While we are on this side topic, I would like to point out that hosting the signature files right along side the binaries is also probably not the best idea. If I can replace files on sf I would just replace both now.
Sure, you could replace SHA1SUMS.asc, but you wouldn't be able to change it without invalidating the PGP signature. Should be true, but where does it show who is supposed to be signing it and the information for me to check it? Right now if someone else signed it , or it even showed up as an unsigned file, as a user, downloading from the links on the front page, would I ever know? I still need more information from a source that is not sf to test this. The simple reality is, if you don't already know who the trusted developers are, how could you trust who the site says should be signing it? Point is, it'd create a false sense of security if the site said who can be trusted to sign the files. As long as somebody can verify the files as having not come from a trusted developer, the word will spread that SourceForge was hacked. That would be the end of SourceForge. By the way, Jeff Garzik is a trusted developer. |
|
|
|
Most of these coins were double-spent. Any idea how that happened? Did you use the same wallet on two computers at once? Anyway, you'll have to use this if you want access to the locked transaction input: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=35214.0You will get access to 1 BTC back once you delete those transactions. |
|
|
|
I am not sure how responsive they are though.
They aren't responsive at all. The best thing you can do is ask the Bitcoin-Police (message SomeoneWeird) to look into this matter, but they haven't seen "Tom" since about when the claim page went up. |
|
|
|
|
That issue is a regression that is to be fixed in the next Bitcoin version. If you're curious, the fix was originally lost in a code reorganization.
|
|
|
|
|
Could we get a screen shot, by chance?
|
|
|
|
|
Just remember that the wallet is deleted when you close your AWS instance!
|
|
|
|
|
Start your client with the -debug command line option. Then, find the transactions and double-click them. Post the info here.
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't start worrying until your Block count catches up. How many blocks does your client say it has?
|
|
|
|
Do you really think it will be hard for the US gov to make sourceforge put backdoored binaries up on the only mirror we have today?
Fixed that for ya We would notice within hours if they did that. You see, the SHA-1 hashes of all official releases are PGP signed by a trusted developer, and people DO check them every now and then. It'd be great if we had a bot check them, though. Thats good. I was surprised that it seemed like they are not. Would be good to use two different hashes or at least not sha-1 anymore. Also, it is not obvious at all from the bitcoin.org page. I just see link to downloads of the binaries, where are the links to the signatures? What's wrong with just using SHA-1? The the signed hash list is right along-side the binaries: http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.3.24/ |
|
|
|
|
I'm going to go ahead and move that here. Continue this conversation in the other thread.
|
|
|
|
So basically, I0coin is based upon a myth?
Cool.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=37333.msg458441#msg4584411. The developers are volunteers. Nobody is paying them. If they dont contribute they are not being lazy, they are just doing whatever they need to do. If you want you can take their place and contribute to the community. Or I can just use a competing currency. Over time I'll see if it succumbs to being just as lethargic, and I can switch back or to another that is implementing features that are worthwhile. I like the idea of competing digital currencies, because it forces innovation upon developers and early adopters of each currency. If you care that much about hi-tech clients, why don't you just take all the Bitcoin patches that are in the pipeline and compile them into a client? Because that's all these guys are doing. Wallet encryption is barely acceptable for alpha testing at the moment. Putting it in a release client is just insane. I hope I0Coins are lost because of this. Hopefully, that would teach these developers not to shoehorn pre-alpha code into their clients in the future. |
|
|
|
Do you really think it will be hard for the US gov to make sourceforge put backdoored binaries up on the only mirror we have today?
Fixed that for ya We would notice within hours if they did that. You see, the SHA-1 hashes of all official releases are PGP signed by a trusted developer, and people DO check them every now and then. It'd be great if we had a bot check them, though. |
|
|
|
You're using version 0.3.24, right? This is simply not supposed to happen anymore, so I'm almost at a loss. Try adding some fallback nodes using the -addnode command line option. |
|
|
|
Quoting for preservation... Post is not edited. |
|
|
|
Looks like someone reset the poll (was 8 yes, 0 no), so I've re-opened the poll for the next difficulty change.
It wasn't reset, it was changed. It was "do you think difficulty will drop" now it's "do you think difficulty will continue to drop". Ah, I see. |
|
|
|
|
I've added a few to that page.
|
|
|
|
Just bought my first batch of tickets. People get in to sweeten the jackpot and it will grow exponentially!!!
One question actually, while I know I have to buy every ticket separately as a 0.25 transaction, is there a problem buying several in rapid succession? So that they might all end up in same block or something and then I only have one hash? Or am I just stupid here?
It's no problem at all. Only the transaction hash is used to determine the winner, and those are unique to each transaction. They are not related to the block they are placed in at all. |
|
|
|
|
As much as I believe these forks will fail, (hell, one is even designed as a PARODY!) they are clogging up the forum. It'd be great if they could be moved out of the way.
|
|
|
|
|
How many connections do you have, and how many blocks does your client have?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
