[ANN] [MINT] Mintcoin (POS / 5%) [NO ICO] [Fair distro, community maintained] - page 189.

Derek492

sr. member

Activity: 356

Merit: 250

Quote from: cryptomommy on December 21, 2014, 10:08:47 AM

New wallet released - now back to the website overhaul. What would you like to see in the redesign?

We are looking to clean up the Mintcoin website - Please let us know if you have any suggestions on the redesign, structure or contents?

Also Keep a look out for our podcast coming out later today for information on the wallet upgrade as well as our teams progression.

Can you please change the file description of the wallet download to 1.14.0 on the website? New people will ever be confused when they go to download the wallet from Dropbox for example and it shows version 1.12.0 at the top above and version 1.4.0 below it they are going to think 1.12 is the latest version and be like wtf once they don't mint anything.

cryptomommy

sr. member

Activity: 425

Merit: 250

New wallet released - now back to the website overhaul. What would you like to see in the redesign?

We are looking to clean up the Mintcoin website - Please let us know if you have any suggestions on the redesign, structure or contents?

Also Keep a look out for our podcast coming out later today for information on the wallet upgrade as well as our teams progression.

dragonseer

hero member

Activity: 611

Merit: 500

Anglo Saxon Crypto Enthusiast

That helps explains things a bit. Redownloading the blockchain now, oldest block is at 312 days, so that's not too far off.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: RoboGuy on December 20, 2014, 11:25:53 AM

Quote from: Rent_a_Ray on December 20, 2014, 09:01:25 AM

That's wrong.

Quote from: bee7

GetLastBlockIndex(pindexBest, false) returns the pindex of the last PoW block, not of the last PoS block. Thus, the emission would be linear over time, not declining with time as it claimed to be in the coin specs.

Mintcoin was advertised as 20% for the first year. While GetLastBlockIndex was returning the index of the last PoS block it was still 20%. The only problem was when the wallets tried to transition to 15%. The minting code was still trying to do 20% and the verification code was expecting 15%.
There was also an off by one, as you said. The generation needed an Index+1 to get it into the 15% range.
Again there were never two chains so no fork.

Semantics over fork or not , could be said the following ways,
Mintcoin was technically stuck at the fork and unable to continue on by choosing 20% or 15%
(Stuck at the beginning of a possible fork).
Because technically you were forking from 20% to 15% in your chain.
But for those that don't agreed with frozen at a fork you could also say stuck at the crossroads.

Even other terms could be used , Crashed, Frozen , or Dead in the Water.
Ray provided the info that helped you code a fix, basically choose a path for the chain to continue on instead of being stuck.

Cool

pork pie

member

Activity: 65

Merit: 10

Quote from: rokkyroad on December 20, 2014, 06:15:47 PM

I have no problem with the reduction to 15%. Only because the last thing we need right now is excessive inflation.

Lets face it. Altcoins are not doing so hot. I'll be happy if Mint survives this holocaust let alone worry about the reduction.

I did not believe it could fall below 5 sats earlier this year, now I too am merely glad it's still surviving after so many other coins have bitten the dust. I say do whatever it takes to keep it around.

rokkyroad

legendary

Activity: 1090

Merit: 1000

I have no problem with the reduction to 15%. Only because the last thing we need right now is excessive inflation.

Lets face it. Altcoins are not doing so hot. I'll be happy if Mint survives this holocaust let alone worry about the reduction.

Rent_a_Ray

legendary

Activity: 1318

Merit: 1036

Quote from: RoboGuy on December 20, 2014, 11:25:53 AM

Quote from: Rent_a_Ray on December 20, 2014, 09:01:25 AM

That's wrong.

Quote from: bee7

GetLastBlockIndex(pindexBest, false) returns the pindex of the last PoW block, not of the last PoS block. Thus, the emission would be linear over time, not declining with time as it claimed to be in the coin specs.

Mintcoin was advertised as 20% for the first year. While GetLastBlockIndex was returning the index of the last PoS block it was still 20%. The only problem was when the wallets tried to transition to 15%. The minting code was still trying to do 20% and the verification code was expecting 15%.
There was also an off by one, as you said. The generation needed an Index+1 to get it into the 15% range.
Again there were never two chains so no fork.

Technically u are right, but situation is similar.
What is better? A fork or a fallout? Wink

Cheers,
Ray

The Fact is, that kiklo tried to contact you on 10-11-1014 regarding to that issue.

Flyskyhigh

sr. member

Activity: 291

Merit: 250

Ezekiel 34:11, John 10:25-30

Quote from: fonzerrellie on December 20, 2014, 03:09:54 PM

I get that the early change to 15% seems normal to coders/programmers but to investors I can deff see why they'd have a legitimate reasons to be upset... most people/investors think/plan in time not blocks passed and could feel like they've been wronged since they were told a year and were planning for a year. If the change happens early they will be "butt hurt" about it and could cause a bunch of distrust and dumping. they'll just see it as losing out on 5% for 3 months.

just my thoughts about it

was just looking at my transactions, my first deposit of mint was on 2/21/2014 Wink

On the other-hand it could also cause pumping, as now the coin is less inflationary. So it is a two sided coin.

fonzerrellie

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

Kaspa

I get that the early change to 15% seems normal to coders/programmers but to investors I can deff see why they'd have a legitimate reasons to be upset... most people/investors think/plan in time not blocks passed and could feel like they've been wronged since they were told a year and were planning for a year. If the change happens early they will be "butt hurt" about it and could cause a bunch of distrust and dumping. they'll just see it as losing out on 5% for 3 months.

just my thoughts about it

was just looking at my transactions, my first deposit of mint was on 2/21/2014 Wink

Flyskyhigh

sr. member

Activity: 291

Merit: 250

Ezekiel 34:11, John 10:25-30

Hey guys, I am re-downloading everything from scratch and am about 45% done syncing. But I just had some questions, looking at my Mintcoin folder, what do the db.log and debug.log files do? Also what is the database folder and txleveldb folder for? What is the purpose of these files? Screenshot below. Thanks!

rokkyroad

legendary

Activity: 1090

Merit: 1000

Updated the buntu 64 bit wallet. Flashed it up. Synced up nicely. All seems normal. Glad I did not have to download blockchain again.

That was a fast fix! Thanks.

RoboGuy

newbie

Activity: 7

Merit: 0

Quote from: Rent_a_Ray on December 20, 2014, 09:01:25 AM

That's wrong.

Quote from: bee7

GetLastBlockIndex(pindexBest, false) returns the pindex of the last PoW block, not of the last PoS block. Thus, the emission would be linear over time, not declining with time as it claimed to be in the coin specs.

Mintcoin was advertised as 20% for the first year. While GetLastBlockIndex was returning the index of the last PoS block it was still 20%. The only problem was when the wallets tried to transition to 15%. The minting code was still trying to do 20% and the verification code was expecting 15%.
There was also an off by one, as you said. The generation needed an Index+1 to get it into the 15% range.
Again there were never two chains so no fork.

Rent_a_Ray

legendary

Activity: 1318

Merit: 1036

That's wrong.

Quote from: bee7

GetLastBlockIndex(pindexBest, false) returns the pindex of the last PoW block, not of the last PoS block. Thus, the emission would be linear over time, not declining with time as it claimed to be in the coin specs.

cryptomommy

sr. member

Activity: 425

Merit: 250

Quote from: dragonseer on December 20, 2014, 04:37:43 AM

I'm not sure.. If time isn't the factor that affects when the rate drops then a rush on the coin may see it happen faster, that's why I'm looking for clarification and vague answers that talk about 'demand' and 'difficulty' don't make it clear at all. Do more miners make it mature faster?? If so then that's not what I thought Mintcoin was.

Dragon Seer -
From my understanding between talking with the developer and other programmers the reason why the wallet went to PoS early is because the estimated blocks per year was lower then the actual blocks generated within a full year time period.

That variable will be "off" against the human year as there are variables which nobody can control - ie how many people have their wallets open for minting, how often and how many transactions need to be processed through the PoS validation.

If I am misunderstanding something or you would like to discuss in a real conversation we would love to invite you to our next hangout?

Rent_a_Ray

legendary

Activity: 1318

Merit: 1036

Quote from: Derek492 on December 19, 2014, 06:25:19 PM

I think technically its not a fork. Since there is still only 1 chain... Right?

That's technically right. I don't know how we should call it

Maybe Sork?

Cheers,
Ray

dragonseer

hero member

Activity: 611

Merit: 500

Anglo Saxon Crypto Enthusiast

Quote from: Derek492 on December 20, 2014, 03:39:26 AM

Quote from: dragonseer on December 19, 2014, 11:57:00 PM

Quote from: cryptomommy on December 19, 2014, 11:23:14 AM

Quote from: dragonseer on December 19, 2014, 11:08:38 AM

It's good that the coin is running again but I'll hold off on updating for now. If the rate has dropped prematurely it's a bit hard to explain the vision for this coin to anyone interested in the concept down the line. I rather it isn't altered for the sake of a quick fix.

It is not altered in the calculations - we simply fixed the bug that was preventing the coin from moving onto the next phase. The 15% phase is a little earlier than participated from the programmers 1 year timeline; however is on time per the overall minting mathematical calculations.

Much like Bitcoin increasing in difficulty based on demand - Mintcoin is increasing in difficulty based on demand.

As a community we should take pride that Mintcoin has reached the annual goal of blocks created early and celebrate the next milestone in our history.

I see what you're saying but I think it is a trust issue. Investors buying mintcoin expect that the 'forecast' for the rate drops would be on a yearly schedule. My understanding is that this 'bug' as you put it can only be addressed via a hard fork, thus the update is mandatory. If the coin is forked now it should be stated plainly and the forecast for further rate drops should be revised.

EDIT: It would be nice to see David Latapie weigh in on this as well. My concern is that there are quite a few investors that don't check this thread or even open up their wallets every other day and this could be seen as creating another coin outside the scope of the original intention for this coin.

This is all still somewhat of an experiment. Part of the risk of it. Basically what we know now is the coin's reward drops by 5% every 9 months instead of 12. So we will be at a 5% reward a whole year earlier... In year 3 instead of year 4.

I'm not sure.. If time isn't the factor that affects when the rate drops then a rush on the coin may see it happen faster, that's why I'm looking for clarification and vague answers that talk about 'demand' and 'difficulty' don't make it clear at all. Do more miners make it mature faster?? If so then that's not what I thought Mintcoin was.

Derek492

sr. member

Activity: 356

Merit: 250

Quote from: dragonseer on December 19, 2014, 11:57:00 PM

Quote from: cryptomommy on December 19, 2014, 11:23:14 AM

Quote from: dragonseer on December 19, 2014, 11:08:38 AM

It's good that the coin is running again but I'll hold off on updating for now. If the rate has dropped prematurely it's a bit hard to explain the vision for this coin to anyone interested in the concept down the line. I rather it isn't altered for the sake of a quick fix.

It is not altered in the calculations - we simply fixed the bug that was preventing the coin from moving onto the next phase. The 15% phase is a little earlier than participated from the programmers 1 year timeline; however is on time per the overall minting mathematical calculations.

Much like Bitcoin increasing in difficulty based on demand - Mintcoin is increasing in difficulty based on demand.

As a community we should take pride that Mintcoin has reached the annual goal of blocks created early and celebrate the next milestone in our history.

I see what you're saying but I think it is a trust issue. Investors buying mintcoin expect that the 'forecast' for the rate drops would be on a yearly schedule. My understanding is that this 'bug' as you put it can only be addressed via a hard fork, thus the update is mandatory. If the coin is forked now it should be stated plainly and the forecast for further rate drops should be revised.

EDIT: It would be nice to see David Latapie weigh in on this as well. My concern is that there are quite a few investors that don't check this thread or even open up their wallets every other day and this could be seen as creating another coin outside the scope of the original intention for this coin.

This is all still somewhat of an experiment. Part of the risk of it. Basically what we know now is the coin's reward drops by 5% every 9 months instead of 12. So we will be at a 5% reward a whole year earlier... In year 3 instead of year 4.

dragonseer

hero member

Activity: 611

Merit: 500

Anglo Saxon Crypto Enthusiast

Quote from: cryptomommy on December 19, 2014, 11:23:14 AM

Quote from: dragonseer on December 19, 2014, 11:08:38 AM

It's good that the coin is running again but I'll hold off on updating for now. If the rate has dropped prematurely it's a bit hard to explain the vision for this coin to anyone interested in the concept down the line. I rather it isn't altered for the sake of a quick fix.

It is not altered in the calculations - we simply fixed the bug that was preventing the coin from moving onto the next phase. The 15% phase is a little earlier than participated from the programmers 1 year timeline; however is on time per the overall minting mathematical calculations.

Much like Bitcoin increasing in difficulty based on demand - Mintcoin is increasing in difficulty based on demand.

As a community we should take pride that Mintcoin has reached the annual goal of blocks created early and celebrate the next milestone in our history.

I see what you're saying but I think it is a trust issue. Investors buying mintcoin expect that the 'forecast' for the rate drops would be on a yearly schedule. My understanding is that this 'bug' as you put it can only be addressed via a hard fork, thus the update is mandatory. If the coin is forked now it should be stated plainly and the forecast for further rate drops should be revised.

EDIT: It would be nice to see David Latapie weigh in on this as well. My concern is that there are quite a few investors that don't check this thread or even open up their wallets every other day and this could be seen as creating another coin outside the scope of the original intention for this coin.

cryptomommy

sr. member

Activity: 425

Merit: 250

Received confirmation - the bootstrap file hosted on google drive works!

Will try to update in the am - also have linux and Ubuntu versions ready for upload - will handle tomorrow as well

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Anyone that was on the last wallet Roboguy made should not have to redownload their blockchain.
Only update the wallet to ver 1.14 .

Anyone that was on older versions of the wallet ver 1.10 or lower will have to resync their blockchain from scratch, (this is not due to the network crash, just because the last version before 1.14 required it.)

No one should stay on any version lower than ver 1.14 , you risk unforeseen problems.

Cool

FYI:
Future Reference : Give your Programmer access to upload on something where he can post links.
That should be corrected in case of future issues. Trello is crap, IMO .

Topic: [ANN] [MINT] Mintcoin (POS / 5%) [NO ICO] [Fair distro, community maintained] - page 189. (Read 1369778 times)