Alternative method  CAUTION: A LOT OF LETTERS  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=483847.msg7032195#msg7032195In short: using signmessage wallet command Pros: - Works on any platform - Takes almost no time for user - No need for user to coordinate exact time with devs - No need for user to share screen or install smth - No need for user to make transaction while network is unstable - Proves 100% that this user really own that address Cons: - should be done only after all exchanges finalizes swapping to prevent double swap by sending to exchanges (like for any manual swap) - network should be shutdown to prevent double swap by sending to another address (like for any manual swap) PS. instead of using web form one can think of using any kind of messaging available to actually send request to swap coins (like for manual with TXIDs) |
|
|
|
nice!  why wouldn't you announce The Great Transfer in BIG RED LETTERS then? |
|
|
|
Ok, I'll hold the bridge but don't forget to grab me when everyone pass it |
|
|
|
<some fucking idiot thoughts>
reported and ignored, thank you |
|
|
|
Just my 2 cents but the transfer needs to be "dummied" down. I myself am not an advanced IT person but can figure things out if given the path. I know some people though who dont know the first thing about computers. They can not be excluded from this transfer due to the lack of knowledge of how to accomplish it. Last time was nice and easy. Send to an exchange, wait for the transfer, withdraw into the new wallet. Can someone explain why we are veering away from this method. I though we were going to send to either bittrex or nxt-e and let them do the transfer.
Just an fyi ive learned a lot in the past couple of months about cryptos and programming itself just from this community. Thanks all
basically - transactions doesn't get confirmed anymore |
|
|
|
Speaking of untrusted info and the way to help devs - you just gave me another idea btw Dev can make simple form to request only this kind of info - "old address, signed message, new address". So there will be no need to make transaction and it can be nicely automated too. [snip] What do you guys think?  Hey there UdjinM6 . I like this approach... no need to try and get corrupt wallets to send a transaction, instead holders prove they own an address. Hopefully this is something the guys can use. Thank you for your proposal. It's look like a good solution to me and it isn't too difficult for common users if the instructions are well clear. In a first step, I'm trying to understand what's happen with the blockchain since we launched the coins deposit to exchanges. It seems to me a node is mining and his blocks only are confirmed by other nodes. I can't say if it is a real attack using the PoW vulnerability or if somebody took accidentally control of the blockchain because he thought about mining to secure the Network. Of this fact nodes are not allowed to generate new PoS blocks and transactions (PoS blocks too?) are never confirmed. If I understand this well, he could have a monopoly on the blockchain because he's generating more blocks than other nodes and his block chain is always longer than other ones. My idea: if we were able to take the control of the blockchain and to secure the network again, we could relaunch the coins deposit to exchanges in the standard way. If you are able to make some diagnostics and to find a solution, your help will be appreciated. Well, reenabling network would be the best solution for sure. I'm trying to investigate it too. Here what I have in my debug.log btw >>> CheckStakeKernelHash: nTimeWeight = 169512
>>> CheckStakeKernelHash: passed GetKernelStakeModifier
>>> bnCoinDayWeight = 1179, bnTargetPerCoinDay=44181385987935051930350383809369221721160212308295210935944315142144
>>> CheckStakeKernelHash - hashProofOfStake too much
I have a lot of similar messages like that where only nTimeWeight and bnCoinDayWeight differ. I guess this message came from https://github.com/coin2-project/Coin2.0/blob/3223cb835711b2b78f8dfeb74928bab238785763/src/kernel.cpp#L326And that's the good news - I think we know where to start digging. So basically something is wrong with the protocol and prevents to generate PoS block correctly. But I don't really understand what caused this protocol break - an attack or an error. And here come bad news - I'm pretty poor at C (C++) so have now idea how/where to dig next.  |
|
|
|
Had to check - I don't see anything about DRK, either. But what a deal: Bitfinex Bitcoin last price: $606.0 Few days ago, I saw DRK listed on bitfinex's peroformance summary page... Now they removed it ...to get more while they can |
|
|
|
Correction to idea with RPC calls:
- I thought about it a little more and that's not that good idea actually - rpc protocol is plain http, we cannot trust it. One can write his rpc server and fake responses easily.
Regarding 2 latest ideas:
- simple daemon that run locally can be easily compromised too and I'm not sure we are capable of writing another safe crypto thing just for swapping coins
- I don't think exchanges are going to swap balance by unconfirmed deposits - pretty risky for them
Sorry, can't join IRC right now, please post ideas here too. Be back in 8-10 hours.
Thanks.
I am not an expert on the blockchain.... but, with regards the RPC method, if we use listUnspent() then shouldn't the response be verifiable ? Well, afaik "listunspent" gives you a list of transaction outputs (vout) that are not seen in inputs (vin) of any other transaction. And this info is publicly available in blockchain. As an example look at that address http://nc2chain.info/address/CeNudFti4pMv2DGhQny9tPZcgpBzh7pTa9Note (U)nspent and (S)pent in transaction outputs... Speaking of untrusted info and the way to help devs - you just gave me another idea btw Dev can make simple form to request only this kind of info - "old address, signed message, new address". So there will be no need to make transaction and it can be nicely automated too. This is how to make it work (yes, using console again, sorry everyone ): 1. some person sign his address as a message (you can sign any message with <Coin2.0address> only if you have private key for it) signmessage <Coin2.0address> <message> for example signmessage CHAiN12348eGFtwQsMTVPFfGwQRniAMqw1 CHAiN12348eGFtwQsMTVPFfGwQRniAMqw1 and the output will be something like that (for this example) HGlGZcNK54gFlnKLOPUlFYdBlvyfaFrL6HRXJyJHtjoONPyr0JYaC940kuRgOYM3WIMySeoDNUoVhl8F33AB1oE= 2. this person enters data in form I mentioned before - old address - CHAiN12348eGFtwQsMTVPFfGwQRniAMqw1 - signed message - HGlGZcNK54gFlnKLOPUlFYdBlvyfaFrL6HRXJyJHtjoONPyr0JYaC940kuRgOYM3WIMySeoDNUoVhl8 F33AB1oE= - new address - SomeNewAddressForOurNewCoin2walletqt 3. devs can easily verify that this person own this address by making RPC call to old daemon verifymessage <Coin2.0address> <signature> <message> or for my example verifymessage CHAiN12348eGFtwQsMTVPFfGwQRniAMqw1 HGlGZcNK54gFlnKLOPUlFYdBlvyfaFrL6HRXJyJHtjoONPyr0JYaC940kuRgOYM3WIMySeoDNUoVhl8F33AB1oE= CHAiN12348eGFtwQsMTVPFfGwQRniAMqw1 that should give dev an output if everything match or if there is something wrong with that address or signature (so maybe someone is trying to fool dev) 4. dev can use whatever method they like to get old balance, for example nc2chain.info API http://nc2chain.info/api/address/CHAiN12348eGFtwQsMTVPFfGwQRniAMqw1/balance 5. ... and credit this person to his SomeNewAddressForOurNewCoin2walletqt by making RPC call to new daemon sendtoaddress <NewCoin2.0address> <amount> like sendtoaddress SomeNewAddressForOurNewCoin2walletqt 7555.502597 What do you guys think? |
|
|
|
|
Correction to idea with RPC calls:
- I thought about it a little more and that's not that good idea actually - rpc protocol is plain http, we cannot trust it. One can write his rpc server and fake responses easily.
Regarding 2 latest ideas:
- simple daemon that run locally can be easily compromised too and I'm not sure we are capable of writing another safe crypto thing just for swapping coins
- I don't think exchanges are going to swap balance by unconfirmed deposits - pretty risky for them
Sorry, can't join IRC right now, please post ideas here too. Be back in 8-10 hours.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
hey King Arbin, any ideas why a deposit to bittrex has no confirmations an hour and a half later?
Cause the network is kinda gone to hell atm.. just wait, i have received word from the exchanges that they have your unconfirmed so things will still be ok during the conversion, but just do like FredDag was saying and try to rescan your blockchain or redownload it. We are gonna have to manually convert peoples coins by having them send their wallet.dats to us AFTER everyone has the new wallet so they have a new address to tell us where to send their coins. Just thinking out loud King.... Instead of sending wallet files in, could we do RPC calls to get the available balance of some wallets? Something along the lines of.... - Devs: --- Designate & publish a master IP address where the authorised RPC calls will originate (xx.yy.zz.111) --- Create script on (xx.yy.zz.111) to receive input of holders IP address, make RPC Calls & save the result for use in change-over. - Holders: --- Ensure wallets are encrypted --- Update config with RPCAllowIP (xx.yy.zz.111) --- Open wallet but leave locked --- Visit script on (xx.yy.zz.111) which will attempt to RPC getBalance() & listUnspent() based on holders ip address Not saying this would be 100% perfect solution, but maybe it could take some of the load off the dev team. +1 that's pretty interesting idea... |
|
|
|
hey King Arbin, any ideas why a deposit to bittrex has no confirmations an hour and a half later?
Cause the network is kinda gone to hell atm.. just wait, i have received word from the exchanges that they have your unconfirmed so things will still be ok during the conversion, but just do like FredDag was saying and try to rescan your blockchain or redownload it. We are gonna have to manually convert peoples coins by having them send their wallet.dats to us AFTER everyone has the new wallet so they have a new address to tell us where to send their coins. Well, sending wallet.dat is not that great idea imho  I already said it before (many pages back) - the way for someone to prove he owns the address is to make small transaction - it seems more safe and easier to make. The process could be something like that: 1. You (dev) announce "change address" (so you can easily track it) 2. You ask everyone to send you PM with their new and old addresses 3. You reply to every person who sent you that kind of pm with some small random number, let's say below 1 NC2 like 0.32451 4. This person have to make transaction with exactly that number of NC2 from his old addresses to that "change address". So he should do few steps in his wallet console (backing up wallet.dat first of course) * repair wallet (just in case he have already sent the whole amount and it stuck in unconfirmed state, should help but I'm not sure about that) * for every account name listed in his wallet sendfrom <one of his accounts> <dev "change address"> <that random number in pm> 5. Once you have transactions from his old addresses you send amount of new coins equal to his old balances sum to his new address. 6. .... 7. PROFIT!!! I guess this should work even when network is almost dead and transactions are not confirmed. The only problem I see here - scammers - you have to make sure: - it's not his 2nd/3rd/and_so_on pm and you didn't sent him coins already - address he sent from match the one he claims to be his own exactly (he can send from another address to fool you) But blockchain explorer and some kind of address list would help to solve this issues ps. King, check your PMs plz |
|
|
|
looks like we are crossing the MACD trend at Mintpal with time interval 4 hrs (6 hrs closing in but not yet there).
Could get us in a good upside market from now on.
I enjoy your posts. Always seem so random, I haven't got a clue what you're talking about, but you seem enthusiastic about it all. Keep it up. thanks, i'm a very random person random is good in crypto |
|
|
|
Are there issues with the main blockchain viewer at explorer.blackcoin.co, as the block and transaction information displayed and provided by it's API appear to be around 3 days behind; is the website having problems?
Hi, yes, it appears to be lagging behind. At the moment this one seems to be working: www.blackcha.inCheers Maarx, I'd already messaged the dev UdjinM6 about how to implement his API earlier today - as we keep getting Bad Request errors - hopefully hear back later, and fingers crossed the issues with the primary one are resolved soon replied, check your pm plz EDIT: in case anyone else is interested I posted API examples on reddit also http://www.reddit.com/r/blackcoin/comments/240tbz/blackchain_blackcoin_blockchain_explorer/chtzd3n |
|
|
|
All that matters is a good strong solid anon coin. For me the price isnt important to watch until that is established. In the end people will go where the quality is.
+1. Personally, it think it will be drk. I think it will be worth the wait and trouble. As I see it, there are two situations that could be going on. 1. Evan is screwing us over. 2. Evan is keeping it closed source and not talking much, because he is producing a product (Hate that word, but can't think of anything better) that is much, much better then the competition. I'm (Personally) sure that it's #2. #1 - no way #2 - yes, he's reviewing all ideas to see if there is a better way to do this that won't cause forking. I made a suggestion, but InternetApe said it was centralization, however, I think he is wrong. But I'll put it out here and see what you all think? I realized that the reason we don't pay masternodes a share of each 20% block reward is because there are so many masternodes, and to do hundreds or thousands of transactions for each block would obviously bulk up the block chain, not something anyone would want. But what if an account that is not accessible to anyone keeps track of each available masternode, for each block, awarding them a share if they were available, and then also collects the 20% mining rewards. Then once a day, this account pays all the masternodes at once, with one transaction, a percentage of the purse depending on how many shares each masternode submits, kind of like a pool. Once the payment is made, the account is cleared, all the tallying for the day is deleted and the system starts afresh. Every wallet would process this information, keeping a copy of it, like the blockchain, except that it is volatile information, and it goes away once the payout is made. Do you all think this is centralized? I think it's no centralized than any single transaction, unless I'm missing something? Its a good point. I was thinking about that today. The trouble is trust. you need a system with no trust. I thought that master nodes could get paid in the same way as pools. all at once. if they are around they get a share, if not, the share gets divided up equally amongst all online. I'm sure there is a problem with that idea too, but it seemed to be easier to implement. This exactly. Once we have "account" there must be some private key to it. Dev can say 1000 times he doesn't know it and I wouldn't believe. |
|
|
|
Guys, is anyone else having troubles moving C2 right now? I noticed my wallet stopped staking and blockchain is weird: - blocks 64681 and 64584 arrived almost at the same time. - few small transactions I made just to check is everything ok or not are unconfirmed for a long time Looks like we forked or smth...  |
|
|
|
COIN2 DEPOSIT TO EXCHANGES STARTS NOW
....
that's nice few questions though: - how can we secure network if all our coins will be on exchanges that doesn't stake like local wallets do? should large holders wait till the end of the week then to prevent another attack or is it safe now? - what final decision was made on new coin parameters? We though about network security and exchanges have increased the confirmations number to prevent double spent attempt. We hesitated to group Dev team coins to stake, but we finally gave up making it. New coin specs will follow. ok, got it. waiting for coin specs then. ...
I am staking 1.5 million NC2 right now to help secure the network and will try to send the coins towards the end of the deposit period to minimize risk of an attack.
nice! leaving my wallet staking till the end too. btw. what time/date is "the end" exactly? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
