Thanks Tranz

First bug found... I did not properly include the lastSentHeight variable so that it won't send twice for a stake that splits... updating it now.

Just based on reading the code here are my quick thoughts.

You should let the users know they should disable their current S4C before starting up your version. As you do not load the "ats" type anymore and you may get a wallet warning on start up. Although you still saved the s4c types in wallet.h?

The other thing I see a possible improvement would be instead of looping through each address and sending them 1 at a time. You could create an array of addresses and use a sendmany type transaction. This would save a bit on fee for the user, and speed up the send transaction, especially if you are doing A LOT of them. Although it is a small improvement for a fair bit of work, so may not be worth it right now.

Other then that, looks great!

Ahh excellent.

I am way behind on commits for both HBN and CAPS. But if I can get caught up here soon, and get a chance to play with what you have here, sure I would love to help push this forward more.

Will keep my eyes on this thread. And I am ready to fork if we need to for security.

At the moment I am not too worried. spots issued a challenge to take down MMXIV, which is a much less secure coin than HYP in terms of difficulty to stake. And the OP of the thread said it would be too expensive for him to purchase up the 5-6% of the coin he says he needs in order to reorg the chain. This is actually one of the security measures of PoS that isn't in the code per say... you will lose your own money if you attack the coin.

I also don't think the 5-6% of the coin required would be the same case for HYP.  HYP has way too many active stakers with high weight. Also add in the difficulty of actually acquiring that much HYP, and I think we are in a solid position if what he claims is true. And keep in mind the coin he attacked was an inactive coin with hardly anyone staking it.

Its hard to say an exact number, and each coin is different... for example the APEX coin he attacked lets you accumulate unlimited stake weight, HYP only lets you build weight for 30 days per utxo.

So an example from my wallet:
Balance: 4.61m HYP
Total Supply: 89m
% of Supply: 5.1%
Weight: 43,167,600
Statistical Network Weight: 482,756,795 (impossible to actually know network weight, but stats can give us an estimate)
% of Weight: 8.94% (note that unlike other coins without high incentive to stake, my weight % isn't all that different than my % of supply)
Estimated Time to Stake a Block: 16-24 minutes

Summary: although I have the largest known balance of HYP, and almost certainly the largest weight, it would still statistically take me about 20 minutes to stake one block.  This guys requirement is that he needs to stake 6 times in a row and then he will have complete control of the chain, or something like that. This is statistically unlikely for my wallet because difficulty is huge on the HYP network.  HYP does not have the same tiny stake weight that other coins have.

HYP was created to be difficult to stake, and as time goes on it will grow even harder (inflationary supply ensures this). HYP itself should have a very safe buffer against this style of attack, and I would even say that HYP may in fact be one of the safest PoS coins out there.

For other coins... I am not sure. They don't have the same staking activity that HYP does.

That should be it.

This is likely coincidence. Early blocks get stuck a lot, part of the carryover from Truckcoin.

To my knowledge, the themes have absolutely nothing to do with the code that handles the actual mechanics of the coin, but if they ARE interfering, it would be good to know, and to kill the bug.

Themes should have no effect, unless there is a bug consuming resources.

If you move your wallet.dat it will have no effect. Only blockchain transactions are seen by the network, not where you priv keys are held.