Official Anoncoin chat thread (including history)

[00Smurf]

can some of the devs please help the exchanges to fix their wallets? cryptsy is fucked up, bittrex is fucked up, vircurex could be, and btc38 I don't have any clue but they are probably in the same conditions.

come on, first thing to do is help these chaps fix their wallets. whatever it takes.

Is there a coin that cryptsy hasn't had a problem with, i'm more inclined to think the problem is cryptsy. Just based on history alone, their exchange code is spaghetti.

[tljenson]

Ok you've made you point. I get it you think that Shadow Coin is the cats meow. Now can we get back to talking about AnonCoin. Instead of spaming the shit out of the thread about other coins. Now I've become part of the problem. So I'm stoping, I hope Smurf stops as well.  

And you guy... you are spamming that thread with stealth coin... no one here give a fuck to stealth coin and your loss. Stop crying like baby with your loss. You are the only one responsable with your money. If you want express your disappointment with shadowcash guys open a fucking new thread and run out.

Hey fuck head, I don't give a fuck about StealthCoin either because I'm invested in this fucking coin. When I left Stealth I went into this coin, and have been fucked as well. Though I still have faith in this coin.

So quit being a fucking asshole!!!

[btc38]

Welcome to our exchange to trade ANC.

ANC/CNY: http://www.btc38.com/trade_en.html?btc38_trade_coin_name=anc
ANC/BTC: http://www.btc38.com/trade_en.html?mk_type=btc&btc38_trade_coin_name=anc

ANC is great coin, please keep going on it.
Thanks for your support.

BTC38 team

Thanks a lot for supporting ANC!!!

China shows her heart with strong prices!   

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/anoncoin/#markets

Some of our user give us a feedback that their deposit is not credited.
Our engineer check those deposit and find there are no record on block chain.
So if there are deposit issue, please check block chain first.

Please note: Our ANC withdrawal works well.

We have also made Proof of Reserve.
Total amount of ALL Users:115949.9262  Address of the Cold Storage:AQ4X6FMaSwX4ARenfK1mCTNAfa46TUnCR5
You must login to our website to check above information.

BTC38 team

Proof of Reserve.
Total amount of ALL Users:124823.791019  Address of the Cold Storage:AQ4X6FMaSwX4ARenfK1mCTNAfa46TUnCR5
You must login to our website to check above information.    http://www.btc38.com/trade/reserves_en.html

[robinson5]

This is ridiculous.  Are none of the devs going to come here and give an explanation for the zerocoin delays? What about the difficulty switch that was promised awhile ago? Anoncoin at this point in time is completely worthless.


How are the devs still blaming the problem on cryptsy?

[btc38]

Craptsy is now refusing to do anything to get their stuck TX's resolved:

Code:

<yoyo> K1773R: craptsy responded upon the request to give raw transaction to me (they had closed ticket) by their usual rambling about fixing this issue with anoncoin devs
<yoyo> damn its worse than before they dont even broadcast nor are willing to give raw transaction now
<K1773R> yoyo: you see! they refuse to do anything

They refuse to give me/us the transactions and refuse (no idea if its with intent) to broadcast the TX.
Therefore, all TX created by craptsy for ANC cannot be mined unless they change this again.

We had enough problems with Craptsy, this shows just another case of them refusing to follow the protocol or care about its customers. Please stay away for your own sake.

I received the first request for a raw transaction today. To say I have done nothing to remedy the situation is a blatant lie as I was cooperating in pm with you and the other developers.

In no way are we refusing to "Follow the protocol" We run an unmodified anoncoind and send all transactions via "sendtoaddress". Out of the 236 currencies we list. ANC is the only one with this issue

You can say its a cryptsy issue all you want. But anyone that reads the facts can see that is not the case

Hi,  how is possible that BTC38 working normal,
those who are stuck, I suppose they sent ANC from cryptsy.
I'm curious...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=227287.msg9275043#msg9275043

They are likely claiming everything is fine as they have no debug output to say anything is wrong with the transaction like everyone else

If they are running an unmodifed anoncoind they are subject to this issue. Just like us, bittrex and the mining pool ops who have stated so in this thread

Ok, maybe BTC38 reply you here. 
If is like you said,  I think it's not possible that nobody who stuck there not get here to complain.

However,  I hope problem solved soon!!

Regards

Few of ANC transaction will stuck when withdrawal from us, but it will be done within 2 days eventually.
We think it is within normal limit.

I just check the twitter and found Devs are working hard on stuck problem and zerocrash.
https://twitter.com/AnoncoinProject

Thanks for your hard work @meeh

BTC38 team

[Gnosis-]

I haven't replied here in a while because the signal-to-noise ratio is really low in here (where "noise" includes things like trash talking me and speculation on the price). If you said something addressed at me here, I probably didn't read it. PM me if it's important.

Yes, estimating the time to complete software is not my strong suit, but that is a difficult problem in any case. The fact remains that I have worked hard on this and will continue to do so. I am not aware of any other developers who have made nearly as much progress (judging by public commits) in adding zero-knowledge cryptography to cryptocurrency. As for ShadowCoin, I looked at their code briefly and did not see a single commit related to this; sure, they might be keeping all the development secret, but "talk is cheap". If you look at Github, you'll see that I did more than talk.

Anyway, I am now thinking it is better to have a series of testnets with gradually increasing Zerocoin functionality, rather than a single one with all the functionality as I originally planned. I'll set a date for the first one when I am actually code complete. You can think of these as "milestones" for completion.

As for the wild oscillations in difficulty, I am working with two other people on our IRC to get this resolved.

[stealth923]

I haven't replied here in a while because the signal-to-noise ratio is really low in here (where "noise" includes things like trash talking me and speculation on the price). If you said something addressed at me here, I probably didn't read it. PM me if it's important.

Yes, estimating the time to complete software is not my strong suit, but that is a difficult problem in any case. The fact remains that I have worked hard on this and will continue to do so. I am not aware of any other developers who have made nearly as much progress (judging by public commits) in adding zero-knowledge cryptography to cryptocurrency. As for ShadowCoin, I looked at their code briefly and did not see a single commit related to this; sure, they might be keeping all the development secret, but "talk is cheap". If you look at Github, you'll see that I did more than talk.

Anyway, I am now thinking it is better to have a series of testnets with gradually increasing Zerocoin functionality, rather than a single one with all the functionality as I originally planned. I'll set a date for the first one when I am actually code complete. You can think of these as "milestones" for completion.

As for the wild oscillations in difficulty, I am working with two other people on our IRC to get this resolved.

So your dumping / accumulation phase has finished again..Rinse/Repeat eh..

Please dont set anymore dates....Come back when its working, dont ask for anymore donations.

Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on Me.

[robinson5]

I haven't replied here in a while because the signal-to-noise ratio is really low in here (where "noise" includes things like trash talking me and speculation on the price). If you said something addressed at me here, I probably didn't read it. PM me if it's important.

Yes, estimating the time to complete software is not my strong suit, but that is a difficult problem in any case. The fact remains that I have worked hard on this and will continue to do so. I am not aware of any other developers who have made nearly as much progress (judging by public commits) in adding zero-knowledge cryptography to cryptocurrency. As for ShadowCoin, I looked at their code briefly and did not see a single commit related to this; sure, they might be keeping all the development secret, but "talk is cheap". If you look at Github, you'll see that I did more than talk.

Anyway, I am now thinking it is better to have a series of testnets with gradually increasing Zerocoin functionality, rather than a single one with all the functionality as I originally planned. I'll set a date for the first one when I am actually code complete. You can think of these as "milestones" for completion.

As for the wild oscillations in difficulty, I am working with two other people on our IRC to get this resolved.

Do you have any reason why only 2 days before a release date you had to extend it 2-3 months? It's hard to understand why that announcement couldn't have happened earlier rather than misleading investors. 

[shtako]

I haven't replied here in a while because the signal-to-noise ratio is really low in here (where "noise" includes things like trash talking me and speculation on the price). If you said something addressed at me here, I probably didn't read it. PM me if it's important.

Yes, estimating the time to complete software is not my strong suit, but that is a difficult problem in any case. The fact remains that I have worked hard on this and will continue to do so. I am not aware of any other developers who have made nearly as much progress (judging by public commits) in adding zero-knowledge cryptography to cryptocurrency. As for ShadowCoin, I looked at their code briefly and did not see a single commit related to this; sure, they might be keeping all the development secret, but "talk is cheap". If you look at Github, you'll see that I did more than talk.

Anyway, I am now thinking it is better to have a series of testnets with gradually increasing Zerocoin functionality, rather than a single one with all the functionality as I originally planned. I'll set a date for the first one when I am actually code complete. You can think of these as "milestones" for completion.

As for the wild oscillations in difficulty, I am working with two other people on our IRC to get this resolved.

Keep up the good work! Don't care about the trolls or the people who are butt hurt after loosing some btc at the last pump/dump.

One thing people seem to have forgotten. The price is exactly the same as it was 2 months ago. That mean that in the last 2 months there have been absolutely no loss for anoncoin holders. But due to the volatility and the recent pump and dump some people have gained a lot and others have lost a lot.

[Zarmung]

lol who said ZC will be emplement into Anoncoin - nonsense and scam...
The developers of ZC clearly wrote that their goal was Bitcoin but Bitcoin foundation rejected ZC's team offer.

btw ZC team is a group of scientist who work for the grants to find out something new and testing ZK protocol.
there is no connection between ZeroCash and AnonCoin except SCAM.

You, Sir, are a complete moron! We refer ZC to ZeroCoin, not ZeroCash.
Read the wiki, understand it or go elsewhere.

Stop fooling people!
First: Zerocoin is the coin which would converted from Bitcoin network through Zerocash protocol to coin called Zerocoin. There is nothing to do with Anoncoin.

Powerful group of scientists with huge funding are still working on ZC protocol becoz it has a lot of bugs and you want to say that two lame coders almost for free could do the same task? bugaga... yep.... maybe i'm not smart enough but this thing that Anon SCAM of the year i understood clearly

Second: you are huge bagholder who ignored a few rules:
- before invest money, try to understand the fact
- before say to someone moron try to say something intelligible

btw: i know some very very black rumors about Anoncoin but keep it a secret

[dotatbg]

2) Non standard transactions being propagated by Cryptsy. These transaction are more 100kb in size. By default anoncoin clients do not send out transaction of these size and standard miners do not accept them. Cryptsy has refused to acknowledge that they are doing anything wrong.

And then what? Coins will stay in then middle of nowhere forever?
Cryptsy said

The transaction does not need to be resent as it is a valid transaction.

but you told non standard transaction. I thing you should  patch anoncoin client asap because when this "non standard transaction" has valid txID and in that case it's a valid and should be send and confirmed.

nope, see my post above.
its not about having a "valid" txID nor anything like this. the problems lies in creating too big transactions. seems they managed to even lower the fee more which resulted in failure of tx broadcast (there is a limit).

How can you be sure about too long transactions? They still refuse all requests to post a raw transaction from his mempool. The only thing we know is "Cryptsy do not broadcast some kind of transactions" The right way IMHO:
- Cryptsy post a stuck raw transaction and all we will see what is going on.
- Update your client to broadcast any transaction without limit, or reasonable one.

If his API really use sendtoaddress the problem with too big transactions is your I mean in anc node soft

[dotatbg]

Craptsy is now refusing to do anything to get their stuck TX's resolved:

Code:

<yoyo> K1773R: craptsy responded upon the request to give raw transaction to me (they had closed ticket) by their usual rambling about fixing this issue with anoncoin devs
<yoyo> damn its worse than before they dont even broadcast nor are willing to give raw transaction now
<K1773R> yoyo: you see! they refuse to do anything

They refuse to give me/us the transactions and refuse (no idea if its with intent) to broadcast the TX.
Therefore, all TX created by craptsy for ANC cannot be mined unless they change this again.

We had enough problems with Craptsy, this shows just another case of them refusing to follow the protocol or care about its customers. Please stay away for your own sake.

I received the first request for a raw transaction today. To say I have done nothing to remedy the situation is a blatant lie as I was cooperating in pm with you and the other developers.

In no way are we refusing to "Follow the protocol" We run an unmodified anoncoind and send all transactions via "sendtoaddress". Out of the 236 currencies we list. ANC is the only one with this issue

You can say its a cryptsy issue all you want. But anyone that reads the facts can see that is not the case

So you can prove it very easy. Just post a non broadcast or stuck raw transaction  Because in my test node no pending withdraw transaction with ID from my Cryptsy account

[drAGon925]

We can see drk/sdc trolls , with well known methods , some is like supporting ANC..

I tested  BTC38 from my wallet to exchange, and back.. everything is ok for me.
I will not try to test cryptsy for now : )

BTC38 supporting ANC for long time as only anon coin, and I see they don't have drk..
By that, I can think that others are corrupt by drk fans/devs to make problems with ANC..
Just a thought..

drk had took good stake from their pump, they have much power/btc.
This is war my friends, there is much money in game.

[Gnosis-]

I haven't replied here in a while because the signal-to-noise ratio is really low in here (where "noise" includes things like trash talking me and speculation on the price). If you said something addressed at me here, I probably didn't read it. PM me if it's important.

Yes, estimating the time to complete software is not my strong suit, but that is a difficult problem in any case. The fact remains that I have worked hard on this and will continue to do so. I am not aware of any other developers who have made nearly as much progress (judging by public commits) in adding zero-knowledge cryptography to cryptocurrency. As for ShadowCoin, I looked at their code briefly and did not see a single commit related to this; sure, they might be keeping all the development secret, but "talk is cheap". If you look at Github, you'll see that I did more than talk.

Anyway, I am now thinking it is better to have a series of testnets with gradually increasing Zerocoin functionality, rather than a single one with all the functionality as I originally planned. I'll set a date for the first one when I am actually code complete. You can think of these as "milestones" for completion.

As for the wild oscillations in difficulty, I am working with two other people on our IRC to get this resolved.

Do you have any reason why only 2 days before a release date you had to extend it 2-3 months? It's hard to understand why that announcement couldn't have happened earlier rather than misleading investors. 

First, let me say that software estimation is a notoriously hard problem. I'm not saying I couldn't have done better -- I could have.

Basically up until a few weeks ago, I was working mostly with libzerocoin, which is code I understood really well. I was giving completion estimates based on my (relatively fast) progress with that. Then, I had to switch to working with the wallet's code itself, and that is far more complicated. By the time I became aware of how much more time it would take, it was only a few days before the testnet release deadline. There may have been some wishful thinking going on too, which I didn't catch because all my thoughts were taken up with how to solve the problems at hand.

[rel-oad]

Dev has scammed us all with this recent announcement, "it'll be ready any day now.. any day now... oh wait I need another 3 months".

The coin doesn't even work right now moving between exchanges.

Sometimes it's prudent to hold during a crash - not this time.

A developer like this will not make a successful coin. You will not become a millionnaire buying into this developer.
Dump this coin into the ground and move on, there's plenty of better alternatives.

[AlexGR]

I haven't replied here in a while because the signal-to-noise ratio is really low in here (where "noise" includes things like trash talking me and speculation on the price). If you said something addressed at me here, I probably didn't read it. PM me if it's important.

Yes, estimating the time to complete software is not my strong suit, but that is a difficult problem in any case. The fact remains that I have worked hard on this and will continue to do so. I am not aware of any other developers who have made nearly as much progress (judging by public commits) in adding zero-knowledge cryptography to cryptocurrency. As for ShadowCoin, I looked at their code briefly and did not see a single commit related to this; sure, they might be keeping all the development secret, but "talk is cheap". If you look at Github, you'll see that I did more than talk.

Anyway, I am now thinking it is better to have a series of testnets with gradually increasing Zerocoin functionality, rather than a single one with all the functionality as I originally planned. I'll set a date for the first one when I am actually code complete. You can think of these as "milestones" for completion.

As for the wild oscillations in difficulty, I am working with two other people on our IRC to get this resolved.

Do you have any reason why only 2 days before a release date you had to extend it 2-3 months? It's hard to understand why that announcement couldn't have happened earlier rather than misleading investors. 

First, let me say that software estimation is a notoriously hard problem. I'm not saying I couldn't have done better -- I could have.

Basically up until a few weeks ago, I was working mostly with libzerocoin, which is code I understood really well. I was giving completion estimates based on my (relatively fast) progress with that. Then, I had to switch to working with the wallet's code itself, and that is far more complicated. By the time I became aware of how much more time it would take, it was only a few days before the testnet release deadline. There may have been some wishful thinking going on too, which I didn't catch because all my thoughts were taken up with how to solve the problems at hand.

2-3 days to 2-3 months is a very "problematic" miscalculation, no matter how you see it.

Investment wise? "This is ridiculous" -> DUMP
Confidence wise? "If the dev can't tell if it takes 2-3 days or 2-3 months, then he is either a liar/scammer/pumper or totally incompetent"

I have ANCs from back in the day when ANC and DRK were the only players around in the anon industry (DRK as main, ANC as hedge) and I'm loosely following ANC for this reason throughout the months, but, seriously, the "I miscalculated" angle can't be digested

[CookieL]

I haven't replied here in a while because the signal-to-noise ratio is really low in here (where "noise" includes things like trash talking me and speculation on the price). If you said something addressed at me here, I probably didn't read it. PM me if it's important.

Yes, estimating the time to complete software is not my strong suit, but that is a difficult problem in any case. The fact remains that I have worked hard on this and will continue to do so. I am not aware of any other developers who have made nearly as much progress (judging by public commits) in adding zero-knowledge cryptography to cryptocurrency. As for ShadowCoin, I looked at their code briefly and did not see a single commit related to this; sure, they might be keeping all the development secret, but "talk is cheap". If you look at Github, you'll see that I did more than talk.

Anyway, I am now thinking it is better to have a series of testnets with gradually increasing Zerocoin functionality, rather than a single one with all the functionality as I originally planned. I'll set a date for the first one when I am actually code complete. You can think of these as "milestones" for completion.

As for the wild oscillations in difficulty, I am working with two other people on our IRC to get this resolved.

Great update! Keep up the good work.

[pebody]

withdraw from cryptsy  2014-10-20 11:08:06     106.95742694 ANC
TrxID: 897695f63ef4752ca3848d978759dfec749ba770edb7274f6adb60328f212437
to address ANj92t5i1G5dE3otujPsqwbNBuS2t4dNia

and still nothing...   

[ntrn500]

As I interpret Gnosis thoughts on the delay, he is trying to tell us: "Don't worry, I am sorry"
Yep everything is fine and we'll wait for another year or two, probably a decade, no one is in a hurry

[mullick]

withdraw from cryptsy  2014-10-20 11:08:06     106.95742694 ANC
TrxID: 897695f63ef4752ca3848d978759dfec749ba770edb7274f6adb60328f212437
to address ANj92t5i1G5dE3otujPsqwbNBuS2t4dNia

and still nothing...   

Code:

anoncoind decoderawtransaction 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
{
    "txid" : "897695f63ef4752ca3848d978759dfec749ba770edb7274f6adb60328f212437",
    "version" : 1,
    "locktime" : 0,
    "vin" : [
        {
            "txid" : "4eb893c1e4d56a8bfffbbed43c8130247ef313db89b3ee0a92100f436b342308",
            "vout" : 0,
            "scriptSig" : {
                "asm" : "3045022100d99ee867c398bff2382152df5a62994cf96267b5a8e13727c2a15df88e4639df0220507d41cb87f79f5506869250f17ecf4a9dbeedfc6edbcd95778420ba6673eef101 04ce87a623acf0512051a94f79a2f4ca051c0276eef40eedbd415a6ff27abc1c34919f8ff564392b9afda266119a2599189b94aee0ec877904d51e5b7b4ba12e49",
                "hex" : "483045022100d99ee867c398bff2382152df5a62994cf96267b5a8e13727c2a15df88e4639df0220507d41cb87f79f5506869250f17ecf4a9dbeedfc6edbcd95778420ba6673eef1014104ce87a623acf0512051a94f79a2f4ca051c0276eef40eedbd415a6ff27abc1c34919f8ff564392b9afda266119a2599189b94aee0ec877904d51e5b7b4ba12e49"
            },
            "sequence" : 4294967295
        },
        {
            "txid" : "9011fc2ee66f031d9570c0856a33de22e2cb600a22b37e6f8830405edf10b92e",
            "vout" : 1,
            "scriptSig" : {
                "asm" : "30460221008793277f542e69777fc802de2a675781df81ce584f6e7f014c795176c81b82b60221008b4f4e435864d3d1afe0b9e6904e3ba82e27a2d9cadf312c11d277640211a48201 04567de27a22ddac4e57d19730bc46cde847c44fe1d33503c61316ea17077793b6c96f7538af5489c2f563d44075bd570de8592caa42ecf8285f05f72b065a4452",
                "hex" : "4930460221008793277f542e69777fc802de2a675781df81ce584f6e7f014c795176c81b82b60221008b4f4e435864d3d1afe0b9e6904e3ba82e27a2d9cadf312c11d277640211a482014104567de27a22ddac4e57d19730bc46cde847c44fe1d33503c61316ea17077793b6c96f7538af5489c2f563d44075bd570de8592caa42ecf8285f05f72b065a4452"
            },
            "sequence" : 4294967295
        },
        {
            "txid" : "9b81a9cefbc19f471440c72820816d48296d4d422e17a364dba7dbb91275c58c",
            "vout" : 0,
            "scriptSig" : {
                "asm" : "304502206d8b39ae4660df5b5ccbc93ef96bc64480447451ae2df33305b3fd0dc9492ca7022100d4bdb7dc6d6cfcddcc33ef44df0112a93fef977efacecab9268ffbcd506655e301 042f2758146f378adaf46d36680053d6ded477c6f0945820bb914220b824148c107a72609e715b6de23f0c73e8750e12ed2b5c8aa1488a18b2719310f8779e2d30",
                "hex" : "48304502206d8b39ae4660df5b5ccbc93ef96bc64480447451ae2df33305b3fd0dc9492ca7022100d4bdb7dc6d6cfcddcc33ef44df0112a93fef977efacecab9268ffbcd506655e30141042f2758146f378adaf46d36680053d6ded477c6f0945820bb914220b824148c107a72609e715b6de23f0c73e8750e12ed2b5c8aa1488a18b2719310f8779e2d30"
            },
            "sequence" : 4294967295
        }
    ],
    "vout" : [
        {
            "value" : 0.01005148,
            "n" : 0,
            "scriptPubKey" : {
                "asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 c31c94ecd10f61d5b9edd92a1078cc0f20124099 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
                "hex" : "76a914c31c94ecd10f61d5b9edd92a1078cc0f2012409988ac",
                "reqSigs" : 1,
                "type" : "pubkeyhash",
                "addresses" : [
                    "AZZXeoJzQ13F5REXHuD6sTgczoUc7qXS4F"
                ]
            }
        },
        {
            "value" : 106.92742694,
            "n" : 1,
            "scriptPubKey" : {
                "asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 4c4479e2de1e73aa0db99756c6fd6afe1520c99d OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
                "hex" : "76a9144c4479e2de1e73aa0db99756c6fd6afe1520c99d88ac",
                "reqSigs" : 1,
                "type" : "pubkeyhash",
                "addresses" : [
                    "ANj92t5i1G5dE3otujPsqwbNBuS2t4dNia"
                ]
            }
        }
    ]
}