Internet outage would be the best possible outcome  |
|
|
|
|
I think most people don't trust Bitcoinica if they (he) don't publish more company details/contact infos.
|
|
|
|
Another mine&dump TestCoin?  |
|
|
|
|
Just waiting for the difficulty retargeting, then the game can go on ^^
|
|
|
|
Nice  |
|
|
|
I've never seen that much shameless bullshit in a release changelog.
If you want to add some facts to your smart observations you should wait for the source code and mention the relevant code blocks ;-) Otherwise this is just trolling... |
|
|
|
1.04 crashes every time if: select address book> select address> edit> add name> OK > crash and burn
After restart, account has the added comment.
One bug regarding the address book is already fixed in the code, so this should probably fine in the next release. |
|
|
|
Guidelines from freenode.net ( http://freenode.net/channel_guidelines.shtml) "If you just want to publish a single conversation, be careful to get permission from each participant. Provide as much context as you can. Avoid the temptation to publish or distribute logs without permission in order to portray someone in a bad light. The reputation you save will most likely be your own. " |
|
|
|
Y'know, I have to admit...
CoinHunter posts a bunch of lies about BTC when SolidCoin comes out. Now he's doing the same.
I think someone needs to pull the 10,000-times version of ArtForz' attack and break SolidCoin to tiny little pieces now.
You are upset because you think someone is lying on the internet and now you want revenge? Better to take some offline time then |
|
|
|
I may be wrong, but I think you can mess with the timestamps, drop the difficulty *really* low, and then outrun the main blockchain, orphaning everyone else's blocks that were generated in that timeframe.
Other nodes don't accept your blocks if you mined/solved at a wrong difficulty (I hope) |
|
|
|
oh crap i nearly forgot about this.. and we are at 20056.. yeah it might be a while before the diff drops. You might have wanted to do that adjustment at 20060 instead of 20130, this is going to take ages.
Doesn't it retarget after max of 24h ? |
|
|
|
There is no reason not to keep going with solidcoin as an open source project. The bugs have been fixed. Quit taking your hate about a developer too far. Hes arrogant and an asshole, but the software is now fine to use and many people wish to continue it. He is not the head of the project anymore with this open source release. Mining pools should open back up and other exchanges that closed should open up again.
+1 OSS wins most of the time... |
|
|
|
Hm ok I was wrong, it looks like it was possible to inject an alien blockchain into the new client So he probably will change back the "messageStart" and the bad miners have helped to speed up the blockgeneration, so that 20055 is reached earlier ;-) |
|
|
|
|
Maybe smoothie wants to get in again at a lower price? Maybe he is angry because all the profit he couldn't realize because he got out to early... ;-)
|
|
|
|
any of the larger pools could easily run a double spending attack on solidcoin / on a sc exchange. hopefully somebody will attempt it soon. I sure would offer my humble hashing power for a short time. how much profit could there be in this? someone start the killerpool please!
The funny thing is: you can just spend on a double spending attack what you HAVE. So if someone uses SO MUCH ressources for just spending some hundret IXCs, who cars? And if you have some thousand IXCs, why would you want to destroy their value? ^^ So either your balance is small enough to have no impact, or you have no intensions to destroy your wallets value. |
|
|
|
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... "...I just can't get it to propagate across the network for some reason..." And you still don't get it? |
|
|
|
OK, can you point me to the change that makes the two chains incompatible? I can't find it...
"New Peering Marker 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)" |
|
|
|
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.
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 ^^ |
|
|
|
The new chain may have the value, but the old chain has the hashing power (including my own 6970^^) ;-) Block count: 20032 vs. 20028 Some people seem not to understand the difference between a network based chain split and a forced software chain split ;-) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
