[ANN][SLR] SolarCoin | PoW to PoS v. 2.0 | Solar Proof of Generation (§1 = 1MWh) - page 205.

onsightit

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

truth=(true?true:false);

Quote from: solarcoiner on September 25, 2015, 11:14:56 PM

Quote from: onsightit on September 25, 2015, 11:00:53 PM

Quote from: solarcoiner on September 25, 2015, 10:45:35 PM

Quote from: onsightit on September 25, 2015, 10:20:11 PM

Quote from: solarcoiner on September 25, 2015, 10:17:21 PM

Let me start off by saying i'm happy things seem to be working now.
However I was under the impression that we had agreed on that Proof of Stake would start at block 340000.
I'm pretty sure I remember Steve saying he would go on a two day vacation before coming back to finally find out what went wrong with the last POST implementation.
I would have at least expected a little transparency, but instead POST is suddenly implemented, and the community doesn't even know why it really went wrong last time. To me it seems like we are rushing into something we know nothing about.
I completely agree with the fact that POS is the way to go for Solarcoin, but it's in all of our best interest to get it right! Hard forks are no joke, and it would be stupid if we had to do another one just because we didn't take the time to look at every aspect of this.

What was the scale scope and cause of this problem?
Why did POST magically take over at block 835000 while Steve was on vacation even though we had not reached consensus?
We're all in this for the long run, and we need more transparency !
Thank you

Hi SolarCoiner, you can read my explanation here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12522376

-Steve

So you accidentally had it switch to POST while you were gone , is that what you are saying?
I see a couple of problems here: who got rewarded with the first 120 blocks? you said it yourself, when less people are staking the rewards are bigger! Do you call that a fair launch? I would say no.
I'm still not sure the problem has fully been identified.
In addition to that I asked a few questions regarding security which were never answered.
And now you are trying to convince everyone to switch to 2.03 although there is absolutely no consensus.
Dont get me wrong I really appreciate all the hard work you have put into Solarcoin, but I really don't agree with the way things went down

Those that received interest in the first 120 blocks were those that were upgraded to 2.0.3 (which, everyone should have - I posted it before I left). There's really no issue whether we forked at 835000 or 840000. Everyone had the same notice to upgrade. I just neglected to make the change from 835000 to 840000. I sincerely apologize for that.

What were your questions regarding security? I'm here for the rest of the evening...

-Steve

Yes you did post that, however I had my Computer turned off (and I assume i'm not the only one) to save electricity since POST was scheduled to start later on....anyway i'm not going to complain because of a few 100 coins I could have gotten, that's not the point.
My questions regarding security were the following:

How secure is it to leave the client open at all times being connected to the internet? (especially for large holders)
Have you thought about implementing something along the lines of what NXT has done. They call it balance ''leasing'''
Basically you can ''lease'' your forging/staking power to another account effectively removing all the risk involved ( you don't need to have your main wallet online for staking...)

As long as your wallet is encrypted (and it has to be), leaving it open is as good as the security of ECDSA (http://www.encryptionanddecryption.com/algorithms/encryption_algorithms.html#ECDSA)

That said, there have been some altcoins that have fallen prey to trojan wallets downloaded from untrusted sources. That's a security risk that is only overcome by due diligence.

-Steve

y_virtual

sr. member

Activity: 377

Merit: 251

Note to self: it's not you doing it, it's us.

Question 1:
In the release which caused the current mess, what was the maximum possible number that the code could have generated as interest rate to calculate the interest reward?

y_virtual

sr. member

Activity: 377

Merit: 251

Note to self: it's not you doing it, it's us.

Quote from: onsightit on September 26, 2015, 12:03:04 AM

Everyone that has earned interest, can you specify whether your wallet balance was:

< 10,000
< 50,000 but > 10,000
< 100,000 but > 50,000
< 200,000 but > 100,000
< 300,000 but > 200,000
< 400,000 but > 300,000
< 500,000 but > 400,000
< 750,000 but > 500,000
< 1,000,000 but > 750,000
> 1,000,000

And, were your coins older than 30 days.

This will help me determine on how stake weights are being considered. You can PM me your answers, if you prefer.

I am most interested in the wallets under 1M coins.

-Steve

PS: Current PoST block height is 835238 bph: 4

Steve, can you PLEASE hold on for a moment, man!
I will tell you this now, as a miner from day one.
Current block height is 835912.
Believe me, you can NOT ignore ALL work that has been done for this project up to block 830000.
Now before you start asking questions, did you go through last 3-4 pages of posts full of questions? Are you prepared for the answers?

Here is my first quesion,

y_virtual

sr. member

Activity: 377

Merit: 251

Note to self: it's not you doing it, it's us.

Quote from: onsightit on September 25, 2015, 11:00:53 PM

Quote from: solarcoiner on September 25, 2015, 10:45:35 PM

Quote from: onsightit on September 25, 2015, 10:20:11 PM

Quote from: solarcoiner on September 25, 2015, 10:17:21 PM

Let me start off by saying i'm happy things seem to be working now.
However I was under the impression that we had agreed on that Proof of Stake would start at block 340000.
I'm pretty sure I remember Steve saying he would go on a two day vacation before coming back to finally find out what went wrong with the last POST implementation.
I would have at least expected a little transparency, but instead POST is suddenly implemented, and the community doesn't even know why it really went wrong last time. To me it seems like we are rushing into something we know nothing about.
I completely agree with the fact that POS is the way to go for Solarcoin, but it's in all of our best interest to get it right! Hard forks are no joke, and it would be stupid if we had to do another one just because we didn't take the time to look at every aspect of this.

What was the scale scope and cause of this problem?
Why did POST magically take over at block 835000 while Steve was on vacation even though we had not reached consensus?
We're all in this for the long run, and we need more transparency !
Thank you

Hi SolarCoiner, you can read my explanation here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12522376

-Steve

So you accidentally had it switch to POST while you were gone , is that what you are saying?
I see a couple of problems here: who got rewarded with the first 120 blocks? you said it yourself, when less people are staking the rewards are bigger! Do you call that a fair launch? I would say no.
I'm still not sure the problem has fully been identified.
In addition to that I asked a few questions regarding security which were never answered.
And now you are trying to convince everyone to switch to 2.03 although there is absolutely no consensus.
Dont get me wrong I really appreciate all the hard work you have put into Solarcoin, but I really don't agree with the way things went down

Those that received interest in the first 120 blocks were those that were upgraded to 2.0.3 (which, everyone should have - I posted it before I left). There's really no issue whether we forked at 835000 or 840000. Everyone had the same notice to upgrade. I just neglected to make the change from 835000 to 840000. I sincerely apologize for that.

What were your questions regarding security? I'm here for the rest of the evening...

-Steve

Steve, apology accepted, but that is not the point. The reasons YOU had for selecting 840000 was for you to have time to prepare for the transition - fixing the issues with the block explorer, synchronizing the transition with the mining pool(s), making sure the exchanges are on track, being ready to track the transition process.
Non of that happened!
By the way, I was the one to notify everyone here, including you, that staking started at 83500, and I was NOT feeling confident at all about the situation, seeing that no one is in control, when actually controlling/overlooking the complete process is all we had to do, together.
So mistakes are mistakes, everyone does them, we learn from them. Mistakes are here to be fixed instead of making us accept them and rush the process and thus compromise quality of the system we are building.

onsightit

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

truth=(true?true:false);

Everyone that has earned interest, can you specify whether your wallet balance was:

< 10,000
< 50,000 but > 10,000
< 100,000 but > 50,000
< 200,000 but > 100,000
< 300,000 but > 200,000
< 400,000 but > 300,000
< 500,000 but > 400,000
< 750,000 but > 500,000
< 1,000,000 but > 750,000
> 1,000,000

And, were your coins older than 30 days.

This will help me determine on how stake weights are being considered. You can PM me your answers, if you prefer.

I am most interested in the wallets under 1M coins.

-Steve

PS: Current PoST block height is 835238 bph: 4

solarcoiner

sr. member

Activity: 445

Merit: 250

Quote from: onsightit on September 25, 2015, 11:00:53 PM

Quote from: solarcoiner on September 25, 2015, 10:45:35 PM

Quote from: onsightit on September 25, 2015, 10:20:11 PM

Quote from: solarcoiner on September 25, 2015, 10:17:21 PM

Let me start off by saying i'm happy things seem to be working now.
However I was under the impression that we had agreed on that Proof of Stake would start at block 340000.
I'm pretty sure I remember Steve saying he would go on a two day vacation before coming back to finally find out what went wrong with the last POST implementation.
I would have at least expected a little transparency, but instead POST is suddenly implemented, and the community doesn't even know why it really went wrong last time. To me it seems like we are rushing into something we know nothing about.
I completely agree with the fact that POS is the way to go for Solarcoin, but it's in all of our best interest to get it right! Hard forks are no joke, and it would be stupid if we had to do another one just because we didn't take the time to look at every aspect of this.

What was the scale scope and cause of this problem?
Why did POST magically take over at block 835000 while Steve was on vacation even though we had not reached consensus?
We're all in this for the long run, and we need more transparency !
Thank you

Hi SolarCoiner, you can read my explanation here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12522376

-Steve

So you accidentally had it switch to POST while you were gone , is that what you are saying?
I see a couple of problems here: who got rewarded with the first 120 blocks? you said it yourself, when less people are staking the rewards are bigger! Do you call that a fair launch? I would say no.
I'm still not sure the problem has fully been identified.
In addition to that I asked a few questions regarding security which were never answered.
And now you are trying to convince everyone to switch to 2.03 although there is absolutely no consensus.
Dont get me wrong I really appreciate all the hard work you have put into Solarcoin, but I really don't agree with the way things went down

Those that received interest in the first 120 blocks were those that were upgraded to 2.0.3 (which, everyone should have - I posted it before I left). There's really no issue whether we forked at 835000 or 840000. Everyone had the same notice to upgrade. I just neglected to make the change from 835000 to 840000. I sincerely apologize for that.

What were your questions regarding security? I'm here for the rest of the evening...

-Steve

Yes you did post that, however I had my Computer turned off (and I assume i'm not the only one) to save electricity since POST was scheduled to start later on....anyway i'm not going to complain because of a few 100 coins I could have gotten, that's not the point.
My questions regarding security were the following:

How secure is it to leave the client open at all times being connected to the internet? (especially for large holders)
Have you thought about implementing something along the lines of what NXT has done. They call it balance ''leasing'''
Basically you can ''lease'' your forging/staking power to another account effectively removing all the risk involved ( you don't need to have your main wallet online for staking...)

lfloorwalker

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 150

solcrypto.com

lfloorwalker

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 150

solcrypto.com

Quote from: onsightit on September 25, 2015, 09:59:56 PM

Quote from: corather on September 25, 2015, 09:36:37 PM

Quote from: y_virtual on September 25, 2015, 09:29:04 PM

Quote from: corather on September 25, 2015, 09:17:43 PM

Quote from: y_virtual on September 25, 2015, 09:11:52 PM

The cause of the problem in point 1. has not been named exactly.
What was pointed out as a cause did not match the results we saw, so that could not have been the cause. Reference to the POST document only raised more questions, I will now put them in one place and re-post. By expecting the answers first I don't think we are halting things. We are halting the rush to do 2, 3, 4 without having done 1.

I thought it was addressed. Post was working as intended, but the algo didn't fit well with Solarcoin, so it was modified with a hard cap. Anymore technical than that and my eyes will begin to cross.

I again restate things are being carefully watched and triple checking the logic now is a good idea.

A solution was introduced, yes (capping the interest rate), but the results we had could not have been achieved by any intended parameters of the algo. That's why some of the questions are trying to make it clear if the parameters were wrong, or the algo implementation was wrong, or the issue may be somewhere else. In any case, a solution without first figuring out the problem causing those results, is no solution at all.

I have a strong feeling that the mathematical error was caused through anomalies in the math due to the nature of switching from pow to pos. Few people were running the wallets and the software couldn't cope. It looked like a mathematical overflow error. I have some experience in programming, older machines, but the principles are the same and the same kind of errors occur when you overlook a detail like that.

That's a good layman's explanation, though there is no mathematical error in the code. PoST was designed to transition from PoS, not PoW, so with very few people staking, those that did receive interest got the lion's share to meet the inflation target. If all 34M (or a good portion of them) were staking, we would have reached our target of 2+% inflation in a mater of a couple days. The interest payments still would have seemed "high" initially. It depends on your philosophy concerning network security. PoST was designed to incentivise staking to secure the network. If fewer people are staking the rewards are higher. But the goals of the SolarCoin foundation were not met by issuing such large rewards, so the cap was introduced to help meet those goals.

-Steve

+1, thanks!

onsightit

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

truth=(true?true:false);

onsightit

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

truth=(true?true:false);

Quote from: solarcoiner on September 25, 2015, 10:45:35 PM

Quote from: onsightit on September 25, 2015, 10:20:11 PM

Quote from: solarcoiner on September 25, 2015, 10:17:21 PM

Let me start off by saying i'm happy things seem to be working now.
However I was under the impression that we had agreed on that Proof of Stake would start at block 340000.
I'm pretty sure I remember Steve saying he would go on a two day vacation before coming back to finally find out what went wrong with the last POST implementation.
I would have at least expected a little transparency, but instead POST is suddenly implemented, and the community doesn't even know why it really went wrong last time. To me it seems like we are rushing into something we know nothing about.
I completely agree with the fact that POS is the way to go for Solarcoin, but it's in all of our best interest to get it right! Hard forks are no joke, and it would be stupid if we had to do another one just because we didn't take the time to look at every aspect of this.

What was the scale scope and cause of this problem?
Why did POST magically take over at block 835000 while Steve was on vacation even though we had not reached consensus?
We're all in this for the long run, and we need more transparency !
Thank you

Hi SolarCoiner, you can read my explanation here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12522376

-Steve

So you accidentally had it switch to POST while you were gone , is that what you are saying?
I see a couple of problems here: who got rewarded with the first 120 blocks? you said it yourself, when less people are staking the rewards are bigger! Do you call that a fair launch? I would say no.
I'm still not sure the problem has fully been identified.
In addition to that I asked a few questions regarding security which were never answered.
And now you are trying to convince everyone to switch to 2.03 although there is absolutely no consensus.
Dont get me wrong I really appreciate all the hard work you have put into Solarcoin, but I really don't agree with the way things went down

Those that received interest in the first 120 blocks were those that were upgraded to 2.0.3 (which, everyone should have - I posted it before I left). There's really no issue whether we forked at 835000 or 840000. Everyone had the same notice to upgrade. I just neglected to make the change from 835000 to 840000. I sincerely apologize for that.

What were your questions regarding security? I'm here for the rest of the evening...

-Steve

lfloorwalker

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 150

solcrypto.com

Hi all,

I have just reloaded our wallets on a windows system.
Currently we are on block 835,237. I see 8 active connections on the SolarCoin network.

I'll explain what I did so that this may be of help to others.

I was running ver2.0.1 and i hadn't synced the blockchain for more than 9 days (I was away on holidays) so it was a block 815,000 or similar.
Then I opened the ver2.0.1 wallet, downloaded ver2.0.3 from within the wallet. Re-installed ver2.0.3. And then restarted.

Then I looked at the blockchain sync process. It seems that at block 835,213 the wallet that was running ver2.0.3 stopped downloading new blocks (I suspose this was the fork?). So, then I followed Steves instructions and downloaded the bootstrap. I can't emphasize this point enough, follow the instructions to download the bootstrap and reload the blockchain. I did the manual process of replacing the mentioned files.

Then when I turned on the ver2.0.3 wallet again and then was able to sync up to 835,237. The wallet says that I am staking sometimes and tells me an estimated interest rate, when not staking it says "In Sync" and "Earning stake time."

Thanking you,
Great work to all.
Yours in the sun generating interest.
-lfloorwalker

Quote from: onsightit on September 25, 2015, 04:14:07 PM

Hello SolarCoin Community,

As you may have noticed, the fork occurred at 835000, a slight oversight on my part before leaving for a needed sanity button reset.

Here's what I need everyone to do. Check your block height by hovering your mouse over the Sync/Staking icon. At the time of this writing, you should be at height 835224. If you are at a larger or lesser height, please go to File->Reload Blockchain, download the bootstrap and restart to get on the main chain.

If you have trouble getting the Download to work in the wallet, you can get it here: http://solarcoin.org/downloads/bootstrap.zip

To manually install the bootstrap, shut down the wallet, remove blk0001.dat and txleveldb in your data directory, extract the contents of bootstrap.zip, and move the contents to your data directory.

It looks like the 10% cap is working. If you would like to share the results of your staking, please post them here.

-Steve

EDIT: We need as many wallets staking as possible to get the blockchain moving along a 1 bpm.

EDIT: If you are mining on 1.5, please turn off your miners as you will be wasting electricity on anything past 835000.

solarcoiner

sr. member

Activity: 445

Merit: 250

Quote from: onsightit on September 25, 2015, 10:20:11 PM

Quote from: solarcoiner on September 25, 2015, 10:17:21 PM

Let me start off by saying i'm happy things seem to be working now.
However I was under the impression that we had agreed on that Proof of Stake would start at block 340000.
I'm pretty sure I remember Steve saying he would go on a two day vacation before coming back to finally find out what went wrong with the last POST implementation.
I would have at least expected a little transparency, but instead POST is suddenly implemented, and the community doesn't even know why it really went wrong last time. To me it seems like we are rushing into something we know nothing about.
I completely agree with the fact that POS is the way to go for Solarcoin, but it's in all of our best interest to get it right! Hard forks are no joke, and it would be stupid if we had to do another one just because we didn't take the time to look at every aspect of this.

What was the scale scope and cause of this problem?
Why did POST magically take over at block 835000 while Steve was on vacation even though we had not reached consensus?
We're all in this for the long run, and we need more transparency !
Thank you

Hi SolarCoiner, you can read my explanation here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12522376

-Steve

So you accidentally had it switch to POST while you were gone , is that what you are saying?
I see a couple of problems here: who got rewarded with the first 120 blocks? you said it yourself, when less people are staking the rewards are bigger! Do you call that a fair launch? I would say no.
I'm still not sure the problem has fully been identified.
In addition to that I asked a few questions regarding security which were never answered.
And now you are trying to convince everyone to switch to 2.03 although there is absolutely no consensus.
Dont get me wrong I really appreciate all the hard work you have put into Solarcoin, but I really don't agree with the way things went down

onsightit

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

truth=(true?true:false);

All,

I really want to stress the importance of getting everyone off 1.5 and on to 2.0.3. The health of the network is in the hands of everyone still on 1.5. Currently, that's 45% of the wallets.

EDIT: Thanks CryptoID for those stats!

-Steve

onsightit

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

truth=(true?true:false);

Quote from: solarcoiner on September 25, 2015, 10:17:21 PM

Let me start off by saying i'm happy things seem to be working now.
However I was under the impression that we had agreed on that Proof of Stake would start at block 340000.
I'm pretty sure I remember Steve saying he would go on a two day vacation before coming back to finally find out what went wrong with the last POST implementation.
I would have at least expected a little transparency, but instead POST is suddenly implemented, and the community doesn't even know why it really went wrong last time. To me it seems like we are rushing into something we know nothing about.
I completely agree with the fact that POS is the way to go for Solarcoin, but it's in all of our best interest to get it right! Hard forks are no joke, and it would be stupid if we had to do another one just because we didn't take the time to look at every aspect of this.

What was the scale scope and cause of this problem?
Why did POST magically take over at block 835000 while Steve was on vacation even though we had not reached consensus?
We're all in this for the long run, and we need more transparency !
Thank you

Hi SolarCoiner, you can read my explanation here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12522376

-Steve

onsightit

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

truth=(true?true:false);

Quote from: Epiphany on September 25, 2015, 10:13:00 PM

So if the Bittrex wallet has been disabled this whole time, that means all the SLR currently on the offer side are good coins to buy right? We just won't be able to send them back until Bittrex get the POST wallet up? Or is there some risk that people still running the 1.5 wallet have some roundabout means of listing coins for sale? There has been trading taking place, it looks like it is possible to buy them. How to be sure which ones are being listed?

I feel like I want to buy some more now that this big hurdle has been cleared. Grin

Or I could just be patient... LOL

I'd play it safe and wait until Bittrex updates. I'm pretty sure they are just waiting on us to give a "thumbs up". The foundation is having a meeting in the morning to discuss the state of the network, then I think a thumb will be given. Wink

-Steve

solarcoiner

sr. member

Activity: 445

Merit: 250

Let me start off by saying i'm happy things seem to be working now.
However I was under the impression that we had agreed on that Proof of Stake would start at block 340000.
I'm pretty sure I remember Steve saying he would go on a two day vacation before coming back to finally find out what went wrong with the last POST implementation.
I would have at least expected a little transparency, but instead POST is suddenly implemented, and the community doesn't even know why it really went wrong last time. To me it seems like we are rushing into something we know nothing about.
I completely agree with the fact that POS is the way to go for Solarcoin, but it's in all of our best interest to get it right! Hard forks are no joke, and it would be stupid if we had to do another one just because we didn't take the time to look at every aspect of this.

What was the scale scope and cause of this problem?
Why did POST magically take over at block 835000 while Steve was on vacation even though we had not reached consensus?
We're all in this for the long run, and we need more transparency !
Thank you

Epiphany

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

So if the Bittrex wallet has been disabled this whole time, that means all the SLR currently on the offer side are good coins to buy right? We just won't be able to send them back until Bittrex get the POST wallet up? Or is there some risk that people still running the 1.5 wallet have some roundabout means of listing coins for sale? There has been trading taking place, it looks like it is possible to buy them. How to be sure which ones are being listed?

I feel like I want to buy some more now that this big hurdle has been cleared. Grin

Or I could just be patient... LOL

onsightit

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

truth=(true?true:false);

Quote from: Epiphany on September 25, 2015, 09:55:44 PM

Steve, until the block explorer is up and running, would you mind sharing now and again (like every few hours or something) what block the proper chain is on so people can get some comfort that their wallets are working OK?

Sure, currently the master node is on block 835235. We just need more people to stake.

-Steve

onsightit

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

truth=(true?true:false);

Quote from: y_virtual on September 25, 2015, 09:45:05 PM

Quote from: onsightit on September 25, 2015, 09:10:27 PM

Quote from: Epiphany on September 25, 2015, 08:50:37 PM

Steve, How is the Block Explorer work going with CryptoID?

Hi Epiphany,

I'll have to look at that tomorrow. Too much going on at the moment. I know it's an important item for everyone.

-Steve

"Too much going on at the moment."
Steve, please believe this - no one here expects you to do it all now. Everyone here needs this done right and working right. It is a very complicated, new, never-done-before process/system, we all know that, and are here to work on it together and make it work. Rushing things brings up results which are not good, and this is the most natural thing of all. No rush, man! Let's make it work right.

Thanks, y_virtual. I'm not rushing things, though I would like to have the block explorer working more than anyone, I suppose. Wink

Such a useful tool. I have narrowed the issue to the transaction hash returned via RPC calls. Which tells me it's hashing the new nTime txn data when it's not supposed to.

-Steve

onsightit

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

truth=(true?true:false);

Quote from: corather on September 25, 2015, 09:36:37 PM

Quote from: y_virtual on September 25, 2015, 09:29:04 PM

Quote from: corather on September 25, 2015, 09:17:43 PM

Quote from: y_virtual on September 25, 2015, 09:11:52 PM

The cause of the problem in point 1. has not been named exactly.
What was pointed out as a cause did not match the results we saw, so that could not have been the cause. Reference to the POST document only raised more questions, I will now put them in one place and re-post. By expecting the answers first I don't think we are halting things. We are halting the rush to do 2, 3, 4 without having done 1.

I thought it was addressed. Post was working as intended, but the algo didn't fit well with Solarcoin, so it was modified with a hard cap. Anymore technical than that and my eyes will begin to cross.

I again restate things are being carefully watched and triple checking the logic now is a good idea.

A solution was introduced, yes (capping the interest rate), but the results we had could not have been achieved by any intended parameters of the algo. That's why some of the questions are trying to make it clear if the parameters were wrong, or the algo implementation was wrong, or the issue may be somewhere else. In any case, a solution without first figuring out the problem causing those results, is no solution at all.

I have a strong feeling that the mathematical error was caused through anomalies in the math due to the nature of switching from pow to pos. Few people were running the wallets and the software couldn't cope. It looked like a mathematical overflow error. I have some experience in programming, older machines, but the principles are the same and the same kind of errors occur when you overlook a detail like that.

That's a good layman's explanation, though there is no mathematical error in the code. PoST was designed to transition from PoS, not PoW, so with very few people staking, those that did receive interest got the lion's share to meet the inflation target. If all 34M (or a good portion of them) were staking, we would have reached our target of 2+% inflation in a mater of a couple days. The interest payments still would have seemed "high" initially. It depends on your philosophy concerning network security. PoST was designed to incentivise staking to secure the network. If fewer people are staking the rewards are higher. But the goals of the SolarCoin foundation were not met by issuing such large rewards, so the cap was introduced to help meet those goals.

-Steve

Topic: [ANN][SLR] SolarCoin | PoW to PoS v. 2.0 | Solar Proof of Generation (§1 = 1MWh) - page 205. (Read 466799 times)