Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve APM feedback (why x / no payment) #341

Open
Leonardiae opened this issue Nov 20, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

Improve APM feedback (why x / no payment) #341

Leonardiae opened this issue Nov 20, 2021 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@Leonardiae
Copy link

No description provided.

@Leonardiae
Copy link
Author

When I analyse payments for an APM operation (for example when someone asks: Why didn't I get a reward) I run the getblock command, check the endorsedBy result and for each ATV run the getrawatv command and check for each ATV the blockOfProof and blockhash details.

I think it would be a great help for PoP miners if Getoperation or some other command on the APM would be able to analyse those details themselves and see where payment calculations are based on.

For example: getoperation xyz
Block #1,620 / 0000000000000108cc4128153bb4e56b4149224ca3657a44c3f08498b2dcd620 was endorsed by 128 ATVs. First ATV was mined in VeriBlock x and BTCSQ block y. ATV {current_operation_ATV} was mined in Veriblock x(+i) and BTCSQ block y(+i).

^ information is available with the getblock / getrawatv commands.

Later on it would be great to expand on this information and also showing how block reward is calculated and divided over operations etc but that involves adding logic I think but for now this may be enough because then someone can see what happened and follow the trail.

@Warchant Warchant added the enhancement New feature or request label Nov 22, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
Status: Backlog
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants