Bitcoin Forum
May 14, 2024, 03:12:37 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 ... 77 »
481  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine on: August 21, 2014, 02:58:17 PM
I don't think djm miner hit 5 mh on average. Djm report hash of 4.6 - 4.7.

Prepares that person on IRC is wolf or that person did some custom OC or flash card
It's not wolf, but I think it may be because of overclocking.
482  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine on: August 21, 2014, 02:44:45 PM
I have my 750Tis up to almost 5MH/s per card!

https://ottrbutt.com/tmp/xcnwolf750ti5.png
How do you achieve that, I can only get 4.2 Mh per card ?

He is trying to sell u his miner
Apparently the latest ccminer binary from djm34 is just as fast as Wolf's private miner.

mega.co.nz/#!8RsDiJxY!61uRgJmlkr-Y_mwaE0HrCrzI-O85s71qhvW3f7kM3uQ

Wolf latest is faster. He got 5 mh whereas djm got around 4.6 - 4.7

So wolf version is around 10% faster
A person on the IRC channel is reporting an average of 5mh/s using the 750Ti. Are you sure you're using djm's latest build?
483  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine on: August 21, 2014, 02:14:49 PM
I have my 750Tis up to almost 5MH/s per card!

https://ottrbutt.com/tmp/xcnwolf750ti5.png
How do you achieve that, I can only get 4.2 Mh per card ?

He is trying to sell u his miner
Apparently the latest ccminer binary from djm34 is just as fast as Wolf's private miner.

mega.co.nz/#!8RsDiJxY!61uRgJmlkr-Y_mwaE0HrCrzI-O85s71qhvW3f7kM3uQ
484  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine on: August 21, 2014, 12:55:14 PM
Quote
if you are trustworthy and decent person you would stop failed launch and fix shits before starting again. But as said earlier, that was not and is not in your interest.
And what of the vast majority of miners who weren't affected by the bug? We should've just scrapped all their work and risked a fork? That would've been a fair and intelligent move would it?

"miners who weren't affected by the bug" = you, your friends and other insiders
Lol it was everyone using the linux wallet, which was most people. And like I said, even the Windows wallet was working for some time before it broke, and any coins mined by Windows miners during that period are perfectly valid. We released a fixed Windows wallet not more than 2 hours later. Honestly I cannot believe anyone is still harping on about this issue. You're just grasping at straws, using what ever you can to discredit us. But unlike many other scam coins, I don't moderate my own thread, and I allow your ignorance to be read by everyone.
485  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine on: August 21, 2014, 12:45:56 PM
There is nothing you or similar scumbags can teach me. Leave pathetic retoric, coverups and lies for people on who you and your friends will be dumping coins you instamined.
Lol I'm not delusional enough to think I could convince you of anything.

Quote
if you are trustworthy and decent person you would stop failed launch and fix shits before starting again. But as said earlier, that was not and is not in your interest.
And what of the vast majority of miners who weren't affected by the bug? We should've just scrapped all their work and risked a fork? That would've been a fair and intelligent move would it?
486  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine on: August 21, 2014, 12:21:34 PM
Quote
The developer working on this showed in in #bitcoin-wizards at one point to ask bitcoin people to write some code for their altcoin to take: http://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/wizards/2014-06-12.html (search miniblockchain)
We weren't asking them to write code for us, we were asking about the headers first patch created by sipa because it was exactly what we needed. It was originally intended to be included in Bitcoin, but was never included in Bitcoin because I think the code got too outdated before it could merged, so we were asking about the progress on it... which clearly didn't go so well. So catia took sipa's broken headers first patch and totally fixed it up and merged it with Cryptonite, so Cryptonite is probably also the first coin to use the headers-based synchronization approach.

Quote
If you find reduced security acceptable— bitcoin has SPV already, which has near optimal performance.
The key difference is that SPV nodes are not full nodes, they are what we call lite nodes, and their functionality is extremely limited. In the mini-blockchain scheme, any node can become a full node with only the last 10k blocks and the account tree. In fact every single node can forget about blocks once they are old enough, so no one needs to store the full blockchain really. For details on the security tradeoffs see this page: http://cryptonite.info/wiki/index.php?title=Weaknesses_and_attack_vectors
487  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine on: August 21, 2014, 12:04:44 PM
There are many altcoins which were deliberately launched with minimal difficulty and faulty public wallets - to allow scumbag developers and their friends to instamine - that still have active developement and people like you around who are trying to obfuscate the truth. You have invested (heavily) in a scam and now use all available means to make it all look like a legit deal worthy of investment so that you can eventualy dump on people more stupid than you are.
Lets get a few things straight: 1) difficulty readjustment happens very quickly, it changes every block in fact, so starting at a low difficulty didn't matter at all. 2) the faulty wallet was clearly a bug we could not forsee, it didn't appear during the public beta testing because the difficulty never got higher enough. And actually the Windows wallet only stopped working after a few hundred blocks, so they did have a fair chance to mine right at launch like everyone else. 3) this coin probably has less promotion and advertising than any other coin on this forum, and that's mainly because so much money was spent on development, I don't want to spend much more on marketing right now. So unlike most shitty clone cones with good marketing, Cryptonite has cool new features but shitty marketing (probably one reason the price hasn't been doing so well lately). I truly don't have any idea what you're trying to achieve here, other than proving you aren't cut out to be an internet detective.
488  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine on: August 21, 2014, 10:36:19 AM
It's a shame that a so innovative coin get so poor attention.

shameless bump for the pool : http://xcn.theblocksfactory.com/
I don't think so,Its a good time to buy!am i right? Wink
BBQCoin, SonicScrewdriver, Sexcoin, CarpeDiemCoin +100 other totally inventionfree coins got bigger marketcaps right now..

So at least the price can't go much lower Wink
Cryptonite is only a few weeks old, of course the market cap will still be lower than many coins.

I can mine only with nvidia GPU ? Miner?
Yes.
489  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine on: August 21, 2014, 04:41:43 AM
too bad the coin is tanking..Sad

I  think so .
Price is actually slightly higher than it was 2 days ago, I wouldn't exactly say it is tanking. Keep in mind the price of BTC has also dropped quite dramatically in the last week, but is on the way back up now.
490  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine on: August 20, 2014, 06:08:47 PM
Any news on the block explorer ?
Nope, not sure what has happened to the guy who created it, I might have to code a simple open source block explorer.
491  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Using the mini-blockchain for decentralized DNS and encrypted internet layer on: August 20, 2014, 06:05:09 PM
- Does it stay a fixed size (as in storage size) or is this parameter variable?
Nodes aren't forced to discard old blocks, they can store as much of the blockchain as they want, but they must have at least the last 10k blocks to be properly synced with the network (the block sizes obviously differ, even the maximum block size is dynamic). I'm not sure what the size of the last 10k blocks is, but the account tree is still less than 150 kB.

- What would you say (honestly) are the biggest risks to security for the miniBC ( take into account all situations including no cost i.e Bank attacks or even "foreign governments" )
http://cryptonite.info/wiki/index.php?title=Weaknesses_and_attack_vectors

Quote
- is the MiniBC in your opinion "Mobile friendly" so with regards to connected "internet of things" devices in the future.
I doubt running the full client would be "mobile friendly". Much less data is required to sync with the network, but that doesn't reduce the computational cost of things like verifying transactions.
492  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine on: August 20, 2014, 05:51:40 PM
Would mini-blockchain be implementable in Bitcoin?
No because it doesn't use scripts. You could implement a variant of the mini-blockchain scheme which uses the account tree to store scripts, which would help to prune spent outputs, but I don't think the existing Bitcoin protocol could be adapted to support such a change, and it'd be an overkill solution for the spent output problem and it wouldn't be as scalable as the original mini-blockchain scheme.
493  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Using the mini-blockchain for decentralized DNS and encrypted internet layer on: August 20, 2014, 07:56:35 AM
I think the proof that nodes are sharing files should be done by the nodes themselves. They have incentive to prove that other nodes are sharing the files, because if not then they are basically cheating the other nodes. I think it should be randomized which files are checked to prevent gaming of the system, and they should be checked periodically. Servers can split the costs of these checks evenly since it is necessary for the system to work properly. The servers using the most bandwidth (or most files stored) should pay for more of these costs and the servers with the least bandwidth (or least files stored) should pay for less.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I don't think it would work very well. The micro-transaction approach I mentioned isn't great either because it makes the user pay for the content they download instead of making the server pay for the bandwidth... but then again that isn't actually such a bad thing, it will make hosting websites much cheaper, and it does actually make quite a bit of sense from an economical perspective. It may also be much simpler to implement than any other solution.
494  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Using the mini-blockchain for decentralized DNS and encrypted internet layer on: August 19, 2014, 04:09:03 PM
I haven't read over your whole OP yet, but something caught my eye. If Storj (or maidsafe or ..) are as slow as you assume in you OP, what would be the point of them in the first place? I think you may be selling them a little short.
No storj is fast for downloading large files, just like using torrents to download a file can be very fast with enough peers. But I'm assuming storj is less good at is serving files extremely quickly, because it takes time to actually locate the files on the network. Even if it's just a few seconds, that's too long.

Quote
That said it seems like the redirection idea may work, but it may make it take longer than necessary to develop websites if you need to set this redirection up for every image/file, which adds an extra step.
You could set it up on what ever files you want to be distributed across the network and not stored on the server. There's no reason you couldn't store all your files on the server and serve them directly to clients instead of redirecting them.
495  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine on: August 19, 2014, 02:31:28 PM
Related thread for those interested:

Using the mini-blockchain for decentralized DNS and encrypted internet layer
496  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Using the mini-blockchain for decentralized DNS and encrypted internet layer on: August 19, 2014, 02:02:38 PM
this guy missed the email about not innovating stagnating and creating a "payment system" meme.
Lol I'm not sure if that's a compliment or insult.

compliment friend.

you are probably sealing some spot in human history.
I just think a lot about problems such as this, the trick is to stop learning and start thinking.

Forget what you know: Jacob Barnett at TEDxTeen
497  Economy / Digital goods / Re: BitShop - digital bitcoin shop script [PHP/MYSQL] (v1.0.1) on: August 19, 2014, 12:52:26 PM
Make purchase test for 10 times. 7 of test purchase have such error: "ERROR: the transaction has not been confirmed!" If after that buyer open other page, he will see message "It appears that you did not complete your last order properly. Click here to complete the transaction." Only after clicking he will receive "Success!" message and admin will see purchase. How to fix this?
Very strange, IPN script doesn't seem to be updating the database properly. Anyone else experience any similar issues?

I think coinbase send information about successful transaction to server with some delay after redirecting to callback script. May be will be good to make few seconds delay, after that check status again and if transaction is not confirmed, show error message.
It should already be delayed by 3 seconds, but if you look on line 20 of inc/pages/buy.inc.php you can increase it. Let me know how you go.
498  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Using the mini-blockchain for decentralized DNS and encrypted internet layer on: August 19, 2014, 12:49:53 PM
this guy missed the email about not innovating stagnating and creating a "payment system" meme.
Lol I'm not sure if that's a compliment or insult.
499  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Using the mini-blockchain for decentralized DNS and encrypted internet layer on: August 19, 2014, 12:29:47 PM
The thing I don't like about namecoin is you have to configure your browser to accept it's URLs. You cannot just click a namecoin URL with a standard unconfigured browser and expect it to work. Would your scheme allow someone to just click a URL link and get a result from a standard unconfigured browser?
Actually it's probably worse than Namecoin in that respect because the custom encryption protocol and the p2presource links may require a custom browser to handle them, assuming you want access to peer distributed resources.
500  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Using the mini-blockchain for decentralized DNS and encrypted internet layer on: August 19, 2014, 12:06:48 PM
I'm just creating this thread to briefly document some ideas I had about creating an efficient decentralized DNS system and encrypted internet layer on top of it. It's been known for some time that the mini-blockchain scheme is an ideal system for implementing a decentralized DNS database, because of the way balances are stored in the "account tree". Cryptonite, the first mini-blockchain implementation, has "withdrawal limits" which can be set by the owner of an address. Both the balance and the withdrawal limit of all non-empty addresses are stored in the account tree. To update the withdrawal limit, the address owner will create a special transaction which modifies the withdrawal limit value stored in the account tree. It is easy to see how the account tree can be adapted to store and update IP addresses instead of withdrawal limit values, and it would be much more scalable than a system like Namecoin.

Now I'm not very familiar with the way Namecoin works, and the rest of my post may be reinventing the wheel, but I have some interesting ideas for how to achieve perfectly secure communication between client and server without any centralized certificate authority, and how static files like images can be distributed among peers in a simple and efficient manner which allows for fast website load times and could even reward the nodes who distribute such files. So the first step, as mentioned earlier, is to map domain names to IP addresses using the account tree. If we actually use the public key hashes (aka addresses) as the domain names, then it's possible to use public key cryptography for encrypted communication between clients and servers. We could also add another field to each account in the account tree which maps the public key to a human readable domain to make it user friendly.

Steps for establishing secure communication channel with a server:

1) client uses account tree to lookup IP of a domain
2) client sends hello message containing own public key to server
3) server signs the clients public key and sends it back
4) client reconstructs full public key of server from signed message and:
  a) ensures the public key hash matches value in account tree
  b) ensures the response is signed by that public key
  c) ensures contents of response is their own public key

Now both the client and the server have each others public keys and they can communicate securely, and the client knows it's talking with the correct server because only that server can sign messages with the public key listed in the account tree. Now personally I think this approach is far superior to onion routing, because it allows direct connections to remote servers, you don't need to go through any type of peer circuit or exit nodes which can see what you are doing. And it's completely encrypted end to end, so even your own ISP cannot see what you are requesting from any given server. However they can see with what servers you are communicating, and that may pose a problem for websites wishing to avoid censorship. I think this problem can be best solved by decentralizing the static content among peers, so that the server only needs to hold scripts and databases (eg user database).

My first thoughts on this issue were to work on top of a system like storj, but we really need our web content to be delivered at the fastest speeds possible, and I don't think a system like storj can do that because you need to do tedious blockchain lookups to locate files on the network (correct me if I'm wrong). A much simpler, and faster solution, is this: the client wants a file, so it makes a request to the server, the server has a list of IP's for nodes which it believes are in possession of the files. The first time a new file becomes available, the server may allow peers to download the file directly until it is well enough seeded, but a more secure method would be to anonymously upload the file some where and redirect clients that place. For example some HTML code supplied by the server may look like this: <img src="p2presource:108f07b8382412612c048d07d13f814118445acd" />

The p2presource part indicates we have a distributed file stored by peers, and after ":" is the file hash obviously. To acquire the image in this case, the client would send a request to the server for that resource just as they normally would, and the server may directly serve the file to the client, or it may point to another peer it thinks has the file, or it may redirect to else where, for example an image located on the normal internet. If we wanted to make it even more robust we could allow the server to respond with torrent hashes and then locate the file using DHT and seamlessly download it in the background, however this would only be necessary until enough nodes had the file. Nodes willing to redistribute the file could inform the server of their intentions, and the server will redirect clients to those nodes when ever it receives a request for a file those nodes claimed to have.

Once again this approach should be quite fast, since the files can be downloaded directly from peers, but there isn't any incentive for anyone to redistribute files, but before I get to explaining how that might work, I want to briefly discuss the anonymity implications of the distributed file system I just described. Since the client and server will be communicating securely, it's not possible to eavesdrop and learn what files were requested by the client, but if the client is pointed to other nodes who have the file, when the client makes a request to those nodes it will be in clear text unless we establish some sort of encryption protocol. Now since the client doesn't care about what peers have the file, it doesn't need to validate the identity of peers like it does when it first connects to the main server, all it cares about is getting the correct file with the hash specified by the server, like so:

1) client sends hello message containing own public key to peer
2) peer responds with its own public key, encrypted with client pubkey
3) client verifies response by decrypting message with its private key
4) client sends hash of needed file to peer (encrypted with peer pubkey)
5) peer decrypts hash and sends back requested file (encrypted with clients pubkey)
6) client decrypts file and verifies that the unencrypted file hash is correct

What we basically have now is a system where only the server and/or redistribution peers know what files the client has requested. As mentioned earlier though, there is still no incentive for nodes to share files, what we need is some type of reward system for redistributing files. This should be quite easy since the system I've described is already built on top of the mini-blockchain scheme, a cryptocurrency scheme which is particularly good at handling micro-transactions, which is very helpful in solving this problem. Now I must admit I haven't really thought about the fine details of how this could work, which is why I left it for the end, but basically I imagine a reward system working via some sort of micro-transaction approach where the file is downloaded in small pieces. Or alternatively, another good approach may be to have the server some how pay nodes who redistribute their files.

The interesting thing about this overall system is that domains can have a coin balance associated with them, since the domains are addresses, or they map to addresses. So if servers pay nodes who redistribute their files, then it's much like paying for normal server bandwidth, and if the balance of the server address reaches 0 it will be removed from the account tree, meaning it will be removed from the DNS database. However I don't think we need a protocol for forcing servers to pay nodes who redistribute their files, because if a server stops paying fairly people will simply stop sharing their files and look else where for a better profit. The main issue with this approach however is that nodes must be able to prove they are sharing the files, and we can't use recent innovations related to proof-of-storage because holding the files on disk is simply not enough, they must be shared.

Anyway I wanted to keep this post brief, so I'll leave it there and await some thoughts and feedback on what I have presented so far. Hopefully I have presented some original ideas, and hopefully some of you guys will have some interesting expansions and modifications of these ideas, especially in relation to the reward system for redistribution nodes, because I haven't really done much thinking on that topic. I wont be able to work on implementing any of these ideas since I am already focused on Cryptonite right now, I'm mainly just posting this because a few people on the Cryptonite IRC were interested in it and I thought it was worth sharing. But I do think this system could work very well and I highly encourage any interested parties to give it a shot, I will help however I can. A fast and secure decentralized internet layer would be extremely popular and it's something we really need in my opinion.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 ... 77 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!