Seems bleutrade suspended my account because i said their retarded! If this wont get resolved (they refuse to answer), i'l publish details in a new thread. Is this another usual BR business?

mullick says they don't patch anoncoind. Maybe they are doing some exotic combination of RPC commands (sendrawtransaction...)? I still think there's a way to create txs bigger than 100KB with an un-patched anoncoind, just not an easy way.

I will PM mullick now to ask what RPC commands are being performed.

That's my understanding, but shouldn't the wallet be able to handle this by adding a larger mining fee so that the txn gets confirmed?

This was a good review of the problem - thanks for compiling this.  Looks like if the transaction size is too big it will fail to confirm regardless of the the fee included. Can we get a dev response?  Are you guys trying to identify this bug?  The doesn't seem like it should be a very difficult thing to fix, probably just a couple lines of code.

@K1773R  ,
Please provide any constructive details on what  you think about the issue and how it can be solved , if you have any. Being arrogant and Calling everyone stupid is not helping anyone. Absolutely no one is getting any benefit from this. I repeat. Absolutely no one is getting any benefit.  

DGW is very nice

but myriad of algorithms give people with different specialized machines ways to earn


although each algo in the myriad can use DGW

http://forum.bleutrade.com/index.php/topic,40.0.html

POSSIBLE ANONCOIN BUG REPORT

Hi. Today we are faced with a problem reported by some Bleutrade users that withdraw his was not working. We found it strange being our lasts withdraws with 0 confirmations. We decided to investigate.

::::: Normal Withdraw Today :::::

    {
        "account" : "",
        "address" : "ALvNv6ydiqNuey129MXJV4tywqBPn9USyW",
        "category" : "send",
        "amount" : -47.78000000,
        "fee" : 0.00000000,
        "confirmations" : 0,
        "txid" : "0013dd6a25d222ceb203b1977d60a7db5f6f9b91c1c186f65517b29abcc8dfbc",
        "time" : 1412854096,
        "timereceived" : 1412854096,
        "comment" : "b w17686 e4050480",
        "to" : "b w17686 e4050480"
    },

0 confirmations? why?...

This transaction also does not appear in explorer. hmm... ok, let's investigate...

For this example, we will use a normal transaction in the original wallet (Another Normal Withdraw, days ago):

    {
        "account" : "",
        "address" : "ASz5NtGjBRjHoP2RPqeCAEcbvm1KC3xwcx",
        "category" : "send",
        "amount" : -446.11059087,
        "fee" : 0.00000000,
        "confirmations" : 65164,
        "blockhash" : "7f5310f1bab45d6157fb4fc00d0f440f1d5db5c6b4d689e72118dce046373512",
        "blockindex" : 2,
        "blocktime" : 1401023096,
        "txid" : "df1298124eb24a0b24dcd80a921e9c60578391bf7eff54241d05760976dd2d07",
        "time" : 1401022562,
        "timereceived" : 1401022562,
        "comment" : "b w2721 e126667",
        "to" : "b w2721 e126667"
    },

First step to test, creating a new wallet.dat with all existing addresses and privkeys.

After RESCAN and REINDEX and CHECKBLOCKS etc..:

:::: SURPRISE :::::

The transaction of example disappears and this appears:

    {
        "account" : "",
        "address" : "AMwxitA4zzi54Ax2kngNnvw8nGChwBDQuh",
        "category" : "send",
        "amount" : -757.03044568,
        "fee" : 0.00000000,
        "confirmations" : 65193,
        "blockhash" : "bc31fcc6c5c333e7efdaadbd088e6873a7e7c7c9007444feccd0b8bb4dc321dc",
        "blockindex" : 1,
        "blocktime" : 1401017947,
        "txid" : "deef70d946477552db8b70aac87fe16a5eb06767fd6668e6e00bca3f4ffceb2c",
        "time" : 1401017947,
        "timereceived" : 1412871290
    },

http://ancblockchain.com/tx/df1298124eb24a0b24dcd80a921e9c60578391bf7eff54241d05760976dd2d07

"AYQWQCixS4cpi4gyc8vVdmrNCzKRsm245J(310.91985481 ANC - Unspent)" - Anonymizer? ok, but...

Our ORIGINAL wallet.dat does not contain the private key or another key or path of 'AYQWQCixS4cpi4gyc8vVdmrNCzKRsm245J'!!!

This is the explanation for non-confirmations of the lasts withdraws. The Blockchain not recognize this and other addresses. Was forgotten in time. This may not have been affected by a forked block, because it is an old transaction.

We can not trust the current app, we does not understand because on send 446.11059087, 310.91985481 ANC lost to a arbitrary nonexistent address in a original wallet.dat! The application is not storing correctly the private keys of anonymizer addresses.

Final Thoughts

We ask immediately withdraw their ANCs from Bleutrade. We do not know what may happen in the future, because this app is not updated over 1 year. We believe that there may exist bug in a hidden zero coin system that does not properly stores the transactions wallet.dat file. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Best regards,

Felipe McMont
COO/CTO & Co-Founder
Bleutrade.com

Alright fair enough - I guess auxPOW is the best solution then.

AuxPOW + Myraid sounds super complicated - has Meeh confirmed that this is what the plan is?  I agree that this is definitely a good thing for the coin, as long as Meeh feels confident that it can be implemented without issue. Most important is maybe a switch from kgw to some other retargeting algo (I assume there are retargeting algos that might fix this issue of large difficulty spikes from block to block). Maybe dark gravity well?

Well the most anonymous way to acquire an anonymous cryptocurrency would be solo mining via Tor.  I'd imagine the network has quite a few large solo-miners.  Maybe someone could start watching the block explorer for the IP address associated with new blocks.  Then seeing if the IP addresses correspond with Tor public gateways.  Or if the IP addresses associated with new blocks can be linked to anywhere else.  The dev's did say they were planning on soon changing from Scrypt to a three of five auxPoW chains myriad.  While meeh did say he'd have an important announcement for us soon.

My transaction from ANC-qt hasn't been broadcasted in the last 24h. What's up with that?

Question still remain, where is all the hashrate?
Anoncoin w.o public pools?

Anyone have a updated pool list, impossible to find a pool with any real hashrate using link on old threads, AnonCoins webpage etc

Hi
A  month ago I sent some startcoin v2 from desktop wallet to mcxnow exchange, didn't realize at that time they are still on version 1 of the coin. There was no warning on exchange front page about this and on startcoin ANN front page mcxnow was listed as one of the exchange for this coin. It's not a big deal that I lost a couple of coins but what if it was a bigger amount ?! Tried to get answer on exchange chat box,mcxnow IRC channel and startcoin v2 announcement topic but nothing .... 

Hello, Why not support script Dogekoin?

Armory Version 0.92.3 Released

We have officially released 0.92.3.  It's not on the website yet (that's not automated in our release process yet), but it will be shortly.

This release not only officially brings the Tor/Privacy fix out of testing, it also fixes a rather scary-but-actually-benign bug that we found in the Armory code related to random number generation when signing Bitcoin messages (not transactions, just message signing).  For more details about this, read the full report here:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/bitcoinarmory-media/CVEs/ArmoryCVE-2014-002.pdf

Armory Tech has pretty thoroughly investigated the incident and believes that no action is needed by anyone, even if you have signed thousands of messages.  Armory Technologies itself would be the most vulnerable since we use that feature to sign all of our releases.  We have determined that no exposure has occurred and still consider our offline signing key 100% safe.  Nonetheless, we have fixed the issue in this release.

Before asking lots of questions please read the above PDF which I spent an exceptional amount of time writing.  It is extremely thorough, both in terms of our own analysis and concerns raised by Sergio Del Lerner, whom we contacted to provide an independent third-party opinion.  We also posted this to the our recently-formed Security Working Group and received positive feedback from two members, and no one raised any concerns about the analysis.

On that note, here's the download links for the new version, but as always, we encourage you to use the secure downloader to get the new version if possible  (at this point most people should have 0.91+ and can use the secure downloader).

---

  Armory 0.92.3 for Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8+ (32- and 64-bit)
  Armory 0.92.3 for MacOSX 10.7+ (64bit)
  Armory 0.92.3 for Ubuntu 12.04+ (32bit)
  Armory 0.92.3 for Ubuntu 12.04+ (64bit)
  Armory 0.92.3 for RaspberryPi  (armhf)


  Armory 0.92.3 Offline Bundle for Ubuntu 12.04 exact (32bit)
  Armory 0.92.3 Offline Bundle for Ubuntu 12.04 exact (64bit)
  Armory 0.92.3 Offline Bundle for RaspberryPi  (armhf)

  Armory 0.92.3: Signed hashes of all installers

---

GOOD NEWS:  The latest Bitcoin Core release relaxed the isStandard() logic, so you should be able to up to 7-of-7 Armory Lockboxes on mainnet.  I haven't actually tested this, but I expect by now that a critical mass of miners have upgraded to Core 0.9.3, so spending 7-of-7 (or smaller) coins should work. 

The only requirement is that you upgrade your own version of Core to 0.9.3 -- which has been updated in the secure downloader as well!

---

Other fixes: 

• URI handling bug fix (Coinbase-generated links were not working with Armory)
• Raspberry Pi install script and offline bundle was hosed.  Some empty debs have been replaced, and the double-click script should work properly now.  Please test it out for me!
• The Ubuntu offline bundles have been upgraded to support 12.04.5 now (since 12.04.3 was difficult to find).

What about an Android client that is not a full Anoncoin node, but instead talks (over I2P) to a server that the user sets up on their own PC, or syncs up with it over LAN when the user is at home? This would still be fully decentralized, since it's one of the user's devices trusting another device owned by that same user, rather than trusting a server run by somebody else.

I'm a bit skeptical that the current generation of smartphones can verify blocks containing a lot of Zerocoin mints and spends, and store the required amount of ZC spend proofs. It might require more cores, more flash, better battery technology, etc.

EDIT: And w.r.t. matthewh3's statistic about the number of smartphone users, we should not consider the general Internet population, but instead the privacy-conscious Internet population as our customers, and much more of them would be reluctant to use smartphones for purposes that require good anonymity (for life-or-death situations, etc.) It's become more or less common knowledge among such types that smartphones are a highly opaque hardware and software stack compared to PCs, and much less certain that there are no backdoors... therefore, we would expect the privacy-conscious demographic to be skewed toward more PCs and fewer smartphones.

No offense taken I'm not really a fan of closed garden social networks much either but the FBook does have a lot of content.  I2p is being developed for Android so why not potentially an Android wallet via I2p.  Instead of an Electrum build blockchain.info code could potentially be ported and exteneded for Zerocoin.  I'm a desktop PC nerd with a big HDTV for a monitor user myself, but for a large majority of people now it's either smartphones, tablets, netbooks and nettops only.  Although the amount of full PC's in use worldwide is expected to still grow by 25% over the next five years.  So it's certainly not the end of the world staying full and paper wallet only.  Or at least until I2p on Android is fully developed?

There's now a lot more sole mobile and lightweight devices users then there is people who have access to their own PC.  Plus sooner rather than later Electrum will be officially in the Android Play store.