Mmmm brownies...

Contributions

• Started mining PTS back in 2013-12 (a bit late and wasn't very fruitful)
• injected money into the bitshares ecosystem by buying PTS and contributing to AGS
• involved in early btsx testing
• helped identify the root cause of an account/key indexing problem during early refactoring. (I was already thanked with some PTS -- which I contributed back to AGS)
• helped people with linux build issues
• helped test bitshares DNS - ran active delegates for a while
• ran an active BTSX delegate delegate.bitder for a long time until being bumped off when the 100% delegates were voted in
• mined Sparkle for a while
• contributed code to compute the genesis rich list
• lurking on this forum every day
• most importantly still buying BTS

Account: bitder

| bitder | - | bitder |

hi all
today i found on bter balance bts_s2
i guess its a new snapshot but i cant find infos about it
does anyone know what it is (a new project like play?)and do i have to take action

I believe that's the BTER snapshot of bts for the Sparkle DAC.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?board=80.0

Quote from: JWF on December 07, 2014, 07:34:54 pm

Quote from: turtletastic2 on December 07, 2014, 07:20:26 pm

I've noticed that the new commit doesn't even check the difficulty every 20 blocks for blocks < 20000 anymore. I was thinking, I might as well take us to block no. 20000 on my own and do something good with all those blocks instead of giving them to some idiot. So, either we don't honor these blocks at all, or we do it: In that case, I don't want them and I would use them for project bounties (starting services, building exchanges, etc.).

For the record: It wasn't me who exploited it in first place. But I got tired of waiting until we hit 20000 or restart.

Btw, difficulty is at 3342778 and we havn't found a single block after number 20000.

yeah seems stalled out, been over 30 mins now with no block 20001, with increasing diff to 3409633. I'm starting to think the new chain may be needed.

Thats what I wanted to show by taking us to 20000 quicker
Starting the new chain today would be nice, as most people would have the chance and time to recompile and restart it on a sunday instead of a work day.

The problem is, you've created a fork that isn't valid for all the clients still on alpha.5 so they ignore your branch.
I think there needs to be a change in alpha.7 to put back the 20th block difficulty check for blocks under 20000 (and of course keep the difficulty check on every block as in alpha.6)

The mining difficulty is not correct. The current situation is that the block times are getting larger.

>>> blockchain_list_blocks
HEIGHT  TIMESTAMP           SIGNING DELEGATE                # TXS   SIZE    LATENCY PROCESSING TIME
===================================================================================================
3224    2014-11-29T16:06:59 SPKKMx5vptvYe7WNRLHnJb7cr4pi... 0       92      0       0.002701       
3223    2014-11-29T15:47:48 SPKFQS6yDC1TgNxooLDjLCLswBou... 0       92      0       0.002129       
3222    2014-11-29T15:23:42 SPKFQS6yDC1TgNxooLDjLCLswBou... 0       92      0       0.002542       
3221    2014-11-29T15:17:37 SPKFrj9Lc4hhCRpkaiMBckWG5gkG... 0       92      0       0.002543       
3220    2014-11-29T15:13:13 SPK7Zyv3DeS2uqsDZ6Wc5X8hFrtT... 0       92      0       0.002715       
3219    2014-11-29T15:10:33 SPKDUSDbriW3tWA92ANGLFWDihvk... 0       92      0       0.002455       
3218    2014-11-29T15:07:40 SPKKMx5vptvYe7WNRLHnJb7cr4pi... 0       92      0       0.001791       
3217    2014-11-29T14:58:01 SPKKNtcwD1EWzPgzxE9xb2JML7wv... 0       92      0       0.001842       
3216    2014-11-29T14:55:36 SPKPjt9uYppQzbzp6NRTXnfiyJsW... 0       92      0       0.002943       
3215    2014-11-29T14:49:13 SPKJCdV2pV4EjoxCkyUkfqKj4drf... 1       274     0       0.005777       
3214    2014-11-29T14:38:17 SPKKbKY6iwQpUFeLrprr364qE8iW... 0       92      0       0.002019       
3213    2014-11-29T14:32:32 SPKEX97Xaptf9vvmsaojRWuNUc9s... 0       92      0       0.00207       
3212    2014-11-29T14:25:35 SPKL6JFtCBGX8uuxuTUxkWD5xbTH... 0       92      0       0.001951       
3211    2014-11-29T14:25:20 SPK3PpAz2iGJS6jJVhKqs1vX8sSe... 0       92      0       0.002021       
3210    2014-11-29T14:24:47 SPKBJWn8uiGFL8XXGLGphm4Pufht... 0       92      0       0.001921       
3209    2014-11-29T14:24:25 SPKBcbLKHChWSX59M2VNZHhKfNcj... 0       92      0       0.001918       
3208    2014-11-29T14:24:22 SPKDUSDbriW3tWA92ANGLFWDihvk... 0       92      0       0.001821       
3207    2014-11-29T14:22:07 SPKG2snxzBpyWT7T8SLDjzt75SrF... 0       92      0       0.001829       
3206    2014-11-29T14:21:49 SPKGxpPrb1bajvsno6uNVJ5Kr6gf... 0       92      0       0.001933       
3205    2014-11-29T14:21:11 SPK6bigeXk1FvCWv8VVR865GU2Hi... 0       92      0       0.001932       

But the difficulty is increasing (currently at 94529)
>>> info
{
  "blockchain_head_block_num": 3224,
  "blockchain_head_block_age": "2 minutes old",
  "blockchain_head_block_timestamp": "2014-11-29T16:06:59",
  "blockchain_difficulty": 94529,
  "blockchain_confirmation_requirement": 6,
  "blockchain_share_supply": "2,000,161,198.33637 SPK",
  "blockchain_random_seed": "30594b9f35866ac67a679e6e94da78471279cd30",
...

The the new_difficulty calculation should be something like this:
$ git diff
diff --git a/libraries/blockchain/chain_database.cpp b/libraries/blockchain/chain_database.cpp
index 8d0b17e..c94519c 100644
--- a/libraries/blockchain/chain_database.cpp
+++ b/libraries/blockchain/chain_database.cpp
@@ -724,7 +724,7 @@ namespace bts { namespace blockchain {
 
                const auto difficulty = pending_state->get_property( current_difficulty ).as_uint64();
 
-               int64_t new_difficulty = ((difficulty * expected_time) / delta_time);
+               int64_t new_difficulty = ((difficulty * BTS_BLOCKCHAIN_BLOCK_INTERVAL_SEC) / delta_time);
                //ulog( "${d} => ${n}", ( "d", difficulty ) ("n",new_difficulty) );
 
                /*

Note if the delta_time between blocks is larger than the BTS_BLOCKCHAIN_BLOCK_INTERVAL_SEC time then the difficulty is adjusted lower and if the delta_time is smaller than the desired block time then the difficulty is adjusted higher.

I'm not a US citizen, not an accountant, not a lawyer...
By returning the "gift", would that be treated as a NOP by the IRS and therefore no tax liability?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_tax_in_the_United_States

Quote from: bitder on October 03, 2014, 02:05:54 am

Quote from: BTSdac on October 03, 2014, 01:50:47 am

Code: [Select]

make[2]: *** [libraries/fc/CMakeFiles/fc.dir/git_revision.cpp.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [libraries/fc/CMakeFiles/fc.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2


did you do the following?

Code: [Select]

$ git submodule update --init
$ cmake .
$ make


also have same problem

Code: [Select]

/root/keyid/libraries/fc/git_revision.cpp:9:46: note: in expansion of macro ‘FC_GIT_REVISION_UNIX_TIMESTAMP’
 const uint32_t git_revision_unix_timestamp = FC_GIT_REVISION_UNIX_TIMESTAMP;
                                              ^
/root/keyid/libraries/fc/git_revision.cpp:4:45: error: ‘HASH’ was not declared in this scope
 #define FC_GIT_REVISION_UNIX_TIMESTAMP HEAD-HASH-NOTFOUND
                                             ^
/root/keyid/libraries/fc/git_revision.cpp:9:46: note: in expansion of macro ‘FC_GIT_REVISION_UNIX_TIMESTAMP’
 const uint32_t git_revision_unix_timestamp = FC_GIT_REVISION_UNIX_TIMESTAMP;
                                              ^
/root/keyid/libraries/fc/git_revision.cpp:4:50: error: ‘NOTFOUND’ was not declared in this scope
 #define FC_GIT_REVISION_UNIX_TIMESTAMP HEAD-HASH-NOTFOUND
                                                  ^
/root/keyid/libraries/fc/git_revision.cpp:9:46: note: in expansion of macro ‘FC_GIT_REVISION_UNIX_TIMESTAMP’
 const uint32_t git_revision_unix_timestamp = FC_GIT_REVISION_UNIX_TIMESTAMP;
                                              ^
make[2]: *** [libraries/fc/CMakeFiles/fc.dir/git_revision.cpp.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [libraries/fc/CMakeFiles/fc.dir/all] Error 2


You probably don't have the latest code checked out.

$ git fetch
$ git checkout master
$ git rebase
$ git submodule update --init
$ cmake .
$ make

After that, you can update for future builds by doing:
$ git fetch
$ git rebase
$ git submodule update --init
$ make


Code: [Select]

make[2]: *** [libraries/fc/CMakeFiles/fc.dir/git_revision.cpp.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [libraries/fc/CMakeFiles/fc.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2


did you do the following?
$ git submodule update --init
$ cmake .
$ make