 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
You are missing some block data starting 353055, which is why Armory can't scan any futher.
In your blocks folder, you should delete the last few blk files, probably up to blk00320.dat (315 to be on safe side) and the associated rev files (rev00320.dat and so on). Then start BitcoinQt, it will tell you its DB is corrupt and rebuild it from scratch, download the last few missing files in the process.
Once that is done, start Armory, it should recover from that.
OK, I will do that ... but I find it really weird that neither Satoshi, nor Armory detects the missing/corrupted block data. (Or at least none of them complains.) |
|
|
|
Blockchain not scanned up to the top!
So, I have compiled Armory from github, using the ffreeze branch.
(My exact revision is 65dafec4ad888219abaa8897929364423f71ea05 )
I could successfully sync up my DB, and I also did two successful transactions.
I know they were successful, because they show up (with plenty of confirmations) on blockchain.info.
But then, after restarting Armory, the transactions don't show up.
Here is the full story:
- I did a successful transaction, which was immediately confirmed a few times.
- However, I noticed that armory still showed 0 confirmations.
- I did another transaction, and Armory said that this transaction might have
been refused by the network. I want to blockchain.info to check, and
I saw that the transaction waiting there with 0 confirmations.
A few blocks have gone by, and it wasn't confirmed, so I suspected that
maybe I should have set higher fees, and so I wanted to "undo" this
transactions ... so I told Armory (in the help menu) to
"Clear All Unconfirmed".
- Meanwhile, I see that eventually, my transaction _were_ confirmed OK
- However, after restarting armory, these transactions don't show up at all.
Neither the first one, nor the second one. Likewise, the displayed
balance is the one before the transactions. According to armory, it's
as if those transactions have never happened.
- Also, the label in the bottom right corner says "Connected (353000 blocks)",
whereas according to the .bitcoin/debug.log, the current block number is
371598. Ha Armory forgot to scan the last 20000 blocks?
That is going on here?
After restarting Armory, and waiting for a long, long time again, the same situation returned. (Scanning finished at block 353055) This is the end of of the output: -INFO - 1440596237: (BlockUtils.cpp:395) reading blocks from file 322 -INFO - 1440596239: (BlockUtils.cpp:395) reading blocks from file 323 -INFO - 1440596241: (BlockUtils.cpp:395) reading blocks from file 324 -INFO - 1440596243: (BlockUtils.cpp:395) reading blocks from file 325 -INFO - 1440596244: (BlockUtils.cpp:1418) Wrote blocks to DB in 24.3227s -WARN - 1440596245: (BlockUtils.cpp:1114) Scanning from 353055 to 353055 -INFO - 1440596247: (BlockUtils.cpp:1458) checking scan integrity -INFO - 1440596247: (BlockUtils.cpp:1646) --- bwbDtor: 0s -INFO - 1440596247: (BlockUtils.cpp:1647) Scanned Block range in 0.300441s -INFO - 1440596247: (BlockUtils.cpp:1653) Finished loading at file 325, offset 73062124 -INFO - 1440596247: (BlockDataViewer.cpp:157) Enabling zero-conf tracking -DEBUG - 1440596422: (Blockchain.cpp:214) Organizing chain And indeed, it says the status is "Connected (353055 blocks)", ignoring the last ~20k blocks in the network. (While my Satoshi's log says: height=371612 ) |
|
|
|
|
On the list of transactions, clicking on the header fields of the table (saying "Date", Wallet", "Comments", etc.), I can see an arrow being moved, switched up/down, moved to the column I clicked, etc, but the displayed transactions are not re-ordered accordingly.
In fact, they don't change at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Blockchain not scanned up to the top!
So, I have compiled Armory from github, using the ffreeze branch.
(My exact revision is 65dafec4ad888219abaa8897929364423f71ea05 )
I could successfully sync up my DB, and I also did two successful transactions.
I know they were successful, because they show up (with plenty of confirmations) on blockchain.info.
But then, after restarting Armory, the transactions don't show up.
Here is the full story:
- I did a successful transaction, which was immediately confirmed a few times.
- However, I noticed that armory still showed 0 confirmations.
- I did another transaction, and Armory said that this transaction might have
been refused by the network. I want to blockchain.info to check, and
I saw that the transaction waiting there with 0 confirmations.
A few blocks have gone by, and it wasn't confirmed, so I suspected that
maybe I should have set higher fees, and so I wanted to "undo" this
transactions ... so I told Armory (in the help menu) to
"Clear All Unconfirmed".
- Meanwhile, I see that eventually, my transaction _were_ confirmed OK
- However, after restarting armory, these transactions don't show up at all.
Neither the first one, nor the second one. Likewise, the displayed
balance is the one before the transactions. According to armory, it's
as if those transactions have never happened.
- Also, the label in the bottom right corner says "Connected (353000 blocks)",
whereas according to the .bitcoin/debug.log, the current block number is
371598. Ha Armory forgot to scan the last 20000 blocks?
That is going on here?
|
|
|
|
When trying to submit but reports via the Help menu, I get a stack trace on the console, and a message saying to use the website directly. When I go to the website directly ( https://bitcoinarmory.com/support/ ), I see no way to submit a ticket. There is a menu item saying "Open a new ticket", but it returns to the same page, with a placeholder text saying "Zendesk goes here". Is the support system currently doing a transition to/from ZenDesk? How are we supposed to submit tickets right now? Thank you for explaining. |
|
|
|
So did all of you talk big about lawyering up and then roll over as soon as something shipped? That's about what I expected.
Nope, on our side, everything is going according to plan. Edit: In the above sentence, the "plan" means the desparate last-ditch emergency plan we came up after we had (apparently) been scammed. |
|
|
|
They sent it before I could get a full BTC refund request in. I had mentioned in their last email about refunds that I would be contacting a lawyer. I guess they thought they better ship that thing fast before I did so...
When was that? Have you somehow missed the (arbitrary) 15th of January deadline for demanding a refund? |
|
|
|
- HF (Aug
 - Buy your BJ now! In stock! Shipping Oct 20-30! Payments in BTC only. - Me - OK. I'll buy a BJ. Here is 60 BTC
- HF - Thanks! You can totally trust us. We want our customers to succeed!
- Me (Oct 30) - Where is my product?
- HF - There is no product. Did we say Oct 20? We meant Dec 31st.
- Me (Jan 1) - Where is my product?
- HF - There is no product. Did we say Dec 31st? We meant Jan 28.
- Me - If there is no product there is no sale. Can I please get my BTC payment back as per the ToS?
- HF - No. But here is a USD check worth 7.2 BTC (or 4.5 BTC after paying taxes)
- Me - ಠ_ಠ ~Dafuq!?
- HF - Have a nice day! Come again!
Given all this, here are some calculations and estimations, for batch 1 customers. * Accepting the offered USD refund would mean a ~88% loss. (Or 92,5%, if you have to pay income taxes after your "sold" BTC.) * According to some calculations (which are hard to make, since the delivery date of the MPP is not known), accepting the late delivery, and starting mining would mean a ~ 80% - 90% loss. For those who don't like either of the above two options, especially since we got pulled into this situation by the dishonest behavior of HF, there is a third option: litigation against HashFast. As I have already mentioned, we have a lawyer, who is managing the mass action case against HF. (For batch 1 customers that have paid in BTC.) So, * if you are a batch 1 customer, and you have paid in BTC, and you have not yet done so, you might want to contact "Ray E. Gallo" < rgallo@gallo-law.com>, and ask to join the case. * if you have already contacted him, and got your contract draft, then you were probably invited the the second t-conf, which was held ~5 days ago. If you would like to continue the discussion, please send me the agreed password (or the pass-code of the t-conf), so that I can add you to the relevant mailing list. * If you have already signed the contract, you have no further tasks, for now. |
|
|
|
Guess it makes sense to do mass action. Contact fenwick. Except I have certain trust issues - Occam's Razor helps.
If those trust issues are related to either me, or the mass action I am organizing, or the lawyer we are hiring, then I would appreciate if you could explain this. |
|
|
|
This will sound a tad repetitive, but here we go anyway: Also arbitration seems to have a number of downsides: Arbitration may be subject to pressures from powerful law firms representing the stronger and wealthier party
In some arbitration agreements, the parties are required to pay for the arbitrators, which adds an additional layer of legal cost that can be prohibitive, especially in small consumer disputes
In some arbitration agreements and systems, the recovery of attorneys' fees is unavailable, making it difficult or impossible for consumers or employees to get legal representation Never been through an arbitration process before so any advice would be appreciated. OK. Free advice: please join the mass action I am organizing, so that we can have our experienced lawyer handle this mess, and fight back against their legal hitman. (I don't think novices stand a chance here.) For those in the states, has anyone considered doing the arbitration yourself, without a lawyer? If the lawyers are taking a big cut, and if they lose would demand payment for services anyways, then I would think going without a lawyer may be a way to negotiate a better deal/compromise for yourself, or no? Thoughts?
In my opinion, if you are going with a lawyer, then despite the fact that I think we have a perfectly valid case, you are likely to loose, because they have an expert on their side, and you have nothing. (Just the facts, but that is only one part of the equation.) Thoughts? Yes, HF's lawyer would be a problem. He has a good reputation. Yes. (And by "good", here we mean that he is effective.) For those in the states, has anyone considered doing the arbitration yourself, without a lawyer? If the lawyers are taking a big cut, and if they lose would demand payment for services anyways, then I would think going without a lawyer may be a way to negotiate a better deal/compromise for yourself, or no? Thoughts?
Very strongly not recommended!!! Ever hear the saying he who represents himself has a fool for a client... The world of law is another dimension wherein they speak words that sound like English but have totally different meanings, they even have their own dictionary, go figure... +1 |
|
|
|
me wonders if lovely cara has the same curiculum vitae as other members of the hashfast team  She at least seems to have the body for it and probably no problem to get a new job in this business after HFs liquidation. Guys, would you please show some respect for the lady? (Seriously.) (She might very well be an outsider, just hired because they needed a nice person for the face of the company.) |
|
|
|
I went looking around and could not find any quotes or articles relating to investors. It seems I had actually confused the cointerra "angel investor" article with hashfast. All of this information is starting to run together. I think I'm the one who started that the whole "they had investors" train. And, I was completely incorrect as I could not find one instance where they said they had outside investment.
No, they really said it, several times. Let's look it up later. |
|
|
|
@fenwick, sure! I'm not sure i can do that, sorry. Reasoning: i already receive at least one letter per day with return receipt of people asking to remove content from my websites (you know Berlusconi? even from their lawyers!  ) - so i think to have an experience background about this. And given what is involved, i can't risk. Free to blame me to death, and i'm sorry. So you are saying, writing something like "There is this other page with lots of other allegations, but I can't say whether or not they are true, and I don't endorse it in any way" could be considered unlawful, on "the land of the free and the home of the brave"? Or lawful, but somehow still risky? Not being a US citizen, this sounds ... strange to me. |
|
|
|
There are a couple other possible domains I see... Do it, i will donate for the hosting if needed  @cedivad, will you allow linking from your wiki to this other one? * In Phinnaeus' case we'll have to tone down the homophobic bit and make sure it's just stuff we *know* and don't merely suspect, but there's some good material there. From what I can tell, Long Dong does indeed appear to have been involved in prostitution, and Scrotum's involvement in selling pretty abusive and distateful pron is absolutely irrefutable.
To be clear, I'm not homophobic, but will tone down nonetheless. I may make fun of a myriad of demographics, but it's only for humor purposes and truly mean no harm. @Phinnaeus Gage Nah, don't tone it down at all, I think it is perfectly fine the way it is now. The laughs you bring to this thread is a great consolation, reading through all the bad news. |
|
|
|
As the previous email anticipated, we were not able to meet our intended December 31, 2013 ship date for Batch 1 orders. Our revised ship date is January 28, 2014.
We are working diligently to try to ship before that date.
Yeah, I am sure you are.So. Has anybody re-done the calculations with the new shipping date? What is the estimated total BTC what can be mined by one BJ unit, without the MPP? End what would the MPP add, if it's shipped 1,2,3,4 months after shipping the BJs? I am curious to see what kind of loss would it mean to just accept the shipment. (These calculations could be crucial for those who still have not decided whether or not to cancel their orders, and demand a full refund.) |
|
|
|
I have found a lawyer who is willing to take our case, and help us get our BTC back, if we can cooperate.)
The name is Ray E. Gallo.
Anybody up for a conference call with Ray, at 3 p.m. today, PT ? I'll post details later. If you want the details, PM me your email address, where I can notify you. (I can't notify you in PMs, because I can only send one PM in every 6 minutes, and only 5 PMs per hour.) Also, for those who can't make it to today's call, there will possibly be another conference call 16 hours later: 7 a.m. tomorrow, PT. I'm not sure whether tomorrow's call is still on, because almost everybody (has has signaled his interest previously) has turned up at today's call. If you still want to talk with the attorney, I suggest you email or phone him directly. |
|
|
|
The other lawyers I spoke with are more experienced with BTC but wanted retainer and be paid on hourly bases, while Ray's 40% is high, that is only 40% above current offer of $5,600 USD. Also, issue is not as much BTC related as contract related to be paid back in a form we paid which was in BTC. So I think that it's a safer choice. If I get in the end $5,600 I keep it and anything above it I keep 60%. Also there is a possibility that lawyer would be awarded fees separately from our award and in that case I keep 100%.
It is more preferable to me to not send good money after bad and I am willing to keep 5,600 + 60% than put additional $10k in retainer on a line.
While all of the above is true, I think it does not convey the situation faithfully. You see, I did not chose Ray Gallo for the case because his offer is affordable; I chose him because he is an expert in consumer fraud and class/mass actions, having win 85% of his cases, and recovered >$100M USD in similar cases. This is why I think it's a good idea to go with him, and not because he is the only one we can afford. (Which might also be true, but ultimately, besides the point.) |
|
|
|
most likely a legal thing. icedrill as a big customer could very well be a dangerous opponent when it comes to legal actions. its much harder to form such a unit out of single customers.
Sure, it's much harder, but we can still try to do exactly that. (And after today's conference call, I would say that it's going as well as it can be reasonably expected, given the circumstances.) |
|
|
|
I have found a lawyer who is willing to take our case, and help us get our BTC back, if we can cooperate.)
The name is Ray E. Gallo.
Anybody up for a conference call with Ray, at 3 p.m. today, PT ? I'll post details later. If you want the details, PM me your email address, where I can notify you. (I can't notify you in PMs, because I can only send one PM in every 6 minutes, and only 5 PMs per hour.) Also, for those who can't make it to today's call, there will possibly be another conference call 16 hours later: 7 a.m. tomorrow, PT. |
|
|
|
I have found a lawyer who is willing to take our case, and help us get our BTC back, if we can cooperate.)
The name is Ray E. Gallo.
Anybody up for a conference call with Ray, at 3 p.m. today, PT ? I'll post details later. EDITIf you want the details, PM me your email address, where I can notify you. (I can't notify you in PMs, because I can only send one PM in every 6 minutes, and only 5 PMs per hour.) |
|
|
|
|
