[00:10:33] ok 👌 [03:40:35] @aguycalled how do you feel about us changing the testnet back to using testnet as it's folder instead of testnet3 ? [04:03:20] @aguycalled @Matt (Dev) all the new gui functions work fine for me [04:45:03] https://github.com/matt-auckland/navcoin-core/pull/8/files feel free to comment [05:24:28] https://github.com/aguycalled/navcoin-core/pull/43 @aguycalled @mc290 [08:41:16] I've tweaked some more stuff, running a new build [08:41:36] There was a bug to do with proposals not deselecting even though it looked like they were [08:51:09] @aguycalled Is the aguycalled/cfund-cold-staking branch still the correct branch to develop against for cold staking? [08:52:15] I have a branch off of his that has a lot of tests, I'm trying to remember if it has anything else in it apart from that though [08:59:05] so I'd stick with his branch for now [09:10:09] coldstaking is the right [09:10:32] the one which has the pr open [09:14:34] I think my gui fixes pr will be ready soon [09:50:03] i was building rn [09:50:10] let me know when its completely ready and ill test [10:00:28] Ok it is ready, there is one more thing I might like to fix but it doesn't really matter [10:02:40] the only thing I would fix now is: if a proposal is in state X (no vote, yes vote, undecided) then the button for that option should also be disabled [10:03:02] I'll see how painful that is going to be to implement [10:03:14] I just tested my gui though and it works [10:16:23] I'll leave that feature for now [10:32:06] I think I made it work actually lol [10:32:08] testing again [10:33:08] I'm having trouble testing cold staking, I've generated 800 blocks to activate the soft fork. [10:33:36] I then create a new address and a cold staking address using the original address as the staking address and the new address as the spending address. [10:34:00] But, all of the stakes being generated are of value 50 Nav for new addresses. [10:34:45] I assume the 50 Nav stakes are default stakes if there are insufficient stakers? [10:35:14] I've tried on regtest and now on devnet [10:35:49] I just updated navcoind from the latest code on cfund-cold-staking branch this morning [10:39:16] oh don't use cfund-coldstaking [10:39:18] https://github.com/aguycalled/navcoin-core/tree/cold-staking [10:39:23] use the cold-staking branch [10:39:44] not sure why it would do 50 nav stakes [10:40:32] I'll update and rerun. thanks [11:04:00] the 50nav are blocks generated with the generate command [11:04:08] @prodpeak [11:04:31] Yeah [11:04:53] I can send an example when I get home [11:14:37] It went in a pattern where it would create a new address and then send stakes of 50Nav up to 5000Nav and then repeat. [11:15:03] Occasionally one of the previous 5000Nav addresses would get a stake, but mostly just the 50Nav stakes being created. [11:15:15] { "hex": "030000001afc085c010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000ffffffff050232040101ffffffff0100f2052a01000000232102c1244e9a595bb6f0ee0196477b095ddba6743786f99912c1645539a87445f471ac00000000025b5d", "txid": "7ec1e61b981579cf985b127433b3ede8abddaf429a8095c4f813f16ac46b308a", "hash": "7ec1e61b981579cf985b127433b3ede8abddaf429a8095c4f813f16ac46b308a", "size": 107, "vsize": 107, "version": 3, [11:15:15] "locktime": 0, "vin": [ { "coinbase": "0232040101", "sequence": 4294967295 } ], "vout": [ { "value": 50, "valueSat": 5000000000, "n": 0, "scriptPubKey": { "asm": "02c1244e9a595bb6f0ee0196477b095ddba6743786f99912c1645539a87445f471 OP_CHECKSIG", "hex": "2102c1244e9a595bb6f0ee0196477b095ddba6743786f99912c1645539a87445f471ac", "reqSigs": 1, "type": "pubkey", [11:15:16] "addresses": [ "mgLXWLWQpLLAE3HJBDkEwJ9z6bg3BDt7Wr" ] } } ], "blockhash": "a5030b197b8971530c515756a9d5210ff15b582a9b8ce5bdde2a6b55545686de", "height": 1074, "confirmations": 2, "time": 1544092698, "blocktime": 1544092698, "anon-destination": "[]" } [11:15:45] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/416000318149754881/520196647410728971/unknown.png [11:15:59] Looks something like this [11:16:08] @aguycalled my branch is ready for review, my latest tweak worked [11:16:35] thats a coinbase not a coinstake [11:16:48] its block generated by proof of work with the command generate [11:17:35] I'll pretend I understand. [11:17:52] I've moved over the the other branch now so hopefully I'll cold stake [11:25:31] the coinstake is the first transaction of a block [11:25:41] coinstake the second [11:49:12] @Matt (Dev) looks good [11:49:13] only [11:49:14] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/416000318149754881/520205071892348928/unknown.png [11:49:22] this button label does not change when i switch view [11:49:29] thats what i refered to in my comment [11:52:48] Will generate always only create coinbase TXs? [11:53:15] Still cant get a successful cold stake [11:54:29] yes [11:54:44] can you get normal stakes? [11:55:07] I do get some normal stakes [11:55:20] I guess I am just waiting for coins in cold staking to mature? [11:55:23] how many coins are in the staking address of the cold staking? [11:55:31] 50+M [11:55:38] all of them almost [11:55:58] whats your weight? [11:56:12] How do i get that? [11:56:32] getstakinginfo [11:56:42] 5984582501068493, [11:56:46] "weight": 5984582501068493, "netstakeweight": 154329, [11:56:59] then its a matter of waiting [11:57:11] if you only have an output it can take longer [11:57:18] as if you have 59 outputs of 1mill each [11:57:48] but still, i normally stake quite fast [11:57:55] with the 59mill output [11:58:34] Thanks. I'll pend for a while [11:58:48] try generating a few more hundred block with generate [11:58:58] just in case its cause of maturity of the coins [12:23:27] Now I seem to have lost 48000000 coins. They were sent to a change address when I send some coins to cold staking and that change address is not part of my wallet [12:24:12] getbalance: 11029900.98549813 [12:47:21] Working now 😃 [13:35:09] Does anyone have an example of a communityfund payout transaction? [13:35:52] It is an output of a staking/coldstaking transaction? [13:38:52] NM, I can make one and save for reference [20:58:31] its an output of the coinbase tx [21:31:16] Thanks. [21:31:33] can u review the merge conflicts @Matt (Dev) [21:32:35] fixing now [21:32:41] weird because I just merged the branches together [21:34:41] @aguycalled regarding the quorum change. we're looking to get 4.5.0 finalised today so we can release it on monday. so i don't think we'll have time to fully unit test the change. [21:35:31] at the least, we would perform a code review and manual testing that the soft fork activates and the new rules are working [21:36:18] is the provision to positively vote for a soft fork already in the code base? i thought we only programmed the option to vote against a soft fork so far? [21:36:26] or did you add it? [21:36:55] sounds good, i guess whats released on monday is 4.5.0-rc? [21:37:07] so theres still some time to add the unit tests between 4.5.0-rc and final release [21:37:36] if we decide for that option i can add it now [21:38:39] sure, its probably a good idea to release it as an RC and we can get some of the staking nodes udpate [21:38:51] while we write tests [21:38:53] for the other things [21:38:53] there are also other alternatives [21:38:59] like the one @prodpeak posted [21:39:09] did you read it? [21:39:11] i missed that [21:39:14] what's the short version [21:39:17] its on the pr [21:39:25] okay ill check it [21:43:15] sounds interesting [21:44:34] ok @aguycalled I've fixed the pr. https://github.com/aguycalled/navcoin-core/pull/44 [21:44:47] For some reason the merges didn't work properly, so I merged like 3 times 🤦 [21:45:16] it makes sense to structure it something like this using a ratio of some description. [21:46:18] if we want to keep it similar to the current structure, it would be a ratio of 1:4 no votes to block a proposal i guess, since we currently talk about 75% to pass. [21:47:21] i agree with @prodpeak 's point that no-votes have the incentive of stop voting to make a proposal not pass [21:47:49] but i also think it's a matter of interpretation [21:48:12] in a scenario 45% yes 5% no, if no voters leave the voting and the proposal without enough quorum [21:49:13] it can also be seen as, the proposal just did not meet the min req of 50% yes when the quorum is low [21:49:40] and the problem would be just a too high quorum requirement [21:50:01] i think determining the right m:n ratio for the quorum between yes/no is not easy [21:50:14] so itd be adding a complexity factor to the whole mechanism [21:50:27] without being sure if the ratio is the right [21:51:46] unless we make a progressive system where the req quorum adapts itself with the number of voters [21:52:04] I think it's important to know if a proposal was rejected or didn't gather enough yes votes. If both rejecters and abstainers are encouraged to abstain then the proposer doesn't know if they need to represent the proposal slightly different or if it is actually a no hoper. [21:52:06] theres always going to be a threshold where actors can move from one side to the other [21:52:17] with bigger consequences [21:55:21] I just had the view that we shouldnt encourage abstinence. [21:56:06] yes and i agree with that [21:57:18] what do you think @prole ? [22:02:02] it's a complex situation. It's something we'll have to experiment with to get right and it will probably evolve multiple times as engagement changes over time. i think we made the right call with our attempt on the original numbers as a starting point at least. From what i understand when company shareholders vote, they usually require 50% quorum and 75% yes to pass a resolution. One difference with a shareholder vote and what we're [22:02:03] doing is that with shareholder votes the votes are blind until the results are announced. Where as, we run votes transparently over a week and voters have the chance to change their position to maximum effect. [22:03:22] i dont really know what the right answer is as there are multiple solutions which could work [22:04:40] like.. if we want to maximise engagement, we could drop the quorum all together but perhaps make it a requirement to pass two out of 4 voting periods [22:04:56] so people have to engage and vote otherwise shitty proposals will be passed [22:05:32] or i dont know what... [22:06:42] the problem is that we want to lower the barrier sooner rather than later so proposals start getting worked on, but we also don't want to rush into implementing the wrong solution [22:07:06] or do we just accept that it might not be the best one and continue to work on further refinements in the longer term [22:07:18] i think the best would be 50% quorum first half of the cycles, 40% the second half [22:07:28] and even maybe 30% the last cycle [22:08:23] i think it should be kept simple so it does not take ages to come to a solution [22:08:28] yeah [22:09:19] i think perhaps you are right. if we can implement something simple that gets some of the proposals started, we could always come back to it later and propose a more thorough review of the mechanic once we have more data than just 3 weeks of voting cycles to base our assumptions on. [22:09:37] like, perhaps we could do ZK-VOTES [22:09:37] 😛 [22:09:48] where the votes are not disclosed until the end of the block cycle [22:09:49] haha [22:09:50] 😛 [22:09:59] see you in 2025 for that one [22:10:55] the new privacy will allow anonymous voting [22:11:21] if you stake in the accumulator? [22:11:36] if you stake using anonymous coins yes [22:11:40] nice [22:13:21] we're pretty close to the quorum really [22:13:27] https://www.navexplorer.com/community-fund/proposal/0a4c915850491675e264fafacd20d14b8d9f0b165d4065ff2f53a21bbf0f72a2 [22:13:56] like.. we're currently at around 45% voting [22:14:13] for some of the proposals [22:14:33] the gui interface on the wallet with the popup annoying people if they dont vote will help to get more votes to [22:14:35] too* [22:14:39] yeah [22:14:44] we were just saying that here in the office [22:14:53] part of it is that it's still complex to vote [22:14:58] with the debug window [22:15:04] and navpi [22:15:11] and perhaps not everyone trusts next wallet [22:17:27] btw @aguycalled can you merge master into your cold-staking branch [22:20:41] yes one sec [22:23:55] I've made a PR to you for our cold staking tests, it's still a wip though. We need to make a few more test changes [22:26:02] https://github.com/NAVCoin/navcoin-core/pull/336 @Matt (Dev) @prole [22:26:29] Checking now [22:28:15] commented on pr [22:30:32] looks good to me [22:31:32] Can you explain how this version bit voting works. When I mine a block I include my version bits right? Which means that we can look at the blockchain and see how many people have version bit xx, which means I support a particular softfork. Correct? [22:31:44] yep [22:32:15] and if I reject a version I just don't include that version bit in my block? [22:32:21] yes so u dont vote [22:33:13] cool [22:34:32] Do we need more tests for this [22:35:07] there are not version bits rejected by default yet so theres no much to test [22:35:15] lol true [22:35:47] It looks good to me [22:35:50] if you guys are happy with it and approve ill merge and then ill merge master into quorum-reduction and add the version bit there [22:36:02] then it can be tested [22:36:07] im happy with my eyeball review [22:36:40] We will need to add this to our changelog for 4.5 [22:36:48] approved [22:36:57] pending travis [22:37:00] passing [22:37:07] yes did someone already started to write it? [22:40:13] I'm not sure [22:40:49] I'm thinking that from now on when we PR to master we should add our changes to a changelog [22:41:02] So for example [22:41:17] 4.5 is released and we make a new change [22:41:25] if it's minor we PR in a change log for 4.5.1 [22:41:44] and we just add to that changelog until we do a new release [22:42:08] if at some point we merge a large change that requires a bigger version bump, then we bump the changelog to 4.6 [22:42:20] What do you guys think [22:42:33] yes good point [22:42:45] It will stop things from falling through the cracks [22:45:29] master merged in coldstaking @Matt (Dev) [22:45:35] cool [22:46:42] the second biggest staker is voting for 3 proposals which i can't find the hashes for on the navexplorer [22:46:43] https://chainz.cryptoid.info/nav/address.dws?Nd2mTuuA2wxgFfxYkrYtic6aBtqzf3YcjD.htm [22:46:54] https://chainz.cryptoid.info/nav/block.dws?2679222.htm [22:47:01] https://chainz.cryptoid.info/nav/tx.dws?5773988.htm [22:47:16]