Listaccount CLI command shows balance, but getbalance shows different balance

I was sending some coins to myself using sendtoaddress, through the address I created using

./someBTCfork-cli getnewaddress

When I run

./someBTCfork-cli getbalance ""

My balance is 4999

When I run

./ someBTCfork-cli getbalance

My balance is 0.9

When I list my accounts using ./someBTCfork-cli listaccounts this returns:

{ "": 4999 } 

What is going on here?

AdSense reinstated, but current balance is 0

Hey guys. I've got an email on Mar 2016 that my Adsense account has been disabled due to invalid activity. After 3 years and 1 month of thinking what I did wrong and why it happened, I filled out an appeal and I succeeded. My AdSense account has just been reinstated. I am really glad I can participate in this ecosystem again.

However, there is only one thing I want to know about it and maybe there is some guy who experienced the same and hopefully have some solution or advice. My current…

AdSense reinstated, but current balance is 0

Zcash mining missing block reward balance

I’m running my own zcash pool I have found a block, I’m using z/s nomp software. What happened in zec.json configuration file I did not put any address in reward recipients.

z/s nomp zec.json pool software configuration for reward recipient

"rewardRecipients": { "": 0.0 }, 

However, my pool’s wallet owned, block was generated by my wallet and it’s address is t1Xddvk9ZXxdK5MfSSE9jJ4DQRGcCE3XXP8.

I can see running cli command listtransactions that reward was well generated, however later pool sent it to nowhere. I’m appending listtransactions output below.

listtractions

[ { "account": "", "address": "t1Xddvk9ZXxdK5MfSSE9jJ4DQRGcCE3XXP8", "category": "generate", "amount": 10.00418480, "vout": 0, "confirmations": 395, "generated": true, "blockhash":  "0000000001e7d65e38629f05d44f654aa0141db7239ce151c4453977f6356cb0", "blockindex": 0, "blocktime": 1554937307, "expiryheight": 0, "txid": "4b9ba2661130a6f89af099951f2c5e2f17b453b1dab8c7dc6ebdb5eaf27dd33a", "walletconflicts": [ ], "time": 1554937307, "timereceived": 1554937318, "vjoinsplit": [ ], "size": 216 }, { "account": "", "category": "send", "amount": -10.00408480, "vout": 0, "fee": -0.00010000, "confirmations": 294, "blockhash":  "00000000025723852bb10039a421a64cd38fc6c0752deb5e316b4c21699629e4", "blockindex": 4, "blocktime": 1554953767, "expiryheight": 513276, "txid": "a751c8696f76436badf9c5b4be6d90adf7f9148ef8a4f759867382c78b88b1fa", "walletconflicts": [ ], "time": 1554953716, "timereceived": 1554953716, "vjoinsplit": [ ], "size": 1189 } ] 

By checking in zcash explorer that ‘send’ transaction’s ID it shows again t1Xddvk9ZXxdK5MfSSE9jJ4DQRGcCE3XXP8 but I do not see any balance in my zcash wallet. Running getwalletinfo and output is here

getwalletinfo

{ "walletversion": 60000, "balance": 0.00000000, "unconfirmed_balance": 0.00000000, "immature_balance": 0.00000000, "txcount": 2, "keypoololdest": 1554998310, "keypoolsize": 101, "paytxfee": 0.00000000, "seedfp": "3e10702b14252a14d91d711acbcdd34ff85dafe71c52339c05cbc74bdc796b07" } 

Balance problems for leveling up mid-fight?

I am planning an encounter for 4 level 2 players and I am planning to have them level up mid combat. I wanted to describe it sort of like a power within awakening like many popular animes have. To do this, I want to balance the encounter for 8 level 2 players, and when they level up they will have resources back to full like after a long rest. I want them to level up mid fight after spending some resources and realize the situation is dire.

What kind of balancing issues will arise from this? Are there any game-breaking facts I am missing that will ruin the game?

I’m sorry if this question was answered before, but I can’t find it. I found this similar one, but it is from dungeon world and I don’t know if there are similarities. Can I make the Level Up move not require so much time without breaking the game?

Also I can’t find rules about when to level up, or if the players have to rest to do so. If there are these kind of rules I would like to know about them too.

Sugar Balance

Sugar Balance affiliation of Trinity regal this subida raghubar see high-quality unique invited visitors members of the media get out quick considered considered one of simply one in every of my desired authors Maya Angelou changed into quoted as saying at the same time as we deliver cheerfully and take delivery of gratefully every body is left these days Honorable Minister fell we're thankful i am thankful…

Sugar Balance

Balance implications of removing unseen-attacker advantage when mutually unseen

The rules for unseen attackers (PHB p. 194-195) specify that attacking a creature that cannot see you = advantage, and attacking a creature you cannot see = disadvantage:

When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the GM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target’s location correctly.

When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden–both unseen and unheard–when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

This creates some arguably counterintuitive situations when neither party in a conflict can see each other, like two warriors fighting each other in a pitch-black room hit each other exactly as much as they would in broad daylight, or archers whose vision of their targets is entirely blocked shoot with as much accuracy as if they could see their targets perfectly.

As a result, I am considering making the following modification (in bold) to the second rule in my game:

When a creature can’t see you, and you can see it, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.

This would mean that being unable to see your target gives you disadvantage regardless of whether they can see you or not, instead of the disadvantage and the advantage cancelling themselves out.

What impact might this have on game balance, in terms of feature interactions or anything else? Does this change cause any major balance shifts?

Range vs Melee Balance in Starfinder

I hope this question isn’t too broad. I’m looking into Starfinder and I’m curious about the balance between Range and Melee combat.

Most Fantasy games are balanced toward close-combat with melee weapons. The rules focus on being relatively close. For example, most encounters start at a position that melee can get an attack in on round 1 and it is up to the ranged fighters to keep distance, as opposed to starting more at range and the melee fighters have to figure out a closing strategy.

So the question is, is Starfinder similarly balanced or does it move that balance out toward the ranged weapons so that the higher tech weapons play a more dominant role in the combat?