I've seen this on reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/83d9y9/im_freaking_the_fuck_out_wtf_is_this/it is on a domain which was related to ASICMINER earlier (but maybe the website was run by a shareholder?) asicminer.co Someone knows more about this? I still own 100 direct shares, so would be good to know what's going on -_- Edit: BTW I think most likely someone grabbed the domain and the linked website is a SCAM so please don't preorder anything lol. |
|
|
|
I just had this problem on my linux laptop after upgrading python-trezor, protobuf3 and so on. Turns out in my case the error only happens if the TREZOR is plugged into the USB3 port, in that case trezorctl get_features works the first time, but if called again complains about Unexpected magic characters. After some trial and error it turns out it works fine if I use one of the USB2 ports. So if someone has that problem, try a different USB port. Still feels to me that this is some kind of software issue, because it works with the first call. That was also the symptom in electrum it would detect the trezor (first connection), but then fails when it connects again (magic error). Maybe this bug https://github.com/trezor/python-trezor/issues/76is not completely fixed? |
|
|
|
What I am a bit worried about is that finex still has open long/short positions (I think). Hope we don't crash hard again when they get closed  |
|
|
|
1NSCgnkpeDpwcbKvQKz2yoAaeLu8gKxVA9 Wouldn't mind, please send here lol  |
|
|
|
2.6 hasn't been officially released yet, but I just tried it works fine here. If you got it from github try, 'git pull' to get the latest updates. If the error keeps popping up you can report it here: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issuesOr you can try going back to electrum 2.5.4 |
|
|
|
with current electrum from github I get: Wrong signature But if I add a = at the end of the signature I get: Signature verified. Maybe somehow the = got missing? Try adding it |
|
|
|
Like you don't need a gun to kill an ant, you don't need bitcoin to buy your damned coffee. Bitcoin is for gentlemen's transactions. Capisc?
There are those who would say this to you:
Pay up or use PayPal.
I am so sick reading stuff like this over and over. This kind of elitist thinking is very dangerous imho. The Whitepaper says "A peer to peer cash" system. As long as lightning network and co are not production ready the coffee goes in the blockchain - deal with it. Also the 7$/TX theoretical cost ist retarded, this is mostly because the 1MB blocklimit, if we would raise it to say 10MB it would go down to 0,70$/TX and so on. ( of course this shit is inefficient, but it makes sooo much economic sense wtf ) I know decentralization above everything blabla, but I think we have to make a tradeoff here, most fullnodes are servers or on cable connections anyway. Those machines don't care much if the blocksize is 1, 2, 4 or 8 MB... They run anyway, top 5 fullnode networks: 1 OVH SAS 366 (6.39%)
2 Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. 343 (5.99%)
3 Hetzner Online GmbH 228 (3.98%)
4 Amazon.com, Inc. 218 (3.81%)
5 Hetzner Online AG RZ 147 (2.57%) |
|
|
|
Hey  I think the plan behind bip101 was that the average internet connection will likely keep getting faster with time, even today some people have 1Gbit fiber connection at home, others are probably watching 4k netflix right now. Average internet connectivity improvements only give about 30% per year optimistically. BIP 101 was far more aggressive than that. And while some minority of the world has 1 Gbit available, requiring it would be saying nobody else can use Bitcoin. I'm only slightly rural and I can't get better than 5/0.5 Mbps yet. Congrats you have an average internet connection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speedsSo it could be worse, but it is likely to get better with time. A short time ago I was stuck on 1/0.2 Mbps which was shared by 4 people, that was not fun. Now it is hybrid DSL/LTE, I was very sceptical but it works pretty well Maybe the values should have been chosen lower with bip101, but something like it which keeps growing makes a lot of sense to me. For some, it is that Bitcoin will continue to function as a payment network for individual users rather than a settlement network where only large transactions can be processed cost-efficiently.
I would like to know why that is perceived to be an issue (especially in China when you have payment networks that work instantly with almost no fees already)? (such as Alipay, QQ, etc.) I think this kind of thinking is very dangerous, not everyone has access to those payment systems, they also can confiscate funds or let you jump trough hoops like identity verifications. For me Bitcoin is a currency-commodity so it should be able to flow around nicely. It should not scale to visa levels right now imho, but also not the total opposite, it is something in between. From the bitfury roundtable it seems Gavin is more worried about the shortterm, while I am more worried about the longterm. Seg-wit will probably work, but it needs a clear plan how further increases happen. And I read multiple times that a HF need atleast a year runup time etc, so it needs to have a plan right now. (TBH my opinion is that this should have been fixed years ago, I can't imagine this will get easier if userbase keeps growing) There are thousands of altcoins just waiting to pick up, some of them have bigger or dynamic blocksizes, as a BTC holder it would be sad if (more) value flows into them... |
|
|
|
Hi , @gmaxwell I agree mostly with what you wrote, but I think the plan behind bip101 was that the average internet connection will likely keep getting faster with time, even today some people have 1Gbit fiber connection at home, others are probably watching 4k netflix right now. Ofcourse it would be a tradeoff and make it harder to run a node, maybe different values should have been chosen for bip101, I don't know, but I don't think it was Gavin and Mike's intention that it can only run at datacenters. I think incredible care must be made when rewriting the rules like that: The rules _are_ Bitcoin. The stability of Bitcoin's rules _is_ the soundness of the currency. If the rules can be easily rewritten against the will of some users by others according to political whim then what can be trusted? Is the supply fixed? Will coins be confiscated and awarded to others? If that gate is crossed then there is almost always some excuses which is "good enough"-- as was lamented in some of Bitcoin's earliest announcements. And these changes are controversial -- see, for example, the millions of dollars of Bitcoins backing opposition to things like BIP101 and supporting core over classic. I don't believe that Core has the power to make changes prohibited by the rules of the system while they are opposed by an economically significant portion of Bitcoin's users. If it does, by way of inertia or lazyness, have that power I don't believe it has the moral authority: to rewrite the system out from under people risks walking the thin line of theft. And if the system could really be so easily rewritten against controversy: it may bring into question Bitcoin's ability to uphold any of its properties. This is a dangerous road that should be avoided whenever possible. The Problem is also that satoshi said, we can just raise the blocksize later if needed at blockheight xyz. Also if I understand it correctly your roadmap also includes a hardfork later but does not specify a timeframe for it, I think this is a big part of why we have this situation right now, maybe you want to check out my pullrequest to add a rough timeframe: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/website/pull/74 or you need a scaling roadmap part2 or something. And if you guys have other methods of increasing throughput, like extension blocks or whatever, than you need to communicate this correctly. We non wizard-people don't know if and how this is possible, but we understand that raising the blocksize archives the goal of more throughput. BTW: I really like bitpays idea of adaptive scaling, can't you get together with gavin and plan this safely for next year or something. I don't like the 2MB HF, because it is no longterm solution. Also sorry if this sounds angry or so, I have not slept well the last days lol, please don't take it personal. |
|
|
|
Also received such a mail, headers also look fishy (terms-google.com?) Return-Path: <support@betcoin.ag>
X-Original-To: myemailaddresse@arcor.de
Received: from mail-in-05.arcor-online.net (mail-in-05.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.45])
by mail-in-16-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C75112167B2
for <myemailaddress@arcor.de>; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 18:49:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from host.terms-google.com (unknown [185.49.68.106])
by mx.arcor.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3pgbrF1Brvz2xFx
for <myemailaddress@arcor.de>; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 18:49:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from user1 by host.terms-google.com with local (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <support@betcoin.ag>)
id 1aJPY3-0000P4-Hf
for myemailaddress@arcor.de; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:49:31 +0000
To: "myemailaddress@arcor.de" <myemailaddress@arcor.de>
Subject: Important security update.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:49:31 +0000
From: Betcoin <support@betcoin.ag>
Message-ID: <f00d00eb7afcd0cdb023a77497b83e70@185.49.68.106>
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="b1_f00d00eb7afcd0cdb023a77497b83e70"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Arcor-Antispam: SPF_NONE RECEIVED_FROM_UNKNOWN URL_IN_DBL HTML_CLOAKED_SPAM
X-ArcorSpamBlocker: Spamcount: 10 Sensitivity: 13
the text version links to https://www.betcoin.ag/auupdate?token=... but in the html version it links to: http://141.105.69.206/dn/?e=... (that ip is from russia ) |
|
|
|
We are with you Micon!
Hello, I can't see the note icon when I write down notes for a player. I play in virtual machine without problems. Can you help me? Thank you very much
I have this too, with a windows 7 vm no notes icon, but with windows 10 it shows up fine. Not sure what could cause this |
|
|
|
Hey  there is a new wine version out ( https://www.winehq.org/announce/1.7.52 ) and with that the connection to swc server
seems to work now, it says online 139 players now!
I have not tried playing or anything, and the interface is a bit buggy (active games list not working) but better than nothing.Okay whatever that was it is not working anymore, has the same error like earlier now lol... wtf reading ssl handshake packet: read 0 bytes
error reading ssl handshake packet
I swear it was working few minutes ago, interesting |
|
|
|
So I googled a bit about the problem, and it seems most of the time it is caused by a corrupted blockchain, this can have multiple reasons, maybe you had a power outake or a hardware problem like faulty ram. For example: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/4125https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/4064Most of the time it gets fixed by running bitcoin with the "reindex" option, that will take a long time and rebuilts the blockchain database. You may try that by adding to the bitcoin.conf, but remember to remove it afterwards, else it does this everytime you start bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Can't tell what the problem is, but I would try to add a few nodes to bitcoin.conf maybe this gets you going. Just add this to d:\Bitcoin\bitcoin.conf (create file if it does not exist, grabbed the nodes from https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/) addnode=173.14.79.185:8333
addnode=81.82.147.60:8333
addnode=88.164.117.99:8333
addnode=94.75.239.69:8333
|
|
|
|
Anyone managed to run SWC on Wine yet?
It opens for me, "just" doesn't connect (SSL problem or something?) I am getting errors that seem pretty common according to Google. But I don't have the knowledge nor time to try to fix them.
Same here, then I noticed the server it connects to has an expired certificate, maybe windows just connects despite this and wine is more strict? I emailed them about it some time ago, but seems they haven't found the time to replace it with a correct cert. % openssl s_client -connect 95.xxx.xx.xxx:989 CONNECTED(00000003) depth=3 C = SE, O = AddTrust AB, OU = AddTrust External TTP Network, CN = AddTrust External CA Root verify return:1 depth=2 C = GB, ST = Greater Manchester, L = Salford, O = COMODO CA Limited, CN = COMODO RSA Certification Authority verify return:1 depth=1 C = GB, ST = Greater Manchester, L = Salford, O = COMODO CA Limited, CN = COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA verify return:1 depth=0 OU = Domain Control Validated, OU = Free SSL, CN = www.swcpoker.euverify error:num=10:certificate has expirednotAfter=Jun 1 23:59:59 2015 GMT verify return:1 depth=0 OU = Domain Control Validated, OU = Free SSL, CN = www.swcpoker.eunotAfter=Jun 1 23:59:59 2015 GMT verify return:1 |
|
|
|
Isn't it working with wine? I don't think that client is so complicated to make it work...
I haven't tried it with wine. I generally have a distaste for wine as it installs a whole bunch of packages on my computer and then runs terribly slowly on my already crappy hardware. Wine is sorta like a last resort for me, as I said I don't even keep it installed. I don't know if anyone else has tried it with wine and had success. If someone out there has tried this and can say that it worked for them, that would make me slightly more interested in trying it out (so that hopefully I wouldn't have to install all of those wine packages just to find that it doesn't work on wine). Sadly it doesn't work with wine, lobby shows up for a split second, then it crashes with this error: err:seh:raise_exception Unhandled exception code c0000005 flags 0 addr (nil)
Maybe there is a trick to get it working, pokerstars works so good with wine :/ |
|
|
|
Hey I was just snooping around a little bit lol and noticed that your php installation is not uptodate, also seems you run debian wheezy so you need to run apt-get update && apt-get upgrade You can also set php to not display its version info with this config option: |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
