Topic: [ANN] microCoin MRC - alcurEX - Scrypt-Jane - nFactor - page 35. (Read 374705 times)
This coin is fucked. Everything I sent to Poloniex yesterday hasn't shown up and everything I sent to MintPal today hasn't shown up even though there has been many many confirms on the network. Since it is happening at both exchanges I assume something with the coin.
so can you push the fix?
Down to 47 miners now.
And the block find rate is through the floor due to the high diff. This will be the death of the coin unless it's fixed rapidly (like in 100 blocks) as no-one will want to mine it back down. Block find rates are down from 2-3 per minutes to 1 every 2-3 minutes.
I'm actually amazed/shocked that the fork was scheduled for a time when there's were no devs about. Madness. If it were my coin, i would be glued to the explorers watching what happened!
Down to 47 miners now.
And the block find rate is through the floor due to the high diff. This will be the death of the coin unless it's fixed rapidly (like in 100 blocks) as no-one will want to mine it back down. Block find rates are down from 2-3 per minutes to 1 every 2-3 minutes.
I'm actually amazed/shocked that the fork was scheduled for a time when there's were no devs about. Madness. If it were my coin, i would be glued to the explorers watching what happened!
Believe me, it is the exactly my thought right now. If it were my coin, I could do it better or at least, gave attention to it at its important moments. Same as you raise a child, you surely want to watch the first time the child talks, when the kid goes to the kindergarten, watch him/hers ride the bike, etc...
But in positive viewing, halibit@ is showing his responsibility and we must thank him for this. Other than that the coin was dead long long ago.
Let do it together this time and do it quick. I also agree with Nutnut@, we should do the fork as soon as possible. We need to pick early block number to apply the new patch (316,000 or less), and ask for more supporters using their rigs to go pass this "calming down/killing off" period fast.
@Del137, thank you for your support.
I will mine untill wallet will be fixed.
so can you push the fix?
Down to 47 miners now.
And the block find rate is through the floor due to the high diff. This will be the death of the coin unless it's fixed rapidly (like in 100 blocks) as no-one will want to mine it back down. Block find rates are down from 2-3 per minutes to 1 every 2-3 minutes.
I'm actually amazed/shocked that the fork was scheduled for a time when there's were no devs about. Madness. If it were my coin, i would be glued to the explorers watching what happened!
Down to 47 miners now.
And the block find rate is through the floor due to the high diff. This will be the death of the coin unless it's fixed rapidly (like in 100 blocks) as no-one will want to mine it back down. Block find rates are down from 2-3 per minutes to 1 every 2-3 minutes.
I'm actually amazed/shocked that the fork was scheduled for a time when there's were no devs about. Madness. If it were my coin, i would be glued to the explorers watching what happened!
We need new fix I think.
I don't get how block size can be 0.01 with this code?
I don't get how block size can be 0.01 with this code?
Code:
{
if (nHeight <= 315000) nSubsidy = (310000 - ((nHeight - 310000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
if (nHeight > 315000) nSubsidy = (3100 - ((nHeight * 0.01) -310000)) - 300000; //Blockreward fixed decreasing 0.01 steps
if (nSubsidy <= 1000) nSubsidy = 1000; // Rest of blocks are 1000 coins. Then network working forever with stake blocks.
}The code is wrong again.
I was the first one found the bug, PMed MCR and halibit, posted here the correct code, but no one wanted to hear me.
I will post here the correct code again. Let review it together, and hope this time you make it correct.
Quote
else if (nHeight >= 310000 && nHeight <= 315000) // 310,000 block rewards, decreasing 0.01 on every block
{
nSubsidy = (310000 - ((nHeight - 310000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
}
else if (nHeight <= 320000) // 0.01 block rewards (wrong logic as coin spec, but we need to keep it because it's already happened)
{
nSubsidy = (3100 - ((nHeight * 0.01) - 310000)) - 300000;
}
else
{
nSubsidy = (10000 - ((nHeight - 320000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
if (nSubsidy <= 1000 * COIN) nSubsidy = 1000 * COIN; // Rest of blocks are 1000 coins. Then network working forever with stake blocks.
}
{
nSubsidy = (310000 - ((nHeight - 310000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
}
else if (nHeight <= 320000) // 0.01 block rewards (wrong logic as coin spec, but we need to keep it because it's already happened)
{
nSubsidy = (3100 - ((nHeight * 0.01) - 310000)) - 300000;
}
else
{
nSubsidy = (10000 - ((nHeight - 320000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
if (nSubsidy <= 1000 * COIN) nSubsidy = 1000 * COIN; // Rest of blocks are 1000 coins. Then network working forever with stake blocks.
}
Again, we need to pick another block number to apply this patch. Say it 320,000. New logic will be:
- Before block 310,000: Same
- Block 310,001 - 315,000: Block rewards from 310,000, reducing 0.01 each block (already happened)
- Block 315,001 - 320,000: Block rewards = 0.01 (happening - current block at the time of writing is 315143)
- Block 320,001+: Block rewards from 10,000, reducing 0.01 each block. And it will stop reducing at 1,000. (will happen at Block 1220001)
This new scheme we have 5000 blocks of 0.01 rewards, we can call it "calming down" period
Yes I forgot that from calculation.
Good we have reason for that 0.01, so it will be easy fix.
... and for 1000 block reward too.
Is it safe to move coins with this wallet?
I would say yes for now but always check back here just before you do. I expect Halibit/MCR will announce the block number for the fork.
Is it safe to move coins with this wallet?
This new scheme we have 5000 blocks of 0.01 rewards, we can call it "Killing off" period
Fixed that for you...
We can't have 5k blocks at the current reward, miners will disappear and you will never hit block 320k.
There are a handful of pools, i'm sure the ops can all be contacted to apply the fix at block 316000.
Hehe, agree with you
. We do not need such long period of 5000 blocks. I mentioned a number just to show the logic and put in the code, it is not necessary be 320,000. Btw, less than 1000 blocks more to fix all the nodes might be a little bit too difficult, I don't know. Let MCR and/or halibit decides the number then.Agreed...
Halibit, MCR.... anyone....
This new scheme we have 5000 blocks of 0.01 rewards, we can call it "Killing off" period
Fixed that for you...
We can't have 5k blocks at the current reward, miners will disappear and you will never hit block 320k.
There are a handful of pools, i'm sure the ops can all be contacted to apply the fix at block 316000.
Hehe, agree with you
. We do not need such long period of 5000 blocks. I mentioned a number just to show the logic and put in the code, it is not necessary to be 320,000. Btw, having less than 1000 blocks (~8 hours) more to fix all the nodes might be a difficult task, I don't know.Let MCR and/or halibit decides the block number then, hope we can do it correct this time
We need new fix I think.
I don't get how block size can be 0.01 with this code?
I don't get how block size can be 0.01 with this code?
Code:
{
if (nHeight <= 315000) nSubsidy = (310000 - ((nHeight - 310000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
if (nHeight > 315000) nSubsidy = (3100 - ((nHeight * 0.01) -310000)) - 300000; //Blockreward fixed decreasing 0.01 steps
if (nSubsidy <= 1000) nSubsidy = 1000; // Rest of blocks are 1000 coins. Then network working forever with stake blocks.
}The code is wrong again.
I was the first one found the bug, PMed MCR and halibit, posted here the correct code, but no one wanted to hear me.
I will post here the correct code again. Let review it together, and hope this time you make it correct.
Quote
else if (nHeight >= 310000 && nHeight <= 315000) // 310,000 block rewards, decreasing 0.01 on every block
{
nSubsidy = (310000 - ((nHeight - 310000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
}
else if (nHeight <= 320000) // 0.01 block rewards (wrong logic as coin spec, but we need to keep it because it's already happened)
{
nSubsidy = (3100 - ((nHeight * 0.01) - 310000)) - 300000;
}
else
{
nSubsidy = (10000 - ((nHeight - 320000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
if (nSubsidy <= 1000 * COIN) nSubsidy = 1000 * COIN; // Rest of blocks are 1000 coins. Then network working forever with stake blocks.
}
{
nSubsidy = (310000 - ((nHeight - 310000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
}
else if (nHeight <= 320000) // 0.01 block rewards (wrong logic as coin spec, but we need to keep it because it's already happened)
{
nSubsidy = (3100 - ((nHeight * 0.01) - 310000)) - 300000;
}
else
{
nSubsidy = (10000 - ((nHeight - 320000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
if (nSubsidy <= 1000 * COIN) nSubsidy = 1000 * COIN; // Rest of blocks are 1000 coins. Then network working forever with stake blocks.
}
Again, we need to pick another block number to apply this patch. Say it 320,000. New logic will be:
- Before block 310,000: Same
- Block 310,001 - 315,000: Block rewards from 310,000, reducing 0.01 each block (already happened)
- Block 315,001 - 320,000: Block rewards = 0.01 (happening - current block at the time of writing is 315143)
- Block 320,001+: Block rewards from 10,000, reducing 0.01 each block. And it will stop reducing at 1,000. (will happen at Block 1220001)
This new scheme we have 5000 blocks of 0.01 rewards, we can call it "calming down" period
+1
That make sense.
hilibit push code without any test,poor coding,it's a horrible thing.
Never again.
We need new fix I think.
I don't get how block size can be 0.01 with this code?
I don't get how block size can be 0.01 with this code?
Code:
{
if (nHeight <= 315000) nSubsidy = (310000 - ((nHeight - 310000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
if (nHeight > 315000) nSubsidy = (3100 - ((nHeight * 0.01) -310000)) - 300000; //Blockreward fixed decreasing 0.01 steps
if (nSubsidy <= 1000) nSubsidy = 1000; // Rest of blocks are 1000 coins. Then network working forever with stake blocks.
}The code is wrong again.
I was the first one found the bug, PMed MCR and halibit, posted here the correct code, but no one wanted to hear me.
I will post here my correct code again. Hopefully this time you make it correct.
Quote
else if (nHeight >= 310000 && nHeight <= 315000) // 310,000 block rewards, decreasing 0.01 on every block
{
nSubsidy = (310000 - ((nHeight - 310000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
}
else if (nHeight <= 320000) // 0.01 block rewards (Wrong logic, but need to keep since it already happened)
{
nSubsidy = (3100 - ((nHeight * 0.01) - 310000)) - 300000;
}
else
{
nSubsidy = (10000 - ((nHeight - 320000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
if (nSubsidy <= 1000 * COIN) nSubsidy = 1000 * COIN; // Rest of blocks are 1000 coins. Then network working forever with stake blocks.
}
{
nSubsidy = (310000 - ((nHeight - 310000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
}
else if (nHeight <= 320000) // 0.01 block rewards (Wrong logic, but need to keep since it already happened)
{
nSubsidy = (3100 - ((nHeight * 0.01) - 310000)) - 300000;
}
else
{
nSubsidy = (10000 - ((nHeight - 320000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
if (nSubsidy <= 1000 * COIN) nSubsidy = 1000 * COIN; // Rest of blocks are 1000 coins. Then network working forever with stake blocks.
}
Again, we need to pick another block number to apply this patch. Say it 320,000. New logic will be:
- - Before block 310,000: Same
- - Block 310,001 - 315,000: Block rewards from 310,000, reducing 0.01 each block (already happened)
- - Block 315,001 - 320,000: Block rewards = 0.01 (happening - current block at the time of writing is 315143)
- - Block 320,001+: Block rewards from 10,000, reducing 0.01 each block. And it will stop reducing at 1,000. (will happen at Block 1220001)
This new scheme we have 5000 blocks of 0.01 rewards, we can call it "Killing off" period
Fixed that for you...
We can't have 5k blocks at the current reward, miners will disappear and you will never hit block 320k.
There are a handful of pools, i'm sure the ops can all be contacted to apply the fix at block 316000.
Further explaination:
The reason why the fork does not work as expected is because MCR forget to multiply the amount with COIN (= 1 mil). So the value of block rewards, instead of being 10,000, will be 10,000 / 1,000,000 = 0.01.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/microcoinsource/microcoin/master/src/util.h
The reason why the fork does not work as expected is because MCR forget to multiply the amount with COIN (= 1 mil). So the value of block rewards, instead of being 10,000, will be 10,000 / 1,000,000 = 0.01.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/microcoinsource/microcoin/master/src/util.h
Quote
static const int64 COIN = 1000000;
We need new fix I think.
I don't get how block size can be 0.01 with this code?
I don't get how block size can be 0.01 with this code?
Code:
{
if (nHeight <= 315000) nSubsidy = (310000 - ((nHeight - 310000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
if (nHeight > 315000) nSubsidy = (3100 - ((nHeight * 0.01) -310000)) - 300000; //Blockreward fixed decreasing 0.01 steps
if (nSubsidy <= 1000) nSubsidy = 1000; // Rest of blocks are 1000 coins. Then network working forever with stake blocks.
}The code is wrong again.
I was the first one found the bug, PMed MCR and halibit, posted here the correct code, but no one wanted to hear me.
I will post here the correct code again. Let review it together, and hope this time you make it correct.
Quote
else if (nHeight >= 310000 && nHeight <= 315000) // 310,000 block rewards, decreasing 0.01 on every block
{
nSubsidy = (310000 - ((nHeight - 310000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
}
else if (nHeight <= 320000) // 0.01 block rewards (wrong logic as coin spec, but we need to keep it because it's already happened)
{
nSubsidy = (3100 - ((nHeight * 0.01) - 310000)) - 300000;
}
else
{
nSubsidy = (10000 - ((nHeight - 320000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
if (nSubsidy <= 1000 * COIN) nSubsidy = 1000 * COIN; // Rest of blocks are 1000 coins. Then network working forever with stake blocks.
}
{
nSubsidy = (310000 - ((nHeight - 310000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
}
else if (nHeight <= 320000) // 0.01 block rewards (wrong logic as coin spec, but we need to keep it because it's already happened)
{
nSubsidy = (3100 - ((nHeight * 0.01) - 310000)) - 300000;
}
else
{
nSubsidy = (10000 - ((nHeight - 320000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
if (nSubsidy <= 1000 * COIN) nSubsidy = 1000 * COIN; // Rest of blocks are 1000 coins. Then network working forever with stake blocks.
}
Again, we need to pick another block number to apply this patch. Say it 320,000. New logic will be:
- Before block 310,000: Same
- Block 310,001 - 315,000: Block rewards from 310,000, reducing 0.01 each block (already happened)
- Block 315,001 - 320,000: Block rewards = 0.01 (happening - current block at the time of writing is 315143)
- Block 320,001+: Block rewards from 10,000, reducing 0.01 each block. And it will stop reducing at 1,000. (will happen at Block 1220001)
This new scheme we have 5000 blocks of 0.01 rewards, we can call it "calming down" period
The reward value equils nSubsidy/COIN in the end.
if (nHeight <= 315000) nSubsidy = (310000 - ((nHeight - 310000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
if(nHeight > 315000) nSubsidy = ((3100 - ((nHeight * 0.01) -310000)) - 300000) * COIN; //Blockreward fixed decreasing 0.01 steps
if (nSubsidy <= 1000) nSubsidy = 1000 * COIN; // Rest of blocks are 1000 coins. Then network working forever with stake blocks.
this is the right code.
OR:
if (nHeight <= 315000) nSubsidy = (310000 - ((nHeight - 310000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
if(nHeight > 315000) nSubsidy = (13100-nHeight * 0.01) * COIN; //Blockreward fixed decreasing 0.01 steps
if (nSubsidy <= 1000) nSubsidy = 1000 * COIN; // Rest of blocks are 1000 coins. Then network working forever with stake blocks.
if(nHeight > 315000) nSubsidy = ((3100 - ((nHeight * 0.01) -310000)) - 300000) * COIN; //Blockreward fixed decreasing 0.01 steps
if (nSubsidy <= 1000) nSubsidy = 1000 * COIN; // Rest of blocks are 1000 coins. Then network working forever with stake blocks.
this is the right code.
OR:
if (nHeight <= 315000) nSubsidy = (310000 - ((nHeight - 310000) * 0.01)) * COIN;
if(nHeight > 315000) nSubsidy = (13100-nHeight * 0.01) * COIN; //Blockreward fixed decreasing 0.01 steps
if (nSubsidy <= 1000) nSubsidy = 1000 * COIN; // Rest of blocks are 1000 coins. Then network working forever with stake blocks.
Let's wait for the dev, he is at school now, gettin' another "F" on math 
Then his father beats him, and after that he will "FIX" that again. I think reward 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is fine.
Because this is so good for coin, lots of errors make it strong and good looking for investors.
How about if we let blockreward to 0.01, then we have nice lot .Then his father beats him, and after that he will "FIX" that again. I think reward 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is fine.
Because this is so good for coin, lots of errors make it strong and good looking for investors.
Just kidding
Sure block reward need to fix as it was planned to be.
Actually I need to tell, this one was my bad. I calculate the code fix.
Don't kill me
If it can't be properly fixed very soon i recommend setting the block value to a static 9 or 10k just to get mining running again. We can then fix the code properly at our/your leisure.
Nut
Let's wait for the dev, he is at school now, gettin' another "F" on math
Then his father beats him, and after that he will "FIX" that again. I think reward 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is fine.
Because this is so good for coin, lots of errors make it strong and good looking for investors.
How about if we let blockreward to 0.01, then we have nice lot .Then his father beats him, and after that he will "FIX" that again. I think reward 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is fine.
Because this is so good for coin, lots of errors make it strong and good looking for investors.
Just kidding
Sure block reward need to fix as it was planned to be.
Actually I need to tell, this one was my bad. I calculate the code fix.
Don't kill me
I'll take a quick look. What is the COIN value?
Let's wait for the dev, he is at school now, gettin' another "F" on math
Then his father beats him, and after that he will "FIX" that again. I think reward 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is fine.
Because this is so good for coin, lots of errors make it strong and good looking for investors.
How about if we let blockreward to 0.01, then we have nice lot .Then his father beats him, and after that he will "FIX" that again. I think reward 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is fine.
Because this is so good for coin, lots of errors make it strong and good looking for investors.
Just kidding
Sure block reward need to fix as it was planned to be.
Actually I need to tell, this one was my bad. I calculate the code fix.
Don't kill me
Let's wait for the dev, he is at school now, gettin' another "F" on math
Then his father beats him, and after that he will "FIX" that again. I think reward 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is fine.
Because this is so good for coin, lots of errors make it strong and good looking for investors.
Then his father beats him, and after that he will "FIX" that again. I think reward 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is fine.
Because this is so good for coin, lots of errors make it strong and good looking for investors.
Chaging correct block reward, It will be same kind of "hard fork" as this one was.
Wallets can use normally.
edit. I test transfer old blocks with new wallet and it's working normally. But don't use old wallet for transfers.
Wallets can use normally.
edit. I test transfer old blocks with new wallet and it's working normally. But don't use old wallet for transfers.
Jump to: