Feathercoin [FTC]

[richiela]

I have just finished v0.8.7.3 with the BIP66 (Strict DER) support and checks to make sure such a fork won’t happen again.

https://github.com/ghostlander/Feathercoin/commits/master-0.8

Will this get rid of the safemode warning?

thanks
richie@bittrex

[1714146261]

1714146261

[1714146261]

1714146261

[1714146261]

1714146261

[1714146261]

1714146261

[1714146261]

1714146261

[miningpoolhub]

forum moderator != dev

The moderator Wellenreiter is the feathercoin dev.

in crypto majority should rules

If majority doesn't agree with dev, they will leave and build new fork coin.
There are so many suggestions around one coin and dev need to decide. This is not autocracy but natural in crypto world.
(Only dev has the authority to change the github main source tree. And it is the source what exchange sites agrees.)

8.7.* have 3 times more nodes than 9.*
8.7.* have 6 times more hashrate than 9.*

Do you have any proof that 0.8.7 wallets are much more than 0.9.x versions? Only estimated by connection counts?
It is quite difficult, and not accurate in p2p tech.
I don't understand that older version has three times more users than official website's release version.
0.9.3 has been published more than few months. It's quite nonsense.
My wallet has 42 connections and 24 connections are from 0.9.x

9.* is buggy, producing a shit load of orphan.

Maybe. But all wallets have bug and crashes. Even bitcoin has bug still.
I didn't find that 0.9.3 was making more orphans than other coins. There's statistics on our pool, so you can check it.
Anyway, there can be orphans and forks in crypto. It's normal.

The problem was caused by 9.* nodes not the others.

Dev wrote the problem here. http://forum.feathercoin.com/topic/8366/feathercoin-fork/44
0.9.5 was causing problem, not 0.9.3
0.8.7.3 is new version committed few hours ago, so 0.8.7.2 was not appropriate also.

as you said with dash, the longest blockchain is not always the good one

Normally, longest blockchain is selected by wallet automatically. What I was saying is about the authority of Dev. Dev can choose, and select which blockchain to be selected as main. At that time, dash dev selected the blockchain what dev's pool was on.
It is quite unfair, because other pool's 12 hour working hash were gone away. Miners on that pool expected that longest chain would be selected but it was not.
Anyway, dev selected his pool's blockchain and there were any complaints as I recall. Because someone has to make decision and dev is the right person to decide on coin.
If there's no one person who represents coin's status and direction then coin's stability is broken. Stability affects market price too, you know.

[crackfoo]

I have just finished v0.8.7.3 with the BIP66 (Strict DER) support and checks to make sure such a fork won’t happen again.

https://github.com/ghostlander/Feathercoin/commits/master-0.8

Can you specify which chain is correct and a link to the block explorer?

Thanks

[lucazane]

miningpoolhub, your chain will not be the chosen one, majority of miners and all exchanges are on the others one aka 0.8.7.x. If the dev choose the 0.9.3 chain, exchange will loose a lot of FTC and will never support FTC again.

[ocminer]

This thread still sounds like a kindergarden to me

Pools you should stop bitching around and either consolidate to get yourself all on one chain in order to deliver a working network and the dev should remove all obsolete/invalid/incompatible releases ASAP, I cannot understand why those releases are still public even though they are obviously forking the network.

The problem that I see here is that everybody wants to be the Masterchief while it would be much better if everyone would be a teamplayer

BTW @theforkfactory:

0.9.3 also works on the correct fork, it just has warnings:

{
    "version" : 90300,
    "protocolversion" : 70002,
    "walletversion" : 60000,
    "blocks" : 1117312,
    "timeoffset" : 0,
    "connections" : 32,
    "proxy" : "",
    "difficulty" : 2.06679317,
    "testnet" : false,
    "keypoololdest" : 1456737962,
    "keypoolsize" : 101,
    "paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
    "relayfee" : 0.01000000,
    "errors" : "WARNING: Inconsistent checkpoint found! Stop enforcing checkpoints and notify developers to resolve the issue."
}

[lucazane]

This thread still sounds like a kindergarden to me

Pools you should stop bitching around and either consolidate to get yourself all on one chain in order to deliver a working network and the dev should remove all obsolete/invalid/incompatible releases ASAP, I cannot understand why those releases are still public even though they are obviously forking the network.

The problem that I see here is that everybody wants to be the Masterchief while it would be much better if everyone would be a teamplayer

BTW @theforkfactory:

0.9.3 also works on the correct fork, it just has warnings:

{
    "version" : 90300,
    "protocolversion" : 70002,
    "walletversion" : 60000,
    "blocks" : 1117312,
    "timeoffset" : 0,
    "connections" : 32,
    "proxy" : "",
    "difficulty" : 2.06679317,
    "testnet" : false,
    "keypoololdest" : 1456737962,
    "keypoolsize" : 101,
    "paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
    "relayfee" : 0.01000000,
    "errors" : "WARNING: Inconsistent checkpoint found! Stop enforcing checkpoints and notify developers to resolve the issue."
}

I agree


edit : so there is 0.9.3 clients on one chain and others 0.9.3 clients on another chain

[miningpoolhub]

v0.9 has long standing compatibility issues. They weren't detected at the release time unfortunately. Although end users may use any wallet release available, v0.8 is advised for production until v0.11 matures enough to replace it. A patched v0.8 release may be available today.

Block chain length isn't important. It's cumulative difficulty to decide which chain prevails. The v0.8/v0.11 chain has 170MH/s now. The alternate chain is less than 50MH/s. I advise to switch your pool to the v0.8/v0.11 chain.

I'm curious that.. why are you pretending as dev?
Dev already told (http://forum.feathercoin.com/topic/8366/feathercoin-fork/44) that 0.9.3 is recommended due to technical reason.

Maybe dev can change his mind later but you are constantly at the opposite side of dev pushing 0.8.2 to be the main blockchain.
Are you running a pool or mined at old version's pool?

[ocminer]

Are you running a pool or mined at old version's pool?

You don't seem to know who ghostlander is, huh ?

[miningpoolhub]

miningpoolhub, your chain will not be the chosen one, majority of miners and all exchanges are on the others one aka 0.8.7.x. If the dev choose the 0.9.3 chain, exchange will loose a lot of FTC and will never support FTC again.

Well bittrex already disabled FTC.
So there's no loss on bittrex right?

"If the dev choose the 0.9.3 chain,"..
You are saying like you have never heard this. Dev constantly suggested to use 0.9.3 and you, theblocksfactory pool insisted to use 0.8.2 because your pool used that version.

Am I wrong? Everybody can see past forum posts, and http://forum.feathercoin.com and say who's right.
Now you are saying as normal investor worrying about ftc price.


I'm tired of this situation too. I have never seen this coin that pool operators pushing dev to select blockchain.

[miningpoolhub]

I have just finished v0.8.7.3 with the BIP66 (Strict DER) support and checks to make sure such a fork won’t happen again.

https://github.com/ghostlander/Feathercoin/commits/master-0.8

We are running it on theblocksfactory.com

Deposit to bter.com are working seamlessly from TBF.

bittrex still in maintenance mode.
Other exchange have no volume so I didn't test.

lucazane and ghostlander seems same person.
ghostlander committed new source on his github repo and lucazane compiled it and ran even before the main feathercoin github agreed this source.

There's less than 2 minutes between the post too.
It's impossible.
How can a pool already running before announcing to forum?

Log-in and Log-out, pretending like two person right?

[miningpoolhub]

Are you running a pool or mined at old version's pool?

You don't seem to know who ghostlander is, huh ?

Hi ocminer.
I know who you are and your pool. Maybe you are the famous pool op in bitcointalk.


but actually I don't know ghostlander.
Please tell me.
I am running phoenixcoin pool too so I aware his id but not much what he had done.

I found that he is the op of theblocksfactory or has some relation with that pool currently.

[ocminer]

Are you running a pool or mined at old version's pool?

You don't seem to know who ghostlander is, huh ?

Hi ocminer.
I know who you are and your pool. Maybe you are the famous pool op in bitcointalk.


but actually I don't know ghostlander.
Please tell me.
I am running phoenixcoin pool too so I aware his id but not much what he had done.

I found that he is the op of theblocksfactory or has some relation with that pool currently.

It's not important who I am.


Here, regarding ghostlander:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ghostlander+feathercoin

Check the 3 & 4th link

[miningpoolhub]

It's not important who I am.


Here, regarding ghostlander:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ghostlander+feathercoin

Check the 3 & 4th link

Thanks.

Sorry ghostlander, I didn't know that you were the one of dev at early days.

Recent commits were from wellenreiter01 on github, and he suggested to use 0.9.3 and I followed his suggestion.
You can also see give-me-coins, coinotron on forum.feathercoin.com who followed that thread.

Two dev saying different words, is it right?


I don't understand this situation still.


Ghostlander,
1. Please tell me about the theblocksfactory pool. Is it your pool?
How can the pool run the latest wallet less than 2 minutes you announced.

2. Why did you insert theblocksfactory's checkpoint at latest commit?
This line you inserted.
(   1114311, uint256("0x93515f222f16a9ff3db6594e5ee7c12924cff9ba05b01dbe551d0a9e65dd141f"))

3. You are insisting theblocksfactory's checkpoint without any comments just pretending as fixing the bug. commit text was just plain not stating which blockchain will be chosen.
Do you think it's fair?
miningpoolhub, give-me-coins followed most active working dev(Wellenreiter)'s comment and you selected opposite blockchain.



Maybe it's not just technical issue. Blockchain selection is quite critical because it is related to miner's money to pool operators.
One or two pool collected all money with low difficulty. Do you know that?
(Maybe just resetting to the hardfork block height would be better. I know that anyone will not like this situation)

I don't get much money from this issue even if our wallet blockchain was selected. (we are running multipool)
But I have sense of responsibility to protect our miners from loss. This is normal, natural response who have responsibility to his miners.
Normally, I paid miners appropriate BTC in similar situations before.

I'm sure I would have switched to lower wallet version if dev suggested after the fork. I'm not saying that my wallet must be the main blockchain.
I followed the actively developing dev's comment and now seems like to lose whole blockchain.

I don't want to blame Wellenreiter dev about this, I think it's mistake and not intended.
I hope when this things happen again, please say one word between developers.


I'm really tired about this. Still not clear about the situation that why only theblocksfactory benefits and other pools lose.
Considering the situation, I think 0.8.3 wallet can be selected as main but the blockchain must be chosen from what one of dev already stated.
Seems like some unilateral decisions flip previous announce.

This decision is beyond my comprehension and it makes me disappointed.
I don't like to attack feathercoin but it really made me have bad memory about it.

Thanks.

[sub-80]

Is Feathercoin website going to release a compiled version of 8.7.3 master for windows? Or do I have to dabble? I am concerned I might affect my wallet.

[lucazane]

miningpoolhub, there is a feature called watch topic I try to follow every coin that my pool support.

I think the FTC team must improve communication, there is a lot of confusion about the versions.

[ghostlander]

I have just finished v0.8.7.3 with the BIP66 (Strict DER) support and checks to make sure such a fork won’t happen again.

https://github.com/ghostlander/Feathercoin/commits/master-0.8

Will this get rid of the safemode warning?

thanks
richie@bittrex

It will. Safe mode is disabled by default now (you may enable it if you like). There was a bug which caused the client to go into safe mode when a longer invalid chain was found. It appeared when FTC v0.6 was rebased to v0.8 about 1.5 years ago. It was just a harmless printf() in v0.6 which started to trigger safe mode in v0.8. Fixed in v0.8.7.3.

[ghostlander]

I have just finished v0.8.7.3 with the BIP66 (Strict DER) support and checks to make sure such a fork won’t happen again.

https://github.com/ghostlander/Feathercoin/commits/master-0.8

We are running it on theblocksfactory.com

Deposit to bter.com are working seamlessly from TBF.

bittrex still in maintenance mode.
Other exchange have no volume so I didn't test.

lucazane and ghostlander seems same person.
ghostlander committed new source on his github repo and lucazane compiled it and ran even before the main feathercoin github agreed this source.

There's less than 2 minutes between the post too.
It's impossible.
How can a pool already running before announcing to forum?

Log-in and Log-out, pretending like two person right?

It was posted to my GitHub and the FTC forums 4 hours earlier. Had to get some sleep after working all night long on this release.

[miningpoolhub]

miningpoolhub, there is a feature called watch topic I try to follow every coin that my pool support.

I think the FTC team must improve communication, there is a lot of confusion about the versions.

I'm also watching github projects and get emails.
I manage many pools and I miss some emails but mostly I read them all.


At first, it was hard to believe that you compiled, tested deposits to bter.com (4 confirm?), and check ghostlander's bitcointalk message all within 10 minutes considering that source was not even merged to feathercoin's official repo.
I don't usually grab other repo and compile before it's merged.

Well I agree that it's possible if you got source from ghostlander's repo directly.
I can't do that within 10 minutes but it's NOT impossible, so I'll stop doubt.

You two answered my previous message just after 1 minute too. So I did doubt that you two were pretending.


Sorry lucazane. And sorry ghostlander.


I'm still disappointed with ghostlander's unilateral blockchain decision, as I'm representing miners who wasted hashes and electricity on our pool who trusted other dev's message. But I really feel sorry about thinking you two as one person.


I think I was quite rude. Sorry again.

I hope all things resolved as before. I actually don't like to discuss this thing again.
Very tired, a bit shameful, quite disappointed.

[ghostlander]

Ghostlander,
1. Please tell me about the theblocksfactory pool. Is it your pool?
How can the pool run the latest wallet less than 2 minutes you announced.

2. Why did you insert theblocksfactory's checkpoint at latest commit?
This line you inserted.
(   1114311, uint256("0x93515f222f16a9ff3db6594e5ee7c12924cff9ba05b01dbe551d0a9e65dd141f"))

3. You are insisting theblocksfactory's checkpoint without any comments just pretending as fixing the bug. commit text was just plain not stating which blockchain will be chosen.
Do you think it's fair?
miningpoolhub, give-me-coins followed most active working dev(Wellenreiter)'s comment and you selected opposite blockchain.

1. No.

2. It wasn't TBF's checkpoint. I think most of those early blocks were mined by ocminer's pool when mining was resumed with -disablesafemode. TBF joined it a few hours later with a lot of hash power and forked ocminer's pool off. It happens.

3. I think an older wallet release should have a preference in such a situation. When BTC got forked in March of 2013 due to differences in data base layers of v0.7 and v0.8, they forced the v0.7 chain and prepared a solution later. It is still unclear if this FTC fork was an accident or a deliberate attack. Someone with an address 6yWiXr4cyVrtQPDfyus9AR4v3KehpyXpBL injected a very fast block sequence. He managed to get 6 blocks in 2 minutes, though time stamps may be not accurate. This chain was validated by v0.9, but not by v0.8 and v0.11 which went into safe mode immediately. Therefore no RPC and no new blocks could be submitted, though their Stratum front ends were running as usual. When safe mode was disabled 10 hours later per my suggestion, this chain moved on and carried a higher cumulative difficulty than the v0.9 fork in less than a day. I hope you know that competing PoW chains are chosen by cumulative difficulty rather than length. Many v0.9 nodes reorganised to the current chain on their own. Therefore my checkpoint secured what had been decided already by the protocol.

[crackfoo]

Sorry lucazane. And sorry ghostlander.


I'm still disappointed with ghostlander's unilateral blockchain decision, as I'm representing miners who wasted hashes and electricity on our pool who trusted other dev's message. But I really feel sorry about thinking you two as one person.


I think I was quite rude. Sorry again.

So you'd find it fair that all the other pools wasted hash and electricity instead?

Just get on the right chain and move along. The decision has been made. It can happen to any pool now and then and I'm sure it has to all of us that sometimes it doesn't end in our favour. No sense carrying on about it.