Author

Topic: [POT]PotCoin - Banking for the Legal Cannabis Industry ✦ ✦ ✦Grow With Us ✦ ✦ ✦ - page 133. (Read 920138 times)

legendary
Activity: 1270
Merit: 1000
wasn't POT's pow block reward next to nothing at the end of pow?

They would use the wallet version before PoSv to do the attack. It would not be all that hard to do. The wallet before PoSv had no idea about the accelerated halfing and the switch to PoSv. I imagine it is conceivable that some miners could still be mining to it and if that chain is longer it would win....that would be tragically funny. Not everyone monitors these threads 24/7 or even monthly. Some people take months off at a time and leave their gear running on autopilot.

Cryptsy is doing the right (responsible) thing in my opinion.

Edit: Thinking about it more...since the PoSv chain was stuck on 974999(?) for days I'm sure the other chain is longer and technically the "correct" chain if it has ANY hashrate still...also seeing as the PoSv chain is going slower than expected it will have a hard time surpassing it.....that is if the other chain still has anyone mining to it.

Edit2: Just restored wallet version 0.8.6.4 from backup....think that was the version right before 8.7.1...maybe I will get some time to see if there are any wallets still running...just curious to see what block they are on and how much hashrate (if any) it has.
legendary
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
Kaspa
honestly I don't know who I'd believe cryptsy or dev... 1 thing I do know is that Poloniex has been around for a long time and is 2nd or 3rd in trusted altcoin exchanges in my book I use cryptsy and bittrex a lot more lol but thats probably more out of habit than anything else. So if Polo thinks POT is safe enough to run the wallet I have no problem giving them my business. cryptsy chronically has tons of wallets in maintenance like MINT and AC as well (and MINT is also up and running on polo) but Bittrex is normally pretty good about keeping up with wallets... so I don't know what to think, I don't know code so wouldn't be able to look for the issue if I tried so a big THANKS to those trying help and sharing their opinions.

for someone to want to waste the time and money to try to fork it, wouldn't there need to be something to be gained by it? wasn't POT's pow block reward next to nothing at the end of pow?

then again this is the "wild west" and if someone had enough of a competing pot themed coin they might be crazy enough to think forking it would hurt it enough to make the other weedcoins look better... so I guess the possibility of someone trying is there but would cost time and money and the more people staking and gaining weight the more expensive it would be to overpower it with pow (if I understand it correctly)

 lol now to Polo to see if anyone sold into my lil buys  Roll Eyes
hero member
Activity: 1274
Merit: 500
So if anyone has any ideas what they would want in a PotCoin t-shirt let me know in a PM , or here  Grin
member
Activity: 95
Merit: 10
So what's the fix, devs?  Do you at least have the issue identified?

It would be nice if we could get an update on what's going on.

-Fuse

Yes we have identified the problem.

As we've said, we are working on fixing the issue.

Your patience is appreciated

The last correspondence from DEV (Potlabs to Fuse) was August 21. Ten days is a long time and a lot of patience without comment on the "issue". According to Cryptsy, they are waiting for the pot dev team to supply the fix. They (Cryptsy) had no eta on the fix but offered to keep the support ticket open and contact me when there was a fix.
Dev - ? What does working on fixing the issue mean. How much more time? I want my coins out of Cryptsy and in my wallet. Thanks -M


We have been in contact with Cryptsy and they have NOT informed us of any issues or a needed fix.

To quote cryptsy's responce to PotCoin "we would like to ask for your patience as we work on getting the wallet back online. As soon as we are done with the work, a representative from our technical support team will send you a note."

We are all eager for the transfers and trading to resume.

PotCoin
Tue, 01 Sep 2015 16:26:28 +0000 [12:26:28 PM EDT]
Delivered-To:  me
From:  "Cryptsy.com" <[email protected]>
Hello M,  We are currently experiencing a problem with the PotCoin chain and we are still waiting for a fix from the coin's development team.  Unfortunately, we do not have an ETA as to when the coin will be back online yet. However, I can send you a note as soon as it is up. Will this work for you?
Sincerely,  
Stephanie  Cryptsy.com
Stephanie's Trade Key  09aa480347b4b9f42bf0e36dfc20a9b48e73080b


Conflicting statements. It seems nothing is being done except the waiting for something to be done. A proactive approach by you on our behalf does seem in order.  I will also add that I noticed that Cryptsy has 54 coin wallets in "maintenance mode". I have coins at Bitrexx also but I have not written to their support team yet. Maybe everyone should fill out support tickets. What do you say Dev?
legendary
Activity: 1582
Merit: 1002
HODL for life.
Crytsey Responce to me,
[–]ny2cafuse 1 point an hour ago
Crypsty is pretty cautious when it comes to wallet updates. They are offline under the premise that the entire network isn't updated, and there is a chance for a fork if enough hashing power was put into a POW wallet version. Fact of the matter is that the devs should have included code that blocked older wallet versions. This would have blocked the POW wallets from connecting to other nodes, and Cryptsy POT wallets would have been online a long time ago.

The devs have hopefully told cryptsy that POW is over, its now POSv, aside from unknown attack vectors, to attack the coin costs BTC to do so.

It doesn't matter if they told them the POW mining is over or not.  The wallet code still says that wallets with the protocol version held when we were POW mining are still valid nodes.  Thus the network update error... if that is what is causing all this fuss.

However, if anyone really wanted to, they could spin up a bunch of POW wallets via docker and CoreOS, throw some MH at it and create running forks that would disrupt the chain.  In fact, they wouldn't even need to mine on this separate network.  They would just need enough nodes running so that when a POSv wallet tries to confirm a block, the POW wallet nodes invalidate the blocks.

This isn't rocket science.  The devs should have addressed this as a possible security concern.  It's already a concern with the exchanges.  Devs - Patch the minimum protocol version pull request that I posted to the potcoin github and move on.


-Fuse
newbie
Activity: 49
Merit: 0
I just put some btc up on polo if anyone wants to sell me some POT... seems to be the only good exchange with an updated wallet  Cool

ya i just sent some to bleutrade, got there real slow hehe

Coins made it to polo Yes :-)

how many you looking for @ what price ?
sr. member
Activity: 335
Merit: 251
So what's the fix, devs?  Do you at least have the issue identified?

It would be nice if we could get an update on what's going on.

-Fuse

Yes we have identified the problem.

As we've said, we are working on fixing the issue.

Your patience is appreciated

The last correspondence from DEV (Potlabs to Fuse) was August 21. Ten days is a long time and a lot of patience without comment on the "issue". According to Cryptsy, they are waiting for the pot dev team to supply the fix. They (Cryptsy) had no eta on the fix but offered to keep the support ticket open and contact me when there was a fix.
Dev - ? What does working on fixing the issue mean. How much more time? I want my coins out of Cryptsy and in my wallet. Thanks -M


We have been in contact with Cryptsy and they have NOT informed us of any issues or a needed fix.

To quote cryptsy's responce to PotCoin "we would like to ask for your patience as we work on getting the wallet back online. As soon as we are done with the work, a representative from our technical support team will send you a note."

We are all eager for the transfers and trading to resume.

PotCoin
member
Activity: 95
Merit: 10
So what's the fix, devs?  Do you at least have the issue identified?

It would be nice if we could get an update on what's going on.

-Fuse

Yes we have identified the problem.

As we've said, we are working on fixing the issue.

Your patience is appreciated

The last correspondence from DEV (Potlabs to Fuse) was August 21. Ten days is a long time and a lot of patience without comment on the "issue". According to Cryptsy, they are waiting for the pot dev team to supply the fix. They (Cryptsy) had no eta on the fix but offered to keep the support ticket open and contact me when there was a fix.
Dev - ? What does working on fixing the issue mean. How much more time? I want my coins out of Cryptsy and in my wallet. Thanks -M
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
Crytsey Responce to me,
[–]ny2cafuse 1 point an hour ago
Crypsty is pretty cautious when it comes to wallet updates. They are offline under the premise that the entire network isn't updated, and there is a chance for a fork if enough hashing power was put into a POW wallet version. Fact of the matter is that the devs should have included code that blocked older wallet versions. This would have blocked the POW wallets from connecting to other nodes, and Cryptsy POT wallets would have been online a long time ago.

The devs have hopefully told cryptsy that POW is over, its now POSv, aside from unknown attack vectors, to attack the coin costs BTC to do so.
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
I have been told flat out that the devs will NOT get to it anytime soon. Apparently they have other things they are working on that are way more important than fixing this. Its also quite clear that they don't have the grasp on the bigger picture that some of us do. Its up to us to get the ball rolling, once we can get the network up to speed, more wallets and coins should start coming online to keep it going.

Ok, I will look/test this out. Can only compile/test on Linux though so don't ask for a Windows client...but if someone has good instructions on how to compile for Windows I might give it a go. Tongue
Can we come to a consensus on an appropriate number for nStakeCombineThreshold?

It is currently set to 2000000 * COIN:

Code:
23 // we split the coinstake output in two to avoid concentrating 
24 // too many coins in one output. currently almost always split.
25 unsigned int nStakeSplitAge = 45 * 24 * 60 * 60; // 45 days
26 // avoid concentrated transactions. on average, each block contains:
27 // generated interest  ~= 27b * 5% / 365 / 1440 ~= 2.5k
28 // corresponding stake ~= 27b / 365 / 1440 ~= 50k
29 // optimally each output stakes once every week so 50k * 52 = 2.6m
30 // but only a fraction of the total money supply is staked on the network
31 int64 nStakeCombineThreshold = 2000000 * COIN;

I included the relevant part of the code above. I also want to highlight nStakeSplitAge as perhaps someone can determine the right amount of time if it should not be 45 days.

Here is the part of the code that does the splitting:
Code:
1650                 if (GetCoinAgeWeight(block.GetBlockTime(), (int64)txNew.nTime) < nStakeSplitAge && nCredit >= nStakeCombineThreshold) 
1651                     txNew.vout.push_back(CTxOut(0, scriptPubKeyOut)); //split stake

Also, looks like it will stop at 100 inputs:
Code:
1673             // Stop adding more inputs if already too many inputs 
1674             if (txNew.vin.size() >= 100)
1675                 break;

Stops adding inputs if it reaches nStakeCombineThreshold
Code:
1676             // Stop adding more inputs if value is already pretty significant 
1677             if (nCredit >= nStakeCombineThreshold)
1678                 break;

etc.
Code:
1679             // Stop adding inputs if reached reserve limit 
1680             if (nCredit + pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].nValue > nBalance - nReserveBalance)
1681                 break;
1682             // Do not add additional significant input
1683             if (pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].nValue >= nStakeCombineThreshold)

Line 31 is the ticket...lets figure out the appropriate amount. Would prefer to do this on testnet but since we don't have that yet guess I will have to risk real coin....not that big of a risk though.

Edit: The comments on lines 23-30 should be updated for POT too.

Based on simple division/ratios. I would say that 10k is a good round # for the split threshold. How did I get there? 2million split for a coin with 21billion in circulation, pot has 211million, 1/100th of reddcoin, take the 2million divide by 100 gives you 20k, drop it to 10k because it sounds like a better # Smiley.

I can attempt to compile for windows if I can get cygwin installed, I tried the other day and it kept failing, I think win10's networking drivers are borked.
newbie
Activity: 20
Merit: 0
Crytsey Responce to me,
[–]ny2cafuse 1 point an hour ago
Crypsty is pretty cautious when it comes to wallet updates. They are offline under the premise that the entire network isn't updated, and there is a chance for a fork if enough hashing power was put into a POW wallet version. Fact of the matter is that the devs should have included code that blocked older wallet versions. This would have blocked the POW wallets from connecting to other nodes, and Cryptsy POT wallets would have been online a long time ago.
legendary
Activity: 1582
Merit: 1002
HODL for life.
While we agree that it is needed, it doesn't explain why polo and bleu are both up and running and bitt and cryptsy are dragging their feet. michelem posted an issue with the wallet that I believe may be whats holding them back, they are getting a segmentation fault and crash when it receives an rpc call, running with -disablewallet stops that from happening. I have a funny feeling that this is whats holding them back and neither the exchanges nor the devs are willing to come clean about it. It still doesn't explain polo+bleu, but with 1s and 0s anything is possible, including quantum flux.

Because polo and bleu aren't as cautious as Cryptsy.  It isn't Cryptsy dragging their feet... it's Cryptsy following their own protocol.  I can recall a few times in the past when Cryptsy got burned on wallet transitions and upgrades, specifically with forks.  I know people that benefited on Cryptsy from the TAG forks.  They won't turn it on until they are 100% sure there isn't a possibility for an attack on the chain with defunct code in the wallet.

Now if there is another issue with the RPC calls, that's another issue that needs to be addressed.  Running -disablewallet seems to be an awfully inconvenient "fix" just to get a wallet up and running.  Either way though, if there was a seg fault, why would the exchange want to hide that fact?  I think they would be the first to say "not us" and put the onus on the devs.  Sounds like the devs have some explaining to do.

-Fuse
legendary
Activity: 1270
Merit: 1000
I have been told flat out that the devs will NOT get to it anytime soon. Apparently they have other things they are working on that are way more important than fixing this. Its also quite clear that they don't have the grasp on the bigger picture that some of us do. Its up to us to get the ball rolling, once we can get the network up to speed, more wallets and coins should start coming online to keep it going.

Ok, I will look/test this out. Can only compile/test on Linux though so don't ask for a Windows client...but if someone has good instructions on how to compile for Windows I might give it a go. Tongue
Can we come to a consensus on an appropriate number for nStakeCombineThreshold?

It is currently set to 2000000 * COIN:

Code:
23 // we split the coinstake output in two to avoid concentrating
24 // too many coins in one output. currently almost always split.
25 unsigned int nStakeSplitAge = 45 * 24 * 60 * 60; // 45 days
26 // avoid concentrated transactions. on average, each block contains:
27 // generated interest  ~= 27b * 5% / 365 / 1440 ~= 2.5k
28 // corresponding stake ~= 27b / 365 / 1440 ~= 50k
29 // optimally each output stakes once every week so 50k * 52 = 2.6m
30 // but only a fraction of the total money supply is staked on the network
31 int64 nStakeCombineThreshold = 2000000 * COIN;

I included the relevant part of the code above. I also want to highlight nStakeSplitAge as perhaps someone can determine the right amount of time if it should not be 45 days.

Here is the part of the code that does the splitting:
Code:
1650                 if (GetCoinAgeWeight(block.GetBlockTime(), (int64)txNew.nTime) < nStakeSplitAge && nCredit >= nStakeCombineThreshold)
1651                     txNew.vout.push_back(CTxOut(0, scriptPubKeyOut)); //split stake

Also, looks like it will stop at 100 inputs:
Code:
1673             // Stop adding more inputs if already too many inputs
1674             if (txNew.vin.size() >= 100)
1675                 break;

Stops adding inputs if it reaches nStakeCombineThreshold
Code:
1676             // Stop adding more inputs if value is already pretty significant
1677             if (nCredit >= nStakeCombineThreshold)
1678                 break;

etc.
Code:
1679             // Stop adding inputs if reached reserve limit
1680             if (nCredit + pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].nValue > nBalance - nReserveBalance)
1681                 break;
1682             // Do not add additional significant input
1683             if (pcoin.first->vout[pcoin.second].nValue >= nStakeCombineThreshold)

Line 31 is the ticket...lets figure out the appropriate amount. Would prefer to do this on testnet but since we don't have that yet guess I will have to risk real coin....not that big of a risk though.

Edit: The comments on lines 23-30 should be updated for POT too.
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
I sent a support ticket to Cryptsy about getting my coins out. They said they are waiting for a fix from the dev. They have no idea when the wallet will be working. What the heck kind of "Fix"? -M

The fix that blocks older wallet versions.  Until that happens, any Tom, Dick or Harry can run an older version of the wallet and keep the exchanges locked up.  I posted the fix weeks ago, but no one from the dev team wanted to address it.

-Fuse

While we agree that it is needed, it doesn't explain why polo and bleu are both up and running and bitt and cryptsy are dragging their feet. michelem posted an issue with the wallet that I believe may be whats holding them back, they are getting a segmentation fault and crash when it receives an rpc call, running with -disablewallet stops that from happening. I have a funny feeling that this is whats holding them back and neither the exchanges nor the devs are willing to come clean about it. It still doesn't explain polo+bleu, but with 1s and 0s anything is possible, including quantum flux.
legendary
Activity: 1582
Merit: 1002
HODL for life.
I sent a support ticket to Cryptsy about getting my coins out. They said they are waiting for a fix from the dev. They have no idea when the wallet will be working. What the heck kind of "Fix"? -M

The fix that blocks older wallet versions.  Until that happens, any Tom, Dick or Harry can run an older version of the wallet and keep the exchanges locked up.  I posted the fix weeks ago, but no one from the dev team wanted to address it.

-Fuse
legendary
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
Kaspa
I just put some btc up on polo if anyone wants to sell me some POT... seems to be the only good exchange with an updated wallet  Cool
member
Activity: 95
Merit: 10
I sent a support ticket to Cryptsy about getting my coins out. They said they are waiting for a fix from the dev. They have no idea when the wallet will be working. What the heck kind of "Fix"? -M
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
legendary
Activity: 1672
Merit: 1046
Here we go again
i have my coins splitted up anyway and i stake almost daily.
So i will watch if the stake ends up on the same block.

Man why is everything so complicated
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
where the vid go

deleted it cause he said its useless


Not useless, just not applicable to potcoin until they change the threshold.

yeah its not a bad thing if everybody would split up a little each 1 or 2 days.
The Chances that the Stake got mixed up in a single Block again would go down over time anyway right ?




Quite the opposite, the wallet actively looks for inputs to combine, over time your chances of multiple inputs being swept into 1 output increase.
Last check on cryptoid says we have 629 actively staking addresses, to account for those that may be brought offline again after they stake, if an avg of 10 of us get 30 addresses with separate coins actively staking, we could get the network up to speed in the next 24 hours or so. Last count has us at 105'ish from 3 of us here and I am actively working on upping my contribution to 100-200 addresses.

Edit: When all is said and done, I will have 292 addresses actively staking in one wallet. If this doesn't get us going, nothing will.
Jump to: