|
new escrowed sell order at 0.0014
|
|
|
|
I am trying to optimize the binaries for linux with Intel C++ Composer XE 2013. I'm getting this error. [ 33%] Building CXX object src/CMakeFiles/cryptonote_core.dir/cryptonote_core/tx_pool.cpp.o
icpc: command line warning #10006: ignoring unknown option '-Wvla'
icpc: command line warning #10006: ignoring unknown option '-Wlogical-op'
icpc: command line warning #10006: ignoring unknown option '-flto'
/home/ubuntu/bitmonero/src/serialization/binary_archive.h(135): error #63: shift count is too large
v >>= 8;
^
detected during:
instantiation of "void binary_archive<true>::serialize_uint(T) [with T=unsigned char]" at line 127
instantiation of "void binary_archive<true>::serialize_int(T) [with T=unsigned char]" at line 165
 Without looking too closely that looks like a compiler bug to me, or overly aggressive static checking that gets it wrong. Maybe you can turn off that check? |
|
|
|
(I actually believe the true history to be far shorter but I can't prove it.)
You cant come here and ask for all this proof and have non yourself. If this is the case just stop and put it to rest. Go back to the Monero thread and leave this be. No thank you. I mine BCN and I hold plenty of BCN so I have the same right to be on this thread as anyone else. Even if I didn't that would still be the case, but I do. Here's a clue for you. I don't even care that they premined the thing. It might still succeed. But it should be known for what it really is. |
|
|
|
Please create a cryptonote blockchain and prove it can be done.
If I have time I will do it. Not that hard. But I'm busy doing useful things. If someone else wants to do the actual work of generating it, I will explain in private the (tiny) specific code changes required. That chart by the way, was posted by the dev of Monero. So we can assume that this lie and error can trancend into that coin?
As far as I know the chart is accurate. It is the block chain I doubt. But as I said, it doesn't really matter whether it was mined in secret for two years or mined in secret for six months. Pretty much the same thing. EDIT: Also, you have just defined a premine. If a group of people mines a 80% of a coin in secret without detection before releasing it to the public, that is exactly a premine, by definition. What else do you call it?
Just cause you dont know, doesnt make it secret. Check my previous post, it was edited. Okay so your theory is that it was around "somewhere" but wasn't called bytecoin. I doubt this simply because the cryptography involved is novel and interesting enough it would have been reported and discussed (as is happening now) regardless of what it was called. You can easily resolve this by providing proof, or at least the tiniest bit of evidence that this bytecoin-by-another-name exists. |
|
|
|
a few dozen pc's?? there is 343 connected to minergate alone.
Not now. I'm talking about the alleged two year history. (I actually believe the true history to be far shorter but I can't prove it.) The hash rate shown in the past on the block chain is far, far lower than today. Last I looked it was about 6 million now. It's about 100k for most of that chart. |
|
|
|
Page 9 of this thread has a chart of the blockchain with data from 2012.
There is no proof the dates on the blocks are valid. I could easily create a blockchain with timestamps starting in 1970, that doesn't make is so. It was falsely claimed (due to either an erroneous calculation or just a lie) that the block chain chart indicated the presence thousands of miners, but myself and others pointed out that the correct calculation is far, far smaller, and this number shrinks further especially now that the recent hashing optimizations have come to light. It is a few dozen PC's, maybe even less. Cause thats the only place the internet has communities that others dont know about. You dont need to be on the deepweb to avoid detection, only if you really have something to hide, and even that isnt the case.
Provide proof. EDIT: Also, you have just defined a premine. If a group of people mine off 80% of a coin in secret while "avoiding detection" before releasing it to the public, that is exactly a premine, by definition. What else do you call it? |
|
|
|
BCN was not premined, dont confuse your words man. It was released 2 years ago I don't believe it. Just because a web site that appeared less than six months ago says it was released two years ago does not make it so. Provide proof. and mined, considered a premine by those who have no idea what its stake in other communities are. No those of us who don't believe there is any such stake in these "other communities" at all. The deep web is not invisible or even secret. It is only the users who try to hide, not the whole thing. Most of the so called deep web is quite visible to those who look. They've seen no evidence of bytecoin there or anywhere else. It doesn't exist. If there is, provide proof. |
|
|
|
Overall I'd say BCN but that was mostly people overpaying for a portion of my mined coins that I sold off early on. At this point they are fairly similar but MRO is more liquid and easier to trade.
Its in smooths best interest to produce FUD, he has his hands in Monero and has since before that coin was released. False. 1. There was zero Monero premine by me or anyone else. No one has any from before it was released, me included. I didn't even start mining it until several hours or maybe even a day after it was released. This wasn't intentional but I was busy. 2. I have a similar quantity (by value) of BCN and MRO. Someone who gets into Bitcoin today would be saying the same thing if the community wasnt so large.
Bitcoin was not 80% premined. In fact Bitcoin isn't even 80% mined by now (only a little over 50%!), 5-6 years later. FUD speaks for itself, I'd say. So do facts. |
|
|
|
Someone (C++ skilled) did private optimized miner a few days ago, he got 74H/s for i5 haswell. He pointed that mining code was very unoptimized and he did essential improvements for yourself. So, high H/S is possible yet.
Can the dev's core review code for that?
Let me explain a bit about how open source works. Anyone is free to contribute. The lead developer and core team reviews the proposed changes and either adopts them or not. There is at least one of the core team who does work on optimization, and posted some optimizations. I would not be surprised if he develops further optimizations as well. So if you have proposed code changes, please submit them. Some sort of statement -- backed up by zero evidence -- about a unicorn miner that someone has is not helpful. Every altcoin has these "Kaiser Soze" miners who supposedly have much faster mining code than everybody else. Sometimes it's true and sometimes it isn't. We can't force anyone to contribute their code. |
|
|
|
wondering if the reason I have not gotten any blocks in the last week is because I have been mining on a corrupted blockchain.
How much hash rate do you have? Unlikely that the block chain is the issue, as long as you are synced properly. Any problems with the block chain would be with very old blocks (near genesis). Could affect old coin balances but would not affect current mining. |
|
|
|
Can you explain how someone could corrupt the block chain ?
If I'm synced with the network, then the checkpoint won't affect me since they are in the past.
And I won't accept changing old blocks.
So you should explain us how the checkpoint corrupted the blockchain, and how to check for a good or bad one.
Is'nt there a command to recheck the entire blockchain, without having to download it ?
If not, it is needed.
If you had a full chain, it very likely was never corrupted. (Of course there could always be bugs but we don't know of any that would do this.) If you had tried to sync after the checkpoint was added, the code could have accepted some earlier blocks (before the checkpoint) without fully validating them. If you downloaded a valid blockchain file (which would have included all of the blocks up to the checkpoint) and used the code version with the checkpoint, you were in all likelyhood not affected, other than some invalid blocks being accepted by your node (but offchain), bloating your memory and disk usage. This could have eventually become a denial-of-service issue, if the number of invalid blocks continued to grow. There were probably very few people directly affected. But when it comes to the integrity of the blockchain it does not pay to take chances. So the checkpoint has been temporarily removed forcing all blocks to be fully validated and will likely soon be added back in a safer way. A command to validate the existing block chain is a good idea. We will look at that, possibly in connection with the improved checkpoint feature. Thank you for the clarification. How come an offchain block is stored on disk ? I haven't looked at the disk writing code so I don't know what it stores. Given the issues with validation we can't be 100% sure the blocks didn't somehow make it into the chain. Everything is being validated now, so that can't possibly happen (we hope -- after all we are somewhat at the mercy of the bytecoin code until review it -- there is too much to just review everything). |
|
|
|
For sale 1150 @ 0.00125. Thanks.
Keep existing order @ 0.00165? |
|
|
|
Important
(Big scary red letters because it really is important.)
First, get the newest builds (all fully updated on the OP).
Second, unless your blockchain.bin predates the May 3rd update, you should delete it and download the latest from the OP and replace yours. You might have saved it and overridden it after May 3rd and that's fine. However, a full sync starting from the genesis block after the May 3rd update may have partially corrupted your blockchain. Clean blockchains have been uploaded for 64-bit Windows and 64-bit Linux/OSX. 32-bit versions don't exist because it was added recently. If you're unsure of when your blockchain dates from, update it.
The attack works by flooding the network with low height (i.e. early) blocks. They would normally be added as alternates but if you're in the process of synching, they might get added as real blocks. This is because the checkpointing in the BCN code is not done well and it doesn't validate the headers of pre-checkpoint blocks. The number of people affected probably isn't that big but we can't have inconsistency in the network.
Because the attack is ongoing, if you resync from scratch you'll grab a few of these invalid blocks (about 1 in every ~500 blocks) so you'll still have a slightly corrupted chain. Update from the OP with the latest builds and chains and you'll be clean and protected. In the future, better checkpointing will be implemented but until then it won't be used.
Question: I did not update any of my miners with any of the new builds (e.g. with checkpointing) in the past day or two -- everything I have is from around May 4/5 I think. Does that mean my nodes are clean, or do I have to clear them all out, grab the latest version, and resync on all systems? My PC right now *thinks* it's mining, and it had at least through block 28000 or so prior to these attacks, so I should be safe, right? Will updating at this point benefit me or am I just asking for trouble? (It would be great to add a "version" command in the wallet and daemon -- provided of course that each new build remembers to update the version number.) If you never had the checkpoint version and you synced everything yourself then your nodes are not affected by this issue. Updating will give you a performance boost on mining. I can't think of any other changes that are really important. |
|
|
|
I still do not agree with this partial fix of Bitstamp. If I place one order I want to be charged for just one order, regardless if it is bought into by three different orders. I decided to place one order so should be charged for just one. Bitstamp is just a scammer exchange with a bad reputation.
They are still going to charge much higher than the posted fees in some cases. The minimum is $5, that's great. But what about $5.01? The fee should be $0.01002 but instead you will be charged $0.02. Okay the breakage seems capped at double now, but that's still a lot. |
|
|
|
So tldr does this work or not? I will tip you some MRO regardless. Trying things even if they don't work is still useful. |
|
|
|
Can you explain how someone could corrupt the block chain ?
If I'm synced with the network, then the checkpoint won't affect me since they are in the past.
And I won't accept changing old blocks.
So you should explain us how the checkpoint corrupted the blockchain, and how to check for a good or bad one.
Is'nt there a command to recheck the entire blockchain, without having to download it ?
If not, it is needed.
If you had a full chain, it very likely was never corrupted. (Of course there could always be bugs but we don't know of any that would do this.) If you had tried to sync after the checkpoint was added, the code could have accepted some earlier blocks (before the checkpoint) without fully validating them. If you downloaded a valid blockchain file (which would have included all of the blocks up to the checkpoint) and used the code version with the checkpoint, you were in all likelyhood not affected, other than some invalid blocks being accepted by your node (but offchain), bloating your memory and disk usage. This could have eventually become a denial-of-service issue, if the number of invalid blocks continued to grow. There were probably very few people directly affected. But when it comes to the integrity of the blockchain it does not pay to take chances. So the checkpoint has been temporarily removed forcing all blocks to be fully validated and will likely soon be added back in a safer way. A command to validate the existing block chain is a good idea. We will look at that, possibly in connection with the improved checkpoint feature. |
|
|
|
Just making sure - is the healthy blockchain in the OP?
Blockchain download is being updated (the old link was removed). If you use the current build from OP you can sync yourself, or wait for the updated blockchain download. |
|
|
|
Hey Smooth, which one have you found to be more profitable? Overall I'd say BCN but that was mostly people overpaying for a portion of my mined coins that I sold off early on. At this point they are fairly similar but MRO is more liquid and easier to trade. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
