Slimcoin | First Proof of Burn currency | Decentralized Web
metare:
Quote from: d5000 on December 29, 2017, 08:15:14 PM
[...]
Quote from: metare on December 29, 2017, 07:54:49 PM
The used OS is the current raspbian (debian stretch) and so far the compilation crashes because of missing db_cxx.h. I tried installing the Berkeley DB 4.8 according to this instruction:
http://blog.buena.co.id/install-berkeleydb-4-8-debain-8-jessie/
I had the same problem on an obscure Linux distribution called PCLinuxOS that installed db_cxx in a non-standard location. Maybe it works for you.
My solution:
- Look where db_cxx.h is located
Code:
locate db_cxx.h
- Include the directory in the Makefile
Code:
-I /directory-where-db_cxx-resides/
---> in the Makefile for the qt client, there is a variable called INCPATH where you can add it at the end.
---> in the makefile.unix in the src subdirectory, I added it to CXXFLAGS.
Edit: Maybe your problem is also simply that you haven't installed the development files. I am using Debian Jessie and the package version here is libdb5.3++-dev (in Stretch it may be a higher version).
[...]
Thanks for the fast response. Good news is: adding the path to the Makefile worked. Bad news: I got a new array of errors related to the class CBigNum
Not sure how this happened.
About the libdb5.3++-dev, I recall while searching for my problem in the forum, that gjhiggins mentioned that this would interfere with portability of the wallet.
d5000:
Quote from: metare on December 29, 2017, 09:10:55 PM
Thanks for the fast response. Good news is: adding the path to the Makefile worked. Bad news: I got a new array of errors related to the class CBigNum
https://ibb.co/eHz1Mb
Uh. I know this problem from Cryptonite ...
It's a well known problem in many altcoins, because OpenSSL 1.1+ isn't compatible with the old code.
If you want a short term workaround, if you can, you could install OpenSSL 1.0.x again, but it's not easy in some distributions. (I wasn't able to do it)
Peercoin has a commit that solved it, but it's from the 0.6 branch: https://github.com/peercoin/peercoin/commit/5b09830e5de0f5105534e69dbf4acffb3255869b
@muf18: I think you're doing an awesome "job" with Twitter, Reddit & Facebook ... so relax a bit, when the decentralized web gets usable, there'll be much work ;) (If I have time next week I'll do a short introduction about web2web, and compare it to the other solutions, so if you want you can then translate it to Polish)
muf18:
Didn't @gjhiggins started Slimcoin v0.6 branch?
I think he started working on it, tho I don't know where he is now.
And if we want to be used as a real cryptocurrency some payment gateways, would be necessary. As @gjhiggins stated, I think that as a cryptocurrency, SLM failed for now, it can be viewed as a store of value (it somehow, stored valued through these turbulent years), investment (Proof-of-burn consensus) and utility token, as I was talking with Graham. With fully fledged blockchain, and these features developed it's still better than 90%+ of ICOs, code-wise superior advanced to them. I don't say that to be 'proud' or anything, just stating, facts.
@d5000 - sure, thanks, I could done more, but was a little lazy for a few days. Still, what we lack is some community involvement, and I don't mean - there are a few new people now, which is great, but as I would think more, shading light to project. I know it could bring some shillers, trolls and other 'cryptonuts' guys, with fomo and 🚀 gifs, but would also bring some valueable people, who could help us also.
blockhash7:
Quote from: d5000 on December 29, 2017, 07:23:03 PM
@blockhash7: I mostly agree, also about the "slim" part. But I think we should not switch to the mini-blockchain scheme. The reason is that this scheme doesn't allow contracts with the Script language and "forgets" old blockchain entries - so it couldn't be used anymore for the "decentralized web". Cryptonite is awesome as a cash replacement, but for other purposes its scope is more limited.
Thank you for your answer! Are the concepts of the mini-blockchain scheme and the concept of the decentralized web really mutually exclusive? I thought the web2web service uses the blockchain just as a directory service and the actual website data is stored in a torrent? (maybe I’m mistaken here. Sorry I couldn’t find much information about the web2web publishing part) I think it‘s possible to apply the concept of the account tree of the mini-blockchain scheme to stored key/value pairs in the blockchain. Just like the account tree forgets about old account-states, it could forget about old values of keys. In this way you can store data in the mini-blockchain and minimize its footprint. To keep it „slim“, so to say.
muf18:
It could be possible probably, but if you prune blockchain, how would you retrieve torrent hash?
I like concept of mini-blockchain, as it has quite a few appliances, and could be scalable with a few tricks:
- like 10-20M blocks
- fast txs - I think with our consensus 15-30 sec
- maybe we ocould take mini-blockchain idea with pruning some data in the tx
- segwit
It would make 2K-4K tx/s possible, tho there are a lot of question regarding, is this sustainable, and if nodes would proceed such amount of data.
Probably not, so I think, we don't have for now 'problem'.
Btw I see that every fork of zcash and monero are just skyrocketing. I mean ok, they are privacy coins, but I dont know if someone is even thinking, what's buying into.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page