1
Main Development / Re: Masternodes Testing, Round 3
« on: February 20, 2015, 10:27:24 pm »
Actually, I was mistaken. I was looking at elbandi's patch. I'm an idiot.
1 SPR = 0.029 $ (Vol: 195 $)
Important Links:
In the Spotlight:
January 18, 2016
Roadmap released!
January 8, 2016
Coming soon:
Decentralized Blockexplorer
October 10, 2015
New Wallet with
Vanity Address Generator
January 18, 2016
Roadmap released!
January 8, 2016
Coming soon:
Decentralized Blockexplorer
October 10, 2015
New Wallet with
Vanity Address Generator
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Main Development / Features for a new version (round 3)
« on: February 20, 2015, 10:13:33 pm »
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but based upon what I'm seeing at github, Mr. Spread left us with the sped up version of the election process.
Would anyone like to compile the builds, tweak it for round 3, and let's test it?
I have a theory on what Mr. Spread has done and if I am correct, what he left us is going to work beautifully.
Would anyone like to compile the builds, tweak it for round 3, and let's test it?
I have a theory on what Mr. Spread has done and if I am correct, what he left us is going to work beautifully.
3
Main Development / Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« on: February 19, 2015, 02:03:00 am »Heh, maybe we'll never get to 1440 but have a constant tidal zone beyond the 1410+ mark.
Could be.... I am sure this was not intended... but maybe this is a behaviour that just emerged out of nothing... lol
I suspect that's the case. The voting process is too slow to support a rigid 1440 cutoff maybe. In which case, we can conclude that the soft limit of 1440ish is working and has been for a few days...
I tend to agree as I have definitely had my lowest masternodes get kicked.
4
Main Development / Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« on: February 18, 2015, 04:30:53 am »
I have a feeling that the cap is 1400 and not 1440 as intended.
1401, 1402, 1403, and 1404 are all showing votes meaning votes to be de-elected.
1401, 1402, 1403, and 1404 are all showing votes meaning votes to be de-elected.
5
Main Development / Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« on: February 18, 2015, 02:15:02 am »
I had elected masternodes with 161.111 and 162.111 tSPR in them. The computer they're on hasn't had issues and other masternodes on that computer have remained elected. They appeared to get kicked already. I'm not sure I understand why since we only have 1412 elected masternodes. Does anyone have any ideas?
6
Main Development / Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« on: February 17, 2015, 05:06:43 pm »i started some masternode at yesterday night. all have >200 coins. none of them are elected. this is normal? is the election process so slow??This is normal because:
1. Elections are slow (Mr. Spread plans to speed it up with the next build)
2. There are more than 20 masternodes with 1000+ tSPR that haven't even been elected yet so your 200+ masternodes are going to have a LONG wait.
7
Main Development / Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« on: February 16, 2015, 07:09:36 pm »
You are basing your assertion on what we're experiencing now with initial election and parameters that Mr. Spread plans to change to speed things up.
Once on mainnet, I see no reason that you won't be able to kick the lowest MN off and go just a little bit higher and get elected. Unless someone then kicks you off of course.
Once on mainnet, I see no reason that you won't be able to kick the lowest MN off and go just a little bit higher and get elected. Unless someone then kicks you off of course.
8
Main Development / Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« on: February 16, 2015, 06:49:20 pm »But nothing else will change.
So I fear that once ALL 1440 MNs are elected, it will be difficult if not impossible for a newcomer to enter the market, except if he uses a high amount of SPR for his MN, so that he can barge into the top section of the 1440.
But it will NOT be possible for a new comer to barge into the lower section of the 1440.
That's my prediction. We shall see.
I disagree.
9
Main Development / Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« on: February 16, 2015, 04:49:49 am »If everyone with multiple MN under 300 coins in them and they have not been elected in days would combine them we could get to the magic number quicker.
No we wouldn't. It wouldn't make any difference. Other masternodes would simply get kicked down the list.
10
Main Development / Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« on: February 15, 2015, 10:13:37 pm »Maybe. But if he was going to change the parameters before mainnet, I would think he already would have.
But we are in the middle of a test round!
Mr. Spread released Elbandi's update in the middle of a round.
11
Main Development / Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« on: February 15, 2015, 09:08:51 pm »Has it been determined as of yet if the mn reward will increase past 30% over time like drk?No it has not.
12
Main Development / Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« on: February 15, 2015, 09:07:54 pm »georgem, in essence:
1. Voting for MN which is not in top 1440 doesn't make sense because it will be kicked off anyway. Therefore we should take the amount into account during voting.
2. Voting for MNs with higher amounts first is better because they are less likely to be kicked off.
3. Once there are 1440 masternodes the order of elections will be much less relevant because the rate of necessary changes to MN list will slow down. Also don't forget that parameters will be changed for mainnet to make elections faster.
That makes me think that he's comfortable not testing the new parameters on testnet and going straight to mainnet.
Ofcourse what he means by that, is that once we reach main net that the parameters will have changed by then.
I am very confident that Mr. Spread will not allow anything to reach main net without thoroughly testing it first.
Maybe. But if he was going to change the parameters before mainnet, I would think he already would have.
We'll see though
13
Main Development / Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« on: February 15, 2015, 07:56:49 pm »hey guys,
i'm having about 30mn's running here on testnet, and getting steady payments.
what stuff is still being sorted out or will this be going to mainnet soon?
A lot of stuff.
I think we will need atleast two additional test rounds, but they will not require Mr. Spread to do many changes.
Mr. Spread has said himself that the next testing round will include this:
Adjust the parameters of the voting process (change 10 max votes per block to something better, and probably even adjust the election requirement: "30 votes in last 60 blocks")
http://spreadcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93.msg1872#msg1872
http://spreadcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93.msg1876#msg1876
Also, god knows how well the kicking process will work in this test round.
I don't know. Mr. Spread made the following statement:
georgem, in essence:
1. Voting for MN which is not in top 1440 doesn't make sense because it will be kicked off anyway. Therefore we should take the amount into account during voting.
2. Voting for MNs with higher amounts first is better because they are less likely to be kicked off.
3. Once there are 1440 masternodes the order of elections will be much less relevant because the rate of necessary changes to MN list will slow down. Also don't forget that parameters will be changed for mainnet to make elections faster.
That makes me think that he's comfortable not testing the new parameters on testnet and going straight to mainnet.
14
Main Development / Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« on: February 15, 2015, 07:22:19 pm »hey guys,
i'm having about 30mn's running here on testnet, and getting steady payments.
what stuff is still being sorted out or will this be going to mainnet soon?
We're waiting for the 1440 masternodes to be elected so we can test the competition system. After that, whether we go to mainnet is up to Mr. Spread. So far he's not saying but hopefully he'll give us a hint soon.
15
Main Development / Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« on: February 15, 2015, 06:38:17 pm »
A dynamic increase like you speak of would certainly be a more elegant solution.