@moopidoo what is your opinion about the possibility of mixing the data of the suppliers. You have not noticed your this comment from CC and CTM.
I would like to know your opinion.
***
AM's Balance feature already utilizes (customizable) explorer data to report wallet balance, hopefully patrike can work from this module's code to expand functionality to fetch difficulty and mining related data for the coins too.
***
Cheers,
Thanks to both of you for all feedback.
I think the
first step here is to allow at least Difficulty to be loaded via a custom URL. I assume this is the most problematic property to get right and if you manually find another source where it could be loaded from, it would make sense to bring it in. For some coins there can also be variations in Block Reward.
I will expore this a bit more and get back with an update later on.
Thank you patrike for considering this, this would be of great help, as for other properties (block reward, developer fee, MN portion of the block rewards etc) that are usually not available via popular explorer such as ones based on Iquidus, I agree more planning is needed to save time and achieve a better result (talking about potentially getting block info right off the local running node via RPC API).
***
To start with for example, would you consider design it in a way such that it's something custom selectable from JSON results (this was where AMCU falls short and many users had issues in the beginning):
TRAID coin (Neoscrypt, POW/POS/MN), example explorer difficulty API response
https://explorer.traid.tv/api/getdifficulty{
"proof-of-work": 8.84396638,
"proof-of-stake": 822141.35406081
}
because there are some differences (albeit similar) each explorer outputs API results according to available query methods, can we consider they are all selectable drop-down lists of fields, and have AM's UI let end users choose which one is the difficulty field?
eg. (taking result from above)
Field selection popup/modal dialogue
Data Field | Value
proof-of-work | 8.84396638 <-- user select this one, and it maps to coin's difficulty to override API provider's data
proof-of-stake | 822141.35406081
This also can lay a foundation for (if there are) future plans if AM can get those info from locally running wallet node(s) where the RPC-JSON responses are common, below is example from a coin with founder (dev) fee + MN payment in each block:
Argoneum (AGM) - PHI2
getblocktemplate method:
{
"capabilities": [
"proposal"
],
"version": 536870912,
"rules": [],
"vbavailable": [],
"vbrequired": 0,
"previousblockhash": "0000000001e2d6eeb2302311c6c9d67306ac097ecfc85bec1444b272cdb0ce8f",
"transactions": [],
"coinbaseaux": {
"flags": ""
},
"coinbasevalue": 3000000000,
"longpollid": "0000000001e2d6eeb2302311c6c9d67306ac097ecfc85bec1444b272cdb0ce8f49205",
"target": "000000000802c700000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
"mintime": "2019-03-15 00:18:51 +0000",
"mutable": [
"time",
"transactions",
"prevblock"
],
"noncerange": "00000000ffffffff",
"sigoplimit": 20000,
"sizelimit": 1000000,
"curtime": "2019-03-15 00:28:29 +0000",
"bits": "1c0802c7",
"height": 183959,
"founderreward": {
"founderpayee": "M8CbM4XHV35PsEQKKQBPqbUNaA6u5JLbNU",
"amount": 150000000
},
"founder_reward_enforced": true,
"masternode": {
"payee": "MMbHPeo6yW3eNuHZrDY5A1rAB71cmAuVmX",
"script": "76a91496303fec2012b961fc2f3b1c09e1c201ee4b618288ac",
"amount": "2017-07-14 02:40:00 +0000"
},
"masternode_payments_started": true,
"masternode_payments_enforced": true,
"superblock": [],
"superblocks_started": false,
"superblocks_enabled": false
}
sample block reward distribution block height 183959:
Blockhash
ce47ac697e1ebf82ceab5c6d7ccd93a926b892b68c9c5e29af902a7a3c099933
Generation (Mined)
M8CbM4XHV35PsEQKKQBPqbUNaA6u5JLbNU (1.5)
MMbHPeo6yW3eNuHZrDY5A1rAB71cmAuVmX (15)
MQA3A3WNBh1gWu6UkgxdYpBem6gLzhNRdJ (13.5)
as you can see from the above results:
Block reward = 30 AGM ( "coinbasevalue": 3000000000 )
MasterNode Payment Portion = 50% block reward ( actual value not specified in this JSON response ) but coin specs in this case is fixed = 15 AGM
Miner Reward = 13.5 AGM
Founder (Dev) Fee = 1.5 AGM
"founderreward": {
"founderpayee": "M8CbM4XHV35PsEQKKQBPqbUNaA6u5JLbNU",
"amount": 150000000
}
This is just one of many variations you can get from the wallet RPC on particular blockchain's info which is accurate and up to date, but since every coin dev tend to make little modifications here and there, the ability to target response field and response values to coin's properties would be greatly helpful and flexible.
of course, all that (except getting difficulty from explorer API) are not something to be expected any time soon, but I thought it might assist in the planning phase if they were to be considered in the future to be implemented into AM, so the UI and workflow can be intuitive and user friendly.
Best Regards,
that is valid for the explorer based on the INQUIDUS scrytp, a scrape can be made and read. The problem that there is more scrypt to mount explorer.
To me if you add it is something beneficial. Besides, as you propose, Moppidoo is very interesting, something is needed because CTM is killing me, although I have it as the first supplier. It has many interesting coins.