[ANN][SLR] SolarCoin | PoW to PoS v. 2.0 | Solar Proof of Generation (§1 = 1MWh)

[lfloorwalker]

Just checking: is everyone else's 'Unconfirmed' total showing zero on the overview page? I've got plenty of unconfirmed payments so it looks like this may not be populating correctly?

I have this as well on the overview page. Unconfirmed is "0.000000 SLR"

On the History page all my historical interest payments that were generated but conflicted have a "?" next to them, these are meant to be this way as I understand.
Interest payments that are still waiting block confirmations (i.e. <500 confirms) are displaying a "loading symbol" next to them, this looks normal.

[1715022022]

1715022022

[1715022022]

1715022022

[1715022022]

1715022022

[1715022022]

1715022022

[corather]

Just checking: is everyone else's 'Unconfirmed' total showing zero on the overview page? I've got plenty of unconfirmed payments so it looks like this may not be populating correctly?

The Unconfirmed column refers to coins received by the wallet through a send action from another wallet before any blocks are generated to confirm the transaction. It doesn't refer to staking payments.

[babbey]

Ah, that's makes sense, thanks Corather... but it begs the question, why aren't staking transactions treated like normal transactions in that overview? Wouldn't it make sense to show them there as well?

[corather]

Ah, that's makes sense, thanks Corather... but it begs the question, why aren't staking transactions treated like normal transactions in that overview? Wouldn't it make sense to show them there as well?

I think because they become confirmed through a different mechanism. The result is the same.

[corather]

I think I may have stumbled on a workaround for the synchronizing issue some of you may still be experiencing. Once you've rescanned your wallet and everything appears functional, if this issue pops up again simply exit the wallet and rerun the application. So far both my wallets appear stable after doing this. Still a bug, but maybe this will help diagnose the problem.

[y_virtual]

Ah, that's makes sense, thanks Corather... but it begs the question, why aren't staking transactions treated like normal transactions in that overview? Wouldn't it make sense to show them there as well?

These are Immature, different from Unconfirmed. Steve mentioned he may add them on a separate row on the Stats. You can check out the previous discussion here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=785257.msg12462589#msg12462589

Edit: also "Staking" is better to be labeled "Staked". I will now add here the link to another discussion on a remake of the Stats panel:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=785257.msg12559814#msg12559814

[nickgogerty]

what's the interest rate target again? 2%?

The interest rate target is 2% of the current circulating SLR balance.  From a macro perspective the SLR experience nominal inflation from rewards and grants with deflation due to lost wallets and now transaction fees which are burned.

An important point to note is that currency function with network economics. The more people accepting the protocol the more value it has.  BTC with estimated 1.5m users is worth say $3billion so the users network of combined transactional and speculative utility equates to about $2k/user.

If you know of anyone with a solarfarm or panels have them register and you get 10% of their first year claim. Growing the network SLR participants grows network value.

The foundations focus is on growing the size of the solar incentive by increasing the networks transactional value, ie. more nodes (users). Speculative value which is volatile and thus antithetical to sound monetary policy isn't useful to the 40 yr solar energy mission.

[corather]

I found another way to workaround the synchronization error. Choose Logoff in the file menu, and log back in. It should synch up and start staking properly.

[y_virtual]

So we've also got someone on their own wallet version/protocol No.:
/66:0.7.0/   node list   70007   1   1.7 %   94.9 %
node list:
addnode=109.124.222.36
IP Address   Country   Region   City   ISP
109.124.222.36   Russian Federation    Samara   Samara   Llc Sip Nis

[Snake Pliskin]

So we've also got someone on their own wallet version/protocol No.:
/66:0.7.0/   node list   70007   1   1.7 %   94.9 %
node list:
addnode=109.124.222.36
IP Address   Country   Region   City   ISP
109.124.222.36   Russian Federation    Samara   Samara   Llc Sip Nis

What does that mean, do we have a stowaway

[y_virtual]

So we've also got someone on their own wallet version/protocol No.:
/66:0.7.0/   node list   70007   1   1.7 %   94.9 %
node list:
addnode=109.124.222.36
IP Address   Country   Region   City   ISP
109.124.222.36   Russian Federation    Samara   Samara   Llc Sip Nis

What does that mean, do we have a stowaway

Yeah, that's the question. And then - if I decide to hire a coder who re-compiles a version of the wallet with a better interest rate - like 200% cap on interest rate - will the system stop me from getting on board and actually getting those custom-made rewards? Or may be just 2%, but non-variable... thus difficult to notice...Will that work?

[Snake Pliskin]

Yeah, that's the question. And then - if I decide to hire a coder who re-compiles a version of the wallet with a better interest rate - like 200% cap on interest rate - will the system stop me from getting on board and actually getting those custom-made rewards? Or may be just 2%, but non-variable... thus difficult to notice...Will that work?

That's a worrying thought if that can be done but surely there are safeguards in place to protect that from happening.

I'm sure that someone will enlighten us if this is possible.

[vipgelsi]

Bittrex site is down.  Up.

[onsightit]

I found another way to workaround the synchronization error. Choose Logoff in the file menu, and log back in. It should synch up and start staking properly.

All,

The synchronization issue is related to the nodes still on 2.0.5.  They are reporting a higher block count.  Your 2.0.7 node says "ok, send me the blocks" and they get orphaned.  It will go away when everyone is on 2.0.7.

-Steve

[onsightit]

So we've also got someone on their own wallet version/protocol No.:
/66:0.7.0/   node list   70007   1   1.7 %   94.9 %
node list:
addnode=109.124.222.36
IP Address   Country   Region   City   ISP
109.124.222.36   Russian Federation    Samara   Samara   Llc Sip Nis

What does that mean, do we have a stowaway

Yeah, that's the question. And then - if I decide to hire a coder who re-compiles a version of the wallet with a better interest rate - like 200% cap on interest rate - will the system stop me from getting on board and actually getting those custom-made rewards? Or may be just 2%, but non-variable... thus difficult to notice...Will that work?

The node on protocol 70007 is not a problem.  It's likely a developer simply using the same port as SolarCoin.  If they wanted to "hack" the blockchain they would probably use the same protocol number and sub-version.  Even if they did try to bump the interest, the blocks they submitted would be orphaned by consensus of the 2.0.7 nodes.

-Steve

[vipgelsi]

So we've also got someone on their own wallet version/protocol No.:
/66:0.7.0/   node list   70007   1   1.7 %   94.9 %
node list:
addnode=109.124.222.36
IP Address   Country   Region   City   ISP
109.124.222.36   Russian Federation    Samara   Samara   Llc Sip Nis

What does that mean, do we have a stowaway

Yeah, that's the question. And then - if I decide to hire a coder who re-compiles a version of the wallet with a better interest rate - like 200% cap on interest rate - will the system stop me from getting on board and actually getting those custom-made rewards? Or may be just 2%, but non-variable... thus difficult to notice...Will that work?

The node on protocol 70007 is not a problem.  It's likely a developer simply using the same port as SolarCoin.  If they wanted to "hack" the blockchain they would probably use the same protocol number and sub-version.  Even if they did try to bump the interest, the blocks they submitted would be orphaned by consensus of the 2.0.7 nodes.

-Steve

Once again thanks!

[Scalextrix]

Hi, my Solarcoin wallet is broken, I cant upgrade, and it appears I cant uninstall version 2.0.1.

When I install 2.0.7. the wallet still reports as 2.0.1, however in my uninstall programs its listed as 2.0.7.

The in-wallet update feature cannot close the applications it needs to, so that upgrade path fails as well.

Can I get some help?

[vipgelsi]

I am thinking delete roaming solarcoin folder then start from scratch but make sure you backup first! to a safe location.


run- appdata- roaming- solarcoin

[vipgelsi]

My mothers solarcoin wallet connects to 28 nodes but i have 11 nodes connected to does this matter? TIA

[solarcoiner]

My mothers solarcoin wallet connects to 28 nodes but i have 11 nodes connected to does this matter? TIA

I think if you have more than 8 connections you are running a full node so it looks like you're good. I can't get over 8. I have asked if anyone knows what port needs to be forwarded for Solarcoin in order to get a full node running but no one has given me an answer yet... It looks like your router is automatically forwarding the port , or the port is already open .