Search content
Sort by

Showing 10 of 10 results by Mrs-X
Post
Topic
Re: [ANN][PIVX] - PRIVATE INSTANT VERIFIED TRANSACTION - PROOF OF STAKE - ZEROCOIN
by
Mrs-X
on 02/10/2018, 11:40:25 UTC
Have the devs made a statement yet on whether PIVX is vulnerable to the recent Bitcoin DoS/Inflation bug?  I notice Dash fixed that bug a few days ago.

PIVX is not vulnerable to this bug because the problematic code was never added to PIVX.

Post
Topic
Re: [ANN][PIVX] - PRIVATE INSTANT VERIFIED TRANSACTION - POS 2.0 - ZEROCOIN PROTOCOL
by
Mrs-X
on 21/09/2017, 21:49:38 UTC
Quick question.   When I install PIVX from git source and run pivx-cli getinfo I get this result:

    "staking status" : "Staking Not Active",
    "errors" : "This is a pre-release test build - use at your own risk - do not  use for staking or merchant applications!"

What am I missing?  Is this true?  How can you stake your coins if the software says it does not implement it.  I'm confused.


The error message just means that you did not run an 'officially' released build provided by the core team but one you build by yourself from the current source.
Only official builds are fully tested, so there might be new errors in the current code.
That's the 'on your own risk' part, because, well, in the worst case you could lose money.

If you want to build yourself the official release, the links to the used source code are normally posted near the releases itself, see https://github.com/PIVX-Project/PIVX/releases

Post
Topic
Re: [ANN][PIVX] - PRIVATE INSTANT VERIFIED TRANSACTION - POS 2.0 - ZEROCOIN PROTOCOL
by
Mrs-X
on 05/09/2017, 10:06:50 UTC

https://pivxscan.io/ is one the wrong chain, they probably missed to update to the current version.

If in doubt, this is always the reference: http://www.presstab.pw/phpexplorer/PIVX/block.php?searchinput=803183
Post
Topic
Re: [ANN][PIVX] - PRIVATE INSTANT VERIFIED TRANSACTION - POS 2.0 - ZEROCOIN PROTOCOL
by
Mrs-X
on 21/08/2017, 21:21:18 UTC
It's not called zerocoin protocol, it's called zerocoin coming soon protocol.
it's about 3 months the devs promising zerocoin protocol?Huh
It's live on testnet.

Little teaser: http://178.254.23.111/~pub/PIVX/temp/zPIV-Teaser.html

http://178.254.23.111/~pub/PIVX/temp/zPIVX-Mint.gif
Post
Topic
Re: Masternode - no reward after mandatory update
by
Mrs-X
on 19/08/2017, 07:52:26 UTC
Masternode - i did not get any reward after the mandatory update.

Now 3 days are gone, MN Status enabled, active 3 days

Is that normal??? Thought it takes max. 2 days, after restarting a node ....


That's normal.

Normally you get a masternode payment every ( divided by 1440 ) days on average, right now that's about 1957/1440 = 1.40 days.

After a restart (which is needed in case of a protocol update) this is a bit more, depending how long ago your last payment was and how much masternodes were updated before yours.

Best case: you update right after your masternode got its last payment, and coincidentally you're the first masternode to update.

Worst case: you update right before the next payment would have happened (means you already waited for 1.4 days), and you're the last masternode to update, means you'd have to wait another 1.4 days for your first payment.

Add to that roughly half a day (depending on your luck) and you have a ballpark estimation.
Post
Topic
Re: [ANN][PIVX] - PRIVATE INSTANT VERIFIED TRANSACTION - POS 2.0 - ZEROCOIN PROTOCOL
by
Mrs-X
on 13/08/2017, 12:16:41 UTC
How often is the seesaw algorithmen adjusting the amount for MN and stakers? If a staker with 6000 make much more PIVX reward within a month then mw we a MN (100% uptime) there is somthing going wrong !!!

It's re-calculated after every block.

And if a staker with 6000 PIV can make more money per month than a masternode with 10000 PIV it simply means there are not enough stakers compared to masternodes.

This creates an incentive for masternode owners to use their 10000 collateral for staking instead of running a masternode. People will do that until the staker-reward per 10000 PIV per month is less than the masternode rewards per month. Then they will run masternodes again.

It's a self-balancing system.

The reason for this seesaw algorithm is to avoid that either a) no one stakes any more because running a masternode is much more lucrative, or b) everyone stakes and nobody runs masternodes anymore.

We need both stakers (to secure the blockchain) and masternodes (to secure/provide the infrastructure for the blockchain itself, SwiftTx, the budget system, ...), and seesaw takes care of this on a protocol level.

TL;DR: there's nothing wrong, everything works as designed.
Post
Topic
Re: [ANN][PIVX] - PRIVATE INSTANT VERIFIED TRANSACTION - POS 2.0 - ZEROCOIN PROTOCOL
by
Mrs-X
on 11/08/2017, 20:08:54 UTC
If i look at those figures, it shows much less:

http://178.254.23.111/~pub/DN/DN_masternode_payments_stats.html
Makes me wonder why staking seem to be rewarded more frequently than expected.

I run my wallets on 2 small N3700 PC's located in my meter cupboard, drawing together about 15W.
They are on separate IP's, I only need some extra PIV to get 2 master-nodes running.  
True, the reward is more than twice of what it should be, it can just be luck, I don't know.
Maybe it has something to do with the number of people actually staking.

http://178.254.23.111/~pub/DN/DN_masternode_payments_stats.html is correct. Note that the payment is only estimated for masternodes there, NOT for staking.
There's a reason for that.

Let me explain this with an example:

1: Let's assume (for ease of computation) we'd have exactly 1440 masternodes.

2: there are (on average) 1440 new PIVX blocks per day, each worth 5 PIV, minus 10% for the PIVX budget is 4.5 PIV per day for masternodes and stakers

3: from 1: and 2: it's pretty clear that on average each masternode gets one reward per day

4: the amount each masternode will get depends on PIVXs seesaw algorithm: if there are a lot of stakers and few masternodes, the masternodes get more, if there are lot's of masternodes and few stakers the stakers get more. Right now stakers get 2.16 PIV per block, masternodes 2.34 PIV

5: since we know the exact number of masternodes (here: 1440) and therefore the number of rewards they get per day (here: 1) we can exactly compute how much each masternode will get per day, 2.34 PIV in this example.

6: but, we don't know how may people are staking, and which amounts of their PIV are used for staking. If only ONE single person would be staking he would get 1440 * 2.16 PIV per day, if there are 1440 people who stake (assuming they stake with the same number of coins, which they don't) each one would get 1 * 2.16 PIV per day.


Easy to see that because we have 3 variables (number of people staking, amount used for staking from each, and the time the wallet actually IS online and staking) it's not possible to predict how much PIV each staker will get per day.

Post
Topic
Re: [ANN][PIVX] - PRIVATE INSTANT VERIFIED TRANSACTION - POS 2.0 - ZEROCOIN PROTOCOL
by
Mrs-X
on 10/07/2017, 21:04:52 UTC
Fork of Dash.

What actual NEW code is being written/created on this project?


https://github.com/PIVX-Project/PIVX/commits/master

590 commits since it was forked from Dash, that's quite some code.
Post
Topic
Re: [ANN][PIVX] - PRIVATE INSTANT VERIFIED TRANSACTION - POS 2.0 - ZEROCOIN PROTOCOL
by
Mrs-X
on 04/06/2017, 13:37:32 UTC
Holy crap, a Mrs X post!

To what do we owe this pleasure?!  Cheesy

I normally don't read BTC, but I figured it would be a good idea to grab this user name before some impersonator does.

And while I'm here anyway I decided to post something useful.
Post
Topic
Re: [ANN][PIVX] - PRIVATE INSTANT VERIFIED TRANSACTION - POS 2.0 - ZEROCOIN PROTOCOL
by
Mrs-X
on 03/06/2017, 12:12:42 UTC
Something should be done to make sure the network is unaffected if/when a lot of masternodes go offline simultaneously. Otherwise the network can be attacked any time.

The core developers are already working on this, but since this is a big change on how masternodes handle each other every possible side effect must be considered, and all changes must be very carefully tested before a release.
In other words, it will need a while until it's implemented.

Quote
I might be wrong though but what's clear that it's a bad timing to have forking issues.

It's always a bad time to have forking issues :-)
Fortunately most users are not affected by this.