but nice little project that this project requires an investor. with investors who have sufficient funds to build a great community. oh yes the wallet for Mac OS is already available ?
I think the Mac builds are MIA. If I can master gitian builds, (John Smith put some effort into the Slimcoin code in that respect), an OSX version should be available in due course. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
~ wonders if slimcoin aka "John Smith" might in fact be SN as they always seem to be 'too busy' or wander off to work on other projects.
The command of language testifies to a mature professional (it’s rare these days to see such precision in punctuation): That transaction's hash (its unique identification) is recorded separately from the other transactions' as it is a transaction that now contains burnt coins. Edit: Nope, an inference too far. Reading further: “In principal, when mining proof-of-work”. Edit: Nope, an inference too far. Reading further: “In principal, when mining proof-of-work”.Edit: As you were, the details of the commit history carry their own testament that supports BitcoinFX’ conjecture . Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Huah! Huah! Huah! Huah! - I implemented IRC, MARKETPLACE - Swear to God, I did - SHA256d - PoD  I do hope that's a relaxed deity you worship (not Mammon by any chance is it?). You omitted to rename slingroad.cpp and slingroad.h in the source code. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
It has forked before. In theory, like almost all open source projects, Core has a “maintainer”. The job of a maintainer is to shepherd the project and make decisions about what goes in and what doesn’t. The maintainer is the boss. A good maintainer gathers feedback, weighs arguments and then makes decisions.
This is the author’s unsupported, unsubstantiated personal model of the way he thinks the world works. It's rather unfortunate for him that i) it doesn’t match up to reality and ii) he appears to be oblivious to the mismatch. gavin once dismissed an appeal for help in constructing a genesis block: “You really have no business creating your own block chain if you don't understand the code well enough to figure out how to mine a new genesis block without somebody else's help.”I'll rephrase that for the current circumstances: “You really have no business creating your own cryptocurrency if you don't understand psychology well enough to figure out how to work with a community without fragmenting it into partisan blocs.”The Bitcoin community, like so many other cryptocurrency communities is indulging itself in a misconceived cult of the developer/programmer. I've lost count of how many really top-notch programmer/devs I've seen come to serious grief when they step outside their domain of expertise. I don’t doubt Mike Hearn’s programming/software engineering skills but the posting merely demonstrates that his skillset does not serve him at all well when he’s on unfamiliar and shaky ground. I hold out no hope whatsoever for an epiphany but it’s long past the time for the Bitcoin devs to face up to the fact that professional-grade marketing and UX/UI skills are seriously and damagingly under-represented in their collective skillset. Bitcoin cannot “fail” per se because the intellectual heavyweights behind the idea didn't actually get as far as laying down any failure criteria, that’s why everyone (quite properly) has their own idiosyncratic idea of how Bitcoin’s future should run. I’m quite sure Mike Hearn’s technical skillset is admirable and I'm content to extend that perception to embrace all the committers. However ... good at programming != good at everything else. In fact rather the opposite, especially in domains that do not inherently offer detailed models with precise predictions. I spent most of my R&D career (Marconi AI Lab & HP Labs Bristol) working alongside an able mathematician and world-class programmer/software engineer. We‘re the best of friends but have been known to spend the entire afternoon screaming at each other over the partition wall until it’s dawned on one us of that, e.g. we have completely different meanings for the word “model”. As as psychologist, I'm familiar with the frustrations of trying to work with imprecise terms and ostensive definitions so I will clutch at any even vaguely descriptive straw (the brain is like a telephone exchange, etc.) whereas anything that hopes to be a model in my pal’s mental landscape had better be capable of making testable predictions. I retail this fragment as context for something he said to me once: “I don’t know how you can think with those models.” It wasn’t a dismissal, it was a statement of (okay, grudging but then that's mathematicians for you) resignation. We worked together on deliverable projects, the technology is just one component of success, another major component is what used to be (more usefully) known as “human factors”. My talent was/is to see how people and the technology fit together and that means successfully reasoning with weak, informal and ill-formed models. This is something that is a fuckton harder than it looks from other disciplines, as innumerable devs of now-inactive altcoins could have (but probably didn't) learn to their cost and which Bitcoin devs are bemusedly facing right now. Boil it all down, Bitcoin's a peer2peer app, not really any different to Spreadcoin or Gnutella. That's all she wrote. Anything else is your own baggage --- are you absolutely sure that you packed it yourself? Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Thanks for responses. I'm trying to figure out a better formatting. Can SMF handle HTML/HTMLtables? Let's see... [HTML] <table> <tr> <td> asdf </td> <td> fdsa </td> </tr> </table> [HTML] Edit: seems not...  This ... [table]
[tr][td]Cell 1[/td][td]Cell 2[/td][td]Cell 3[/td][/tr]
[/table]
renders as this .. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Bolivarcoin has already been launched:
Yes, will be relaunched again, i already msg the admins about the old post so it can be deleted I failed to make my point clear enough - Bolivarcoin has already been launched ...
getinfo
{
"version" : 80602,
"protocolversion" : 70002,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 7626,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"connections" : 3,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 1.00000000,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1439630577,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"mininput" : 0.00001000,
"errors" : ""
}

getmininginfo
{
"blocks" : 7626,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 1.00000000,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : true,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 1390,
"networkhashps" : 26922479,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false
}
Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
The game-oriented one was a Counterparty asset. I don't record asset issuances in DOACC. The definition and listing of assets is canonical (and idiosyncratic) to the corresponding asset-issuing vehicle. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
sometimes it seemed almost plausible
I can’t say I share that perception. A lot of the smoke surrounding altcoins has cleared and it's now obvious that a number of devs, subscribers to this board, are using the board’s pseudonym facility in order to facilitate the repeated perpetration of swindles. Caveat emptor but arguments from devs claiming to protect a real-life professional identity are self-serving hyperbole and have no place in a nascent alternate fintech domain. The excuse serves mainly to expose everyone else to the risk that they themselves are creating. The only person that benefits from dev pseudonymity is ... the dev. If a dev conceals disapproved-of altcoin activities from an employer, it's not just their lookout ... there will be a lot of problematic fallout from a dev being found out and told to cease and desist by their employer (Hello, Mr Spread?). The dev owes it to the community to make the communication of that risk explicit and up front. Identifiable devs aren't a problem, if unmasked as crooks, they can no longer operate under their real life identity. The total of launched alts is nearing 2500 now and it's pretty clear to see that it's the unidentifiable swindlers that are the most numerous. Fortunately, a response is trivially easy to formulate - just don't buy into coins launched by pseudonymous devs. If this wasn't lalalaland, players could reasonably look to the facilitating organisations such as bitcointalk to adopt a more community-supportive policy about crookery but the studied lack of response suggests that they prefer to leave it until the authorities become convinced that the community is unable to regulate or police itself and requires the benefit of “proactive assistance”. I'm currently pondering a question: Does launching an altcoin on bitcointalk inherently guarantee its failure? I'm beginning to suspect that 99 times out of 100 (2500 launched thus far, remember) it does in fact spell the death knell of the coin. Especially if it was launched by a pseudonymous dev. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
it ensures that no retards going to torch their house or kidnap their loved ones after jumping into a coin on the top of a pump and losing a lot of money during the dump and then accusing the dev for their bad trades.
Citation required. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
you guys might want to reconsider using ROOT as your ticker. There is already a ROOTCOIN.
thats why i made the addresses start with L, so there is no way to send to the wrong chain I think you missed the point: https://bittrex.com/Market/?MarketName=BTC-ROOTCheers Graham |
|
|
|
You may always check the block explorer to see what is the last block found (see the OP for link).
The block explorer seems to have gotten stuck a couple of days ago. I have a nearly-complete RPC-based explorer that tracks PMP, it seems to be current (176.9.26.47 on your hymn sheets): Summary info : https://minkiz.co/acme * PMP blocks: https://minkiz.co/acme/pmp * * self-signed SSL cert, CA cert, DYR: archive.orgCheers Graham |
|
|
|
the string “rpcpassword=minicoin_secret_password” in the coin.conf is a reasonably good discriminator, reveals several recent horses from the same low-grade stable: https://github.com/search?o=desc&p=1&q=rpcpassword%3Dminicoin_secret_password&s=indexed&type=Code&utf8=%E2%9C%93tokyocoin/tokyo – coin.conf
Showing the top two matches. Last indexed 2 hours ago.
1 rpcuser=minicoin
2 rpcpassword=minicoin_secret_password
3 addnode=0.0.0.0
4 daemon=1
@indexcoin
indexcoin/Indexcoin – coin.conf
Showing the top two matches. Last indexed 2 days ago.
1 rpcuser=minicoin
2 rpcpassword=minicoin_secret_password
3 addnode=0.0.0.0
4 daemon=1
@bolivarcoin
bolivarcoin/Bolivarcoin – coin.conf
Showing the top two matches. Last indexed 4 days ago.
1 rpcuser=minicoin
2 rpcpassword=minicoin_secret_password
3 addnode=0.0.0.0
4 daemon=1
@ClockWorkCoin
ClockWorkCoin/Code – coin.conf
Showing the top two matches. Last indexed 6 days ago.
1 rpcuser=minicoin
2 rpcpassword=minicoin_secret_password
3 addnode=0.0.0.0
4 daemon=1
No sign of clockwork coin as yet Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
FTR: was CrusaderCoin, now DarkEther and dev fails basic string replacement task:
That's why i see CRU instead of DETH inside wallet. How is possible to make those errors? Ignorance, inexperience, carelessness; perhaps all three (I’m a cognitive psychologist by discipline and I have an interest in cognitive error, so I can provide chapter and verse if required). The regular expression (aka “regex”) syntax allows for searches to be confined to separable words (too greedy a match and you can end up replacing a lot more than you bargained for). In this instance the ‘m’ and ‘μ’ prefixes create distinct non-matching words which defeats this regex matching strategy. There will be other characteristic errors, faithfully preserved by unaware devs all the way down the chain, typically where the program abstraction runs a little thin and the specificity of the “Bitcoin” brand name intrudes and defeats a simple regex approach. One classic example of this is parseBitcoinURI in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/qt/guiutil.cpp#L186: bool parseBitcoinURI(QString uri, SendCoinsRecipient *out)
{
// Convert bitcoin:// to bitcoin:
//
// Cannot handle this later, because bitcoin:// will cause Qt to see the part after // as host,
// which will lower-case it (and thus invalidate the address).
if(uri.startsWith("bitcoin://", Qt::CaseInsensitive))
{
uri.replace(0, 10, "bitcoin:");
}
QUrl uriInstance(uri);
return parseBitcoinURI(uriInstance, out);
}
The above routine replaces “bitcoin://” in the URL with “bitcoin:” or “starting at 0, nuke the next 10 characters in the URL and replace them with the string ‘bitcoin:’” i.e. remove the forward slashes. The number 10 in the call uri.replace(0, 10, "bitcoin:") is specific to the length of the specific string “bitcoin://”. If we were working with a hypothetical clone coin called “DarkBlackCoin”, the following simplistic replacement would result in correct syntax but incorrect programme semantics: uri.replace(0, 10, "darkblackcoin:")because: >>> len('darkblackcoin//:')
16
To make the intended replacement, the correct invocation would have to be: uri.replace(0, 16, "darkblackcoin:"). S’not exactly rocket surgery, as you can see. I can’t recall where I first saw the general solution (perhaps it originated from coingen, they would have needed to get it right) but there is one that is a bit more robust in the face of regex-driven rebranding and which will better preserve the program semantics: uri.replace(0, std::string("darkblackcoin//:").length(), "darkblackcoin:")The darkether code is correct ( https://github.com/darkether/darkether/blob/master/src/qt/guiutil.cpp#L132), uri.replace(0, 12, "darkether:");>>> len('darkether://')
12
I suspect that the darkether dev lucked out, benefiting from bitpop’s error ( https://github.com/BitpopCoin/BitpopCoin/blob/master/src/qt/guiutil.cpp#L132): uri.replace(0, 12, "BitpopCoin:");>>> len('BitpopCoin://')
13
it's a common problem, the Nebuchadnezzar dev not so lucky ( https://github.com/theclaymanim/thepropechy/blob/master/src/qt/guiutil.cpp#L132) uri.replace(0, 12, "nebuchadnezzar:");>>> len('nebuchadnezzar://')
17
Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
seems like a bit of pro fud there
Thanks for the baseless slur, my post contains nothing other than facts. I gave a summary, I've posted full details of the analysis technique elsewhere, I'll include it here in case anyone wants to verify for themselves (the example references a different coin, Achilles but the technique is identical) gjhiggins, can you tell by the code in the zip if the technology he claims the coin will use actually exists?
There's no evidence of that in the contents of the zip archive. The contents are Godcoin with user-facing strings changed to read “Achilles”, with only the absolutely key parameters changed (rpcport, genesisblock, etc). The only significant functional changes to the codebase are a bigger premine and larger block rewards. The pastebin listing that I posted contains all the differences between ZenGodcoin source code and ZenAchilles source code. I found it notable how few differences are actually required to separate one functioning altcoin from another. If you'd like to take a gander yourself, if only to see what I'm blithering on about, there is a technique which helps. When I put an altcoin under the microscope the first thing I do is use a little Python script I wrote to rebrand the coin as Zencoin (ZENZ). I did this with Godcoin and Achilles, giving me ZenGodcoin and ZenAchilles. I then compare the two directories and their contents, side-by-side, using a visual diff and merge tool: http://meldmerge.org/. It gives a very clear and accessible visual presentation of differences in directory structure and between files. What the hey, lets have some piccies ...   Here's a screenshot of ZencoinGodcoin vs ZencoinAchilles:  Meld allows me to double-click the blue-lit names to show the content side-by-side. In a moment, we'll have a look at the differences in base58.h but first I need to draw your attention to the left-and-right vertical navigation scrollers - the coloured blocks show the location of pairs of files that differ. In the directory-level presentation, one coloured block = one filepair. In the above listing, a total of eight (8!) changed files is sufficient to create a functionally distinct altcoin. There's a similar vertical nav scroller for the file-level presentation and again, coloured bars (a single line differing in content) or coloured blocks (several contiguous lines of code differing). Not too challenging I hope but an illustration should be, er, well, illuminating ... Here's a screenshot of the one-and-only difference between godcoin/src/base58.h and achilles/src/base58.h:  That's it. That's the difference which shows up as a blue block in the directory-level display. Pretty much the same goes for all but a few of the rest of the blue-lit files, e.g. here's a screenshot of the (again, one-and-only) difference between godcoin/src/net.cpp and achilles/src/net.cpp:  I re-ran diff configured to output just the minimum context (filename and line no) for clarity - these are the only differences: http://pastebin.com/dWht3JRuAnd (for eyewatering completeness) files matching the patterns below were excluded from the comparison: $ cat notthese
*.qm
*.ts
*.png
*.jpg
*.svg
*.o
*~
*.ico
*.icns
In essence, my workflow runs as follows: $ git clone http://github.com/foo/bazcoin.git
$ cd bazcoin
$ rm -rf .git* # don't need it
$ ln -s bazcoin-qt.pro coin-qt.pro # allows meld comparison
$ grep 'BTC' src/qt/bitcoinunits.cpp # what units were actually coded?
$ grep -r BAZZA src/ # ensure no clash with source code
$ ../omm.exe BazCoin BAZZA # use XYZZY to suppress symbol replacement if it'd muck up the source code
$ cd ..
$ meld bazcoin godcoin
If you feel up to it, you can have a go yourself. We've set up a bitbucket repository that you can use: https://bitbucket.org/minkizmates/zencoin.gitThere's a small collection of zenified coins (incl godcoin and achilles) for use when comparing with fresh candidates along with the “omm.exe” Python script to create Zencoins: https://bitbucket.org/minkizmates/zencoin/srcmeld will usefully show 3 sources side-by-side, viewing recently-launched elitecoin, fusecoin and sumcoin side-by-side is quite instructive in showing how little they differ. HTH Cheers Graham Edited for senseDrop me a PM if anyone’s interested in accessing a zenified version of hackcoin. A straightforward GH search shows the amount of influence: https://github.com/search?p=2&q=%22Building+hackcoin%22&type=Code&utf8=%E2%9C%93“We’ve found 299 code results” Hackcoin may have been an opportunistic implementation but it has proved popular with altcoin devs. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I wrote the script which compare code in one coin with code in other already inspected coins.
You might wish to consider extending the range of inspected coins that you bring to bear. The rather tragic heritage of this coin is explicitly laid out in, of all places, https://github.com/darkether/darkether/blob/master/COPYING (you couldn't make it up). ... Copyright (c) 2014 bitpop
Copyright (c) 2014 hackcoin Developers
Copyright (c) 2013-2014 NovaCoin Developers
Copyright (c) 2011-2012 PPCoin Developers
Copyright (c) 2009-2014 Bitcoin Developers
bitpopcoin was abandoned by bitpop and he welcomed re-use of the bitpopcoin source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=665896.0 but I doubt his vision stretched this far. The heritage is “tragic” (or tragi-comic depending on the degree of your Bitcoin monotheism) because hackcoin was a opportunistic hybrid launched over a year ago that combines elements of blackcoin, darkcoin and novacoin. It was promptly filched by infamous serial crapcoin dev Carsen Keck to form the codebase for Dreamcoin and from there diffused into a bunch of other alts (apparently including shrms, arch and nebuchadnezzar, hence their appearance in xadsa418’s analysis). In this particular instance, the reconfiguration fron bitpopcoin is minimal, so much so that after “harmonising” irrelevant differences (e.g. nullifying pure branding differences, project build and repos admin config differences) a straightforward diff reveals the full extent of the changes to the (June 2014) codebase: http://pastebin.com/FFTS2FFB The hackcoin codebase which was cloned for bitpopcoin was already obsolete when hackcoin itself was launched; by that time Dogecoin had already migrated to Bitcoin Core 0.9. I have yet to hallucinate any positive rationale for launching a new altcoin using such an elderly codebase and features. I can’t imagine that it’s the kind of heritage that is likely to provide much support for an inspiring development roadmap. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
~ wonders if slimcoin aka "John Smith" might in fact be SN as they always seem to be 'too busy' or wander off to work on other projects.
The command of language testifies to a mature professional (it’s rare these days to see such precision in punctuation): That transaction's hash (its unique identification) is recorded separately from the other transactions' as it is a transaction that now contains burnt coins. Edit: Nope, an inference too far. Reading further: “In principal, when mining proof-of-work”. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
it's not a "trader's coin"
I'm curious. If you have the time, I'd be grateful if you could indicate how you’d characterise the properties of r3d and where they differ from the properties of a “trader’s coin”. Sure, I'd be more than happy to. Typically ... Many thanks. Most useful. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
