[PASC] PascalCoin: Induplicatable NFT

[escapefrom3dom]

deletable doesn't mean centralized, do your homework and read the whitepaper. PASC mining is only like 26K USD per day, which is nothing at these prices.  It should trend upward over the next couple of days/weeks. Especially if there are enhancements and added functionality planned.

Time to go back mining zcash/xmr until the storm is over  

PASC crazy price is gone, we can't see it happen again, miners has huge amount of coins to dump, it is the main reason why PASC won't go up. Deletable blockchain is useless, why it exists? Deletable means centralized, no we don't need it.

agreed cause idea of bitcoin without keeping transaction history in wallet is great and will live and rise.

i've been thinking about creation of such coin even before Pascal but i'm not qualified for it. ☺

[mmo_online_1981]

Dear all friend
I want to have an account to store the coin, I'm not a miner,
Please share my an account via Public Key: 3Ghhbot2tE7FohrkMBZVr6hj9dHzZQVjnd7Nsy9NVKpgCNiM1i9fcgDkGAjkmKoqiSgARf7dvXKbpL9 uyBFsqKzmFDEheBRU1SckCv
Thanks

[eule]

OpenCL miner is here!

https://github.com/Vorksholk/PascalCoin-OpenCL/releases/download/v1.00/PascalCoin_OpenCL_ProxyMiner_v1.zip

Getting about 550 MH/s on an RX 480 with stock clocks.

For anyone thinking about CPU mining, an i7-5820k overclocked used to get about 8 MH/s.

Doesn't work on my 6950. All other miners do work, but don't have intensity settings or don't work for solo...

Code:

failed to start kernel -54

Has anyone been able to solo mine with the sgminer btw?

[cryptomined]

Someone is DDosing the API currently, I'm fixing it

is the jannson folder and file missing from the linux sgminer download?

[adaseb]

OpenCL miner is here!

https://github.com/Vorksholk/PascalCoin-OpenCL/releases/download/v1.00/PascalCoin_OpenCL_ProxyMiner_v1.zip

Getting about 550 MH/s on an RX 480 with stock clocks.

For anyone thinking about CPU mining, an i7-5820k overclocked used to get about 8 MH/s.

Doesn't work on my 6950. All other miners do work, but don't have intensity settings or don't work for solo...

Code:

failed to start kernel -54

Has anyone been able to solo mine with the sgminer btw?

These days the 6950 is only good for XMR. With ZEC and PASC its runs very slow. And with ETH it doesn't have enough memory.

[eule]

I don't consider 290MH slow when a RX480 does 550MH. The 6950 is 6 years old and only cost me 50€, great bang for the buck imo. 

[adaseb]

I don't consider 290MH slow when a RX480 does 550MH. The 6950 is 6 years old and only cost me 50€, great bang for the buck imo. 

Really? I couldn't get my 6990 to work for mining PASC. WIth the newer miner it worked but was 20MH/s

[eule]

I don't consider 290MH slow when a RX480 does 550MH. The 6950 is 6 years old and only cost me 50€, great bang for the buck imo.  

Really? I couldn't get my 6990 to work for mining PASC. WIth the newer miner it worked but was 20MH/s

I used this miner: https://pasc.suprnova.cc/sgminer-5.5.0-pascal-1-windows-amd64.zip

On intensity 21 the 6950 does 290MH/s, might go even higher on higher intensities and with some OC but my card gets really hot already. It would be great for solo mining (the clones) but sadly the only GPU miner that works for me in solo is the V2 that only does 50MH...

[yslyung]

vrooom vrooom RX 470's on g1820 4gb ram win10, can be faster but running on single psu 1200w & getting decent speeds. just below to 1KW

[lockepi]

Yes if a place can be created to trade accounts that would be good.

[digitalcoins]

Is it theoretically possible to combine Pascal with something like smart-contracts? For smart contracts to be executed some blockchain indeed should exist, what if smart-contract will be PoS-like, so like some limited number of smart-contracts, if no stake on the contract, then it burns together with block?

[PanneKopp]

Hi @digitalcoins,

Is it theoretically possible to combine Pascal with something like smart-contracts? For smart contracts to be executed some blockchain indeed should exist, what if smart-contract will be PoS-like, so like some limited number of smart-contracts, if no stake on the contract, then it burns together with block?

Did you read the whitepaper ?
... understood it ?

Funny Question, maybe a chill of "DAO-Coin".

 

[dudutti]

Suprnova frontend ddos ?

[ocminer]

There seems to be an attack going on ... I was ddosed and while I was ddosed I noticed blocks with "high" timestamps which subsequently reject my blocks with the correct time:

02-02-2017 10:27:10.151 TID:E5496700 [Error] <TJSONRPCTcpIpClient> Sending Error JSON RPC id () : Error: Invalid timestamp (New timestamp:1486027668 last timestamp (58999):1486027790) payload:SUPRNOVAROXXXXXXXXXXXXHXpLc/------ timestamp:1486027668 nonce:1303498590

I'm investigating what is actually going on exactly...

Frontend will be fine in a few moments, the DDoS ended.

[kurniajim]

Why pascalcoin down?

[eule]

There seems to be an attack going on ... I was ddosed and while I was ddosed I noticed blocks with "high" timestamps which subsequently reject my blocks with the correct time:

02-02-2017 10:27:10.151 TID:E5496700 [Error] <TJSONRPCTcpIpClient> Sending Error JSON RPC id () : Error: Invalid timestamp (New timestamp:1486027668 last timestamp (58999):1486027790) payload:SUPRNOVAROXXXXXXXXXXXXHXpLc/------ timestamp:1486027668 nonce:1303498590

I'm investigating what is actually going on exactly...

Frontend will be fine in a few moments, the DDoS ended.

That looks very much like the clock-attack seen during the launch of Pascal Lite: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1773026.msg17704818#msg17704818

The miner sends a block with the timestamp being a minute or two in the future, the next block mined by someone else will likely have an invalid timestamp. It's bad design to let the client decide not to send the block...

Also those rogue nodes must be banned.

[escapefrom3dom]

Why pascalcoin down?

take a look at bitcoin value history: coin can't be just solid stable.

it's natural to observe the dumps and pumps.

[ocminer]

There seems to be an attack going on ... I was ddosed and while I was ddosed I noticed blocks with "high" timestamps which subsequently reject my blocks with the correct time:

02-02-2017 10:27:10.151 TID:E5496700 [Error] <TJSONRPCTcpIpClient> Sending Error JSON RPC id () : Error: Invalid timestamp (New timestamp:1486027668 last timestamp (58999):1486027790) payload:SUPRNOVAROXXXXXXXXXXXXHXpLc/------ timestamp:1486027668 nonce:1303498590

I'm investigating what is actually going on exactly...

Frontend will be fine in a few moments, the DDoS ended.

OK, there are several nodes sending valid blocks with higher timestamps:

02-02-2017 10:45:18.259 TID:F0977700 [Error] <TNetServerClient> Disconecting 89.249.254.45:50962 > Invalid remote timestamp. Difference:227 > 180

Thus making my blocks "invalid" through to too "old" time even though my clock is correct:

02-02-2017 10:44:59.041 TID:F0977700 [Error] <TPCOperationsComp> Invalid new block 59002: Invalid timestamp (New timestamp:1486028696 last timestamp (59001):1486028710)
02-02-2017 10:44:59.041 TID:F0977700 [Error] <TJSONRPCTcpIpClient> Sending Error JSON RPC id () : Error: Invalid timestamp (New timestamp:1486028696 last timestamp (59001):1486028710) payload:SUPRNOVAROXXXXXXXXXXXXRkmq4------- timestamp:1486028696 nonce:3038414114


What those guys exploit is an old bug which was fixed in bitcoin years ago. They send their blocks with a maximum "drift" ahead ..

Example:
It's now 11:30:00  and blockchain is at height 59000
Max Drift is 30 seconds

So they say they solved Block 59001 at 11:30:30 even though it's just 11:30:00 and now my pool finds the next block as 11:30:20 which is BEFORE 11:30:30 so the blockchain rejects the block and says "Nope, your clock is wrong (even though my clock is right!) and I reject your block because the block before was discovered later"...


We need the dev here to fix that..

[xneoenx]

There seems to be an attack going on ... I was ddosed and while I was ddosed I noticed blocks with "high" timestamps which subsequently reject my blocks with the correct time:

02-02-2017 10:27:10.151 TID:E5496700 [Error] <TJSONRPCTcpIpClient> Sending Error JSON RPC id () : Error: Invalid timestamp (New timestamp:1486027668 last timestamp (58999):1486027790) payload:SUPRNOVAROXXXXXXXXXXXXHXpLc/------ timestamp:1486027668 nonce:1303498590

I'm investigating what is actually going on exactly...

Frontend will be fine in a few moments, the DDoS ended.

OK, there are several nodes sending valid blocks with higher timestamps:

02-02-2017 10:45:18.259 TID:F0977700 [Error] <TNetServerClient> Disconecting 89.249.254.45:50962 > Invalid remote timestamp. Difference:227 > 180

Thus making my blocks "invalid" through to too "old" time even though my clock is correct:

02-02-2017 10:44:59.041 TID:F0977700 [Error] <TPCOperationsComp> Invalid new block 59002: Invalid timestamp (New timestamp:1486028696 last timestamp (59001):1486028710)
02-02-2017 10:44:59.041 TID:F0977700 [Error] <TJSONRPCTcpIpClient> Sending Error JSON RPC id () : Error: Invalid timestamp (New timestamp:1486028696 last timestamp (59001):1486028710) payload:SUPRNOVAROXXXXXXXXXXXXRkmq4------- timestamp:1486028696 nonce:3038414114


What those guys exploit is an old bug which was fixed in bitcoin years ago. They send their blocks with a maximum "drift" ahead ..

Example:
It's now 11:30:00  and blockchain is at height 59000
Max Drift is 30 seconds

So they say they solved Block 59001 at 11:30:30 even though it's just 11:30:00 and now my pool finds the next block as 11:30:20 which is BEFORE 11:30:30 so the blockchain rejects the block and says "Nope, your clock is wrong (even though my clock is right!) and I reject your block because the block before was discovered later"...


We need the dev here to fix that..

You are crazy good. Thank you for the pool too!

[adaseb]

Yeah those bastards screwed up the entire Pascal Lite coin launch. Right from the very beginning they kept doing that. And during the TEST launch they behaved and didn't do anything wrong so I assumed the network was good to go.

They also seem to have MASSIVE hashpower, I am getting at least 200-300 GPUs on my coin alone and since PascalCoin network is much larger they probably have another 500-1000 GPUs pointed at this coin. This isn't a small miner, its a farm the size of a warehouse.

So who is doing the hack is it Nanopool or that "PasYarYar" or "abc0000000" "pwallet"?

EDIT. Seems obviously its abc__________ since your block was rejected right after.