[ANN] NDL - The coin for Pastafarians - Flying Spaghetti Monster Cryptocurrency!

[dnp]

[putting on grumpy old man retired compiler developer hat]

okay, i'll try to explain the source code situation (that deserves one or more litecoin developers to be slapped.)

first, a lesson on C/C++ coding and the language sourcefile preprocessor.

you can have included/header files of various definitions, they are referenced in source
by one of two syntaxes:
  #include <filename>
or
  #include "filename"

they basically do the same thing. but don't. they find the referenced filename by a set of "search rules"
on which system and local project folders to look for them and in what order.
some locations are built into the preprocessor command as defaults for the language standard include
files. other locations may be supplied on the compile time invocation of C/C++ (and buried in a maze
of bulky text in the Makefile structure for these larger projects.)

the thing is, the defaults for order of search folders is slightly different between the <f> and "f" syntax.

for general sanity, one should use the <f> syntax for external packages and system/compiler supplied stuff, and the "f" syntax for the current project's code.

lesson over, now what happened:

some litecoin 'coder' foolishly decided it was okay to have multiple files in the same code project have the same filename. they just were in slightly different subfolders.
a couple of these files were the include files referenced by #include directives.

the source files needing them found them by using the <f> syntax of #include -- which is not so much wrong and just avoided by people who know the potential pain.
the local project should be using the "f" syntax for referencing its own local header files.

now it appears that number435398 'fixed' these OCD aggravating #include references to use double quotes instead of the angle brackets.
but that resulted in the *other* (wrong) version of the same file name being found and used -- which led to compile time syntax errors.

specifically, file rpc/util.h and wallet/init.h clashed with files of the same name in the higher level source folder.

just to make things work, i edited the #include directives to say "../util.h" instead of "util.h" and likewise for init.h

the correct solution would be to rename the following files
  rpc/util.cpp  --> rpc/rpcutil.cpp
  rpc/util.h     --> rpc/rpcutil.h
  wallet/init.cpp --> wallet/walletinit.cpp
  wallet/init.h  --> wallet/walletinit.h

and of course edit any references to them along with cleaning up any #include <f> directives which really should be #include "f" format.

curiously, only files near/needing these two same named header files seem to have used the offputting version of the #include syntax -- almost as if the litecoin developer felt forced to do so to "make the stuff work." obviously someone not quite understanding how #include search rules work -- and the coding traditions that exist to avoid such issues.

the referencing files that would fail to build were rpc/server.cpp , rpc/protocol.cpp, and wallet/rpcwallet.cpp

other files may erroneously have references to util.h and init.h but dont actually need/use the data they contain and so did not create build/compile time errors. i havent taken the time to go hunting for them.

i'm inclined to suspect the coder who originated this mess simply lacked experience (and possibly not doing much more than a copy/paste from some other codebase such as bitcoin.)
i am more worried about the sod who accepted the code into the official git repository for litecoin. either they didnt know better (bad), or just too lazy to actually look at what was being checked-in (very bad.)
perhaps they had faith in the coder who supplied the changes.
this to me has long term security implications. faith and/or laziness will eventually lead to disaster in financial software.

oh, and because those files could not build is why i do not believe the published noodly github source matches the published binaries (kinda trust breaking.)

[1714505588]

1714505588

[1714505588]

1714505588

[number435398]

[putting on grumpy old man retired compiler developer hat]

okay, i'll try to explain the source code situation (that deserves one or more litecoin developers to be slapped.)

first, a lesson on C/C++ coding and the language sourcefile preprocessor.

you can have included/header files of various definitions, they are referenced in source
by one of two syntaxes:
  #include <filename>
or
  #include "filename"

they basically do the same thing. but don't. they find the referenced filename by a set of "search rules"
on which system and local project folders to look for them and in what order.
some locations are built into the preprocessor command as defaults for the language standard include
files. other locations may be supplied on the compile time invocation of C/C++ (and buried in a maze
of bulky text in the Makefile structure for these larger projects.)

the thing is, the defaults for order of search folders is slightly different between the <f> and "f" syntax.

for general sanity, one should use the <f> syntax for external packages and system/compiler supplied stuff, and the "f" syntax for the current project's code.

lesson over, now what happened:

some litecoin 'coder' foolishly decided it was okay to have multiple files in the same code project have the same filename. they just were in slightly different subfolders.
a couple of these files were the include files referenced by #include directives.

the source files needing them found them by using the <f> syntax of #include -- which is not so much wrong and just avoided by people who know the potential pain.
the local project should be using the "f" syntax for referencing its own local header files.

now it appears that number435398 'fixed' these OCD aggravating #include references to use double quotes instead of the angle brackets.
but that resulted in the *other* (wrong) version of the same file name being found and used -- which led to compile time syntax errors.

specifically, file rpc/util.h and wallet/init.h clashed with files of the same name in the higher level source folder.

just to make things work, i edited the #include directives to say "../util.h" instead of "util.h" and likewise for init.h

the correct solution would be to rename the following files
  rpc/util.cpp  --> rpc/rpcutil.cpp
  rpc/util.h     --> rpc/rpcutil.h
  wallet/init.cpp --> wallet/walletinit.cpp
  wallet/init.h  --> wallet/walletinit.h

and of course edit any references to them along with cleaning up any #include <f> directives which really should be #include "f" format.

curiously, only files near/needing these two same named header files seem to have used the offputting version of the #include syntax -- almost as if the litecoin developer felt forced to do so to "make the stuff work." obviously someone not quite understanding how #include search rules work -- and the coding traditions that exist to avoid such issues.

the referencing files that would fail to build were rpc/server.cpp , rpc/protocol.cpp, and wallet/rpcwallet.cpp

other files may erroneously have references to util.h and init.h but dont actually need/use the data they contain and so did not create build/compile time errors. i havent taken the time to go hunting for them.

i'm inclined to suspect the coder who originated this mess simply lacked experience (and possibly not doing much more than a copy/paste from some other codebase such as bitcoin.)
i am more worried about the sod who accepted the code into the official git repository for litecoin. either they didnt know better (bad), or just too lazy to actually look at what was being checked-in (very bad.)
perhaps they had faith in the coder who supplied the changes.
this to me has long term security implications. faith and/or laziness will eventually lead to disaster in financial software.

oh, and because those files could not build is why i do not believe the published noodly github source matches the published binaries (kinda trust breaking.)

I don't know man, its been over two months since I've been really looking at the code and compiling things in Linux.  The most recent compiling I've done was spending too much time trying to get a VM of MacOS working so I could compile it, but didn't get far with that, which I pretty much gave up on back in early December.  Even tried on my macmini, but its too old to run the new MacOS.  I concluded I need to find a better setup for MacOS VM or get a new mac to do all that.

To address your concerns about it not being the appropriate binaries I'll try to go over it again in the near future to see what's changed or if its just a different system thing.  I just tried to re-compile a fresh download for windows, and I got weird dependency issues regarding the Boost library and Berkeley DB 4.8.  I just looked at the binaries on the Linux VM that I compiled; I compiled them November 19th.  I doubt I made any single line tweaks and didn't upload them without notating it somewhere, but its been so long I don't definitely recall. 
 
Full disclosure; now that I see it I think I made a mistake regarding the NDL wallet splash screen; its not the Adam touching the Flying Spaghetti Monster's outreached tip anymore.  That will be a priority to fix as I liked that splash screen.

I did all my compiles in Ubuntu 18.04.1 LTS, are you sure my machine didn't find the proper include files due to my setup versus yours?

If you don't mind, specifically, which lines in which files did you have to change?  I can at least compare what you changed to the saved state of the linux VM I used to compile the linux binaries with.

[dnp]

If you don't mind, specifically, which lines in which files did you have to change?  I can at least compare what you changed to the saved state of the linux VM I used to compile the linux binaries with.

compare a fresh complete checkout of your own github with your saved VM.
looking at the 3 files i changed probably wont find all the differences.

presumably the saved VM was 'working' code base
make your github match exactly what you sucessfully build.

[number435398]

If you don't mind, specifically, which lines in which files did you have to change?  I can at least compare what you changed to the saved state of the linux VM I used to compile the linux binaries with.

compare a fresh complete checkout of your own github with your saved VM.
looking at the 3 files i changed probably wont find all the differences.

presumably the saved VM was 'working' code base
make your github match exactly what you sucessfully build.

Because there shouldn't be any differences.  I'm skeptical to the idea that I changed the files at all, but it's been so long I don't remember.  The easiest way to verify that would be to see if I made the same changes you did and just didn't remember.  If my files aren't changed the way yours are then that would suggest its merely our different setups.  I don't even know of an easy way to compare the folder in my vm to my github.  Every time I get into that stuff it turns into some nightmare.

Edit:
When I compiled these I wasn't working.  Now I work 7 days a week.  I don't have the time I had when I was building these.

[number435398]

Looks like the forks went through without a hitch!  So now we can start looking into being traded as we have all the up to date protocols that are required in this day and age of cryptocurrency trading!

[DaveF]

I updated the website to use the new wallets and added a link to the number435398 github.
If anyone sees anything wrong please post here to let me know.
I think I have everything but more eyes are always useful.

-Dave

[layer1gfx]

arrrrr
nice to see some of you chefs keep refining the recipe of the holy ramen soup.
how about starting with a new thread since so much has been changed already since the first post of this one?

[number435398]

arrrrr
nice to see some of you chefs keep refining the recipe of the holy ramen soup.
how about starting with a new thread since so much has been changed already since the first post of this one?

Been thinking of that a bit myself.

[btctrad0r]

so why not starting a new thread? i think you are the main driving force since a while so it would be ok i think if you just start a new ANN with the newest version including relevant info from the old post. what do the other pirates think?

[number435398]

so why not starting a new thread? i think you are the main driving force since a while so it would be ok i think if you just start a new ANN with the newest version including relevant info from the old post. what do the other pirates think?

I won't say much right now, but let's just say there are some things in the works.  DaveF has done and continues to do a lot behind the scenes too.

[btctrad0r]

so why not starting a new thread? i think you are the main driving force since a while so it would be ok i think if you just start a new ANN with the newest version including relevant info from the old post. what do the other pirates think?

I won't say much right now, but let's just say there are some things in the works.  DaveF has done and continues to do a lot behind the scenes too.

ok keep it cooking. looking forward to a nice new noodle shop soon

[number435398]

so why not starting a new thread? i think you are the main driving force since a while so it would be ok i think if you just start a new ANN with the newest version including relevant info from the old post. what do the other pirates think?

I won't say much right now, but let's just say there are some things in the works.  DaveF has done and continues to do a lot behind the scenes too.

ok keep it cooking. looking forward to a nice new noodle shop soon

Oh, someone is definitely cooking.  Have you checked the current hashrate?  312MH/s!  As much as I would like to mine some more myself, that's still a good sign.  When we're worth someone to expend that kind of hashing on our blockchain instead of another one, that's a good thing!  Its almost as if someone else currently realizes just how valuable NDL is going to be in the near future...

[BeritJack]

Guys, you have made a great project description. One of the best White Paper I have read so far. I can see the value and the practical side of the project. And the industry they are in is growing. I hope and believe I will multiply the investment that I am going to make.

[number435398]

People, there's some sort of KYC (Know Your Customer) "requirement" on this forum right now.  I can only assume its a total fraud.  There's no such requirement I'm aware of and the information they seek is enough to steal your identity.  I'm assuming something weird is happening or they or my computer have been hacked.  Everyone in the Noodlyappendagecoin community beware!  I wouldn't provide that information without further reason to do so.  Seriously guys.  Some of you were afraid of new versions of the wallet stealing your NDL?  This is like 1 Quadrillion times worse.

edit: could also be an april fools' joke.

[layer1gfx]

People, there's some sort of KYC (Know Your Customer) "requirement" on this forum right now.  I can only assume its a total fraud.  There's no such requirement I'm aware of and the information they seek is enough to steal your identity.  I'm assuming something weird is happening or they or my computer have been hacked.  Everyone in the Noodlyappendagecoin community beware!  I wouldn't provide that information without further reason to do so.  Seriously guys.  Some of you were afraid of new versions of the wallet stealing your NDL?  This is like 1 Quadrillion times worse.

edit: could also be an april fools' joke.

they totally got you mate. nobody wants your data. it is most likely a joke if you check today's date.
---> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124947.0
any other ramen news... what else is in the soup today?

[number435398]

People, there's some sort of KYC (Know Your Customer) "requirement" on this forum right now.  I can only assume its a total fraud.  There's no such requirement I'm aware of and the information they seek is enough to steal your identity.  I'm assuming something weird is happening or they or my computer have been hacked.  Everyone in the Noodlyappendagecoin community beware!  I wouldn't provide that information without further reason to do so.  Seriously guys.  Some of you were afraid of new versions of the wallet stealing your NDL?  This is like 1 Quadrillion times worse.

edit: could also be an april fools' joke.

they totally got you mate. nobody wants your data. it is most likely a joke if you check today's date.
---> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124947.0
any other ramen news... what else is in the soup today?

Well, at least I was looking out for the community.  In my defense I did notice that around 1 hour into the day without noticing it was past midnight...

[STT]

Perfect opportunity for you to present your visage to KYC in a noodly attire as prophesied by the master himself.    Jokes have a habit of running parallel to reality, in this they are protected by law as part of democracy as is Pastafarianism

okay to have multiple files in the same code project have the same filename

awful idea always in my experience

[number435398]

Happy Block Halving!

[layer1gfx]

now only half of NDL rewards you mean?

[number435398]

now only half of NDL rewards you mean?

Yes.  It's down to 1,250 per block.  "Happy Block Halving" is a phrase that, as far as I know, is one used with regards to bitcoin when it happens on their network.