From one side muf is right and i understand his statement against PoS, but from the other side there are people who did not mine SLM but they bought it when price was like 50 times more than now, so if they want to be rewarded on some way, PoS is the fastest to get some free coins. In the early beginning hash rate was like 10 times more than now.
I understand that muf want to say for the newcomers to SLM wont be nice to see that hash going incredibly high if someone start stake, what wont be attractive for the new miners, and with that i must agree.
This is old coin and, old thread have over 200 pages, plus new 64 pages, no one will go trough the history. So, i think the OP must be organized on that way that everyone can found basic information what can be expected.
As well if it is possible, to make calculators for PoB, PoW, and PoS
Topic: Slimcoin | First Proof of Burn currency | Decentralized Web - page 96. (Read 137076 times)
I think I'm pretty much on the same side with Graham on this one.
I've been following this thread for a meager 9 months, during which I did a bit of promotion, testing, provided feedback and tinkering privately with the code. I had at all times at least 2 Slimcoin nodes up and running, thus helping the network.
Am I entitled to some reward, proportionally equal to the effort? I think so.
Would it be even comparable with the effort (or "luck") of someone who was keeping a node active since the day one, or who mined with the wallet from they day one? Absolutely not.
So, what we are witnessing right now, is in fact a principle of "justice written immutably in the code". There is no bug. These guys have the right to get back their rewards.
We should have seen this coming (and I confess that when I saw Slimcoin listed again on CMC I even made a mental wager with myself that it wouldn't take longer than 3 months for the initial players to come back, at least for a quick cashout). Getting involved in this community under the assumption that the initial coins (a few millions) are "lost", or "dead' is just plain wrong. Early adopters have all the rights to get back their investment.
For me this is not discouraging. On the contrary. It shows that with enough patience and contribution, value will always increase.
I've been following this thread for a meager 9 months, during which I did a bit of promotion, testing, provided feedback and tinkering privately with the code. I had at all times at least 2 Slimcoin nodes up and running, thus helping the network.
Am I entitled to some reward, proportionally equal to the effort? I think so.
Would it be even comparable with the effort (or "luck") of someone who was keeping a node active since the day one, or who mined with the wallet from they day one? Absolutely not.
So, what we are witnessing right now, is in fact a principle of "justice written immutably in the code". There is no bug. These guys have the right to get back their rewards.
We should have seen this coming (and I confess that when I saw Slimcoin listed again on CMC I even made a mental wager with myself that it wouldn't take longer than 3 months for the initial players to come back, at least for a quick cashout). Getting involved in this community under the assumption that the initial coins (a few millions) are "lost", or "dead' is just plain wrong. Early adopters have all the rights to get back their investment.
For me this is not discouraging. On the contrary. It shows that with enough patience and contribution, value will always increase.
But it's quite unfair.
And I will describe it in a few words why:
1/ People who owned massive wallets from 2014, hasn't appeared from 2015, anywhere - thus they weren't helping network at all
2/ They "HODLED", because they even can't sell their coins after delisting of every exchange Slimcoin has
3/ We don't have any 'mega-pool', thus - we don't even have a pool, so any mining calculator, we can just trash out of the window
4/ There is no justifciation for spamming and boggling network with POS blocks only - it makes situation unfair and worse for every kind of other minters
5/ Miners will go away if this situation, will be again, because it's a flaw in the system, which was exploited a few times. I guess that after they won't have any POS coins, they will shutdown once again wallets, or just market-sell everything on nova - which would at least have some positive market effect (gaining liquidity).
And I will describe it in a few words why:
1/ People who owned massive wallets from 2014, hasn't appeared from 2015, anywhere - thus they weren't helping network at all
2/ They "HODLED", because they even can't sell their coins after delisting of every exchange Slimcoin has
3/ We don't have any 'mega-pool', thus - we don't even have a pool, so any mining calculator, we can just trash out of the window
4/ There is no justifciation for spamming and boggling network with POS blocks only - it makes situation unfair and worse for every kind of other minters
5/ Miners will go away if this situation, will be again, because it's a flaw in the system, which was exploited a few times. I guess that after they won't have any POS coins, they will shutdown once again wallets, or just market-sell everything on nova - which would at least have some positive market effect (gaining liquidity).
I urgently appealed to the guy/guys, who are staking - stop it. You are hurting network with this nonsense. At least stop until there is some solution to this problem.
After some mature reflection, I realise that I should have been expecting exactly this.
A typical scenario? Back in early 2014, when Slimcoin was attracting a fair amount of attention, some people actively mined the coin and built up a satisfactory amount (for an idiosyncratic definition of “satisfactory”) of coins. Some months down the line, after various freezes, crashes, chewing up CPU to the detriment of the UX, they understandably chose to shut down the staking client but not actually delete the wallet because the coin hadn't really had much of a fair go and maybe it would get fixed someday.
Recently they have learned, from disparate sources that, for disparate reasons, it might be worth trying the Slimcoin wallet again. Are they even aware of reservebalance? And even if they are aware, they've already supported the coin strongly in the early days so, as far as they are concerned, they have a very justifiable sense of co-ownership and the accumulated PoS interest “stake flood” is a known and understood feature and was so back when they were accumulating.
It will happen *every* time a hodler reconnects a well-funded wallet that was previously offline for a long period. The broader the reach of the “Hey, Slimcoin's back” call, the more returnees arrive back. I see it as a useful feature that buggers up any mining profitability calculations and so acts as quite an effective deterrent to the algorithm-driven, profit-following megapools that can methodically strip-mine a profitable small-but-expanding altcoin network into complete stasis.
Cheers
Graham
1. I've been tidying the ACME code in preparation for a “contractual obligation” (i.e. I said I would) pre-alpha release, the Slimcoin instance of ACME sports some hypothesised improvements in presentation, some may even be noticeable. The open sourced (pre-alpha) code has been committed:
https://github.com/gjhiggins/acme
Next step is to commit the Slimcoin adaptation as a branch of the (ultra-minimalist) pre-alpha.
2. In an aside to those who (besides me) struggle with my vocabulary, this is the kind of thing I have to read and “inwardly digest” ...
Fair do's though, they have made a reasonably compelling case.
Relevance? It's what Ken Wilber's “integral theory” (the origin of “Teal”) has developed into after 50 years of work and represents current efforts to generate a descriptive characterisation of the difference between a bunch of folks yakking in an online space and a collective intelligence.
(I'll spare you the gory details of the semiotics and stigmergy papers but you might be interested in skimming Juho Salminen’s literature review: COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE IN HUMANS: A LITERATURE REVIEW to get a sense of the extent of the field)
Cheers
Graham
https://github.com/gjhiggins/acme
Next step is to commit the Slimcoin adaptation as a branch of the (ultra-minimalist) pre-alpha.
2. In an aside to those who (besides me) struggle with my vocabulary, this is the kind of thing I have to read and “inwardly digest” ...
Quote
Group communication norms in conventional groups tend to be limited and transactional, consisting of individuals listening and speaking from the commonplace condition of perceived separateness, both internally and within the subtle phenomenological realm of the group field. Individuals embedded in a more traditional secular worldview generally experience this separation as implicit to the context of their lifeworld, presumed as a pregiven aspect of one’s experience of ordinary waking life and consciousness, which is further reinforced by traditional public norms of debate, monologue, and discussion (Tannen, 1998). To draw out this caricature a bit further, thinking and listening from our separate self-sense prevents us from apprehending certain forms of emerging knowledge. Being to a great extent unaware of these limiting conditions, conventional groups tend to inadvertently generate polarization, fragmentation, destructive conflict, and other problematic experiences of communication. While it is overly simplistic to locate the root cause of these communication limitations back to an egocentric self-referencing orientation, when individuals habitually orient their thinking from the all too familiar psychosocial medium of the separate self and its pre-existing beliefs, communication issues invariably surface. Generally speaking, the ego and its defenses are well entrenched within sociocultural norms of behavior and intention (Ehlers, 2004; Vaillant, 1992, 1995). Nevertheless, this self-circumscribed orientation within the context of group communication brings about limiting conditions that obstruct the emergence of collective intelligence processes, which rely on the ability to sense and presence new knowledge, learning, and discoveries (Gunnlaugson 2007, 2012; Scharmer 2007).
- SURRENDERING INTO WITNESSING: A Foundational Practice for Building Collective Intelligence Capacity in Groups, Olen Gunnlaugson and Mary Beth G. MozeFair do's though, they have made a reasonably compelling case.
Relevance? It's what Ken Wilber's “integral theory” (the origin of “Teal”) has developed into after 50 years of work and represents current efforts to generate a descriptive characterisation of the difference between a bunch of folks yakking in an online space and a collective intelligence.
(I'll spare you the gory details of the semiotics and stigmergy papers but you might be interested in skimming Juho Salminen’s literature review: COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE IN HUMANS: A LITERATURE REVIEW to get a sense of the extent of the field)
Cheers
Graham
I think the fairest way is to make Slimcoin's 10% yearly reward maximum possible is you were online 24/7 all 365 days. In Particl my wallet was online around 12 hours a day for three days and I got 3 stakes during that time. Then I went offline for a week and got nothing (of course). Last three days it was online again. First days for a few hours and I didn't get a stake. Next day longer but still nothing. And today I got a stake again after being online for about 10 hours.
I don't know how it actually works but if you're online 24 hours you'll definitely get your coins today and that amount would be equal to number of your coins *5%/365. If you were online less time you might or might not get your reward.
I don't know how it actually works but if you're online 24 hours you'll definitely get your coins today and that amount would be equal to number of your coins *5%/365. If you were online less time you might or might not get your reward.
Here's what I got: "I dont think Particl made a paper on that. The closesed I could find was a link cryptoguard posted not to long ago http://earlz.net/view/2017/07/27/1904/the-missing-explanation-of-proof-of-stake-version"
Thanks, very interesting article. But I think we have a misunderstanding.
In all PoS versions, people must be online at the moment where they can get a reward. In most "regular" PoS variants, including Slimcoin's "Peercoin PoS" but also "PoSv3" and also NXT's PoS, you get rewards if you "find a block". Basically, this consists in finding a Proof of work hash but the task is easier if you have more coins "staking". It is only possible for one participant to find a block at a given time.
Now the question is how many rewards you get and if the amount of your reward is related to the time you were online. It would be desirable - as you said above - that the amount of the reward is higher if a node is online more often. In the current SLM implementation, however, your reward is bound to the amount of your "staking" coins - it is 10% of the holdings per year. That doesn't change if you are online one time every 90 days or 24/7.
For this goal (higher rewards for higher online time) to happen, one can use three different strategies:
1) the easiest one: make the reward fix (not based on your holdings). So you get, for example, 10 SLM for each PoS block you find, independent if you are "staking" with 100 SLM or with 1000000 SLM.
2) You can also work completely without a reward and instead rely on transaction fees. That's the way NXT does it.
1) and 2) have a side effect that is not desired by some: they "make the rich richer". Because in this model, "rich" nodes will get much higher rewards than in the current Slimcoin/Peercoin/Blackcoin PoS model where the reward is limited to a percentage of the holdings (e.g. 10% per year like in Slimcoin, in Particl I think it was 5% and then every year less).
So if you don't want this effect to happen, you could imagine a third way to make reward dependent on the time a node is online:
3) nodes, in every block, track the time every staking node is online and write it to the blockchain.
It is obvious that 3) is not scalable, because you would have to include the address of every staking node in all blocks where they are staking (e.g. every block having a field "online nodes: address1, address2, ...". In a large network with hundreds or thousands of staking nodes, that would make blocks much larger. So this method, if I remember it right, is only used in DPOS currencies like Lisk, Neo or Bitshares, where the number of stakers (or validators, like some call it) is limited.
Particl's and Blackcoin's PoS variants are not solving that problem. The best try in my opinion is the method I describe as "option 2" (NXT etc.) because there the nodes only win transaction fees as rewards and so the "rich get richer" effect is less dramatic. Option 1 with a significantly lower reward than in PoW would also be an option (e.g. the reward is bound to 1/10 of the PoW reward).
Where Slim can learn from Blackcoin/Particl is that we could also use PoSv3 and eliminate "coin age". That would, at least, make the algorithm more secure, although Slimcoin with its PoW/PoB blocks already has a "safeguard".
Here's a good article about Part https://decentralize.today/in-depth-presentation-of-the-particl-project-b3a41923a07e?gi=d9b3daae3da6
Unfortunately that article doesn't say anything relevant about the part of the Proof of Stake algorithm that detects if a wallet really is online to calculate the staking reward. From what I understand, Particl's algorithm is very similar to Peercoin's and Slimcoin's, only that it uses Blackcoin's "PoSv3" algorithm where coin-days are not relevant but only the pure "staking amount". If you (or anybody other) know a source where I can see the details about that feature, I'll be glad to read it.I've found a Particl whitepaper, but it is centred on the privacy features. I've also found a feature called "Conditional Staking", but that seems to be more similar to Peercoin's "Cold Staking" or NXT's "Leased Forging" as it allows to define keys that are only used for minting.
Here's what I got: "I dont think Particl made a paper on that. The closesed I could find was a link cryptoguard posted not to long ago http://earlz.net/view/2017/07/27/1904/the-missing-explanation-of-proof-of-stake-version"
Is there something wrong with my wallet ? How to fix it ?
Apologies for being obtuse, inferring the nub of question can sometimes be more challenging than answering it.
The lines that read trying connection
Nodes pop up an drop down all the time. There's no central registry so, once connected to the network, each node keeps its own copy of who it has connected with before and tries to re-connect to them occasionally, just in case they've popped up again.
The addresses are stored in the addr.dat file in the datadir, there isn't a flush mechanism (apart from rm -f addr.dat) so elderly addresses will persist - your client will even get them from another client when it can - it's a feature of a distributed network.
HTH
Cheers
Graham
Is this normal ?
Quote
2017-08-08 06:06:16 UTC hashmeter 4 CPUs 3397 hash/s
PoW Target: 0000000a8e7a0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
trying connection 1.23.43.88:41682 lastseen=-19879.6hrs
connection timeout
trying connection 217.65.8.75:46733 lastseen=-389492.3hrs
connection timeout
trying connection 86.130.245.53:41682 lastseen=-27702.6hrs
connection timeout
trying connection 217.65.8.75:37262 lastseen=-389492.3hrs
connection timeout
trying connection 175.143.17.109:41682 lastseen=-23578.5hrs
connection timeout
trying connection 146.185.168.142:60082 lastseen=-389492.3hrs
connection timeout
trying connection 196.28.245.222:41682 lastseen=-22861.7hrs
PoW Target: 0000000a8e7a0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
trying connection 1.23.43.88:41682 lastseen=-19879.6hrs
connection timeout
trying connection 217.65.8.75:46733 lastseen=-389492.3hrs
connection timeout
trying connection 86.130.245.53:41682 lastseen=-27702.6hrs
connection timeout
trying connection 217.65.8.75:37262 lastseen=-389492.3hrs
connection timeout
trying connection 175.143.17.109:41682 lastseen=-23578.5hrs
connection timeout
trying connection 146.185.168.142:60082 lastseen=-389492.3hrs
connection timeout
trying connection 196.28.245.222:41682 lastseen=-22861.7hrs
What seems to be the problem?
Cheers
Graham
edit: re-phrased response
Im running it for 12 hours, when i open debug file i see that almost in every line.
Is there something wrong with my wallet ? How to fix it ?
And here is another sample.
Code:
2017-08-14 19:53:59 UTC hashmeter 3 CPUs 1534 hash/s
PoW Target: 000000088e110000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
connection timeout
trying connection 124.207.103.153:41682 lastseen=-27432.8hrs
askfor block 0c55c57435fa57f9b3f4 0
sending getdata: block 0c55c57435fa57f9b3f4
received block 0c55c57435fa57f9b3f4
CBlock(hash=0c55c57435fa57f9b3f4, ver=1, hashPrevBlock=000000046e72b383e962, hashMerkleRoot=5de565ea6b, nTime=1502740440, nBits=1d088e11, nNonce=0, vtx=1, vchBlockSig=3045022100b11c3d37c3612310aa0798f72417780ba0ebd376c0de5d883e91115c737c76b8022062fb4a668d64ce3d115be6bb3539746ac790510d008b2797306c2627512cbf67)
CBlock General PoB(nBurnBits=1c4e3ee3 nEffectiveBurnCoins=1158098402921 (formatted 1158098.00))
CBlock Specific PoB(fProofOfBurn true, burnBlkHeight 968798, burnCTx 1, burnCTxOut 0)
Coinbase(hash=5de565ea6b, nTime=1502740440, ver=1, vin.size=1, vout.size=1, nLockTime=0)
CTxIn(COutPoint(0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, -1), coinbase 04d8ff91590126062f503253482f)
CTxOut(nValue=11.00, scriptPubKey=0293d2fbd2f6b80ea40aefd839987fb82225aa0a5ce61bdea520464b4370180947 OP_CHECKSIG)
vMerkleTree:
SetBestChain: new best=0c55c57435fa57f9b3f4 height=1073888 trust=30902483902297 moneysupply=16897880.00 nEffectiveBurnCoins=1158098.00
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
Refreshing inscription tableRunning SlimCoinMiner with 1 transaction in block
Running SlimCoinMiner with 1 transaction in block
Running SlimCoinMiner with 1 transaction in block
2017-08-14 19:54:09 UTC Flushing wallet.dat
Flushed wallet.dat 78ms
connection timeout
trying connection 115.85.174.129:41682 lastseen=-27283.2hrs
connection timeout
My Slimcoin wallet both 0.5 and 0.3 (windows 10) crashes at what seems to be random times, it'll crash faster if I'm mining. Any idea what the issue could be and what I could do to fix it?
At the moment, I can only run Windows 10 in a VM, so am unlikely to be able to replicate the problem. The only thing I can suggest, if you're up for it, is to try using MXE to compile the binary on your own machine.
Cheers
Graham
I remember this coin from 2014. Does it now have also the increasingly much needed feature of burning tokens? 
Oh is this coin even from 2014? It went a long way but preserved such an active community. Really good to see that.
I had this idea the other day for a dynamic proof-of-work, where actual algorithm parameters change so ASIC production is literally impossible. Perhaps a list of hashing algorithms where the order of execution can change as well as their parameters. These are then stored on the blockchain as well to verify things later.
Like RouletteCoin? https://github.com/roulettecoin/roulettecoin
Roulettecoin is a lite version of Bitcoin using custom randomized proof-of-work algorithm that favours CPU mining.
50 coins per block
1 minute block targets
1440 blocks (~1 day) to retarget difficulty
subsidy halves in 525.6k blocks (~1 year)
~52.56 million total coins to be mined
“Randomisation” happens here ...
https://github.com/roulettecoin/roulettecoin/blob/master-0.8/src/roulette.h
Cheers
Graham
I remember this coin from 2014. Does it now have also the increasingly much needed feature of burning tokens?
Here's a good article about Part https://decentralize.today/in-depth-presentation-of-the-particl-project-b3a41923a07e?gi=d9b3daae3da6
Unfortunately that article doesn't say anything relevant about the part of the Proof of Stake algorithm that detects if a wallet really is online to calculate the staking reward. From what I understand, Particl's algorithm is very similar to Peercoin's and Slimcoin's, only that it uses Blackcoin's "PoSv3" algorithm where coin-days are not relevant but only the pure "staking amount". If you (or anybody other) know a source where I can see the details about that feature, I'll be glad to read it.I've found a Particl whitepaper, but it is centred on the privacy features. I've also found a feature called "Conditional Staking", but that seems to be more similar to Peercoin's "Cold Staking" or NXT's "Leased Forging" as it allows to define keys that are only used for minting.
Usually (if not every) the last part of debug.log after crash:
https://pastebin.com/d4viXrrh
The crash is most frequent if the wallet is unlocked for minting and or is mining.
https://pastebin.com/d4viXrrh
The crash is most frequent if the wallet is unlocked for minting and or is mining.
But Particl could be interesting as a model to follow because it seems to be built on the Bitcoin code, so it could be implemented more easily.
Apropos of nothing, I had my attention drawn to it recently as a Core 0.14 PoS implementation, the only one other than PIVX afaik.
Looks like the initial spate of emissions may well have subsided. I for one welcome the prodigal hodlers; they didn't delete the wallet, they didn't miss the coinmarketcap event and it must be acknowledged, it *is* a “regulation dance move” (c.f. ITFTWBR and the network has expanded by 30% so they haven't turned the wallet off (yet). And, if I get my skates on w.r.t. ACME, they'll have good reason to fire it up more frequently than once in a blue coinmarketcap^W moon.
And, and, and. But - welcome hodlers.
Cheers
Graham
But Particl could be interesting as a model to follow because it seems to be built on the Bitcoin code, so it could be implemented more easily. I didn't know it until now, so I'll investigate it.
Here's a good article about Part https://decentralize.today/in-depth-presentation-of-the-particl-project-b3a41923a07e?gi=d9b3daae3da6
No the diff is still too high, because POS blocks took most of the blocks still.
It is interfering too much into whole balance of system. POB and POW should be accounted and rewarded with most of the blocks, not POS blocks, which are spamming imo network with coin age factor taking place.
I mean wtf is this.
http://tessier.bel-epa.com:6054/main/addr/SX36pc9V9hj3nR7UTtK3Gvrh9CCx1pxUpm
http://tessier.bel-epa.com:6054/main/addr/SdtGbDDb9px79dExUnoNZLbrnenM4Ki9y5
http://tessier.bel-epa.com:6054/main/addr/SZEHwJm2RDspGXpFzbtTgxHRs5jTVJNyM9
Wallet/s within this addresses are spamming network with POS blocks, with 7-8 months old coins.
Balance is broken in the ACME, but thanks to it, we can see what is balance on this address with bchain SLM block explorer.
It make #12 for SZEHwJm2RDspGXpFzbtTgxHRs5jTVJNyM9 with balance of 442,068.341 SLM (over 3.3 mln SLM received!)
#98 for SX36pc9V9hj3nR7UTtK3Gvrh9CCx1pxUpm with balance of 12,445.782 SLM
#31 for SdtGbDDb9px79dExUnoNZLbrnenM4Ki9y5 with balance of 113,894.970 SLM
Just my little investigation of the problem here, to see what's going on, yeah anybody can do it, yet I was curious.
As I calculated it will gonna score about 33K of slimcoin ? For doing nothing ? Something is not right, it's too much.
It is interfering too much into whole balance of system. POB and POW should be accounted and rewarded with most of the blocks, not POS blocks, which are spamming imo network with coin age factor taking place.
I mean wtf is this.
http://tessier.bel-epa.com:6054/main/addr/SX36pc9V9hj3nR7UTtK3Gvrh9CCx1pxUpm
http://tessier.bel-epa.com:6054/main/addr/SdtGbDDb9px79dExUnoNZLbrnenM4Ki9y5
http://tessier.bel-epa.com:6054/main/addr/SZEHwJm2RDspGXpFzbtTgxHRs5jTVJNyM9
Wallet/s within this addresses are spamming network with POS blocks, with 7-8 months old coins.
Balance is broken in the ACME, but thanks to it, we can see what is balance on this address with bchain SLM block explorer.
It make #12 for SZEHwJm2RDspGXpFzbtTgxHRs5jTVJNyM9 with balance of 442,068.341 SLM (over 3.3 mln SLM received!)
#98 for SX36pc9V9hj3nR7UTtK3Gvrh9CCx1pxUpm with balance of 12,445.782 SLM
#31 for SdtGbDDb9px79dExUnoNZLbrnenM4Ki9y5 with balance of 113,894.970 SLM
Just my little investigation of the problem here, to see what's going on, yeah anybody can do it, yet I was curious.
As I calculated it will gonna score about 33K of slimcoin ? For doing nothing ? Something is not right, it's too much.
I don't understand how PoS technically works but my lord that is a lot of inputs!
No the diff is still too high, because POS blocks took most of the blocks still.
It is interfering too much into whole balance of system. POB and POW should be accounted and rewarded with most of the blocks, not POS blocks, which are spamming imo network with coin age factor taking place.
I mean wtf is this.
http://tessier.bel-epa.com:6054/main/addr/SX36pc9V9hj3nR7UTtK3Gvrh9CCx1pxUpm
http://tessier.bel-epa.com:6054/main/addr/SdtGbDDb9px79dExUnoNZLbrnenM4Ki9y5
http://tessier.bel-epa.com:6054/main/addr/SZEHwJm2RDspGXpFzbtTgxHRs5jTVJNyM9
Wallet/s within this addresses are spamming network with POS blocks, with 7-8 months old coins.
Balance is broken in the ACME, but thanks to it, we can see what is balance on this address with bchain SLM block explorer.
It make #12 for SZEHwJm2RDspGXpFzbtTgxHRs5jTVJNyM9 with balance of 442,068.341 SLM (over 3.3 mln SLM received!)
#98 for SX36pc9V9hj3nR7UTtK3Gvrh9CCx1pxUpm with balance of 12,445.782 SLM
#31 for SdtGbDDb9px79dExUnoNZLbrnenM4Ki9y5 with balance of 113,894.970 SLM
Just my little investigation of the problem here, to see what's going on, yeah anybody can do it, yet I was curious.
As I calculated it will gonna score about 33K of slimcoin ? For doing nothing ? Something is not right, it's too much.
It is interfering too much into whole balance of system. POB and POW should be accounted and rewarded with most of the blocks, not POS blocks, which are spamming imo network with coin age factor taking place.
I mean wtf is this.
http://tessier.bel-epa.com:6054/main/addr/SX36pc9V9hj3nR7UTtK3Gvrh9CCx1pxUpm
http://tessier.bel-epa.com:6054/main/addr/SdtGbDDb9px79dExUnoNZLbrnenM4Ki9y5
http://tessier.bel-epa.com:6054/main/addr/SZEHwJm2RDspGXpFzbtTgxHRs5jTVJNyM9
Wallet/s within this addresses are spamming network with POS blocks, with 7-8 months old coins.
Balance is broken in the ACME, but thanks to it, we can see what is balance on this address with bchain SLM block explorer.
It make #12 for SZEHwJm2RDspGXpFzbtTgxHRs5jTVJNyM9 with balance of 442,068.341 SLM (over 3.3 mln SLM received!)
#98 for SX36pc9V9hj3nR7UTtK3Gvrh9CCx1pxUpm with balance of 12,445.782 SLM
#31 for SdtGbDDb9px79dExUnoNZLbrnenM4Ki9y5 with balance of 113,894.970 SLM
Just my little investigation of the problem here, to see what's going on, yeah anybody can do it, yet I was curious.
As I calculated it will gonna score about 33K of slimcoin ? For doing nothing ? Something is not right, it's too much.
Jump to: