|
Please do not engage in petty back and forth on this thread. Disagreements and different perspectives are fine but please make sure each post is substantive (i.e. new content)
|
|
|
|
There was no fucking attack, it was just a bug!
Yes it was a bug that allowed the v2 block to enter the blockchain too soon. The code was exploited not attacked and this caused the network consensus to fail and split into several blockchains. There needn't be any debate on what happened. A bug was at fault not an attacker.  That is incorrect. A malicious party crafted a v2 block causing the split so in essence there was an attack, that block did not come about on its own. This was possible due to a bug in the code which allowed a v2 block to be crafted at this point in time. 100% of attacks take this form. Some code (or occasionally hardware) processes input in a manner that was not intended which makes it exploitable, and a malicious party identifies that input and submits it to carry out the attack. Nothing unusual here. |
|
|
|
Also, I think tewinget is doing or did some work on cleanup and documentation.
Thanks, forgot that one, but added it above. |
|
|
|
|
I think the question on who is active is valid.
In addition to the commits you see on github (mostly moneromooo, fluffypony, recently some from hyc, occ. others), other people regularly involved with testing, code reviews, debugging, and design decisions are myself, warptangent, tacotime, luigi, and othe, plus occ. others. Shen is actively developing the ringCT stuff (currently working on C++ code for it). NoodleDoodle does, well, whatever amazing things he feels like doing such as a the massive optimization rework that took months. He seems to prefer working independently. Wolf recently did some miner development but I think that is winding down. Finally, tewinget is doing or did some work on cleanup and documentation.
All are welcome.
EDIT: added tewinget's cleanup and documentation work.
|
|
|
|
What is funny is that even with all of the dash sock puppet accounts voting the total votes is still lower for DASH.
No no no, they're not sock puppets. They are people who showed up brand new to crypto in 2014 when there were hundreds of coins being launched, new coins every single day, and all just happened to fall in love with Dash at first sight. It's all organic and real, I'm sure of it. |
|
|
|
- start the program 'screen'
- run ./bitmonerod
- press control+A and release, press D
Can automate these steps with screen -dmS node ./bitmonerod To connect, screen -r or screen -r node (if you have multiple screen sessions) (I like to put something like the above in a crontab @reboot entry to start the node automatically at system startup) |
|
|
|
Come after you? Because you posted this: Here's the death blow. You can skim around those posts for more details. IX requires 6 of 10 signatures to create a transaction lock.
Which is exactly what I wrote it must do, and exactly what I wrote when I surmised that your white paper was implying the highly jammable design of 10-of-10. But as I pointed out in the correct math (which is clear you still haven't grasped), even 6-of-10 can be jammed 62% of the time (and multiply spent the other 38% of the time) given a 50% attack on the masternodes (i.e. the 50% attack on masternodes can attack 100% of the InstantX transactions). How is attacking 50% of the masternodes going to work? Your hero TPTB doesn't say, I thought you might know since you claim it is the "death blow". He doesn't say that you need 50% of the masternodes to perform any attack (and you indeed don't). Read more carefully. |
|
|
|
No harm done ? Look at the net hash rate, it has halved...
No apparent connection Isn't the time window for the complexity small enough that the chain forking in two would have a visible impact on the computed hashrate? If the miners work equally on each fork forever, the computed hashrate on each side is half of the initial one. The quoting above is misleading. I was responding to: So what, it had just doubled. Although that could have been the attacks. Any dev input on this? There was no apparent connection to the increase in the hash rate earlier in the week. |
|
|
|
There was no fucking attack, it was just a bug!
Oh really? Where did the version 2 block come from? Buggy code! OK, which line? |
|
|
|
Nice try from the attackers. Very fast answer, thanks to everyone who worked on the fix.
No harm done I believe.
No harm done ? Look at the net hash rate, it has halved... So what, it had just doubled. Although that could have been the attacks. Any dev input on this? No apparent connection What was the timeframe of the attack?
The block that caused the network to fork was 913193 This must be why withdrawals are locked on bittrex, are they locked on all exchanges?
We notified exchanges as soon as possible. How they responded is a function of their own operations. |
|
|
|
There was no fucking attack, it was just a bug!
Oh really? Where did the version 2 block come from? |
|
|
|
@Smooth: This shit is really all over the place can you enforce thread discipline?
We're getting close to the line but I think it is okay so far. Issues such as the quality of development and centralization pressure compared to Bitcoin are on-topic as long as substantive and not mere insults. The announcement of the forking issue and patch is also somewhat relevant to potential price action, though the market seems to have shrugged it off (in addition to the valid point of wanting to get the word out on an important announcement). |
|
|
|
One post containing only an insult and no content was removed
DASH doing great too, 0.0090.
Retarded developers ruined Monero.. Such a shame..
haha you're pretty funny for an asshole  |
|
|
|
Hallo smooth,
Could you take a look @ my request (i've a specific tread) ? I'm looking for 0.15BTC for buiyng digital good. Have Senior and Full M. As collateral
I'm going to decline as I don't personally like to use forum accounts as collateral. They do have a well understood value so you should be able to find someone else to lend based on that. Also these are on the low end of the size I like to work with (Heutenamos too but he's a repeat borrower and I've found him to be low hassle so its okay). |
|
|
|
Talking about nodes, there is a reason why GUI would help. Before the recent release my laptop would be laggy as hell but now everything seems okay. But i simply dont want to start the daemon every time i turn my PC on. And i dont like to have a command line tab open all the time.
Now of course, i will google how to autostart and hide the process on Ubuntu, i know it is not that difficult. But still...you get the point.
Maybe there is an option for that right now?
There is a -detach feature now. I don't use it (I prefer screen) but some people were just discussing it on the Monero Support thread. |
|
|
|
The problem of Bitcoin hash concentration in China was paradoxically a direct result of keeping the blocksize small. This happened because ASIC production is most economical in China. With an adaptive blocksize limit in Bitcoin this likely would not have happened since The Great Firewall of China would have placed miners in China at a very significant disadvantage due to latency. This would have forced Chinese ASIC manufacturers to sell their devices for export. The lesson I see here is that a well designed crypto currency will route around censorship and drive mining to those jurisdictions that do not engage in Internet censorship. Monero is way less vulnerable here since it is likely that both China will be the most cost effective place to manufacture electronics and will also continue to censor the Internet.
Well the myth that "bloat" leads to centralization has been debunked.
Edit: Monero has also other ways to mitigate this risk such as an ASIC resistant algorithm, and initiatives such as smart mining; nevertheless I do agree that this risk will need to be addressed and minimized.
Miner concentration in China is the result of market forces, and not any more of a "problem" than developer concentration in California. Those market forces include the block size limit. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin back to $100?
I'd love to see that shit.
no it's impossible, miners will leave the game, and this mean bitcoin is doomed, unless it happen for few hours only or few days You've not heard of difficulty adjustment? The difficulty dropped several times in 2014 and 2015 when the price was weak. That's just how it works. uhm, the price was still high enough to sustain mining, and there was no halving back then, so no, it's not comparable there is a minimum that must be prevented otherwise you will get less diff yes, but it's mean also less miners which will lead to less security of the network Lower price means less security yes, but still a lot of it. Would Bitcoin still exist with half the security, or a third of it? I'm pretty sure it would. Also, lower price means there is less value to secure, so less security is needed. Halving may turn out to be an issue after a few more of them. This one won't be a big deal regardless of price. Even hypothetically $1K worth of Bitcoin in a block is something people would find worth trying to get. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
