Topic: HoboNickels - HBN - High Fast Stake - Version 2.0! More Secure, Less Intensive - page 168. (Read 478852 times)

Thanks, your estimate fits the data so I guess it's already pretty accurate. And as far as issue's I haven't encountered any actually. I am following two wallets with very small blocks to see the splitting and recombining at work and I came to the conclusion that it works just fine. I'll continue to do so, it's fun to see it happen.

I don't think there is a RPC command that will give you historical value.  I can give you an estimate right now(6,990,000), and an exact later. I'll add that money supply to the block explorer as well for 1.5

I had a very busy week outside of Crypto, so I haven't been able to get much done. But I should be able to get the hard fork coded up here, as it looks like the wallet is working pretty good. At least I haven't see many issues.

Hi everyone,

I am calculating the inflation rate again but I need some help the the HBN money supply at block 1357005. The abe Block explorer is not up to date so I can't figure it out. Tranz, you added this recently to the CAP wallet if you can remember, would that be an option too for HBN?

But just the money supply at 1357005 helps me out for now too. Or is there a command in the debug window that I can use?

thanks!

HoboNickels is so well known and well regarded they likely know you by name and reputation.   I would suggest you go to the Poloniex thread and issue a direct plea for an exception to the rule via post and PM.    If I had an exchange I would easily expedite the request.

"Your coin request has been recorded and will be reviewed by Poloniex staff. Thank you. Please only submit this form once per user per coin."

Same here.

I have opened a ticket to Poloniex https://poloniex.com/coinRequest I encourage others to do the same.

hahahahaa, that's like saying to a supreme court judge, "so what you are a famous judge in the highest court in the land, your great grand father was a slave."  

That was a long time ago and qualifies to be called 'history', this is a new day, present leadership is the ONLY true leader the CURRENT community
knows and are very happy with.  

How old are you anyway, like 800?

I think you're not doing enough to emphasize HBN's selling points.

Such as.. this is an inhouse, instamined, crapcoin, dreamt up by a Cryptsy admin (Horus) who impersonated the hobo (jdtmp4) that got this pile of shit rolling.

Poloniex or Bittrex.

Without wishing to detract too much from the great work going on here in this thread, I'd like to ask whether we are being too dependent in having just one exchange on which to trade HBN? Over the last two weeks Cryptsy has come through a rather traumatic time. First the server malfunction/"outrage", which led to a shut-down, and then the highly publicised news of a pending lawsuit.

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/cryptocurrency-exchange-cryptsy-owner-paul-vernon-face-lawsuit/

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/silver-law-group-files-lawsuits-against-cryptocurrency-exchanges-bitcoin-savings-trust-and-cryptsy-2014-10-23

Cryptsy seems to have handled both crises remarkably well. Apparently the action hadn't even been filed while all the bad publicity was going on. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case are, to attempt to apply pressure in that way, is, to my mind, a form of blackmail. Despicable. Paul Vernon, to his credit, has posted a vigorous defence:

http://blog.cryptsy.com/post/100831839452/response-regarding-lawsuit

Cryptsy is one of my favourite exchanges and hopefully should ride through this adversity with little difficulty. Touch wood. However, it does highlight the possible vulnerability of HoboNickels in being reliant too much on one exchange. Perhaps now is a good time to make efforts to be listed on other exchanges.

If there is agreement here on this, the question becomes: which exchanges should we target? Besides the US exchanges, I think that we should look at the Chinese and European exchanges too. There is a comprehensive list of exchanges on this website:

http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/markets/info

Any suggestions?

That would make it more robust I think. Although normally I suspect it wouldn't be much of a problem. Usually a split block with very few confirms hasn't got the highest priority straight away but in this case it was so big I suspect it had.

And thanks for the link. Useful info indeed!
 

Hello PressF1, yes this is a known risk of S4C in its current form.  The full write-up when I originally coded S4C can be found here: https://cryptocointalk.com/topic/9606-hbn-trouble-shooting-and-user-guide-stake-for-charity/ see the Risk section.

Generally if the wallet has a lot of smaller blocks, it will pick them. But it may pick one that more closely matches the amount being sent, rather then 1 that is lower confirms.

I do think I can tweak this and make it choose lower confirms first.

It's good to have You here PressF1

Problem with S4C.

When the wallet sends coins to your S4C adres, it not automatically chooses one of the 2 blocks that were just created by the staking process. In my case it chose a 3,5 days old big block to do so. Destroying an unfortunate amount of stake...
I think it chose this block because it was a little smaller than the ones just produced. I don't know how the wallet decides to pick a certain block but the way its done now forces me to stop using S4C.

I think to solve it, the wallet when looking for blocks to send, needs an extra category called priority none, which consists of any block, regardless of size, with an amount of confirmations lower than 100. That way the just produced blocks will be first in line.

Is that a possibility?

PS. since CAP is pretty much the same, I guess this problem exists there as well.

Hi Tranz,

this is the first time that I test to mine hobonickels, I do not test before with other Version..

Not sure who they is. But I think there a few developers working on it.

  Hello all

 Are they going to make an Android wallet that will do the POS ?

I'll see if I can help you out. Could you tell me if other previous version of HBN worked. I just want to make sure it is something with the daemon and not your mining method.

Hi All,

now I can build it in 64bit Ubuntu, but If I found an block I get this error in debug.log:

__________________
2014-10-24 07:36:52 ERROR: CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : txout.nValue below minimum
2014-10-24 07:36:52 ERROR: CheckBlock() : CheckTransaction failed
2014-10-24 07:36:52 ERROR: ProcessBlock() : CheckBlock FAILED
2014-10-24 07:38:46 ERROR: AcceptBlock() : rejected by synchronized checkpoint
2014-10-24 07:38:46 ERROR: ProcessBlock() : AcceptBlock FAILED
2014-10-24 07:40:58 ERROR: CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : txout.nValue below minimum
2014-10-24 07:40:58 ERROR: CheckBlock() : CheckTransaction failed
2014-10-24 07:40:58 ERROR: ProcessBlock() : CheckBlock FAILED
__________________

I use NOMP as Stratum and you can find my conf and getinfo below:


CONF:
rpcuser=xxxxxx
rpcpassword=xxxxxx
rpcallowip=192.168.100.*
rpcconnect=127.0.0.1
listen=1
daemon=1
server=1
rpcport=7373
port=7372
maxconnections=20
alertnotify=echo %s | mail -s "HoboNickels Alert" [email protected] -r [email protected]
blocknotify=node /home/coino/nomp/scripts02/cli.js blocknotify hobonickels %s
blocknotify=node /home/coino/nomp/scripts01/cli.js blocknotify hobonickels %s
blocknotify=node /home/coino/nomp/scripts/cli.js blocknotify hobonickels %s

getinfo:
{
    "version" : "v1.4.9.99-gfa9a1769-hobo",
    "protocolversion" : 70006,
    "blocks" : 1333797,
    "timeoffset" : -8,
    "moneysupply" : 6860038.66711100,
    "connections" : 16,
    "wallets" : 1,
    "walletversion" : 60002,
    "proxy" : "",
    "ip" : "5.56.222.69",
    "difficulty" : 23.18476548,
    "testnet" : false,
    "paytxfee" : 0.00100000,
    "mininput" : 0.00100000,
    "errors" : ""
}

Can someone help?

Pos difficulty is high(0.004).Interest right now 99% so probably it's going back to 100%