Pages:
Author

Topic: CACHECOIN 2.0 - Community integration (Scrypt-Jane - PoW, PoS and PoN) - page 14. (Read 30559 times)

hero member
Activity: 693
Merit: 500
From cryptsy:

Quote
Our wallet is currently offline due to issues with the coin's blockchain.

vertoe could you have a look at this problem? We have multiforks right now.


just sent pm to vertoe

edit



https://www.cryptsy.com/pages/status
I hope you know that it is VERY HARD to get hold of vertoe?


such confidence inspiring!
legendary
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1000

Everyone should just run the older version and addnodes to nodes that have the right chain..
legendary
Activity: 1778
Merit: 1000
From cryptsy:

Quote
Our wallet is currently offline due to issues with the coin's blockchain.

vertoe could you have a look at this problem? We have multiforks right now.


just sent pm to vertoe

edit



https://www.cryptsy.com/pages/status
I hope you know that it is VERY HARD to get hold of vertoe?
legendary
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000
From cryptsy:

Quote
Our wallet is currently offline due to issues with the coin's blockchain.

vertoe could you have a look at this problem? We have multiforks right now.


just sent pm to vertoe

edit



https://www.cryptsy.com/pages/status
legendary
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1000
I agree about needing a collateral for PoN.  HOWEVER, 5 or 10k is NOT a smallish amount  at 10K you will limit the number of PoN in the entire system to less then 250!!!

"moneysupply" : 2476086.41995300

I confess that I didn't do that math specifically, was only going by the ATH exchange values from the last couple of weeks, and working out a reasonable "cost" in fiat terms. Plenty of nodes is definitely the desired goal, so perhaps within the lower boundary, around 5K?

At current mining rates (and mining will continue for a good while), there are enough new coins generated per day for such a node.
In other words, if mining returns remain relatively stable, and assuming a collateral of 5K coins, we'd be talking about a theoretical maximum number of about 500 PoN nodes today, with the potential for a new one to be added with each passing day.

More reasonable?

Also, let's remember that not all nodes need to be mining PoN. Regular (traditional) clients running a PoS node are also participating in the backbone of the network. Actually, we should also first clarify if PoN would prevent (or strongly discourage) pool mining for PoN blocks. With pools, we're back at the starting point, with new & fancy terminology, but in practice, the mining process would remain largely centralized.

I guess this is where we need to wait for the whitepaper  Wink

Yes on the whitepaper...

We still dont know what the benefits of running for PoN.  Having unique IP for each can be some work...  How is it different then just regular staking, doesn't that mean your running a node?

is having the PoN subnet preparation for a mixing service? if so, there should be a cost to run one.  Can we have PoW against a staked wallet? SPoW.... so many questions...


on the fork issue, anyone reading this that is not on the same fork as http://explorer.cach.co/ should shut down, reindex with addnodes pointed to nodes on the proper fork.. possibly revert back to the older client.

my info:
Quote

{
"version" : "v5.4.0.0-g32a928e-cach-wm-alpha",
"protocolversion" : 90001,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : xx.51758500,
"newmint" : xx.09000000,
"stake" : xx.16883300,
"blocks" : 86465,
"moneysupply" : 2483666.74463100,
"connections" : 5,
"proxy" : "",
"ip" : "xx",
"difficulty" : 0.00587187,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1428895696,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}

my getpeerinfo:
Quote
14:32:56

getpeerinfo


14:32:58

[
{
"addr" : "5.9.39.9:2225",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1432924245,
"lastrecv" : 1432924245,
"conntime" : 1432847556,
"version" : 90001,
"subver" : "/CACHecoin-WM:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 86294,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "46.42.46.35:2225",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1432924247,
"lastrecv" : 1432924245,
"conntime" : 1432848286,
"version" : 90000,
"subver" : "/CACHecoin-WM:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 86295,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "82.6.255.43:2225",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1432924259,
"lastrecv" : 1432924272,
"conntime" : 1432848449,
"version" : 90000,
"subver" : "/CACHecoin-WM:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 86296,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "37.205.9.209:2225",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1432924245,
"lastrecv" : 1432924245,
"conntime" : 1432874880,
"version" : 90000,
"subver" : "/CACHecoin-WM:0.7.2/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 86330,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "78.46.66.139:2225",
"services" : "00000000",
"lastsend" : 1432920136,
"lastrecv" : 1432923167,
"conntime" : 1432920136,
"version" : 0,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : -1,
"banscore" : 13
}
]
full member
Activity: 131
Merit: 100
Can we get some sort of confirmation on whether cach.catcoin.cz is on the new wallet, old wallet, right fork or wrong fork?

cach.catcoin.cz should be on the right fork.

The Explorer (http://explorer.cach.co) can you take to compare. The should also be right
hero member
Activity: 693
Merit: 500
Can we get some sort of confirmation on whether cach.catcoin.cz is on the new wallet, old wallet, right fork or wrong fork?
hero member
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
From cryptsy:

Quote
Our wallet is currently offline due to issues with the coin's blockchain.

vertoe could you have a look at this problem? We have multiforks right now.
legendary
Activity: 1154
Merit: 1001
I agree about needing a collateral for PoN.  HOWEVER, 5 or 10k is NOT a smallish amount  at 10K you will limit the number of PoN in the entire system to less then 250!!!

"moneysupply" : 2476086.41995300

I confess that I didn't do that math specifically, was only going by the ATH exchange values from the last couple of weeks, and working out a reasonable "cost" in fiat terms. Plenty of nodes is definitely the desired goal, so perhaps within the lower boundary, around 5K?

At current mining rates (and mining will continue for a good while), there are enough new coins generated per day for such a node.
In other words, if mining returns remain relatively stable, and assuming a collateral of 5K coins, we'd be talking about a theoretical maximum number of about 500 PoN nodes today, with the potential for a new one to be added with each passing day.

More reasonable?

Also, let's remember that not all nodes need to be mining PoN. Regular (traditional) clients running a PoS node are also participating in the backbone of the network. Actually, we should also first clarify if PoN would prevent (or strongly discourage) pool mining for PoN blocks. With pools, we're back at the starting point, with new & fancy terminology, but in practice, the mining process would remain largely centralized.

I guess this is where we need to wait for the whitepaper  Wink
legendary
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1000

While we wait for Vertoe to speak up re: the forking issues, I just wanted to express that I also would prefer that there is some collateral requirement in order to generate PoN blocks. A small'ish figure would be fine, perhaps something between 5K ~ 10K CACH (as opposed to some ridiculously high number with the sole purpose of inflating prices).

Also, by design, one of the neat incentives with PoS, in that by holding more you get a greater reward. But PoS does lack in that many times people just run their wallets for the short period needed to get a stake, then close them up again, and so these are not providing a long lasting, reliable node service.

The idea is that PoN with a collateral requirement promotes the concept of a miner-holder, in contrast with the usual miner-dumper, and so I think this is the ideal approach.

@Vertoe: Would much appreciate if you would start organizing the schedule/venue for community meetings. Obviously, the ongoing fork needs urgent attention, but once that settles, it would be great if we could all start engaging feature/future discussions more interactively.


I agree about needing a collateral for PoN.  HOWEVER, 5 or 10k is NOT a smallish amount  at 10K you will limit the number of PoN in the entire system to less then 250!!!

"moneysupply" : 2476086.41995300
legendary
Activity: 1154
Merit: 1001
I'd also love to know if the PON will require collateral and if so, how much.

Thanks Vertoe.

@MyFarm PoN requires no collateral except that your node must be running. There is no need for having a balance at stake for PoN to work.

I'm not sure about the details, but without collateral this could become a candy for botnet owners, this approach might be undesirable. I would prefer nodes to require collateral, it also ensures certain level of quality.

While we wait for Vertoe to speak up re: the forking issues, I just wanted to express that I also would prefer that there is some collateral requirement in order to generate PoN blocks. A small'ish figure would be fine, perhaps something between 5K ~ 10K CACH (as opposed to some ridiculously high number with the sole purpose of inflating prices).

Also, by design, one of the neat incentives with PoS, in that by holding more you get a greater reward. But PoS does lack in that many times people just run their wallets for the short period needed to get a stake, then close them up again, and so these are not providing a long lasting, reliable node service.

The idea is that PoN with a collateral requirement promotes the concept of a miner-holder, in contrast with the usual miner-dumper, and so I think this is the ideal approach.

@Vertoe: Would much appreciate if you would start organizing the schedule/venue for community meetings. Obviously, the ongoing fork needs urgent attention, but once that settles, it would be great if we could all start engaging feature/future discussions more interactively.
hero member
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
There's an issue somewhere.  My test transactions from this new wallet still hadn't posted to craptsy.  Just checked the explorer and they are not showing up on there.


Status: 93 confirmations
Date: 5/27/2015 23:14
To: Craptsy CKhvXVjqEDQgnhoLUpKWhxnV6YzjU4cBZV
Debit: -0.001 CACH
Transaction fee: -0.01 CACH
Net amount: -0.011 CACH
Transaction ID: 4ee261022ac653966da8019f2d2903b34991f602969e5940ae7ecd5d910ab511

Status: 93 confirmations
Date: 5/27/2015 21:25
To: Craptsy CKhvXVjqEDQgnhoLUpKWhxnV6YzjU4cBZV
Debit: -0.01 CACH
Transaction fee: -0.01 CACH
Net amount: -0.02 CACH
Transaction ID: 46531b186022ac7b86c21e41caaa97895a81478fef9bc9d444a5b09a4c6d4dce

Status: 93 confirmations
Date: 5/27/2015 21:25
To: Craptsy CKhvXVjqEDQgnhoLUpKWhxnV6YzjU4cBZV
Debit: -0.001 CACH
Transaction fee: -0.01 CACH
Net amount: -0.011 CACH
Transaction ID: ff7deb0c551015c44678b31c741e75aeef23cc9a1acb209823d84f71e3125727


Wallet is on block 86302 as of May 29, 2015, 02:35:59 AM (time posted on the forum header)

Yes you are on the wrong chain. That's the problem we talked about. The new client caused a fork and we don't know the reason yet.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
There's an issue somewhere.  My test transactions from this new wallet still hadn't posted to craptsy.  Just checked the explorer and they are not showing up on there.


Status: 93 confirmations
Date: 5/27/2015 23:14
To: Craptsy CKhvXVjqEDQgnhoLUpKWhxnV6YzjU4cBZV
Debit: -0.001 CACH
Transaction fee: -0.01 CACH
Net amount: -0.011 CACH
Transaction ID: 4ee261022ac653966da8019f2d2903b34991f602969e5940ae7ecd5d910ab511

Status: 93 confirmations
Date: 5/27/2015 21:25
To: Craptsy CKhvXVjqEDQgnhoLUpKWhxnV6YzjU4cBZV
Debit: -0.01 CACH
Transaction fee: -0.01 CACH
Net amount: -0.02 CACH
Transaction ID: 46531b186022ac7b86c21e41caaa97895a81478fef9bc9d444a5b09a4c6d4dce

Status: 93 confirmations
Date: 5/27/2015 21:25
To: Craptsy CKhvXVjqEDQgnhoLUpKWhxnV6YzjU4cBZV
Debit: -0.001 CACH
Transaction fee: -0.01 CACH
Net amount: -0.011 CACH
Transaction ID: ff7deb0c551015c44678b31c741e75aeef23cc9a1acb209823d84f71e3125727


Wallet is on block 86302 as of May 29, 2015, 02:35:59 AM (time posted on the forum header)
legendary
Activity: 1154
Merit: 1001
Hey myagui.

Thank for your report. Actually vertoe changed a lot of things in the code which could cause a hard fork like setting the max coin and stopping the PoW after block 100k. Another friend of mine used the new client and he's on the wrong chain too. It's not the fault of the p2pool IMHO. It's very strange.

@AizenSou:

Update: while for block 86172 I was on the right chain, I checked a more recent block just now, and I found that I am on the wrong chain now (I'm taking the official block explorer as the reference, as it appears to be on the right chain). That said, I'm changing my #1 on the suspect list, to be the updated client.  Roll Eyes

I'd expect that we are well isolated from all of the hardfork stuff, as there should be a simple conditional statement ( if block height < 100.000 ) that keeps us going on the same codebase as before, up until block 100K. But I understand issues happen, and it might be a lot more complicated than what I was making it out to be  Undecided

  
hero member
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
@AizenSou:

I have the new client from Vertoe, and going by the block hashes you posted, I am on the right chain. Also, I don't see that any of the updates that Vertoe did to the standard client would be prone to cause a fork. Not that I understand much about this though...

I think the problem is strictly related with P2Pool, which had not been working until Vertoe picked it up. P2Pool had some issue before, of which I do not know the details. Looks as though the fixes to bring P2Pool back online, either had some gremlin planted, or there is additional fixing to be done...

Hey myagui.

Thank for your report. Actually vertoe changed a lot of things in the code which could cause a hard fork like setting the max coin and stopping the PoW after block 100k. Another friend of mine used the new client and he's on the wrong chain too. It's not the fault of the p2pool IMHO. It's very strange.
legendary
Activity: 1154
Merit: 1001
@AizenSou:

I have the new client from Vertoe, and going by the block hashes you posted, I am on the right chain. Also, I don't see that any of the updates that Vertoe did to the standard client would be prone to cause a fork. Not that I understand much about this though...

I think the problem is strictly related with P2Pool, which had not been working until Vertoe picked it up. P2Pool had some issue before, of which I do not know the details. Looks as though the fixes to bring P2Pool back online, either had some gremlin planted, or there is additional fixing to be done...
hero member
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
Of course it's going down Smiley
Nice to see you around Sy! All good?

The new client from vertoe caused a fork. The p2pool is on the wrong chain right now. I guess that's the reason of the dump.


17:58:45

getblockhash 86296


17:58:48

d090c60aa5266935a081810e0a7b6ac924c5334a8c9549efd272964750204c91



You're in the right chain (with cryptsy, singula's pool and almost everyone).

I don't know when the fork started ( I'm trying to find it now), but I'm pretty sure that block 86172 with new client is in wrong chain.
getblockhash 86172
Wrong chain with new client:
0000001742d7304253947edaf9dc2db1a257cacb20a363c2d7a9eaf18fd4fb09

Right chain:
00000004143e947a7be78e14b0723ff4ad921094f1778de7e9092f609c5d5e02

vertoe where are you now ??
legendary
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1000
Of course it's going down Smiley
Nice to see you around Sy! All good?

The new client from vertoe caused a fork. The p2pool is on the wrong chain right now. I guess that's the reason of the dump.


17:58:45

getblockhash 86296


17:58:48

d090c60aa5266935a081810e0a7b6ac924c5334a8c9549efd272964750204c91

legendary
Activity: 1154
Merit: 1001
Of course it's going down Smiley
Nice to see you around Sy! All good?

The new client from vertoe caused a fork. The p2pool is on the wrong chain right now. I guess that's the reason of the dump.

Oh wow, was that 5% of all CACHE in a single dump? Fork it...
hero member
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
Of course it's going down Smiley
Nice to see you around Sy! All good?

The new client from vertoe caused a fork. The p2pool is on the wrong chain right now. I guess that's the reason of the dump.
Pages:
Jump to: