Count me as another that does not like cryptopia. Maybe it is tzc that can't get the wallet straight with them so that might be where my anger should be focused. As I type this I have a withdraw from cryptopia worth about 5k tzc in pending and it has been that way for well over 24 hours. I sure wish those coins were added to the coins I am staking with.

I get that. Please don't take me as one to spread fud or whatever.

I believe that there is work being done on the wallet and other aspects of this coin. That's why I'm still buying and mining more.

Hopefully soon it will get listed on a more reliable exchange.

Courtesy of ChekaZ:

Rock/Paper/Scissors is LIVE! - It is the first TrezarFundMe project to go live.
Thanks to @Totenfluch for the work!

Please feel free to stop by the Slack to try it out!

Commands:
/rps  @username <amount>

Wager limits: 0.1 < amount < 100
RPS is linked with the Tipbot, so if you want to play, you have to load funds into your TipAccount.

Happy playing!

Is there any estimation from the devs when they will find the time to improve the situation? I feel like many newbies will give up very quickly if they can't get the wallet to run properly and that means forgone potential for the community to grow.

I agree. But then again, some more robustness would be nice.

@Noruka:
AFAIK, such improvements are on the docket. Unfortunately, some of the issues have been tricky to reproduce in development environments, so it's been a difficult process to debug. But should be coming down the pipeline.

Sorry, I was referring to a different bug--not the one you described.
And yes, that one should be more straightforward and it is being worked on AFAIK.

Your input about the wallet information output is duly noted--a few other people have had similar thoughts.
I am not aware of this being planned for the next update, but it is something that is being mentioned periodically as something to improve sooner than later.

And finally, I'm not sure what you mean by "arguing that your clients/customers/users are too stupid to understand"...
I don't recall any messages, particularly recently, implying anything like that? 

I personally agree, for what it's worth, and hope that the documentation and software will continue to improve such that we can serve a reasonable lowest-common-denominator of users. 

With all due respect, I strongly disagree with that assertion--I do not believe it is anywhere near the mark.
IMO, looking out for customers/clients and trying to make things intuitive or easy for them to use is NOT at all the same thing as saying or believing they are "too stupid to understand"... Extending that logic to the consumer/retail world would mean companies like Apple that distinguish themselves by creating easier to use, intuitive products are, likewise, insisting their customers are "too stupid". Although I personally do not care for Apple, I find that assertion ill-fitting and at best misleading.


No, if you send any coins from an input (i.e., consume that input), then all the coins IN THAT ONE INPUT are reset.
Either the author you quoted choose poor phrasing to communicate a point, or misunderstood how inputs/UTXO get reset when consumed.

Rest assured, you do not need to worry about other coins in the same address or elsewhere in your wallet getting their ages reset. 

Ok, sounds good to me.
Just didn't want someone to think that there was condescension or judgment when there wasn't any...


Inputs/outputs/addresses are all pretty fundamental aspects of blockchain and I regularly encourage participants in crypto to take 5-10 minutes to read some wikis on them. IMHO it only takes that long to get the basic concept, and it's very good knowledge to have if you are involved in this space. (A thorough, in-depth understanding would take much longer for most people--however that is not really necessary or as much positive cost/benefit, IMHO.)

The semi-short answer is an input is an incoming amount to an address.

One address can "hold" multiple inputs.
One analogy is to consider inputs like "bills" or "coins" in a physical wallet... except that since this is digital/non-tangible, it is not constrained by what denominations are printed. So, if today someone send you 1.629 coins, you will now have a 1.629-sized input associated with the address where you received the coins. These inputs (also sometimes called UTXO) are "consumed" when you yourself make payments from your wallet.

It's very easy to see and manage your inputs if you enable Coin Control.
Go to Options --> Display --> Enable the Coin Control (beta)
Then you will be able to see a Coin Control button in the Send section of your wallet.

Hope that helps!

Please don't worry about pressure.
It is a good thing IMHO to periodically make inquiries--the squeaky wheel gets greased.
All I would ask is that people try to be reasonable and think things through before posting--you seem to do both, so don't hesitate to say what's on your mind. 

Although I am not a dev, I can confidently say that the code developers are aware of the issue. (For anyone else reading this response, we are discussing a suspected wallet-crash bug that occurs semi-infrequently and is not related to improper PC-shutdown, etc.) It is my understanding that they have been "casting nets" to catch and diagnose the potential problem. Unfortunately, it seems to be a fairly tricky one to isolate. The devs are very experienced, established blockchain programmers, not crypto-newcomers--so hopefully one can assume a certain level of competence.