Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 645 results by jox
there is blockchain fork on network, which one is the right one?
height 2603873 - https://insight.terracoin.io/status
height: 2603269 - https://masternodes.online/currencies/TRC/
height 2603873 - https://insight.terracoin.io/status
height: 2603269 - https://masternodes.online/currencies/TRC/
the problem is not the difficulty or the balance, i think there is some bug in the wallet. when i tried to use the old backup then it worked. However, I still see a mess in the minting screen, I have a lot of non-existent transactions there. Maybe the problem is that I'm still using the original wallet.
Re: [ANN] [PXC] Phoenixcoin v0.6.6.2 ~ NeoScrypt Original ~ 9 Years Old
Yes, it's 9 years old. Expect a new beta build this weekend.
UPD: I'm merging initial PoS code as well, so it's going to take a couple more days.
UPD: I'm merging initial PoS code as well, so it's going to take a couple more days.
when is the release of the POS implementation planned?
My wallet stopped minting completely 17 days ago. I have the latest wallet, unlocked for minting, I tried deleting the entire blockchain directory and syncing from scratch. I also try the -reindex command, all without success.
Does anyone know how to get it working again?
Does anyone know how to get it working again?
Re: [ANN] PHOENIX PLATFORM 🔥 SMART CONTRACT + PRIVACY 🔥 COMING SOON [VSYNC.IO]
FRAUDULENT PROJECT!
my story with VSX:
1. I bought VSX in 2017
2. I was suporting network with few masternodes whole time.
3. I asked them for swap, but with no success
They refused to make me a swap and also blocked me on discord channel and now on twitter!
my story with VSX:
1. I bought VSX in 2017
2. I was suporting network with few masternodes whole time.
3. I asked them for swap, but with no success
They refused to make me a swap and also blocked me on discord channel and now on twitter!
Re: [ANN] PHOENIX PLATFORM 🔥 SMART CONTRACT + PRIVACY 🔥 COMING SOON [VSYNC.IO]
Warning Scam project!
after I helped secure the network with several masternodes for several years, VSX decided to change the network and become a token on some platform.
Short story next:
they stopped communicating with me on discord, blocked me and did not allow me to exchange VSX for a token.
after I helped secure the network with several masternodes for several years, VSX decided to change the network and become a token on some platform.
Short story next:
they stopped communicating with me on discord, blocked me and did not allow me to exchange VSX for a token.
Thank you for that link to calculator.
the calculator shows me the same % as my wallet.
isn't the 2.5% APY stackable? so does it matter how often you mint? I see in the explorer that some really big sums got a 2.5% reward and before that something like 1%. That is already around 3.5%. The sum of time is 1 year and 2 months, so why 3.5% and not the calculated 2.7%?
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/pnd/address.dws?PUhqmidaYT8R7JHSwnbrPAcYf9KSrxgW6h.htm
so back to my problem. I found where it is. I found some very strange things while researching and comparing with the wallet and block explorer.
Problems I have seen:
a. the wallet shows and tries to stake transactions that do not exist in the blockchain explorer
b. the wallet shows and tries to stake transactions that do not exist in build wallet coin control window
c. my wallet address balances are lower compared to what the block explorer shows
1. how I can repairs these issues?
2. is there also a command for *.conf file, which make turn off stake splitting? if not can be added in short time or next update?
3. is it possible to add command into wallet, in debug windows like "setstakesplitthreshold" / "getstakesplitthreshold" and "setstakecombinethreshold" / "getstakecombinethreshold" and "getstakingstatus", in short time or next update?
4. is there a way how I can combine transaction back to bigger amout without sending them?
5. how is now set that setstakesplitthreshold and setstakecombinethreshold by default?
I wonder if my wallet has control of the entire balance now since I mentioned all those issues.
the calculator shows me the same % as my wallet.
isn't the 2.5% APY stackable? so does it matter how often you mint? I see in the explorer that some really big sums got a 2.5% reward and before that something like 1%. That is already around 3.5%. The sum of time is 1 year and 2 months, so why 3.5% and not the calculated 2.7%?
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/pnd/address.dws?PUhqmidaYT8R7JHSwnbrPAcYf9KSrxgW6h.htm
so back to my problem. I found where it is. I found some very strange things while researching and comparing with the wallet and block explorer.
Problems I have seen:
a. the wallet shows and tries to stake transactions that do not exist in the blockchain explorer
b. the wallet shows and tries to stake transactions that do not exist in build wallet coin control window
c. my wallet address balances are lower compared to what the block explorer shows
1. how I can repairs these issues?
2. is there also a command for *.conf file, which make turn off stake splitting? if not can be added in short time or next update?
3. is it possible to add command into wallet, in debug windows like "setstakesplitthreshold" / "getstakesplitthreshold" and "setstakecombinethreshold" / "getstakecombinethreshold" and "getstakingstatus", in short time or next update?
4. is there a way how I can combine transaction back to bigger amout without sending them?
5. how is now set that setstakesplitthreshold and setstakecombinethreshold by default?
I wonder if my wallet has control of the entire balance now since I mentioned all those issues.
I have only one wallet.
now I explain this from shorter mint probability view:
lets talk about 24hour mint probability.
my biggest two ballances have 17.871% probability.
that mean, that should be chosen to be minted in average approximatedly every 5.6 days. (except waiting first 30 days after minting and next 60 days to reach that % mint state.)
but it was no chosen for 266 days now. I think like, why wallet don't want to give me bigger and more frequent reward?
wallet rather repeatedly choose something like 0.219% probability with low reward, which should be chosen to mint in average every 456 days.
so I think, someone don't want to reward me or others to have big and frequent reward, but only small reward.
Before you change that POS logic in that one specific update for wallet, reward was no problem. After that this is what is happening now.
Is this my calculation here correct or not?
if not please show me correct calculation.
now I explain this from shorter mint probability view:
lets talk about 24hour mint probability.
my biggest two ballances have 17.871% probability.
that mean, that should be chosen to be minted in average approximatedly every 5.6 days. (except waiting first 30 days after minting and next 60 days to reach that % mint state.)
but it was no chosen for 266 days now. I think like, why wallet don't want to give me bigger and more frequent reward?
wallet rather repeatedly choose something like 0.219% probability with low reward, which should be chosen to mint in average every 456 days.
so I think, someone don't want to reward me or others to have big and frequent reward, but only small reward.
Before you change that POS logic in that one specific update for wallet, reward was no problem. After that this is what is happening now.
Is this my calculation here correct or not?
if not please show me correct calculation.
Something which have 100% probability for more than 260 days and was not minted is clearly telling there is something wrong with formula in POS selection.
Now I tell you what I see in wallet. Really simple.
-------------------------------------------------
top 10 transaction with highest balances:
0 was minted in last 30 days.
lowest age is 232
highest age is 266
lowest mint probability 99.536%
highest mint probability 99.999% (read 100%) for long time it was 100%
-------------------------------------------------
top 10 transaction with lowest balances:
8 were minted in last 30 days
2 were minted 66 days ago
their max. mint probability is around 17.9% (I see that on transaction with similiar amount which is 115 days old)
-------------------------------------------------
Summary:
transaction with highest probability don't have highest probability. Someone should check that POS formula.
I think this is proof that probability column is just for fun now.
I will continue report here next mont if there was success minting highest probability transaction.
I hope this will be taken in serious manner
Last thing. When i look into https://chainz.cryptoid.info/pnd/#!extraction and see all that extraction with probability lower than 15% and for oposite my 100% transaction doing nothing for 266 days, it is really funny. Or is it someone's intention?
Now I tell you what I see in wallet. Really simple.
-------------------------------------------------
top 10 transaction with highest balances:
0 was minted in last 30 days.
lowest age is 232
highest age is 266
lowest mint probability 99.536%
highest mint probability 99.999% (read 100%) for long time it was 100%
-------------------------------------------------
top 10 transaction with lowest balances:
8 were minted in last 30 days
2 were minted 66 days ago
their max. mint probability is around 17.9% (I see that on transaction with similiar amount which is 115 days old)
-------------------------------------------------
Summary:
transaction with highest probability don't have highest probability. Someone should check that POS formula.
I think this is proof that probability column is just for fun now.
I will continue report here next mont if there was success minting highest probability transaction.
I hope this will be taken in serious manner
Last thing. When i look into https://chainz.cryptoid.info/pnd/#!extraction and see all that extraction with probability lower than 15% and for oposite my 100% transaction doing nothing for 266 days, it is really funny. Or is it someone's intention?
after a month none of them was minted.
now in 90days mint probability:
2 of them 263 days age, 99.999% mint probability
2 of them 257 days age, 99.981% mint probability
2 of them 229 days age, 99.978% mint probability
can someone explain the formula or logic how the transaction for POS is selected? Why the highest probability no longer has priority over lower probability. It is pure random or how it work?
And of course I have latest wallet version.
now in 90days mint probability:
2 of them 263 days age, 99.999% mint probability
2 of them 257 days age, 99.981% mint probability
2 of them 229 days age, 99.978% mint probability
can someone explain the formula or logic how the transaction for POS is selected? Why the highest probability no longer has priority over lower probability. It is pure random or how it work?
And of course I have latest wallet version.
Is not working fine. I have coins from update, which was not staked and have 99.8% probability within 30 days and nothing happend for 232 days now. Also coins which have probability 6% have no problem. So wehere i there logic behind that?
Re: [ANN][PIVX] - PRIVATE INSTANT VERIFIED TRANSACTION - PROOF OF STAKE - ZEROCOIN
I don't know if its known, but when windows wallet make a stake and network refuse it, the grey reward 2 PVI will of course dissapear from transaction list. But staking/mn reward statistics are not corrected, it wil count new block when appear in transaction list, but when block dissapear statistics don't make correction for that.
Hello, I'm not sure how this coin stakes. It was staking nicely for me and then it seems all deposits to the wallet matured and now hasn't staked for about six months. Is something wrong on my end or is this normal?
Nothing changed in terms of functionality, but you're now looking at a way increased network difficulty compared to 6 months ago. Meaning transactions carrying a similar amount of coins would now take longer to find a block.
If you would like me to check, whether everything is in order, you could PM me a screenshot of your wallet with the minting tab open.
Thank you. It might take a day or two. It's on a Mac that I'm not using that much.
Low uptime certainly would be a factor as well. In an ideal case you would be staking on machine that is running 24/7.
Staking is messed up. No way that coins with highest mint probability was not still minted after wallet update. The higher amount coins, the lower mint probability, despite what I see in mint probability column. Can't be that big chunk of coins never minted after update, it was 230 days 30x bigger probability and nothing. Look's like bigger amount are forbidden from staking.
Re: [ANN] VSync VSX Project - 4 YEARS OLD PROJECT - Adaptive Network Tech [VSYNC.IO]
Hello, I have problem with new wallet. Uusing Ubuntu 16.04, my masternode cannot connect to other masternodes...
see some information from debug.log
What I can do to make it working?
see some information from debug.log
What I can do to make it working?
Code:
2020-11-06 17:50:13 connect() to 195.238.108.87:65010 failed after select(): Connection refused (111)
2020-11-06 17:50:43 Misbehaving: 158.51.126.230:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:50:43 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=87
2020-11-06 17:50:44 Misbehaving: 69.57.222.116:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:50:44 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=88
2020-11-06 17:50:45 Misbehaving: 144.217.173.160:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:50:45 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=89
2020-11-06 17:51:18 connect() to 195.238.108.87:65010 failed after select(): Connection refused (111)
2020-11-06 17:51:49 Misbehaving: 69.57.222.116:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:51:49 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=90
2020-11-06 17:52:46 Misbehaving: 158.51.126.230:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:52:46 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=91
2020-11-06 17:52:46 Misbehaving: 69.57.222.116:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:52:46 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=92
2020-11-06 17:52:48 Misbehaving: 144.217.173.160:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:52:48 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=93
2020-11-06 17:53:31 connect() to 195.238.108.87:65010 failed after select(): Connection refused (111)
2020-11-06 17:54:32 connect() to 195.238.108.87:65010 failed after select(): Connection refused (111)
2020-11-06 17:54:49 Misbehaving: 158.51.126.230:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:54:49 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=94
2020-11-06 17:54:50 Misbehaving: 69.57.222.116:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:54:50 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=95
2020-11-06 17:54:51 Misbehaving: 144.217.173.160:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:54:51 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=96
2020-11-06 17:55:40 Misbehaving: 69.57.222.116:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:55:40 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=97
2020-11-06 17:57:04 Misbehaving: 158.51.126.230:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:57:04 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=98
2020-11-06 17:57:05 Misbehaving: 69.57.222.116:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:57:05 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=99
2020-11-06 17:57:06 Misbehaving: 144.217.173.160:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:57:06 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=100
2020-11-06 17:57:16 connect() to 195.238.108.87:65010 failed after select(): Connection refused (111)
2020-11-06 17:57:47 Misbehaving: 69.57.222.116:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:57:47 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=102
2020-11-06 17:58:52 connect() to 195.238.108.87:65010 failed after select(): Connection refused (111)
2020-11-06 17:59:20 Misbehaving: 158.51.126.230:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:59:20 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=103
2020-11-06 17:59:21 Misbehaving: 69.57.222.116:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:59:21 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=104
2020-11-06 17:59:23 Misbehaving: 144.217.173.160:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:59:23 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=105
2020-11-06 17:59:35 Misbehaving: 51.77.196.202:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:59:35 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=106
2020-11-06 17:50:43 Misbehaving: 158.51.126.230:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:50:43 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=87
2020-11-06 17:50:44 Misbehaving: 69.57.222.116:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:50:44 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=88
2020-11-06 17:50:45 Misbehaving: 144.217.173.160:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:50:45 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=89
2020-11-06 17:51:18 connect() to 195.238.108.87:65010 failed after select(): Connection refused (111)
2020-11-06 17:51:49 Misbehaving: 69.57.222.116:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:51:49 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=90
2020-11-06 17:52:46 Misbehaving: 158.51.126.230:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:52:46 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=91
2020-11-06 17:52:46 Misbehaving: 69.57.222.116:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:52:46 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=92
2020-11-06 17:52:48 Misbehaving: 144.217.173.160:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:52:48 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=93
2020-11-06 17:53:31 connect() to 195.238.108.87:65010 failed after select(): Connection refused (111)
2020-11-06 17:54:32 connect() to 195.238.108.87:65010 failed after select(): Connection refused (111)
2020-11-06 17:54:49 Misbehaving: 158.51.126.230:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:54:49 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=94
2020-11-06 17:54:50 Misbehaving: 69.57.222.116:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:54:50 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=95
2020-11-06 17:54:51 Misbehaving: 144.217.173.160:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:54:51 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=96
2020-11-06 17:55:40 Misbehaving: 69.57.222.116:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:55:40 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=97
2020-11-06 17:57:04 Misbehaving: 158.51.126.230:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:57:04 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=98
2020-11-06 17:57:05 Misbehaving: 69.57.222.116:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:57:05 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=99
2020-11-06 17:57:06 Misbehaving: 144.217.173.160:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:57:06 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=100
2020-11-06 17:57:16 connect() to 195.238.108.87:65010 failed after select(): Connection refused (111)
2020-11-06 17:57:47 Misbehaving: 69.57.222.116:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:57:47 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=102
2020-11-06 17:58:52 connect() to 195.238.108.87:65010 failed after select(): Connection refused (111)
2020-11-06 17:59:20 Misbehaving: 158.51.126.230:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:59:20 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=103
2020-11-06 17:59:21 Misbehaving: 69.57.222.116:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:59:21 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=104
2020-11-06 17:59:23 Misbehaving: 144.217.173.160:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:59:23 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=105
2020-11-06 17:59:35 Misbehaving: 51.77.196.202:65010 (0 -> 1)
2020-11-06 17:59:35 ProcessMessage(reject, 42 bytes) FAILED peer=106
So today they asking for our face photo with ID, and next time they will want maybe our DNA or other biometric identification. Who knows.
LOL you're overreacting. You need to understand that them asking for KYC verification is to protect them and protect you, if you don't understand how that works, then you're better off using a DEX.I don't understand how they can rob people in this way.
They're not robbing anyone (if you think they are, provide proof). They're simply asking for KYC because they need to comply with regulations. Plus, they want to verify the identity of the account owner, if you have nothing to hide, just submit your id photo.They do not comply with any EU GDPR regulations.
https://www.gdpreu.org/the-regulation/key-concepts/consent/
They do not have my consent to own what they want. They are using users's funds as hostage to enforce users to give them what they want.
Enhanced KYC verification (Selfie with ID in hand) has nothing to do with security, just my opinion as IT guy.
For security we have password, 2FA, IP whitelist and so on.
~snip
I don't understand how they can rob people in this way.
I don't understand how they can rob people in this way.
Why you are saying they rib people in this way? We all know that bittrex is one of the large crypto exchange in the world. I think they have more reputation and they don't try to rib people since as a large exchange. They just trying to maintain crypto regulation and want to provide high security for the trader.
Since they have already locked your account so you must pass the KYC verification to In motion your account again. Just skip KYC if you have little balance which you can consider Or if you have a high amount in the exchange then you should pass the KYC to save your balance IMO. Good luck dear!
I can't manage my funds or do any withdrawall so they just robbed me. On Kraken exchange I can make withdrawall or trade without KYC.
They are also responsible for loses or not realized gains because I can't trade and do risk management with my funds.
I can't terminate my account, I can't do anything. Just to say good bye to my funds.
I have had the legacy account for years.
Bittrex locked me up about a week ago, so I made a successful ID verification, but I refused to make an extended KYC verification. They want a photo of my face along with the ID, but I disagree with it.
My argument is that they don't have my permission to own and keep my photo. From my point of view, it is a great risk to give them such a picture.
https://medium.com/@wilderko/how-does-kyc-aml-pose-a-serious-threat-to-your-privacy-and-should-not-be-used-at-all-88f7acd3f3b
I wanted to terminate account, but they always reply with asking for that photo.
So today they asking for our face photo with ID, and next time they will want maybe our DNA or other biometric identification. Who knows.
I don't understand how they can rob people in this way.
Bittrex locked me up about a week ago, so I made a successful ID verification, but I refused to make an extended KYC verification. They want a photo of my face along with the ID, but I disagree with it.
My argument is that they don't have my permission to own and keep my photo. From my point of view, it is a great risk to give them such a picture.
https://medium.com/@wilderko/how-does-kyc-aml-pose-a-serious-threat-to-your-privacy-and-should-not-be-used-at-all-88f7acd3f3b
I wanted to terminate account, but they always reply with asking for that photo.
So today they asking for our face photo with ID, and next time they will want maybe our DNA or other biometric identification. Who knows.
I don't understand how they can rob people in this way.
from https://masternodes.online/currencies/XMCC/
Last XMCC block 359,663 generated: 28s ago
from https://insight.monoeci.io/insight/
360909 a few seconds ago 1 237
my wallet
current number of blocks 360941
last block time 12 min ago
which one is correct?
Last XMCC block 359,663 generated: 28s ago
from https://insight.monoeci.io/insight/
360909 a few seconds ago 1 237
my wallet
current number of blocks 360941
last block time 12 min ago
which one is correct?
Re: ☑☑☑[ANN][BSD] BitSend - online since 2014 - Bittrex - Litebit.eu
No.138 Overview Weekly Airdrop 12/03/18
Total members: 806 |Payout per member Bitsend: 10| Payout per member total Bitsend: 5.536
Airdrop total Bitsend 1.492.098
Infos about our Airdrop can you find here: https://bitsend.info/forums/index.php?topic=18.0
Payments will be issued on Mondays until 2019.
Best Regards,
Your Bitsend Team
Total members: 806 |Payout per member Bitsend: 10| Payout per member total Bitsend: 5.536
Airdrop total Bitsend 1.492.098
Infos about our Airdrop can you find here: https://bitsend.info/forums/index.php?topic=18.0
Payments will be issued on Mondays until 2019.
Best Regards,
Your Bitsend Team
I receiving coins from airdrop more than one and half year, thank you.