[HYP] HyperStake | Generous Reward Staking | Advanced Staking Controls & Wallet

[presstab]

MultiSend is a feature that allows you to send a part of your stake to some address(es) automatically. It doesn't influence the staking process. I would recommend you to keep the wallet open 24/7 if you can. Thus you will double or even triple the chances. But if you can't, it's better to have big blocks like yours. Anyway, don't split your block until it stakes or you will lose the age. To give you an idea about stake efficiency of some block sizes at this moment: a block of 4000 HYP can reach the 60+ days age without a stake even with the wallet open 24/7.

Thanks, now everything is clear!
I will leave everything as it is.
The wallet (HYP) loads the processor much more strongly than wallets of other coins therefore it isn't open 24/7.

HYP should only use lots of CPU when it is syncing. If you are all synced up, it should be among the most efficient coins.

An example from another thread:

[1714099784]

1714099784

[1714099784]

1714099784

[Crestington]

MultiSend is a feature that allows you to send a part of your stake to some address(es) automatically. It doesn't influence the staking process. I would recommend you to keep the wallet open 24/7 if you can. Thus you will double or even triple the chances. But if you can't, it's better to have big blocks like yours. Anyway, don't split your block until it stakes or you will lose the age. To give you an idea about stake efficiency of some block sizes at this moment: a block of 4000 HYP can reach the 60+ days age without a stake even with the wallet open 24/7.

Thanks, now everything is clear!
I will leave everything as it is.
The wallet (HYP) loads the processor much more strongly than wallets of other coins therefore it isn't open 24/7.

HYP should only use lots of CPU when it is syncing. If you are all synced up, it should be among the most efficient coins.

An example from another thread:

How come Bottlecaps is such a resource hog?

[presstab]

How come Bottlecaps is such a resource hog?

In all fairness it could be a combination of not having liteStake and also maybe 5ick5uffalo has lots of coins being hashed? Not sure.

[Hilux74]

How come Bottlecaps is such a resource hog?

In all fairness it could be a combination of not having liteStake and also maybe 5ick5uffalo has lots of coins being hashed? Not sure.

It can also be the timing of the screenshot.  He was trying to show it at its worst, so wait for the most activity then screengrab.  Litestake does make a huge difference though since HYP hashes in bursts while most others coins are hashing all the time.

I currently have HYP, CAPs and all ORB running 24/7 on an HP Stream 7 tablet dedicated to POS wallets.  ORB seems to take teh most CPU,  HYP the least...but all run fine together at the same time and the tablet can still do other things...so other than during startup/syncing none are really that taxing.

[Krista]

I have Core2 Duo T6400.
The wallet is completely synchronized and loads the processor for 32%.

[presstab]

I have Core2 Duo T6400.
The wallet is completely synchronized and loads the processor for 32%.

Hmmm that is interesting. You could try entering "strictprotocol true" into the debug console and see if it helps.

[Biomech]

I have Core2 Duo T6400.
The wallet is completely synchronized and loads the processor for 32%.

That is very weird.

I run several wallets, and HYP is usually the lowest CPU load, except when it's synchronizing. It ain't as heavy on that as Bitcoin, but it does load it fast and furious. Usually is under 1%. This is for ubuntu, though, I have no idea how well it performs under Windows or OSX. I'm running a four core AMD walmart special, and frequently have 10+ wallets open without issue. Something is not right with your setup.

[billotronic]

agreed. My main box is running two hyp wallets and neither one consistently uses more then 1% cpu


Krista what else can you tell us about your setup and environment?

[mafort1469]

I have noticed a dramatic decrease in IRC activity. Please come back and talk. I miss you!!

[Biomech]

I have noticed a dramatic decrease in IRC activity. Please come back and talk. I miss you!!

I've been ridiculously busy. I'll be around again soon

[presstab]

I have noticed a dramatic decrease in IRC activity. Please come back and talk. I miss you!!

Damnit StakeFort!! I get back from my liquor store run literally 5 minutes after you log off!! 

[billotronic]

oh and you missed it to!

such timeless classics as ::

[21:16] <mafort1469> nothing worse than trying to prove a point in bad grammar....ugggg hate it.

[21:03] <mafort1469> I said GIMP IT^2
[21:04] <mafort1469> can't you hear?
[21:04] <mafort1469> gimp it^2
[21:04] <mafort1469> gimp it^2

[21:00] <XBX> overall i am fucking up <--me
[21:00] <mafort1469> how are you fucking up?
[21:00] <mafort1469> your woman on top or something?


mafort you say the irc is lacking and the only thing I see lacking is our time with you sir. We need to do a typhoon soon.. . it's been too long

[Crestington]

Something I've been really interested in is pruning off a large portion of Blocks after a certain period. The thing I notice with older CryptoCurrencies is that after 1-2 years the amount of data the Blockchain holds is quite large, especially if there is a lot of activity. Typical growth for most Coins is in the neighborhood of 500 MB - 1GB a year but if it was REALLY popular and handled a lot of transactions then it could be upwards of 5 BG a year, now this may not seem like a huge amount of growth but most people hold lots of different types of Coins AND you need to sync all those Blocks so 20 different types of Coins is a lot of space! What I was thinking with this was something along the lines of the CLAMS distribution such as where you would take all the unspent addresses into a new Genesis and kill off the old chain, as it is though that would also create 2 distinct chains so then how could it be done where you could do that automatically and always keep the size of the Blockchain within a limit?

[mafort1469]

I have noticed a dramatic decrease in IRC activity. Please come back and talk. I miss you!!

Damnit StakeFort!! I get back from my liquor store run literally 5 minutes after you log off!! 

Yeah, was quite tired last night so not on for too long. Will be on tonight.

[mafort1469]

oh and you missed it to!

such timeless classics as ::

[21:16] <mafort1469> nothing worse than trying to prove a point in bad grammar....ugggg hate it.

[21:03] <mafort1469> I said GIMP IT^2
[21:04] <mafort1469> can't you hear?
[21:04] <mafort1469> gimp it^2
[21:04] <mafort1469> gimp it^2

[21:00] <XBX> overall i am fucking up <--me
[21:00] <mafort1469> how are you fucking up?
[21:00] <mafort1469> your woman on top or something?


mafort you say the irc is lacking and the only thing I see lacking is our time with you sir. We need to do a typhoon soon.. . it's been too long

True. A typhoon will be nice. Let's set up a day and bring it!!

[presstab]

Something I've been really interested in is pruning off a large portion of Blocks after a certain period. The thing I notice with older CryptoCurrencies is that after 1-2 years the amount of data the Blockchain holds is quite large, especially if there is a lot of activity. Typical growth for most Coins is in the neighborhood of 500 MB - 1GB a year but if it was REALLY popular and handled a lot of transactions then it could be upwards of 5 BG a year, now this may not seem like a huge amount of growth but most people hold lots of different types of Coins AND you need to sync all those Blocks so 20 different types of Coins is a lot of space! What I was thinking with this was something along the lines of the CLAMS distribution such as where you would take all the unspent addresses into a new Genesis and kill off the old chain, as it is though that would also create 2 distinct chains so then how could it be done where you could do that automatically and always keep the size of the Blockchain within a limit?

I have thought about this as well. The difficult part would be figuring out how to be able to run both chains at once, thus not making old clients have to update.

[billotronic]

ever look at cryptonite?

[iantunc]

ever look at cryptonite?

probably not a good idea to destroy data in the age of information. i think it can be very useful (and in some cases even necessary) to have a possibility to trace transactions deep into the abyss. that's why the blockchain is also called the distributed ledger. imho, the security of cryptonite's mini-blockchain is doubtful. new coins are matured instantly and no confirmations of transactions can be made (it simplifies the task of an alternative chain creation). one of possible workarounds for us could be some blockchain compression or a light version of the wallet which uses the merkle root for transaction verifications as in bitcoin's MultiBit.

[Crestington]

ever look at cryptonite?

probably not a good idea to destroy data in the age of information. i think it can be very useful (and in some cases even necessary) to have a possibility to trace transactions deep into the abyss. that's why the blockchain is also called the distributed ledger. imho, the security of cryptonite's mini-blockchain is doubtful. new coins are matured instantly and no confirmations of transactions can be made (it simplifies the task of an alternative chain creation). one of possible workarounds for us could be some blockchain compression or a light version of the wallet which uses the merkle root for transaction confirmations as in bitcoin's MultiBit.

I for one don't really care about destruction of data, it's probably even a bit of a good thing as it can add to the anonymity and decentralized nature of the Blockchain. Blockchain compression can only go so far, for something to really be infinitely self sustaining it should work like a rolling Blockchain where old data is pruned off otherwise you still have the growing ledger. I am pretty sure that a multi-bit like wallet using the merkle root only isn't able to Stake (or atleast not currently).

[iantunc]

ever look at cryptonite?

probably not a good idea to destroy data in the age of information. i think it can be very useful (and in some cases even necessary) to have a possibility to trace transactions deep into the abyss. that's why the blockchain is also called the distributed ledger. imho, the security of cryptonite's mini-blockchain is doubtful. new coins are matured instantly and no confirmations of transactions can be made (it simplifies the task of an alternative chain creation). one of possible workarounds for us could be some blockchain compression or a light version of the wallet which uses the merkle root for transaction confirmations as in bitcoin's MultiBit.

I for one don't really care about destruction of data, it's probably even a bit of a good thing as it can add to the anonymity and decentralized nature of the Blockchain. Blockchain compression can only go so far, for something to really be infinitely self sustaining it should work like a rolling Blockchain where old data is pruned off otherwise you still have the growing ledger. I am pretty sure that a multi-bit like wallet using the merkle root only isn't able to Stake (or atleast not currently).

I agree, but the nature of crypto is not only in anonymity (there are also other ways to hide transaction history rather than just simply erase it), in the ideal world there will be no need in anonymity The idea of the blockchain is something that can be saved in centuries hermetically sealed, it opens a road for extension of its functionality to let it go beyond money transfer. If it is the trade-off to save some disk space, I predict that in few years even 100 GB blockchain won't be a problem (Moore's law is still actual), with all it's synchro hashing work. So a compression or some harmless truncation (or full-blockchain master nodes, in the case of the multibit-like light wallet which can ask for a piece of the blockchain to be able to stake) can be a temporary solution to release back the full power of the blockchain later.