Sorry - took me a lil bit to figure out how to upload pics  There's your problem, right there. One easy way to check is to have a Linux VM handy ( Vagrant, VMWare or VirtualBox) and then you can check very simply with: $ grep -n -r pchMessageStart spreadcoin
I've bowdlerised the results but the principle is clear: spreadcoin/src/main.h:832: unsigned char pchMessageStart[4];
[...]
spreadcoin/src/main.h:1564: unsigned char pchMessageStart[4];
spreadcoin/src/protocol.cpp:20:static unsigned char pchMessageStartTest[4] = { 0xc2, 0xe3, 0xcb, 0xfa };
spreadcoin/src/protocol.cpp:23:static unsigned char pchMessageStartSpreadcoin[4] = { 0x4f, 0x3c, 0x5c, 0xbb };
spreadcoin/src/protocol.cpp:25:void GetMessageStart(unsigned char pchMessageStart[], bool)
spreadcoin/src/protocol.cpp:28: memcpy(pchMessageStart, pchMessageStartTest, sizeof(pchMessageStartTest));
spreadcoin/src/protocol.cpp:30: memcpy(pchMessageStart, pchMessageStartSpreadcoin, sizeof(pchMessageStartSpreadcoin));
spreadcoin/src/main.cpp:3263: unsigned char pchMessageStart[4];
[...]
spreadcoin/src/main.cpp:3585: unsigned char pchMessageStart[4];
[...]
spreadcoin/src/main.cpp:4389: unsigned char pchMessageStart[4];
[...]
spreadcoin/src/protocol.h:62: unsigned char pchMessageStart[4];
spreadcoin/src/db.cpp:496: unsigned char pchMessageStart[4] = { 0xfb, 0xc0, 0xb6, 0xdb };
[...]
spreadcoin/src/db.cpp:536: unsigned char pchMessageStart[4] = { 0xfb, 0xc0, 0xb6, 0xdb };
[...]
At the very least, the output should cue a degree of circumspection and help you be less precipitate in your wagers. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
|
[BIGRED] BigBoldRedLetterCoin [POW-BIFF]
logo:
BRB
if used, 0.05BTC tkyplz
Cheers
Graham
|
|
|
|
gjhiggins nice web but do not fully understand Your getting more ambitious project ..
Thank you for the kind words. If you mean minkiz.co, it's a bit of serious fun (try Minki's hodlerscope), an art-tech fusion project not necessarily easy to characterise. We hope to make it self-supporting. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Point taken. I guess it was missing an intro 'cos it sort of followed on from trying to provide some information that people could validate independently for themselves. DOACC is a collection of altcoin metadata - name, symbol, date, pow algo, number of coins, etc. It's Open Source, to do with it as you will. It's designed for downloading and re-use, so it's published using semantic web technology. For our part, via the minkiz web site we provide a separate public service that responds to queries posed in the SPARQL query language and there's also a web-based browser for the metadata. Publishing data as LOD is standard semweb tech. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Can give more info ? I not good at reading code For blocks chained before 76800, the 5-algo-chain qubit (function “Hash5” in the code) is used for producing the hashes. For blocks chained after 76800, a different hashing algorithm is to be used. Its name is “Hash3” reflecting the fact that it is a 3-algo-chain of LUFFA, CubeHash and ECHO, staying with the 512-bit output format. I've been giving the name “trisha” to 3-chain algos because I CBA to invent a name for each possible variation of a chain of 3 NIST algos. For a chart showing the full range of PoW algos used so far that we know of in any alcoin we've recorded (pop. 1345) that weren't actually scams or just massive misunderstandings of the term “algorithm” <inhales with a gasp>, see: http://minkiz.co/ (I'm about to add another 100 or so recent launches but I assume most people are up to date with the latest cryptobabble inventions). The data for the chart is drawn from the DOACC dataset (see sig) and there is some (as yet very limited) additional detail on the algos. The domain changes so rapidly that trying to follow it with web pages is just too punishing, so I'm necessarily reduced to providing a less immediately-helpful general presentation, i.e. a Linked Open Data explorer (think of it like an extended blockchain+transaction explorer) and a SPARQL endpoint. Details will help ... The SPARQL endpoint is merely a query answering service available at a URL, ready to accept SPARQL queries via http. There's a form that provides a basic web interface: http://minkiz.co/sparqlIf the following is pasted into the form ... PREFIX rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>
PREFIX skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#>
PREFIX doacc: <http://purl.org/net/bel-epa/doacc#>
SELECT ?node ?p ?o WHERE {
?node rdf:type doacc:PoWscheme .
?node skos:prefLabel "trisha"@en .
?node ?p ?o .
}
and the Submit button clicked, the back-end RDF graph will be pattern-matched for all things of type PoWscheme with a SKOS preferred label[1] bound to the ( XSD-compliant) string “trisha”@en. The @en suffix distinguishes the string from other locale-specific values --- sorry, there's no bounty for a Chinese translation But if you're minded to contribute, your compatriots will benefit. Apologies for the almost randomly-scattered links, my aim is to provide supportive links to the supporting foundations. For convenience, here's a query URL that resolves to the results page for that query (it's a GET, no POSTing required). The unique URI for the node that satisfies the above pattern match is: http://purl.org/net/bel-epa/doacc#D6accad6e-ce01-4819-b603-161e901e2cd1And the corresponding Linked Open Data (LOD) explorer page for that node is: http://minkiz.co/page/PoWscheme/D6accad6e-ce01-4819-b603-161e901e2cd1(The reason I mention that specific page is that it demonstrates one of the advantages of LOD, the page also shows which altcoins have that node (i.e. the URI) bound to their powscheme relation. In this instance, Futurecoin, Metiscoin and Tjcoin also use a trisha3 hashing algo. The really neat thing about LOD is that this kind of dense information weaving just drops out naturally from the graph.)This is all fully Open Source. You can grab the graph, the ontologies and even the coin logos from the DOACC github repos and you can run your own Linked Open Data explorer by cloning rdflib-web ( https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib-web, gromgull's Flask-based Python app) and feeding the DOACC graph to it. (The rationale for this change, assuming a rationale is published, will make a fine entry in the book of Folkore Combiners.) Cheers Graham [1] Props to the British Museum for using semantic web technology for handling the complexities of their catalogue |
|
|
|
So what is your way of checking the coin? I posted a lengthy response to someone asking about a specific coin, I hope you'll excuse me for quoting it in full here but i) I've found that stuff-behind-links tends to stay there and play little part in the discussion, so I've adopted a strategy of transclusion and ii) I'm just a saddo: 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. The immediately-prior post notes “once a source code was ONCE reviewed, the people tend to trust it indefinitely” - all too true but a simple application of meld originalwallet newwallet will highlight the changes. Am I forgiven? Cheers Graham Edit: add response to immediately-previous post rather than make yet another post |
|
|
|
I do not ideologically judge a coin at all - I judge its market value best reflected by its volume. I do not care whether it's called Dogecoin or Bitcoindark or Laudacoin, whether it is premined or not or this or that, I care whether it is traded at a high volume or not. [...] You must understand that your entire point is of ideological nature, hence completely useless to me. If it's able to increase my capital, it is good. Capital is important to me, not ideology.
[ ... ]
p.s. bitcointalk-account status does not correlate with knowledge of cryptocurrency markets. why so arrogant?
On your latter point, I tend to agree that is true in most cases but in this particular instance, you post an unsupported simplistic assertion as the topic of a bitcointalk thread and you received some negative feedback because of that. Why so thin-skinned? If you are so convinced of the primacy of this factor, why don't you simply code up your assertion as an algorithm, hook it up to your bank account, sit back and watch your wealth accumulate? Because, despite your strenuous assertions, that's not how you as an individual assess an altcoin. You cannot rely on casual introspection to produce reliable information about your own mental processes: Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.By Nisbett, Richard E.; Wilson, Timothy D. Psychological Review, Vol 84(3), Mar 1977, 231-259. Abstract Reviews evidence which suggests that there may be little or no direct introspective access to higher order cognitive processes. Ss are sometimes (a) unaware of the existence of a stimulus that importantly influenced a response, (b) unaware of the existence of the response, and (c) unaware that the stimulus has affected the response. It is proposed that when people attempt to report on their cognitive processes, that is, on the processes mediating the effects of a stimulus on a response, they do not do so on the basis of any true introspection. Instead, their reports are based on a priori, implicit causal theories, or judgments about the extent to which a particular stimulus is a plausible cause of a given response. This suggests that though people may not be able to observe directly their cognitive processes, they will sometimes be able to report accurately about them. Accurate reports will occur when influential stimuli are salient and are plausible causes of the responses they produce, and will not occur when stimuli are not salient or are not plausible causes. (86 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved) A more likely context is that you (in common with other laypersons) are probably mostly oblivious to the cognitive biases ( wikipedia entry) operating within your mental model and this has led you to construct some quite profound misperceptions which you may find compelling but others simply don't. Cheers, Graham |
|
|
|
Hi,guys, the moon look bigger and brighter this summer. Especially tonight, it will become full on the same day it is in perigee, and appear in the sky as an enormous, glowing orb. We call it ‘Supermoon’.
So, dev, why not publish news?
A couple of weeks ago Ngaio posted one of NASA's anniversary celebration pics and a mention of the 45th anniversary but the post was promptly deleted by a mod - apparently postings about the Moon itself are considered off-topic. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Ekita code was reviewed ... we will announce on twitter
Thanks for the info, most useful. Cheers, Graham |
|
|
|
Props to you for lazycoins, nice experience. I haz a question: All coins added will go through a vetting process and approved by our technical team. However we reserve the right to add coins at our discretion.
I note EKITA appears in your listing. Are you at liberty to say whether Ekita was a discretionary addition or a product of your vetting process? Would you consider establishing a policy of advertising which of your coins are vetted and which are discretionary? Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
We broadly agree and have gone so far as make a comprehensive list. We're about to add the metadata for another 100 or so altcoins to the metadata we've already collected for 1300+ coins (metadata on every coin that got as far as having an algo selected, launched or not, it's a very inclusive listing). There's a machine-friendly publication as Linked Open Data via a Github org, DOACC (Description of a Cryptocurrency), complete with an ontology: https://github.com/DOACCand on our web site there's a people-friendly presentation of all the coins on a single page; image, name, symbol, type and algo: http://minkiz.co/coin/Task-specific views include one with tabbed navigation of alphabetically-sorted coin names+symbols, linking directly to the metadata: http://minkiz.co/coin/name/and a sibling page of tabbed navigation of alphabetically-sorted altcoin symbols+names, again linking directly to the metadata http://minkiz.co/coin/symbol/We thought this latter presentation would be useful to people for checking that newly-created coins are assigned symbols that aren't already in use by other coins - yesterday's “Swiss Credit” coin launch is the fourth altcoin to assign itself the symbol CHC. (We're still in “ninja launch” mode but that's no reason not to at least let people know of the existence of the collection) Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Our goal is not to be police, but a representative of public opinion our customers.
ftfy Asserting it repeatedly doesn't make it a fact, yet this unsupportable claim is baldly repeated as though it did. We're invited to subscribe to a naive fiction that because CoinSheld(tm) customers are members of the general public, CoinShield(tm) therefore represents public opinion. This is starting to not ring true for me, I can't match up this childlike fiction with the deep analytic skills required of a top-flight coder. There's a trope that STEMheads typically suck at social science ... but this is so bad it's verging on the improbable. Because we've already been through this loop. There's nothing about the CoinShield(tm) operation that places it in the public sphere. It is a facility that CoinShield(tm), a commercial entity, chooses to offer at CoinShield(tm)'s convenience, to whomsoever CoinShield(tm) chooses or not, to do with as CoinShield(tm) sees fit and CoinShield(tm) is free to withdraw this facility at any point, without reason, notice or penalty to CoinShield(tm) and CoinShield(tm) also profits by this activity. That's not “public” by any recognisable definition, that's “ commercial” and trivial to demonstrate. Obdurately restating a demonstrably untrue claim simply serves to raise suspicions of dissembling. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Hmm, a sr member reporting a similar experience of low power consumption with Deepcoin, a Peter Bushnell fresh fork of 0.8.x changed to use qubit: In and mining. Power consumption is very nice. Using less than any other algo available thus far.
Another useful datum point to reference. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I clearly didn't do as good a job as you credit me with. I seem to have completely failed to communicate the profound import of a crucial aspect of an ostensive definition that's not stressed in the wikipedia entry: each of us creates our own unique, idiosyncratic definitional set of members. As an aid to my thinking in this area, I mentally replace the question “is this coin a valid target?” with “is this oil painting Art?” Imagine trying to get a roomful of people to agree on whether a given painting is “Art”. You'll get a different answer each time, that's the nature of the beast. My interpretation of “art” is not the same as yours, indeed it would be weirdly unnatural if it were. The unavoidable conclusion is that consistency in target selection is infeasible. The more cunning fish will of course do a "little" extra work to get through the initial checks
You appear to be setting yourselves up as the altcoin police, riding into action on a hunter-killer altcoin, responding to imagined public disquiet. Have you lined up some snappy uniforms? For our part (see sig), we'll be working to help altcoin developers meet the higher technical standards claimed by CoinShield(tm) to represent the opinion of CoinShield(tm)'s customers and to which the entire altcoin community is apparently to be held, whether they agree or not, on pain of deliberate destruction of the coin and the dev's reputation. In pursuit of this objective of raising standards, we'll be publishing full details of best practices in software engineering that are specifically applicable to forking and creating a new altcoin, concentrating on those elements which are held by CoinShield(tm)'s customers to be particularly objectionable if incorrectly implemented. We'll be looking to you for a complete list of the operational specifications of your requirements, we feel that would be the most constructive and sensible approach. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
What is the date of this graph?
From earlier this morning - 7th August 2014. I assume the chart is contemporary, the block stats data certainly is reported to be: Last block: 110721 xiaoerbobo 50.000 0.00 2014-08-07 13:25:26 http://ypool.net/mts/stats_blocksNeeds sign-up but no confirmation required to browse the MTS pool stats. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
[Could they be botnet machines?
Talking to myself here. Almost certainly botnet machines, I can't think of another explanation for 962 (!!) workers (with a distinct, repeating diurnal pattern) busily mining an altcoin in this parlous condition, people ain't that dense.  Cheers Graham Edit added pic |
|
|
|
The main difference is that pools can be set up for Litecoin miners to apply their same hashes to the Dogecoin blockchain and possibly solving both.
[ ... ]
You cannot do this the other way around--nobody can make a pool where Dogecoin hashes can be applied to Litecoin blocks.
[ ... ]
One of the key things that the articles announcing the Dogecoin/Litecoin merge mining made a mistake with is that Litecoin is the only parent.
[ ... ]
Once Dogecoin becomes a child, ANY Scrypt blockchain can become a parent. This means Scrypt miners on Myriadcoin will be able to merge mine Dogecoin. It's not strictly limited to Litecoin.
Ah, fiat lux. I had particular difficulty grounding the “child” and “parent” terms that you introduce. Neither is reliably inferable from “Dogecoin is implementing AuxPoW with any scrypt coin with higher hashrate than Dogecoin” or “we will enable the Dogecoin blockchain to accept auxiliary proof of work from other Scrypt chains”. I understand your need to introduce a classification to set a context for your discussion of mooted changes to Myriad's operations but it doesn't work for me, rather the opposite - the metaphor is spurious given the implementation and it derailed my understanding of your proposal. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Want to be part of our shitcoin prevention/Coinshield verification process?
I look forward to the day when you can afford to be less gratuitously provocative. To help you approach the community with a more balanced view, can I ask you to please provide clarification of the following instruction: “If another coin clones your coin they will be sent directly into the voting system, no petition needed.” Please define the term “to clone” as it used in this context. You clearly don't mean “git clone <altcoinrepos>” because the result of such an action is merely another valid wallet for the coin. The only other meaning that I can reasonably ascribe to the term is an analogy with cloning in genetics but that's an analogy and of course, that's simply unusable as a criterion. This is software engineering, please give us an operational definition of what criteria you intend to apply to decide whether a given altcoin is a “clone” in your terms. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I have working Abe instance for our alt-coin ... but i need information how i can sum balance per account
I have access to abe database. I need information in which tables should i look for balance
see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=22785.msg8194121#msg8194121 (hint ^^^^^) “check get_balance(), get_sent_and_last_block_id() and get_received_and_last_block_id() in DataStore.py, there are your sql queries used for this purpose.” Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Fred, no need for apologies.
criticism is sometimes the best way to tell somebody
"rethink something"..
That's a rare maturity. But really, I could've just written "bounty shows imbalance wr.t. community manager" and that would have communicated all I needed to say. I was apparently entertaining myself with the fantasy of being a writer - nothing wrong with that per se but it shouldn't leak out into what's actually posted. Anyway, hat-tip for taking the point, double hat-tip for taking a point badly made. Cheers, Graham Edit - grammar |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
