRANSACTIONS = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/100;
static const unsigned int MAX_INV_SZ = 50000;
static const int64_t MIN_TX_FEE = 0;
//static const int64_t MIN_TX_FEE_FORKED = 0.00000001 * COIN; // POSTPONED
static const int64_t MIN_RELAY_TX_FEE = MIN_TX_FEE;
static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 10000 * COIN;
static const int64_t COIN_YEAR_REWARD = 100 * CENT; // 100% per year
static const int64_t MAX_MINT_PROOF_OF_STAKE = 0.01 * COIN; // 1% annual interest
static const int64_t MAX_MINT_PROOF_OF_STAKE_FORKED = 1 * COIN; // 100% annual interest
static const int MODIFIER_INTERVAL_SWITCH = 7200;
inline bool MoneyRange(int64_t nValue) { return (nValue >= 0 && nValue <= MAX_MONEY); }
// Threshold for nLockTime: below this value it is interpreted as block number, otherwise as UNIX timestamp.
static const unsigned int LOCKTIME_THRESHOLD = 500000000; // Tue Nov 5 00:53:20 1985 UTC the full main.h is here: https://github.com/MsCollec/sync/blob/master/src/main.h |
tips 1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
|
|
|
|
kopam
|
|
June 01, 2014, 03:25:04 PM |
|
Again a lot of chatter about the genesis block Again raskul doing his magic and amusing himself with everyone in the forum. I would say everything is great right now hahaha Lets wait for the hard fork and see how that goes Overall i am feeling possessively. I guess it would be a good idea to create some sort of foundation with a community leader that answers all the questions in a polite manner and trying to channel all the positive efforts of the community |
|
|
|
|
raskul
|
|
June 01, 2014, 03:47:20 PM |
|
my latest stake has just matured - locking up the wallet now to get ready for the fork tomorrow.
|
tips 1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
|
|
|
|
Kenta
|
|
June 01, 2014, 03:49:26 PM |
|
It could look like money are "generated" by fee's, yes. But nothing is paid out from that fee in block #1, and it makes sense because there wasn't any money in the system. The same thing happens in block #94, which also has a negative block reward but never gets deducted from any account. I guess block #1 also would have had a negative block reward if moneysupply had been > 0 ? However, block #1 and block #94 doesn't have any transacted amount. Only block #2 has a transaction to SeSdxid5YnU5P5hCRfT8RFp3jAJJQtMv4u until POW mining starts at block #95 and they are all "minted". I don't understand why block#2 shows up with a fee when it's all outputted to the dev account, but perhaps the person who made the block explorer could explain? Perhaps it's a bug in the explorer to compensate for that "owed" fee from block#1? I don't think it could show negative fee's? Did anyone find any examples of that? I don't see how your link have any relevance to this topic. Could you please explain? |
|
|
|
|
raskul
|
|
June 01, 2014, 03:54:14 PM |
|
It could look like money are "generated" by fee's, yes. But nothing is paid out from that fee in block #1, and it makes sense because there wasn't any money in the system. The same thing happens in block #94, which also has a negative block reward but never gets deducted from any account. I guess block #1 also would have had a negative block reward if moneysupply had been > 0 ? However, block #1 and block #94 doesn't have any transacted amount. Only block #2 has a transaction to SeSdxid5YnU5P5hCRfT8RFp3jAJJQtMv4u until POW mining starts at block #95 and they are all "minted". I don't understand why block#2 shows up with a fee when it's all outputted to the dev account, but perhaps the person who made the block explorer could explain? Perhaps it's a bug in the explorer to compensate for that "owed" fee from block#1? I don't think it could show negative fee's? Did anyone find any examples of that? I had previously presumed that the pre-mine was wrongly coded, that it was set as a tx fee rather than a value, and was amended. But I could be wrong in my presumption. |
tips 1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
|
|
|
|
Kenta
|
|
June 01, 2014, 03:57:10 PM |
|
my latest stake has just matured - locking up the wallet now to get ready for the fork tomorrow.
It might sound like a good idea, but who will generate new blocks for the blockchain if nobody stakes/mints? |
|
|
|
|
kopam
|
|
June 01, 2014, 03:58:17 PM |
|
my latest stake has just matured - locking up the wallet now to get ready for the fork tomorrow.
It might sound like a good idea, but who will generate new blocks for the blockchain if nobody stakes/mints? I will leave my wallet open with about 4 SYNC in it, hope that helps. And well i hope i wont loose them haha |
|
|
|
|
raskul
|
|
June 01, 2014, 03:58:50 PM |
|
my latest stake has just matured - locking up the wallet now to get ready for the fork tomorrow.
It might sound like a good idea, but who will generate new blocks for the blockchain if nobody stakes/mints? someone other than me  i'm playing it safe, i'm not here to support the group, i'm here to realise an investment. although there was a time when I would gladly have done some heavy marketing, and done whatever I could to help out. that chance was lost. |
tips 1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
|
|
|
MsCollec (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 01, 2014, 04:02:09 PM |
|
my latest stake has just matured - locking up the wallet now to get ready for the fork tomorrow.
It might sound like a good idea, but who will generate new blocks for the blockchain if nobody stakes/mints? someone other than me i'm playing it safe, i'm not here to support the group, i'm here to realise an investment. although there was a time when I would gladly have done some heavy marketing, and done whatever I could to help out. that chance was lost. asshole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
Kenta
|
|
June 01, 2014, 04:03:04 PM |
|
It could look like money are "generated" by fee's, yes. But nothing is paid out from that fee in block #1, and it makes sense because there wasn't any money in the system. The same thing happens in block #94, which also has a negative block reward but never gets deducted from any account. I guess block #1 also would have had a negative block reward if moneysupply had been > 0 ? However, block #1 and block #94 doesn't have any transacted amount. Only block #2 has a transaction to SeSdxid5YnU5P5hCRfT8RFp3jAJJQtMv4u until POW mining starts at block #95 and they are all "minted". I don't understand why block#2 shows up with a fee when it's all outputted to the dev account, but perhaps the person who made the block explorer could explain? Perhaps it's a bug in the explorer to compensate for that "owed" fee from block#1? I don't think it could show negative fee's? Did anyone find any examples of that? I had previously presumed that the pre-mine was wrongly coded, that it was set as a tx fee rather than a value, and was amended. But I could be wrong in my presumption. It could well be that you are right, and the block#1 was an attempt to mint through fees, but was unsuccessful because of no coins to tax. That would explain why block#2 mints and pays out, but it doesn't explain how the payout also is a fee. But that's very often how programmers work; they test different things and when it works they might just carry on because it takes too much time to analyze every step. "If it is working, don't fix it!" |
|
|
|
|
raskul
|
|
June 01, 2014, 04:03:22 PM |
|
my latest stake has just matured - locking up the wallet now to get ready for the fork tomorrow.
It might sound like a good idea, but who will generate new blocks for the blockchain if nobody stakes/mints? someone other than me i'm playing it safe, i'm not here to support the group, i'm here to realise an investment. although there was a time when I would gladly have done some heavy marketing, and done whatever I could to help out. that chance was lost. asshole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! such polite! great leader! wow! oozing with professionalism.  |
tips 1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
|
|
|
|
cryptomines
|
|
June 01, 2014, 04:03:34 PM |
|
my latest stake has just matured - locking up the wallet now to get ready for the fork tomorrow.
It might sound like a good idea, but who will generate new blocks for the blockchain if nobody stakes/mints? I will leave my wallet open with about 4 SYNC in it, hope that helps. And well i hope i wont loose them haha Mine will stay open as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
raskul
|
|
June 01, 2014, 04:04:55 PM |
|
It could look like money are "generated" by fee's, yes. But nothing is paid out from that fee in block #1, and it makes sense because there wasn't any money in the system. The same thing happens in block #94, which also has a negative block reward but never gets deducted from any account. I guess block #1 also would have had a negative block reward if moneysupply had been > 0 ? However, block #1 and block #94 doesn't have any transacted amount. Only block #2 has a transaction to SeSdxid5YnU5P5hCRfT8RFp3jAJJQtMv4u until POW mining starts at block #95 and they are all "minted". I don't understand why block#2 shows up with a fee when it's all outputted to the dev account, but perhaps the person who made the block explorer could explain? Perhaps it's a bug in the explorer to compensate for that "owed" fee from block#1? I don't think it could show negative fee's? Did anyone find any examples of that? I had previously presumed that the pre-mine was wrongly coded, that it was set as a tx fee rather than a value, and was amended. But I could be wrong in my presumption. It could well be that you are right, and the block#1 was an attempt to mint through fees, but was unsuccessful because of no coins to tax. That would explain why block#2 mints and pays out, but it doesn't explain how the payout also is a fee. But that's very often how programmers work; they test different things and when it works they might just carry on because it takes too much time to analyze every step. "If it is working, don't fix it!" i'm of the mind to this also, if it's not broke, no need to fix it. and I have to say now, the wallet works fine, staking is regular and block generation time - i kinda like it. good coin. eventually. |
tips 1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
|
|
|
|
cryptomines
|
|
June 01, 2014, 04:05:33 PM |
|
Is the latest wallet available in the OP? I haven't had time to learn to compile it for windows yet.
|
|
|
|
|
MsCollec (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 01, 2014, 04:08:09 PM |
|
Is the latest wallet available in the OP? I haven't had time to learn to compile it for windows yet.
Yes, the one with the hardfork but there's a new fix for the blockchain stuck and some checkpoint but the new wallet for that is not yet released. |
|
|
|
|
|
cryptomines
|
|
June 01, 2014, 04:12:11 PM |
|
Yes, the one with the hardfork but there's a new fix for the blockchain stuck and some checkpoint but the new wallet for that is not yet released.
Will that wallet be released before or after the hardfork? |
|
|
|
|
|
Kenta
|
|
June 01, 2014, 04:14:53 PM |
|
Yes, the one with the hardfork but there's a new fix for the blockchain stuck and some checkpoint but the new wallet for that is not yet released.
Will that wallet be released before or after the hardfork? It doesn't have to because it only adds checkpoints of historic blocks. When you are not downloading the entire chain, you don't need it. But for the guys setting up extra nodes to support the network, it makes life a bit easier. But the code is already released and everyone is free to compile it for Windows if they want |
|
|
|
|
raskul
|
|
June 01, 2014, 04:16:57 PM |
|
Yes, the one with the hardfork but there's a new fix for the blockchain stuck and some checkpoint but the new wallet for that is not yet released.
Will that wallet be released before or after the hardfork? It doesn't have to because it only adds checkpoints of historic blocks. When you are not downloading the entire chain, you don't need it. But for the guys setting up extra nodes to support the network, it makes life a bit easier. if you are making a new node, you'll see v 1.0.2.0 in the compile. I have been reliably informed. good to see that developers are working on Sync. |
tips 1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
|
|
|
thunder04839
Member
Offline
Activity: 63
Merit: 10
|
|
June 01, 2014, 04:27:54 PM |
|
Anyone else been on the ride with crypto coin?
absolute little gem thats made me 2btc just from my mining
in 2 weeks I think its going higher than it is now,
the whales are definantly there.
new to me. It is called crypto coin? yes crypto CRY on bittrex I found the one that you are talking about actually called cryptcoin. seems to have a touch of potential but who knows with these days. where and how do you decided what kinds of coins you will mine next? I know of a couple of coin calendars but it seems there are so many coming out. how do you decide? |
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
