Official Anoncoin chat thread (including history)

[nbrk]

I'm starting to get concerned.  First there were the zerocoin delays and the exchange problems.  But now meeh, who was supposed to give an update on the auxPoW and difficulty problems, is asking people what they think of myriad? Didn't the community decide we wanted to switch about a month ago and according to this post (http://www.reddit.com/r/Anoncoin/comments/2ix6ny/a_hard_fork_is_imminent_pay_attention_to_forum/) a hardfork was supposed to happen?

How is meeh now asking what we think of myriad and auxPoW? Wasn't he supposedly coding for a hardfork the past month?

Is anyone able to read code and verify that there has been actual progress on this coin? Exchanges still aren't working and my coins are still stuck in crypsty! I don't think this is a cryptsy problem.  The devs need to fix this and work with the exchanges rather than trying to blame it on them.


Edit: Are there any exchanges that are currently allowing anoncoin trading? I couldn't buy/sell any if I decided I wanted to

www.btc38.com is the bomb. The Chinese do it better.

I'd wait for the mud to settle before trading ANC. Regarding cryptsy, open a ticket and let them know. It might take a while if my experience is anything to go by. Be prepared for some stress. You can try hitting up Mullick https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=99433 as he seems to be cryptsy's man on the wallet issue shit-storm. ANC needs some time to straighten its head, and for the devs to fight through the problems. I'm guessing they're all pretty raggedy/stretched thin/depressed at the moment. All manner of various kinds of human/machine break-downs came to a head all at once -- suffice to say it's a trolls paradise at the moment, as you can see.

[Gnosis-]

Anoncoin rpcwallet.cpp is broken.That is a probable cause of wallet erratic behaviour.Error in code for wallet tx - JSON connection :

Line 41 - if (confirms) should be if (confirms > 0)

No, sorry, that's not a bug. Perhaps it's not good coding style, but it's not a bug.

It could only be a bug if confirms could ever be less than 0, which is impossible, as you can see from CMerkleTx::GetDepthInMainChain (main.cpp lines 898-921).

Keep looking.

EDIT: You may have noticed this by comparing with the Bitcoin code, where it says (confirms > 0). This was changed in February at the same time that CMerkleTx::GetDepthInMainChain was modified to return -1 in the case of a "conflicting transaction." Anoncoin's code does not need this check because our version of said function never returns a negative value.

[JMcGrath]

Ok lets set this straight since the developers have stopped communicating with us and trying to fix the issue. I have gone above and beyond to make anoncoin work on our exchange. I kept the ANC wallet open when bittrex shut it down to not lock customers from their funds

This was made impossible by the false accusations and general slander from the community and developers themselves

I will say it again. I manage 236 wallets. ANC is the only one to have this issue. And it is NOT a cryptsy issue.

OK, in all fairness I guess I don't know quite enough about exactly what went wrong to point the finger at any specific party. I didn't mean to upset anyone, I was just providing a status update to an issue I was quite irritated about. The dev's were blaming it on Cryptsy because the tx size was too large, and apparently I missed some posts somewhere that explain the situation?!

I am a trader and have dealt with issues a few times now (mostly with ANC) and just wanted my coins. I tried to contact support a few times without pestering anyone and couldn't get a simple answer, not everyone wants to dig through thousands of posts to find the one specific post that explains it.

So, I'm sorry if I blamed the wrong person but waiting a week for your coins is very frustrating when you can't just get a simple reply from support, who by the way promised to follow up with me when the issue was fixed...

On a serious note, a question about anonymity.

I can't figure out how considering I have an impossible to guess password and have setup yubikey for withdrawels but someone emptied out my account for about 80 BTC today!

Luckily I keep most of my BTC in my own wallet but wtf can I do now? Anything? I've been trying to contact Mt Gox all day but it just keeps saying "getting an agent..."

BTW, the person that hacked my account's address is:

1JgqPGJCJWzgeMiTFbmeLi3cpKC9jahPS4


I'll give a reward if I can find out who this person is so I can beat the **** out of them!

It is easy for a novice like myself to follow the trail to a wallet that was active just a few hours ago.

Is there no way to connect those stolen funds to an id on an exchange or other service?

Take a look at the date of that post and where it was stolen from!! That was almost 2 years ago and from Gox who doesn't even exist anymore... I contacted Gox about the issue who couldn't do anything about the theft, I traced the IP Address (Gox provided) to a Library somewhere in Colorado that was being used as a proxy. I watched the account for a long time and there was no activity, even if the thief is using the account now it would be impossible to get any credible exchange to give me someone's personal information or take the BTC back!

[drAGon925]

just did an over-the-counter trade with skaia

anybody want to buy ANC outside of an exchange PM me

Yeah, fast direct trade of 2000 ANC out of an exchange.

Hello Mr Skaia,

I see that Faucet is online again?


______________________________________________________________________

Anyone have more information about what meeh wrote before few days on IRC??

[blahcoin]

On a serious note, a question about anonymity.

I can't figure out how considering I have an impossible to guess password and have setup yubikey for withdrawels but someone emptied out my account for about 80 BTC today!

Luckily I keep most of my BTC in my own wallet but wtf can I do now? Anything? I've been trying to contact Mt Gox all day but it just keeps saying "getting an agent..."

BTW, the person that hacked my account's address is:

1JgqPGJCJWzgeMiTFbmeLi3cpKC9jahPS4


I'll give a reward if I can find out who this person is so I can beat the **** out of them!

It is easy for a novice like myself to follow the trail to a wallet that was active just a few hours ago.

Is there no way to connect those stolen funds to an id on an exchange or other service?

Take a look at the date of that post and where it was stolen from!! That was almost 2 years ago and from Gox who doesn't even exist anymore... I contacted Gox about the issue who couldn't do anything about the theft, I traced the IP Address (Gox provided) to a Library somewhere in Colorado that was being used as a proxy. I watched the account for a long time and there was no activity, even if the thief is using the account now it would be impossible to get any credible exchange to give me someone's personal information or take the BTC back!

Yes einstein, I notice the date and the exchange.

Hacking is a serious issue and an exchange that will not look at resolving a hack because it was more than a year ago should have less credibility than one that will, not more. Anyone who hacks coins should spend many years knowing at any moment they might suddenly notice a fin circling them in the water.

As for the specifics of this case I mention it because one of the trails involves very few transactions and led to a wallet that had been used only a few hours before I posted.

Anc people like to say that bitcoin does not provide anonymity to someone who wants it. It either does or it doesn't.

[alincoln]

Now that Cryptsy has disabled ANC wallets, Is there any other exchange with volume nowadays?

ANC really looks like it is dying a slow death.

[gnosiscameeh420]

Now that Cryptsy has disabled ANC wallets, Is there any other exchange with volume nowadays?

ANC really looks like it is dying a slow death.

ANC was created unplanned,wounded from the competition,killed by Gnosis,and will soon be buried by meeh

[Apraksin]

Now that Cryptsy has disabled ANC wallets, Is there any other exchange with volume nowadays?

ANC really looks like it is dying a slow death.

Whuuuuuuut? Devs, Mullick, whoever, you seriously need to get this shit fixed. How the fuck is it possible for such a quality coin to go so completely down the shitter in a few days?

[tljenson]

Now that Cryptsy has disabled ANC wallets, Is there any other exchange with volume nowadays?

ANC really looks like it is dying a slow death.

Whuuuuuuut? Devs, Mullick, whoever, you seriously need to get this shit fixed. How the fuck is it possible for such a quality coin to go so completely down the shitter in a few days?

I starting wonder if it's fixable, and they already no it's a lost cause and aren't saying anything so people can liquidate.   

[GroundRod]

Now that Cryptsy has disabled ANC wallets, Is there any other exchange with volume nowadays?

ANC really looks like it is dying a slow death.

Whuuuuuuut? Devs, Mullick, whoever, you seriously need to get this shit fixed. How the fuck is it possible for such a quality coin to go so completely down the shitter in a few days?

I starting wonder if it's fixable, and they already no it's a lost cause and aren't saying anything so people can liquidate.   

Don't agree with that @ all, although most said here is fodder, so rarely speak up.  You guys should chill.  Hang tight IMO. 

Personally had a <very> long weekend with the code, the master branch.  It was the 1st time I've dug into ANC code, and primarily figured another set of eyeballs looking at the problem couldn't hurt.  From a longer term perspective, I'm planning on helping out, be a part of the dev team keeping this coin code base current.  Once these immediate problems are resolved, so to that end....
...was trying very hard to track down the smallest detail, which could possibly be causing the problems reported by you, Mullick and others.  Several times thought I had something significant enough to report, but eventually rejected them upon closer inspection, although I did find several places where the code could be better, none account for the transaction processing problems.  Then synced up the network and conducted some of my own transfers, monitored the debug.log output line by line as spelled out in the code, my coins transferred 1 third the way around the planet, and my logs look correct.  This is not an easy problem to understand and fix.

Also while looking @ the Anc code, I was comparing side by side with an equivalent v0.9.3 bitcoin code base looking at these relevant sections of the code, becoming familiar with what would be required to upgrade it.  From what I can tell Meeh is working on that, others are conducting a variety of tests.  From what I can tell, allot of manpower is going in to try to address these issues and when some conclusions are reached and/or solutions ready to release, I would expect you'll hear about it here.  I'm not in the loop anymore than the rest of you, but have a positive outlook on what is trying to be accomplished.  Read Gnosis last post, he obviously has put allot of thought into just about every aspect of what could be happening, to be able to respond to that specific point within 1h:59m of Thunderjet's post.  That is only possible, if you've familiarized yourself with all the relevant code sections, and have in your head about 13 levels deep into how the code is being executed.

The immediate problems are being looked at, bounties have been put up for seed nodes to go into the code, and a longer term perspective has not being forgotten about.

GR

[tljenson]

Glad to hear it. I for one really appreciate the effort you put in looking at the code. Thanks for sharing you opinions I feel a lot more optimistic about the coin now. Every little thing is encouraging. 

[AnonCoinTwitter]

Now that Cryptsy has disabled ANC wallets, Is there any other exchange with volume nowadays?

ANC really looks like it is dying a slow death.

Whuuuuuuut? Devs, Mullick, whoever, you seriously need to get this shit fixed. How the fuck is it possible for such a quality coin to go so completely down the shitter in a few days?

I starting wonder if it's fixable, and they already no it's a lost cause and aren't saying anything so people can liquidate.   

Don't agree with that @ all, although most said here is fodder, so rarely speak up.  You guys should chill.  Hang tight IMO. 

Personally had a <very> long weekend with the code, the master branch.  It was the 1st time I've dug into ANC code, and primarily figured another set of eyeballs looking at the problem couldn't hurt.  From a longer term perspective, I'm planning on helping out, be a part of the dev team keeping this coin code base current.  Once these immediate problems are resolved, so to that end....
...was trying very hard to track down the smallest detail, which could possibly be causing the problems reported by you, Mullick and others.  Several times thought I had something significant enough to report, but eventually rejected them upon closer inspection, although I did find several places where the code could be better, none account for the transaction processing problems.  Then synced up the network and conducted some of my own transfers, monitored the debug.log output line by line as spelled out in the code, my coins transferred 1 third the way around the planet, and my logs look correct.  This is not an easy problem to understand and fix.

Also while looking @ the Anc code, I was comparing side by side with an equivalent v0.9.3 bitcoin code base looking at these relevant sections of the code, becoming familiar with what would be required to upgrade it.  From what I can tell Meeh is working on that, others are conducting a variety of tests.  From what I can tell, allot of manpower is going in to try to address these issues and when some conclusions are reached and/or solutions ready to release, I would expect you'll hear about it here.  I'm not in the loop anymore than the rest of you, but have a positive outlook on what is trying to be accomplished.  Read Gnosis last post, he obviously has put allot of thought into just about every aspect of what could be happening, to be able to respond to that specific point within 1h:59m of Thunderjet's post.  That is only possible, if you've familiarized yourself with all the relevant code sections, and have in your head about 13 levels deep into how the code is being executed.

The immediate problems are being looked at, bounties have been put up for seed nodes to go into the code, and a longer term perspective has not being forgotten about.

GR

Thank you for taking the time to help the ANC community. You efforts are greatly appreciated

[niteglider]

Glad to hear it. I for one really appreciate the effort you put in looking at the code. Thanks for sharing you opinions I feel a lot more optimistic about the coin now. Every little thing is encouraging. 

+1

[Apraksin]

Glad to hear it. I for one really appreciate the effort you put in looking at the code. Thanks for sharing you opinions I feel a lot more optimistic about the coin now. Every little thing is encouraging. 

Cosign 

[thunderjet]

Thanks Gnosis for quick answer on mine previous question.Now I found something much more serious.In Bitcoin before v0.8.6 wallet.cpp code had one serious bug which allows relaying of invalid transactions.Error in code allowed insertion of empty transactions into vtxPrev which nasty consequence was that nodes whose transmitting such transactions were banned - causing shutdown parts of network, problems in nodes communications and acception of transactions.This bug was never fixed in Anoncoin wallet.cpp:

Bug is on wallet.cpp Line 850 of anoncoin code - if (!tx.IsCoinBase())  should be if (!tx.IsCoinBase() && !tx.vin.empty())

[GroundRod]

@thunderjet - Excellent find!  Spent allot of time in that RelayWalletTransaction(), convinced that was where the problem must be @.  My initial reaction here is that you've nailed it.  My experience is primarily with the 0.9.2+ codebase & there is significant differences between the two there, did not know that about 0.8.6.  We'll have to see what Gnosis thinks, but I'm really happy you pointed this out!

GR

[AnonCoinTwitter]

@thunderjet - Excellent find!  Spent allot of time in that RelayWalletTransaction(), convinced that was where the problem must be @.  My initial reaction here is that you've nailed it.  My experience is primarily with the 0.9.2+ codebase & there is significant differences between the two there, did not know that about 0.8.6.  We'll have to see what Gnosis thinks, but I'm really happy you pointed this out!

GR

I hope you both are right! It would be great news if we could put the wallet bugs behind us

[Gnosis-]

Thanks Gnosis for quick answer on mine previous question.Now I found something much more serious.In Bitcoin before v0.8.6 wallet.cpp code had one serious bug which allows relaying of invalid transactions.Error in code allowed insertion of empty transactions into vtxPrev which nasty consequence was that nodes whose transmitting such transactions were banned - causing shutdown parts of network, problems in nodes communications and acception of transactions.This bug was never fixed in Anoncoin wallet.cpp:

Bug is on wallet.cpp Line 850 of anoncoin code - if (!tx.IsCoinBase())  should be if (!tx.IsCoinBase() && !tx.vin.empty())

@thunderjet - Excellent find!  Spent allot of time in that RelayWalletTransaction(), convinced that was where the problem must be @.  My initial reaction here is that you've nailed it.  My experience is primarily with the 0.9.2+ codebase & there is significant differences between the two there, did not know that about 0.8.6.  We'll have to see what Gnosis thinks, but I'm really happy you pointed this out!

This is encouraging! I'll take a closer look when I wake up in ~9 hours.

[thunderjet]

One more thing about 0.8.5 bug. In wallet.cpp after line 745 (AddSupportingTransactions part) you should add 3 more lines:

else
                {
                    continue;


because if there was no else continue statement it can stores empty transaction,but else continue will prevent invalid vtxPrev coming in the wallet and already existing empty transactions from transmitting.

Consequently it will protect nodes from being banned

[robinson5]

One more thing about 0.8.5 bug. In wallet.cpp after line 745 (AddSupportingTransactions part) you should add 3 more lines:

else
                {
                    continue;


because if there was no else continue statement it can stores empty transaction,but else continue will prevent invalid vtxPrev coming in the wallet and already existing empty transactions from transmitting.

Consequently it will protect nodes from being banned

Thank you so much thunderjet and GroundRod for looking over the code! Hopefully the two errors in the code you pointed out will solve the transaction issues and cryptsy will allow anc deposits and withdrawals again.  But why is our code based off of 0.8.5 instead of the more updated 0.9.3?