No, actually, I have multiple theories and I'm not married to any of them. If the SHA-256 algo is indeed well-distributed, then yes, they are probably low-entropy original keys. If SHA-256 is not well-distributed, then some or all of those non-puzzle hits could be collisions. You're not going to tell me that you know for certain that SHA-256 is well-distributed.
We will never know....
Never say never... What makes you pinpoint this to the well-distributedness of SHA-256? Why is everyone neglecting the poor RIPEMD-160? It needs attention too! @RIPEMD160 Come here darling. No one loves you but me. |
|
|
|
We have now our own directory.io, clone as the original site seems to have gone. Clicking on the directory.io in https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/stats leads to https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/dio/101091723026432 (or whatever the page at the time of the click is) I've enabled a rate limiter for all my beloved leechers out there, who still haven't understood how the page works. Then you can use this python script, called "lbc_output.py": https://www.dropbox.com/s/q1sgc4gbb26vc99/lbc_output.py?dl=0Copy the line of FOUND.TXT you are interested of and you get the result: $ ./lbc_output.py 2d17543d32448acc7a1c43c5f72cd5be459ab302:u:priv:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001+0x5e
Private key : 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000005f
Public key :
x : 15d9441254945064cf1a1c33bbd3b49f8966c5092171e699ef258dfab81c045c
y : d56eb30b69463e7234f5137b73b84177434800bacebfc685fc37bbe9efe4070d
PrKey WIF u.: 5HpHagT65TZzG1PH3CSu63k8DbpvD8s5ip4nEB3kEsreMQiR4w7
Address u. : 2d17543d32448acc7a1c43c5f72cd5be459ab302
Address u. : 157RMZhbBLC1wucv3jxQqqHjbKezL1yy7g
With the above, the reverse way is possible too: https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/dio/priv/5HpHagT65TZzG1PH3CSu63k8DbpvD8s5ip4nEB3kEsreMQiR4w7will take you to the page containing that privkey and the address. |
|
|
|
rico666 thanks for not sending me to GTFO  Tried to read "What We Do" more attentive. One question still remains: did you estimate required funds to make FPGA or ASIC clients for LBC? I guess ordinary bitcoin mining ASICs wouldn't be effective (or suitable at all)? ASICs - as the "Application-Specific" part suggests - are of use only for a very narrow usage case. Bitcoin miners have scrapyard value beyond BTC* mining. I asked http://www.orsoc.se/ what the cost of ASIC development might be about 2 months after launching the pool. ORSoC is/was the technology development company behind KnC and I thought it would be a good address to ask. Unfortunately never got any answer. I might try again. Bitcoin miners do a SHA256d essentially. The LBC does ECC, followed by hash160, followed by bloom filter lookup Now the hash160 is actually less demanding than SHA256d and if it was only for that, I'm pretty sure that hash160 ASICs could deliver more performance than SHA256d ASICs. The ECC however, requires 256bit multiplications and that is serious stuff taking up whole FPGA circuits. (at least until a few years ago) At the moment we do these ECC things on CPU and hash160 on GPU An ASIC doing hash160 and Bloom-filter lookup (512MB chips containing the BLF connected directly to the ASIC) I can imagine, but I can't imagine how to feed it with ECC data. ECC on ASIC I can't imagine, but then again, I am a VHDL, Verilog, FPGA, ASIC noob. It would certainly be good if we managed to establish at least some informal smalltalk with ORSoC (or similar) engineers about this. |
|
|
|
Der Pool macht gar nichts, aber evtl. wird der Private Key veröffentlicht, daher ist die Adresse verbrannt: jeder der die Website inkl. des PK findet, kann die Kohle abziehen. Guthaben wird daher erstmal auf eine noch nicht abgegraste Adresse verschoben, der Fund veröffentlicht. Wenn dann jemand seine Kohle innerhalb 6 Monaten vermisst, kann er sich ja melden. Tut er das nicht.... Apropos verbrannt: Genau diese Erfahrung haben wir jetzt mit #54 gemacht. Der Privatschlüssel wurde veröffentlicht, nachdem der Finder ("er"(tm)) die Bitcoins abgezogen hatte. An die ganzen Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Achselschweiss etc. hat man nicht gedacht. Hat sich dann jemand bedient. Netter weise hat jemand 50% von dem BTG etc. dem LBC Pot zukommen lassen. Die Bitcoin Cash $500 waren weg... |
|
|
|
Thanks for the answer, rico666! English is not my native language. It seems to me that LBC now has rather weak control of clients (correctness of their checks and return of results). So the effect is: in list of Trophies we see far less records than it should be. Also the main sense and benefit of pool is sharing award between all members (proportionally to contribution). But now the single member takes everything (and can even not report the find!). Actually, I do not see any advantages of being member of LBC versus solo mode. Yeah, I've read the FAQ, but I totally disagree with the answer. The range of LBC is known (and I think it is not best). Solo "miner" can easily use another range without being a member of LBC. The point of this message is not "hey, everyone, run from LBC", but to make LBC better and possibly more popular. No hard feelings, but I think you have still a lot to read and learn about the project and the concept and tech behind it. Most of your "suggestions" are result of being badly informed - really. |
|
|
|
@rico die Seite http://directory.io/4 zeigt ab 4 immer ERROR  Frage: ist es von Euch gewollt, dass man auf die Inhalte keinen zugriff mehr bekommt? Die Seite ist ja nicht von uns. Keine Ahnung warum der Autor die abgeschaltet hat. Muss ich einen Ersatz suchen. |
|
|
|
1. What perl program does when the collision is found? Only writes to file FOUND.txt? If I someone overlook/delete this file, nobody will even know that we found the key and the worst thing - this range should be marked as empty?  See https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/man/user#hooks2. Is there any validation of results? Or just checking checksums of the program itself? Why not to compute each block's checksum (even simplest in couple of bytes) and send to server? Then make 10% of work-units overlap. If checksums do not match, sending to third client and marking ALL work from client with wrong checksum as undone and ban him if there were several badly processed blocks. For now it seems like we are sifting with too large sieve?  Some overlap happens already, although it's less than 2% Work is also being re-issued. Not sure what you mean by the "too large sieve". Rest assured, validation is working fine. |
|
|
|
Yeah its nice to have a functioning Android wallet lol. But its not something big like how the PoCC tried to hype it to be. Was that the time when the market started reacting positively then the trend quickly reversed when the big new was really just the Android wallet?
They should learn from the mistake and try not to disappoint next time.
Now you really start pissing us off. One more "disappoint" from you and we'll show you (as in you personally) what it means to disappoint. I also suggest you stop using the Android wallet, delete it from your phone and instead of Burst focus on whatever that current sig ad campaign of yours is. |
|
|
|
But if the PoCC's roadmap is finished or close to finish, will Burst be a suitable platform for big companies that want to use a blockchain? This question requires a lot of error tolerance to be answerable. - It's not PoCC's roadmap, we're just being asked for input.
- "that want to use a blockchain" is a constraint both unnecessary and unprecise.
Assuming we know what you really wanted to ask, the answer is this: There is no company on this planet too big for the Dymaxion. |
|
|
|
Will there also be a partnership like what Stellar has with IBM?
No. |
|
|
|
Rico666, but from a general perspective, is the BFA big news if you recalibrate your own expectations to what the general community's expectations are?
I say general community because we need Burst's community own to grow if it wants to go somewhere and become something.
One of the PoCC's first statements addressed towards the "Burst community" was: "We owe this community nothing" and we always saw the bigger picture outside the "Burst community bubble". Also, it should be clear by now, how our position regarding miners is. Once stripped from the civil warlords, ankle-biters and do-nothings, Burst has a very nice and engaged community to bootstrap with. It's clear, that the current Burst community will be a minority soon. Everyone else (the future majority) has ~ 24 days time (as of this writing) to catch some hints. https://dymaxion.burst.cryptoguru.org/ |
|
|
|
Sh!tcoin culture - which expects this kind of announcements - is ... sh!tty.
These "partnerships" often are absolute nonsense. I didn't hear from any of them to be of really serious relevance, not even those by big platforms like Ethereum.
And the listings on exchanges are regarded as "big news" because people that want to get rich quick via Pump and Dumps. After the final dump they are out again.
If altcoins want to be more than sh!tcoins, then they should leave behind this sh!tty culture. And I think Burst is on a good way.
I have to fully agree with d5000 here. These synthetic - forced - announced partnerships are often a mere PR vehicle. As such, they constantly fail to reach significant momentum. True momentum is not gained by these artificials, but by genuine "best fit" usage. Meaning: when the solution a coin provides is best for someone to use it, he will use it and it will more likely result in something of true market significance, than these fake partnerships vaporware. Therefore, the PoCC has no intention to make this sort of announcements or form this kind of artificial "partnerships". We have a plan, you might even say a strategy. Everyone - be it individuals, companies, institutions - is welcome to use the tools we will provide for their projects and we will work hard to make them as good as we possibly can so they are of generic use. These nonsense-partnerships often start and end with nonsense protocol extensions/bloat, just because one of the partners requires this special "AMAZON_PROTOCOL_EXTENSION_A" or "EBAY_PROTOCOL_EXTENSION_B_IF_NOT_CRAIGSLIST_EXTENSION_C_PRESENT". We never would hurt Burst with something short-sighted like that. Instead, we would like to offer a car in an era of carriages. |
|
|
|
...and the expectations are higher.
Having said that, the developers should adapt and also recalibrate on what they consider as "big news".
If the BFA is really big news then great, but if its not then be careful, it might disappoint.
I am still missing any concrete examples what "more" people out there expect. What is considered "big news" "out there". Because if people do not really know and just "expect more" without being able to pinpoint it, then there is no way to satisfy these people. Most are like kids who expect an even shinier toy, an even faster gaming computer, without being able to make sensible use of any of it. What I am afraid of, is that the news - once really "big enough" - won't even be understood. For a while at least. |
|
|
|
Thirdly, maybe the BFA might be something like the Android wallet situation, wherein the community expected something more but ended up having something in slight disappointment.
NEO also suffered the same situation. They announced something big was coming, but it was only a hacking contest or something.
Ok - let's analyze the "Android wallet situation". One month after announcing the PoCC (where we also announced the mobile wallet was in development), our Android wallet was ready to be published. At that time - September, 11th 2017 - it really was big news for Burst: There was only the original, slightly dysfunctional and bloated wallet from Iceburst and the mobile wallet from BurstNation which was a) merely another frontend to their online wallet (hard coded in as backend) and b) you needed to register to use the wallet and c) the design was/is like 90ties... So yes: from an objective point of view it was big news. Yet after presenting the mobile wallet, there were TWO - in words: TWO - guys who were disappointed/pissed: https://www.burstcoin.ist/2017/09/18/on-big-news/My question: "What did those people expect?" was never answered.
So here's what disappoints me: - One man - not even a developer - says he believes Burst core algorithm is broken. Mouth-to-mouth propaganda makes of this "core developers say Burst core is broken". Of all people - pinkflower - you should know best, because you asked me for clarification and I gave it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=731923.msg22268290#msg22268290
- Same with the mobile wallet: Two people are pissed, because they expected "more" - what this "more" should have been? No one knows. No one says. Yet - somehow - we make from this "the community expected something more(!!!)"
So I suggest you (as in: you all to whom it concerns) get your expectations and memory calibrated, because it's really pathological as of now. It cannot be made a problem of the PoCC, if some people have serious issues with the dopamine glands in their brain.
Having said that, let me help you with the calibration: Android wallet September 11th 2017 was big News at the time. It wouldn't be big News today. Yeah - we have the iOS version of the wallet ready for over a month, but Gay-Nazi-Apple (henceforth: GNA) is blocking it (as they do with basically all Alt-Wallets - see e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/NEO/comments/7dvpz5/o3_wallet_being_removed_by_apple_we_need_your_help/). But we will deal with GNA the right way. So when that is available in the GNA App Store, it will be "Good News", but no big news. And the BFA... well ... quote from the group preparing the Ann: I'll put it this way: If what we are going to present isn't considered "big" by someone and he/she would expect "more". Then I am afraid only GODs personal appearance dancing naked in front of the worlds leaders while they're being eaten by aliens can top it. |
|
|
|
The tweet about a BFA, assuming it stands for Big Fucking Announcement, from the PoCC's Twitter account was removed a day after. Why? Did the PoCC fear that it would end in another disappointment or was the plan behind it canceled or something? Rico666, care to reply?
https://twitter.com/PoC_Consortium/status/935040430273593346? We have not removed a single tweet ever - so I do care to reply to suggest you improve your Twitter skills. I also would like to know what exactly you mean by "another disappointment"? |
|
|
|
I swear - if I ever find out whom @ Kraken to punch in their primate face so they start getting their shit right - I will do it!  This shit doesn't work 90% of the time. And support is like To permanently resolve the issue, we are working on infrastructure updates and an overhaul of the trading engine. for months! My god ask at least some Bonobos for help! |
|
|
|
Hi, Is there anyway i can test too see if LBC client is working and reporting properly...
./LBC -x I have tried running the following to find the last puzzle address #54.. but it doesn't report a find
./LBC -c 3 -p '#x236fb6d5ad1040-#x236fb6d5ad1f49'
and i have tried
./LBC -c 3 -p '1-2'
Still no FOUND.txt file produced...
The range you're giving is way too small. I'm not sure LBC works correctly if you give it a range of some few dozens of individual keys. This ant shit is probably getting borked by rounding errors. LBC is made to check billions of keys, so don't try to navigate the USS Nimitz in your bath tub. LBC -c 1 -p 9512381750-9512381800 is only 53 Mkeys and should work for #54. At least it does on my computer: $ LBC -c 1 -p 9512381750-9512381800
GPU authorized: yes
Loop off! Work on blocks [9512381750-9512381800] (53 Mkeys)
Estimated duration: 7.8355125s
ooocb66763cf7fde659869ae7f06884d9a0f879a092:c:priv:00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000236fb6d5ad1001+0xf42
(6.19 Mkeys/s)
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
