|
nope, they're perfectly valid new-testnet coins. just sent 20k to the faucet.
|
|
|
|
|
well, if anyone needs a few, I still have 140k sitting around.
|
|
|
|
|
3 5970s at 800/300 are well < 900W, any half-decent 1.2kW should be able to handle that fine.
|
|
|
|
|
I know of one bug in 0.3.24.
When you do a send thats nearly your whole balance so
1. change output is < 0.01
2. the inputs size * age is big enough so it doesn't require a fee due to "spammyness"
3. the tx is small enough to not require a fee due to size
the sub-cent change gets thrown away as fee instead of checking if paying the 0.0005 fee would end up cheaper.
already got fixed in git
|
|
|
|
|
Thinking out loud...
Do we even need to check the ECDSA signatures in blocks older than the last checkpoint?
Assuming the checkpoint hash is okay, you can't change any transactions in blocks before it without breaking the chain.
Assuming the checkpoint hash was replaced (eve hacked the devs box or something)... we're pretty much fucked anyways as the client will reject the legit chain and stay on the attackers chain.
Any input?
|
|
|
|
Dear all,
As I currently understand it, Bitcoin addresses are generated from ECDSA public keys as follows (ignoring any byte ordering issues for the moment):
address = base58(versionbyte + ripemd160(sha256(pubkey)) + hashCheck),
hashCheck = first4bytesof(sha256(sha256(versionbyte + ripemd160(sha256(pubkey)))))
where versionbyte is 0 in the real network and 111 in the test network.
Correct. Is there any technical/cryptographical reason why this has to be so complex? In other words, would the following method for generating addresses have some serious flaw that the above method does not:
address = base58(version byte + first160bitsof(sha256(pubkey)) + crcCheck)
crcCheck = crc32(version byte + first160bitsof(sha256(pubkey)))
Can't see any reason why that would be much weaker, really. Or for that matter, is there any point to sha256'ing the public key to begin with? i.e., would replacing first160bitsof(sha256(pub key)) with just first160bitsof(pubkey) do just as well?
Thanks!
Not too sure about that, I doubt revealing part of the pubkey long in advance is a problem. But then I'm not a cryptographer familiar with ECC, so I wouldn't bet the future of a currency on it. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, you should be seeing next to no hashrate drop with multiple GPUs (< 1%).
5970s go into thermal throttling when core hits 100°C or the VRMs hit 125°C.
But that shows up as random drops in hashrate, not a consistent slowdown.
PSU issues tend to lead to lockups and BSODs, not cause reduced hashrate.
Random shot in the dark, driver/sdk. Maybe try different/older catalyst versions?
|
|
|
|
|
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
Normal clients won't relay transactions that don't have enough fees, and normal miners won't include them in blocks.
Of course they'll happily relay and accept transactions that have too much fee.
So, to get a transaction without a fee that would require it into a block you have to:
a) have enough hashpower to mine your own block.
or
b) directly connect to a miner/pool that accepts transactions with "not enough" fee.
... I don't exactly see where the "HUGE SECURITY FLAW!!1!one" is supposed to be...
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, 0.3.24-beta, yeah, that should be 0.3.24.
I'm asking because iirc some older version right after min fee changed from 0.01 to 0.0005 (0.3.23 ?) had a bug where it would throw away any output < 0.01 as fee. that was fixed in git afterwards but then the fix got accidentally reverted and I'm not exactly sure when/if it was un-reverted again. Hell, now I'm not even sure if it's fixed in 0.3.24...
And this tx looks exactly like it'd trigger that bug.
Someone who's been following recent client changes more closely should be able to shed more light on this.
Edit: just checked git, yes. that bug is in 0.3.24.
fix is already in master, so hopefully this one will be fixed for good in 0.3.25-rc1.
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't this be in meta? *ducks*
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, just pushing his little "my failcoins are better than your failcoins" agenda.
|
|
|
|
[...]
Bitcoin Clones ... demoting forum veterans into nitpicking trolls for about a week now.
if you look at ArtForz' posts above it looks more the other way round. if it's true what he writes (and I believe it) he kicked some I0coin wanna-be adpoter ass.  And why wouldn't he? 24 Gh was no doubt going to produce tons more i0coins than bitcoins. I hope he sold them quickly when the exchange opened and got a premium price for them. So far I've made more than 40x the amount of btc from selling the ixcoins that I mined than I would have made mining btc in the same timeframe. Just looking at the wall of GH built up waiting of i0coin to go live told me that I didn't want any part of it for what I was willing to commit to it, and I couldn't be happier with that decision. Nah, I'll be sitting on em until hell freezes over. I just like playing GPU progress quest. |
|
|
|
I'm not having the same problems with the client in server mode. Mine has been running for 38 hours with no hiccups and mined 248 blocks.
Had a bunch of lockups thanks to the NTP stuff, fixed by adding a timeout. No your right. Your simply here for personal gain. You push whatever currency is making $$. If next week iXcoin is all the rage you will promote that. You personally - stand for nothing.
Baseless personal attack. Or Mr. Oldtroll here has a magic crystal ball showing him the future actions of another person. |
|
|
|
Well well..what have we here LOL...
So ioucoins has its own scam thread now?
Oh, it's still very far from reaching the ammount of pages your dear "Ixcoin is a SCAM" thread has... and probably never will reach it. Disclaimer: My above statement doesn't mean that I0coin is less of a scam than Ixcoin is. Less of a scam than ixcoin? Obviously, simply for the reason of having no anonymous founder sitting on 500k coins. Not a scam? Well... not a *intentional* scam. Imo the whole thing will end up as a pyramid scheme with "investors" holding a bunch of worthless coins simply because it's a alternate blockchain bringing nothing of real value to the table. So... why did I mine it? Well... why not? I also threw > 10Ghps at testnet for a day just for fun. |
|
|
|
Well well..what have we here LOL...
So ioucoins has its own scam thread now? Interesting. But imo, for anyone that was ready to mine iocoin at its release, it's in no way surprising...it was only a matter of time. Hell, I could have started the thread myself, but I figured I'd let things take their natural course. But lol..aint karma a bitch?
As I stated in another thread -
"In my opinion the whole thing was dodgy from the very beginning - imo right from the outset no-one could mine. The creators of this scam uploaded software that simply didnt exist on release and then they re-released it and the files were there but the software didnt work. Then they had to release it again. Once it did work an hour or more later (at least to some degree for some people from what I have read), IO Guild put a message up on their website along the lines of 'when you're finished with this ponzi scheme come mine Bitcoins at BT Guild' (I'm not sure how much more obvious you can make it than that) and then this was promptly taken down when some of the people mining ioucoins took offence to it. Seriously...the whole thing stinks. Course there's people on the exchange now trying to flog off their coins to anyone that will buy.."
haha..
So now we're even too lazy to come up with original FUD and resort to copypasta. |
|
|
|
1) wait until someone launches new p2p currency
2) have pool ready
3) get everyone to mine new p2p currency on your pool
3) use your less than 1 ms latency to mine the shit out of new p2p currency while your pool ensures that you control the blockchain
4) if people complain about only stales while your getting all the blocks blame it on the low difficulty
5) dump coins on exchange to get all the investors bitcoins
6) profit
This is not i0coins's fault and does not make it a scam. It's also flat out wrong. Maybe next time try using a miner that can handle > 1 longpoll/second and doesn't need half a eternity from finding a H==0 to submitting a share. I did that, got >700 of the early blocks with 6Ghps and a 180ms ping to io.btcguild. |
|
|
|
|
Eleu, small hint, when your i0coind crashes while performing a payout, don't assume it didn't go through.
|
|
|
|
moved everything but 6.1Gh off again, have fun  |
|
|
|
It is something wrong in the way i0Guild count shares that isn't fair in any way, it is like we are all togheter putting up the GHash but just a few take advantage of it. It is funny that i0coin was created because ixCoins creator wanted it all for him self, the exact thing is happening now with i0coin.
So please, NEXT TIME a fork is created, do not put the difficulty at 1.
My guess is that i0Coin will be pretty much worthless as ixCoin will be. Who wants to buy like 100 coins that someone have 250 000 of already in the first day. As I said, exactly the same thing as ixCoin.
That'd be quite a trick, considering there are only ~282k right now and I have > 33k... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
