41K SC upload fee???



  • @Mad_Max
    Yes this has been ongoing- now whether or not you have pinpointed WHERE the issue is coming from is a totally diff ball of wax..
    Its almost pointless because until the dev team fixesit the issue will continue.... but this issue is known by them- why it has not been fixed or maybe it will be is another question too.

    But let me ask this question.. Sia cant count the number of contracts properly.. but they can provide encrypted 3x redundancy across hundreds of nodes? (no answer required)
    Confidence very low...very

    Unofficial User / Tester / Analyst of Sia ( w/Renter and Host experience)

    0


  • @moorsc0de , @Mad_Max
    I see, I could be wrong with my assumptions.
    In that case the fundamental problem would be the renters node not updating the hostdb regularly and in short enough periods.

    My post regarding my particular transaction was meant as an example that unspent allocation IS actually coming back to the renter not only "per documentation".

    Let's hope today is that Friday (and not again the next one) the new updated UI is released and look if these issues persist.



  • @reinisp "HOPE"??? lol

    I think people are so desperate for Sia to work is they have been sold a bill of goods that is not Truthful. So "HOPE" is the order of the day now... but in technology- there is no hope. You either code or you do not.

    Unofficial User / Tester / Analyst of Sia ( w/Renter and Host experience)

    0


  • @reinisp In theory it should be ok - current renter module scan 200 hosts immediately after start (and do additional 200 scans each few hours of online work) . And it only need select 50 best hosts to make initial batch of contacts.
    Even considering that 200 hosts are randomly selected and that the user can start the process of contracts formation(by setting allowance) immediately after the launch. Among the randomly selected 200 hosts from current network, will be enough good hosts to drop all rogue hosts at least below the 100th position and never choose them again after very first scan. Probably the hosting prices will be far from most optimal point in this case (because renter did not discover best offers at this stage yet), but to check 200 hosts should be enough to does not choose the fraudulent hosts with absurdly high tariffs.
    But for some reason it still happens sometimes. Apparently there are more errors in renter logic/code.

    Let's hope today is that Friday (and not again the next one) the new updated UI is released and look if these issues persist.

    Nope. Not this Friday again. And I think that it will not be ready next Friday either.

    I think this is a patch to the renter logic devs mentioned to you: https://github.com/NebulousLabs/Sia/commit/59105d8a4a5a845f22977072ee2b4f3945d37bc2
    As you can see source code of patch was published only 9 days ago. It is not verified by other programmers and did not tested yet. So i think it will takes few weeks more before updated renter logic will be officially published and ready for use by ordinary users of sia.

    My post regarding my particular transaction was meant as an example that unspent allocation IS actually coming back to the renter not only "per documentation".

    And you got all this 52 690 coins back (minus only 10 SC from original 52 700 SC)?

    Actually this does not look like a return of locked collateral. But more like ordinary transaction. But i am not sure - i can not check detail because official block explorer is buggy too. If i try to check parent transaction or history it throw errors - "Hash not Found in Database" and "Block Not Found Database"



  • Reading a lot on here that is telling me to sell my few siacoins



  • @jhip626
    It's your decision.
    I bought a bunch of SC when the price was 110 satoshi (september 2016) and sold when the price fell to 40 satoshi (january this year).
    And I am sure the massive price rise 2-3 months ago has nothing to do with development of decentralised storage solution named Sia.
    I just know what was the price of a SC 6 months ago. And there has been less development as expected, partially because of the massive price rise, "user" (trader/hodler) influx and resulting problems with scalability at the exchange wallets.
    That rise was pure speculation, now the price nears slowly to the real value of present.

    So, you could exchange your holdings of SC into SJCX or MAID to be at least related to storage solutions.



  • @Mad_Max said in 41K SC upload fee???:

    And you got all this 52 690 coins back (minus only 10 SC from original 52 700 SC)?

    Actually this does not look like a return of locked collateral. But more like ordinary transaction. But i am not sure - i can not check detail because official block explorer is buggy too. If i try to check parent transaction or history it throw errors - "Hash not Found in Database" and "Block Not Found Database"

    I'm not sure if it is. The return of unspent is the only explanation of that transaction. Because both- sender and receiver addresses are my addresses, belonging to one wallet. And I am sure I did not transfer coins to myself within one wallet.
    On january the value of 50KS was so low I decided to abandon Sia, deleted all my test files from the renter and did not even open my wallet for more than 2 months. At that time 50KS was the minimum to start hosting, and seemed not to much for allowance... I really don't remember what did I set as allowance.



  • @reinisp There is at least one another situation when your coins are sent to your own address within one wallet without your actions.
    Before client lock in coins in file contract it prepare coin output with exact coins amount.
    For example

    1. You are a renter and going to sign contract with host which need 100 SC to be locked in it.
    2. But your wallet has only one big input (incoming transaction). Let's say = 50 000 SC.
    3. In such case your wallet takes/generate 2 new addresses and sends 100 SC to 1st and 49900 SC to 2nd address. First 100 SC used to sign contract and 49900 remain in wallet for future use.

    Wallet does such split/change transactions within one wallet automatically at every signed contract.
    I think this is happening at both sides (host and renter). Although I've checked it from the side of the host only for now.

    In GUI such transaction displayed as 0 (zero) coins transaction because net sum (input - output) = 0 as all addresses involved belongs to same wallet. But in blockchain you will see moving of large amounts of coins.



  • @Mad_Max The 0 transaction is the Sia Fund transaction that goes to them... your overthinking that.

    Unofficial User / Tester / Analyst of Sia ( w/Renter and Host experience)

    0


  • @moorsc0de What? What they have to do with this?
    SeaFund fees paid only by renters, not by hosts. And AFAIK there are not separate txs but fees included in file contract unlock process. Just amount of coins going out from contract after unlock fewer compared to amount of coins going in. All the difference is claimed by sea-fund owners later.
    Similar to bitcoin transaction fees, where is not any tx from users to miners, but miners claim difference between sum of all inputs and all outputs in all transaction in a block. But in Sia we just have 2 types of fees. One still goes to miners (tx fees) and other to siafund owners (contract fees)

    And as for these "zero" transactions - you can choose a hash of one of these and check it in the blockchain explorer to make sure that all the addresses involved in it are in your wallet. (to list all your addresses "wallet addresses" command in terminal or "siac wallet addresses" in command line)

    Wallet constantly creates them. I manually generated only 2 addresses, and now my wallet contains several dozen already, through which these automatic exchange/split transactions passed. Number equals to my host contact count (real count, bot buggy counter in current client)



  • @Mad_Max I deleted the file right after seeing the 41k go walkies, I emptied my wallet right away after and don't intend to restart the client for a long time, will that be enough not to renew?

    @moorsc0de BTW I was/am running 1.2.2 but the original contract would have been made under 1.2.1 but the xfer happened with latest version.



  • @desgrippes Sounds buggy

    Unofficial User / Tester / Analyst of Sia ( w/Renter and Host experience)

    0


  • @Mad_Max Do you have a source for indicating ONLY renters pay for Sia Fund 3.9% fee?

    Its my knowledge - Every transaction - in the UI (except deposits to the UI/wallet have a 0 dust fee transaction. These 0 SC transactions are the 3.9% of the amount being transacted that goes to Sia Fund.
    When you go to the Sia Explorer it will show you the dust transaction which is this 3.9% which is usually very minimal, but it comes out of every transaction- most users do not even know it.
    The wallet always creates multiple addresses... the wordis all of them will work.. but concerning specifically the 0 SC seen.. that is a 3.9% fee. This could get divided to the miners (not sure), but
    there would be no reason to show mining fees in a wallet (and would be a first I have ever seen of any wallet). These 0 SC are also going to different wallt addresses seen in the UI and in Sia Explorer.

    My post from reddit 20 day ago and was never contested there:
    Sia is a product of Nebulous Incorporated. Nebulous is a for-profit company, and Sia is intended to be- come a primary source of income for the company. Nebulous intends to generate revenue from Sia in a manner proportional to the value added by Sia, as determined by the value of the contracts set up between clients and hosts. This is accomplished by imposing a fee on all contracts. When a contract is created, 3.9% of the contract fund is removed and distributed to the holders of siafunds . Nebulous Inc. will initially hold approx. 88% of the siafunds, and rest 12% is held by the early crowd-fund backers.

    Source: http://www.cryptocoinscorner.com/2017/06/crypto-currency-siacoin-sia.html

    Unofficial User / Tester / Analyst of Sia ( w/Renter and Host experience)

    0


  • @desgrippes said in 41K SC upload fee???:

    @Mad_Max I deleted the file right after seeing the 41k go walkies, I emptied my wallet right away after and don't intend to restart the client for a long time, will that be enough not to renew?

    Yes, this should be enough.
    In order to renew contract client needs to use your private keys. So if you do not start client until old contracts expire OR you start client but wallet remain locked all the time - client will not be able to renew contracts. And without renew fund locked in old contracts should return to your wallet after contracts duration ends (12 week from contract signing by default).

    Resetting renter allowance to zero should work too. But i am not sure this works properly in current client... So i advice to clear allowance only after contracts expire and coins return back to wallet but before you unlock wallet and send coins away. Don't forget to do this before unlock wallet or client could start making brand new contracts using returned coins.



  • @moorsc0de

    Yes, 3.9% fee apply to all file contracts. But not to regular transactions.
    And these fees paid by renter only. Renter pay fees for both sides - own spending plus host collateral.
    This mentioned in the Hosting Handbook

    How Collateral Affects Score
    Collateral actually has two effects. The first is that it improves your score because renters like to see collateral. But the second is that it reduces your score, because renters have to pay a siafund fee on the collateral.

    And i also saw this on practice while browsing examples of renter contracts. Here link to table with examples of renter contracts. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KD1tdxc78okXeu4c2z4vWnVr1p9aaaqCXlwfaMmNZ9M/
    Pick 1st - 2d3ac4c5c88211a1a4f51f326643bd76651121e0722cc409db582bd9a97e5eb4
    Check block explorer: https://explorer.siahub.info/hash/2d3ac4c5c88211a1a4f51f326643bd76651121e0722cc409db582bd9a97e5eb4

    There is 1341.29 SC locked in this contract (Payout: 1,341.29 SC).
    But only 1288.98 SC will be paid to renter and host after contract finished (Total SC Outputs: 1,288.98 SC )
    Difference between this two values is a seafund fee: 1341.29*(1-3.9%) = 1288.97969 SC
    But this fee not visible in a wallet. You can see it only in the blockchain. And there is not any fees transaction - just sum(outputs) < sum(inputs)

    And now let's check who pay this fees:
    Renter sent 343.34 SC to form this contract (https://explorer.siahub.info/hash/49d0b260001dbb0f446b9953107bba612e6750365116a4eb13e2e7896cab4804)
    And 59.36 SC already marked as spend in client contract table.
    Host sent only 1000 SC as collateral to contract: https://explorer.siahub.info/hash/b348dafcb931b4d916706d3116c8e3277d752cedf3a8643b846684ce925652cf
    And 1005 SC is already prepared to return to host - all collateral + contract creation fee (from renter to host) 1000+5=1005 SC.
    If renter will never use this contract - host will get 1005 SC back, and renter will get 283.98 SC back.
    If renter will use it - host's portion will increase and renter portion will decrease.
    So all seafund fees is on a renter side.

    As for 0 SC transaction in a wallet - i am sure it is not a fees, but some sort of change operations. I have checked few such transaction in properly working block explorer (https://explorer.siahub.info/ - it is working much better compared to official one!). Here one example of "zero transaction" from one of my wallets: https://explorer.siahub.info/hash/fcdd92f88c783f9ed902d2fa9cd7bea60b37ea15d64a91fcb37798630eb28c26

    You can see it actually not a zero at all. 36.65 SC goes from one address (input) to two other addresses in 5.08+31.57 SC proportions. Only one reason why client shows this tx as zero because all 3 addresses are my own and total wallet balance change as result of such transaction = 0. Eg just sending coins to myself. If you send some bitcoins to own address (from the same wallet) bitcoin client will show such transaction as zero too.



  • @Mad_Max Highly speculative analysis- with no proof.

    Despite the Nebulous releaseon how Sia Fund is actually funded... hmmmm

    Unofficial User / Tester / Analyst of Sia ( w/Renter and Host experience)

    0


  • Blockchain itself IS a best proof possible. Actually, this is its main purpose - to be a very reliable proof of various important information.
    And links to actual contracts in the blockchain right above.
    It just example though - you can pick up any of your own contracts and see the same. I have checked few already.

    And there are no any contradictions with what the Nebulous wrote. They said what they are getting 3.9% of total contract funds via siafund.
    I am saying the same(but with more details) - they collects 3.9% of total contract sum, but these expenses shifted to the renter side. Host pays 0% fee to sea-fund and renter pays about 10% or more fee - depends on ratio between host prices and host collateral. Bigger collateral = bigger fees from renter to seafund.

    This is the reason why setting collateral too high is a bad idea despite the fact that this increases the score and trust of the host. Simultaneously, this significantly increases the renter's costs and reduces the attractiveness of your host.


Log in to reply