Everything to do with PMC is frozen on Poloniex at the moment. I assume I cannot allow withdrawals because of the fork issue. Is this assumption correct?
Better rollback all trades unless you can determine which coins are generated before and after 1k coins blocks. All coins that existed before incident are fine, asuming hard-fork to fix the issue will start at point (block height) before incident occured. I'm not so sure it would actually. I sure don't see a bug in the code, I just combed it again. edit: maybe i'm just blind  I compared with some other coins on github as well, odd. Not some sort of weird coin halving thing is it? |
|
|
|
New screenshots and update on the beta soon.  Can't wait.  |
|
|
|
|
Ironically, you may have to offer a Premine bounty to fix Premine.
That'll be an interesting one.
|
|
|
|
I guess the coin is dead then. Time to dump.
we are talking about grain, not doge... Grain and Doge..suddenly reminded me of that film. Old Yeller.  |
|
|
|
|
Just so nobody gets duped here. Premine's network was either attacked or a bug has caused more coins to be generated than the initial amount that exists. If you buy now you may be buying thin air.
There is a fix in the works and the blockchain will likely be forked before the event happened, which was thankfully quite recently. So we've only lost a day or so. Hold onto your coins, and leave your wallet closed until the fix is released.
|
|
|
|
|
Could everyone who participated send me a pm with their wallet address and their post ID? Please reference Fckbankscoin in your message.
I will hand out the prizes and announce the winners. Everyone else who submitted a logo but didn't win will get 100,000 fcks. Because why not.
Thanks everyone.
|
|
|
|
I wish I understood the tech aspects better.  Yep, could someone explain it for dummys? Someone with a better miner than everyone else together changed the rules of the game at will. That is not possible. 51% attacker can not affect coin generation in any way except increase inflation via added hashpower. If clients we use all have coded rule which says "generate no more coins if 500,000 coins exist" than no one can generate any more coins that would be accepted by our clients. It makes no difference at all how much hashpower is in question. See, that's what I thought, but that obviously isn't the case. I heard there's vulnerabilities in old litecoin QT code that allows infinite generation of coins. https://github.com/dogecrap |
|
|
|
Very interesting but I think (unless I have misunderstood) it does, albeit indirectly, reward those with more hashing power available - in effect you need to be able to assign some fraction of your hash rate to this - if you only have one GPU (the "average" miner) then you will never assign 100% of your mining resource to this, but if you have 3,4, 5 ... 10 then sure you might.
Similarly a profit switching pool could assign, say, 2% permanently, just in case.
True, this is the one flaw in the coin. But lets say there are 2 pools that are "holding back" hashing power until the the right moment. As soon as one pool adds more hashing power it would throw off the others calculations thus changing the probability of generating an anomaly. Everyone would be jumping in and out trying to raise there probability which would make predicting the difficulty near impossible. So I think we are fine for now. As far as solo mining goes, yes the person with the highest hash rate will (potentially) generate more anomalies. But like you said, if you were to somehow "throttle" your hash rate to manipulate the difficulty you could generate a lot more anomalies. My laptop will do nearly 7 kH/s maybe that is the tool for the job ... I'm thinking of getting my Casio calulator in on the action. microHashing away.  |
|
|
|
Please explain to me how an attacker can fork the blockchain, and from then on put a block reward on 1000 coins on every newly mined block.
I am not getting it how this is suppose to work.
The way I understand thing is :
It is our client, the software that determines the block reward, when our client creates a new block it determines the block reward from the rules within the software, it then sends this block out to the network and then the other clients verify whether that new block was created according to the rules, if not then the newly mined block will not get confirmed by the network.
I fail to see how all of the sudden my client would decide to reward a new block with 1000 coins, when the software is still the same and then how all the other clients on the network accept this new block when the 1000 coins block reward is clearly against the rules of the software.
I doubt the attacker scenario, I think it is much more likely that it is simply a bug in the software that has always been there.
If you control over 51% of the network, you can fork the chain. That wallet that forked the chain can do anything it wants - in this case, add 1000 coins to every block. It's absolutely possible and entirely plausible. You don't need to have every wallet running the malicious code. Just one. It would only take one big ASIC miner or rig to do it. |
|
|
|
I wish I understood the tech aspects better. Yep, could someone explain it for dummys? Someone with a better miner than everyone else together changed the rules of the game at will. ^ this and im 99.9% sure i know who. Is it possibel to fix such a problem? And how? You fork the blockchain from the wallet just before the hacker sabotaged the blockchain, and change the rules in the wallet to prevent it ever happening again. That fixes it for now. But we need some changes to prevent that from happening in the future. Mainly, we need to encourage more miners to switch to PMC. And using scrypt would help against ASIC. The 0 block rewards did not help. Changing to CPU, Scrypt, Scrypt-Jane or even some of the more esoteric algorithms would fix the problem. It needs to be ASIC resilient, and have some way of forcing a minimum tx fee for every transaction. |
|
|
|
I wish I understood the tech aspects better. Yep, could someone explain it for dummys? Someone with a better miner than everyone else together changed the rules of the game at will. ^ this and im 99.9% sure i know who. Is it possibel to fix such a problem? And how? You fork the blockchain from the wallet just before the hacker sabotaged the blockchain, and change the rules in the wallet to prevent it ever happening again. A bit like using System Restore Points on your computer. Restore to the last known good configuration, then fix the problems. All this saboteur has done is forced us to fix a problem that would have been disastrous if it happened later on when the coin gained a massive amount of value. Ironically he may have done the coin a favour by exposing a vulnerability. That that he deserves any credit. He was absolutely doing this maliciously, as anyone with an ounce of concern for this exploit would have announced it to the dev quietly, not hijack the entire blockchain. |
|
|
|
-No inflation. Most coins are faced with an increasing supply and thus constant downward pressure on their price, not with us— our supply is fixed from the start, much like the fixed supply of physical gold and silver. Gold isn't fixed supply. Nor are coins. If you just mean you have all the coins available from the start, that's not the same thing as no inflation. It's almost the exact opposite to inflation. It's total deflation, and pricing is based entirely on speculation. |
|
|
|
Ok let me give you an honest answer since a lot of these answers are done by people owning lot's of the coins, or being involved in the coin, or having benefits you mining or buying a specific coin.
When a coin is most profitable to mine... you are actually too late. When you want to make money with limited hashing power Always mine 0-day coins. How stupid their names are, or how silly/limited their announcement is.
Always look at the launch, it should not be pre-mined too much. A little for giveaways is ok, to attract attention to the coin. When a launch goes bad by DDOS attacks they are probably doing this themselves so they can pre-mine after launch. In my opinion one of the demands of bitcointalk should be that all coin announcement should be pre-announced to give everyone an honest chance. But hey... who am i. If a launch should go bad they should re-launch it another time. But this almost never happens.
Most coin-devs want to mine a lot of coins themselves the first few days, and it's not in their benefit attracting lot's of miners bringing to diff up too soon. What they do is make a fast , small announcement without much graphics or any other fancy stuff. Then after a few days they edit the post and make it more attractive so many miners will mine, pump up the diff. And then the dev (and the first day miners) can dump the coins on the first exchange it hits.
99.9% of all coins are not made for a longer period of a few months. What also happens is that they let the coin die, let all people sell their coins for peanuts and buy all the coins, and then jumpstart the coin again after a few weeks (like a re-launch) and then sell it when it's worth something.
There are very little announcements for coins that are actually going to be worth something in the future. If i would make a guess i would say the Ron Paul Coin (since Ron Paul will run for president if he can, and he has spoken positive about the RPC) and the DGB (digibyteCoin that has a lot's of devs and really tries to make it a coin with Merchants).
Hope this helps.
+1 for a genuinly smart answer. I think it's something you should learn, rather than teach, but props for being someone else who gets it. I mined KDC, Cash, and NyanCoin early on, and have seen the difficulty rocket. Such faith I have in one of them I'm throwing everything I have or can afford at it. Sometimes you just know. There's certain things to look out for. For me a strong dev team can ride out the pumps and dumps, but at any one time you know you're holding both trash and treasure, and it's your task to know which to sell and which to hold. |
|
|
|
do I dream or is that the first post-Mine coin ? new blocks reward ?
Yes, much bust. It appears that there is an asshat in our midst. I think I have it figured out. Someone bitter about not getting their share, me thinks. |
|
|
|
MTC: -.-- USD Market Cap: -.-- Billion USD You think big. I'll give you that much. |
|
|
|
Arf, that was something we should have expected with the low reward, the network could be misleaded easikly with some sha rig.
What was the network hash at the time of the fork appr. ?
Yeah, it could have been a malicious attack. Kind of sad, really. |
|
|
|
|
All other altcoins are trembling right now.
It's interesting to say the least. A big name behind the coin, but it could still go either way. Sounds like the devs did their research though. Kimoto Gravity well? Excellent choice.
Would be kind of funny to see this dumped though. That would say more about the state of the altcoin community than the coin, however.
|
|
|
|
"You see making an altcoin is very much like making love to a beautiful woman.."
 note: only the UK crew might get that one "First you got to pump it real hard, then when you're done, dump it the first chance you get, pop your trousers on, and make a cup of tea."Swiss Tony. Now there's a man who could release an altcoin. |
|
|
|
|
How does one get in on the Scharmbeck action?
Could someone explain briefly the merits?
|
|
|
|
Can the Dev confirm that there was / will be a Blockchain Fork? If so I will write Poloniex...
I can confirm at minimum that there will be Then we can relax. Sit tight, close your wallets, and let this all get fixed. 90% of the initial coin distribution happened way before this problem ever began, so the losses should be minimal. I will still be giving away coins, so anyone who is relatively new and has been given coins after the point the coin has been forked can get them again. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
