The thing is, in the USA, if you protest against the government, some church or religion or corporations, people just mostly really don't care.
 Joking? |
|
|
|
|
Oh look, memes
And they are great!
Thanks kibblesnbits
|
|
|
|
this is the worst coin I've ever seen, can't you explain what happened to the 9000 blocks??
If you read the whole thread you will notice that it was typed wrong by me, and I corrected it. The 9000 blocks where mined within few hours/days after the release. A blockexporer will soon be up, and you can see the datestamps yourself. Here it is:
what a liar. Only half day (or less), that 9000+ blocks are gone?? premined? instamined? it's a crap..
Sorry, typed a bit fast there. post is updated. On the launch it was only 1000 premined. Now it's more since people have been mining a day. The retargeting is at 420 blocks, not 420 blocks per day. Thanks for noticing and sorry for the confusion. See https://github.com/Anoncoin/anoncoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L845 for more deep-info. It is not the typo thing. From your code the block time is 3.42 min, and per day there are 24*60 / 3.42 = 420 blocks, there's nothing wrong there. You still did not answer what happened to the 9000 blocks?? PREMINED!!  Arlington, I agree with you, this is the worst coin I ever seen too. I went through some code, it is evidently done by a novice programmer: static const int64 nTargetTimespan = 420 * 205.2; // Anoncoin: 420 blocks
static const int64 nTargetSpacing = 3.42 * 60; // Anoncoin: 3.42 minutes
static const int64 nInterval = nTargetTimespan / nTargetSpacing; The novice programmer tries to assign a float (3.42 * 60 = 205.2) to an integer, he apparently did not know the value of nTargetSpacing is 205 and not 205.2. Magically, with the rounding, he still get 420 blocks per retarget. Then the dev starts to play cool: int64 nActualTimespanMax = ((nTargetTimespan*99)/70);
int64 nActualTimespanMin = ((nTargetTimespan*70)/99);
instead of using the factor 4 in the original Litecoin code, the dev used sqrt(2) as the factor of adjustment. In normal coins, the initial diff adjustment is big, usually at least by a factor of 128. Even with 4 it caused a lot of instaminings. That's why coins like Luckycoin etc added accelerated diff adjusting (using a factor much bigger than 4). With this stupid sqrt(2), it slows 4 times the diff adjustment even compared to Litecoin. To make 128 times adjustment, it needs 14 retargets: (sqrt(2))^14 = 128. The retarget time for this coin is 3.42 min * 420 = 24 hrs. This means that this coin needs 14 block days to adjust its diff to a level that is comparable to its design! What a fail! this will cause huge instaminings in between, and make this coin completely useless. So Arlington, the 9000 blocks missing could be premined, or instamined, we can see it in blockbrowser. but in any case, this coin is completely worthless. I am sure there will be other code glitches, but I have no interests to do debugging and code review there, lol  inb4 it's just the beginning, I just wanted to bring the awesome tor feature, I didn't focus on the code eyecandiness, but you will see, my code will be super cool, soon™ |
|
|
|
Can you be more specific? That's a legitimate registrar.
This |
|
|
|
5 posts, only 2 following the OP rule  6 now |
|
|
|
Looks like more and more people needs double-spending because of forever unconfirmed transactions. If you created your transaction with bitcoin-qt (aka Satoshi client or bitcoin client), follow this guide, which uses pywallet. This would delete the transaction from your delete and allow you to create a new one. If not, you are in the right place. 1. Export your private key in base58 format (how to do this depends on the software used to make the unconfirmed transaction, but I'm sure it is straight-forward) 2. Create an empty wallet in bitcoin-qt (can be done with renaming your current wallet.dat to wallet.dat.bak and launching bitcoin-qt. Just be sure to keep wallet.dat.bak...) 3. Launch bitcoin-qt 4. Import the private key into bitcoin-qt (see this: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/How_to_import_private_keys_v7%2B) 5. Quit bitcoin-qt 6. Run 7. Wait 8. Wait... 9. Now you have the full balance of the single key you imported (compare with blockexplorer. If not, stop here and post in this thread) 10. Create the transaction you wanted to do without forgetting the fee 11. Delete the new, nearly empty wallet.dat (just rename it if you're not sure about that part) 12. Rename wallet.dat.bak (thus your original wallet) to wallet.dat 13. Done |
|
|
|
I'm talking with oliviancool via PMs right now, but for future reference: - The pywallet method given by dhenson only works when you sent the transaction with bitcoin-qt
- Otherwise, if you made the transaction with blockchain.info/an Android app/etc, get the private key corresponding to the sending address, and make a double-spend: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=231309.0
|
|
|
|
America.... isn't that what they call "land of the free"?  The U.S. is more censored, monitored and controlled by secret agencies than countries like Iran, China or North-Korea. Except the puppeteers in the U.S. do a better job, because the majority isn't even aware of it and call themselves "proud to be American". It's a frigging joke Anyway, kudos for mister Edward Snowden for standing up for his moral beliefs, even if it may will cost him his life. You're a hero, Edward. FTFY Besides that, +1 |
|
|
|
I think is better we never know who is Satoshi in the reallity. I don't want USA authorities following him  agree, they would put S.N. into the same cage with Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden +1 Fucking crazy country |
|
|
|
Well, I didn't expect that kind of shit storm but I can understand your mistrust.
Only three people successfully working on an ASIC doesn't sound very authentic especially considering the costs you have in mind but I think this widely overestimated. I was suprised too that this worked out that well in only one year, but I really don't know what went wrong at BFL and friends. We largely used existing hardware and just assembled it in the right way. Some parts we had to design our selves of cause but this was and still is not a million dollar effort.
And we are talking about "ASIC proof" scrypt algortihm here. In my oppinion the memory related design made it even more easy to build an ASIC because you don't need a extreamly high specialized computing section but the right memory and this is what we've been working on.
Maybe this is not a ASIC in the sence that we placed every single transistor on our own but we assembled something that is definitely specialized on scrypt mining with useable success, so this can't be called a FGPA either.
I agree all this looks quite unorgnized at the moment. And you are right that we didn't prepare a bullet proof launch of all this but please give us some time to provide enough information before labelling us as scammers.
Nobody forces you to donate right away if you have doubts. Just wait before complaining about somethin you have no conception of yet.
Again: You do have a working prototype, could you please post a video of it working? |
|
|
|
First solution doesn't work as the tx wasn't locally created
Second solution is really annoying...
If you're sure that blockchain.info doesn't allow deleting transactions, I'd "double spend" the transaction
There should be good howto's about that out there
I can provide a short one if you can't find one
tried looking for ways t double spend but Im not having much luck, I sent you a pm if you can still help me out I just saw it, I'll answer here so that anyone with a similar problem can read it How would I go about double spending that transaction? would I need to do it from my friends wallet? and why would asking a pool operator to include the transaction in with their next block be annoying.
First of all: contacting a pool operator it's annoying because you have to use/trust a third party and requires to create the raw transaction. But it is working. Double spendingMust be done with the sending wallet. Ie "you" = the guy who sends the funds See this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=231309.0 |
|
|
|
Tell us your oppinion!
You decide what kind of device we are building our chips into.
1. PCI-e device:
We are currently working with an PCI-e boad so this would be the design we would be able to finish the earliest.
This would be a devide in the size of a graphics card powered by a typical 6-Pin supply.
We assume to be able to build up to 16 Chips on one board that would give max. 80 MH/s at the current state of developement.
We would set up a product line with 4, 8 or 12 Chips so 40MH/s in average.
2. USB-Stick:
A portable solution limited by the USB power capacities. To make this one happen we need to shrink our chip design to reduce power consumtion. We are not sure this would result in any useable hashrate because the vital memory needs lots of power.
3. general USB device:
Maybe this is the most convenient design.
A Box you can put somewhere where it doesn't annoy you powered by external power supply and connectet to an ordinary PC via USB.
This devices could be scaled up to any ammount of chips and therefore any hashpower.
4. standalone rig:
This is the original design we planned to build for our own purposes.
We planned to build as many chips as possible as compact as possible into one single rig that you could mount into a typical 19 inch server rack. We are not sure what hashrate we would be able to reach with this design but it would be amazing, for sure.
I thought you were broke and couldn't continue developing without donations |
|
|
|
|
Je ferais un vote à ta place
|
|
|
|
Great I'll definitely follow this So here we are having a working ASIC prototype and lots of further concepts
Any videos of them working to share? |
|
|
|
Let's say you have to send user's account balance back.
For security reasons you have locked it so that it can be cashed out only to the address that sent the money.
Now when user sends money you see 2 addresses. The one that has sent/spent the money and the one that got the "change" back. Right?
To which one of them you think would be wiser to send the money back?
The original one is spent, so i'm not sure what happens with it and for how long it's kept?
The one that got the change is also owned by the user (unless there are some exceptions with web based wallets and the like?)
So do you see any drawbacks or advantages to any of the options?
What would you do?
I would sit down and read about how Bitcoin works, then come back here and ask a different question. Seriously. Wise words |
|
|
|
I have an armory wallet and need to sign a message to prove ownership of a particular address to recover scammed funds. I'm running the MacOSx. Is the message signing compatible with bitcoin-qt yet? If so, How do I sign in this method? I currently tried verifying a signed message and it failed in bitcoin-qt.
Thank you!
I don't think etotheipi already put the code in Armory (I can be wrong though) If you have python on your OSX I can make tweak my code a bit to do what you want until it's implemented |
|
|
|
|
First solution doesn't work as the tx wasn't locally created
Second solution is really annoying...
If you're sure that blockchain.info doesn't allow deleting transactions, I'd "double spend" the transaction
There should be good howto's about that out there
I can provide a short one if you can't find one
|
|
|
|
Not sure it's a Bitcoin meme but yeah I hope it will go ok with Iceland... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
