[ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development

[Thirtybird]

BTC with no fee might just baunce back to sander!

More and more miners are not accepting no fee transfer!

There are still a few out there, but it will take more than the 5 minutes that it took for the YAC to be confirmed.  This is the first time that I've used the new 0.8.3 Bitcoin client and somehow my fee setting didn't transfer from the older client. Ultimately, there should be a warning when trying to send with no fees. Actually I thought there was which is why I payed it no mind.

Sorry St.Bit for the delay.

I was trying to buy YAC earlier and sent BTC to my exchange account, and wasn't prompted about transaction fee either, only to find no fee had been attached... Been 4 hours, and blockchain.info estimates another 11.  Tried sending another 1 with a fee, and it hasn't even shown on the blockchain yet.  I never understood how to know if a "miner" will accept a transaction that doesn't have a fee - I presume that's usually on the pool configuration?

[1701285844]

1701285844

[1701285844]

1701285844

[1701285844]

1701285844

[1701285844]

1701285844

[sairon]

BTC with no fee might just baunce back to sander!

More and more miners are not accepting no fee transfer!

There are still a few out there, but it will take more than the 5 minutes that it took for the YAC to be confirmed.  This is the first time that I've used the new 0.8.3 Bitcoin client and somehow my fee setting didn't transfer from the older client. Ultimately, there should be a warning when trying to send with no fees. Actually I thought there was which is why I payed it no mind.

Sorry St.Bit for the delay.

No Problem as long as I recive it. I hate that bitcoin-qt doesn't warn you on such important things. Not to give you any wrong ideas, but this could be a good spot to scam someone. You could easily doublespend on me and I could probably convince you to resent the transaction since it got "rejected".

I hope we won't have such loopholes when YAC has that age.

Well, it states everywhere in big red letters that you should not trust transactions without confirmations. So it's not a loophole.

EDIT: LOL, they both got confirmed in the same block.

[Joe_Bauers]

BTC with no fee might just baunce back to sander!

More and more miners are not accepting no fee transfer!

There are still a few out there, but it will take more than the 5 minutes that it took for the YAC to be confirmed.  This is the first time that I've used the new 0.8.3 Bitcoin client and somehow my fee setting didn't transfer from the older client. Ultimately, there should be a warning when trying to send with no fees. Actually I thought there was which is why I payed it no mind.

Sorry St.Bit for the delay.

No Problem as long as I recive it. I hate that bitcoin-qt doesn't warn you on such important things. Not to give you any wrong ideas, but this could be a good spot to scam someone. You could easily doublespend on me and I could probably convince you to resent the transaction since it got "rejected".

I hope we won't have such loopholes when YAC has that age.

Well, it states everywhere in big red letters that you should not trust transactions without confirmations. So it's not a loophole.

EDIT: LOL, they both got confirmed in the same block.

The loophole is if transactionFee =0 then more red letters

[sairon]

There are still a few out there, but it will take more than the 5 minutes that it took for the YAC to be confirmed.  This is the first time that I've used the new 0.8.3 Bitcoin client and somehow my fee setting didn't transfer from the older client. Ultimately, there should be a warning when trying to send with no fees. Actually I thought there was which is why I payed it no mind.

I think 0.8.3 got lower hard-coded fee so it could be that is the reason additional fee value was reseted. Anyway, switch to Bitcoin CC and
you will always know what is transaction fee before actualy sending coins.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144331.0

Hehe, I'm wondering if it will actually be merged into 0.9 as they say.

EDIT: nice 8 BTC buy wall on cryptsy @0.00004002

[St.Bit]

The loophole is if transactionFee =0 then more red letters

I knew.
What a shitty way to handle bugs btw. You can't expect everyone to use bitcoin and expect the user to read on the forum. This bug had been posted on Jan2013! >1bil market cap and still beta is something I have only seen by microsoft so far.

[sairon]

It hurts... http://coinmarketcap.com/

[sairon]

It hurts... http://coinmarketcap.com/

The only thing that hurts me there is stupid, premined, centralized, closed-source XRP valued at $643,779,590. Retards are many, obviously.

Nah, I just ignore that one.

EDIT: BTW, what I thinks hurts YAC the most is that coin-hopping sites like coinchoose.com haven't it listed (for being a scrypt-chacha based coin (or however you like to call this implementation)). This way there's no simple means to compare profitability against other altcoins and IMO that discourages many potential miners.

[aso118]

The price will go back up.  Even bitcoin has it crashes when people start to dump.   I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm taking advantage of this opportunity and buying as many as I can.   

Yacoin has a strong, and activity, community.  As the N-factor continues in increase, it will become more and more difficult to 'pump-and-dump' this coin.   Like all new markets, when there are only a few investors involved, the spikes tend to be pretty severe.

[sairon]

It hurts... http://coinmarketcap.com/

The only thing that hurts me there is stupid, premined, centralized, closed-source XRP valued at $643,779,590. Retards are many, obviously.

Nah, I just ignore that one.

EDIT: BTW, what I thinks hurts YAC the most is that coin-hopping sites like coinchoose.com haven't it listed (for being a scrypt-chacha based coin (or however you like to call this implementation)). This way there's no simple means to compare profitability against other altcoins and IMO that discourages many potential miners.

Non-standard mining software required would be another reason.

That's what I meant by "for being a scrypt-chacha based coin". But now with some YAC spin-offs, there might be incentive to add it to these sites.

[ivanlabrie]

How can that hurt?

I think it saved it from being uber dumped to infinity and left to rot with mega high diff.

[sairon]

How can that hurt?

I think it saved it from being uber dumped to infinity and left to rot with mega high diff.

From the start, yes, but now that it's almost 112 days old... well, it would be nice to have a decent comparison available.

[St.Bit]

Yacoin has a strong and active community.

Oh thx to remind me:

Your all taste in names is more than just questionable. You people seem to vote for a new ugly name without actually bothering about style,dignity or maby the new domains we would need if that monstrosity actually wins. So, without any faith left in mankind, I went on a shopping spree and wasted some cash. I really like my new jeans.

[ilostcoins]

BTC with no fee might just baunce back to sander!

More and more miners are not accepting no fee transfer!

How are these things decided? I've heard this a few times but never knew what's involved.

Pools have ways to reject tranactions? The QT client for solo-mine reject transactions based on a setting I don't know about?

For the bounce back part, it means sending client stop trying to send after a certain amount of time?

[ilostcoins]

EDIT: BTW, what I thinks hurts YAC the most is that coin-hopping sites like coinchoose.com haven't it listed (for being a scrypt-chacha based coin (or however you like to call this implementation)). This way there's no simple means to compare profitability against other altcoins and IMO that discourages many potential miners.

That's a GOOD thing. I wrote my own profitability calc.

While that makes Yacoin easy to mine right now, things do need to become simpler for more people to join in.

I also think those profit comparison sites can provide exposure. I for one, visit http://dustcoin.com/mining well before I knew bitcointalk forum. In terms of exposure, I suspect http://dustcoin.com/mining would be more helpful than coinchoose because fewer names are there, hence every name is better remembered by visitors.

[Joe_Bauers]

Status: 0/unconfirmed, broadcast through 4 nodes
Date: 8/27/13 **:58
To: 1AM4UYBjY6VyxD9oTgi8xCGB6VfQN3dcEe
Debit: -1.10 BTC
Transaction fee: -0.001 BTC
Net amount: -1.101 BTC
Transaction ID: 447a9272f3d96f88d376d4ad56076b79fc4d242200c37471e1054b884bf08868

I sent a little extra due to the f*up

Send the rest of the YAC's once everything is confirmed and post here.

Status: 139 confirmations
Date: 8/27/13 **:28
From: unknown
To: YLoyZvVK1ckViN91wfU3xpFADjBAb7rHyZ (own address, label: ***)
Credit: 20000.00 YAC
Net amount: +20000.00 YAC
Transaction ID: 62e38f85cecd4b3bb72062f5854d7b52868b47890d70bea8931bebd200cf2a5d

Thanks again St.Bit, not only for the transaction, but unintentionally participating in a bug fix   I will definitely fix the 0 fee issue for YAC.

[QuantPlus]

It hurts... http://coinmarketcap.com/

The only thing that hurts me there is stupid, premined, centralized, closed-source XRP valued at $643,779,590. Retards are many, obviously.

That's a completely fake number...
Only 3% of XRP has been released... and Ripple is on Life Support.

But it does prove that the people running coinmarketcap are clueless...
Why don't they just use all 21,000,000 coins in BTC Cap?

[X68N]

Chart bellow says color used by current YACoin logo represents shame and "Want to disappear!" while Litecoin is regret with
"Oh, if only ... (Gox finaly adds LTC)" and Bitcoin is pride with "Bursting with pride!" which really suits current prices and trends.

Change logo color, naoooooooooooooooo!  

Your all taste in names is more than just questionable. You people seem to vote for a new ugly name without actually bothering about style,dignity or maby the new domains we would need if that monstrosity actually wins. So, without any faith left in mankind, I went on a shopping spree and wasted some cash. I really like my new jeans.

"Your Alternative Currency" and similar stuff would be nice slogan though.

Yeah damn good idea.
Yet another alt coin is to pessimistic name. Your Alternative Currency sound much more valuable :-)

[sairon]

BTC with no fee might just baunce back to sander!

More and more miners are not accepting no fee transfer!

How are these things decided? I've heard this a few times but never knew what's involved.

Pools have ways to reject tranactions? The QT client for solo-mine reject transactions based on a setting I don't know about?

For the bounce back part, it means sending client stop trying to send after a certain amount of time?

The values are hardcoded in the client. You need to either modify the source or write your own. For example the Eligius pool accepts even non-standard transactions (ones that are ok according to bitcoin spec, but qt refuses to rebroadcast them).
As for the bounce-back, you need to stop broadcasting the transaction (hard to do in qt client, you need to modify wallet.dat with pywallet; with eg. blockchain.info wallet, it does not try to rebroadcast, so the tx simply disappears (but still can get confirmed later on!)).

[ilostcoins]

BTC with no fee might just baunce back to sander!

More and more miners are not accepting no fee transfer!

How are these things decided? I've heard this a few times but never knew what's involved.

Pools have ways to reject tranactions? The QT client for solo-mine reject transactions based on a setting I don't know about?

For the bounce back part, it means sending client stop trying to send after a certain amount of time?

The values are hardcoded in the client. You need to either modify the source or write your own. For example the Eligius pool accepts even non-standard transactions (ones that are ok according to bitcoin spec, but qt refuses to rebroadcast them).
As for the bounce-back, you need to stop broadcasting the transaction (hard to do in qt client, you need to modify wallet.dat with pywallet; with eg. blockchain.info wallet, it does not try to rebroadcast, so the tx simply disappears (but still can get confirmed later on!)).

  and thanks for explaining.

[sairon]

BTC with no fee might just baunce back to sander!

More and more miners are not accepting no fee transfer!

How are these things decided? I've heard this a few times but never knew what's involved.

Pools have ways to reject tranactions? The QT client for solo-mine reject transactions based on a setting I don't know about?

For the bounce back part, it means sending client stop trying to send after a certain amount of time?

The values are hardcoded in the client. You need to either modify the source or write your own. For example the Eligius pool accepts even non-standard transactions (ones that are ok according to bitcoin spec, but qt refuses to rebroadcast them).
As for the bounce-back, you need to stop broadcasting the transaction (hard to do in qt client, you need to modify wallet.dat with pywallet; with eg. blockchain.info wallet, it does not try to rebroadcast, so the tx simply disappears (but still can get confirmed later on!)).

  and thanks for explaining.

well, unconfirmed transactions are kept in client memory until they either get into a block or get overwritten by another tx spending the same input (double-spend, usually with a higher fee and thus higher priority) or they expire (in case of blockchain.info server, the expiration period is 7 days IIRC, standard bitcoind/bitcoin-qt has it unlimited AFAIK, but it clears on restart -- that's why it can get confirmed even if blockchain.info is no longer showing the tx as pending). for example: you send 1 btc with zero fee, it gets stuck at unconfirmed for a week, blockchain.info removes it from their list of pending transactions but some mining pool does not, later that pool mints a block with a two weeks old tx and it's confirmed now. hope i explained it clearly.