Nancy: "I feel faint. The whole world is spinning."
Nick Danger: "Why, that's lucky for us, Nancy.  If it were flat, all the Chinese would fall off."
Nancy: "Oooohhhhh!"
Nick Danger: "Why, she's no fun. She fell right over."

Last person out the door, please turn the blockchain off.

Well, Tek is down as low as 3 satoshi today.  Now we know what the citizens of Pompeii felt like when they saw the pyroclastic flow headed their way.

Suppose someone wants to stake every hour ...

24 stake blocks/day * 30 days/month = 720 stake blocks required

Assume 250 TEK per stake block ...

720 blocks * 250 TEK/block = 180,000 TEK

Which in terms of fiat money, is ...

TEK @ 0.00000148, Bitcoin @ $US 445 = $US 0.0006586/TEK

180,000 TEK @ $0.0006586 = $US 118.54

For the princely sum of $120, anyone can stake close to continuously and keep the POS rate down.  And, as Tek continues to inflate, the cost of such interference drops every day.

imo an additional approach to the problem is needed, but I've no idea what.

Microstaking might continue a while ... as long as (a) old-version clients do not disconnect from the network, and (b) there are enough of them to validate stake blocks smaller than the new limit.

Perhaps one of the authors could speak to this issue.

Well said, sir; well said.

Well, you can modify the code for sure, and diddle it so that it pretends to be the new version, and generate stake blocks for amounts less than the new limit ...

... but block validation depends on the Tek network.  If the new client is coded well, other nodes on the network will catch "microstake" blocks (and therefore renegade clients) during block validation.  The authors can probably speak to that issue with specifics.

I am seeing a message on my Tek client that states:

"WARNING:  Invalid checkpoint found!  Displayed transactions may not be correct! ..."

Was there a blockchain fork in the last day or so?

imo:

1.  Eliminating staking for small stakeholders also eliminates their desire to use and support Tek.  (Consider them as potential users, instead of stakeholders.)  Unless Tek is used for something other than increasing stakeholder holdings, it will die ... as many other coins did which had no actual real-world usage.

2.  Any coin should treat all users the same.

3.  Tek cannot continue increasing the supply without bounds, or very soon -- at 10% or 40% -- there is infinite supply and zero value.

Basing the stake rate on the coin supply deals with all these issues.  Everybody stakes, everybody is treated the same, and the coin supply cannot increase to a point where the coin has zero value.

Sounds like a good idea for coin group sizes up to, say, (2000, 5000, 10000, choose some number that will undoubtedly be the subject of much discussion) coins.

• It would stabilize the POS difficulty somewhat.
• It would reduce block sizes over the long run, because
• It would eliminate the "bag of pennies" issue for Tek.

I got everything off Cryptsy two months ago when this forum started reporting the iffy withdrawals.  Since then I've spent a bit of time looking back and wondering if that was a mistake.

Well, it's pretty clear now that it wasn't a mistake and I'd like to thank everyone who brought the situation to light.

imo, it no longer is of any interest what prices are on Cryptsy.  The price is zero if you can't withdraw.

newsbtc reports that Cryptsy has disabled withdrawals indefinitely.

http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/01/06/cryptsy-suspends-withdrawals-indefinitely/

Well, if I figure it right, it looks like you're to the good about (34,868 - 31,003) 3,865 Tek.  If correct, this would mean you have not lost your money.

Are you implying that there is some kind of chicanery going on in the updated wallet?

Given that this is the case, is it to a stake-holder's advantage to put off letting the wallet come current for a week or so?

Congrats to everyone who fixed the issue.  They did a yeoman's job under pressure and should be proud of it.

C-cex said:

Not true. We did not get any support ticket of this kind. Maybe You should try if You really have this problem?

If anybody having any problems with exchange - just use our support system - we solve tickets very fast.

As I previously stated, the C-Cex support ticket system kicks back an error message two hours later stating that they do not accept emails from my email host.  (That must be how they can solve tickets very fast.)

This problem was reported to C-Cex several times at their Skype address, along with the missing Leafcoins.  No response was ever returned.

They have also not PMed me here to resolve the problem, though they clearly read this forum.

I stand by my previous statement:

No one should use C-Cex for any purpose whatsoever.

I would be glad to hear if anyone can offer insight into this problem.

I have a small mining setup with three BFL Jalapenos attached to a Pogoplug host.

As long as each Jalapeno is plugged directly into its own USB port on the Pogoplug all goes successfully.

The Pogoplug has only three available USB ports, so I would like to attach the Jalapenos to a USB hub to free up two ports.  However, when I do this cgminer produces "hex2bin scan failed" error messages.  In the example below, only one BAJ is connected to the hub.  cgminer appears to partially see the Jalapeno (in that it knows it is a Jalapeno), but produces error messages when trying to actually use it.

http://i62.tinypic.com/15zpd12.jpg

Background information:

I have consulted the forums.  The only thread I saw appearing relevant indicated that if cgminer is not running as root, the Jalapenos should be in udev.d as owned by the plugdev group.  cgminer is running as root (see below), but I applied the fix anyway, rebooted and the problem persists.

http://i58.tinypic.com/52yqsw.gif

There are no error messages when each Jalapeno is plugged into its own port.

I've tried several different USB hubs, USB 1.1, USB 2.0, powered and unpowered.

linux uname -a reports:

Linux PogoPlugE02 3.2.0-4-kirkwood #1 Debian 3.2.46-1 armv5tel GNU/Linux

cgminer is version 4.0.1, built custom for the system, with BFL support activated.

I wish I'd read this thread three weeks ago before I signed on with them.  When I tried to extract 1.5 million Leafcoins from my account, they fabricated a withdrawal confirmation and claimed it was sent.  The blockchain explorer and my wallet say different.

Under no circumstances should anyone do business with C-Cex.

In the "it ain't over 'til it's over" category ...

Today (April 18, 2014) I got a call from the District Attorney's office where I filed the complaint.  The investigator commented that there had been numerous complaints and that he was contacting all the victims -- his wording, not mine.

In other "not so fresh" world news ...

The judge issued a default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in at least one non-delivery case.  (A default judgment occurs when the accused does not bother to respond or show up in court.)  BFL now wants that default judgment overturned.  My opinion:  When they found out that the legal system does work, even if not quickly, arrogance became fear.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2014/01/15/leawood-bitcoin-company-faces-lawsuit.html

Back in November, I got Paypal to cough up for four undelivered 7 GH Jalapenos after a six month wait.  At that time they were $350.

Today (1 Feb 2014) 7 GH Jalapenos are going for $200 on ebay.  (Plus a 2% kickback in fleabay bucks, and another 1% from my credit card.)

So I figure I have made at least $600 by not buying from BFL, and I could now have those Jalapenos at about half the price.  If I wanted them.

I am definitely a satisfied non-customer, and I will be happy to make even more money in the future by not buying Monarchs or any other product from Bulls***tery Labs.

A randomly chosen sampling of the entire population, which unfortunately we do not have.  However, the general sentiment of those present does appear to be clear.