|
the american dream, is not about happiness. its about acquiring wealth and "the package", for no other reason that's its a false symbol of happiness, same as freedom. Free people are not necessarily happy.
|
|
|
|
|
no. Openbsd protected with laser-sharks, would be the most secure solution.
|
|
|
|
For starters, I'm not developing the currency.
case 2 then: you are an assclown that advertise something that you know shit about. and misinforms alot of people in the process, enjoy your free speech(but get one of the devs to the forum, so i can kick his ass) PEOPLE LISTEN UP: THIS IS A SCAMCOIN |
|
|
|
Welcome new scamcoin!
If you want to present that opinion, can you back it up? its centralized and therefor insecure, and you take a 10% cut the money mined. Most of the 10% goes back into the community directly, the rest goes for paying for services that CureCoin needs, such as servers. Centralization will fade out as adoption occurs, and only some payout is semi-centralized, the rest is distributed in decentralized mining.  liar(or you don't understand the technology behind your own currency, and you fail) |
|
|
|
Welcome new scamcoin!
If you want to present that opinion, can you back it up? its centralized and therefor insecure, and you take a 10% cut the money mined. |
|
|
|
Geez. Make one comment and everyone jumps up my ass.  yes. and you deserved it because you was a tard. |
|
|
|
+1! |
|
|
|
|
can you post pic of bar + written note of your forum user name?
(if he can't its a scam, he don't have it!)
|
|
|
|
i dare you give me a piece of c code(10-20 lines) that i can't explain. Okay, I'll give you an easy one. How about two statements? [...] An implementation of f() constructed from your English description must produce identical results for all possible val and l on the range 0-31 inclusive. a function f is given 2 arguments, one integer named l and and a 32-bit unsigned integer named val and returns a 32 bit unsigned integer. if the value of l is strictly larger then 16 we reassign the variable val to the sum of: val shifted l minus 16 to the left(or is it right? im left-right confused!) the lower l minus 16 bits of val plus 2 to the l - 16 power minus 1, shifted l - 16 times to the left if the value of l is less or equal to 16 set val to itself shifted 16 - l times to the right return val But what you're not understanding the function. All you're doing is repeating it word for word. He meant you couldn't explain it colloquially. i dare you give me a piece of c code(10-20 lines) that i can't explain. Okay, I'll give you an easy one. How about two statements? [...] An implementation of f() constructed from your English description must produce identical results for all possible val and l on the range 0-31 inclusive. but no i have no idea of what the code is doing, but it seems like some insanely optimized bit twiddling computation, its probably a estimation of some mathematical function. I really dislike bit twiddling magic, its just as incomprehensible as brainfuck or APL. hey look, gmaxwell delivered and you failed. its a part of a code that computed a overestimate of log_2 |
|
|
|
i dare you give me a piece of c code(10-20 lines) that i can't explain. Okay, I'll give you an easy one. How about two statements? uint32_t f(int l, uint32_t val) {
if (l > 16) {
val = (val >> (l - 16)) + (((val&((1<<(l - 16)) - 1)) + (1<<(l - 16)) - 1)>>(l - 16));
} else val <<= 16-l;
return val;
}
An implementation of f() constructed from your English description must produce identical results for all possible val and l on the range 0-31 inclusive. but no i have no idea of what the code is doing, but it seems like some insanely optimized bit twiddling computation, its probably a estimation of some mathematical function. I really dislike bit twiddling magic, its just as incomprehensible as brainfuck or APL. |
|
|
|
i dare you give me a piece of c code(10-20 lines) that i can't explain. Okay, I'll give you an easy one. How about two statements? uint32_t f(int l, uint32_t val) {
if (l > 16) {
val = (val >> (l - 16)) + (((val&((1<<(l - 16)) - 1)) + (1<<(l - 16)) - 1)>>(l - 16));
} else val <<= 16-l;
return val;
}
An implementation of f() constructed from your English description must produce identical results for all possible val and l on the range 0-31 inclusive. a function f is given 2 arguments, one integer named l and and a 32-bit unsigned integer named val and returns a 32 bit unsigned integer. if the value of l is strictly larger then 16 we reassign the variable val to the sum of: val shifted l minus 16 to the left(or is it right? im left-right confused!) the lower l minus 16 bits of val plus 2 to the l - 16 power minus 1, shifted l - 16 times to the left if the value of l is less or equal to 16 set val to itself shifted 16 - l times to the right return val |
|
|
|
It mutates with every commit to the satoshi client repo. Code is not a standard.
Prior versions do not mutate with commits to GIT. Those prior versions deployed in the network are the reference against which future compatibility is compared. just because the mutation are compatible to older versions of the satoshi client, does not mean that they are nonexistent. its much better to have a fixed protocol, instaed of just working code. stop writing code, and sit down and make a standard. Its not that hard, nobody just wants to do it because they are lazy bastard who like to code crap code, instead of doing things the right way.
They don't strike me like people who like to write code And I guess you never tried to describe what a code does, in a human readable language. Otherwise you would know that it's impossible. if you can't describe what your code does, you should stop writing it. not, if you still understand what it does. if the human readable language is not able to express the real meaning of C, why would anyone who knows C limit his further lexical possibilities? natural language have extremely flexible usages. Natural languages can express c code, but c code cannot express natural language, it works the other way around. also if you write too complex and super optimized code the first time around, you are properly doing it wrong. write simple and easily understandable code. i dare you give me a piece of c code(10-20 lines) that i can't explain. |
|
|
|
stop writing code, and sit down and make a standard. Its not that hard, nobody just wants to do it because they are lazy bastard who like to code crap code, instead of doing things the right way.
They don't strike me like people who like to write code And I guess you never tried to describe what a code does, in a human readable language. Otherwise you would know that it's impossible. if you can't describe what your code does, you should stop writing it. |
|
|
|
Sipa's patch last year changed how this particular implementation behaves, only. It was not a change in the protocol. The change was not binding on anyone else.
... and that is why we need: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txtTo be able to know what we can except from other clients and the rest of the network. bitcoin need standardization or the crappy satoshi client will continue to dictate the path of bitcoin |
|
|
|
so what do you propose?
stop writing code, and sit down and make a standard. Its not that hard, nobody just wants to do it because they are lazy bastard who like to code crap code, instead of doing things the right way. Just like the rfc's describe what the protocol look like down to the smallest detail, and then don't change it. Describe how clients interact with keyword defined in http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt. |
|
|
|
it makes it nearly impossible to create a alternative client, when the "standard" mutates all the time. bitcoin needs diversity in clients.
Would you like to only be able to use internet explore? sure it would work good. but really?
The standard does not mutate all the time (though I do agree client diversity is a good thing). It mutates with every commit to the satoshi client repo. Code is not a standard. |
|
|
|
yeah, we need a standard. the only question is: who is going to develop a voting system that will decide about the standard?
thank god, we have a primitive bitcoin mining concept, backed with a billion dollar stability fund.
because if the future of this currency was based only on getting together the people developing its IT infrastructure, it would have been pretty fucking doomed.
voting is not needed. we just need a guy with some balls to act as a dictator for a short period of time, and an army of typing monkeys implementing the standard. what is done at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification is usable, but most is yanked out of the satoshi client and lots of stuff have changed so the wiki is not up to date either. again: make a standard and implement it. from my experience, the only standard there is, is the satoshi source code. the wiki is very helpful though and it almost nowhere contradicts the actual protocol, but the standard is in the code. and maybe its not such a bad idea for a standard to be in a code. as long as this code is not stupid it makes it nearly impossible to create a alternative client, when the "standard" mutates all the time. bitcoin needs diversity in clients. Would you like to only be able to use internet explore? sure it would work good. but really? |
|
|
|
yeah, we need a standard. the only question is: who is going to develop a voting system that will decide about the standard?
thank god, we have a primitive bitcoin mining concept, backed with a billion dollar stability fund.
because if the future of this currency was based only on getting together the people developing its IT infrastructure, it would have been pretty fucking doomed.
voting is not needed. we just need a guy with some balls to act as a dictator for a short period of time, and an army of typing monkeys implementing the standard. what is done at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification is usable, but most is yanked out of the satoshi client and lots of stuff have changed so the wiki is not up to date either. again: make a standard and implement it. looks good enough... i have already committed a similar change to my code. |
|
|
|
assert 1 == ssl.ECDSA_sign(0, hash, len(hash), mb_sig, ctypes.byref(sig_size0), self.k)
return mb_sig.raw
I believe this code is wrong. ECDSA_sign takes a pointer siglen for the length of the buffer. The reason it passes a reference there and not a value is because it writes the resulting length back to it. Otherwise there would be no way to know the length other than the maximum since, obviously, char * doesn't encode a size. Your code appears to do nothing with the returned size. This is wrong, and it means you're reading past the end of the destination array. Be glad the additional space contains only zeros and not your private key. +1 you are right, and i have broadcasted a double spend. Thank you. pwn3d
I accept defeat, but still thinks that we need a standard, and that the satoshi client a bunch of hacks. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
