Thanks djdaro21 for keeping us updated.

It's strange. Dev said he did already sended all the information.

In this case, i think we can only wait and see.

None of the developers has responded, because the dev is only one, and is currently observing a
period of rest for the doctor's orders. This should be a short period, I assume and wish to him.

Start a trial stage of then anon without the dev obviously would not make much sense, and in any
case should be decided jointly by the dev and the foundation.

PS:
I'm not part of the foundation, even I would be happy to have confirmation or denial from them.

It would be nice if they will do the update of the OP, as the dev said.

I made some small test transaction on the exchange:
Poloniex    send and deposit completed (need 15 confirm)
BitTrex     send and deposit completed (need 30 confirm)

BTER    receive, it need 30 confirms to show the deposit, and another 30 to process and complete it, really slow
Send but with fix + percentage fee

Cryptsy, no news ATM


PS:
I'm new to BTER, so what i see maybe simply the usual way.

Also I have done the same thing, thinking that the nodes were overloaded at the beginning to allow synchronization.

Reading then the problem of many who got stuck in the same block, once fully synchronized my wallet I tried to
sync another wallet from 0 with a direct connection to my wallet already synchronized.

I got the same result, stuck at block 11491.
Being a direct connection can not be network problems.
Re-run the test several times, same result.

If, however, no one has been able to make a sync normally, then it is a systemic problem.

Maybe I understand the problem, there is an error in the update, in the management of parameters
between before and after the current update. When Soopy'll be good again have to work another half an hour.

To avoid unnecessary worries, the problem is only accepting one by one the old block before the last update,
does not affect the normal procedures of the blocks present and future, or the normal operation of the wallet.

No reply.

So really no one was able to sync the wallet?   

I'm sorry to for your illness.
Rest and stay covered.

Question:
Someone was able to complete the synchronization of the new wallet in a normal way,
without using the zip with the blockchain, or the files in the directory of the previous wallet?

Strugg, can you say us if there is some indication, message, tweet, smoke signal, from the DEV?
He still needs hashpower?

Who knows, maybe you'll return back to work at the site to change
any particular or characteristic, such as the new phase POW.

Calm down guys please. We are taking a wrong path that does not lead us anywhere.

Instead of focusing on who did what, it would be better to focus on what to do now?

And of things to do there are many.


EDIT:

And when asked to think of things to do now ... suddenly there's the desert.   

I think that would be the case to update the OP with a notice of what has happened and will happen in the coming hours.

Also update tweeter think it would be a good idea at this point. So even those who do not follow the forum would be informed of not making new transaction, and having to update his wallet.

Considering that each staking generates at least one transaction, the request is a bit controversial,
but ok, I will keep open the wallet.

Bye Bye

                                     Remy

We must close all the wallet to avoid staking?

Often the exchanges disable the staking feature of the their wallet, to avoid to remain with relevant sum
of coin locked during the process of stacking. So they says...



I fully agree.



I think this can be the logo, from Canyon de Chelly.



NAV Handle with extreme Care

 

It is just a deduction based on the SoopY message.

But the hashpower maybe must be utilized for the subchain phase of anon process.
Or for a maxy reward block.

We are going toward to a mixed POS/POW model coin?

The wallet (and code) of the majority of the coins is derived from the bitcoin wallet, so even the coins should have the same controls and mechanisms, IMHO.

Regarding the difficulty of a 51% hashpower attack, i read something, this is an excerpt:

"As you are probably aware, Ghash is by far the largest Bitcoin multipool. Their portion of the network hashing power ranges from 35% to more than 50%, and Buterin believes there is a strong indication that Ghash controls another undisclosed segment of the mining power that would bring their total share of the network to more than 75%.

The problem with Ghash controlling this much of the network is that it facilitates the possibility of a 51% attack. When a person or group has control of 51% or more of the network, he or they have a strong probability of being able to manipulate the blockchain for nefarious purposes. A 51% attack can accomplish 3 things. It can reverse transactions, which would let an attacker spend coins and then erase the transaction from the blockchain so that he never loses the coins he spends. Attackers can also exclude anyone it wants from making Bitcoin transactions. Finally, a person can use a 51% attack to censor any transaction that it wants."

From: http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/bitcoin-foundations-approach-threat-ghash-51-attack-recklessly-conservative-says-vitalik-buterin/2014/06/22

Just a question, maybe I miss some relevant post:
after the attack the big sum of 900K+ has been already spent again?

If not, why not re-instate that transition in the correct blockchain?
In this manner the whale will be "regularized", and he cannot double spend again that coin in this blockchain,
BitTrex will have its part (again), and the NAV total will remain exactly the same, no dilution.
It's technically feasible ?

Of course, this don't solve the security issue, common at any cryptocoin, but may solve the economic issue of the attack.

A big problem.

How can you prevent this from happen again?

Increase the number of confirmations, imho is just a short-term solution.

Maybe even set a ceiling on the stack, so as to limit the power of those who have more, it might help a little.
(Or not a linear function but logarithmic)

Another way of control would need a periodic external confirmation of blockchain, what do you think of an
auto checkpoint system, it might help?

I was thinking about a hypothesis, may have been the anonymous transactions, and therefore without the sender
and without a clear source for coins expenses, were to be recognized as an attempt to double spend?