Topic: [ANN] [MINT] Mintcoin (POS / 5%) [NO ICO] [Fair distro, community maintained] - page 501. (Read 1369778 times)

That would be nice.

you need to buy the latest scrypt asics

Alty a solid member and supporter of this great community. It is you and others like you that are helping this to get where it is going. Also I agree with you the more miners we get on there. The better. You Minters know what to do

I have a nettop (Mintbox 2). No way I cestroy my nettop for poor performance mining.

Is it possible to plug a graphic card as an external device, much like we do for external hard drive?

Thanks

Well, actually I had already completed the fix and submitted it to devs when I read your message. The bug was reported on Mar 17th, and I started tracking it on 18th. About bounties, I really don't know, I'm just a supporter when I notice a bug that I can fix, I try to fix it and send a patch to devs

To be fair, this was the message that led me to investigate the bug:


Probably other PoS coins suffer from closely-related bugs but not exactly the same. The whole altcoin scene is forks from each other, and each fork starts developing/patching itself independently and drifting away from each other. So well, when the patch enters github, PoS altcoin devs can check the diff and apply it to their own codebase if they're affected.

With the latest Cryptorush / BC issue, I learned that PoS coins are known to have problems with "getbalance accountname" calls, and those calls should not be trusted on exchanges/services, although BC did not have this issue until their wallet update / blockchain fork. I don't know about the other coins actually, with so many forks out there, it's very hard to keep track of who fixes what. I just get irritated when I notice a bug in the wallet, and try to fix what I have in front of me.



It is probably same bug that caused cryptorush's problems, but they did not have it on previous versions as I read on IRC logs. I don't know why. Codebases drift from each other.

Wallet's total balance, shown in UI and also in "getbalance" call without parameters is always correct (MINT and BC and other coins). But wallet contains an accounting facility (giving account names to receiving addresses), and then it can report each account balance individually. It can send funds from a specific account or move funds between accounts in the same wallet. As long as the totals sum up to wallet's balance, an account might have negative balance and another account positive balance. The problem was related with that accounting facility -- cryptorush trusted that accounts would work, and used a single wallet's accounting features instead of a database, when in fact the system didn't work properly (in their case after the update/fork). The total wallet balance was always correct, but when individual accounts within the wallet is queried, they didn't sum up (or have the funds moved between each other).

In MINT case, the total wallet balance was and is always correct, but when individual accounts are queried, totals don't sum up if minting is involved. Now to the point; although the patch makes the "getbalance accountname", "getbalance *", "listaccounts" commands consistent with each other and total wallet balance ("getbalance") ; if you're planning on starting a financial service, don't trust wallet's account balances features but only the total balance of the wallet. This holds for all coins (maybe except for bitcoin as it has enough development power and always leads the fixes/updates/features). When I was trying to fix the bug, I saw that per-account functionality is implemented a little crappy (at least in the coin MINT forked from, which in turn forked from another coin, which in turn forked from another coin, .., which in turn forked (and added PoS features) from an older version of bitcoin). "getbalance" by itself can be trusted. "getbalance xxx" or others should be used informationally (or with testing throughly first), those are not production-quality code.

I just bought a R9 290 that i will dedicate to this once i recieve it

had a 20000 satoshi wet dream tonight 

How long has this pool been up, and how often are payouts?

I will be pointing 3.3 mh/s to hashcows later today....

We need strength in numbers

Oh im sorry I didnt realize hashcows already started the project, we really need to hype the hashrate on this pool. Im guessing the payouts are grim but it is far and away the best thing you can do to help pump the price. Point your miners to the pool.

Anyone working on a multipool for this? To me this is the best candidate right now since POW has already ended. If we wait around too long some other coin may take the number 2 spot behind BC for multipooling, do you guys want to let that happen?

Even easier demonstration: investing in just-dice.com will give you that much interest rate. Investing in doge-dice.com wille give you even more (but this will come with the risk of losing money because of falling dogecoin price).

Of course, if you expect mintcoin to get a continous rise, this is different story.

we need more technical backing like multipools, and of course mostly important are environment conservation projects.

I think MINT has passed it's critical phase and now the dumpers and the sell walls are thinning out.

Looking very encouraging for the longer term.

be patient. Rome was not built overnight.

It's time to pump up mint!

Yes it seems like it is since i got some from that address too

Got some mint coins overnight and the QT client says "from: Unknown". Looking at the txid I found the address MZkUwunMh81DaYkArRwahYoaGrBSANdTDH. I this Hashcows'?

Ha ha  If the price was 520 satoshi I would still not be rich  Of course the future price will depend on the demand as well as the supply.  My point is that if a person just glances over the announcement post, they might overestimate the amount of coins that will exist a year from now.  After all, 20 billion coins at 20% compound interest would make the total number of Mintcoins 24.4 billion a year from now.  That's a 12% larger supply than my upper limit estimate.

My understanding is it had to do with the hard fork. Mint has had no such issues as far as I know.

http://www.blackcoin.co/wallet-2/official-statement-regarding-blockchain-problems-23rd-of-march/