Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 08:15:04 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [20 gh] NMCBit pool 3% fee prop 6.6% PPS  (Read 60073 times)
twobits
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336

Firstbits: 1a6taw


View Profile
September 15, 2011, 05:55:18 AM
 #281

Good to see the pool is back up !!!

Let's go save NameCoin Smiley

I am not sure just what DavinciJ15  thinks he is doing now, but he mentioned in irc he enabled merged mining already, prematurely to what the official client was set for.     He also has on his newspage


Sept 14 Merged mining right now but no payment method for both.
Sept 14 New block chain created Pool Down for updates.

Since he has created his own fork of the namecoins chain at this point, mining here is attacking namecoins, not defending it now.

It may seem that way but there are only 3 pools and a few Gh solo mining on the main chain so it did not make sense to wait we needed to circle the wagons be for he attack.

Is it a mistake?

Time will tell.

Since your blocks are going to be rejected by  the official client, it seems a mistake to me to have forked namecoin.  Did you get doublec to go along with this as well?  That would surprise me.



NodeMaster and slush told me that they got doublec to agree and it made sense to me, the only way to get hashing power is to pay bitcoins so forking the block chain seems right, we can deal with the fallout later.



I talked to doublec between those posts, seems they lied to you then.  He did not change.

BTW, there are more then 3 pools.

1481228104
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481228104

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481228104
Reply with quote  #2

1481228104
Report to moderator
1481228104
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481228104

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481228104
Reply with quote  #2

1481228104
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481228104
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481228104

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481228104
Reply with quote  #2

1481228104
Report to moderator
1481228104
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481228104

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481228104
Reply with quote  #2

1481228104
Report to moderator
1481228104
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481228104

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481228104
Reply with quote  #2

1481228104
Report to moderator
DavinciJ15
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 750


Bitcoin - helping to end bankster enslavement.


View Profile WWW
September 15, 2011, 06:05:33 AM
 #282



But that does that mean you forked the chain ?



Your namecoind software is useless you need a new version.


And how will that stop the 51% attack from taking place. There's still not nearly enough hashing power to prevent that. Only adaption by a few large pools will be able to.

People want bitcoins not namecoins so it's easier to offer bitcoins when all namecoin pools are mining them.

I was the only one offering bitcoins while mining namecoins but if all pools can offer bitcoins we have a better chance as I'm not the only one hashing with 100% of the power.  I was for a while the only one finding blocks on the namecoin network.



Getting really confusing now

I've spent the last hour reading the Dot-BIT forum and it seems there's not a real coordinated effort to step up to the challenge....

you are right none of the namecoin developers are speaking to the pool operators, they have ignored my PM as if they are to busy to speak to me.  That is ridiculous since the community is to small for this kind of behavior on their part.

BTW:
However what we did was not good it means anyone who traded in namecoins on the primary chain in the last 12 hrs will have their trades invalidated on our chain.  If the developers do not go along with our changes this will get UGLY.


Davinci
doublec
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
September 15, 2011, 06:06:09 AM
 #283

...told me that they got doublec to agree and it made sense to me, the only way to get hashing power is to pay bitcoins so forking the block chain seems right, we can deal with the fallout later.
I agreed that it would be good to start early and was willing to do so as long as the namebit people were involved and the time traveling attack was fixed. This is what I sent in an email to someone who contacted me about it:
Quote
I'd like to see the namebit.org people involved in any reduction in
the block count. Contact 'bougyman' or 'manveru' in #namebit or see
contact details on namebit.org.

It'd also be good to get a fix for ArtForz's Geist Geld attack
otherwise a >51% attacker can generate namecoins much faster than
normal and keep difficulty low. They can do this during merged mining
'for free' because they're earning bitcoins at the same time:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43692.0

I never heard back from vinced so did not update to the new block number for merged mining.
DavinciJ15
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 750


Bitcoin - helping to end bankster enslavement.


View Profile WWW
September 15, 2011, 06:12:27 AM
 #284


I talked to doublec between those posts, seems they lied to you then.  He did not change.

BTW, there are more then 3 pools.


OH BOY!  This is going to get UGLY.

Here are the changes to my client  I manually changed 3.24.62 as the code base was better.  I ignored the lockins on this diff and used 3.24.62 lockins...

Code:
diff -ur namecoin/src/namecoin.cpp namecoin-0.3.24.61.18950-mergedmine-REAL/src/src/namecoin.cpp
--- namecoin/src/namecoin.cpp   2011-09-13 15:14:55.000000000 +0200
+++ namecoin-0.3.24.61.18950-mergedmine-REAL/src/src/namecoin.cpp       2011-09-13 12:29:00.000000000 +0200
@@ -95,7 +95,8 @@
     {
         if (fTestNet)
             return 0;
-        return 19200;
+//        return 19200;
+        return 18950;
     }
 
     string GetAlertPubkey1()
@@ -1685,11 +1686,17 @@
 
 int CNamecoinHooks::LockinHeight()
 {
-    return 0;
+    if (fTestNet)
+        return 0;
+
+    return 18938;
 }
 
 bool CNamecoinHooks::Lockin(int nHeight, uint256 hash)
 {
+    if (!fTestNet)
+        if ((nHeight ==  18938 && hash != uint256("0x0000000000001610e3ea22652e56fe457f207ee49deb7cbb3035a885cf4d61b1")))
+            return false;
     return true;
 }
 
Only in namecoin-0.3.24.61.18950-mergedmine-REAL/src/src: namecoind
diff -ur namecoin/src/rpc.cpp namecoin-0.3.24.61.18950-mergedmine-REAL/src/src/rpc.cpp
--- namecoin/src/rpc.cpp        2011-09-13 15:14:55.000000000 +0200
+++ namecoin-0.3.24.61.18950-mergedmine-REAL/src/src/rpc.cpp    2011-09-13 12:29:00.000000000 +0200
@@ -454,6 +454,7 @@
     obj.push_back(Pair("keypoololdest", (boost::int64_t)pwalletMain->GetOldestKeyPoolTime()));
     obj.push_back(Pair("paytxfee",      ValueFromAmount(nTransactionFee)));
     obj.push_back(Pair("errors",        GetWarnings("statusbar")));
+    obj.push_back(Pair("merged-mine",   18950  ));
     return obj;
 }
 

So where do we go from here?
twobits
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336

Firstbits: 1a6taw


View Profile
September 15, 2011, 06:14:11 AM
 #285



But that does that mean you forked the chain ?



Your namecoind software is useless you need a new version.


One that does not exit yet.   Currently the version people are supposed to be upgrading to is 0.3.24.62
and any version from .60 to .62 would work together and support the last dot-bit official changes.

https://github.com/vinced/namecoin/ for the source, or if you trust my binaries  
http://www.wuala.com/jbw9/pub/Bitcoin/namecoin/nc0.3.24.62/


And how will that stop the 51% attack from taking place. There's still not nearly enough hashing power to prevent that. Only adaption by a few large pools will be able to.

People want bitcoins not namecoins so it's easier to offer bitcoins when all namecoin pools are mining them.

I was the only one offering bitcoins while mining namecoins but if all pools can offer bitcoins we have a better chance as I'm not the only one hashing with 100% of the power.  I was for a while the only one finding blocks on the namecoin network.

[/quote]


It may be easier, but you have now in effect attacked the current main namecoins  branch.


Getting really confusing now

I've spent the last hour reading the Dot-BIT forum and it seems there's not a real coordinated effort to step up to the challenge....

you are right none of the namecoin developers are speaking to the pool operators, they have ignored my PM as if they are to busy to speak to me.  That is ridiculous since the community is to small for this kind of behavior on their part.

BTW:
However what we did was not good it means anyone who traded in namecoins on the primary chain in the last 12 hrs will have their trades invalidated on our chain.  If the developers do not go along with our changes this will get UGLY.


Davinci
[/quote]

It means more then just that, it means either everyone trading and mining on the official client gets screwed, or you guys do.... I hope they don't agree to let to rogue pools force their way over people using the official client.

twobits
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336

Firstbits: 1a6taw


View Profile
September 15, 2011, 06:15:13 AM
 #286


I talked to doublec between those posts, seems they lied to you then.  He did not change.

BTW, there are more then 3 pools.


OH BOY!  This is going to get UGLY.

Here are the changes to my client  I manually changed 3.24.62 as the code base was better.  I ignored the lockins on this diff and used 3.24.62 lockins...

Code:
diff -ur namecoin/src/namecoin.cpp namecoin-0.3.24.61.18950-mergedmine-REAL/src/src/namecoin.cpp
--- namecoin/src/namecoin.cpp   2011-09-13 15:14:55.000000000 +0200
+++ namecoin-0.3.24.61.18950-mergedmine-REAL/src/src/namecoin.cpp       2011-09-13 12:29:00.000000000 +0200
@@ -95,7 +95,8 @@
     {
         if (fTestNet)
             return 0;
-        return 19200;
+//        return 19200;
+        return 18950;
     }
 
     string GetAlertPubkey1()
@@ -1685,11 +1686,17 @@
 
 int CNamecoinHooks::LockinHeight()
 {
-    return 0;
+    if (fTestNet)
+        return 0;
+
+    return 18938;
 }
 
 bool CNamecoinHooks::Lockin(int nHeight, uint256 hash)
 {
+    if (!fTestNet)
+        if ((nHeight ==  18938 && hash != uint256("0x0000000000001610e3ea22652e56fe457f207ee49deb7cbb3035a885cf4d61b1")))
+            return false;
     return true;
 }
 
Only in namecoin-0.3.24.61.18950-mergedmine-REAL/src/src: namecoind
diff -ur namecoin/src/rpc.cpp namecoin-0.3.24.61.18950-mergedmine-REAL/src/src/rpc.cpp
--- namecoin/src/rpc.cpp        2011-09-13 15:14:55.000000000 +0200
+++ namecoin-0.3.24.61.18950-mergedmine-REAL/src/src/rpc.cpp    2011-09-13 12:29:00.000000000 +0200
@@ -454,6 +454,7 @@
     obj.push_back(Pair("keypoololdest", (boost::int64_t)pwalletMain->GetOldestKeyPoolTime()));
     obj.push_back(Pair("paytxfee",      ValueFromAmount(nTransactionFee)));
     obj.push_back(Pair("errors",        GetWarnings("statusbar")));
+    obj.push_back(Pair("merged-mine",   18950  ));
     return obj;
 }
 

So where do we go from here?

Either go back to being on the official rules, or stay rogue but realize you are now rogue.

btw, what was the actual block count at when you started to run this patch?

DutchBrat
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile
September 15, 2011, 06:27:39 AM
 #287


NodeMaster and slush told me that they got doublec to agree and it made sense to me, the only way to get hashing power is to pay bitcoins so forking the block chain seems right, we can deal with the fallout later.


Does this mean NodeMasters EUNameCoin pool and Slush support this and are our fork as well ?

I wasn't even aware Slush was close to implementing merged mining
twobits
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336

Firstbits: 1a6taw


View Profile
September 15, 2011, 06:31:13 AM
 #288


I talked to doublec between those posts, seems they lied to you then.  He did not change.

BTW, there are more then 3 pools.


OH BOY!  This is going to get UGLY.

Here are the changes to my client  I manually changed 3.24.62 as the code base was better.  I ignored the lockins on this diff and used 3.24.62 lockins...

Code:
diff -ur namecoin/src/namecoin.cpp namecoin-0.3.24.61.18950-mergedmine-REAL/src/src/namecoin.cpp
--- namecoin/src/namecoin.cpp   2011-09-13 15:14:55.000000000 +0200
+++ namecoin-0.3.24.61.18950-mergedmine-REAL/src/src/namecoin.cpp       2011-09-13 12:29:00.000000000 +0200
@@ -95,7 +95,8 @@
     {
         if (fTestNet)
             return 0;
-        return 19200;
+//        return 19200;
+        return 18950;
     }
 
     string GetAlertPubkey1()
@@ -1685,11 +1686,17 @@
 
 int CNamecoinHooks::LockinHeight()
 {
-    return 0;
+    if (fTestNet)
+        return 0;
+
+    return 18938;
 }
 
 bool CNamecoinHooks::Lockin(int nHeight, uint256 hash)
 {
+    if (!fTestNet)
+        if ((nHeight ==  18938 && hash != uint256("0x0000000000001610e3ea22652e56fe457f207ee49deb7cbb3035a885cf4d61b1")))
+            return false;
     return true;
 }
 
Only in namecoin-0.3.24.61.18950-mergedmine-REAL/src/src: namecoind
diff -ur namecoin/src/rpc.cpp namecoin-0.3.24.61.18950-mergedmine-REAL/src/src/rpc.cpp
--- namecoin/src/rpc.cpp        2011-09-13 15:14:55.000000000 +0200
+++ namecoin-0.3.24.61.18950-mergedmine-REAL/src/src/rpc.cpp    2011-09-13 12:29:00.000000000 +0200
@@ -454,6 +454,7 @@
     obj.push_back(Pair("keypoololdest", (boost::int64_t)pwalletMain->GetOldestKeyPoolTime()));
     obj.push_back(Pair("paytxfee",      ValueFromAmount(nTransactionFee)));
     obj.push_back(Pair("errors",        GetWarnings("statusbar")));
+    obj.push_back(Pair("merged-mine",   18950  ));
     return obj;
 }
 

So where do we go from here?

Either go back to being on the official rules, or stay rogue but realize you are now rogue.

btw, what was the actual block count at when you started to run this patch?


No expert in this but pretty sure I can read a patch from this bit "obj.push_back(Pair("merged-mine",   18950  ));" I'll go with 18950...

that is when the code said to make the swtich to mm, I am asking what was the block count at the time they put that code live.

DutchBrat
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile
September 15, 2011, 10:28:35 AM
 #289

So,

The attack has been called off because people came together. Our Davinci is a "hero" according to the attacker....

We now have a forked chain,

what are we gonna do Huh

Start with the real merged-mining or see everyone lose interest in mining NameCoins again and wait till Christmas 2013 Grin before the difficulty comes down ?

Plan of action Huh

Brat
gsan
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 72


View Profile
September 15, 2011, 01:34:34 PM
 #290

Sorry, I deleted my previous post.

@DavinciJ15: I think it's better switch to the default client until there is an update so that there is a synchronized switch to merged mining. Smiley

DavinciJ15
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 750


Bitcoin - helping to end bankster enslavement.


View Profile WWW
September 15, 2011, 01:40:00 PM
 #291

So,

The attack has been called off because people came together. Our Davinci is a "hero" according to the attacker....

We now have a forked chain,

what are we gonna do Huh

Start with the real merged-mining or see everyone lose interest in mining NameCoins again and wait till Christmas 2013 Grin before the difficulty comes down ?

Plan of action Huh

Brat

I'm not a hero I'm an idiot.  Nodemaster the guy who runs masterpool told me he was running on a new block chain but it was all a lie to get me off of the primary block chain.

I use to think 90% of the population was good people and only 10% was bad I think it's way larger than that.

I have to assume everyone is a scum bag until the prove otherwise. Cry

Anyhow right now we are mining bitcoins only I can't get the namecoin client back up and running it says...


Code:
{
    "version" : 32462,
    "balance" : 0.00000000,
    "blocks" : 18951,
    "connections" : 9,
    "proxy" : "",
    "generate" : false,
    "genproclimit" : -1,
    "difficulty" : 94035.90217415,
    "hashespersec" : 0,
    "testnet" : false,
    "keypoololdest" : 1316093191,
    "paytxfee" : 0.00001000,
    "errors" : "WARNING: Displayed transactions may not be correct!  You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade."
}


This is what an attacker can do to the network and they turned me into an attacker.

Even deleting everything and starting over gives me this error.
Seraphim401
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 215


Live Long and Prosper


View Profile
September 15, 2011, 01:49:21 PM
 #292

One that does not exit yet.   Currently the version people are supposed to be upgrading to is 0.3.24.62
and any version from .60 to .62 would work together and support the last dot-bit official changes.
https://github.com/vinced/namecoin/ for the source, or if you trust my binaries  
http://www.wuala.com/jbw9/pub/Bitcoin/namecoin/nc0.3.24.62/


How come you are the only one supporting windows users with updated clients?
I've asked many times on the nmc forum to post an updated windows client,it still has the old client listed.
Pathetic of the devs.I wonder if they are even interested saving this project.
 

gsan
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 72


View Profile
September 15, 2011, 01:55:08 PM
 #293

I'm not a hero I'm an idiot.  Nodemaster the guy who runs masterpool told me he was running on a new block chain but it was all a lie to get me off of the primary block chain.

I think it's just miscommunication. MM is a major switch, so there may have been technical troubles. That's why it's a good idea to contribute to and follow the main branch.

DavinciJ15
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 750


Bitcoin - helping to end bankster enslavement.


View Profile WWW
September 15, 2011, 02:25:10 PM
 #294

I bet BitcoinExpress threat was all about this...

Code:
Type Price (BTC) Amount (NMC)
buy 0.02000000 9690.62113750
buy 0.01700000 500.00000000
buy 0.01500000 289.00000000
buy 0.01400000 536.00000000
buy 0.01350000 111.00000000
buy 0.01330001 3000.00000000
buy 0.01000010 3.00000000
buy 0.01000000 2322.22220000
buy 0.00900000 10.00000000
buy 0.00200100 1000.00000000
buy 0.00200010 444.00000000
buy 0.00200000 115.00000000
buy 0.00181000 100.00000000
buy 0.00131001 1200.00000000
buy 0.00120015 0.01000000
buy 0.00100100 2000.00000000
buy 0.00100003 2043.00000000
buy 0.00100002 500.00000000
buy 0.00100000 1232.00000000
buy 0.00050000 400.00000000
buy 0.00020100 10000.00000000
buy 0.00020000 3000.00000000
buy 0.00010002 10000.00000000
buy 0.00010000 44480.00000000

Buying namecoins on the cheap.

Good thing I sold none and purchased thousands at 0.01 BTC

twobits
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336

Firstbits: 1a6taw


View Profile
September 15, 2011, 02:38:36 PM
 #295



Code:
{
    "version" : 32462,
    "balance" : 0.00000000,
    "blocks" : 18951,
    "connections" : 9,
    "proxy" : "",
    "generate" : false,
    "genproclimit" : -1,
    "difficulty" : 94035.90217415,
    "hashespersec" : 0,
    "testnet" : false,
    "keypoololdest" : 1316093191,
    "paytxfee" : 0.00001000,
    "errors" : "WARNING: Displayed transactions may not be correct!  You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade."
}


This is what an attacker can do to the network and they turned me into an attacker.

Even deleting everything and starting over gives me this error.

Yeah, I am seeing something similar when I try and start a fresh run.  Luckily I do have a running instance that seems to be at the correct block count.  Hopefully it will clear up soon as the network figures out what to orphan.   If you are not back up later today with your namecoind,  pm me and I can see what I can do to help.

DavinciJ15
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 750


Bitcoin - helping to end bankster enslavement.


View Profile WWW
September 15, 2011, 02:42:18 PM
 #296

Yeah, I am seeing something similar when I try and start a fresh run.  Luckily I do have a running instance that seems to be at the correct block count.  Hopefully it will clear up soon as the network figures out what to orphan.   If you are not back up later today with your namecoind,  pm me and I can see what I can do to help.

What a birthday gift duped into destroying the network I supported, I'm such a gullible idiot.
twobits
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336

Firstbits: 1a6taw


View Profile
September 15, 2011, 02:44:55 PM
 #297

One that does not exit yet.   Currently the version people are supposed to be upgrading to is 0.3.24.62
and any version from .60 to .62 would work together and support the last dot-bit official changes.
https://github.com/vinced/namecoin/ for the source, or if you trust my binaries  
http://www.wuala.com/jbw9/pub/Bitcoin/namecoin/nc0.3.24.62/


How come you are the only one supporting windows users with updated clients?
I've asked many times on the nmc forum to post an updated windows client,it still has the old client listed.
Pathetic of the devs.I wonder if they are even interested saving this project.
 

I can't answer the first question of course.

As for the later. I think they are interested,  after all we have recently seen the .60, .61 and .62 releases.  So they are still working on it.  They also put a lot of work into making the merged mining a reality.  I just don't think they have anyone available to make the official builds for windows.  

I happened to already have build environments set up and knew people had to upgrade before merged mining kicked in, and so have tried to fill that gap for now.

Nebuluz
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 41



View Profile
September 15, 2011, 02:54:02 PM
 #298

Maybe you should switch back to namecoin now, when the ATTACK wont happen Cheesy
Seraphim401
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 215


Live Long and Prosper


View Profile
September 15, 2011, 03:03:25 PM
 #299

One that does not exit yet.   Currently the version people are supposed to be upgrading to is 0.3.24.62
and any version from .60 to .62 would work together and support the last dot-bit official changes.
https://github.com/vinced/namecoin/ for the source, or if you trust my binaries 
http://www.wuala.com/jbw9/pub/Bitcoin/namecoin/nc0.3.24.62/


How come you are the only one supporting windows users with updated clients?
I've asked many times on the nmc forum to post an updated windows client,it still has the old client listed.
Pathetic of the devs.I wonder if they are even interested saving this project.
 

I can't answer the first question of course.

As for the later. I think they are interested,  after all we have recently seen the .60, .61 and .62 releases.  So they are still working on it.  They also put a lot of work into making the merged mining a reality.  I just don't think they have anyone available to make the official builds for windows.   

I happened to already have build environments set up and knew people had to upgrade before merged mining kicked in, and so have tried to fill that gap for now.
I thank you very much for your effort.If it wasn't for you I would still be using the client posted on the DOT-Bit site.I am not a technical person,just someone intelligent enough to follow instructions and a believe in this project.
Thank you once again  Smiley.

nodemaster
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 176



View Profile WWW
September 15, 2011, 03:10:28 PM
 #300

Quick post. Unfortunately I have not much time. Running on way too small android mobile ATM.

BIG misunderstanding.

Please use your restore your namecoind from before starting on our "no longer ultra secret emergency branch" and use the current vinceds version! Please don't freak out. I'll help as soon as I'm at home. I prepared dispositions for paying miners after coordinated split who was mining on the original chain. We can use this funds to pay your miners on the new blockchain but you shouldquickly revert to a backup before block 19850 and catch up with the original blockchain. Please bear with me. I'll explain later as soon as i'm'm at home.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!