If anyone has bugs or feature requests, please post them here: https://github.com/coblee/litecoin/issuesIf you don't have a github account, just create a free one here: https://github.com/signup/freeI would recommend you use the same username, but that's up to you.  Check out what i'm currently working on and comment on them if you have anything to say. If you are a developer and want to help me code, let me know. Let's work together and make Litecoin the best alt cryptocurrency! |
|
|
|
FYI, fixed above. I will look into adding this to Litecoin. Gavin, what are the gotchas? Is there a possibility of a chain fork from this change? And what I should I pay attention to when testing this on the testnet. And let me know if you want to help test it. |
|
|
|
One last funny thing. King RealScam has dropped so low as to explain that miners leaving don't matter because they are "parasites" that the ScamCoin economy will somehow be better if there are less people mining it.
SolidCoin is not a cryptocurrency, or at least by most people's definition of cryptocurrency. There's really no need for miners. SC miners do not secure the chain. That is already done by the trusted nodes. So miners are basically wasting their electricity. Think about it this way... with Bitcoin, miners hash to secure the network and they get rewarded for the security that they are adding to the network. With SolidCoin, miners are just wasting electricity because RealSolid thinks that this is a fair way to handout SCs. It's similar to a King asking his peasants to run around in circles. The faster they run, the more coins they get. So of course, profit-driven peasants will run around in circles, which adds no value to anything. King RealSolid realized that he is passing out too many solidcoins this way, which will dilute his own holdings. So guess what, he decided to pass out only 5 SC (instead of 32 SC) to his loyal peasants for each circle they complete. Then what happens? Well there are less peasants running around in circles b/c it's not worth it anymore. But that doesn't matter to RealSolid, because peasants running around in circles doesn't add any value in the first place. Hmm... Also, since the trusted nodes controls 50% of the blocks, by definition, you cannot do a 51% attack unless you have control of a trusted node. It's great when you create all the rules for your own realm AND you actually find suckers willing to follow you. |
|
|
|
Source released and price pump up and now dropped again. Something wrong with "economical changes". SC Block price = 0.05 btc LTC Block price > 0.40 btc 8x  Someone want to mine (e.g. support) SC? Could you please Not Chime in with your 2c's like that, Your getting us all called trolls You are all trolls, a bunch of pathetic ones at that. You got all these geniuses thinking they can "pump & dump" SC like it's Bitcoin. Wait till they find out just how seemingly impossible that task has become with SC2 . Are you suggesting it'll be harder and harder to dump SC? I believe that's also the current consensus, too  Although you think SC is the pie in the sky, you don't realize RS/SC has alienated much of the cryptocurrency base. With SC going further and further down on BTC-e, it's going to be that much harder to arouse interest again. No adoption = worthless coin, no matter how much brown you have on your nose. A (partial?) source release weeks after the chain has gone live does nothing to alleviate the concerns many people have when it comes to SC, and that's beside the intentional centralized design. Unless you're suggesting there are other folk out there who are tired of carrying around paper fiat, but still want to be screwed over by a central authority. If SC price keeps dropping and hashrate keeps dropping, it would be easy for RealSolid to resuscitate SC though. All he has to do is change the subsidy to 100 SC, which will make it profitable for miners to mine SC again. It's nice to have that kind of power. |
|
|
|
If you looked at the initial multisign proposal on github, you will see that I helped Gavin flesh out the idea: https://gist.github.com/39158239e36f6af69d6fSo I'm looking forward to Bitcoin getting multisign soon. I'm not sure what exactly you are asking though. Are you wondering if the alt coins should consider implementing first to help test them out? |
|
|
|
He just has no spirit of OPEN SOURCE.
That was made abundantly clear when he pulled this crap with SolidCoin 1.04: Copyright (c) 2011 SolidCoin Developers
All changes made by SolidCoin developers require express permission to be used
in other projects, including original the Bitcoin project.
|
|
|
|
Apparently to hard for that asshole, had to fix his broken ones first time round so you could compile now he can't even be bothered shipping the broken ones for people to fix up, what a joke you people are.
Holly fuck! RealSolid must have some mad skillzzzzzzzz. He compiled those binaries he has for download in his site using broken makefiles, is that what you're saying? I never could quite figure out how he managed that either, but somehow he did. I normally don't defend RealSolid/CoinHunter, but he clearly stated that he used Visual Studio 10 to build it. I'm not a Windows guy, but I can still figure out that with Visual Studio 10 has its own way of building that doesn't use makefiles. http://solidcointalk.org/topic/409-solidcoin-v201-released/It also seems like he hasn't released the libraries required to build under Visual Studio 10. So I think you cannot currently build the source on Windows until RealSolid either fixes up the makefiles or releases the libraries. |
|
|
|
So you don't want to read it. You just want to compile it. What a stupid human you are, indeed.
So the complaint first was that nobody knew what was he shipping on those closed source binaries, but now you morons will just compile it without reading it...
If I were for RealSolid I would just release the source code with makefiles and make that source code delete all your hard drive while compiling or to really fuck you when the binary was run the first time, seeing as you guys are too dumb to read the code...
FFS, stupidity has limits!
I normally don't like to chime in much on these threads. But this statement is just too stupid to not comment on: ... make that source code delete all your hard drive while compiling ... psy, try not to call people stupid in the same paragraph where you make a really stupid comment. |
|
|
|
Due to the rumor of a possible 51% attack, I decided to lock in block 23420 in the latest code. Everyone, please grab the latest source or download and use this Windows binary: https://github.com/downloads/coblee/litecoin/litecoin-windows-client-0.5.0.4.zipChances are the rumor is probably unfounded, but better be safe. Plus if you haven't downloaded the recent clients, you will find a cool mining tab waiting for you to play around with. |
|
|
|
twobits very specificly stated that he would appreciate if people didn't mirror the download link to his miners. You might want to check up on that.
Ok, I removed the mirror link from the first posts. I can't be sure that it's not compromised. The wuala link is good though. Well, you can just checksum it, but I'd consult with twobits first. Of course. But I'm not familiar with the mirror sites enough to know that the uploader can't switch out the binary in the future. |
|
|
|
twobits very specificly stated that he would appreciate if people didn't mirror the download link to his miners. You might want to check up on that.
Ok, I removed the mirror link from the first posts. I can't be sure that it's not compromised. The wuala link is good though. |
|
|
|
Hope it helps @coblee: you can put those links on your first post along with newest winLTC client (I think in first post is not the fresh one) Thanks, I just updated the first post. |
|
|
|
Is there a Mac version of the miner and client?  Not yet, I have not been able to build one that works on another computer. Building it yourself is actually not too hard. You're the second person to ask for it. So I will take another stab at it soon. |
|
|
|
BTCEX: We'd love to see you in there using your real nick for once instead of coming in using fake names...
HAHA The three times I have, RealSolid bans in less than a minute even though I have never posted once. Ten98, I'm surprised you even suggested this. I assume you hang out in #solidcoin all the time. You should know that RealSolid bans us the moment we log in with our username or our IP. And anyone dares say anything bad about solidcoin or complain about it, they get banned pretty quickly. #solidcoin is run by a tyrant, and it's the opposite of "free for anyone to come in and chat to us, even trolls are welcome". If you want a real free chatroom, come visit #litecoin and talk about SC if you want. Everyone is welcome even you, Ten98. I won't ban anyone, except for spammers. So far, I have not banned a single person. Coblee, it looks like you are not banned from #solidcoin right now. I figured I'd take up on Ten98's offer and try again. I haven't been banned yet. |
|
|
|
BTCEX: We'd love to see you in there using your real nick for once instead of coming in using fake names...
HAHA The three times I have, RealSolid bans in less than a minute even though I have never posted once. Ten98, I'm surprised you even suggested this. I assume you hang out in #solidcoin all the time. You should know that RealSolid bans us the moment we log in with our username or our IP. And anyone dares say anything bad about solidcoin or complain about it, they get banned pretty quickly. #solidcoin is run by a tyrant, and it's the opposite of "free for anyone to come in and chat to us, even trolls are welcome". If you want a real free chatroom, come visit #litecoin and talk about SC if you want. Everyone is welcome even you, Ten98. I won't ban anyone, except for spammers. So far, I have not banned a single person. |
|
|
|
It says nodes, not miners. Nodes that hash blocks are called miners. Verifying transactions is useful to ensure the person sending coins is the owner but they don't prevent a double spend. The creation of the block chain is what prevents a double spend. This requires significant resources to ensure an attacker doesn't have more computing power than the rest of the "good network". The larger the network is the more difficult it would be for an attacker to amass enough computing power to make a "false" blockchain longer and thus accepted by the network. That network has a cost. It isn't free. It requires computing resources, bandwidth, and electricity. The more powerful the network the safer every participant in the network is. Someday transaction fees will be able to support the network but today block rewards (subsidies) pay for the network and at the same time provide an initial distribution of the monetary supply. I mine you buy. I thought you said you were done? Because there are still people with talent that can devise a deflationary system. I think Coblee might have solved it above with one large mining pool. Like DeathAndTaxes said above, solo mining or pool mining does not change the fundamental properties of the coin and its economics. The distributed pool idea is not mine. My idea is to put it into the client so everyone can easily mine using the distributed pool so that a large pool no longer becomes the target of a 51% attack. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
