.
 

Wow - a big thanks to all the contributors!  

This is a huge code upgrade !!!  
    
     - Code migration from Python 2.7 to Python 3.x
     - Code migration from QT4 to QT5
     - Segwit support

Release Notes: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/RELEASE-NOTES

Download: https://electrum.org/#download
 
"To Infinity and Beyond !"

About the Cryptsy wallet transferred by microGuy:

It took over 8 hours to rescan the whole wallet against the blockchain, with the following stats:

1.  The wallet has 8034 different addresses
2.  The wallet recorded 424 648 transactions, between 28OCT2013 to 27MAR2016.
3.  The wallet balance is (drum roll).... 419.87580213 ASC - not the expected jackpot...
4.  The file indicates that it was created on 11APR2016,  two weeks after the last recorded transaction, like if it was a backup copy, and not the original.
5.  The wallet was not encrypted.

I am making available a CSV file of the transactions (75MB file) for a few weeks, if anyone is interested in doing some forensic work.  The temporary link is here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5WFLevQNg4DUHBFTGRzZmdfTm8/view?usp=sharing.  Interestingly, the wallet had millions of ASC as early as JAN 2016, but it got progressively emptied, at about the same period it was becoming increasingly difficult to withdraw funds from Cryptsy.

I guess that closes this chapter...

EDIT:  Read my history book once more, and actually, Cryptsy closed their website on 15 JAN 2016.  Looked at the CSV file again, and between 15JAN2016 and 27MAR2016,  over 23 Millions ASC (23,562,282.03 to be exact) got withdrawn from the wallet...  Most likely Cryptsy trying to sell ASC that didn't belong to them, on other exchanges, to get their BTC back.

EDIT2:  Did further investigation, and Cryptsy was allowing withdraws off less significant coins towards the end of Jan 2016.  Therefore, the millions withdrew could be from the legitimate owners...

I have just received from @MicroGuy the Crypsty wallet holding the ASC.  I am still in the process of re-scanning the wallet (a 800 MB wallet) to see what is in there..

We should discuss how we should distribute those coins to their respective owners.

Sent a msg to the above author:

https://foundry.electrum.org/server-peer-hashes.txt

Used to be over 40 connections ...

Bitcoin-core 0.12 introduced an opt-in function which allows a broadcasted transaction to be Replaced by (higher) Fees - as long as the first transaction has not been included into a block already - the infamous UNDO button...  

There is a lot of ink on forums about the pros and cons of such function. But, regardless if we are for, or against RBF - it is now part of the landscape.  

Are Electrum developers working on a way to warn users, and to clearly identify which incoming transactions have opted-in on this RBF function?  I believe that those transactions have a special flag that Electrum could check to advise users that they should wait for at least 1 confirmation before providing the product/service that the buyer is purchasing.  I understand that waiting for a least 1 confirmation was always a best practice, but now with RBF, it becomes mandatory.   To advise Electrum users of incoming transactions that would have the potential to be double-spent would be very, very useful...

Second, I understand that at the moment only Bitcoin-core users have access to this function (as senders) and that Electrum doesn't allow it.  What are Electrum developers positions on this topic?  Will they also allow the users to opt-in to this function in the future?  

Ref:  Peter Todd has tested most common wallets a few months ago and Electrum (then at 2.5.4) was not able to warn its users. https://petertodd.org/2016/are-wallets-ready-for-rbf

 



  

The recent price increase shows similar behaviors as "old" Willy (ref: https://willyreport.wordpress.com) which was operating from within Mt-Gox servers.

Is there a "new" Willy at Huobi, or Bitfinex?  

 

A new website has popped out, which offers a blockchain-based game around the NFL Fantasy Football.  Apparently, projections made with this software can earn you  "FantasyBits" that could be traded in the future.  It follows the normal NFL games, which are at Week 2 (out of 17 weeks). 

Anyone heard about this?

https://trading.football/about

To miss an upgrade or two, I understand.  But to still be running a Bitcoin node at version 0.6, 0.7 or 0.8.x...  

I was looking at the peers tab on my Bitcoin-core today - and was amazed on how many "old" nodes there are.  The 0.8.x series was released in Dec 2013 - 1.5 years ago... Are they all Windows XP worshippers?  They don't read the news, they live in a cave?  I get the "don't be the first one to upgrade" - "wait for a stable version first" type of talk, but 1.5 years... really?  Upgrades are free... just to let you know...

Please use this post to indicate the current Bitcoin-Core version you are using, and most importantly, why (or why you are not upgrading to the latest version).    

Electrum-Servers have to operate a full Bitcoin-core node.

In the light of the recent events on the Bitcoin network, and the short fork on the network, it would be great if the Servers would advertise in their console (tab) msg (where they list their donation address) the Bitcoin-core version they are operating with!  (or if they are using Bitcoin-XT...)

I have a Ledger Nano HW wallet that I use for testing purposes.

With Electrum 2.0.2, I was very happy to see that Ledger was supported on Linux (once you havedownloaded and installed the necessary libraries from Github: e.g. btchip-python, cython-hidapi and pyusb).

The 2FA system used on Linux does not require the card supplied by the manufacturer, but rather uses an awkward system where a pin code is send to you, if you have a text file in edit mode.

For OSX, Electrum would not give me the option to create a new wallet with the Ledger.  However, the option for Trezor is, but not for Ledger (or BTChip).   I tried it with the OSX binary version, which is available on Electrum.org website, and by cloning the Electrum Github repo, and using Terminal and python.  Neither worked (for Ledger).   But, if I use the official Google Chrome-based system at ledgerwallet.com it works.

Any idea what I am doing wrong?  Did anyone got their Ledger to work on Electrum OSX?



 

Great news for the Electrum technology!

Mazacoin's developers have released, 10 days ago, a Multi-Coin version of Electrum.  Based on the latest release of Electrum, Encompass amalgamates many coins in one interface, allowing to change from one coin to the other in a few seconds (select new coin in the menu bar).  It uses the BIP44 standard for each coins.  Meaning, that one seed is used for all the coin types in your unique wallet.

Coins currently supported are MZC (of course), LTC, BTC and VIA.  DRK is currently under review (pull request) by mazaclub team members.  

It only requires a coin developer to submit one page of code (the coin specs) to Encompass, to add a coin to the service - great idea!  Of course, coin developers have to provide the Electrum servers to support their coins, as this interface is only for the client part of the system.

Encompass currently supports the following POW algorithms: Scrypt (LTC, VIA), SHA256 (BTC, MZC) and soon X11 (DRK).

Github: https://github.com/mazaclub/encompass
reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/mazacoin/comments/2v1ms5/multicurrency_lightweight_hd_bip0044_wallet/
developers:  https://mazacoin.org/development-team/

PS: Trezor support is currently disabled, pending further testing.

I am experimenting with some new functions using the Bitcoin code.

I am in main.cpp and would like to do some arithmetic inside the code, using the value of the calculated Difficulty as one of the parameters (the same real value that shows when we ask  "getdifficulty" with the executable client).

I am sorry to say that I am not very good with C++, so I have a little of difficulty resolving the correct syntax. 

I came up with something like that to calculate the difficulty:

double dDiff = (double)0x0000ffff / (double)CBlockIndex* blockindex->nBits & 0x00ffffff;

But can't get it to compile.  Obviously my syntax is wrong... and I most likely not declaring some variables somewhere....

How should I write it?

I was trying to estimate the value of the hardware that has been purchased by BTC Miners so far.  By doing some back-of-the-enveloppe calculations, I came up with some interesting figures:

1.  If we assume that cost of GPU is about $2000/Gh/s ($400 for 200 Mh/s) which was the norm until early 2013 - up to network speed of 33 TH/s
2.  If we assume that cost of ASIC was about $200 / GH/s between March 2013 to Dec 2013 (up to network speed of 2400 TH/s)
3.  If we assume that cost of ASIC is now about $20 / GH/s (up to 19 000 TH/s)
4.  If we assume that cost of ASIC will be about $3 / GH/s (ref new 1 TH/s Cointerra rigs).

Then the cost of the current installed hardware to mine Bitcoins would have been (33 000 GH x $2000) + (2 400 000 x $200) + (19 000 000 x $20) = $926M for 12M coins, about $77 per coin. If we add the electricity cost and some PCs in there, we could reach the $100 value that BTC was going for, in the most part of 2013.

Just in January, 10 PH/s was added to the network, to produce an additional 110k BTC.  At $10-20 per GH, that is $100M-200M for 110k coins - or $909-1800 per coins.

The next generation will allow about $3 per GH - but at one TH/s per machine added to the network - the network speed will increase by another 100 fold by October (ref TheGenesisBlock).  So, another 2 000 000 000 GH/s at $3 ($6B), for an additional 1M coins - $6 000 per coin...  

Therefore, it is very conceivable that BTC will be worth $5 000 to $10 000 by the end of 2014.  Just by the value of the hardware added to the network. In addition, that "investment" in hardware will probably be THE reason why the bitcoin network will not die anytime soon.

EDIT:  This adds another dimension to Bitcoin - we have estimated that there has been about $1B spent already on this "experiment".  That is very close to the birth of an industry - it is hardware, software, electricity production, new ventures, etc.  Another $6B in expenditure is expected for 2014.  For the politicians out there, Bitcoin is more than just a "bubble" - Bitcoin creates jobs ! - talk to the ButterflyLabs, Cointerra, KNC of this world!  Even AMD never sold so many high-end Graphic cards in history!

EDIT2: New graph!

The red line is the Bitcoin Hashrate over the last 4 years (on a log scale - values are on the left of the graph).  The hash rate can also translate in $$$ injected in the Bitcoin economy.

The blue line is the Bitcoin market price over the last 4 years (also on a log scale - values are on the right of the graph).  

Which one is leading which?

Data courtesy of Blockchain.info.




My opinion?  I believe the hash rate knows where it is going (miners) - the market follows, or tries to keep up with the pace, and gets distracted along the way by good/bad news, by market manipulation attempts, heist on websites, government acceptance/rejects, silk road, etc.  But eventually, gets back on track!

The pool operators stopped all withdrawals following the October hack on their site.  Since then, radio silence.  Did the pool operators ran with the balance of the money?  50BTC operated for almost a year and had at least 30% of the network - at 2% pool fees - it is a lot of BTCs (around 7500 BTCs). More than they claim that has been stolen (around 1000 BTCs).    Where are the coins?

I'm trying to find a tread regarding current ButterflyCoin status.  The coin seems alive, people are mining it, but is it considered dead?