i gave u a link to a wiki with the right commands + explaing how to do everything. since it is safe unless u do it wrong (ie not like it says in the wiki) if you provide me SSH il fix it (if u cant fix it)  |
|
|
|
well u fked up your apt (which had nothing to do with this) first, then you create the packages wrong (u didnt specify which distro + version, sometimes this may work, sometimes not). its not about blaming another thing on linux -> "it dosnt work, i have no idea why" is not a valid argument, there are plenty of logs and debuging information available to find the problem and fix it. |
|
|
|
if your FS gets remounted as RO (read only) then there are probably bad sectors or another corruption/stuck operation, use this will force a check and check for bad sectors. @ShadesOfMarble: if you do something wrong, it breaks of course. |
|
|
|
|
no need for this fancy stuff, just boot with recovery and drop to a root shell, NOW install the packages --builddpkg <YourDistriHere>
then reboot
|
|
|
|
E: Unable to locate package fglrx_9.002-0ubuntu1_amd64.deb should never happen unless you killed your apt. maybe only the cache is bugging, try "apt-get clean" |
|
|
|
useless remove fglrx first, afterwards install these packages. |
|
|
|
|
chmod +x and run it as normal user, create packages (you can choose). if your distri isnt listed run the binary with --help and specify the distro + package building on the cli.
|
|
|
|
in this case, good luck with it |
|
|
|
samr7 when are you going to fix the bug with the -X switch? if i want to create an address for an altcoin and specify the version with -X vanitygen says something like this (just an example) Prefix 'XYZ' not possible
Hint: valid bitcoin addresses begin with "1" |
|
|
|
The block chain fork has left us with many interesting technical teachings but maybe the most important consequence is legal: The core developers, made a coordinated and centralized effort to convince control the miners. During this event, more than 51% of the mining hashing power obeyed the advise commands of the core developers. So they have proved they are (at least to some extend) in control of the network. The same argument Patrick Murck used in https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=131 can now be used against the code dev team. Has anybody thought about the legal consequences of this ? Can the core devs now bear "the legal liability for managing and providing an unlicensed, unregistered pre-paid access program that allows private and unlimited peer-to-peer transactions"?. Obviously is up to discussion if the core devs suggested to downgrade the version or they commanded to do so. I think the FinCEN will be reading the chat transcripts right now, looking for incriminating words. Best regards, Sergio. i always enjoyed reading ur stuff but this is utterly bullshit, im disappointed. Pools / Miners didnt "obey" to the core dev, they were simply working together fixing the chainfork. IF the core devs would tell pools/miners to do stuff that hurts/destroys bitcoin, pools/miners obviously would ignore this request. its a shame. the core devs fixed a problem which had to be fix, so you and all other users can continue to use bitcoins. if they would have done nothing, then bitcoin would be ruined and you would be outraging why they didnt do anything. this is hilarious and just prooves that the bitcoinfoundation is a huge joke... |
|
|
|
|
get BTC -> invest them in Scamcoins -> Try to exchange the Scamcoins in a newly appearing Scamcoin -> profit???
jokes aside: are you serious or is this a really bad joke/scam?
|
|
|
|
I have never seen anyone any where put the year first? have you?. If not whats the use of a standard if no one uses it?.reg
Er actually Chinese have been doing it for centuries... Now all we need to do is stop those stupid Europeans French from using "," to mean "." germans do this too... totally retarded. |
|
|
|
download an older fglrx (the general package), there u can create packages for ur system. install these deps with dpkg, restart. thats it  |
|
|
|
yes, if backporting isnt possible i will run python2.7 coexistent, that should be fine I have just googled and it seems you could break your debian stable or bring it into some totally inconsistent state when installing 2.7 on it. If you really want to experiment with new software then I think debian stable is not the right distribution for you. Its main "advantage" is that it consists only of stuff that is so old (old abandoned branches of software versions) that won't ever change anymore (not moving == stable (== dead?)). You can use it to run old server software that has existed for 20+ years and run them for another 20+ years, software that won't break or change APIs with new updates because the only updates they will ever receive at all will be security fixes. That the Debian definition of "stable": old, petrified, fossilized. Thats what Debian *stable* is meant for. If you have a Desktop computer and want to be flexible and experiment with cool new stuff now and not in 3 years when its old, you should choose a different distribution. The simplest solution for you would probably to upgrade to Debian testing if you intend to test new (everything that is not really old) software and then stay on their testing release schedule from then on. Bleeding edge and Debian-Stable just does not go together. Not even "pretty well stable" or "stable" or even "rock solid stable for 2 years now" and "Debian-stable". They have a different and very extreme definition of "stable" over there at Debian. you can install another python into a specific prefix, so u dont overwrite the systems versions. or you can do it with virtualenv too |
|
|
|
yes, if backporting isnt possible i will run python2.7 coexistent, that should be fine |
|
|
|
Just propagate the message broadcasted on the Bitcoin network to lightweight clients too (Bitcoin-qt displayed a warning about the network split when it happened).
I suppose it's only a matter of adding the public key used for such messages to Electrum and add support for these broadcasts in the Electrum<->Electrum server protocol.
well it took some time until gavin did it and another ~15 until ppl saw it |
|
|
|
There's no other name for it. That's the definition of a double spend.
I think a double spend, in theory, is when you send the same money to two people and neither is reversed. This should be impossible with bitcoin. What happened was a blockchain fork and one of the spends was reversed when the older fork became the "true" fork. So I agree that this is not a double spend. thats not possible (atleast not on the BTC chain) |
|
|
|
Past luck doesn't guarantee future luck...
Past luck dosnt affect future's luck at all... |
|
|
|
alright, post when its dry |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
