TLC, your bots are pissing me off.  Not guilty, my bots were getting pissed off too.  |
|
|
|
Basically, whenever you have a wallet that includes a trading page, you can expect to have to specify Qt5 in order to satisfy the JSON handling requirement that arises when interacting with exchange APIs. For me, there are some minor file permission issues with the latest commit, so ensure that autogen.sh, share/genbuild.sh and src/leveldb/build_detect_platform are all executable. Then you should be okay to run ... $ ./autogen.sh
$ ./configure --with-gui=qt5
$ make
(If you can live without wallet portability, you can link to the ubuntu distro libdb-5.* libs by using the incompatibility directive: --with-incompatible-bdb.) Cheers Graham Thanks Graham!  |
|
|
|
Build fails on Xubuntu 14.04 64. All deps in build-unix.md are installed. CXX qt/qt_libbitcreditqt_a-poolbrowser.o
In file included from qt/poolbrowser.cpp:1:0:
qt/poolbrowser.h:21:21: fatal error: QUrlQuery: No such file or directory
#include <QUrlQuery>
^
compilation terminated.
make[2]: *** [qt/qt_libbitcreditqt_a-poolbrowser.o] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/stu/Downloads/bicreditsnew-master/src'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
|
|
|
|
Examples include:
- Sponsoring an advertising campaign
- Sponsoring development
- Donating to the Darkcoin Foundation's address
- Consolidating the Masternode payments to one dedicated wallet without the need to start the hot wallet  Doesnt start-many do exactly that? Except I didn't get the hot wallet part... I think crowning means 'donating' 100% of your MN payments to an address in your day to day wallet, so you can leave the MN wallet cold? |
|
|
|
sorry to interrupt guys (and girls) but it looks like the proof of service is getting integrated into v.0.11.2 (which is still in testing phase by the way). https://github.com/darkcoin/darkcoin/commits/v0.11.2.xProof of service seems to bring the following (subject to change as its still in testing phase) : - Ensures ports remain open and client are responsive to IX requests. - Completely 100% decentralized. This farms out the work of checking the masternode network to the masternode network. 1% of the network is determistically selected to check another 1% of the network each block. It takes six separate checks to deactivate a node, thus making it tamper proof. - Nodes are kept in the masternode list if they fail enough PoSe checks to deactivate. They will continue to be checked until the operator fixes them. However they will not be paid while they're failing checks. exciting developments qwizzie Pity 90% of the hashrate is centralised via 3 pools. Why not shift blockchain security to the Masternodes using a similar Proof of Service model? It would be literally thousands of times more secure than the current useless arrangement of miners. That's one of the primary reasons POS coins suck is because the largest holders are also responsible for the new money supply. With a POW mining scheme, anyone can fire up some hash and try mining to obtain coins. If it was strictly masternodes securing the network, only those with capital (namely 1k blocks) get new coins unless a person goes out and buys them. Because it's impossible for a group of people to club together and run a Masternode, right?  Because it's so realistic for miners to remain connected to rogue pools, right? If miners cared, they wouldn't all be using the same 3 pools. Why stick with a broken/easily breakable system when the code and infrastructure already exists to make blockchain security thousands of times more robust? |
|
|
|
sorry to interrupt guys (and girls) but it looks like the proof of service is getting integrated into v.0.11.2 (which is still in testing phase by the way). https://github.com/darkcoin/darkcoin/commits/v0.11.2.xProof of service seems to bring the following (subject to change as its still in testing phase) : - Ensures ports remain open and client are responsive to IX requests. - Completely 100% decentralized. This farms out the work of checking the masternode network to the masternode network. 1% of the network is determistically selected to check another 1% of the network each block. It takes six separate checks to deactivate a node, thus making it tamper proof. - Nodes are kept in the masternode list if they fail enough PoSe checks to deactivate. They will continue to be checked until the operator fixes them. However they will not be paid while they're failing checks. exciting developments qwizzie Pity 90% of the hashrate is centralised via 3 pools. Why not shift blockchain security to the Masternodes using a similar Proof of Service model? It would be literally thousands of times more secure than the current useless arrangement of miners. That's one of the primary reasons POS coins suck is because the largest holders are also responsible for the new money supply. With a POW mining scheme, anyone can fire up some hash and try mining to obtain coins. If it was strictly masternodes securing the network, only those with capital (namely 1k blocks) get new coins unless a person goes out and buys them. Because it's impossible for a group of people to club together and run a Masternode, right? |
|
|
|
sorry to interrupt guys (and girls) but it looks like the proof of service is getting integrated into v.0.11.2 (which is still in testing phase by the way). https://github.com/darkcoin/darkcoin/commits/v0.11.2.xProof of service seems to bring the following (subject to change as its still in testing phase) : - Ensures ports remain open and client are responsive to IX requests. - Completely 100% decentralized. This farms out the work of checking the masternode network to the masternode network. 1% of the network is determistically selected to check another 1% of the network each block. It takes six separate checks to deactivate a node, thus making it tamper proof. - Nodes are kept in the masternode list if they fail enough PoSe checks to deactivate. They will continue to be checked until the operator fixes them. However they will not be paid while they're failing checks. exciting developments qwizzie Pity 90% of the hashrate is centralised via 3 pools. Why not shift blockchain security to the Masternodes using a similar Proof of Service model? It would be literally thousands of times more secure than the current useless arrangement of miners. |
|
|
|
The first option would be off-topic, so thanks for the invitation to discuss the latter. Let's start with Digitaltrash's trusted 2nd tier, aka PonziNodes or MadoffNodes. Trusting 3rd parties defeats the point of Satoshi's proof of work breakthrough. Trusted 3rd parties are a non-starter for anyone who takes security seriously. So is security through obfuscation, but we'll save that lecture for another day. Good job Masternodes are trustless, eh? If you had any clue about security you'd be mentioning the appalling mining centralisation most PoW currencies suffer from. Masternodes are fucking impregnable in comparison. |
|
|
|
Enough voodoo price babble. + Masternode - Proof of Service
+
+ -- What it checks
+
+ 1.) Making sure Masternodes have their ports open
+ 2.) Are responding to requests made by the network
+
+ -- How it works
+
+ When a block comes in, DoMasternodePOS is executed if the client is a
+ masternode. Using the deterministic ranking algorithm up to 1% of the masternode
+ network is checked each block.
+
+ A port is opened from Masternode A to Masternode B, if successful then nothing happens.
+ If there is an error, a CMasternodeScanningError object is propagated with an error code.
+ Errors are applied to the Masternodes and a score is incremented within the masternode object,
+ after a threshold is met, the masternode goes into an error state. Each cycle the score is
+ decreased, so if the masternode comes back online it will return to the list.
+
+ Masternodes in a error state do not receive payment.
+
+ -- Future expansion
+
+ We want to be able to prove the nodes have many qualities such as a specific CPU speed, bandwidth,
+ and dedicated storage. E.g. We could require a full node be a computer running 2GHz with 10GB of space.
|
|
|
|
I have to admit, I wasnt 100% convinced on the name, like others were saying...I thought it was ok but we could do better. But afte messing about last night, its started to grow on me. Done in PS for quickness (no vector goodness)  Morse code of the left, D -.. A .- S ... H .... I had a few others, but this was prob my fav. I still think 'DASH' is a crap name, but this looks infinitely better than the crappy chunky golf club / pipe / headless duck symbol. |
|
|
|
Not really you would be surprise to see the weight the branding has over the substance of the product. Going forward we can focus on Dash being more fungible than other solutions, etc. It does make an enormous difference. Another extremely important factor is that in China Darkcoin was translated as "Diavolo" the Devil coin, no kidding, and some potential opportunities there require a name change. When we change names they will be forced to use a different Kanji and anything other than Devilcoin will be better.
In China there is a practice that is very important in business mian-tze or giving face, this means exalting the prestige of someone else by showing respect and allowing them to shine. Adding the Devilcoin to your service wouldn't give you face, so the largest exchanges would be harder. As we change to Dash a new Kanji will be used, facilitating this process. We need to be culturally aware of non-Western markets.
What nonsense is this? Some Chinese decided to mistranslate the name so now we must change our name in the hope that they wont mistranslate it again? I'm sure they have a word/symbol for 'dark' that they could use if they wanted to. I bet they'll just start calling it 'detergent' or 'laundry' coin anyway. I'm sure that will save a lot of face all round! |
|
|
|
@eduffield Why don't you look into "Priva" or "Libera" both of which have roots in "free" & "freedom". Crypto is about gaining our financial freedom back.
"Dash" is a step backward imo.
Priv or Libre would be fine. IX would of course be best. I suspect Dash is a done deal though, better get used to it...  |
|
|
|
when i read the post about rebranding i was kinda hoping this would be an very early 1st of april foolsday joke.
So we are going for a third rebranding in what ? less then 16 months ? i sure hope you guys know what you are doing and
have really thought this through because with a rebranding you will have so much lost already (name recognition for a start)
and its very unsure you achieve what your hoping to achieve with the name Dash. And to be honest i'm not getting any vibe
from the name Dash so i'm not too thrilled about that part either.
my two duffs,
qwizzie
Agreed. Changing the name is going to do bugger all for mass adoption, and "Dash" is just plain crap. Happy to drop the "coin" bit though. |
|
|
|
|
Making Darksend even more opaque... from passive to proactive receivers...
With Masternode blinding implemented, this is probably completely unnecessary and more trouble to implement than it's worth, however, moist and luke warm from the half-baked crouton factory:
Right now, input(s) from the sender are combined if necessary and sent to one receiving address.
Would the fog not be even thicker if, as part of the process, the receiver received the total sent across several or many receiving addresses instead of just one?
Bob sends Alice 123 DRK. Masternodes query Alice's wallet for eg. 15 DRK addresses (as many as needed to accommodate 12 x 10 DRK and 3 x 1 DRK inputs, or whatever denoms the tx was made up from) and distribute the sent amount across those provided addresses.
This would probably mean more blockchain bloat, but that might be offset by the receiver not needing to redenominate the received lump to reanonymise it.
It's about time we started compressing the blockchain anyway.
|
|
|
|
Huge respect to crowning and snogcel for their latest git pull request... I think they must have borrowed Thor's hammer to beat that one into the QT client. |
|
|
|
Someone just needs to bite the bullet and start a darkcoin silkroad...
A market that's just a market and doesn't also try to be a central bank, that allowed buyers and sellers to transact directly in their currency of choice with arbiter/escrow providers as required would be great... I've never understood what was so hard about that? Oh yeah, it would mean that the site owners couldn't make off with everyone's loot whenever the whimsy struck them. |
|
|
|
Gavin Andresen tweet, http://junseth.com/post/112626834687/stop-talking-about-confirmation-speeds-start Dark Coin was built, originally, to solve the anonymity problem. Now they introduced what they think is a fix to confirmation times. And yet, it has a fraction of the hashing power being pumped into it. All of bitcoins hashing is from 1 pool so how is petahashs any better than gigahashes of mining in keeping the network stable, and also the decentralized masternode system should keep the network doublely stable as an extra network layer, or am I missing something? That 'tweet' (ugh, I feel my IQ slipping 50 points just typing that word) was hilarious. The idiot was actually boasting about how many terawatts of wasted energy goes into confirming BTC's 'quasi-optimal' - I assume he means, 'glacially fucking slow' - transactions as BTC miners all thrash away on the same few pools. Not that Darkcoin is any better in that respect, but hey, Darkcoin's mempool IX's courtesy of Masternodes are already far more secure than BTC's centralised ASIC PoW will ever be. All that's needed for Darkcoin to be taken seriously security-wise is moving to pure Proof of Service. Imagine blockchain security being wholly the preserve of a random 20 blinded Masternodes each block... as secure from meddling as Darksend is going to be secure from transaction snooping. |
|
|
|
I wouldnt touch it if someone cracked something. Privacy is no kids play. It can prove dangerous. Would Snowden for his life use a system which got broken and patched?
Every piece of software ever written has been broken and patched. |
|
|
|
dummy question:
what is Masternode blinding please !?
(I asked before and I did not get a serious answer)
is it hiding the the other MN's , so mine do not know who they are talking to
or
is it hiding general MN IP so they can not be found ??
tx
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/v0-11-1-instantx-development-update.3769/Masternode Blinding
Recently a paper by 3 researches at Saarland University came out describing a new technique, while there are some serious problems with the approach they take, the concept of blinding the users they use is novel. In CoinShuffle, each output is sent to the next peer in a circle, one at a time. The new peer adds an output, shuffles and then sends the list again. We can do this and actually improve upon it.
To implement blinding, each user would connect to one completely random masternode and say "Send masternode X this output/value for mix N" and pass a single output. That output would be passed to the leading masternode. It would take access to all masternodes used to know who did what, which is as solid as M rounds mathematically (M = number of outputs). This is great because all users can submit all inputs at once. So it's super fast compared to CoinShuffle and even more secure. |
|
|
|
Hey people.
Setting up my masternode however on starting MN in wallet I'm getting

"not capable masternode: Could not connect to <ipaddyofmvps>"
Checked settings and looks ok - defo right IP addy VPS is up and running and redone darkcoin conf setup on both vps and local pc.
Is this more likely to be a payment issue? Any ideas before I start again?
Your masternode might have banned your local wallet. Try this: 1) keep local wallet open 2) stop remote darkcoind (the one that is on vps) 3) remove peers.dat on vps 4) start remote darkcond and wait until it's live (gives you valid responses on getinfo or any other rpc command) 5) issue "masternode start" (or "masternode start-many" - depends on what guide you are following) from local wallet again Thanks for that. Unfortunately no joy. Getting same error on masternode start. It is though a wallet I had a masternode previously on (before I f*cked up and moved coins). Any other suggestions people? EDIT: Will donate 5 dark to person who comes with solution! (Though I'm sure they'll donate to video fund !) If you can't connect to your VPS daemon then check your server firewall, make sure port 9999 is open to TCP traffic. Also make sure you have the correct lines in your darkcoin.conf at each end. Your darkcoin.conf files should *not* be identical for local and remote - double check everything! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
