if anyone has a linux box, it'd be helpful if you could compile the latest source code and see if it syncs OK. I've added some checkpoints on the bad blocks to try and eliminate the issue
Seems to work fine: {
"version" : "v1.2.1-52-gbf6bdd4",
"protocolversion" : 60018,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : x.y,
"newmint" : 0.00000000,
"stake" : 6496.11000000,
"blocks" : 116525,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"moneysupply" : 2080156641.00000000,
"connections" : 4,
"proxy" : "",
"ip" : "x.x.x.x",
"difficulty" : {
"proof-of-work" : 0.00114389,
"proof-of-stake" : 26122472.09693514
},
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1452011478,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"mininput" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}
|
|
|
|
|
I think the new Alcurex site did not list FAIL, maybe you want to update the OP.
|
|
|
|
0 active connection(s) to TittieCoin network
addnode=85.24.169.215
addnode=5.196.82.175
addnode=5.135.65.24
addnode=72.241.236.178
addnode=108.67.153.4
HTH |
|
|
|
Didn't know that you can mining anything when you are disconnected from the network, but people learning while they alive...really sad, I'm mining this coin months and months, if you ask me, the best mining coin ever !!
If you run two nodes, for your two nodes you are not disconnected - your are the network in your own nodes view! Every wallet I've seen needs two nodes at least before it starts accepting blocks. By isolating your nodes you simulate a natural fork that happens when networks divide due to failures or outages in links etc. |
|
|
|
but how that person implement hidden chain into the regular chain ?
how is that even possible ?
so, let's fight fire with fire !?
Seems that what Verge done with multiple algorithms succeed ! maybe that is the answer !?
I have linked a few articles above that explain selfish mining, but lets have a short example: Say Alice, Bob and Carol are honest miners, they currently all mine on block X. Mallory is a malicious selfish miner and she disconnects her two nodes from the network (i.e. by firewalling them from other nodes). Now Mallory also starts to mine on block X, but if Mallory finds a block, she won't let the network know, instead she watches the block-explorer to see if one of Alice, Bob or Carol finds a block. Assume Mallory has some powerful miners rented and has already advanced to block X+8, now if she sees that Bob found block X, she opens her firewalling and just releases her block X and her block X+1 to the network. Bobs block X will be orphaned and Bob, Alice and Carol have to restart mining on Mallory's block X+2 (Bob, Alice and Carole are wasting their mining power now, since the Mallory is already at X+8, in the meantime she advance to maybe X+10). Now Carole finds block X+3 and shortly after Mallory releases her blocks X+3 and X+4, again Carols block is orphaned and Bob, Carol and Alice have to restart mining on block X+5 (which Mallory has since some time already). Naturally the same principle works for X+100 or X+1000 if Mallory has advanced her private chain far enough. We do not see this often in coins, because a coin that is attacked this way is loosing in value and that normally hurts the attacker. However if the attacker has not the goal of getting a financial benefit, he can kill a coin like this with ~25-35% of total hash power and I bet this is what we see here again. Note that in practice you probably have a patched wallet so you can release single blocks at your will anytime you want. With just firewalling your nodes you can just release your whole private chain at once and not blockwise. Standard disclaimer: I am noob and I might have not the slightest clue what I am talking about and you all should do your own research before basing any decision on what I say, I am just voicing my oppinion. |
|
|
|
Oh and yes i am offended. People called me a lot of things in my life but i have never been called incompetent in my work as a software developer. I think i am done commenting for a while.
Whoa...hope it was not me you are referring to?! I read back a few posts and I did not see anyone saying you were an incompetent software developer. The part where I stated 'not handling things very well' was in reference to PR not development! People use the term dev very loosely to mean anyone working on a coin not the actual software development of it. I apologize if you felt that comment was directed towards you specifically....I don't think anyone questions your contribution or skills! I don't think CartmanSPC wanted to attack or offend you in any way, I for one do appreciate what you do for the wallet and I do have an idea how much work is it. Rest assured your hard work is appreciated! I think CartmanSPC said that he thinks that this reduction is unfortunate and will damage the coin and that the communication was suboptimal regarding this change and the future use of the coin. If that is the case, I do heartly agree with him. While we are at it, I am a miner. I have mined more than 200k in the last few months and am holding more than 80% of it. That said, I do feel offended by the constant anger and badwording against miners that sell their earnings daily to pay their bills. At 1 coin you'll certainly get rid off a lot of us. If that's your goal, it will be definitely work out as intended. I'll be watching, and since I have a lot of sympathy for the project I sincerely do not hope the chain will get FUBAR'd at <=200Mhs. Good luck with the change and please send out a wallet alert timely! My client still shows none. |
|
|
|
If no updates on the source are being made I think we should consider this coin dead.
It is compromised, and it's not going to be better with more nodes.
1 thing might help...
If the price at least triples in value, so more hashrate can be pointed on a good profitability, makes it much harder to achieve >51%...
But at the end.. On this stage the price will only drop, making the problem even bigger..
I'm not sure that this has anything with 51% attack, because as I said before, I have the blocks confirmed on the pool, sent to Bter, so around 150 confirmations, even more, and then someone has changed complete network with his own blocks, new created, 51% attack gives you Orphan in that moment, but this is not the case here !! As you can see I still have Pending blocks on Bter but that txs doesn't exist anymore !!! so this blocks will be never confirmed  Did you also onsider selfish mining with a hidden chain, releasing blocks when needed? You don't need 51% for this, 25-35% are enough and it annoys the hell out of honest miners. I bet that's what we see here. |
|
|
|
I finally found the time to replace the PCI-e connector on the cube where I cut one of the pins while trying to dismantle the plastic from the connector. I didn't really expect it to take so much time, hell it's 6 pins. But all those that explained how much heat you need were perfectly right. What I found to be helpful is to have a hot air station + a soldering station (or a combined rework station). I did first heat the pin with the soldering iron so much I could apply some chipquik, after that I started to point also the hot air handle onto it and gave it 15-25s (more for the upper, longer pins) to get really hot. Then I smoothly pulled with a plier on the pin until I felt they were completely lose and I could pull them out without resistance. Spike53 was right: the shorter pins came out easier due not dissipating that much heat. I guess if you can't just throw ~100W heat at it, this is certainly a good idea to shorten them before trying to desolder. While being at it, I applied new thermal grease (Gelid is great, but one syringe equals ~ one cube, so if you are planning to do more than one cube, get more than one syringe - I have to find a source where I get it in a little pot like in the video from Linus). The warnings were justified, but if you have ever desoldered something and PCB and part were still usable, get a powerful iron and enough time and it will work, though as long as you can dismantle the plastics body, that is preferable. But when the connector is cut by an idiot like in my case or burnt beyond recognition you probably have no choice  What I would like to add as tip is to not use any force on pulling the pins out else you could risk to damage the via or pad. Again thanks to all who helped with tips and links etc.! |
|
|
|
|
WTS 730k EAC.
If interested, please PM your offer.
|
|
|
|
The images on the Aliexpress page look like A2 images. The description says the A4 prototype won't be available until July. So what is pictured is not one of the prototypes. This is a "pre-order" for still unbuilt equipment. Also from what I have read Innosilicon does not do preorders. So this person selling either must have a standing order and commitment for a bulk order or he/she is taking wild liberties on the price and number he will have available to sell.
Thanks for the link. It at least has a bunch of us all talking and thinking about doing really stupid stuff like a bulk preorder... Yes, we are that crazy! I personally am going to wait until something firms up and then figure out where in the world I would put more miners or get more electricity to run them! ROFL
They're not A2 images. (1) 5 boards, NOT 6. (2) too much open space in the case. NONE of the A2 units I own or have seen pics of have that much open space between the "first" hashboard and the controller boards. (3) I don't think the A2 ever came in a black case, but not 100% sure on that. They could be using pictures of prototype units provided to them by Innosilicon. They also might be recycling Dragon miner pics - I think I remember some Dragons in black cases. Innosilicon WAS talking "mass production" in June/July timeframe - one would think they'd have at least a FEW prototype miners built by now for testing and to take pics of. I have an A2 Terminator that looks exactly like the one pictured. I believe it is the model from LKETC. It just depends if you allow them to be called A2 Terminators but they do exist. |
|
|
|
Thank you Tupsu! I could order the coolers in the 9mm high version as the 14mm have no delivery date at all in my country. As I am not planning to run them on full clock speed, I hope these are good enough. Rosin core solder. I would highly recommend alloying the solder or using chip-quick to get the old ports off, the high temp ROHS solder used coupled with a lack of preheating coupled with the massive heat sink of the +12 and ground planes will make removal complex otherwise.
Only one socket. Older boards like Jupiters and some Neptunes had two pads.
Run it at 60-70mh tops. Don't go for 80 and you won't break the board so much.
C
Thank you lightfoot, I found out meanwhile since I have opened two cubes that there is no second pad. I tried the trick to remove the plastics body and clean the pins as some of you here suggested. Worked great on the first cube, disaster with the second. The second connectors plastic was in better shape and didn't break that easy, and as the great craftsman with two left hands that I am I also have cut off ~2mm of the head of one of the GND pins... The following loud swearing should have been audible around the globe... After all the warnings I received to avoid replacing the connector, I am now really friggin scared to do it. I will have a good rework station, vacuum solder iron, chipquik alloy and replacement parts - are there any more tips that those that did succeed in replacing the connector would like to share to give me some confidence back *lol* ? I mean it is actually doable with enough power in the solder iron and alloy, right? To be honest I have no plans to run the cubes over 250/275MHz ever. If they ever will work all at that speed, that will be a good miner to me and given all the time invested to get there I can surely resist any temptation to even try 300/325MHz even for a minute or two at all. I want to run it 24x7 and the experience especially with the pci-E connectors lets me seriously doubt if it's a good idea when running it at >=300MHz. One note for those trying to dismantle the pci-E connector: Most often when you have a burned connector on the PCB, the socket on the y-connector is burned too and needs at least some pins replaced, often the connector housing too. Thanks also for all the help I received by PM, I'll let you know how my Titan adventure turns out and eventually document the path. |
|
|
|
wow talk about a blast from the past. I thought this coin was dead forever.
If we can get listed on Cryptopia, I think there is a good chance of a revival. Hopefully we can get a few more people interested in bringing it back from the dead. If KDC gets listed on Cryptopia (or any other exchange), I'll be happy to run a permanent node for it. |
|
|
|
New Titan owner here - so please forgive if any of my questions are completely stupid. I have two cubes with pretty coloured pci-E connectors (can't decide if this is still dark yellow or already brown  ) and I would like to replace them. I have found the following part from Digikey and am wondering if that's the right connector or if there is a better one from DK or some other electronics warehouse: WM1353-NDIs it recommended to use some special solder for the pci-E connectors (i.e. lead-free with higher temperature) or can I take the my preferred day-to-day leaded solder? Speaking of pci-E connectors, I have read rumours here that there is a second one on the PCB but not populated. Since I haven't opened any of the cubes I wonder if somebody can tell me if that second connector exists and simply can be populated and used to circumvent the single pci-E bottleneck? Since I have to take the whole thing apart to replace the pci-E connector, I would also like to add the DCDC heatsinks from this video. Does anybody know where to get these? As I have to re-apply the thermal grease and need to order that too: What thermal conductivity should it have at minimum? And any estimates on how many gram per cube I will need? And finally: Is there a good source for 16AWG Y-splitters or do you guys make these all yourself? I realize the Mini-Fit connectors from Molex are only rated for 18-24AWG but I guess squeezing two 16AWG into such a crimp pin is just a question of enthusiasm - or are there better rated crimp pins than these: WM2501CT-NDWM2500CT-NDThanks for any tips, hints and links in advance. |
|
|
|
Other question,Who can update?No dev,Dev disappeared since 2013
I was hoping current "dev" can handle this quickly, but it seems not the case for now. We may need someone with professional experience to do this, I am not sure how well the current 'dev' can handle this, and what they plan to do next, they seems not announce any plan since the fork happen. Let me take this chance to set straight what my position/role is here as I feel like being confused for "the dev" or "dev" : I like TIPS and it has been good to me at times in the past, that was reason enough for me to offer my support to bring TIPS on a new exchange (namely Alcurex and Cryptopia) when BTER was announcing to swap to SHA256 TIPS. That's what I do with every opensource project that is good to me, or teaches me something - I try to give something back within my possibilites. I live under the impression that's how the open source ecosystem is supposed to work. Since contributing people are a rather rare element on earth this was probably qualification enough to invite me to the dev-teams slack. I have offered there the little insight and knowledge I had and I refunded halibits loss from my pocket since a) he is a honest guy and doesn't deserve to make loss especially since he listed TIPS on Alcurex without any upfront payment and b) it was within my possibilities to keep halibit from delisting TIPS. That's all about it - I am not "dev" and certainly not "the dev", I do regard myself as a supporter or active community member - not more! I do not claim and have not claimed any more rights or weight than any other holder, miner or node maintainer in the TIPS community. I am absolutely sure that if you are willing to contribute, code, money, insight or just support the guys (teillagory, testbug and metamorphin) will be more than happy to welcome you on board. I actually hope my post inspires them to invite you to join and contribute your ideas and your code. It is a fact that you will need a professional coder for the plans you have, maybe that can be you? You sound like you have lot of experience or are maybe the experienced pro dev that is missing here. Elsewise this community probably will need to cough up some BTC for this professional dev you are looking for or convince one of the goodwilling pros to do it for the warm fuzzy feeling in the belly that you get when you do good things for free. I can't say if that person exists, but I wish sincerely good luck with finding him or her. I really hope you or somebody else will take the torch and become the much needed leader to bring TIPS to a new level and implement/code the changes you propose. I already thank you for that great effort and time you are willing to invest for the benefit of us all here. |
|
|
|
Hello everyone,
I would like to bring everyone's attention here. We have suffered two large fork recently, and now it's really time to bring the topic here and would like get everyone's opinion. So we can move forward, because this can happened again.
Here are the opinions that we can work on.
1. Keep current algorithm, increase security, adding more nodes and checkpoints.
2. Use POW+POS
3. Merged mining
4. Update algorithm, like Scrypt-N, X15, etc.
Worst case hard fork may needed.
Please contribute your opinions. Or if you have better opinions, bring it. So we can make a better FedoraCoin together.
I apologize if this post manifests my complete ignorance, but feeling still being a n00b in cryptocurrencies I have a few question regarding the proposed measures above and I hope to receive answers that allow me to improve my knowledge: Re: 1.Checkpoints are fine, but they always reference a point in the past before or at best when the wallet/src was released. Given the fork doesn't go back further than the checkpoint it is my understanding that a checkpoint helps nothing to prevent a fork from happening (except speeding up synching from scratch), is this assumption completely off? Though TIPS needs newer checkpoints for the getchainvalue function to work halfway performant, I don't believe it helps protecting from forks like the ones we saw. I estimate the current TIPS network to something around 60-80 nodes. How many nodes more would you think would be needed and how do you think this can keep a fork like the one we experienced from happening? Re: 2.A POS/POW hybrid certainly serves as good protection against a 51% POW attack, however if you look at the richlist you will see that the top 2 wallets have >40% of the total supply. Assuming that never all supply will be staking and assuming those two wallets will stake, they can easily outgrow a majority of staking weight. I really have no clue if my suspicion here holds any ground, but I hope an experienced person with better skills can enlighten us. Re: 3.That seems to me like the best option to avoid a fork when enough pools join and merge mine TIPS. If I look at DOGE right now, it has ~900Gh - I guess that's much harder to attack than the current ~40Gh that TIPS has (or much less when it forked). However I am pretty sure it would move price of TIPS downwards when there is no more hard cost associated with mining TIPS. Re: 4.Could you explain how changing the mining algo would protect TIPS from an attack/fork? What exactly are you trying to achieve with an algo swap? You realize that you sound here like the takeover dev that also appeared out of nowhere suddenly and wanted to change the algo? May I ask if you are in any way affiliated with the SHA256 takeover-dev ? I agree though that the coin needs an update, my opinion from digging through code is that it will get problematic to use - to say the least - once # 1,664,000 is reached. I will highly appreciate if you can take the time to address my naive questions and help me toward a better understanding of how cryptocurrencies work. It’s okay if you do not agree with me, but I just need to solve these problems as soon as possible. It seems the dev team do not start doing anything related to this yet, so I just bring the topic, so everyone can discuss what the best opinion is. 1. You assumption is correct, but we need more than that. Need to fix vulnerabilities, we can add checkpoint periodically for those nodes. We can adopt new methods, two idea about checkpoints are very interesting and we can think about it. . Cross checkpoint: http://www.bytestamp.net/c/what advanced checkpointing: http://www.coindesk.com/feathercoin-secures-block-chain-advanced-check-pointing/Can you elaborate on the vulnerabilities that exist or are you refering to the 51% problem solely here? You have valid points here, but you realize that in both proposed methodes there is single entity deciding what gets a checkpoint which is somewhat against the spirit of a decentralized currency? How would be decided who will be running i.e. the checkpointing master and would you all trust this person to do the right thing (tm) ? Are there running implementations of coins that use bytestamp so we could look at how it is done in the code? If yes, am I right that these just ask the website of bytestamp for a checkpoint or do they have to run the datacoin core too for this? I am sorry, that paper was a bit hard to read and I only glanced over it, but as you quoted it as answer to my concerns that >40% are in top two wallets I quote from the conclusion of the paper: To monopolize the block creation process, an attacker needs to control a substantial fraction of the
total amount of coins that have been generated thus far The point I was trying to make is that POW/POS hybrid strongly relies on the fact that there is a fair distribution of coins among holders. With two wallets having > 40% my opinion is that we have to rely on those two wallet to act in honesty. 3. True, agree.
4. I do agree this is the worst and bad idea, but technically it can, because the old massive fork may not have the same hashing power anymore.
And for the recorded, I have no relation with the swap team you mention, I am only list what I can think of, people can discussion what they think.
Thank you for answering that question. If you have taken the time to read up the posts that led us here, you should probably understand why a newly created account called Fedoracoin raises some suspicions. In this harmful and scammy environment people can only rely on the reputation of a nick and as you seem to be experienced and knowledgeable person you have to understand that people suspect you to be the takeover dev. I'll give you the benefit of doubt though. And yes, I jump from nowhere, and I think I do not need you a permission to talk here. You sounds like very aggressive, but it’s fine. If one day, president jump here and make a statement, you will say the same thing, that he jump from nowhere.
Well, can you point out where my questions and concerns that I wrote in the kindest possible manner were aggressive? I asked you politely if you where affiliated with the takeover dev and you denied which I for now take as your word. I really do not hope any "presidentes" pop up here, it's a scammy enough place already.. If we want to keep a thing running longer, we need also adopting and learn new things and try to apply those good ones.
My opinion is we can try 1 first (current best opinion), but do need do good research and technical improvement. Then, we can try 2. (POW+POS) if 1 is not doing well. 3. Maybe later? I am not sure. 4. Seems bad though, we can ignore it. And for the record, again, you do not need to agree with me.
This is the primary issue, and need to be solve first (as soon as possible), for people who hold those coins, it will not worth a cent, if it's not on any exchanging platform. And for those platform perform well, they do need secure. So we can make this coin more popular, otherwise, if we do everything slow and wait and ignore, it will toward the death at the end.
Thank you for permitting me my own biased views and oppinions, you are certainly entitled to the same and if my reply does read somewhere like you would need my or someonelse permission to speak up here, that's pure nonsense and I sincerely apologize for that. |
|
|
|
Hello everyone,
I would like to bring everyone's attention here. We have suffered two large fork recently, and now it's really time to bring the topic here and would like get everyone's opinion. So we can move forward, because this can happened again.
Here are the opinions that we can work on.
1. Keep current algorithm, increase security, adding more nodes and checkpoints.
2. Use POW+POS
3. Merged mining
4. Update algorithm, like Scrypt-N, X15, etc.
Worst case hard fork may needed.
Please contribute your opinions. Or if you have better opinions, bring it. So we can make a better FedoraCoin together.
I apologize if this post manifests my complete ignorance, but feeling still being a n00b in cryptocurrencies I have a few question regarding the proposed measures above and I hope to receive answers that allow me to improve my knowledge: Re: 1.Checkpoints are fine, but they always reference a point in the past before or at best when the wallet/src was released. Given the fork doesn't go back further than the checkpoint it is my understanding that a checkpoint helps nothing to prevent a fork from happening (except speeding up synching from scratch), is this assumption completely off? Though TIPS needs newer checkpoints for the getchainvalue function to work halfway performant, I don't believe it helps protecting from forks like the ones we saw. I estimate the current TIPS network to something around 60-80 nodes. How many nodes more would you think would be needed and how do you think this can keep a fork like the one we experienced from happening? Re: 2.A POS/POW hybrid certainly serves as good protection against a 51% POW attack, however if you look at the richlist you will see that the top 2 wallets have >40% of the total supply. Assuming that never all supply will be staking and assuming those two wallets will stake, they can easily outgrow a majority of staking weight. I really have no clue if my suspicion here holds any ground, but I hope an experienced person with better skills can enlighten us. Re: 3.That seems to me like the best option to avoid a fork when enough pools join and merge mine TIPS. If I look at DOGE right now, it has ~900Gh - I guess that's much harder to attack than the current ~40Gh that TIPS has (or much less when it forked). However I am pretty sure it would move price of TIPS downwards when there is no more hard cost associated with mining TIPS. Re: 4.Could you explain how changing the mining algo would protect TIPS from an attack/fork? What exactly are you trying to achieve with an algo swap? You realize that you sound here like the takeover dev that also appeared out of nowhere suddenly and wanted to change the algo? May I ask if you are in any way affiliated with the SHA256 takeover-dev ? I agree though that the coin needs an update, my opinion from digging through code is that it will get problematic to use - to say the least - once # 1,664,000 is reached. I will highly appreciate if you can take the time to address my naive questions and help me toward a better understanding of how cryptocurrencies work. |
|
|
|
Hello all. Sorry I have been away for a bit. All is well now. Will take me a few days or so to catch up on things.
Good to see you back Hort. Looking forward to the things to come with regards to G3N. |
|
|
|
That looks exactly like an older 88MH Design -- It says A2 in description of auction but in details it says A4 -- I think it's BS. I don't think so, yes it's definitely not a picture of the real thing, but then again, if a prototype is expected for July a photo of the real miner would need some time travelling I guess, so its understandable to take a placeholder. It looks like the LKETC 110MH Terminator IMHO. Since this is one of the largest miner sellers on AliX and given the guarantess that AliX gives I doubt its pure BS - why should the seller do that (except maybe luring visitors into his shop and ending buying other models) ? I take this as a sign that these magic 14nm miners will pop up at your local dealer sometimes around end of this summer. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
