Topic: [ANN][TZC] TrezarCoin Super-Secure-PoW/PoS - page 22. (Read 156539 times)

Well I'm thoroughly flummoxed now...

My wallet now holds 1001.9 TZC obtained through 192 mining payments to 2 addresses, and the last payment was a little over 48 hours ago so the minimum age of an input should be >2 days. The Penrose triangle, however, reports 148 inputs weighing 10178 coin days, of which 52 inputs are minimum age, 1 input is average age and 95 inputs are max age; so 148 inputs vs. 192 payments, and last payment was 2 days ago but still claiming that 52 inputs are minimum age. To muddy matters even more, the TZC whitepaper says that the minimum age for an input is 1 day, so is it any wonder that I am confused at this point?

Awesome, thanks for adding!

Hi guys!

We have just added support for TrezarCoin to our Crypto Mining Profitability Calculator: https://crypt0.zone/calculator/!

Feel free to send us some feedback.
We are open for all suggestions

My coins appeared after 55 hours.

Problems. No it's a scam. I don't know what it's going to take for people to realize it

Same here, they are having multiple issues with most other coins also.

We will have Blockbid as a new exchange soon.

+1
I sent TZC about 3 day ago. But....nothing....Cryptopia is shit.

Avoid Cryptopia at this time. Serious deposit issues.

Please don't worry about pressure.
It is a good thing IMHO to periodically make inquiries--the squeaky wheel gets greased.
All I would ask is that people try to be reasonable and think things through before posting--you seem to do both, so don't hesitate to say what's on your mind. 

Although I am not a dev, I can confidently say that the code developers are aware of the issue. (For anyone else reading this response, we are discussing a suspected wallet-crash bug that occurs semi-infrequently and is not related to improper PC-shutdown, etc.) It is my understanding that they have been "casting nets" to catch and diagnose the potential problem. Unfortunately, it seems to be a fairly tricky one to isolate. The devs are very experienced, established blockchain programmers, not crypto-newcomers--so hopefully one can assume a certain level of competence. 

Your answer is much appreciated. I am good for now and my intention isn't to put any pressure on you. Just keep going as you did but I would like to see those issues resolved if you find the time as I am not the only one suffering from it. Again, keep up the good work!

Ok, sounds good to me.
Just didn't want someone to think that there was condescension or judgment when there wasn't any...


Inputs/outputs/addresses are all pretty fundamental aspects of blockchain and I regularly encourage participants in crypto to take 5-10 minutes to read some wikis on them. IMHO it only takes that long to get the basic concept, and it's very good knowledge to have if you are involved in this space. (A thorough, in-depth understanding would take much longer for most people--however that is not really necessary or as much positive cost/benefit, IMHO.)

The semi-short answer is an input is an incoming amount to an address.

One address can "hold" multiple inputs.
One analogy is to consider inputs like "bills" or "coins" in a physical wallet... except that since this is digital/non-tangible, it is not constrained by what denominations are printed. So, if today someone send you 1.629 coins, you will now have a 1.629-sized input associated with the address where you received the coins. These inputs (also sometimes called UTXO) are "consumed" when you yourself make payments from your wallet.

It's very easy to see and manage your inputs if you enable Coin Control.
Go to Options --> Display --> Enable the Coin Control (beta)
Then you will be able to see a Coin Control button in the Send section of your wallet.

Hope that helps!

We seem to be veering off into the weeds here, and I suspect you are taking my insouciant style a little too seriously. I am merely trying to emphasize that the wallet for a PoS coin absolutely needs to provide an estimate of the time to find a block from staking. It's basically a core function of a PoS wallet, the way I see it.


Okay, well, what is an input and which coins are assigned to it?

NB - I have the whitepaper pulled up now and can see what an input is, but the wallet does not tell me this, nor does it allow me to chose to send my newest coins should I wish to conduct a transaction.

With all due respect, I strongly disagree with that assertion--I do not believe it is anywhere near the mark.
IMO, looking out for customers/clients and trying to make things intuitive or easy for them to use is NOT at all the same thing as saying or believing they are "too stupid to understand"... Extending that logic to the consumer/retail world would mean companies like Apple that distinguish themselves by creating easier to use, intuitive products are, likewise, insisting their customers are "too stupid". Although I personally do not care for Apple, I find that assertion ill-fitting and at best misleading.


No, if you send any coins from an input (i.e., consume that input), then all the coins IN THAT ONE INPUT are reset.
Either the author you quoted choose poor phrasing to communicate a point, or misunderstood how inputs/UTXO get reset when consumed.

Rest assured, you do not need to worry about other coins in the same address or elsewhere in your wallet getting their ages reset. 

Yeah, a Windows wallet pretty much needs to be able to deal with "unexpected reboots," because Windows...  



I direct you back to msg #2481 where you basically said that it might not be a good idea to put a staking estimator/calculator in the wallet because it might confuse people or make them think they were entitled to a certain reward, etc. I may have employed a bit of hyperbole in my previous post when I characterized this as essentially calling your clients/customers/users stupid, but it's not too far off the mark.

EDIT - so I just found this document on setting up the Linux wallet for staking and something in it really tweaked my knobs:


What the... If I send TZC from my wallet all of my coins will be reset to minimum age?!? What is the point of punishing people for actually using a coin, or does the dev team think we should "hodl forever!1!!1!"?

Sorry, I was referring to a different bug--not the one you described.
And yes, that one should be more straightforward and it is being worked on AFAIK.

Your input about the wallet information output is duly noted--a few other people have had similar thoughts.
I am not aware of this being planned for the next update, but it is something that is being mentioned periodically as something to improve sooner than later.

And finally, I'm not sure what you mean by "arguing that your clients/customers/users are too stupid to understand"...
I don't recall any messages, particularly recently, implying anything like that? 

I personally agree, for what it's worth, and hope that the documentation and software will continue to improve such that we can serve a reasonable lowest-common-denominator of users. 

Not sure what other issues you are referring to, but the one where the wallet is fatally compromised if the computer is shutdown improperly or locks up is pretty easy to reproduce. I'm no programmer, but it seems to me this is the result of leaving files open that have been written to/modified, rather than only opening them for long enough to write/update then close them again.

Also, I am going to reiterate my earlier comments to this thread about the absolutely useless data reported in the Penrose triangle: even after reading the whitepaper I still have no idea what, "inputs weighing x coin days," means; this bunch of gobblydegook that only a C programmer could love should be replaced with something like, "estimated daily* chance of receiving a block from staking: %"

Basically, as long as it is made clear that receiving a block from staking is a probabilistic event, and not something guaranteed to happen after x days with n coins, then there shouldn't be too much confusion. Frankly, arguing that your clients/customers/users are too stupid to understand what you are offering never struck me as sound business (even if it is true...).


* - or weekly, monthly, etc...

I agree. But then again, some more robustness would be nice.

@Noruka:
AFAIK, such improvements are on the docket. Unfortunately, some of the issues have been tricky to reproduce in development environments, so it's been a difficult process to debug. But should be coming down the pipeline.

The purse is working properly. An error may occur as a result of improper shutdown of the computer. But this is not the fault of the wallet.

Is there any estimation from the devs when they will find the time to improve the situation? I feel like many newbies will give up very quickly if they can't get the wallet to run properly and that means forgone potential for the community to grow.