[Ultracoin] [Est. Feb 2014] ~ ASIC Resistant & Ultrafast 6 Second Transactions! - page 82.

volyova

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quote from: gavrilo77 on April 17, 2016, 03:20:57 AM

Quote from: volyova on April 17, 2016, 03:03:11 AM

Quote from: gavrilo77 on April 17, 2016, 01:21:24 AM

Witch miner is good for GPU UTC mining? If possible link. What would be bat file? I tried earlier but never get it work. I have 290x

Thanks

270x's are the best. Lots of RAM is more important than processing power, so if you're serious about mining UTC you need to sell that beast and get some 270's I think.

I have 4 GB GPU, and 24 GB RAM, but still i am trying to find miner and the best configuration (bat) to start mining for my card.

Sorry, I meant lots of GPU RAM. I think 270x with 4GB are the best.

gavrilo77

hero member

Activity: 819

Merit: 502

Quote from: volyova on April 17, 2016, 03:03:11 AM

Quote from: gavrilo77 on April 17, 2016, 01:21:24 AM

Witch miner is good for GPU UTC mining? If possible link. What would be bat file? I tried earlier but never get it work. I have 290x

Thanks

270x's are the best. Lots of RAM is more important than processing power, so if you're serious about mining UTC you need to sell that beast and get some 270's I think.

I have 4 GB GPU, and 24 GB RAM, but still i am trying to find miner and the best configuration (bat) to start mining for my card.

volyova

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quote from: gavrilo77 on April 17, 2016, 01:21:24 AM

Witch miner is good for GPU UTC mining? If possible link. What would be bat file? I tried earlier but never get it work. I have 290x

Thanks

270x's are the best. Lots of RAM is more important than processing power, so if you're serious about mining UTC you need to sell that beast and get some 270's I think.

gavrilo77

hero member

Activity: 819

Merit: 502

Witch miner is good for GPU UTC mining? If possible link. What would be bat file? I tried earlier but never get it work. I have 290x

Thanks

usukan

legendary

Activity: 1590

Merit: 1002

its only 2% now - so its an increase back to where it was Oct/Nov last year.

Cheers

Quote from: jimblasko on April 16, 2016, 05:58:00 PM

Quote from: usukan on April 16, 2016, 05:45:47 PM

Anybody here in the community reject the idea of reverting to 5.2% annual staking reward?

If not I will get PressTab to fix this up too.

Thanks - ususkan

That's a nice low amount :-)

jimblasko

hero member

Activity: 510

Merit: 500

Quote from: usukan on April 16, 2016, 05:45:47 PM

Anybody here in the community reject the idea of reverting to 5.2% annual staking reward?

If not I will get PressTab to fix this up too.

Thanks - ususkan

That's a nice low amount :-)

usukan

legendary

Activity: 1590

Merit: 1002

Anybody here in the community reject the idea of reverting to 5.2% annual staking reward?

If not I will get PressTab to fix this up too.

Thanks - ususkan

PaulR1

sr. member

Activity: 320

Merit: 250

Yes, I also agree, it will make UTC some more attractive at the moment and in the near future.
I leave the final decision to the community and the commitee, it is know the best time the change it by Presstab.

Warm greetings,
Paul

Quote from: wtfc360 on April 15, 2016, 06:29:59 AM

I also agree with both of you

Quote from: usukan on April 15, 2016, 04:32:14 AM

Rolled this one around - conclusion is that I support actually.

Thanks for your ideas here Alenevaa.

Will have an effect on inflation but IMO the holding incentive is more significant.

more opinions please.

Cheers - usukan

Quote from: alenevaa on April 15, 2016, 02:58:57 AM

Quote from: usukan on April 04, 2016, 05:03:00 PM

On the block reward - the current plan can be summarised:

Change notes:

Change to 10 UTC per block pending new update
10 UTC per block - 4,000,000
5 UTC per block - 6,000,000
2.5 UTC per block - 8,000,000
1.25 UTC per block - 20,000,000
1 UTC per block - 25,000,000
.5 UTC per block - 30,000,000
.25 UTC per block - 40,000,000
.125 UTC per block - 50,000,000
.01 UTC per block - 208,145,600

Change to 2% pending new update
1.5% per year at block 4,000,000
1% per year at block 8,000,000

Community - Please discuss.

Thanks - usukan

As I can understand Stake (PoS) is 2% per year right now.
And holder will get 2% only in theory. It'll be less in real life.
Is it worth to accumulate ultracoin with so low stake rate?

Why not to revert to 5.2%/year as it was before fork? It'll not increase inflation but incetivezed people to hold and not to dump.

In fact I don't have much UTCs. I'm just curious!

What do you think guys?

wtfc360

full member

Activity: 137

Merit: 100

I also agree with both of you

Quote from: usukan on April 15, 2016, 04:32:14 AM

Rolled this one around - conclusion is that I support actually.

Thanks for your ideas here Alenevaa.

Will have an effect on inflation but IMO the holding incentive is more significant.

more opinions please.

Cheers - usukan

Quote from: alenevaa on April 15, 2016, 02:58:57 AM

Quote from: usukan on April 04, 2016, 05:03:00 PM

On the block reward - the current plan can be summarised:

Change notes:

Change to 10 UTC per block pending new update
10 UTC per block - 4,000,000
5 UTC per block - 6,000,000
2.5 UTC per block - 8,000,000
1.25 UTC per block - 20,000,000
1 UTC per block - 25,000,000
.5 UTC per block - 30,000,000
.25 UTC per block - 40,000,000
.125 UTC per block - 50,000,000
.01 UTC per block - 208,145,600

Change to 2% pending new update
1.5% per year at block 4,000,000
1% per year at block 8,000,000

Community - Please discuss.

Thanks - usukan

As I can understand Stake (PoS) is 2% per year right now.
And holder will get 2% only in theory. It'll be less in real life.
Is it worth to accumulate ultracoin with so low stake rate?

Why not to revert to 5.2%/year as it was before fork? It'll not increase inflation but incetivezed people to hold and not to dump.

In fact I don't have much UTCs. I'm just curious!

What do you think guys?

usukan

legendary

Activity: 1590

Merit: 1002

Rolled this one around - conclusion is that I support actually.

Thanks for your ideas here Alenevaa.

Will have an effect on inflation but IMO the holding incentive is more significant.

more opinions please.

Cheers - usukan

Quote from: alenevaa on April 15, 2016, 02:58:57 AM

Quote from: usukan on April 04, 2016, 05:03:00 PM

On the block reward - the current plan can be summarised:

Change notes:

Change to 10 UTC per block pending new update
10 UTC per block - 4,000,000
5 UTC per block - 6,000,000
2.5 UTC per block - 8,000,000
1.25 UTC per block - 20,000,000
1 UTC per block - 25,000,000
.5 UTC per block - 30,000,000
.25 UTC per block - 40,000,000
.125 UTC per block - 50,000,000
.01 UTC per block - 208,145,600

Change to 2% pending new update
1.5% per year at block 4,000,000
1% per year at block 8,000,000

Community - Please discuss.

Thanks - usukan

As I can understand Stake (PoS) is 2% per year right now.
And holder will get 2% only in theory. It'll be less in real life.
Is it worth to accumulate ultracoin with so low stake rate?

Why not to revert to 5.2%/year as it was before fork? It'll not increase inflation but incetivezed people to hold and not to dump.

In fact I don't have much UTCs. I'm just curious!

What do you think guys?

alenevaa

sr. member

Activity: 288

Merit: 260

Quote from: usukan on April 04, 2016, 05:03:00 PM

On the block reward - the current plan can be summarised:

Change notes:

Change to 10 UTC per block pending new update
10 UTC per block - 4,000,000
5 UTC per block - 6,000,000
2.5 UTC per block - 8,000,000
1.25 UTC per block - 20,000,000
1 UTC per block - 25,000,000
.5 UTC per block - 30,000,000
.25 UTC per block - 40,000,000
.125 UTC per block - 50,000,000
.01 UTC per block - 208,145,600

Change to 2% pending new update
1.5% per year at block 4,000,000
1% per year at block 8,000,000

Community - Please discuss.

Thanks - usukan

As I can understand Stake (PoS) is 2% per year right now.
And holder will get 2% only in theory. It'll be less in real life.
Is it worth to accumulate ultracoin with so low stake rate?

Why not to revert to 5.2%/year as it was before fork? It'll not increase inflation but incetivezed people to hold and not to dump.

In fact I don't have much UTCs. I'm just curious!

What do you think guys?

usukan

legendary

Activity: 1590

Merit: 1002

This was the most comprehensive list of nodes - supplied by bathrobehero 1 March 2016.

addnode=210.246.3.33:49485
addnode=198.27.82.163:44100
addnode=200.168.43.203:58640
addnode=68.193.58.112:57200
addnode=142.161.136.169:56136
addnode=87.98.166.129:39673
addnode=75.167.180.100:53533
addnode=37.24.144.104:51561
addnode=118.90.0.168:64076
addnode=104.172.24.79:63225
addnode=80.68.200.6:3271
addnode=94.192.63.70:49918
addnode=108.44.192.182:53762
addnode=118.90.0.168:56233
addnode=95.24.65.253:60059
addnode=14.162.144.163:50096
addnode=83.251.171.80:60192
addnode=72.211.200.160:41982
addnode=72.181.81.245:54775
addnode=216.19.181.63:46433
addnode=82.140.75.120:60158
addnode=187.126.179.183:50210
addnode=108.193.211.156:56354
addnode=77.121.161.7:57829
addnode=213.24.134.237:25689
addnode=122.168.7.78:51974
addnode=89.101.225.26:64292
addnode=167.114.156.87:48363

This node seems to be quite reliable?

addnode=198.27.82.163:44100

Quote from: presstab on April 14, 2016, 11:16:37 AM

Edit - I would like to also remove the irc peer discovery, which is seen by many to be a security vulnerability, and is quite frankly not needed. I can throw my block explorer client in as a seed node, does anyone else have a node that they would like added as a seed node?

usukan

legendary

Activity: 1590

Merit: 1002

As I begin to finalize the wallet code, I will need a few volunteers to test a beta version of the wallet. Those volunteers would need to have a regular amount of staking, and be able to confirm that the new wallets staking mechanism works well.

Sure - I will try it out.

Cheers

presstab

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1000

Blockchain Developer

Quote from: alenevaa on April 14, 2016, 08:44:38 AM

I've searched through debug.log but this TX ID occurs only once. I think when it's successfully included in the blockchain.

Code:

SetBestChain: new best=00000fb47adfe5a4a0ee  height=1698322  trust=121968257  date=04/13/16 12:43:20
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
  nActualTimespan = 45318 before bounds
GetNextWorkRequiredV5 RETARGET
nTargetTimespan = 14400    nActualTimespan = 16704
Before: 1e0fffff  00000fffff000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
After:  1e0fffff  00000fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
ThreadRPCServer method=sendtoaddress
CommitTransaction:
CTransaction(hash=34396b710c, nTime=1460551404, ver=1, vin.size=3, vout.size=2, nLockTime=0)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(f0d3a4e0b8, 0), scriptSig=3044022050f757cbcc959373)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(aa97eae6f1, 0), scriptSig=3044022054b6660bf2c5a9da)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(3ef39fa1d5, 0), scriptSig=3045022100c6a1d8c743ee95)
    CTxOut(nValue=0.00508127, scriptPubKey=OP_DUP OP_HASH160 a429847fce7c70658a4599b2045ca6d9fd745f98 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG)
    CTxOut(nValue=289.00743799, scriptPubKey=OP_DUP OP_HASH160 57591825327f2543be95b82d831ccb151911a784 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG)
keypool keep 3160
AddToWallet 34396b710c  new
WalletUpdateSpent found spent coin 281.00015807utc f0d3a4e0b8a520ed5a2685283db5b4f89c6866fd4bdcde39467d9073f64b2487
WalletUpdateSpent found spent coin 6.00363832utc aa97eae6f1ae333d17d6892d7082cb1ed79ed8a5cb56d06ef2f9ee0accdf50b7
WalletUpdateSpent found spent coin 2.00872297utc 3ef39fa1d576ef929af6817c8c4a0a03f77317aa36637e15ae9ade0592983e90
CTxMemPool::accept() : accepted 34396b710c (poolsz 1)
Relaying wtx 34396b710c
received block 0000062077efaf78fa69

Thanks. As I am going through the staking code, I am wondering if this is from the non standard code here. From what I see the actual commit transaction code is fairly standard (except for a caching mechanism that was added). Will keep my eyes out for anything that could be causing this.

As I begin to finalize the wallet code, I will need a few volunteers to test a beta version of the wallet. Those volunteers would need to have a regular amount of staking, and be able to confirm that the new wallets staking mechanism works well.

Edit - I would like to also remove the irc peer discovery, which is seen by many to be a security vulnerability, and is quite frankly not needed. I can throw my block explorer client in as a seed node, does anyone else have a node that they would like added as a seed node?

alenevaa

sr. member

Activity: 288

Merit: 260

Quote from: presstab on April 13, 2016, 10:23:24 AM

Quote from: alenevaa on April 13, 2016, 04:52:04 AM

Quote from: alenevaa on April 05, 2016, 02:55:13 AM

As far as I can remember I faced with several type of errors/bugs while using ultracoin wallet on the pool...

3. When wallet makes the transaction gathered from many inputs it can include as one input the PoS TX not fully confirmed yet.

As a result TX is not sending immediately because wallet gets the RPC error.
This TX sends after a while (from several hours to one day) or it can be stuck completely and it needs manual resend.

I don't have examples but I've seen this anomaly several times.

The fresh example.

TX f0d3a4e0b8a520ed5a2685283db5b4f89c6866fd4bdcde39467d9073f64b2487 was not sent immediately because it has CoinStake input b22216d1d85bcc14f5d8fd6ca693be9b7eefc83fa12e1efd9efa9ab604f5cc4d

Search your debug.log file for this txid and see if there are any interesting logs about it.

I've searched through debug.log but this TX ID occurs only once. I think when it's successfully included in the blockchain.

Code:

SetBestChain: new best=00000fb47adfe5a4a0ee  height=1698322  trust=121968257  date=04/13/16 12:43:20
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
  nActualTimespan = 45318 before bounds
GetNextWorkRequiredV5 RETARGET
nTargetTimespan = 14400    nActualTimespan = 16704
Before: 1e0fffff  00000fffff000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
After:  1e0fffff  00000fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
ThreadRPCServer method=sendtoaddress
CommitTransaction:
CTransaction(hash=34396b710c, nTime=1460551404, ver=1, vin.size=3, vout.size=2, nLockTime=0)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(f0d3a4e0b8, 0), scriptSig=3044022050f757cbcc959373)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(aa97eae6f1, 0), scriptSig=3044022054b6660bf2c5a9da)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(3ef39fa1d5, 0), scriptSig=3045022100c6a1d8c743ee95)
    CTxOut(nValue=0.00508127, scriptPubKey=OP_DUP OP_HASH160 a429847fce7c70658a4599b2045ca6d9fd745f98 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG)
    CTxOut(nValue=289.00743799, scriptPubKey=OP_DUP OP_HASH160 57591825327f2543be95b82d831ccb151911a784 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG)
keypool keep 3160
AddToWallet 34396b710c  new
WalletUpdateSpent found spent coin 281.00015807utc f0d3a4e0b8a520ed5a2685283db5b4f89c6866fd4bdcde39467d9073f64b2487
WalletUpdateSpent found spent coin 6.00363832utc aa97eae6f1ae333d17d6892d7082cb1ed79ed8a5cb56d06ef2f9ee0accdf50b7
WalletUpdateSpent found spent coin 2.00872297utc 3ef39fa1d576ef929af6817c8c4a0a03f77317aa36637e15ae9ade0592983e90
CTxMemPool::accept() : accepted 34396b710c (poolsz 1)
Relaying wtx 34396b710c
received block 0000062077efaf78fa69

usukan

legendary

Activity: 1590

Merit: 1002

UPDATE

PressTab reports that things are going well and UTC is coming along great.

He is hoping to have most of the code incl. liteStake polished up this weekend for next week.

Taking a bit longer than he expected but to be honest I was expecting exactly that. The UTC code was a mess and he has had to do a lot to straighten it all out.

Please remember - that in all my discussions with PressTab I have emphasised the importance of getting everything right - rather than rushing things through just to get finished. I want to get this right first time and for it to be a solid step into the future - not a return to square one for another try.

The timing for the hardfork (depending on Steven's availability) will be 1-8 May OR 15-21 May OR 22 - 28 May.
I will leave this up to Steven and PressTab to arrange and communicate to the Community.
PressTab is busy 8-14th May.

We will need at least 2 weeks to give all stakeholders (Pool/Alenevaa, Bittrex, miners and general users) time to update wallets before the fork.

I have paid PressTab for the liteStake implementation which he will add shortly to UltraCoin.
https://blockchain.info/tx/ed940fd1ecd9c01f38585679ad660b7f51a839a0815ec5df6cca18864c5200db
There is a small surplus in the UTC DEv Fund (0.18084298 BTC)

Thats all for now - will update again in a few days when there is more news and I have had some more discussions with Steven.

Basically - we can look fwd to a nice hardfork next month - and a fresh clean Ultracoin to take us into the future with style.

Everyone on the correct path please.

Cheers - usukan

Official Ultracoin Team

member

Activity: 66

Merit: 10

Welcome to the future !

Update on PressTab - New and improved Ultracoin - wallets and hardfork to the future - COMING VERY SOON!

Cheers - usukan

presstab

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1000

Blockchain Developer

Quote from: alenevaa on April 13, 2016, 04:52:04 AM

Quote from: alenevaa on April 05, 2016, 02:55:13 AM

As far as I can remember I faced with several type of errors/bugs while using ultracoin wallet on the pool...

3. When wallet makes the transaction gathered from many inputs it can include as one input the PoS TX not fully confirmed yet.

As a result TX is not sending immediately because wallet gets the RPC error.
This TX sends after a while (from several hours to one day) or it can be stuck completely and it needs manual resend.

I don't have examples but I've seen this anomaly several times.

The fresh example.

TX f0d3a4e0b8a520ed5a2685283db5b4f89c6866fd4bdcde39467d9073f64b2487 was not sent immediately because it has CoinStake input b22216d1d85bcc14f5d8fd6ca693be9b7eefc83fa12e1efd9efa9ab604f5cc4d

Search your debug.log file for this txid and see if there are any interesting logs about it.

alenevaa

sr. member

Activity: 288

Merit: 260

Quote from: alenevaa on April 05, 2016, 02:55:13 AM

As far as I can remember I faced with several type of errors/bugs while using ultracoin wallet on the pool...

3. When wallet makes the transaction gathered from many inputs it can include as one input the PoS TX not fully confirmed yet.

As a result TX is not sending immediately because wallet gets the RPC error.
This TX sends after a while (from several hours to one day) or it can be stuck completely and it needs manual resend.

I don't have examples but I've seen this anomaly several times.

The fresh example.

TX f0d3a4e0b8a520ed5a2685283db5b4f89c6866fd4bdcde39467d9073f64b2487 was not sent immediately because it has CoinStake input b22216d1d85bcc14f5d8fd6ca693be9b7eefc83fa12e1efd9efa9ab604f5cc4d

usukan

legendary

Activity: 1590

Merit: 1002

Cheers - thanks PressTab

Quote from: presstab on April 11, 2016, 12:37:33 AM

Quote from: usukan on April 09, 2016, 09:42:33 PM

Update

There is nothing to update

PressTab just has his head down working on UTC.

There will be action next week.

Cheers - usukan

Can confirm that this is the case

Topic: [Ultracoin] [Est. Feb 2014] ~ ASIC Resistant & Ultrafast 6 Second Transactions! - page 82. (Read 381063 times)