Bitcoin Forum
May 23, 2024, 11:55:21 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 »
521  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: SolidCoin v2.01 Released on: November 02, 2011, 08:15:45 PM
By the way I think there might be another nastier and more fundamental flaw in the trusted node stuff - one that I'm kicking myself for not thinking of when SolidCoin 2 was first released - but it really needs a closer look. Will let you all know if it pans out.
522  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: SolidCoin v2.01 Released on: November 02, 2011, 07:12:04 PM
Apparently to hard for that asshole, had to fix his broken ones first time round so you could compile now he can't even be bothered shipping the broken ones for people to fix up, what a joke you people are.

Holly fuck! RealSolid must have some mad skillzzzzzzzz. He compiled those binaries he has for download in his site using broken makefiles, is that what you're saying?
I never could quite figure out how he managed that either, but somehow he did.
523  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: SolidCoin v2.01 Released on: November 02, 2011, 05:20:09 PM
That last bit is brilliant, it means that RS can, in fact, loot the funds quite nicely.
Just tell one, any one, to send 1m coins for the trusted block fee instead of the minimum amount.
Presto!  CPF with >1,000,000 coins!
Now the CPF is a trusted node.
It might actually be worse than that, after a closer look. The payment is done in two parts: a transaction fee on the trusted node's payment which feeds into a coinbase transaction that pays out to the CPF. The code checks that the coinbase has a total value equal to the fees plus the amount generated, and it checks that the first coinbase output on trusted blocks goes to the CPF, but it doesn't seem to place the same "only one output" restriction on the coinbase part that it does on the trusted node's original payment. So a trusted node could in theory pay as much trustfund money as they like to whatever address they like in any trusted block they create, just so long as they make a token payment of a fraction of a SolidCoin to the CPF too.
524  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: SolidCoin v2.01 Released on: November 02, 2011, 04:53:41 PM
4) The change to payout rate ensures nobody except RS will have enough coins to have a trusted node.
5) I think that the existing trusted nodes can conspire to stop anyone else from becoming a trusted node. It appears that in order to be a trusted node, you need 1 million SC in a single address and you need to transfer it there in a single transaction. (Look at CTransaction::ConnectInputs.) If the trusted nodes refuse all such big transactions, no-one else can ever become one.

Also, it may actually be possible for RealSolid - or anyone else - to spend money in the trustfund accounts if they're clever about how they do it and if the account still has at least 1 million SC in it. It's not possible to use money from those addresses for anything except trusted block validation, and the first output of that validation transaction has to go to the same address that the coins originated from, but I can't see anything to stop someone from creating a second output and sending themselves some money at a different address.
Edit: Never mind, that won't work due to a check elsewhere in the code:
Code:
if(vtx[1].vin.size()!=1 || vtx[1].vout.size()!=1)   return error("VerifyBlock() : trusted block second tx more than 1 input or output");

Additionally, it appears that the code only restricts the minimum amount of coins that creators of trusted blocks must pay to RealSolid, with no maximum amount:
Code:
 if(valDiff<blockValue)                                              return error("ConnectInputs() : trusted tx p
ayment less than CPF");
525  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Did we ever find out why squidnet was losing money? on: November 02, 2011, 12:08:53 PM
Quote
[18:40] <TimothyA> the issue was with neither squidnet's code or solidcoin (partly solidcoin, due to the send buys prior to b9)                                                           
[18:40] <TimothyA> it was MMC's code which was full of shit code and race conditions                                                           
[20:11] <TimothyA> forward that to the bitcointalk thread about squidnet                                                           
[20:11] <TimothyA> it won't let me post there     

so looks like i was wrong.
Well, guess that sorts it then, though I'm surprised he didn't spot that sooner. The audit trail required to do so should've been available to him.
526  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Did we ever find out why squidnet was losing money? on: November 02, 2011, 12:06:32 AM
Well that explains one strategy:

Fuck with a pools blocks, so the poolop has to buy SC inorder to save face with his users.

Fucking shameful.
That's the odd thing. RealSolid can definitely block their blocks from entering the blockchain, but without a back channel that'd be hard to disguise even in a closed source client he shouldn't be able to muck with them once they're in there in this way. It just doesn't make sense.

from what i saw in the chat the issue seemed less to do with solidcoin and more to do with squidnet code. seemed like it was sending out coins to users while also marking those coins as reserved in the pool wallet to be sent out on request of the users. perhaps that is not the case but that is what seemed to be said in SC irc.
That's not how I understood it. The way I read it, he was marking coins as available to users when the blocks their shares were in reached a certain number of confirmations, but the payouts never actually became available in the pool wallet.
527  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: FPGA Chip Plot Thread on: November 01, 2011, 09:39:07 PM
I never really understood the difference, but what I have been able to grasp is that FPGAs have flipflops per LUT. In CPLDs only the immediate neigbours can be addressed directly. In FPGAs you can also address more distant ones.
Also, Wikipedia claims that CPLDs don't actually use LUTs to implement logic, which makes sense given that they're descended from PALs and those were purely sum-of-products. (The first ones were pretty much just several PALs glued together with some routing logic, from what I can tell.)

This is refereed to as wide routing and it takes a longer time till the signal is propagated through these lines. (As for if those are only hard wired lines or if they are buffered somehow idk)
All modern ones have active routing that buffers the signal somehow, though the original ones did have hard-wired lines.
528  Other / Archival / Re: delete on: November 01, 2011, 09:26:28 PM
The 79xx however is a completely new architecture (code named "graphics core next", with new instruction set, and shader design.  There are also signficant hardware changes both inside and outside the GPU.  The cards will move to higher cost but lower latency XDR2 ram for example.

How well it stacks up on both MH/w and MH/$ remains to be seen.  
Information about the new instruction set actually leaked ages ago, and it looks promising on paper.
529  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Did we ever find out why squidnet was losing money? on: November 01, 2011, 07:40:50 PM
A SolidCoin pool, squidnet, was reporting some truely bizarre problems a couple of days ago in which they were losing masses of money - their blocks appeared to be accepted, got into the blockchain and showed up on the block explorer but for some reason the payouts never showed up in their wallet. I don't remember hearing anything about what happened next or what the problem was, though. It was just bizarre and made no sense. Anyone know or can guess the answer?

Quote
16:29 <+TimothyA> RealSolid: in what scenario would we be sending more coins than we actually receive??
16:29 <+TimothyA> we're operating at a daily loss for some reason all of a sudden :|
16:30 < Bitcoinfornewegg> people withdrawing
16:30 <+TimothyA> Bitcoinfornewegg: no, this is before withdrawing
16:30 <+TimothyA> for some reason we're paying out too much
16:30 < Bitcoinfornewegg> thats indeed odd
16:30 < Bitcoinfornewegg> please dont fix it ok
16:30 <+TimothyA> -_-
16:30 <+TimothyA> if we don't fix it, pool = gone
...

16:31 < Bitcoinfornewegg> fees for tx?
16:31 <+TimothyA> Bitcoin: that wouldn't be a 50 SLC loss per hour
16:32 < brukmann> TimothyA: well, didn't one of the newer betas start marking more shares valid?
16:32 <+TimothyA> brukmann: that has nothing to do with this :|
...
16:42 <@RealSolid> TimothyA: are you recording block values correctly
16:42 <@mtrlt> mm thought squidnet uses pplns?
16:43 <+TimothyA> RealSolid: yes
16:43 <@RealSolid> TimothyA: ie youre not saying you won blocks you didnt
16:43 <@RealSolid> also
16:43 <+TimothyA> not as far as I know
16:43 < nickwright> guys what is teh issueh ??
16:43 <@RealSolid> firstly id go back over the last 100 blocks you won
16:44 <+TimothyA> I've upped the confirmations to 20
16:44 <@RealSolid> and make sure they are in the chain
16:44 <+TimothyA> they are
16:44 <@RealSolid> you checked the last 100? Tongue
16:44 <@mtrlt> could the payouts be done eligius-style? in the generation tx Tongue
16:44 <+TimothyA> sharky did
...
22:01 <+TimothyA> great, now I'm losing 50SLC every 10 minutes
22:01 <+TimothyA> fucking brilliant
22:01 <+TimothyA> for some reason I'm not getting actually paid for the blocks that made it into the chain
22:02 < mush> :S
22:02 <+TimothyA> ... and now suddendly 200SLC vanished
22:02 < forsetifox> Kill it.
22:04 <+TimothyA> ...and another 400SLC
22:05 <+TimothyA> I'm not running a goddamn faucet here
22:05 <@mtrlt> shut down everything
22:05 <+TimothyA> or do I have to put confirms on 1000 or something to get it to work reliably?
22:05 <@mtrlt> how many confirms do you use now?
22:05 <+TimothyA> mtrlt: 20
22:06 <@mtrlt> >_>
22:07 <@AhimothMobile> 20 should be plenty
22:07 <+TimothyA> AhimothMobile: then why is shit still vanishing?
...

22:10 <@mtrlt> TimothyA: are you using data from the blockexplorer to determine whether you got a block?
22:11 <+TimothyA> mtrlt: I shouldn't have to in the first place -_-
22:11 <@mtrlt> so yes Tongue
22:11 <+TimothyA> but that's the only place where I can get the goddamn blocknumber now
22:11 <+TimothyA> RELIABLY
22:11 <@mtrlt> AhimothMobile: have you fixed reorgs? Tongue
22:11 <@AhimothMobile> blockexplorer might have some bad data in it right now from the occasional re-orgs
22:12 < mush> TimothyA what are you having issues with, a website?
22:12 <+TimothyA> mush: squidnet
22:12 <@AhimothMobile> not yet... testing in dev
22:12 <+TimothyA> we're paying out more than what we're getting somehow
22:12 <+TimothyA> we're paying out more than what we're getting somehow
22:12 <@mtrlt> so that's the problem
22:12 < mush> Ah, you run it right?
22:12 <@mtrlt> problem identified but not solved.
22:12 <+TimothyA> and if it doesn't get fixed quick, we have to shut it down
...

22:22 <+TimothyA> here, wtf is this shit
22:22 <+TimothyA> there are blocks on the website that aren't even in the wallet
22:22 <@mtrlt> cuqa: make sure you're using 0.09 Tongue
22:22 <+TimothyA> yet they show up on the blockexplorer
22:22 < cuqa> yea, im using 0.09
22:22 <+TimothyA> HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT SHIT WORK?!
22:23 <@mtrlt> TimothyA: does the BE show that squidnet found the blocks?
22:23 < cuqa> is there some dbug mode for reaper why shares are invalid or whatever
22:23 <+TimothyA> mtrlt: yes, but they aren't in the wallet
22:23 <+TimothyA> but yet they are on squidnet's block listy
22:24 <+TimothyA> http://blockexplorer.ahimoth.com/Home/BlockDetails?blockNum=49273 http://blockexplorer.ahimoth.com/Home/BlockDetails?blockNum=49271 http://blockexplorer.ahimoth.com/Home/BlockDetails?blockNum=49265
22:24 <+TimothyA> not in the wallets
530  Other / Archival / Re: delete on: November 01, 2011, 05:40:49 PM
True but as you state it wasn't intentional.  There is no guarantee SHA-256 will be efficient on the new 79xx series card which use a new architecutre.  Nvidia has indicated they intend to improve GPGPU integer performance so future cards may close the performance gap.  There is no way to know how well algorithms will work on future FPGA or Structured ASIC designs.
From the currently available information, it's looking like 79xx should be at least as efficient at it as previous generations of AMD cards; all the parts still seem to be there. No idea about NVidia though. FPGA and structured ASIC is more dependent on what kind of pricing you can get than anything else.
531  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why are so many people Anti-Bitcoin? on: November 01, 2011, 01:46:07 PM
This part I've always found most confusing. By saying Bitcoin doesn't have services and products, I guess you are implying that USD has services and products? So, what is a product of US dollars?
Wrong question. What you should've been asking is "for what products and services is US dollars the most convenient way of buying and selling them?" The answer to that is obvious - nearly everything in the US, because everyone's costs and wage payments are in US dollars too! In fact, the US dollar is so useful that even I buy stuff using them fairly regularly, and I live in the UK.
532  Economy / Speculation / Re: Has anyone reported bitcoin capital gains or losses on their taxes? on: November 01, 2011, 10:33:47 AM
No, a patch for a mess that existed because there was no patch.
The mess exists because the tax code as it stands is absurd. Unrealised losses and unrealised gains aren't symmetric; if you have an unrealised gain then you haven't seen a penny of the money and quite possibly never will so it makes sense not to pay tax on them, but unrealised losses mean you're actually out real money. (Then again, it's not the only messed-up part of the tax code in the US; the handling of stock options from jobs is insane and designed to deliberately overvalue them, meaning that people can end up paying more in tax on them than they could ever have actually made from them.)
533  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: SC block reward screwed with again - cryptolottery on: October 30, 2011, 09:47:01 PM
Again the whole legality of the thing isn't really the issue (I'm still unsure of it though), but the constant manipulating the block reward is certainly an issue for those mining.
Not to mention for pools. If they don't upgrade to the latest beta in time, they'll find all their mining effort is in vain as soon as the first power block is mined. I think from what I've heard that's going to give them a window of under 24 hours to do the upgrade in total. PPS pools are likely to be particularly at risk.
534  Economy / Computer hardware / Re: Custom FPGA Board for Sale! on: October 29, 2011, 02:26:03 PM
Aaah! Tcl! I haven't even looked at that code before, and unfortunately fpgaminer is swamped with other stuff right now...

On the X6500, I'm using the firmware from LX150_makomk_speed_Test, with the clock at to 125 MHz. The software is completely different of course but the FPGA interface is still JTAG, just through an FTDI chip instead of the Xilinx platform cable. I don't know why that bitstream wouldn't work...
There are at least two different ways that different versions of fpgaminer's Xilinx-targetted code communicate over JTAG, possibly even three by now, and I'm pretty sure that the X6x00 series use a different one to the original X5000 board. You should be able to find a different TCL script that speaks the newer protocol over the Xilinx platform cable somewhere, in projects/LX150_makomk_speed_Test/scripts/ I think after digging up the appropriate PM.
535  Other / Archival / Re: EDITED TITLED: Solidcoin 2.0 GPU CUDA Nvidia Miner by MaGNET in Alpha Test on: October 28, 2011, 05:53:23 PM
- The if/else statements can be avoided but have virtually no effect on the speed of GPU (while the CPU code seems to paradoxically benefit a little).  This goes against everything CH said about if/else statements being difficult for the GPU.
Well yeah, it wouldn't. Certain kinds of if-else statements cause poor performance on GPUs but I don't think the kind of branching he's using will, whereas it you don't have a clever compiler you will pay a penalty for it on CPUs.
536  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Dangerous State of Bitcoin (.com) on: October 28, 2011, 09:42:22 AM
2) If you know they have 500% markup why don't you buy stock
It would appear that the shares of Standard Oil were owned by a handful of really wealthy families that weren't selling.
537  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Coming Soon! impossible to steal wallets on: October 27, 2011, 11:26:30 PM
I already have such a utility on my linux box, and I use if regularly:

  shred -u ~/.bitcoin/wallet.dat

Nobody's stealing that fucker!
There was actually someone on here that claimed to have recovered a wallet he accidentally deleted using shred - it's not guaranteed to actually protect you.
538  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Can't withdraw Solidcoins on: October 27, 2011, 04:10:35 PM
The releases are clearly labeled "beta", I hope everybody knows what that means  Wink
They may be labeled "beta", but it seems to be recommended that everyone uses them. From what I've heard, the last non-beta release may not even be able to update its blockchain anymore.
539  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Solidcoin lost transaction on: October 27, 2011, 02:25:29 PM
Nope it's coins sended from pool
mine-for.us. Some coins reach destination and 2 transaction lost.
I known what a s24, btc-e, squidnet has issure with withdrawing sc too.
Yeah, RealSolid somehow managed to break withdrawals for all pools and the attentive ones disabled them. Not sure how he managed this. Retroactively invalidating a few of their generates in the process of invalidating all ArtForz's would probably have this effect, but I don't think he'd be quite that stupid.
540  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Custom FPGA Mining Board: X6000/X6500 on: October 26, 2011, 09:38:07 PM
Are this synthesizer or router results? I have one design which can achieve 292 MHz according to XST,  but router delivers not more than 170 MHz.
Sorry, I was a bit unclear there. The 250 MHz is post place-and-route; you're right that it doesn't make much sense to quote anything else.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!