[ANN] BitcoinT [BT] | X11 | Lucky Stake | POS | BitTrex

[twoturtles]

Sorry for the long silence, it takes time to sort out things like this.  As per our usual response, if we detect something wrong with a blockchain where the dev _might_ be involved, I like to post a public statement so everyone has the same information at the same time.  Exchanges were informed earlier today when our security measures kicked off.

There seems to be a problem with the "lucky" staking code from what we can tell at this time.  There are blocks that were accepted with POS rewards up to 3.3M which is why outside the rate for the coin.  Additionally, as of right now there are way more coins in existence than the wallet thinks there should be:

    "balance" : 24751980.90800208,
    "stake" : 0.00000000,
    "blocks" : 4655,
    "timeoffset" : 0,
    "moneysupply" : 21073266.40374496,


This is our current supply.  C-Cex and yobit have another combined 5-6M.  At this time, we don't know if this is malicious or an error in the staking code.  We have cancelled all orders on the market and closed the wallet for the time being.  If the devs can please contact us and come up with a solution, we will reopen the market.  If we an agreed solution cannot be agreed upon, we will close the market and open the wallet for withdrawal only.

thanks,
richie@bittrex

Hi folks,

     So after staring at richie's message for a bit in deep thought and looking through this code a bit thus far I've come up with a theory for what is likely to have happened here.

1.  Nearing the end of the PoW phase, there was a fork to "fix" a stuck block
2.  Caught up in the launch and mining, etc. no one seemed to notice the diffs in the commits (if they were even shown on the repo, and it wasn't a wiped/fresh push as if it was the original).
3.  There was a deposit that tripped the alert and as we've seen that sent the balance well-over what the reported money supply claimed to be in circulation.
4.  In the previous version, the code likely rewarded that particular person's address incorrectly and being that there is no block explorer, made it even harder to trace what was transpiring on the chain
5.  Knowing that everyone would be caught up in the "bug" that stuck the chain near end of PoW and eager to see the issue resolved so they could continue mining, the new code was forked off
6.  Being that the repo has been removed, it's impossible to tell what exactly they changed between the commits (that was intentional) as of right now.

So at this point I'm going through the code for anomalies that stand out in terms of masking the true money supply, transactions, credits, etc.  infernoman from my team is setting up a block explorer so we can look into this a bit more and hopefully put together a more solid sequence of events.

     Best regards,

syntaks

Thank you very much.
Thanks.

Anytime.  The block explorer will be a bit more telling.

[1715242185]

1715242185

[1715242185]

1715242185

[1715242185]

1715242185

[twoturtles]

Sorry for the long silence, it takes time to sort out things like this.  As per our usual response, if we detect something wrong with a blockchain where the dev _might_ be involved, I like to post a public statement so everyone has the same information at the same time.  Exchanges were informed earlier today when our security measures kicked off.

There seems to be a problem with the "lucky" staking code from what we can tell at this time.  There are blocks that were accepted with POS rewards up to 3.3M which is why outside the rate for the coin.  Additionally, as of right now there are way more coins in existence than the wallet thinks there should be:

    "balance" : 24751980.90800208,
    "stake" : 0.00000000,
    "blocks" : 4655,
    "timeoffset" : 0,
    "moneysupply" : 21073266.40374496,


This is our current supply.  C-Cex and yobit have another combined 5-6M.  At this time, we don't know if this is malicious or an error in the staking code.  We have cancelled all orders on the market and closed the wallet for the time being.  If the devs can please contact us and come up with a solution, we will reopen the market.  If we an agreed solution cannot be agreed upon, we will close the market and open the wallet for withdrawal only.

thanks,
richie@bittrex

Hi folks,

     So after staring at richie's message for a bit in deep thought and looking through this code a bit thus far I've come up with a theory for what is likely to have happened here.

1.  Nearing the end of the PoW phase, there was a fork to "fix" a stuck block
2.  Caught up in the launch and mining, etc. no one seemed to notice the diffs in the commits (if they were even shown on the repo, and it wasn't a wiped/fresh push as if it was the original).
3.  There was a deposit that tripped the alert and as we've seen that sent the balance well-over what the reported money supply claimed to be in circulation.
4.  In the previous version, the code likely rewarded that particular person's address incorrectly and being that there is no block explorer, made it even harder to trace what was transpiring on the chain
5.  Knowing that everyone would be caught up in the "bug" that stuck the chain near end of PoW and eager to see the issue resolved so they could continue mining, the new code was forked off
6.  Being that the repo has been removed, it's impossible to tell what exactly they changed between the commits (that was intentional) as of right now.

So at this point I'm going through the code for anomalies that stand out in terms of masking the true money supply, transactions, credits, etc.  infernoman from my team is setting up a block explorer so we can look into this a bit more and hopefully put together a more solid sequence of events.

     Best regards,

syntaks

Thank you neos. We tweeted a bit ago about this. Thank you for volunteering to look this over & brainstorm a possibly feasible solution.

You don't have to thank me but you're welcome.  If you can help someone, you should.

[placebo]

You know if it is scam then Bittrex knows from where those 3.3M coins were coming from, so they also knows which user had those, and if the BTCs are still in their Bittrex account they can block it and make sure that those BTCs are not getting out.

It is too easy to blame Bittrex, people buy and sell and know the risks.

I own a nice amount of coins and i knew the risks, it is a sad story but we had this kind of situations before. Remember VOOT, the original dev also ran away with a few BTCs and then MsCollec took it over and that coin really had a nice run till he left the coin, so a take over is not a bad idea.

if it is indeed scam then Bittrex knows who had those coins and maybe their Bittrex account had the full name of this person and can inform the SEC and take necessary steps, again if it is scam...

[placebo]

1. Find a team that want to take over the coin. Most likely some big holders should try to work together and get this done.
2. Fork the coin, remove the lucky stake part.
3. Ask all exchanges to enable trading again. It is somehow also their responsibility that they listed a coin or let the coin be traded after the original fork when there was some strange coding. Reviews should happens at adding to a exchange and with every fork. So it would be a little unfair of exchanges if this coin is being taken over to say, look it was scam and we don't want to list it again.

[placebo]

If you lost BTC on BitcoinT, PM me.

I will try to get you in our next coin in about 2-3 weeks EARLY, so you can get some of your $$ BACK. No charge or tip required. (The timing depends on the Dev)... It will be solid play and not a Pump and Dump. We have great relationships and do our research. It will shake the market.

If you were a Fudder on this thread or Have a Newbie account, do not bother.

This SCAM crap has to stop. Be sure to do your Research before you BUY!

People may hate on my team, because we are successful. We just do your research.

At the end of the day, these fudders do not care about the community. Surely, they will not make you any $$.

GLTY,

Dr Mike

PM me
or
Follow me on Twitter:
Doctor Mike
@DrMikesCoinTeam

"My team is buying the next 10x coin in May, Now!"

Why creating a new coin? if you care about BT then you just take this one over and put your innovation in this coin.

[ahmed9979]

If you lost BTC on BitcoinT, PM me.

I will try to get you in our next coin in about 2-3 weeks EARLY, so you can get some of your $$ BACK. No charge or tip required. (The timing depends on the Dev)... It will be solid play and not a Pump and Dump. We have great relationships and do our research. It will shake the market.

If you were a Fudder on this thread or Have a Newbie account, do not bother.

This SCAM crap has to stop. Be sure to do your Research before you BUY!

People may hate on my team, because we are successful. We just do your research.

At the end of the day, these fudders do not care about the community. Surely, they will not make you any $$.

GLTY,

Dr Mike

PM me
or
Follow me on Twitter:
Doctor Mike
@DrMikesCoinTeam

"My team is buying the next 10x coin in May, Now!"

Why creating a new coin? if you care about BT then you just take this one over and put your innovation in this coin.

I would also vote for community takeover.

[vgo]

Sorry for the long silence, it takes time to sort out things like this.  As per our usual response, if we detect something wrong with a blockchain where the dev _might_ be involved, I like to post a public statement so everyone has the same information at the same time.  Exchanges were informed earlier today when our security measures kicked off.

There seems to be a problem with the "lucky" staking code from what we can tell at this time.  There are blocks that were accepted with POS rewards up to 3.3M which is why outside the rate for the coin.  Additionally, as of right now there are way more coins in existence than the wallet thinks there should be:

    "balance" : 24751980.90800208,
    "stake" : 0.00000000,
    "blocks" : 4655,
    "timeoffset" : 0,
    "moneysupply" : 21073266.40374496,


This is our current supply.  C-Cex and yobit have another combined 5-6M.  At this time, we don't know if this is malicious or an error in the staking code.  We have cancelled all orders on the market and closed the wallet for the time being.  If the devs can please contact us and come up with a solution, we will reopen the market.  If we an agreed solution cannot be agreed upon, we will close the market and open the wallet for withdrawal only.

thanks,
richie@bittrex

Hi folks,

     So after staring at richie's message for a bit in deep thought and looking through this code a bit thus far I've come up with a theory for what is likely to have happened here.

1.  Nearing the end of the PoW phase, there was a fork to "fix" a stuck block
2.  Caught up in the launch and mining, etc. no one seemed to notice the diffs in the commits (if they were even shown on the repo, and it wasn't a wiped/fresh push as if it was the original).
3.  There was a deposit that tripped the alert and as we've seen that sent the balance well-over what the reported money supply claimed to be in circulation.
4.  In the previous version, the code likely rewarded that particular person's address incorrectly and being that there is no block explorer, made it even harder to trace what was transpiring on the chain
5.  Knowing that everyone would be caught up in the "bug" that stuck the chain near end of PoW and eager to see the issue resolved so they could continue mining, the new code was forked off
6.  Being that the repo has been removed, it's impossible to tell what exactly they changed between the commits (that was intentional) as of right now.

So at this point I'm going through the code for anomalies that stand out in terms of masking the true money supply, transactions, credits, etc.  infernoman from my team is setting up a block explorer so we can look into this a bit more and hopefully put together a more solid sequence of events.

     Best regards,

syntaks

Thank you neos. We tweeted a bit ago about this. Thank you for volunteering to look this over & brainstorm a possibly feasible solution.

You don't have to thank me but you're welcome.  If you can help someone, you should.

Great!

[ObscureBean]

Sorry for the long silence, it takes time to sort out things like this.  As per our usual response, if we detect something wrong with a blockchain where the dev _might_ be involved, I like to post a public statement so everyone has the same information at the same time.  Exchanges were informed earlier today when our security measures kicked off.

There seems to be a problem with the "lucky" staking code from what we can tell at this time.  There are blocks that were accepted with POS rewards up to 3.3M which is why outside the rate for the coin.  Additionally, as of right now there are way more coins in existence than the wallet thinks there should be:

    "balance" : 24751980.90800208,
    "stake" : 0.00000000,
    "blocks" : 4655,
    "timeoffset" : 0,
    "moneysupply" : 21073266.40374496,


This is our current supply.  C-Cex and yobit have another combined 5-6M.  At this time, we don't know if this is malicious or an error in the staking code.  We have cancelled all orders on the market and closed the wallet for the time being.  If the devs can please contact us and come up with a solution, we will reopen the market.  If we an agreed solution cannot be agreed upon, we will close the market and open the wallet for withdrawal only.

thanks,
richie@bittrex

Hi folks,

     So after staring at richie's message for a bit in deep thought and looking through this code a bit thus far I've come up with a theory for what is likely to have happened here.

1.  Nearing the end of the PoW phase, there was a fork to "fix" a stuck block
2.  Caught up in the launch and mining, etc. no one seemed to notice the diffs in the commits (if they were even shown on the repo, and it wasn't a wiped/fresh push as if it was the original).
3.  There was a deposit that tripped the alert and as we've seen that sent the balance well-over what the reported money supply claimed to be in circulation.
4.  In the previous version, the code likely rewarded that particular person's address incorrectly and being that there is no block explorer, made it even harder to trace what was transpiring on the chain
5.  Knowing that everyone would be caught up in the "bug" that stuck the chain near end of PoW and eager to see the issue resolved so they could continue mining, the new code was forked off
6.  Being that the repo has been removed, it's impossible to tell what exactly they changed between the commits (that was intentional) as of right now.

So at this point I'm going through the code for anomalies that stand out in terms of masking the true money supply, transactions, credits, etc.  infernoman from my team is setting up a block explorer so we can look into this a bit more and hopefully put together a more solid sequence of events.

     Best regards,

syntaks

Thanks a lot for doing this I know this may sound a bit hopeful and there is probably not a lot that can be done this coin anyway but does that mean you're thinking of taking on this project?   I've already written off my lost BTC, it wasn't much anyway.

[placebo]

There are a lot of so-called: NO PREMINE/ NO ICO type of coins so they can take over this coin so that people that spend a lot of BTCs on mining, trading etc can get into a new project, maybe some bounty can be given so that the new team doesn't do anything for free. Why launching a so-called NO PREMINE/ NO ICO coin when you can take over a coin that is already listed on a few major exchanges....

[Fielding]

Vote for community take over this.

[placebo]

Vote for community take over this.

If dev is not coming back, i'm even willing to give a bounty for the new dev for motivation.

"balance" : 24751980.90800208,

In fact, the person that take it over will be most likely some people with a nice amount of BTs as it make sense that they want to get some money back, how many BTCs has been spend on mining, etc. All gone at the moment.

[ed_teech]

I also vote for community takeover.

[Mig-23]

I agree with CryptoClub. Bittrex should be held responsible for this and should rei!burse everyone for BT held. They are the ones that listed such an obvious scam. Come of 'rex, those fake dev id's were rather laughable. I'm not even a holder but still personally feel this is a bullsgit situation.

Bittrex defined only put PUMP and DUMP coin and Fast profits
they dont care its save for investor or not
thats why,they never want to put a coin with good reliability

[placebo]

I agree with CryptoClub. Bittrex should be held responsible for this and should rei!burse everyone for BT held. They are the ones that listed such an obvious scam. Come of 'rex, those fake dev id's were rather laughable. I'm not even a holder but still personally feel this is a bullsgit situation.

Bittrex defined only put PUMP and DUMP coin and Fast profits
they dont care its save for investor or not
thats why,they never want to put a coin with good reliability

First you have to blame yourself. Did you check the code? Did you identify the bug? It is too easy to say, it was NOT MY FAULT, it is their fault, it is not only Bittrex, C-CEx, Yobit, ... also added BT, so stop complaining about Bittrex. The person that is responsible for trading is you, and not the exchanges.

Second, it is true, that some coins doesn't hit Bittrex because there is not massive hype around it, i believe all exchanges should give all coins the possibility to get listed and then the coin itself has to prove it.

[placebo]

I also vote for community takeover.

Community takeovers are also supported by Bittrex, remember VOOT.... but the person or group that take it over needs to give them some kind of roadmap and build some confidence.

[Klaasje]

I also vote for community takeover.

Community takeovers are also supported by Bittrex, remember VOOT.... but the person or group that take it over needs to give them some kind of roadmap and build some confidence.

BTCT member PRESSTAB has done a fork on ANALcoin and that one worked great and smooth. Maybe he can help here to.

[MaGNeT]

BitcoinT take-over crowdfund starts here!

Users who quote this commit themselves to fund X coins to the developer(s) who fixes this coin.

If BitcoinT is fixed and still "up-and-running" (including a Github) 7 days after the fix, the payment(s) will be made directly to a BT address provided by the take-over developer(s), within 48 hours.

Funders:
MaGNeT: 250.000 BT



Quote, add yourself to this list and put in the amount you want to fund!

[vgo]

Vote for community take over this.

If dev is not coming back, i'm even willing to give a bounty for the new dev for motivation.

"balance" : 24751980.90800208,

In fact, the person that take it over will be most likely some people with a nice amount of BTs as it make sense that they want to get some money back, how many BTCs has been spend on mining, etc. All gone at the moment.

+1

I will donate  55043.27991337 BT ( for now + mined)  for the new Dev.

( My balance: 355043.27991337 BT - Stake: 305030.62939053 BT )

[getrichdietryin]

Vote for community take over this.

If dev is not coming back, i'm even willing to give a bounty for the new dev for motivation.

"balance" : 24751980.90800208,

In fact, the person that take it over will be most likely some people with a nice amount of BTs as it make sense that they want to get some money back, how many BTCs has been spend on mining, etc. All gone at the moment.

you have like 1.7million coins how much will you give

[placebo]

Included myself for 100.000 BT

BitcoinT take-over crowdfund starts here!

Users who quote this commit themselves to fund X coins to the developer(s) who fixes this coin.

If BitcoinT is fixed and still "up-and-running" (including a Github) 7 days after the fix, the payment(s) will be made directly to a BT address provided by the take-over developer(s), within 48 hours.

Funders:
MaGNeT: 250.000 BT
Placebo : 100.000 BT


Quote, add yourself to this list and put in the amount you want to fund!