 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »
|
At least 15G of memory! Meaning: Most people can not participate
Where shiny future
Where is your plan
Is it not a lot easier to get a regular computer with 16 gb ram than a sha256 mining rig? That's why people are interested in this coin is it not? |
|
|
|
Blockchain Explorer Now Up!!!I just got a blockchain explorer up: http://shinychain.org/ . It includes an electrum-like wallet which I tested can send and receive coins properly. How are you affiliated with the dev ? Are you the dev ? or just a minion ? EDIT : Oh you are the dev., you forgot to log in/out  I'm as much the dev as instacash and sandor111. I like the idea behind the coin and clearly it needs some help. |
|
|
|
Blockchain Explorer Now Up!!!I just got a blockchain explorer up: http://shinychain.org/ . It includes an electrum-like wallet which I tested can send and receive coins properly.
|
|
|
|
error loading blkindex.dat what should i do?  Oh that happens if you don't have the right config file. Try sticking the config in "C:\Users\<USERNAME>\AppData\Roaming\ShinyCoin\shinycoin.conf" |
|
|
|
|
Maybe it got fubar'd somewhere along the way.. can you delete the entire data folder, and put nothing but the config file in it, and start it again? Resetting everything - truly the windows way.
|
|
|
|
ran it without the datadir flag so it would see the normal user local appdata folder, moved the conf file in there. it runs but shuts down within 5 seconds..
Does it say anything? Same error with the blkindex?  |
|
|
|
it started up but shuts down while loading error loading blkindex :/
Oh that happens if you don't have the right config file. Try sticking the config in "C:\Users\<USERNAME>\AppData\Roaming\ShinyCoin\shinycoin.conf" |
|
|
|
laxori666 this build you made has the dif adjustment? thanks
Yea I was about to post it when I saw sunny's post, so I took a few more mins to update it. Let me know if it works for you! |
|
|
|
im ready! just need windows :p my mac does not have 15 gb ram... or even 12, or 8..
(also the mac wallet freezes and debug window says shinycon :p )
Really nobody made a windows wallet yet in all this time? Fine, fine, here you all go. Tested with latest code (so I called it v0.2). Here is how I ran it: 1) Extract to C:\shinycoin 2) Make a C:\shinycoin\data subfolder 3) Put the config file in "C:\shinycoin\data\shinycoin.conf" 4) Run from the command line with "shinycoin-qt.exe -datadir=data" https://www.dropbox.com/s/gr45qhf4ssc1nqg/Shinycoin-Qt-Win-64-bit-v0.2.zip |
|
|
|
Most of us kept mining until the dev pulled git sources on purpose.
Good for you! The dev cancelled the launch 8 hours in, though, so I'm not sure why you bothered to do that. Why is it that the dev saying the launch is cancelled does not count, but the dev pulling the sources does count? You dont cancel/abort unless the majority agrees which was not the case here. I;m done wasting my time with you, good luck with the dev moron. Again, it's wonderful how easy it is to verify facts when everything is archived. Let's see how many people supported the relaunch: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=617815.140 : Things seem to be a bit strange, plus the thread subject is still [PRE-ANN]. Maybe a relaunch would be a good idea? Thanks!
This was the only right thing to do! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=617815.160 : I for one respect the OP's intentions.
Sure he may not be a seasoned expert at launching a coin, and there are a few bugs which need to be ironed out, as well as a more equitable release process, but I don't think that warrants being a belligerent wanker.
The only person who seems upset about this is you?
Given the attack hypothesis, and that fact that you've said you're running 600 cores and also published the "super node", it seems likely that you're the one holding all the coins and overpowering the chain? Seems like the first launch was a failure , let's see the second and ... maybe the third one. Nice. It will be relaunched Grin It's right decision. The launch without compiled wallet is not fair. lol buddy, its over. I'm sorry you through money at this but you are flogging a dead horse. Hi, I support Sunny Prince. As stated, his project will relaunch. My wallet builds of yesterday are thus obsolete for now. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=617815.180 : This launch happens, its broken by design, [...] The dev finally admits his mistake which is a positive thing for the community because it allows us to move forward. A relaunch is a better decision. And how many people didn't? primer-, o3u, and kov. GG NO RE |
|
|
|
Most of us kept mining until the dev pulled git sources on purpose.
Good for you! The dev cancelled the launch 8 hours in, though, so I'm not sure why you bothered to do that. Why is it that the dev saying the launch is cancelled does not count, but the dev pulling the sources does count? |
|
|
|
If the first project was lost and abandoned, then there is no point to relaunch it.
There was a DDoS by primer- a few hours in, not enough seed nodes posted, and some other minor (now fixed) issues. It was cancelled less than 4 hours in. Wow, you are aware that anyone who reads the old thread will figure out you are lying by all accounts - no DDoS, cancelled/aborted 48h after launch. Ah the joy of having everything recorded on the internet, with timestamps. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=617815.40 , May 20, 2014, 06:57:09 PM: The code is now up on github, and the seed node is up: 46.28.206.41, port 7701 (test net port 7703). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=617815.140 , May 21, 2014, 03:15:45 AM: I consider this launch a failure. I implore everyone to stop mining instantly as a criminal now holds more than 70% of the 100.000+ newly minted coins. I will not support this coin, certainly nobody else will. Time difference: 8 hours and 18 minutes. That is, way sooner than 48h after launch. |
|
|
|
|
I'll host a bunch of nodes and publish the addresses. Everyone please post their nodes as soon as they are up and sunny, keep an updated list on the first post this time.
|
|
|
|
|
Well he's not really accepting bitcoins is he? He's accepting cash, and letting you give him cash via BitPay.
|
|
|
|
Since ProcessBlock is so slow, there is a window where a new block will arrive for processing while the miner is working off stale data (assuming the incoming block is valid). Slow hash validation was one of the objections that the Litecoin devs had to switching from scrypt to X11, even though X11 isn't all that slow.
Right... but wouldn't it be the same for the multithreaded client? ProcessBlock will still be slow. Single-threaded it'll still only work on at most 1 stale block (the one it's working on when a block comes in), which is the same if it were multithreaded (the miner would still only work on at most 1 stale block, the one it's working on when a block comes in). |
|
|
|
I think the biggest problems with the launch were caused by the threading problem in the client. Since only 1 hashing thread at a time can be run out-of-the-box there were two problems:
1> people with multiple cores had to start multiple instances of the daemon, which caused high amounts of connections between nodes
2> when mining from the daemon, the mining thread caused the processblock thread to stall frequently. This would wedge incoming blocks and cause orphans to be mined by the miner thread, along with slow relaying of blocks across the network.
The dev needs to AT LEAST allow concurrency between hashing for mining and running processblock. Memory usage will be doubled, however. If it's launched without a fix for this the same thing will happen.
Since I modifed my daemon to workaround this problem, I was able to obtain a good amount of non-orphaned blocks from the start with only a few processors -- even so, I'm looking forward to the relaunch!
Interesting. That makes sense to at least let people with the resources to use them all to mine from just one node. Though if someone doesn't have 3.2 gigs to spare they should still be able to run with just 1 thread. So with the threading issue the following happens: - Miner starts hashing what will be a valid block - New block comes in, ProcessBlock locks on the hash part - Miner finishes, creates orphan block & broadcasts - ProcessBlock finishes, now the wallet realizes it was an orphan But wait if you have two threads won't the same thing happen? Since ProcessBlock came later, even if it's running simultaneously in a separate thread, it'll still finish after the miner generates the block already. And how likely is this? It only happens if you happen to hit the 1 in 512 (or whatever it ended up being) jackpot right when a block comes in. Although granted the blocks were coming pretty quickly. |
|
|
|
You didn't answer my question. And you are lying. The linux daemon I compiled connected to 2 peers sometimes, and the windows one instacash posted ended up connecting to 4 peers. Even if it were true, that doesn't answer why *your node* had access to the seed node, but nobody else did.
Maybe he just got connected before anyone else and had enough instances running to overload it? Look back in the thread, primer- started off by complaining about connection problems like everyone else. Then he posts a node which somehow can connect to the server, when nobody else can. What is special about his node? Even if not malicious, I am curious, so that next time I can do the same and actually connect. Also I just checked out the peercoin repository and compared it with the shinycoin code I still have, and I see no significant differences in net.cpp or net.h . If peercoin's wallet isn't broken re: connecting to peers, then neither is shinycoin. |
|
|
|
You are a one incompetent idiot. I've had nothing to do with the DDoS. I dedicated an entire 8core server to run as a node only as the seeds you hardcoded were dead at block 5.
Good luck with this retard guys, i would not let him change my tire, let alone develop an e-currency.
Why could your node connect to the seed but nobody else could? My daemon would disconnect the seed as soon as it connected, it kept trying but never succeeded. Don't see why an 8-core server would have better luck with it. I had the code changed to connect to more peers at once which the original broken wallet was not capable of. There is absolutely no truth in his claims. You didn't answer my question. And you are lying. The linux daemon I compiled connected to 2 peers sometimes, and the windows one instacash posted ended up connecting to 4 peers. Even if it were true, that doesn't answer why *your node* had access to the seed node, but nobody else did. |
|
|
|
You are a one incompetent idiot. I've had nothing to do with the DDoS. I dedicated an entire 8core server to run as a node only as the seeds you hardcoded were dead at block 5.
Good luck with this retard guys, i would not let him change my tire, let alone develop an e-currency.
Why could your node connect to the seed but nobody else could? My daemon would disconnect the seed as soon as it connected, it kept trying but never succeeded. Don't see why an 8-core server would have better luck with it. |
|
|
|
|
