That happens when you're in a hurry LOL.
ROFL |
|
|
|
Yes I followed those directions. I'll take a look at your follow up post about hashing. |
|
|
|
Is there a chance that FCN merge-mined blocks in the donor chain are breaking the MRO wallet?
I had a similar experience when I tried FCN merge mining on the first day. I found it didn't work (in a slightly different way that I don't remember exactly), and I gave up and I went back to regular mining. I never expected FCN to have enough value to be worth the trouble though if it "just worked" I would have continued merge mining. |
|
|
|
Bitmonero and Monero are the same thing then? TFT is clearly not on board. He ignores any questions about Monero.
There is one and only one coin, formerly called Bitmonero, now called Monero. There was a community vote in favor (despite likely ballot stuffing against). All of the major stakeholders at the time agreed with the rename, including TFT. The code base is still called bitmonero. There is no reason to rename it, though we certainly could have if we really wanted to. TFT said he he is sentimental about the Bitmonero name, which I can understand, so I don't think there is any malice or harm in him continuing to use it. He just posted the nice hash rate chart on here using the old name. Obviously he understands that they are one and the same coin. |
|
|
|
Thats not to mention the fact that you wont get scammed etc etc.
I don't think you are going to get scammed by Kozi (just my uninformed opinion though), but it being an exchange most certainly does not mean you want get scammed. Some of the biggest scams in the history of crypto coins have been exchanges. I mean in terms of not receiving coins after sending first etc ( ). With an exchange when you do a trade it happens, getting coins in and out different story obviously. Its not comparable to an escrow where a single person has to be online and a single person updates trades, you can see the trades actually happening. Kozi will not scam anyone 100%. There are trade offs. The issue with an exchange especially when it has slow and expensive withdrawals is that you have to leave your coins on there, especially if you have open orders. With p2p trading you can hold on to your coins until you are actually ready to make a trade. Other people holding your coins is risky, in fact from experience often much riskier than it appears to be. That risk is much smaller than being scammed P2P when you know the guy running the exchange. Anyway both have their place and people are free to make their choices. I just find it funny when people are crying for an exchange especially this skybot guy who was moaning about fake bids and when a very good well written one comes along people want to moan about it, well yeah of course its going to take some time to get it all automated etc its a brand new exchange written from scratch! We only beta tested it a couple of days ago, Kozi has many more features that people will like disabled until he knows its all 100% but bitching about slow withdrawals on a a day old exchange is asinine. I agree some complaints are absurd. I personally have a big issue with leaving coins anywhere, so I really don't like slow withdrawals or the high withdrawal fee. I want to get in, make my trade, and get out. But I definitely respect that it is new and has much room to grow. |
|
|
|
Thats not to mention the fact that you wont get scammed etc etc.
I don't think you are going to get scammed by Kozi (just my uninformed opinion though), but it being an exchange most certainly does not mean you want get scammed. Some of the biggest scams in the history of crypto coins have been exchanges. I mean in terms of not receiving coins after sending first etc ( ). With an exchange when you do a trade it happens, getting coins in and out different story obviously. Its not comparable to an escrow where a single person has to be online and a single person updates trades, you can see the trades actually happening. Kozi will not scam anyone 100%. There are trade offs. The issue with an exchange especially when it has slow and expensive withdrawals is that you have to leave your coins on there, especially if you have open orders. With p2p trading you can hold on to your coins until you are actually ready to make a trade. Other people holding your coins is risky, in fact from experience often much riskier than it appears to be. |
|
|
|
Another thing to make privacy mandatory is to force a minimum ambiguity factor, but I don't think that's a good idea. Ring signatures increase block size and most of the time an average user doesn't care about privacy beyond what's already provided by stealth addressing. And sometimes users deliberately want traceable payments.
I'm not sure how useful traceable payments are as a feature in reality, since they are only traceable back to the generated one-time address you mentioned earlier, not the public address. I guess it is possible that could be useful in some way, but I'm not sure how. I think there may be some merit in a small minimum mix factor (maybe even 1) that doesn't require very large ring signatures but even a small factor produces a high degree of mixing over a sequence of hops (which a mix of zero does not) |
|
|
|
Thats not to mention the fact that you wont get scammed etc etc.
I don't think you are going to get scammed by Kozi (just my uninformed opinion though), but it being an exchange most certainly does not mean you want get scammed. Some of the biggest scams in the history of crypto coins have been exchanges. |
|
|
|
Alright I just linked nodejs to /usr/local/bin/node That seemed to fix the gyp problem, but I'm still getting this earlier error: npm ERR! Error: version not found: 0.0.8 : multi-hashing/0.0.8 npm ERR! at RegClient.<anonymous> (/usr/share/npm/node_modules/npm-registry-client/lib/request.js:269:14) npm ERR! at Request.self.callback (/usr/lib/nodejs/request/main.js:119:22) npm ERR! at Request.<anonymous> (/usr/lib/nodejs/request/main.js:525:16) npm ERR! at Request.EventEmitter.emit (events.js:95:17) npm ERR! at IncomingMessage.<anonymous> (/usr/lib/nodejs/request/main.js:484:14) npm ERR! at IncomingMessage.EventEmitter.emit (events.js:117:20) npm ERR! at _stream_readable.js:910:16 npm ERR! at process._tickCallback (node.js:415:13) npm ERR! If you need help, you may report this log at: npm ERR! <http://bugs.debian.org/npm> npm ERR! or use npm ERR! reportbug --attach /home/ubuntu/pool/npm-debug.log npm npm ERR! System Linux 3.11.0-14-generic npm ERR! command "/usr/bin/nodejs" "/usr/bin/npm" "update" npm ERR! cwd /home/ubuntu/pool npm ERR! node -v v0.10.15 npm ERR! npm -v 1.2.18 |
|
|
|
a ring signature coin should employ its mix net to supply ephemeral tunnels so that all transactors disappear into the crowd.
to avoid taint, privacy cannot be optional. ideally it should be impossible to reuse an address.
monero is technically evolvable to deal with these points.
How would you reuse an address with the current tool chain? I don't think it is possible, certainly not easy. |
|
|
|
I think the above problem is due to this:
nodejs command
--------------
The upstream name for the Node.js interpreter command is "node".
In Debian the interpreter command has been changed to "nodejs".
This was done to prevent a namespace collision: other commands use
the same name in their upstreams, such as ax25-node from the "node"
package.
Scripts calling Node.js as a shell command must be changed to instead
use the "nodejs" command.
/usr/share/doc/nodejs/README.Debian (END)
Not sure how to resolve that though. |
|
|
|
Smooth - looks like your system is lacking ability to compile the C modules. You need some dependencies installed.
That is odd. I have gcc, g++, and python. The gcc stuff I assume came with build-essential, which was already installed before I started. |
|
|
|
I get some errors at the npm update stage on Ubuntu 13.10 I installed node using sudo apt-get install nodejs npm
npm ERR! Error: version not found: 0.0.8 : multi-hashing/0.0.8
npm ERR! at RegClient.<anonymous> (/usr/share/npm/node_modules/npm-registry-client/lib/request.js:269:14)
npm ERR! at Request.self.callback (/usr/lib/nodejs/request/main.js:119:22)
npm ERR! at Request.<anonymous> (/usr/lib/nodejs/request/main.js:525:16)
npm ERR! at Request.EventEmitter.emit (events.js:95:17)
npm ERR! at IncomingMessage.<anonymous> (/usr/lib/nodejs/request/main.js:484:14)
npm ERR! at IncomingMessage.EventEmitter.emit (events.js:117:20)
npm ERR! at _stream_readable.js:910:16
npm ERR! at process._tickCallback (node.js:415:13)
npm ERR! If you need help, you may report this log at:
npm ERR! <http://bugs.debian.org/npm>
npm ERR! or use
npm ERR! reportbug --attach /home/ubuntu/pool/npm-debug.log npm
Then later npm http 200 https://registry.npmjs.org/nan/-/nan-1.0.0.tgz
> bignum@0.7.0 install /home/ubuntu/pool/node_modules/bignum
> node-gyp configure build
/bin/sh: 1: node: not found
gyp: Call to 'node -e "require('nan')"' returned exit status 127. while trying to load binding.gyp
gyp ERR! configure error
gyp ERR! stack Error: `gyp` failed with exit code: 1
gyp ERR! stack at ChildProcess.onCpExit (/usr/share/node-gyp/lib/configure.js:431:16)
gyp ERR! stack at ChildProcess.EventEmitter.emit (events.js:98:17)
gyp ERR! stack at Process.ChildProcess._handle.onexit (child_process.js:789:12)
gyp ERR! System Linux 3.11.0-14-generic
gyp ERR! command "nodejs" "/usr/bin/node-gyp" "configure" "build"
gyp ERR! cwd /home/ubuntu/pool/node_modules/bignum
gyp ERR! node -v v0.10.15
gyp ERR! node-gyp -v v0.10.9
gyp ERR! not ok
npm WARN This failure might be due to the use of legacy binary "node"
npm WARN For further explanations, please read
/usr/share/doc/nodejs/README.Debian
npm ERR!
npm ERR! Additional logging details can be found in:
npm ERR! /home/ubuntu/pool/npm-debug.log
npm ERR! not ok code 0
|
|
|
|
As much as I'd love to wade through all the pages of this post  would someone mind explaining to me the difference between Bytecoin's protocol and DarkSend? Is anonymity fully implemented, or in beta? It is fully implemented. Bytecoin (as with all the cryptonote coins) does not rely on a third party mixer. Mixing uses a cryptographic primitive called a ring signature. You choose from other coins on the block chain to mix and a third party observer can't tell which of those coins is being spent. |
|
|
|
what to do when i got this one?  2014-May-12 06:23:00.201575 [P2P1]ERROR c:\temp\bytecoin\git\bitmonero-master\contrib\epee\include\net\abstract_tcp_server2.inl:307 send que size is more than ABSTRACT_SERVER_SEND_QUE_MAX_COUNT(100), shutting down connection
2014-May-12 06:23:00.209575 [P2P1]ERROR c:\temp\bytecoin\git\bitmonero-master\contrib\epee\include\net\levin_protocol_handler_async.h:638 [90.220.5.84:18080 OUT]Failed to do_send()
is this a problem ? It won't break your daemon but it does cause extra connections to be opened. If you see a lot of them it is best to restart your daemon. thanks for your reply yes i have 100's of them inside my log, but after a restart it runs smooth again. i just hope it does not happen while im sleeping  otherwise i would just make a small Catch n replay script that restarts the deamon from time to time. A few of them are no big deal. Nothing really bad will happen if the error occurs while you are sleeping. Just restart it if you see a lot of them. |
|
|
|
I regeret trading on https://cryptonote.exchange.to it takes long for withdrawals and the trades are surely bullshit members. @David dont message me again saying Im fudding MRO, its just the truth. Worse attempts to control a coin ever. kthxbai Wecome back |
|
|
|
|
Orphans are normal. It doesn't mean that your block from mining was necessarily orphaned, it may be (and usually is) just some orphan from the network. That is an expected part of how block chains work and the reason why multiple confirmations are required.
|
|
|
|
Is there a notable difference when using a ssd vs hdd? It's better to use one for the blockchains and os? Much faster/ effects hw latencies how much? Would you advise someone running a private p2pool node to buy one?
Thanks!
Yes it appears to have a big impact on latency. I don't think it matters much for the OS but it does matter for the block chains. |
|
|
|
what to do when i got this one? 2014-May-12 06:23:00.201575 [P2P1]ERROR c:\temp\bytecoin\git\bitmonero-master\contrib\epee\include\net\abstract_tcp_server2.inl:307 send que size is more than ABSTRACT_SERVER_SEND_QUE_MAX_COUNT(100), shutting down connection
2014-May-12 06:23:00.209575 [P2P1]ERROR c:\temp\bytecoin\git\bitmonero-master\contrib\epee\include\net\levin_protocol_handler_async.h:638 [90.220.5.84:18080 OUT]Failed to do_send()
is this a problem ? It won't break your daemon but it does cause extra connections to be opened. If you see a lot of them it is best to restart your daemon. |
|
|
|
Can somebody explain the difference between BitMonero and Monero and what happened in the past?
It is reasonably well explained here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6645981#msg6645981It is odd given TFT's sentiments about the name change (linked above, quoted below) and hard forks these questions are still being asked again and again, but you have to understand that the world of cryptocoins has become rampant with FUD campaigns, puppet accounts and all sort of dirty tricks. It is sad that people want to operate that way instead of focusing on building the best technology and products, but there is nothing we can do about it, except minimize the disruption they cause. Fortunately most of their efforts are pretty transparent and ineffective (see comments a page or two back on this thread, or better yet don't). The previous quote was posted in the Quazar thread by me. It was not a part of any FUD campaign, just my understand of things at the time. I now see that TFT is the problem. Question: Are both coins using the same chain? The is only one coin/chain. EDIT: btc-mike, my comment wasn't specifically addressed toward your comment, but there most certainly are organized FUD and puppet campaigns. They've been continuous since BCN appeared. What frequently happens is innocent third parties don't realize it is fake and end up responding to and repeating the same stuff the puppets are posting. Since we can't shut down (or even definitively identify) the 30+ sock puppet accounts, it is best to just ignore them on move forward with building a useful coin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
