[ANN] Slimcoin : Proof of Burn NEW BLOCK GEN, Mineable by low power computer!

[slimcoin]

My system has 16 gigs of RAM so that is definitely not the cause unless your wallet eats 10GB+.

Also with -maxconnections=1 -connect=76.127.202.17 it says "0 active connections". If I start without it I don't get any balance and it crashes.

Try without the maxconnections to try to connect.

As for the crashing, could you start the wallet with the -debug flag, let it crash and then send me the debug.log file found in the ~/.slimcoin/ directory so I can diagnose the bug. Thanks.

[BitcoinFX]

...

Also with -maxconnections=1 -connect=76.127.202.17 it says "0 active connections". If I start without it I don't get any balance and it crashes.

I've not long finished re-syncing 2 x US hosted vps nodes. You are welcome to try connecting with those;

connect=107.181.250.216
connect=107.181.250.217

...

I'll try to capture a random debug crash, slimcoin - I've experienced a few, although things might be more stable now.

[primer-]

I would like to remind all of you that Slimcoin is released under the GPL licence found at: https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

As quoted in Section 15:

EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ...

HAHAHA , crazy bulgarian

[rfcdejong]

As for the bad alloc exception, I looked around and found an explanation that is probably the solution:

From https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/2353

This is how bitcoin runs out of memory (virtual address space) while downloading blocks:

Whenever a node receives a block that it cannot link to the chain, it stores it in memory in mapOrphanBlocks. There is no limit to the size of that data. When a node is downloading blocks, it may download and keep in memory many blocks that it can't currently link to the chain. In particular, if your node connects to another node which is also downloading blocks and which is further along in the download, the other node will spam your node with an "inv" message for every new block that it downloads (no, the logic in CBlock::AcceptBlock does not prevent it), and your node will download and store those blocks in mapOrphanBlocks. This can occur with multiple connected nodes simultaneously which are at different points in the download.

I encountered this problem several times with 0.8.0rc1. With the current size of the blockchain, it is not hard to exhaust the virtual address space (at most 4GiB) in 32-bit builds, which includes all Windows builds.

The fix could proceed in one of two directions: (1) store orphan blocks on disk instead of in memory, or (2) don't keep an unbounded set of orphan blocks. For (2), the ideal would be to prevent downloading of too many orphans rather than discarding orphans that have already been downloaded, which is wasteful. The goal would be to download blocks roughly in order. One idea is to make use of "getheaders" during block download. Headers would be downloaded and linked together, and blocks would only be downloaded if we already know based on headers that they are not too far away from the chain of blocks that we already have.

How much memory does your system have?

I could implement the second option, but will look into how bitcoin fixed this issue.

Also, if you have any other exceptions, please post them.

the exception is still being thrown, my system has 1.9 GB in use out of 8 GB.. 64 bit

i just deleted my blockchain and took a backup from 8 august, it's syncing again and i will see if this will still happen or not. Perhaps it was just because i had too many orphans indeed..

[rfcdejong]

resynced... seems it's all going good until now

00:10:01
{
"blocks" : 71087,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.16328193,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"networkghps" : 0.00722980,
"pooledtx" : 1,
"testnet" : false
}

[d5000]

Also at the argument regarding burning coins: I can burn as many god damn coins as I want, this is an investment in an altcoin and not fucking charity. Although Slimcoin certainly has burnt my coins..

Yes, you can do what you want, but the math of PoB doesn't allow "burning any amount" to be profitable. If too many coins are burnt, difficulty will be very high, and the PoB rewards are relatively steady (if I understand it right they are tied to PoW difficulty in SLM). So some people will not make profit until "burn difficulty" gets lower again (=less coins are burnt).

Now if the forks are the reason of not getting coins, I understand you are upset but an altcoin with an entirely new technology should be regarded as experimental and so as a high-risk asset. There are many altcoins with much less innovation that are doing much worse than SLM. And not all is lost, if you burnt a good amount of coins, your "burn power" should be high enough to get some blocks after the problems are solved, if "burn difficulty" is not too high.

[m5j0r]

Of course it's high risk.
But "altcoin" shouldn't automatically mean that the devs don't give a shit or are just plain incompetent. There are quite a few altcoins out there that, not counting premine or other bs, work quite well from a purely technical standpoint.

I got interested in SLM because of PoB and the ability to mine without physical equipment. (except running the pc 24/7) Considering the rising difficulty this might have been stupid (as is all mining essentially), but I'd wanted to have a look and at least break even.

The rising difficulty problem exists for PoB and PoW though so at least that shouldn't make a difference. PoW doesn't give me any coins at all though (<1 a day iirc).

Edit: Thanks for explaining the diff though @d5000

[SpeedDemon13]

What will you do in the present to prevent future forks?

The reason for this fork was purely because of a small network. When the seed node went offline, all nodes simply went onto two different forks.

Once we sync the seed node, do we still need a conf file with addnodes or just let the wallet sync? If we mined coin at a pool, will we get the coins once that pool gets on the proper fork?

[slimcoin]

BitcoinFX was kind enough to offer his nodes, once your are done syncing from the main seed node, you could add his nodes also.

addnode=107.181.250.216
addnode=107.181.250.217

[slimcoin]

BTER is back on the correct fork.

[almightyruler]

I would like to remind all of you that Slimcoin is released under the GPL licence found at: https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

As quoted in Section 15:

EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ...

Where in the source tree does it say it is GPL'd? The file COPYING in the root seems to imply that you can do what you like, so long as you retain the original copyright notice.

Also, why are you asserting the licence? I'm curious why this message seems to have been written out of the blue.

[slimcoin]

I restated that license to clarify that I will not be reimbursing any losses as people were complaining about burning too many coins and not seeing an immediate return, etc.

[almightyruler]

I restated that license to clarify that I will not be reimbursing any losses as people were complaining about burning too many coins and not seeing an immediate return, etc.

Understood, but you don't even seem to be quoting the correct licence.

[slimcoin]

True, but it is explicitly stated in COPYING.
Regardless, the point is understood.

Currently I am working on getting more publicity for Slimcoin. Many exchanges use a voting system to get a currency onto it.
The question is, is voting the best way? Another option would be to write to the exchange personally to attract their attention.

[SpeedDemon13]

BitcoinFX was kind enough to offer his nodes, once your are done syncing from the main seed node, you could add his nodes also.

addnode=107.181.250.216
addnode=107.181.250.217

So, those are the official addnodes we use from now on or is there any other we have to use?

[BitcoinFX]

So, those are the official addnodes we use from now on or is there any other we have to use?

If your able to reach IP 76.127.202.17 then you should first fully sync the blockchain using the following in slimcoin.conf ;
 
listen=0
maxconnections=1
connect=76.127.202.17

When you are fully synced you should shutdown slimcoin and alter the config. ;

listen=1
maxconnections=8 (or more)
addnode=76.127.202.17
addnode=107.181.250.216
addnode=107.181.250.217

Which should help you to bootstrap more p2p connections to updated nodes.

My nodes are not 'official' slimcoin nodes, although these vps servers have good uptime and I will try to ensure that they stay up and running.

[rfcdejong]

As for the bad alloc exception, I looked around and found an explanation that is probably the solution:

From https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/2353

This is how bitcoin runs out of memory (virtual address space) while downloading blocks:

Whenever a node receives a block that it cannot link to the chain, it stores it in memory in mapOrphanBlocks. There is no limit to the size of that data. When a node is downloading blocks, it may download and keep in memory many blocks that it can't currently link to the chain. In particular, if your node connects to another node which is also downloading blocks and which is further along in the download, the other node will spam your node with an "inv" message for every new block that it downloads (no, the logic in CBlock::AcceptBlock does not prevent it), and your node will download and store those blocks in mapOrphanBlocks. This can occur with multiple connected nodes simultaneously which are at different points in the download.

I encountered this problem several times with 0.8.0rc1. With the current size of the blockchain, it is not hard to exhaust the virtual address space (at most 4GiB) in 32-bit builds, which includes all Windows builds.

The fix could proceed in one of two directions: (1) store orphan blocks on disk instead of in memory, or (2) don't keep an unbounded set of orphan blocks. For (2), the ideal would be to prevent downloading of too many orphans rather than discarding orphans that have already been downloaded, which is wasteful. The goal would be to download blocks roughly in order. One idea is to make use of "getheaders" during block download. Headers would be downloaded and linked together, and blocks would only be downloaded if we already know based on headers that they are not too far away from the chain of blocks that we already have.

How much memory does your system have?

I could implement the second option, but will look into how bitcoin fixed this issue.

Also, if you have any other exceptions, please post them.

the exception is still being thrown, my system has 1.9 GB in use out of 8 GB.. 64 bit

i just deleted my blockchain and took a backup from 8 august, it's syncing again and i will see if this will still happen or not. Perhaps it was just because i had too many orphans indeed..

My wallet crashed again with a fresh blockchain.. same exception
Maybe it's because too many nodes connect to me since i configured my router to route inbound over the slimcoin port to my wallet?

[slimcoin]

Whoever has such exceptions and can compile their client from source, please do so. I have made changes to fix the wallet of such exceptions, it is the latest commit on github. I have never experienced such issues and cannot test if the additions will fix anything. I have tested them to prove they work but am not sure if the exceptions will no longer occur.

[BitcoinFX]

Whoever has such exceptions and can compile their client from source, please do so. I have made changes to fix the wallet of such exceptions, it is the latest commit on github. I have never experienced such issues and cannot test if the additions will fix anything. I have tested them to prove they work but am not sure if the exceptions will no longer occur.

Fairly certain that the new commits will fix what is essentially a RAM issue.

~ I've seen the EXCEPTION: St9bad_alloc over flows on a system with comparatively low RAM, although a system with 16 GB of RAM appears mostly stable.

Has anyone else seen a Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime Library APPCRASH seemingly unrelated to the exception ? Which seems to happen more frequently when solo mining and/or PoS minting using an unlocked wallet ?

[95A31]

An alpha version of my PoB Pool coming soon. Looking for testers.