Mystery to solve:
I have 2 backups taken in jan. 2015 and feb 2015 of my nushares holdings that contain exactly the same receiving addresses and sending addresses.
However, feb2015 backup has more motions and custodial votes in it (and different interest rate).
feb2015 backup does not mint.
jan2015 backup would mint (I ve tried alternatively one after the other on the same unique machine, on a span of dozen of hours)
Why is that?
Does anyone have a reasonable explanation?
No, but have you tried to create fresh wallet.dat’s and to import your private key into the new wallet? In order to do so, start the client with the old wallet.dat’s, go into the console and type dumpprivkey <pub-key-of-your-staking-address and it will show the private key which you can then import into the new wallet.dat using the importprivkey command.
are they both encrypted with the same pass?
Absolutely
Here’s what I did, as an experiment.
I took my jan2015 backup, added my most recent votes (the ones that feb2015 backup contains) and SURE enough,
my jan2015 backup stops minting and “ProcessBlock() : duplicate proof-of-stake” errors have shown up.
jan2015 backup getvote:
{
“custodians” : [
{
“address” : “B5viA2YWcoLBvT8TWJywasQyAT9xkwhmWc”,
“amount” : 1.0
},
{
“address” : “BNiUcbLZ8UwD1xpqcS1EyKBnE5q4724oGA”,
“amount” : 1.0
},
{
“address” : “BSf6xxQ7BjXLUhhvvFheeFd1NiiV11ce1n”,
“amount” : 1.0
},
{
“address” : “BGUChgeJX3BUc1Sh5LfXS96XgUbUXZsND8”,
“amount” : 1.0
},
{
“address” : “BTgryZQ1dQNJYMjm74K3ajdRnDfsCjh3c3”,
“amount” : 499.0
}
],
“parkrates” : [
{
“unit” : “B”,
“rates” : [
{
“blocks” : 8192,
“rate” : 0.00077877
},
{
“blocks” : 16384,
“rate” : 0.00155753
},
{
“blocks” : 32768,
“rate” : 0.00311507
},
{
“blocks” : 65536,
“rate” : 0.00623013
},
{
“blocks” : 131072,
“rate” : 0.01246026
},
{
“blocks” : 262144,
“rate” : 0.02492053
},
{
“blocks” : 524288,
“rate” : 0.04984105
},
{
“blocks” : 1048576,
“rate” : 0.29904632
}
]
}
],
“motions” : [
“65cb60d096508a7fa9ecc2017b38bc3afeb5663d”,
“0a4c19b33eb40845268a942067416af2ccdc4c93”,
“fe41d64247aea55fd480a3f1bd471bd6cc6a2efe”
]
}
feb2015 backup getvote:
12:52:58
?
{
“custodians” : [
{
“address” : “B5viA2YWcoLBvT8TWJywasQyAT9xkwhmWc”,
“amount” : 1.0
},
{
“address” : “BNiUcbLZ8UwD1xpqcS1EyKBnE5q4724oGA”,
“amount” : 1.0
},
{
“address” : “BSf6xxQ7BjXLUhhvvFheeFd1NiiV11ce1n”,
“amount” : 1.0
},
{
“address” : “BGUChgeJX3BUc1Sh5LfXS96XgUbUXZsND8”,
“amount” : 1.0
},
{
“address” : “BTgryZQ1dQNJYMjm74K3ajdRnDfsCjh3c3”,
“amount” : 499.0
},
{
“address” : “BB1eCrqde2g5vWTH7RsaBJ8NWTUF2D8ogq”,
“amount” : 1.0
},
{
“address” : “BPuTsT9FiDLSDihCHxzaieVXoksXqoffHk”,
“amount” : 1.0
},
{
“address” : “BCFQHtHjcisGVHY7sY2jERBHTYqZLhSxmM”,
“amount” : 1.0
},
{
“address” : “B6tBUhTuetuZezgoJCwwqkJNXNQXPCiand”,
“amount” : 27840.0
},
{
“address” : “BRTkmQ7Fz6vkg48iadLD1WfzmF7vech22v”,
“amount” : 320.0
},
{
“address” : “BMKCHYVwRpoAS1iB5iiqqudYy7USctAbkd”,
“amount” : 1.0
}
],
“parkrates” : [
{
“unit” : “B”,
“rates” : [
{
“blocks” : 8192,
“rate” : 0.00077877
},
{
“blocks” : 16384,
“rate” : 0.00155753
},
{
“blocks” : 32768,
“rate” : 0.00311507
},
{
“blocks” : 65536,
“rate” : 0.00623013
},
{
“blocks” : 131072,
“rate” : 0.01246026
},
{
“blocks” : 262144,
“rate” : 0.02492053
},
{
“blocks” : 524288,
“rate” : 0.04984105
},
{
“blocks” : 1048576,
“rate” : 0.29904632
}
]
}
],
“motions” : [
“65cb60d096508a7fa9ecc2017b38bc3afeb5663d”,
“0a4c19b33eb40845268a942067416af2ccdc4c93”,
“fe41d64247aea55fd480a3f1bd471bd6cc6a2efe”,
“eaa95d4d23ecf46e42aed90ba95448d50cb9c5e8”,
“4c1fa7b6b7b435bb215b93a771681232f1fd6237”,
“6f361693a7b248730b41d4292f89dc6f6f166bc8”,
“387e7f6ffc7d69311ac2e1d0ca7cd98d4ecbdea9”,
“ed7b9fc65dc4e9d9acad61e528420c2690f599d2”,
“876e10611809f3a90f2216fb61f107d3b7c9c469”
]
}
Insane -
@JordanLee @mhps What is the allowed block size of Nu? How many hashes can approximately be added to the voting before minted blocks become too large?
EDIT: Well I don’t think that your voting is too large, since I am minting with a similar number of dead hashes without problems.
One of the voting address is messing with the blockchains - That does not seem good and I am uncomfortable with voting until there’s a clear cut resolution of the issue.
I have transactions in my wallet that are older than 8 days. Why don’t they change their status to staking? Wallet is encrypted and currently unlocked for block minting only.
@crypto_coiner the karma protocol prohibits minting with votes for any passed motions or custodial grants. The Nu protocol sets a size maximum of just over 500 bytes, 520 to be exact, I think.
@creon maximum block size is 1MB.
The “Staked” section of the overview screen is used when a block is found and those funds have been put into a temporarily held state (for 5020 blocks). Once that time passes they are released back to the balance along with the blocks reward NSR.
Currently there is no way to view the transactions that can be used to solve a block reward, though now that we’ve open sourced and have more people with access to the code it should be straight-forward to port the code that allows the Peerunity wallet to display the “Minting” tab and related functionality.
thanks for your response. Does that mean that once I found a block, my balance (or part of it) will switch to “staking”?
Yes.
thank you!
Up until march, I used to leave passed motion and grants in the vote list of my client. (call it lazyness)
Which we identified overflowed the maximum size of the block allocated to votes (motion, grants and parking rates).
For anybody that feels lazy, I strongly recommend to subscribe to a feed - otherwise you expose you to the risk of blocking your minting ability.
So this would prevent shareholders from finding blocks in the event they are still voting for a motion which has recently passed or are subscribed to a data feed whereas this is the case. I know it will not have a large effect on the difficulty, as it changes very gradually, but doesn’t this effectively make it easier to pull off a 51% attack (increased likelihood of finding an adequate number of consecutive blocks by an attacker to confirm a double spend transaction)? Surely all shareholders will not be able to remove votes from the client immediately after the passage block is found.
I understand it is meant to keep the blockchain tidy, but I would like to hear more about if this results in any unintended consequences or if this concern has already been thought through and is figured negligible.
This was just a slightly entertaining way to say it is not nice to fill our blockchain with meaningless junk. You can, but its bad karma. At least that’s what I would like you to believe.
one more question regarding the staking: should I sent as many NSR to my wallet as possible in one transaction to have a higher weight or can I also have many small transactions to my wallet and the chance to find a block depends on the total of mature coins in the wallet? Maturation is 8 days, correct?
Thanks in advance!
As many as possible will do it, your client will combine as many 10k chunks as it can and will mint.
Just to add to what @willy said: Yes, the size of the UTXO increases the likelihood for it to find a block (after 10k blocks min age) but as willy said the minimal size of each UTXO has to be 10,000 NSR so the client will partition your funds in UTXOs of 10,000 NSR size.
If you want to use larger sizes you can overwrite this behavior by setting e.g. splitshareoutputs=50000 (for 50,000 NSR chunks) in the nu.conf. Note that the block reward is not weight dependent, ideally just ignore it.