In previous posts BitcoinEXpress has said he would attack other chains. Obviously this puts any exchange on those chains at risk hence my stopping deposits and withdrawals in the meantime. If you outline your so called "checkpoint hopping" exploit and other chain attacks for the chain authors to provide solutions for I can consider re-opening them. In the meantime they'll remained closed until I'm confident that a safe way for people to withdraw the funds is available. If you want them opened quicker I suggest you contact the chain authors to fix them. In posts on the namecoin forums you've stated that amicable resolutions can be reached and implied that if I open an exchange for the GG chain you wouldn't attack namecoin. You even emailed me personally recently asking me to open a GG exchange. Why would I want to run any exchange with the issues you profess plans to exploit existing? +1 Well said. Seems BCX is still wanting an exchange for GG from DoubleC yet he makes idle (so far) threats about attacking chains that DoubleC manages exchanges for. |
|
|
|
I don't understand why your solution results in faster processing for the user. My CTxOut::getValue(int nHeight) method seems very fast to me.
I didn't mean computationally faster. If demurrage fees are counted as transaction fees, the transaction is more likely to be accepted for the next block, and therefore the transaction will be confirmed more quickly, on average. Yes, transactions from "old accounts" will be processed faster even with no transaction fees. But I don't see how that's desirable. With my proposal, the user will add more funds than needed to the transaction to pay the demurrage charged from the creation of the transaction to its inclusion in the chain. With the change if this extra coins he can do: 1) Keep it to himself 2) Give it to the miner 3) Give it to the recipient 4) A combination of the three He can also specify a transaction fee to the miner. My proposal (apart from maintaining demurrage revenues for miners constant), gives more freedom to the users to decide what is better for them. I have recently seen this thread as well as the freicoin page and ripple page. I understand that planning is a must but when will implementation and testing begin? You can only discuss something so much before it becomes a circled discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Longer term (few weeks): We are likely headed lower to the $2.50 range and possibly lower.
|
|
|
|
What do you mean by bitcoin withdraw?
From that link you sent it seems negative. I also agree with this person. Personally I would not want to hold lots of bitcoins. First it is too volatile. Second, It is way too easily hacked. If I held like 10K in bitcoins, I would be deathly worried about my wallet being hacked and my bitcoins stolen, and then I could do nothing to get them back.
If you look at the 1 year chart on a daily candlestick and calculate the mean for the last 365 days you will see that when we hit $4.20 we touched the mean/average. Given how bubble cycles work, we should pass through the mean value (currently $4.65) and hit much lower values. Also it does not appear that the recent movement has confirmed any breakout to the upside. My prediction: We are headed for the $2.50 range and possibly lower over the next few weeks. |
|
|
|
I love DoubleC, he's a great guy but he is getting just plain nervous here.
No need to close his exchanges, even Namecoin till 19100.
Ixcoin, I0coin and Solidcoin have the same "Time Travel" exploit that Geist Geld had.
ArtForz discovered the exploit and the subsequent fix. The Admins of the respective coins can contact ArtForz or Lolcust for the patch.
The fix was was tested several times, it passed.
Namecoin has an exploit peculiar to NMC.
Say what you want, but there has been more collective cooperation going on in Namecoin in the past 48 hours than in the 90 days combined while it stagnated and died, thanks to this.
Finally the best part, Coinhunter was put in check.
Again, IXcoin and I0coin are in no threat and can be fixed rather easy.
BCX
This all coming from someone who has claimed to be purely about profit? Yeah thanks but no thanks. Precautions are in place for a reason. Think what you want but given your recent trolling and touting DoubleC is just doing what he thinks is right in the current situation. Stop backpedaling on your statements. Just go about your business with you 68GH/s. |
|
|
|
Well at the moment the IXcoin exchange has the following notice:
Sadly it was a necessary step to protect the exchange against the threat until ixcoin/i0coin provides steps to defend against it. IXcoin and I0coin are under no threat LOL Why because you say so? The exploit you found for SLC can be preformed on all the other crypto-currencys... You trying to court people to one specific currency just because it's "safe" in your eyes is pathetic. It's funny seeing you in these forums running with a huge power trip all because you "can" do something. I have to agree here. You don't have to continually tout anything. Just go about your business. |
|
|
|
Well at the moment the IXcoin exchange has the following notice:
Sadly it was a necessary step to protect the exchange against the threat until ixcoin/i0coin provides steps to defend against it. IXcoin and I0coin are under no threat LOL Can't be too sure. But then again can't be too sure about anything anymore. |
|
|
|
I just read this whole thread through and... I'm still not convinced Bruce is guilty of anything. Foolish? Maybe. Misguided? Occasionally. But a bad person? I refuse to believe it. He's always been so open kind and generous to me...
Perhaps its because of your username? |
|
|
|
|
Just a thought: At the current rate of 15 second blocks and 7 coins per block the entire network will generate an additional 7,000,000 coins in something like 178 days.
With all of the other chains it never took that long to create the bounty sum total.
Just saying it might seem that 7million was waay overkill in terms of diluting the market value if an exchange does come up.
|
|
|
|
Let us know on this thread if you are mining GG.
I am.
10 GH/ s in normal mode, no reason to kill it  What other modes are there? |
|
|
|
I still can't get the damn thing to work. Stupid blockchain.  What seems to be the problem? Error message? |
|
|
|
|
Several things:
1. Can you get into safe mode via F8?
2. When you are in the BIOS has it shutdown on you? If so, your CPU could be in need of some thermal paste. Could be overheating.
3. If you've tried a different hard drive then and you tried #1 and #2 has not happened I'd say you got possibly a bad motherboard.
4. Have you tried flashing the BIOS and setting it to the manufacturer defaults?
|
|
|
|
|
Any updates on development?
|
|
|
|
|
Let us know on this thread if you are mining GG.
I am.
|
|
|
|
You gotta give exploits catchy names, lol  Does GG have plans to address the 51% exploit that exists? You mean the Fundamental Exploit of 51% as described in Satoshi's paper or the "attacker with 51% screwing up diff without invalidating blocks"? The former can be sort-of addressed with a clever implementation of licensed mining, I suspect, but that is my bellyfeel nothing more. The latter is solved already, like, at the moment of reset. You have any intentions of creating licensed mining? |
|
|
|
You gotta give exploits catchy names, lol Does GG have plans to address the 51% exploit that exists? |
|
|
|
Info about how the 51% issue will be solved will be released once we have a working testnet client. This issue of 51% attacks is at the core of being able to trust Bitcoin, and it's quite a big issue that needs to be solved. More so for a new crypto currency granted, but Bitcoin being shown vulnerable with recent attacks on the alternate chains will shake a few exchanges I think (like Ruxum already have been).
Still true to form, he still refuses to answer any technical questions in any level of detail. Seems to me to be another desperate move to try to maintain control of the project. We have to keep in mind he is playing the fence in the open-source world and close-source world. He wants to straddle the fence where he gets to use open source code yet doesn't want to give any details on his implementations. |
|
|
|
|
Not exactly sure why this matters. Point? Lulz?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
