Quote from: SquidsIn on May 10, 2015, 10:21:13 PM

Quote from: SquidsIn on May 10, 2015, 10:15:59 PM

Quote from: Diggio on May 10, 2015, 04:16:55 PM

Quote from: SquidsIn on May 10, 2015, 02:41:34 PM

Quote from: TheAltTrader on May 10, 2015, 02:34:12 PM

Quote from: SquidsIn on May 10, 2015, 02:32:07 PM

Missing lucky stakes?

According to my analysis, the following blocks should have generated lucky stakes if the input coins were > 50k, 100k, or 300k;

5959
5965
5950
5865
5754
5800
5727
5730

5960

5844
5971
5794

The first group, in red, all had inputs large enough but generated normal stakes. The one in the middle is the only one that lucky staked. The third group all had inputs too small.

There's probably a simple explanation, something obvious I'm just not seeing but is anybody able to explain why, based on the code in github, the blocks in red did not produce lucky stakes?

PM this to dev.

In the spirit of openness can he not respond here?

To be honest I dumped my 400k when I discovered this morning that it had staked one of those blocks in red and got 2.xx BTX. I wish you all luck with it but there have just been too many issues with this coin for me to keep the faith. It's not just BTX, that was the final straw though... I dumped every altcoin I had this morning, too many scams and no real world adoption and I've got too much else to concentrate on.

If you are going to use your "analysis," you need to tell everyone what your analysis is.

The lucky staking is simply selection of a random number within 100 numbers and if you select one below 3, you win the block based on the size of your stack (assuming it meets minimum threshold). I preferred the previous lucky staking model because I earned more with less blocks previously. To state you can accurately predict what blocks should have hit is not believable without something to substantiate it.

Any analysis you've done will help the developer confirm one way or the other.

My "analysis" is by reading the code, and a small script I wrote that runs each time a new block is generated.

have a look at those block numbers, look at the previous block hash for each one and tell me what you calculate rand to be for each one. My script writes to a file the block number, and the value of rand for that block. If the value of rand is less than 3 (as I'm sure you know that's 0, 1 or 2, a 2.97% chance since the distribution is from 0 to 100) then the next block should be a lucky stake if it comes from a wallet with enough coins.

I should add for those that don't know that the random number is not entirely random, given the same seed it will ALWAYS produces the same results and the seed is always known, it's the 8th through 14th nibbles of the previous block hash converted from hex to a long. Also, for every block that has been a lucky stake so far my script is able to verify using the above method. So what I'm struggling to get is why it doesn't hold for the examples above.

Like I say, I've sold (not dumped, my apologies for using that word) all my BTX now and I'm not suggesting for one minute there's anything fishy going on, I'm just curious. I inadvertently stopped the block explorer when I stopped my wallet, I had intended to leave it running until you all get something else up and running. I can restart it if needed?

Yes, pls keep it running for a day or two. Also, could you send the entirery of the block explorer (source) to MCDev pls ? He will host it. I am happy you clarified your position

I hope you'll buy back your BTX before it's too late Wink