 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »
|
More soon.
Any update on the updated update regarding the updated update yet? Yeah. We tried a couple different things and this one seems to work. https://github.com/tewinget/bitmonero/commits/202612_exceptionWe may replace the tree-hash code still because that solution from CN isn't quite right either, but you can download this, build, and try syncing it to the main chain now if you'd like. Thanks you and other devs for getting on top of this. It's a distraction from progressing with features, but just like addressing a bug in a production application, you should gain some knowledge out of all this that can be of value in the future. |
|
|
|
|
I don't know what most miners are doing with mined coins, and I don't suggest dumping them for BTC on an exchange, but if they are being kept or donated to the MARS project (i.e. held), that does not help the coin's liquidity.
Exchanges will de-list any coins that are not actively traded, and for Poloniex that appears to be around 0.1 BTC volume per day. Coin's without an exchange listing don't have a rosy future.
I suggest miners should pass coins through an exchange before making them illiquid, even if it means setting up two accounts and trading with yourself. The exchange commission is very low, 0.2% + 0.01MRS on withdrawal (Poloniex).
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be possible to design a scrypt asic so that running n units in parallel gives script-n? Granted some software support from the miner app would be needed too. That way, changing n would not completely obsolete the hardware.
Also I see n doubling each time in the schedule, is n=3072 etc not possible?
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but I am not handing over my private keys. This looks like a risky precedent. You should have thought of some way for the owners to prove they had the required wallet private key by generating a public key, or sequence of public keys, or sending dust or similar. Any protocol that requires the private keys is suspect.
|
|
|
|
Can anybody witness else confirm that "Cryptonote creators called bytecoin their reference implementation" in that time?
There are two possibilities:
1. As you proved in that thread, and as commonly known this days, Bytecoin had been hiddenly premined. So if some witnesses do confirm that Cryptonote creators (proven by SSL certificate) did call Bytecoin their reference implementation, it will completely disconsider Cryptonote creators.
I don't agree with all your statements, but that statement is still there: https://forum.cryptonote.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11That is where I found it, and as its in the forum, it may not be official, my bad. |
|
|
|
was the previous one possibly just an orphan block? It's in the blockchain, I am assuming explorer.vertcoind.org/block does not have records for orphans. I'm not sure how p2pool works, but I have never seen an orphan, I assume it does not report blocks until they are confirmed. |
|
|
|
I have been mining for some time using p2pool from http://lovok.no-ip.com/, and now I find a block did not payout to me. When I look at the block I see a lot of addresses all starting with 1 which does not look normal, and my address is not listed. Here is the block in question: http://explorer.vertcoin.org/block/76b275a1700c8cab7482b608c22fed33e3ad159f5cf5d1ddd8dd64d1225fe940N.B. I run the p2pool myself, and i have not updated vertcoind for stealth, since it will not compile from GIT on my OS version. I need to wait for the standard vertcoind ubuntu package to be upgraded, since that's how I did the original install. |
|
|
|
Only one person really said the blockchain was bogus and that was smooth and this was just some words. Smooth is a Monero dev mind you and for a while would come here spreading much FUD
1. I never said that it was bogus, I said that the dates it in could have been faked and the chain could have been mined in a much shorter period of time given that less than 10 computers would be required to mine it in two years. Simple math shows that if 10 computers could mine it in two years than 120 computers could mine it in two months, or 1000 computers (say on EC2 or in a lab) could mine it in a few days. I also said that there is no verifiable evidence of anything related to this coin existing prior to late 2013 or early 2014. There was certainly no public launch two years ago. If you don't want to call that a premine, call it something else, like a private mine. 2. I think you will find that my skepticism of the story behind this coin and the blatant campaign of sock puppet accounts (some stupidluy created within minutes of each other) promoting it predates the existence of Monero. It was my comments that in fact helped encourage others in the community to start Monero as a clean public launch (I joined later). 3. Comparisons with bitcoin because you personally may not have known about it are totally off base. Bitcoin was publicly launched and I have provided links that verifiably prove that bitcoin existed and was public when it claims to be. No such proof has been offered for BCN (almost certainly because it doesn't exist). 4. There is at least one other person who has said the chain may be bogus (in fact I think he said it more strongly than I did). It was someone on the coinmarketcap thread. I have no connection with that person or account and I don't know who it is. Whoever it is came to his own conclusions that matched (or even go beyond) mine. I was interested enough in this mystery to look at the blockchain myself. Unlike bitcoin, this blockchain does not provide much information about payments other than an unlinkable transaction id - by design, so all I could really look at was the timestamp. Here is what I found: 1st block 2012-07-04 05:00:00
2nd block 2012-07-04 05:00:01
3rd block 2012-07-04 05:00:02
4th block 2012-07-04 06:00:05
5th block 2012-07-04 05:00:06
6th block 2012-07-04 05:00:08
7th block 2012-07-04 05:00:09
8th block 2012-07-04 05:00:10
100th Block 2012-07-04 05:02:46
101th Block 2012-07-04 05:02:47
1000th Block 2012-07-05 07:28:26
1001th Block 2012-07-05 07:28:27
10000th Block 2012-07-18 01:42:01
10001st Block 2012-07-18 01:44:00
10002nd Block 2012-07-18 01:48:13
100000th Block 2012-11-22 20:29:40
100001st Block 2012-11-22 20:30:35
200000th Block 2013-04-16 12:54:29
300000th Block 2013-09-06 12:34:16
400000th Block 2014-01-25 02:54:02
500000th Block 2014-06-12 01:26:32 The blockchain could be fake, and it has some strangeness: switch from 1 sec blocks to 2 minute blocks somewhere between block 1001 and 10000. Timestamp for block 4 anomaly. I also checked the way back machine and verified the bytecoin.org page was online by 24th Feb 2014. URL existed earlier but for an apparently unrelated project. The page looks so cheesy it could almost be real. Whatever the status of the blockchain, it is clear this coin was mined (or fake mined) for nearly 2 years worth of coins in secret by one or a group of individuals who have never been revealed. Call it a premine or not it has the same outcome. The symbiosis between cryptonote and bytecoin also draws my attention. Cryptonote calls bytecoin their reference implementation. Bytecoin code has crytponote copyright and licence at core, but there is no other public repository for the cryptonote code that I could find. My intuition tells me they are not the same person or persons since they seem to have different objectives by the artifacts they have published. |
|
|
|
I have a wallet or blockchain error, not sure which at this stage. I can't spend at all any amount. I have deleted wallet.bin and resynced the wallet, it did not make any difference. The daemon claims I am trying to spend already spent "key images", the wallet chose to include them, so is this a wallet code error? Is my copy of the blockchain corrupt? Whatever it is there is a bug somewhere that caused this. Next time I will not attempt to do two spends in a row without waiting for the first to be reported by the blockchain in the wallet. That is the scenario I think that caused this. The wallet says: transaction <XXX> rejected by daemon with status "Failed" The wallet logs says: 2014-Jun-27 20:26:08.629566 ERROR c:\projects\sorrybigbro\src\wallet\wallet2.h:427 daemon_send_resp.status != CORE_RPC_STATUS_OK. THROW EXCEPTION: error::tx_rejected
2014-Jun-27 20:26:08.637566 c:\projects\sorrybigbro\src\wallet\wallet2.h:427:struct tools::error::tx_rejected: transaction was rejected by daemon, status = Failed, tx:
{
"version": 1,
"unlock_time": 0,
"vin": [ {
"key": {
"amount": 2249793371,
"key_offsets": [ 0
],
etc, etc
2014-Jun-27 20:26:08.638566 Error: transaction <14432cab66b80f6ad799612c56a4f83a9e1dbed2633311577a9c1c39378aae8a> was rejected by daemon with status "Failed"
2014-Jun-27 20:26:33.753003 Read command: exit The daemon log says: 2014-Jun-27 20:25:43.593134 [RPC1][on_send_raw_tx]: Failed to process tx
2014-Jun-27 20:26:08.610564 [RPC1]ERROR ..\..\src\cryptonote_core\tx_pool.cpp:62 Transaction with id= <14432cab66b80f6ad799612c56a4f83a9e1dbed2633311577a9c1c39378aae8a> used already spent key images
2014-Jun-27 20:26:08.619565 [RPC1]Transaction verification failed: <14432cab66b80f6ad799612c56a4f83a9e1dbed2633311577a9c1c39378aae8a> |
|
|
|
I am tired of seeing messages like: 2014-Jun-22 06:55:07.133527 [P2P2][122.117.207.143:64670 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 30776 -> 18464 [12312
blocks (-17 days) ahead]
SYNCHRONIZATION started I know it doesn't seem to do any harm, but what it is due to, a number of miners running an out of date daemon, or a stuck daemon? Or is it just the normal message when someone tries to update an old blockchain and I am providing the sync source? |
|
|
|
hi, i
can't update block,please help me
2014-Jun-21 23:58:06.500994 [P2P6]Block recognized as orphaned and rejected, id
= <9c626a62eff6c67f6398f5a638a71adf2536a147cecf7dce723d29159a5677be>
2014-Jun-21 23:58:08.036082 [P2P6][162.210.192.66:8380 OUT]Block received at syn
c phase was marked as orphaned, dropping connection
This looks like a normal message, what block are you up to? I am at block 30800 |
|
|
|
I've been mining at http://qcn.cryptity.com/ since yesterday and paid less then 1/10 what I expect based on hashrate and blocks discovered. Same here - Still they got msg in the header "On June 17th some payments failed! Working on a solution. Thanks for your patience." My coins eventually turned up, I think the "June 17th" event recurred, without mention. But I think the operator is honest. |
|
|
|
Mining for pools where you are more than 1% can be rather difficult, and despite all the talk of decentralization it's actually provably less profitable to mine at a small pool than at a large pool. If it's not, then why doesn't everyone just stick with solo mining forever? Because you'll likely never find a single block that way, just like a small pool will only find blocks infrequently. A pool with 3% of the hash rate for example is likely to find about 2.7% of blocks in my experience, while a pool with 1% might only find 0.5% of the blocks. And a pool with 35% of the hash rate might find 37% of blocks. But that's a topic for discussion elsewhere.
I don't doubt that is correct. I also have found that the pools not generating dust for my hashrate are not at all reliable. It seems to be a problem with all the Bytecoin code derived coins. Other coins I have mined in pools (litecoin and vertcoin) do not seem to have these problems. |
|
|
|
Mining for pools where you are more than 1% can be rather difficult, and despite all the talk of decentralization it's actually provably less profitable to mine at a small pool than at a large pool. If it's not, then why doesn't everyone just stick with solo mining forever? Because you'll likely never find a single block that way, just like a small pool will only find blocks infrequently. A pool with 3% of the hash rate for example is likely to find about 2.7% of blocks in my experience, while a pool with 1% might only find 0.5% of the blocks. And a pool with 35% of the hash rate might find 37% of blocks. But that's a topic for discussion elsewhere.
I'm mining a decent amount of coins right now, which is of course generating tons of small payouts over time. What's the best way to consolidate those so I can do one or two larger transfers to an exchange? Do I just run:
transfer 0 [My Address] [Amount] [My Address]
And do that multiple times until I can send larger transactions of 10 to 100 coins without having the wallet balk about having too many inputs? I guess I'd have to wait for confirmation on the transfers as well, but better than than ending up with vaporized coins. LOL
Yes that will work. I send as much as will fit (approximately) in a single payment, and keep sending that payment again and again until there is little left. Then wait for it to return as consolidated inputs. N.B. you only need to do: transfer 0 [My Address] [Amount]
The repeated address in your command is payment id, but does no harm: transfer 0 [My Address] [Amount] [My Address=Payment Id] |
|
|
|
I sent about 10.4 QCN to Poloniex yesterday as a test -- so verify I could transfer the coins properly, basically. Unfortunately, all has not gone well and while their support apparently looked into things and credited one of the deposits, the other six are still missing. Wait, seven deposits? Oh, yeah... I couldn't send one bigger transaction due to the old "too many inputs" problem. So I split it up into seven transactions (I just pressed the up arrow to repeat the last command, though I did generate a new payment ID after the first transfer). Here's the list of commands I used in the wallet:
I think it is risky to change the payment id while payments are still to be processed, are you sure Poloniex can handle that? They may only store one payment id per account/coin. Also, I wouldn't use an exchange transfer to cleanup dust, those transfers take longer and it just makes everything harder to track. Such a large transaction for such a small amount could sit around for a while before being included in a block, and may eventually be rejected and returned to your wallet. I clean up small inputs by sending the coins back to the same wallet first, or a second wallet used for spending (the first used only for mining). Don't mine for pools where you are a tiny fraction of the pool hash (<1%), find a pool more suitable for your hash rate, until the pools have sorted out a solution for the dust problem. |
|
|
|
I've been mining at http://qcn.cryptity.com/ since yesterday and paid less then 1/10 what I expect based on hashrate and blocks discovered. EDIT: coins turned up late, better late than never  . |
|
|
|
Hi,
I was going to send 10 QCN but surprisingly spent 12.745 QCN instead.
Could anyone explain what has happened?
EDIT: the balance is all right now and this is not an issue anymore.
Anyway I'd like to understand what was going on, so am leaving the question.
Didn't make any trasnfer to my wallet recently, so why do I have received transactions?
In the wallet I have some balance locked. In the blockexplorer the transaction is for 12.745 QCN
The story form my wallet in text:
--- This is normal, the inputs never exactly match the outputs so it sends slightly more and you get some change back. |
|
|
|
Price is up more 300% already?   Action has already begun before I plan to start it  i cannot start because the wallet don't send payment but sole money Hold it. Don't rush to sell now. It just begins. I didn't sell when QCN was 3$, why should I sell now? the problem will remain..i lost 29 QCN Did you try to contact poloniex ? They are a little slow but they solved a lot of missing deposits for my acquaintances. i tryed..and wait..but how can i see all payment outgoing my wallet? Use the wallet command "incoming_transfers unavailable" |
|
|
|
|
