this is a major overhaul to solidcoins, People like simon are a supporter, just by mining the damn things, DONT BE A DICK, help the guy out, we dont know what changes were made, i've got coins I sent at block 20026 and they are sitting here with 0 confirms after block 20034, seems kinda screwed up to me. But I guess you will call me names as well for wondering what is going on. Well that's an easy question to answer. If you tried sending them with 0.3.24.2 after block 20026, then they could only get added to the shorter of two branches of the blockchain. When I managed to convince 0.3.24.2 that the longer chain existed at block 20032, it replaced the branch that 0.3.24.2 nodes were previously working on and any confirmations you had would have disappeared. They should've got into one of the subsequent blocks though. |
|
|
|
lowtax quit the other forums and went and started his own private forums The New Moderated Somethingisaweful Forums
Also known as the SomethingAwful Forums? |
|
|
|
Hahahahah, I'd forgotten about the Lowtax mangosteen incident... the original thread is here but I have no idea if non-members can actually read it. |
|
|
|
Exactly. The whole system falls apart.
Well, we'll see what happens once people read this thread and/or spot the recent block-chain reorganization I guess... |
|
|
|
I think in the upgrade from the old client to the new client that the current blockchain was preserved and coins were preserved. SO... what happens if:
1) The old blockchain is 51%+ of the combined Ixcoin network.
2) The old blockchain is mined quickly while the new blockchain lags.
3) All of the old blockchain users upgrade their client.
Presumably since they now have the new client, the most networking power, and the longest chain, then all of the others who were mining on the new client find their blockchain invalidated?
This is pretty much what should happen, yes. In practice upgrading your client doesn't seem to send the blockchain to the network properly and I ended up having to give it a helping hand. It would probably have happened naturally in the end if enough people had upgraded though. (Of course, why upgrade if your transactions and mined blocks are then at risk of getting invalidated unexpectedly?) |
|
|
|
Still dont get it ?
Get what? Please, clue me in if it's so obvious... Edit: If I'm reading the debug logs right, every IXcoin 0.3.24.1 and 0.3.24.2 nodes I'm connecting to now has 20032 blocks. It's interesting that http://bitcoinx.com/ixcoin/ still says 20029 though. Edit 2: Oh, and if this is accurate all blocks mined and transactions confirmed on the 0.3.24.1+ branch of the fork since it split off should now be invalid and at 0 confirmations respectively. Too bad for the users on that side, eh? |
|
|
|
"...I just can't get it to propagate across the network for some reason..."
And you still don't get it?
I definitely don't. I'm running 0.3.24.2 clients, they're connected to other nodes with the changes, when I pointed a 0.3.24.2 client at another node which had the 20032-block long chain it quite happily downloaded it and accepted it as the valid longest chain, and yet it still doesn't seem to have propagated to the rest of the network. There are even other nodes out there with it now; I can start a fresh 0.3.24.2 node with a clean datadir and pick up 20032 blocks. |
|
|
|
On Sept 1rst 2011 at 00:12:51 UTC (in under a week), the new client will switch over to a new Ixcoin-specific pchMessageStart peering marker from the original Bitcoin marker. This change was recommended by a few although we haven't had reports of any issues with this yet. Better safe than sorry. The updated Ixcoin nodes will not be able to communicate with non-updated Ixcoin clients after that date. This will require a restart of the Ixcoin client on or after Sept 1rst. (commit)"
That only stops the two halves of the network from communicating directly; it doesn't prevent blocks generated on one half being valid on the other if you can transfer them over in some other way. In fact I've tested this with a pair of nodes locally and 0.3.24.2 does appear to consider the longer 20032-block chain perfectly valid, I just can't get it to propagate across the network for some reason. Something's really quite broken... |
|
|
|
The 2 chains are incompatible... Some people think, if the old chain grows faster, they can overwrite or invalidate the new chain. That is not true, they are just mining on a dead chain ^^
OK, can you point me to the change that makes the two chains incompatible? I can't find it... |
|
|
|
The new chain may have the value, but the old chain has the hashing power (including my own 6970^^) ;-) Block count: 20032 vs. 20028  Are the block chains actually incompatible yet, or is it just that the two halves of the network can't communicate with each other? If they're not actually incompatible - and I can't see any reason why they should be yet because we haven't reached the 20055 threshhold - then any exchange accepting transactions on the half with the smaller hash rate (and it looks like they are on that half) is risking becoming the victim of a double-spend attack by someone that manages to transfer blocks across. |
|
|
|
Unless I missed something, the new and old clients won't talk to each other, and therefore won't share blocks. Mining on one side of the chain fork isn't going to affect the other.
Won't share blocks, but some transactions that are valid on one side are also valid on the other. Edit: In particular, if there are exchanges or other deposit-holding institutions on both sides of the fork, someone could try sending the same coins to a different one on each side, then withdraw their money and hope to get coins that a valid on both sides of the fork each time. The transactions wouldn't naturally propagate across but... |
|
|
|
I'd already dug up the first two of those in #bitcoin-police. The first one is definitely a MyBitcoin payout; someone spotted that the address the 9000.11 came from is a MyBitcoin address. The second one is someone doing something with the money from the first one. (The third one is almost certainly a change transaction and therefore irrelevant.) The trouble with concluding that this is Bruce's payout is that, well after it was sent, he was strongly implying that he hadn't been paid yet. In particular, at 05:19 GMT on the 9th he asked on IRC "Has anyone ( verified to be real ) actually received 49% of their stolen funds yet?" |
|
|
|
In a free market, they would not be allowed to do those things and the quality of the water and the air would be much better. Its only because the government has taken over the management of the environment that they get away with it. You say that they "would not be allowed to do those things". Who would forbid them from doing so and how? In particular, if you think that the market would stop them, can you point to the process by which it would do so and justify why all the people involved in the market would act in that way? |
|
|
|
Any ideas if the mining scripts will run on a mac?
Nope, because none of the usual FPGA tools support Macs. (Someone I vaguely know was complaining about this on Twitter the other day.) It's possible someone will write an alternative that doesn't need them and works on Macs at some point but I wouldn't hold your breath... Edit: Of course the new board version and the scripts for that might, once they're finished, but... |
|
|
|
So it seems trolls are getting fake to keep trolling  Not fake unless there's something I'm missing. Compare the Google Cache version of that page with the live one... |
|
|
|
LOL ..so let's see here nobody above ^^ can be linked to SA ? and you know this how?
Hi! Well, buttcoin is but was only commenting about buttcoin.org, and technically I can be *waves* though you'll notice my comments weren't exactly supportive of warweed or nanaimogold... don't recognise any of the other posters as SA people. |
|
|
|
I propose the same method of procedure for jews. Got to flag those subhumans; they are a threat to the public.
Now now, have some perspective...  (Sorry, fellow goons, couldn't resist the joke - one of you has the singular honour of being the only person to talk about yiffing on any of the Bitcoin IRC channels since I started logging.) More seriously: they appear to have managed to dig up the kind of information about Bruce Wagner that has been desperately needed for months. They might even end up saving Bitcoins, or at least killing them to save them. If someone had found this earlier it would've saved a lot of trouble... (and no, it's not because I lack a credit card, it's because it's easy to write Bitcoins off as imaginary money to spend them on silly shit) Problem is I'm not sure I'd trust any goons to not just take the payment and then delete their wallet for other goons' enjoyment at my expense.  Possibly wise; most of them, errm us, feel the same way about Bitcoins as you... |
|
|
|
|
My personal recollection is that no-one did, by the way. The Bitcoin Police lot also ended up giving up on investigating MyBitcoin because no one affected by it was willing to get law enforcement involved or file a lawsuit themselves.
(Full disclosure: I am a SA member; in fact Bitcoin convinced me to finally sign up.)
|
|
|
|
By the way, for a little more clarification...
In that excerpt from 2006, in that forum... which is being attributed to me... The FACT is.... My post was the one at the top. The message I was REPLYING TO was the one at the bottom...
In other words, my words were at the top --- before the word "QUOTE(tdperhs..." etc.
The words after "QUOTE(tdperhs..." ....is the other guy's post..... the post to which I was replying.
Those words about a "virgins and newbies" and "a three pronged attack".... were NOT my words.
You can see clearly that I was quoting that other guy. I'm quoting this here because it's a lie, and an easily disproved one. You can find Bruce's comment in its original context here. You'll notice three things. Firstly, while the display of quotes is somewhat broken, quotes are consistently terminated by a slightly wider vertical space than normal - which means the quote is actually a single paragraph and "a three pronged attack" is Bruce's words. Secondly, you can see the post he's quoting above his and confirm it is a single paragraph. Thirdly, in that page and all three preceding pages the only mention of a three-pronged attack I can find is Bruce's. Edit: To be entirely clear, the "virgins and newbies" paragraph was a quote and not written by Bruce, but in my opinion that was already fairly obvious even from the formatting-stripped version originally posted on here. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
