I fixed the source code: https://github.com/Maestro7/AsiaCoinFixOP not updated yet. I don't have the right hardware to build the windows binaries right now. That should wait (or someone else may be kind enough to build the windows binaries from the above source?). |
|
|
|
|
Found the problem... working on a fix right now.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm investigating the problem.
|
|
|
|
The only reason a good would use BTC is to whore with them.
*A girl? And not sure if you're trying to be funny or not but not amused. I Googled this a bit and there seems to be some discussion about it in escort support forums! |
|
|
|
|
Bter has resumed operations with the promise to compensate everyone's BTC, and you can now withdraw your AC. I recommend trading on Cryptsy for the time being, at least until we're confident that everything on Bter is OK.
|
|
|
|
I think you should make a giveaway or something to promote this coin. It can't be on a 10th page
Nice idea... What do you think people? |
|
|
|
4.protocol number ''zero'' showing on AC explorer
-possiblility that someone hacked this wallet?
5.as protocol ''2.0.1'' was professionally explained by Maestro1 , nobody ever explained what is ''zero'' protocol
- actually - after some discussion on this page, protocols '2.0.1' disapperared from explorer today. accident or something ?
same for ,zero, protocol - today is not shown
The protocol zero is what is reported by the wallet's getpeerinfo to the explorer. I'm not 100% sure what it is, though it pops up occasionally on various wallets wallets. My best guess so far is not that it is a sign of a hack, but either a connection problem by a peer, or a cloned wallet where the "magic bytes" were not changed to something unique, so the cloned wallets passes initial connection check which allows it to get listed in the peer list, then fails all the further checks. Difficulty rise was caused by one of the largest stakeholders staking. Thanks for the explanation  |
|
|
|
unclear danger ? several items of fuzzy reasoning as for example:
1.major ''hacker'' attacks on exchanges happened last 2 to 3 months
that means:
-vultures (hackers) are circling above altcoins market
-vultures have fresh capital to crash the markets or pay for hacker software
2.last weeks there were quite strong pumps on many altcoins
-astonishingly such major moves soon after these major exchanges hacked and fresh capital came for ''hackers''
3.there was a thread on bitcointalk this year : someone boasted he has killed some small altcoin blockchain and he promised he would be ''serial killer of altcoins''.
Did not follow that thread ( due lack of time ) - what has happened later in that thread?
4.protocol number ''zero'' showing on AC explorer
-possiblility that someone hacked this wallet?
5.as protocol ''2.0.1'' was professionally explained by Maestro1 , nobody ever explained what is ''zero'' protocol
- actually - after some discussion on this page, protocols '2.0.1' disapperared from explorer today. accident or something ?
same for ,zero, protocol - today is not shown
one actually could start guessing if there is a correlation of ''zero'' and ''2.0.1'' protocols shown and higher difficulty on our blockchain ?
and if there is such an correlation - does it mean anything?
during last rise of difficulty till 3.01 - on the explorer it always was shown 5 to 7 wallets with ''2.0.1'' protocol and roughly two wallets with ,,zero,, protocol
6.if a hacker would like to kill a small coin blockchain- he would possibly hit smaller coin where is not enough attention
-as for AC : nobody notices as difficulty unexplainably rises from usual 0.09 ( as today ) till 3.01 ??
7.there always is theoretical possibility that promoters of major altcoins or even bitcoin would like to kill some altcoins from time to time.
do not know if AC could be perceived as threat by anyone from bigger coins now.
Actually this was a business Mintpal was in all the time : it was proverbial at that time : when some altcoin started trading on Mintpal it was soon to be killed
Mintpal - as some serious altcoin traders claimed - was generating up to 90% of turnover with army of bots - all with intention to kill most of coins and pump some chosen coins.
taking all this together - see some possible troubles?
At any point you can find things like this for any coin, that doesn't mean there's an attack forthcoming. An attack starts and ends in minutes, there's no sign post days before an attack. Chill out man. All these things are pretty normal and are not indicative of any trouble. |
|
|
|
difficulty now 2.20
usually for a long time between 0.05 to 0.2
is it an attack ?
update 2339 GMT now difficulty 2,50 update 0011 gmt diff 3.53 WTF? Higher difficulty doesn't mean AC network is under attack. You might want to take a chill pill. thanks for info then - what would constitute an attack ? when wrote this post about difficulty shooting up to 3.0 considered this: 1.it was never seen this high before 2.lately: strange wallets from explorer : protocol number ''zero'' wallets and ''2.0.1'' wallets occurring and no word on these versions on this page 2.for what reason someone should build new AC wallet (to show wallet versions of ''zero'' and ''2.0.1'') and keep it secret? 3.most obvious explanation : some unclear danger ahead I've already replied to that: 2.0.1 is basically the wallet version in the Linux source code, as there have been a little cleaning done on the code (it hasn't been anywhere near enough to warrant a new wallet release for all platforms though). If you compile from the Linux source, it will recognize it as 2.0.1 (or whatever version number, if you edit it before compiling). There's no difference, the only way the blockchain would accept their stakes is that if their stakes follows the same rules as everyone else's.
|
|
|
|
|
Bter is back online. I suggest trying to withdraw the coins as soon as they enable it and trade on Cryptsy or CoinSwap.
|
|
|
|
difficulty now 2.20
usually for a long time between 0.05 to 0.2
is it an attack ?
A few of our big wallets started staking, this happens every now and again and will increase difficulty significantly. Increase in difficulty is not indicative of an attack. |
|
|
|
explorer https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ac/#!extraction again few strange wallets wallets protocol 2.0.1 - now single IP ( also a node for Hyperstake and some other coins ) wallets protocol ,,zero'' - this is single IP in China 221.232.159.150 and for sure it is not a exchange my question : 1. if someone modifies 2.0.0 wallet to such extent it shows 2.0.1 protocol or ''zero'' protocol would it be considered legit ? 2. for what reason he does such - possibly - hard work ? where is a profit ? could such a wallet stake much faster ? 2.0.1 is basically the wallet version in the Linux source code, as there have been a little cleaning done on the code (it hasn't been anywhere near enough to warrant a new wallet release for all platforms though). If you compile from the Linux source, it will recognize it as 2.0.1 (or whatever version number, if you edit it before compiling). There's no difference, the only way the blockchain would accept their stakes is that if their stakes follows the same rules as everyone else's. |
|
|
|
|
Bter told me to wait for an official update, not very reassuring.
Our largest wallets haven't been changed in a while, so I'm optimistic that the AC on Bter was not stolen. If you had AC on Bter, please post how much.
|
|
|
|
NeuCoin (french startup that raised $2.25m funds) is using a very similar PoS schedule as ours. I don't know if they got the idea from us (we were first to it).
With BTER down... I submitted a coin request to be added to poloniex. Lets see where this goes. Yeah, let's see where this goes. As Bter was our biggest exchange, I assume a good amount of AC were on Bter. I'll try to contact them to see the status of those coins. We'll try to get on a new exchange, preferably an Asian one. |
|
|
|
|
NeuCoin (french startup that raised $2.25m funds) is using a very similar PoS schedule as ours. I don't know if they got the idea from us (we were first to it).
|
|
|
|
|
David Cameron says many crazy things...
|
|
|
|
Our data on http://coinmarketcap.com/ is now updated, it showed the wrong total supply before. We're now coin 117 with ~$75,000 market cap. right on, I've been buying a few thousand here and there when I can. what is the network weight for AC? it's not at the bottom of the wallet, get info says the pos difficulty is at 274.46071294? did it get raised to protect against the threat of pos attack? or has it always been that high? I figure the long min stake age and high diff would make it trickier for someone orchestrate such an attack, and when they fail they'd have to wait another 2 weeks to try again. although having a max stake age would help even more wouldn't it? the short min stake age coins (a few hours) would mean they can keep re trying the attacks over and over Having a max stake age helps for sure. 274.46 is the PoW difficulty, the last time it was calculated (right at the end of PoW phase). Our PoS difficulty is 0.0548 (you can see it from the block explorer). |
|
|
|
Our data on http://coinmarketcap.com/ is now updated, it showed the wrong total supply before. We're now coin 117 with ~$75,000 market cap. |
|
|
|
Haven't read all the posts so it may be mentioned before. Current PoS implementations use some sort of wallet weight as a way to handle competitions for blocks. Wallet weight is basically the amount of coins in the wallet. So if I have a big wallet with very small coin blocks (i.e. I transfer the coins in thousands of small transactions), I have the chance of staking a lot of new blocks continuously with the full weight of my wallet each time. That's the problem.
I have 1% of all stake in 1 wallet. My chance to generate a block is 1% I have 1% of all stake in 1000 wallets. My chance to generate a block is 1% I see no problem here. (Nxt) edit: I guess what you meant is: I have 1% of all stake in my wallet, and I transferred it there in 1000 small transactions.I still don't see a problem for PoS. Yes. Your chance of generating a block is 1%, next block again 1%, next again 1%. That's a problem. The high weight of your whole coins are used for each individual small stake, increasing your chance every single time which makes you a lot more likely to find consecutive blocks at zero cost. Ideally your chance shouldn't be 1%, the secure way is 0.001% since you transferred the money in 1000 small transactions. You should either have a big block of coins (1 big transaction), so you have a 1% chance ONCE, or you have 1000 small blocks, so you will have 1000 chances of 0.001%. You should not have a 1% chance, 1000 times. Sorry, I don't get what you mean. 1000 x 0.001% = 1 x 1% In PoS your stake matters, not your amount of transactions. Yes, either 1000 x 0.001% or 1 x 1%. It's not the number of transactions, it's the number of coin blocks. Each block stakes once until it matures again (8 hours or whatever), if you have 1000 small blocks in your wallet, you can stake 1000 times right after the other and current implementations give you the full weight of your wallet in the competition for staking, giving you a great chance of finding consecutive blocks. So basically in simple terms, current implementations give you 1000 x 1%. That's the problem. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
