|
To bad that cpuminer is not working on mac os x
|
|
|
|
|
Oh thats so nice , dev is deleting posts
|
|
|
|
Yw , i hope dev will add this one on the op , the current one from the op is a 32bit version and is not working on a 64bit win wallet work fine for both versions (32 and 64) Are you sure , i tried your version on a 64bit virtual win and is not working |
|
|
|
Yw , i hope dev will add this one on the op , the current one from the op is a 32bit version and is not working on a 64bit win |
|
|
|
net.cpp: {"walletbuilders.com", "node.walletbuilders.com"},
:-(
But pool.mn is now up
Ahhh, I had the right feeling  Oh so thats why mr dev did not upload it to github , he tried to hide that his coin was made on walletbuilders.com  { "version" : 1000005, "protocolversion" : 70002, "walletversion" : 60000, "balance" : 0.00000000, "blocks" : 15, "timeoffset" : -1, "connections" : 2, "proxy" : "", " difficulty" : 393.01349325, "testnet" : false, "keypoololdest" : 1437422541, "keypoolsize" : 101, "paytxfee" : 0.00000000, "mininput" : 0.00001000, "errors" : "" } |
|
|
|
so DOGECOIN CA$H dev strikes again  |
|
|
|
learn how to solo-mine against the wallet guys.
i cant believe this issue keeps popping up at coin-launches.
net hash 1 ph or something like that, impossible to find a block Is not 1 ph , maybe 1 GH this is scrypt not sha You can also pool mine with the Windows qt. What is the point of not releasing the source?
EDIT : if you dont need to hide something...
Yeah , you can make a pool with win qt to ,and yes maybe he want to hide something |
|
|
|
Dev bad move to release the coin without the source and just win wallet , do you want to instamine your coin before release the source  HashPay also he was with crowdsale and launch no src only winqt You better release the src now , or do you want to drive away the miners |
|
|
|
Dev bad move to release the coin without the source and just win wallet , do you want to instamine your coin before release the source |
|
|
|
Yw and is scorpio |
|
|
|
Scorpio -
There was no conspiracy to limit our node's connections to cause a fork in our own coin, there is absolutely no benefit for a coin dev team to intentionally cause a fork on our own coin. We released the source code and windows wallet to the entire community at the same time. If a fork happened at block 1, it is because the first pool to mine a block was not synced to our network when it started mining - that is also not a realistic course of action - what pool would intentionally decide to run off on its own chain at the launch of a coin? The most likely scenario is that a fork happened at block 643 based on what we see on the block chain. Not having the block0001.dat the fork was on makes it impossible for us to compare blockhashes to confirm/deny exactly when it happened.
Dont try to hide that you mined like crazy 500 blocks on your "good fork" , why did you choose your fork and not the pools fork there was a big hash on the pools fork but no you have chosen your own fork because you did not wanted to lose your 500 blocks mined . P.S: Please explain why your nodes was closing our connection , just 2 guys got connected to your nodes but the rest was getting this on debug log send version message: version 60015, blocks=0, us=xxxxxxxx:43208, them=188.166.121.151:43208, peer=188.166.121.151:43208 ThreadDNSAddressSeed exited socket closed disconnecting node 188.166.121.151:43208 trying connection 188.166.121.151:43208 lastseen=371182.9hrs connected 188.166.121.151:43208 send version message: version 60015, blocks=0, us=xxxxxxxx:43208, them=188.166.121.151:43208, peer=188.166.121.151:43208 socket closed trying connection 45.55.249.167:43208 lastseen=74.0hrs connect() failed after select(): Connection refused P.S : There was not fkc fork at block 643 , when i resynced my wallet to your fork i lost all my coins same for ocminer. |
|
|
|
I've resynched to the new chain:
src/Pulsard getinfo
{
"version" : "v2.0.0.0-g32a928e",
"protocolversion" : 60015,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"newmint" : 0.00000000,
"stake" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 1413,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"moneysupply" : 538600.00000000,
"connections" : 6,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : {
"proof-of-work" : 458609.17120864,
"proof-of-stake" : 0.00390625
},
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1436258768,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00100000,
"mininput" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}
And as expected, EVERY coin is gone since it was a totally different fork from the start.
Since the Dev's nodes where down, the node I connected, pool.mn's node, was the "masternode" and everything was mined upon this chain.. Then at some time the Dev's node came back online and instead of connecting to pool.mn, suprnova or the other pools, he started mining from block zero and the folks which connected there then mined everything new.. So there was no fork at Block 5xx ..
It was like two separate launches next to each other..
I still don't really get why not simply the pool's chain has been used as the dev was waiting for pools and there where three pools on the same chain with lots of hash on it...
First off, apologies for taking so long to address this morning's posts. I spent a much needed day with my family who I'd neglected quite a bit while we prepared for this launch (unfortunately, the wife and kid aren't coders!). Our nodes were not down at any point as far as we can tell. Looking through the history of the thread, there were several people that had no problems connecting to them. We'd set up a node in the US and one in Europe with DigitalOcean to try to have a stable network, it wasn't sufficient. I can't say why you, ocminer, or poolmn could not connect to them - it was an unfortunate circumstance. Looking through the BE it seems more like the fork happened at block 643. That ~40 minute block and immediate drop in diff tells me that a lot of hash left our network preceding that block.  poolmn can you check some of your blockhashes against the block explorer to confirm this? http://cryptobe.com/chain/Pulsar?hi=675&count=50Once we get this sorted out we plan to migrate our nodes to vultr to further stabilize the network. This fork business sucked, there's no two ways about it. Regardless of the difficulties we've encountered thus far, we will see this project through as far as the community wants us to. I'll be on for quite some time this evening working and will be available to address any questions or concerns from the community. Thanks. Hey man do not try to fool us , like ocminer said there was 2 forks right from the beginning , about the nodes , maybe you just limited connection at start so you can mine yourself some coins , here is the address that mined almost 500 blocks http://cryptobe.com/address/PLx9W4VHj94tqKKmmLS4b9sfw95mopNe78 , and you keep telling us that the fork was at block 675 , first you said that was at 577 now is at 675 , if there was a fork at that block where is ocminer coins |
|
|
|
We restarted the nodes. Please try connecting to again. We have 18 connections currently.
{
"protocolversion" : 60015,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"newmint" : 0.00000000,
"stake" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 596,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"moneysupply" : 0,
"connections" : 15
"difficulty" : {
"proof-of-work" : 110289.70674336,
"proof-of-stake" : 0.00390625
},
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1436256093,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00100000,
"mininput" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}
The problems is right now there are some peers on the wrong fork so is hard to get on the right one when you try to re-sync , i have managed to get connection to one of your nodes and i'm on the right fork right now  { "version" : "v2.0.0.0-g32a928e", "protocolversion" : 60015, "walletversion" : 60000, "balance" : 0.00000000, "newmint" : 0000.00000000, "stake" : 0.00000000, "blocks" : 611, "timeoffset" : 0, "moneysupply" : 299100.00000000, "connections" : 2, "proxy" : "", "ip" : "", "difficulty" : { "proof-of-work" : 154307.03195104, "proof-of-stake" : 0.00390625 }, "testnet" : false, "keypoololdest" : 1436258561, "keypoolsize" : 101, "paytxfee" : 0.00000000, "mininput" : 0.00000000, "errors" : "" }  [ { "addr" : "173.23.75.89:43208", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1436263103, "lastrecv" : 1436263103, "conntime" : 1436262403, "version" : 60015, "subver" : "/Pulsar:4.0.0/", "inbound" : false, "startingheight" : 587, "banscore" : 0 }, { "addr" : "188.166.121.151:43208", "services" : "00000001", "lastsend" : 1436263103, "lastrecv" : 1436263103, "conntime" : 1436262533, "version" : 60015, "subver" : "/Pulsar:4.0.0/", "inbound" : false, "startingheight" : 587, "banscore" : 0 } ] |
|
|
|
Suprnova, can you please temporarily pause your daemon, delete your blockchain data, and sync to the nodes again they are still at 577 block
Pool.mn, please resync with us.
We can get this fork resolved, it happened at block 577.
What you dont understand man , we cant get connected to your nodes connected 45.55.164.108:43208 send version message: version 60015, blocks=0, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=45.55.164.108:43208, peer=45.55.164.108:43208 socket closed disconnecting node 45.55.164.108:43208 trying connection 188.166.121.151:43208 lastseen=371184.0hrs connected 188.166.121.151:43208 send version message: version 60015, blocks=0, us=xxxxxxx:43208, them=188.166.121.151:43208, peer=188.166.121.151:43208 socket closed |
|
|
|
|
So pool.mn was getting connection to the nodes posted on the ANN but the rest of us dont , hmmm thats strange , even ocminer used pool.mn as a node hmmm..
|
|
|
|
trying connection 45.55.249.167:43208 lastseen=74.0hrs connect() failed after select(): Connection refused trying connection 45.55.249.167:43208 lastseen=74.0hrs connect() failed after select(): Connection refused trying connection 45.55.249.167:43208 lastseen=74.0hrs connect() failed after select(): Connection refused trying connection 45.55.249.167:43208 lastseen=74.0hrs Nodes are rejecting connections. Moreover, they are hosted at digital ocean.. It seems that many times in the past some coins have had sync/fork issues with nodes hosted there. I thought devs understood by now it was shite.. Surprisingly ocminer had no trouble syncing, everyone else did  No problems here either, just use the nodes from the OP, we were up before 'nova The nodes was closing my connection on win wallet send version message: version 60015, blocks=0, us=xxxxxxxx:43208, them=188.166.121.151:43208, peer=188.166.121.151:43208 ThreadDNSAddressSeed exited socket closed disconnecting node 188.166.121.151:43208 trying connection 188.166.121.151:43208 lastseen=371182.9hrs connected 188.166.121.151:43208 send version message: version 60015, blocks=0, us=xxxxxxxx:43208, them=188.166.121.151:43208, peer=188.166.121.151:43208 socket closed disconnecting node 188.166.121.151:43208 trying connection 45.55.164.108:43208 lastseen=86.9hrs connected 45.55.164.108:43208 send version message: version 60015, blocks=0, us=xxxxxxxx:43208, them=45.55.164.108:43208, peer=45.55.164.108:43208 socket closed So this is just another fail launch like the first one |
|
|
|
|
The blocks are flying like crazy lol
"version" : "v2.0.0.0-g32a928e",
"protocolversion" : 60015,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 500.00000000,
"newmint" : 0.00000000,
"stake" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 587,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"moneysupply" : 290700.00000000,
"connections" : 4,
"proxy" : "",
"ip" : "",
"difficulty" : {
"proof-of-work" : 1316.00329085,
"proof-of-stake" : 0.00390625
},
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1436258561,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"mininput" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
EDIT: First launch was a fail and i think the second one was the same a fail , so 900 blocks mined in a few minutes
|
|
|
|
Do you dont think, that 30% Premine is a little bit too much?
And the Block Halving will come in about 8 years? o_O
I would rather bet on a dev earning for his/her hard work via creating value for his/her premine, with what's being proposed for SPEC, than have a dev lose interest in what he/she is doing due to the project not being self-sustainable. In fact I like high premines on legitimate projects, because they also deter poor evaluators of risk from getting involved. On a lot of new coins, I mine the same amount as the premine or more, and dump into bids. And I don't disclose it... and neither does anyone else who does the same... did you ever consider that risk? Personally I'll be mining the hell out of this. EDIT: Hey dev, any idea why the win-qt is tripping alerts on Ikarus, ESET-NOD32, and Fortinet? I know you mentioned it in the OP and suggested compiling from source if there are any concerns. https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/4447cc3d52c46893afb387020f1ca2b43eddcd746cfd1bd9daa0c1192d13e6a4/analysis/1435494783/It's the standard false positive for a qt wallet with the ability to setgenerate but usually only ESET-NOD32 reports that false positive. The other two generally leave it alone. For the time being I suggest to everyone else that if you're concerned about trusting a wallet that you leave your coins on your mining pool until the dev can expound on the alert tripping. Dev, maybe even getting a code review from earlz or ocminer would be a good idea. Thank you for your kind words. These are just false positives. It will change depending on which site you use to scan it also. For instance it trips slightly different https://www.metascan-online.com/en/scanresult/file/eaf9fc48cff4409c8ec0bf2e28e79077#summaryhttp://r.virscan.org/report/1c424a11ce337f230d66c9e9897651f0Its actually not 3 different results that are tripping, its just one result tripping on 3 different engines. It all centers around "bitcoinminer" It all revolves around the ability to mine from the wallet, listen to the network/nodes etc. We are actually getting multiple code reviews with detailed information to make sure the community understands our dedication to the SPEC community and Digital Currency as a whole. If anyone has concerns, the answer would be to wait until a detailed code review or compile from source to ease their minds. I just compiled the win wallet from source and here is the virustotal scan result https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/6b4ce5f1180474143901018aeabaea9f65f1df3f945b24a407abaaa06cf06b17/analysis/1435511597/ EDIT: https://www.metascan-online.com/en/scanresult/file/4ab96ccaab3249699a5aca50b32e0b18 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
