Jump to content
NEWS

simplemind

MEMBER
  • Content count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Orbitcoin ORB Information

    Would a tiny AVS instance (with 512MB RAM) be enough for a block explorer? I still have some free tiny instances for free for a couple of months which I could donate...
  2. Hobonickels HBN Information

    We've more than 2 GH/s network hashing power. Where does the hash power come from? The major pools together have 350 MH/s.
  3. Orbitcoin v1.4.2.1: Staking Bonanza

    Well, I don't know how these attacks work. I've re-read the OP of Orbitcoin ORB Information. "Orbitcoin's major distinguishing feature is that it uses proof-of-stake/proof-of-work hybrid system. The proof-of-stake system was designed to address vulnerabilities that could occur in a pure proof-of-work system. With Bitcoin or Litecoin, for example, there is a risk of attacks resulting from a monopoly on mining share. This is because rewards from mining are programmed to decline exponentially, which may decrease the incentive to mine. As miners decline, the likelihood of a monopoly increases, which leaves the network vulnerable to a 51% attack (a 51% attack is when a single entity possesses over half the mining share), which would allow this entity to double-spend coins). With a proof-of-stake system, a network attacker would also need to gain over 50% of the total mined coins.. This has the effect of making a monopoly more costly, and stops the risk of a monopoly from proof-of-work mining shares." Is this completely wrong?
  4. Orbitcoin v1.4.2.1: Staking Bonanza

    I thought a PoW/PoS hybrid can only be attacked if the attacker has >50% of network hash power and owns >50% of all coins. Was this assumption wrong?
  5. 'getbalance' != 'getbalance ""'

    Good to know, thanks. It seems listaccounts has the same issue showing wrong balance...
  6. A few days ago I started with a HBN Linux wallet and played a little bit with it, moving coins around and so forth. I think it works very well, but there is one thing I don't understand. According to the Bitcoin API call list 'getbalance [account] [minconf=1]' returns the total available balance and if [account] is specified the balance in this account. I have only one account ('""') so I would expect that './hobonickelsd getbalance' and './hobonickelsd getbalance ""' return the same results. But this is not the case. When I specify the account the balance is higher than without and I have no idea which balance is the correct one. Of course I've googled already but that has not really helped. Any hints are appreciated.
  7. Orbitcoin v1.4.2.1: Staking Bonanza

    Thanks for your feedback! This sounds quite complicated to a simple mind like me. I would be grateful if you could take a look at the following questions. 1. Is it an input over 20 ORB or an input with at least 20 ORB? 2. Will there be block halving? 3. What exactly is a "stake kernel"? Clarification could help me (and maybe others) to decide how to best organize ORB blocks before the bonanza. 4. Say I have an address with 11 chunks/blocks. One with 19 ORB 5 days old and ten with 0.1 ORB six days old. Will it be eligible for staking. If yes, why? I'm no programmer, so I can't read the source code but I'm really curious how the inside logic works. 5. New information is that there's a coin age maximum of 20 days. Thank you for that. Do chunks/blocks gain weight after 20 days? One request I have left. Please explain so that it can understand a simple user.
  8. Orbitcoin v1.4.2.1: Staking Bonanza

    What is the best strategy to get the most out of this bonanza? As far as I understand this kind of PoS is not based on blocks but rather on addresses (with one or more chunks/blocks). Will there be block halving? It it a good idea to have many addresses with 20 ORB each? Or is it better to have more ORB per address to increase staking chance when competing against other addresses?
  9. In my case it speeds up the start from several minutes to 10 seconds.
  10. Repair wallet did the trick. Thanks.
  11. I've upgraded from v1.4.0.0 to v1.4.0.1 and had some problems. The wallet was crashing while downloading the blockchain. There was nothing really helpful in the debug.log, so I've decided to rename all my wallet files to *.old and try agein. It worked. But now the transactions are sorted by "status" by default. I can change this to "Date" only within the running wallet. The wallet forgets the transaction sort settings when I close it and reverts back to status sort when I start it again. The negative effect is that my stake wallets are now showing only the latest stake orphans under "Recent transactions" in "Overview", not the successful stakes, so I have to click "Transactions" and sort manually by date to check whether there was a successful stake. This is what I did: 1. Renamed all wallet files to *.old 2. Started v1.4.0.1 and downloaded the blockchain 3. After blockchain download and while the client was running renamed the wallets back to *.dat 4. Loaded all wallets by clicking the "Load" button It seems the effect only applies to my stake wallets and not to my mining and trade wallets that never had stakes. I would be grateful for any assistance. The goal is to see successful stakes under "Recent transactions" for stake wallets. And BTW happy Easter to everybody.
  12. Why is the PoW orphan rate increasing?

    Good to know. Hopefully this checkpoint server, that does have influence on the coin, is well secured.
  13. Why is the PoW orphan rate increasing?

    So one checkpoint server can affect coin behaviour?
  14. Why is the PoW orphan rate increasing?

    After browsing through the posts, I've learned the PoS has impact to PoW, but how can PoS have such a huge impact to PoW orphans?
×

Important Information

By using CRYPTOCURRENCYTALK.COM, you agree to our Terms of Use.