 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
Big Anoncoin pump on BTC38! with lots of volume! Anything new?  One ANC is 0.41$ now  But somehow Novaexchange keeps lagging with low volume... Why is it so  |
|
|
|
New nodes from 26 October: 37.187.144.36
67.209.191.40
193.150.121.37
193.150.121.66
211.149.175.37
37.187.134.204
54.201.183.106
96.126.102.159
104.131.230.129
162.243.149.125
162.243.227.221
162.252.242.123
162.255.116.196
81.247.69.65
80.74.157.31
72.78.100.3
71.175.81.45
69.64.50.226
23.92.28.212
209.188.7.222
198.58.126.7
198.50.242.33
198.50.242.32
192.99.241.164
192.99.13.126
182.92.184.107
182.92.183.58
173.76.224.153
162.243.63.239
162.243.57.246
148.251.70.194
144.76.91.109
108.61.10.90 THANKS.But it doesn't work for me. |
|
|
|
I have checked using http://www.timeanddate.com : Genesis block : Sunday 02 June 2013 Up to block 87777 theoretical time for a block was 3.42 min hence : for 87777 x 3.42 min = 300197 min = 5003 hours Sunday 02 June 2013 (noon) + 5003 hours (208 days, 11 hours) = 27 December 2013, 23 h 00 m 00 theoretical In practice block 87777 timestamp is 2013-10-31 05:37:47 Hence two months in advance, probably due to diff too low in begining and/or attacks when diff adjust was like litecoin. Taking 31 october 2013 for block 87777 and adding 257343 (actual block) - 87777 = 169566 blocks of 3 min each : 2013-10-31 + 8478 hours (353 days, 6 hours) = Sunday 19 October 2014, 18 h 00 m 00 (today) --> hence I conclude the diff adjustment using KGW is on time even if having highly variable block time. So there is no problem and not a million coins will be burned like you said in 2014. We are 49223 blocks = 246115 ANC before the halving reward, the date of halving is about 30 january 2015. Does anyone have a chart of the total number of ANC in circulation as a function of time?
I could be wrong, but I think that about 300,000 coins have been minted in the past couple months in relation to the difficulty algorithm problems. If that is true, we will burn through a million coins (1/3 of total supply) by the end of the year.
|
|
|
|
This is false: unconfirmed transaction are not visible in the blockchain explorer (because not included in a block)... Those transactions are stuck in the mempool https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#mempoolWhen K1773R will have mined them they will be in the block explorer. The solo-miners shall add this to their anoncoin.conf as already stated by K1773R. blockminsize=0
blockmaxsize=1000000
blockprioritysize=1000000 What about a transaction I made from Bittrex to Cryptsy? Basically Bittrex page shows my transaction is confirmed but it does not show up in the blockchain.. Bittrex address: AWQNFCwMBomJWxNLT2RrXnvtVbt1tL4yQU Cryptsy address: AYUpQqCftJbQEqpuvw4RrQKz19gFtC2VFC Txid: 838e3b333ac6a64e5eed95c320bdee2ff2121dac170a634fbe498f739d2257c9 greetings, Clyze |
|
|
|
... save space ..
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!
... The sender has quit and restarted his anoncoin-qt client multiple times over the last week. He also has waited each time for the wallet to sync completely and kept the client open for a while after. He also has made sure he is connected to peers (hence why it is syncing). Just to clarify again, one of the transactions took a few days and the other transaction has yet to confirm and it has been about a week. Thanks for everyone's help I'm just wondering why this has happened. Just launch it with -rescan for windows: edit shortcut (default path) and put what is between [], keep the "" and -rescan must follow : ["C:\Program Files (x86)\Anoncoin\anoncoin-qt.exe" -rescan] |
|
|
|
Run anoncoin-qt.exe -rescan, it shall solve the issue... To get nodes check https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=227287.msg8600897#msg8600897So I sent this transaction about a week ago and it doesn't have any confirmations. It was from my normal anc wallet to another anc wallet. Not from or too any exchanges.
I thought it was because of the difficulty problem but blocks have definitely been found since last week. And shouldn't the difficulty problem only affect transactions from exchanges and not from wallets? Does anyone know whats happening here and why the transaction hasn't gone through? Thanks!
Status: 0/unconfirmed
Date: 10/9/14 19:59:24
To: AbEpDTco7Yti44FrpN1aNrAz4mnp3abZpK
Transaction ID: 1836307ef77ea6bb849491373b171d37d7e23f79ebe0b61a44285583572729c8
Hi, I'm not tech guy to help you much, but you can search problem on web like for any other wallets. I think the coins in an old wallet, they never went out. Just as visually written as they are. If you have an old wallet.dat, try to paste and turn off/on again to sync. Some members who can help you, except devs Lunokhod, geekz, Skaia... Try to PM them if they don't respond here. The last few days they are not much in the mood.. Thanks for the help! I'm just curious because I had two transactions from anoncoin-qt to another anoncoin-qt wallet. Both were sent on 10/9 and one confirmed on 10/13 while the other one has yet to confirm. It doesn't make sense to me since the problem was supposed to just be on exchanges not the wallet from the source code. If the suspected problem is that exchanges are modifying the code and sending out transactions larger than 100kb why would anoncoin-qt be doing that as well? Also, the difficulty problem should only be delaying a transaction by 10 hours tops since blocks are still being found, it is just taking a while. I don't understand why it would be taking days or weeks to send something. Status: 475 confirmations Date: 10/9/14 19:50:42 To: ATwJNak1tr5WbnLMSYNcoTtUcmRutKfrXp Transaction ID: 1ebabf404c49a9957d0d1f9e570e6cfca9ab7144ad98c7757fdc6bf8f8e7b69e Confirmed 10/13/14 Status: 0/unconfirmed Date: 10/9/14 19:59:24 To: AbEpDTco7Yti44FrpN1aNrAz4mnp3abZpK Transaction ID: 1836307ef77ea6bb849491373b171d37d7e23f79ebe0b61a44285583572729c8 Still not confirmed Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated! |
|
|
|
Hi, if you could please add Anoncoin (ANC) that would be awesome. It is one of the highest volume markets on cryptsy and currently listed #26 on coinmarketcap.com. https://www.cryptsy.com/markets/view/66Thank you! Me too! Yes it would be great! Thank you to add ANC/BTC  |
|
|
|
Thank you K1773R!  All invalid craptsy txs have been mined.
+1. Thank you! You saved me pretty much for my standards. |
|
|
|
Also these multiple other Zerocoin attempts are they following Anoncoin's lead with the zero proof of knowledge technique. Or have they not got to that stage yet and just plan on ripping Anoncoin developments straight off like a script.
Which makes me think perhaps it would be best to not post developments on github before the definite release of zerocoin, seeing as a lot of moochers will be ready to copy paste the goods. They will need to compute the trustless RSA-UFO first... no intelligent people would accept a zerocoin with a non-UFO straight RSA number calculated by p*q. BTW for those who needs it here is a list of fresh clearnet nodes replace in anoncoin.conf: i2p=0
stfu=1
rpcuser=***username***
rpcpassword=***strong password***
server=1
rpcallowip=127.0.0.1
rpcport=7882
daemon=1
gen=0
maxconnections=100
blockminsize=0
blockmaxsize=1000000
blockprioritysize=1000000
addnode=107.6.122.154
addnode=108.67.53.51
addnode=114.215.168.227
addnode=117.214.71.195
addnode=118.192.77.132
addnode=134.249.144.169
addnode=141.0.73.226
addnode=142.254.24.226
addnode=144.76.166.163
addnode=148.251.19.213
addnode=162.243.149.125
addnode=162.243.227.221
addnode=162.243.239.186
addnode=162.243.57.246
addnode=162.252.242.123
addnode=173.76.153.185
addnode=182.92.183.58
addnode=182.92.183.58:
addnode=182.92.184.107
addnode=186.241.159.184
addnode=188.165.2.147
addnode=188.226.235.34
addnode=189.114.250.219
addnode=192.150.121.63
addnode=192.150.121.66
addnode=192.99.13.126
addnode=192.99.18.63
addnode=192.99.19.24
addnode=192.99.241.164
addnode=192.99.36.200
addnode=193.150.121.24
addnode=193.150.121.28
addnode=193.150.121.37
addnode=193.150.121.66
addnode=193.150.121.69
addnode=198.199.81.74
addnode=198.245.62.191
addnode=198.50.132.84
addnode=198.50.132.98
addnode=198.50.221.150
addnode=198.50.242.32
addnode=198.50.242.33
addnode=198.58.126.7
addnode=209.188.7.222
addnode=209.191.162.24
addnode=211.149.175.37
addnode=212.21.68.55
addnode=216.158.85.123
addnode=23.92.218.130
addnode=27.96.51.14
addnode=37.187.134.204
addnode=37.187.144.36
addnode=37.187.9.53
addnode=37.59.52.171
addnode=46.229.173.230
addnode=46.9.190.169
addnode=54.201.183.106
addnode=54.210.120.31
addnode=67.209.191.4
addnode=69.147.229.226
addnode=69.64.50.226
addnode=71.222.116.8
addnode=72.78.100.3
addnode=74.208.97.13
addnode=74.65.163.191
addnode=75.84.2.151
addnode=76.164.203.26
addnode=76.217.13.84
addnode=76.88.99.124
addnode=80.100.203.169
addnode=80.223.90.146
addnode=84.19.184.96
addnode=85.11.15.92
addnode=86.120.215.146
addnode=86.126.15.165
addnode=86.18.76.197
addnode=91.178.75.205
addnode=91.205.172.223
addnode=94.23.235.201
addnode=95.31.22.195
addnode=95.34.80.172
addnode=95.37.93.38
|
|
|
|
Zerocoin update!
Hello all, I am Gnosis, the new member of the Anoncoin team; I will be implementing Zerocoin in Anoncoin. Since an interested party has chosen to support this development financially, I will be able spend a lot more of my time on this. Expect a release for testing Zerocoin sometime in March!
This will be March 2015? Several coins a week now are mentioning zerocoin in their pages. Is there anything better about your zerocoin? And why are Anoncoin devs selling cryptonote? Cryptonote will appeal to approximately 0% of people. It is a deeply flawed and poorly conceived algorithm. Nobody needs or wants the type of secrecy cryptonote pushes and a currency without users, what use is it? All of the cryptonote markets are being artificially inflated. What is wrong with anc? We are not selling cryptonote, we are just thinking of AUx-POW with the cryptonight algorithm. Personally I think cryptonote lack anonymity, better than coinjoin (or dark send) but much inferior to a trustless zerocoin. |
|
|
|
Going with Cryptonight Monero AuxPoW would just be handing all the newly hashed coins over to botnet 'owners'. Could you describe what the problem with botnets is? I am admitedly ignorant here, but from what I understand, this is not a big deal. If you look at Monero pools you'll see lots of miners with hashrates equivalent to 20,000 CPU cores and more and it wouldn't be profitable for people to buy or rent that many CPU cores. So they're very likely using stolen processor cycles from infected computers that are controlled within a botnet. Some large botnets can control the resources of up to a million infected computers without the legal owners of those computers even knowing. These botnets get to use the spare CPU cycles and memory of the infected computers. So adopting the cryptonight hashing algo would mean handing over the overwhelming majority of all newly hashed coins to a few small groups of criminals. Going with a GPU biased hashing algo would give dedicated miners an advantage over the criminal owners of botnets. Although if Anoncoin or the coins it merge-mines with within a myriad become very valuable. Then botnets will still target GPU biased coins just that GPU miners will have an upper hand. As even Bitcoin was still plagued by botnets in its GPU days at times. The only way to truly avoid the botnet problem is to use ASIC's. The only thing is though is that GPU's are more readily available to anyone who wishes to contribute to the network. A lot of people and especially the cryptocoin types will already have GPU's that they can use to hash with. While someone new to the game would find it a lot easier to buy or build a PC with a GPU fitted. PoW is supposed to be about fairly sharing the hashed coins to miners who help secure the network. While the more individual miners a chain has then the more people who have a stake in that coins future. So therefore more fanboys to help evangelise the benefits of the coins. I'd suppose going ASIC would be fairer than going CPU only well at least it's stop criminals controlling the majority of the supply of all new coins. Every type of algo has it flaw. What is nice with the myriad is the possibility to include five different algos so the inherent flaws somehow equilibrate. I think we shall go to one ASIC oriented algo (scrypt), two or three GPU aimed algo such as Lyra2 and Myr Groestl for instance and finally one or two CPU aimed algo such as cryptonight or prime-constellation ( http://riecoin.org/faq.html#pow). Five algo is good with 1 pro-ASIC, 2 pro-GPU, 2 pro-CPU. Also Cuckoo cycle looks interesting for a CPU algo too https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=707879.0 If cuckoo was ready seven algo could even be possible in the myriad: one ASIC (scrypt), three GPU (Lyra2, Myr Groestl, Skein...), three CPU (cryptonight, prime-constellation, cuckoo)... network will be very resistant also meeh like the number 7  I would not put a multi-algo algorithm such as X11 or quark. For once because it is more heavy verification time-wise, second it does not bring anything new over single-POW algorithm (in contrast to a myriad like implementation ofc), third one of the algo can be flawed and the POW will be too, fourth as the miner in public domain are not optimized there are big player that can use custom miner to have more benefit, fifth there are FPGA raping X11 right now, sixth it was made by Eduffield and remind of darkshit. BTW look what an optimised miner could do to unsuspecting miner using the non-optimized one http://da-data.blogspot.de/2014/08/minting-money-with-monero-and-cpu.html. I never understood why people prefer to use un-optimized miner thinking it economize their energy bill, this is retarded. 1% POS maybe, I am not sure, but no more. Indeed i am afraid it will incentive people to keep coin in ANC instead of in ZC, reducing anonimity set. This one has to be thought about if it is really needed or if the myriad is enough for network security. I would prefer a pure POW if possible. CPU-only as to now: http://cpucoinlist.com/cryptocurrency-algorithms/With the myriad the network will not be down for days anymore even if one of the algo is undergoing an attack  |
|
|
|
I agree with matthewh3 on the multi-algo merge mining with myriadcoin like explained here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=725991.0Different algo can be put like scrypt/Myr groestl/skein/VTC algo/cryptonight with different amount of reward. Although I have to disagree cryptonight is CPU only, Claymore GPU miner for instance give 474 H/s for an R9 280x (50% efficiency)... although ofc it is not the huge improvement that other algo sees and its only double from a good CPU. I agree with the cryptonight algo for CPU one my 2c Say your opinion!
A hypothetical question that does not necessarily have any ulterior motive; If Anoncoin switched hashing algorithm, what type of hashing algorithm would you liked to see then?
Not quite sure... I'd say CPU only BUT ... in the end the hashing Algo won't change much, right? Mostly the price would be influenced by this. If we would be able to mine more ANC with cheaper gadgets ... or more ANC with more expensive ones, the price will fluctuate in the beginning. why not let ANC stay the way it is? but well yeah, I prefer CPU ... simply cuz I got a bad GPU The only CPU hashing algorithm that is truly CPU biased (at the moment) is the Cryptonight algorithm that Monero uses. Being so CPU biased does leave it open to most of the hashed coins going to botnets. Going to Cryptonight and usuing AuxPoW with Monero is a good option in my opinion as Anoncoin and Monero have already partnered up on the I2p work - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CryptoNight - with the latest smartphones getting 64bit ARM processors then it may eventually become possible for anyone with a smartphone to earn some ANC (while charging) and earn a stake in the network easily. Although the more CPU biased a coin is then the more profitable it is for botnets to hash. Other good options include the new NeoScrypt that Feathercoin is looking at. Which seems like it will be GPU biased eventually which should help keep the botnets a bit further away from owning all the hashed coins - www.feathercoin.com/neo-scrypt-press-release.pdf - Or the Lyra2 algo that Vertcoin is moving too looks like it should be GPU biased - https://vertcoin.org/pow-algorithm-upgrade-lyra2 My favorite option though is a myriad of those three algo's and possible more while also utilizing AuxPoW with the respective coins. As the AuxPoW will greatly increase the hashrate of each chain therefore making it a lot more secure from attack. Also using a myriad scheme then an attacker would need to control more than one chain. If that idea entails more work than the devs have time for. Then my next favorite option would be AuxPoW with Myriadcoin itself. Then my next favorite option is AuxPoW with either Vertcoin, Feathercoin or Monero and in that order of preference. As the Vertcoin devs has stated they will always do whatever is possible to avoid ASIC centralisation. While Monero with Cryptonight opens up the doors to botnets although does have advantages too that anyone with a CPU can hash it. All the options I suggest avoid the centralisation of ASIC's (for now). While if you was to use a myriad scheme plus AuxPoW with each respective coin then the network would become very secure from attack. |
|
|
|
It seems that Cryptsy still have problem for withdrawing ANC. To withdrawal 3000 ANC I had to do 10 successive withdrawals. Only 1921 ANC have arrived now, four of the ten transactions sent were not included in a block yet (but I see them as unconfirmed in my ANC-qt). It seems the transactions are alot of small inputs and this increase the fee tremendously! Here is an example of one of such transaction: http://ancblockchain.com/tx/7ede9c1d53fb78ba4e16140a1389eee22ea7afd2df2ed9d7fc93c8b663ae90d6I requested 547.27272638 ANC but got only 136.7956816 ANC from 375 inputs with a fee of 0.59 ANC (cryptsy paid the fee, I paid 0.03 ANC fee) In total I paid 0.3 ANC in fee (ten times 0.03 ANC) to withdraw the 3000 ANC, the process of withdrawing took hours because I had to do it ten times and right now 4 transactions are still not confirmed. Please Cryptsy can you do something to not have such a big number of < 1 anc inputs?? This become impossible to trade at you exchange if you do nothing about those hundreds of small inputs. Hello everyone, Im currently investigating an issue with our ANC wallet where the blockchain isnt picking up the majority of our send transactions. We apologize it took us so long to spot the issue. But we are working hard on correcting it and getting the unconfirmed transactions pushed to the blockchain Some of them get confirmed after a simple restart of the daemon but others do not/ Ill keep everyone informed when I find the solution Thank you for your patience UPDATE: I think it comes down to transaction sizes. Our daemon is sending transactions that are too large to be accpeted into the chain. Im basing this on the fact that all unconfirmed send transactions have unusually high fees paid. Our default Txfee is .01 ANC and the mean over the last 1000 transactions is 0.10169169169169 which is why our withdrawal fee is set to .1 ANC anoncoind listtransactions "" 1000 | grep -A 1 -B 4 '"confirmations" : 0,' | grep fee
"fee" : -0.82000000,
"fee" : -0.90000000,
"fee" : -0.98000000,
"fee" : -0.65000000,
"fee" : -0.69000000,
"fee" : -0.72000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.76000000,
"fee" : -0.77000000,
"fee" : -0.81000000,
"fee" : -1.00000000,
"fee" : -0.68000000,
"fee" : -0.72000000,
"fee" : -0.73000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.76000000,
"fee" : -0.76000000,
"fee" : -0.77000000,
"fee" : -0.77000000,
"fee" : -0.77000000,
"fee" : -0.78000000,
"fee" : -0.79000000,
"fee" : -0.85000000,
"fee" : -0.96000000,
"fee" : -0.64000000,
"fee" : -0.66000000,
"fee" : -0.67000000,
"fee" : -0.69000000,
"fee" : -0.71000000,
"fee" : -0.72000000,
"fee" : -0.73000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.77000000,
"fee" : -0.79000000,
"fee" : -0.84000000,
"fee" : -0.87000000,
"fee" : -0.92000000,
"fee" : -0.95000000,
"fee" : -0.98000000,
"fee" : -0.63000000,
"fee" : -0.64000000,
"fee" : -0.65000000,
"fee" : -0.66000000,
"fee" : -0.68000000,
"fee" : -0.68000000,
"fee" : -0.69000000,
"fee" : -0.70000000,
"fee" : -0.71000000,
"fee" : -0.71000000,
"fee" : -0.72000000,
"fee" : -0.73000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.76000000,
"fee" : -0.78000000,
"fee" : -0.80000000,
"fee" : -0.83000000,
"fee" : -0.88000000,
"fee" : -0.92000000,
"fee" : -0.99000000,
"fee" : -0.98000000,
"fee" : -0.97000000,
"fee" : -0.87000000,
"fee" : -0.81000000,
"fee" : -0.86000000, Our daemon is up to date so ill be going over the source to see if I can find anything that would cause this Anyone else with the following problems with ANC? My multipool operator sent earned ANC to me on August 18 at 2:01AM CDT, was not received and posted to my wallet until August 21 at 13:58 CDT. The multipool operator states: "The transaction hasn't been included in a block yet. It should make it into a block eventually and be confirmed. I have no control over this. It's been an ongoing issue with the ANC network for a few weeks now." That would seem to be a very strong negative against this coin.
Yes I have the same problem with huge transaction from several small inputs from Cryptsy, the transactions refuse to be included in blocks. Meeh, K1773R, can this be solved ? Cryptsy, what is this dust? Thanks |
|
|
|
I dont know what the devs want to implement. For GPU mining imho a good thing is multi-POW like myriadcoin. Myriadcoin released some merge mining with their chain, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=725991.0 and http://coinbrief.net/myriadcoin-merge-mining/To attack such a chain 51% shall be had on 3/5 algo at same time. Scrypt can be kept, then 3 GPU algo then scrypt-N or a new one from FTC or VTC why not. It is just my opinion, I dont know if we shall change something... What is happening about the hashing algorithm? Dogecoin which has a much higher hashrate than Anoncoin is moving to AuxPoW with Litecoin to help strengthen their network and avoid an attack on their network. If the community doesn't want to merge-mine with Litecoin have you thought about switching to a new hashing algorithm? Like either the new one Vertcoin or Feathercoin is choosing. There's a lot of Scrypt ASIC's out there now and one biggish miner could easily pull off a 51% attack on Anoncoin for LoLz. I'd personally prefer the coin to AuxPoW with Feathercoin so that I could fire my 280X OC up |
|
|
|
(...)
What about an android compatible ANC wallet? Has that been done yet?
There are 100 ANC bounty for an android wallet those are in this address: ANdron1Fjwrkts7mzzyupLLAbehNtKk9e8 I can transfer the ANC to Lunokhod2 if he wants to announce an official bounty. |
|
|
|
Hi, Just wanted to tell that anc.coinpool.in is no more sending ANC withdrawal! I have 27 ANC stuck in there  Hopefully something can be done... Meeh? |
|
|
|
VTC looked like a LTC killer for a while but now with all those trolls and devs willing to take them seriously it dosen't look like that anymore.
Good point... They had nothing to do except keep it like LTC clone but resist asic. The coin was already popular, most difficult thing was done succesfully already. Now it is complicated gas factory nobody want anymore. LTC model showed it was good, why to change fundamentals? ahh yeah: to become next DRKcoin i guess the circumstances are different now. it is good that the devs are considering some adjustments. How can you explain to a miner that he should use his energy on a coin that doesn't make him break even? Mining LTC was unprofitable too last year before bubble. Then LTC went from 1.6$ to 38$. If mining and holding to sell at top it will be profitable. Selling directly for $ to break even is retarded. Of course to dump for btc and buy cheaper is the most profitable, unless the up-trend is missed, hence it is the most risky too. |
|
|
|
VTC looked like a LTC killer for a while but now with all those trolls and devs willing to take them seriously it dosen't look like that anymore.
Good point... They had nothing to do except keep it like LTC clone but resist asic. The coin was already popular, most difficult thing was done succesfully already. Now it is complicated gas factory nobody want anymore. LTC model showed it was good, why to change fundamentals? ahh yeah: to become next DRKcoin |
|
|
|
|
