Topic: old thread - deleted - page 5. (Read 26058 times)
Developers! When there will be a reduction of an award for the block?
Code:
// miner's coin base reward based on nBits
int64 GetProofOfWorkReward(unsigned int nHeight)
{
int64 nSubsidy = 0 * COIN;
if (nHeight > 0)
{
nSubsidy = 10 * COIN; // 500,000 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 50000)
{
nSubsidy = 5 * COIN; // 250,000 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 100000)
{
nSubsidy = 2.5 * COIN; // 125,000 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 150000)
{
nSubsidy = 1.25 * COIN; // 62,500 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 200000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.75 * COIN; // 37,500 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 250000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.375 * COIN; // 18,750 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 300000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.1875 * COIN; // 9,375 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 333334)
{
nSubsidy = 0.01 * COIN; // 5256 coins per year roughly 0.053% yearly inflation
}
return nSubsidy;
}
That should be more like:
Code:
// miner's coin base reward based on nBits
int64 GetProofOfWorkReward(unsigned int nHeight)
{
int64 nSubsidy = 0 * COIN;
if (nHeight > 0)
{
nSubsidy = 10 * COIN; // 500,000 coins
}
if (nHeight > 50000)
{
nSubsidy = 5 * COIN; // 250,000 coins
}
if (nHeight > 100000)
{
nSubsidy = 2.5 * COIN; // 125,000 coins
}
if (nHeight > 150000)
{
nSubsidy = 1.25 * COIN; // 62,500 coins
}
if (nHeight > 200000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.75 * COIN; // 37,500 coins
}
if (nHeight > 250000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.375 * COIN; // 18,750 coins
}
if (nHeight > 300000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.1875 * COIN; // 9,375 coins
}
if (nHeight > 333334)
{
nSubsidy = 0.01 * COIN; // 5256 coins per year roughly 0.053% yearly inflation
}
return nSubsidy;
}
Using else if is what caused it not to hard fork with a reduced subsidy because the first condition is always going to be true so there is never going to be an else.
Your code would work, but it's not good because you'll get a true then a true every time. Instead is better to have first if statement as less than 50,000...then next else if as less than 100,000, etc.
I wouldn't have written it like that myself, just using the original code as a template. It may be better using something like:
Code:
// miner's coin base reward based on nBits
int64 GetProofOfWorkReward(unsigned int nHeight)
{
int64 nSubsidy = 0 * COIN;
if (nHeight > 0 && nHeight < 50000)
{
nSubsidy = 10 * COIN; // 500,000 coins
}
else if (nHeight >= 50000 && nHeight < 100000)
{
nSubsidy = 5 * COIN; // 250,000 coins
}
else if (nHeight >= 100000 && nHeight < 150000)
{
nSubsidy = 2.5 * COIN; // 125,000 coins
}
else if (nHeight >= 150000 && nHeight < 200000)
{
nSubsidy = 1.25 * COIN; // 62,500 coins
}
else if (nHeight >= 200000 && nHeight < 250000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.75 * COIN; // 37,500 coins
}
else if (nHeight >= 250000 && nHeight < 300000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.375 * COIN; // 18,750 coins
}
else if (nHeight >= 300000 && nHeight < 333334)
{
nSubsidy = 0.1875 * COIN; // 9,375 coins
}
else
{
nSubsidy = 0.01 * COIN; // 5256 coins per year roughly 0.053% yearly inflation
}
return nSubsidy;
}
Obviously block 50,000 can't be used anymore but something similar to the above is specifying the exact range of the blocks so not causing a true outcome overridden by another true outcome
Code:
// miner's coin base reward based on nBits
int64 GetProofOfWorkReward(unsigned int nHeight)
{
int64 nSubsidy = 0 * COIN;
if (nHeight > 0)
{
nSubsidy = 10 * COIN; // 500,000 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 50000)
{
nSubsidy = 5 * COIN; // 250,000 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 100000)
{
nSubsidy = 2.5 * COIN; // 125,000 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 150000)
{
nSubsidy = 1.25 * COIN; // 62,500 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 200000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.75 * COIN; // 37,500 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 250000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.375 * COIN; // 18,750 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 300000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.1875 * COIN; // 9,375 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 333334)
{
nSubsidy = 0.01 * COIN; // 5256 coins per year roughly 0.053% yearly inflation
}
return nSubsidy;
}
That should be more like:
Code:
// miner's coin base reward based on nBits
int64 GetProofOfWorkReward(unsigned int nHeight)
{
int64 nSubsidy = 0 * COIN;
if (nHeight > 0)
{
nSubsidy = 10 * COIN; // 500,000 coins
}
if (nHeight > 50000)
{
nSubsidy = 5 * COIN; // 250,000 coins
}
if (nHeight > 100000)
{
nSubsidy = 2.5 * COIN; // 125,000 coins
}
if (nHeight > 150000)
{
nSubsidy = 1.25 * COIN; // 62,500 coins
}
if (nHeight > 200000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.75 * COIN; // 37,500 coins
}
if (nHeight > 250000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.375 * COIN; // 18,750 coins
}
if (nHeight > 300000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.1875 * COIN; // 9,375 coins
}
if (nHeight > 333334)
{
nSubsidy = 0.01 * COIN; // 5256 coins per year roughly 0.053% yearly inflation
}
return nSubsidy;
}
Using else if is what caused it not to hard fork with a reduced subsidy because the first condition is always going to be true so there is never going to be an else.
Your code would work, but it's not good because you'll get a true then a true every time. Instead is better to have first if statement as less than 50,000...then next else if as less than 100,000, etc.
I did a quick look and found the bug...it's a quick and easy fix. The dev is updating client right now. It's looking like block reward will half at 55,000 then again at 95,000.
summary of old and new block rewards:
old:
50K blocks @ 10 = 500,000 (up to block 50,000)
50K blocks @ 5 = 250,000 (up to block 100,000)
750K coins
New fix:
55K blocks @ 10 = 550,000 (up to block 55,000)
40k blocks @ 5 = 200,000 (up to block 95,000)
750K coins
summary of old and new block rewards:
old:
50K blocks @ 10 = 500,000 (up to block 50,000)
50K blocks @ 5 = 250,000 (up to block 100,000)
750K coins
New fix:
55K blocks @ 10 = 550,000 (up to block 55,000)
40k blocks @ 5 = 200,000 (up to block 95,000)
750K coins
Code:
// miner's coin base reward based on nBits
int64 GetProofOfWorkReward(unsigned int nHeight)
{
int64 nSubsidy = 0 * COIN;
if (nHeight > 0)
{
nSubsidy = 10 * COIN; // 500,000 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 50000)
{
nSubsidy = 5 * COIN; // 250,000 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 100000)
{
nSubsidy = 2.5 * COIN; // 125,000 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 150000)
{
nSubsidy = 1.25 * COIN; // 62,500 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 200000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.75 * COIN; // 37,500 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 250000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.375 * COIN; // 18,750 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 300000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.1875 * COIN; // 9,375 coins
}
else if (nHeight > 333334)
{
nSubsidy = 0.01 * COIN; // 5256 coins per year roughly 0.053% yearly inflation
}
return nSubsidy;
}
That should have been more like:
Code:
// miner's coin base reward based on nBits
int64 GetProofOfWorkReward(unsigned int nHeight)
{
int64 nSubsidy = 0 * COIN;
if (nHeight > 0)
{
nSubsidy = 10 * COIN; // 500,000 coins
}
if (nHeight > 50000)
{
nSubsidy = 5 * COIN; // 250,000 coins
}
if (nHeight > 100000)
{
nSubsidy = 2.5 * COIN; // 125,000 coins
}
if (nHeight > 150000)
{
nSubsidy = 1.25 * COIN; // 62,500 coins
}
if (nHeight > 200000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.75 * COIN; // 37,500 coins
}
if (nHeight > 250000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.375 * COIN; // 18,750 coins
}
if (nHeight > 300000)
{
nSubsidy = 0.1875 * COIN; // 9,375 coins
}
if (nHeight > 333334)
{
nSubsidy = 0.01 * COIN; // 5256 coins per year roughly 0.053% yearly inflation
}
return nSubsidy;
}
Using else if is what caused it not to hard fork because the first condition is always going to be true so there is never going to be an else. In fact if I'm being picky it should probably also use >= because > 50000 is actually block 50,001 and above (not that it would make all that much difference on the grand scale).
So at this rate all coins will be mined in the next 50k blocks.
Unless we fork it again and:
a) modify total coins
b) drop reward/block speed
c) some combination of the above options
I vote B.
EDIT: Not sure if there would actually be a vote, just voicing my (likely insignificant) opinion.
CGB bugged 
So at this rate all coins will be mined in the next 50k blocks.
Unless we fork it again and:
a) modify total coins
b) drop reward/block speed
c) some combination of the above options
hopefully not "a" I like the one mil cap.
So at this rate all coins will be mined in the next 50k blocks.
Unless we fork it again and:
a) modify total coins
b) drop reward/block speed
c) some combination of the above options
BEWARE OF CRYPTO BACKJACK
BIG FAIL AGAIN!
=> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/solved-beware-of-crypto-blackjack-254482 (read entry #05)
I recommend op to take the link to Crypto Black Jack from this thread (at least until all bugs are fixed)
BIG FAIL AGAIN!
=> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/solved-beware-of-crypto-blackjack-254482 (read entry #05)
I recommend op to take the link to Crypto Black Jack from this thread (at least until all bugs are fixed)
I think my response in around 30 minutes of your initial post is pretty damned good. Perhaps you should learn to exercise a little patience before essentially labelling the site a scam everywhere you can.
I am simply warning people. Read my last post on the thread linked.
Don't roll your eyes at me. It is not my fault that you start a gambling site without testing the withdrawal scripts!
Your quick response however is something to be praised!
So at this rate all coins will be mined in the next 50k blocks.
BEWARE OF CRYPTO BACKJACK
BIG FAIL AGAIN!
=> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/solved-beware-of-crypto-blackjack-254482 (read entry #05)
I recommend op to take the link to Crypto Black Jack from this thread (at least until all bugs are fixed)
BIG FAIL AGAIN!
=> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/solved-beware-of-crypto-blackjack-254482 (read entry #05)
I recommend op to take the link to Crypto Black Jack from this thread (at least until all bugs are fixed)
I think my response in around 30 minutes of your initial post is pretty damned good. Perhaps you should learn to exercise a little patience before essentially labelling the site a scam everywhere you can.
It appears reward did not halve after block 50,000.
blok 50001 - 10 coins 
blok 50002 - 10 coins
Why?
blok 50002 - 10 coins
Why?
BEWARE OF CRYPTO BACKJACK
BIG FAIL AGAIN!
=> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/solved-beware-of-crypto-blackjack-254482 (read entry #05)
I recommend op to take the link to Crypto Black Jack from this thread (at least until all bugs are fixed)
BIG FAIL AGAIN!
=> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/solved-beware-of-crypto-blackjack-254482 (read entry #05)
I recommend op to take the link to Crypto Black Jack from this thread (at least until all bugs are fixed)
About 5 hrs till subsidy halves. This should have the effect of finally dropping CGB from the top 5 most profitable to mine (where it has been since it hit an exchange) or cause the price to double or most likely something between these 2 extremes! Stay tuned!
Exciting!!
About 5 hrs till subsidy halves. This should have the effect of finally dropping CGB from the top 5 most profitable to mine (where it has been since it hit an exchange) or cause the price to double or most likely something between these 2 extremes! Stay tuned!
5iqN125qEaGG7S2xJHK2souAN8MRdEH5kk
@Mullick you're working on both CGB and CAP at the same time?
No Elambert and satishi are doing a great job. I just like CGB and wanted to let users know why rewards are sometimes 0
Follow the bull on twitter https://twitter.com/CryptogenicBull
Like us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cryptogenic-Bullion/134177020124803
Jump to: