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

[number435398]

LOL.  And don't forget:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/nuclear-pasta-neutron-stars-may-be-strongest-material-universe

[andy16]

interesting

[number435398]

Did you set the Main network PUBKEY_ADDRESS in src/chainparams.cpp to 53 and the SECRET_KEY to 181?
Did you set the Test network PUBKEY_ADDRESS in src/chainparams.cpp to 117 and the SECRET_KEY to 245?

Reference from the original code.
https://github.com/His-Holy-Noodliness/noodlyappendagecoin/blob/1393e84397788417500a49349f1d41f7bc40759d/src/base58.h#L275-L278

Thought I fixed it.  Turns out that's not the case.  What I did was discover that if I tell the wallet to read NDL addresses properly (IE: a mining address beginning with N as is standard), then any address the wallet creates, it doesn't know the private key for.  Go figure that one.  Happens with the raw litecoin wallet code too.  If you change the

Code:

base58Prefixes[PUBKEY_ADDRESS] = std::vector<unsigned char>(1,47);

It causes the same problem.

[dnp]

is this from new wallet code testing on the main network?

Code:

************************
EXCEPTION: St12out_of_range       
CInv::GetCommand() : type=1073741826 unknown type       
noodlyappendagecoin in ProcessMessages()       



************************
EXCEPTION: St12out_of_range       
CInv::GetCommand() : type=1073741826 unknown type       
noodlyappendagecoin in ProcessMessages() 

[nxtraordinary]

cave truth ...




n.


PS: I also had some strange inputs today, had been on a fork with different blocknumber; I closed wallet and once opened again all questioned blocks had been confirmed with rising numbers down the row (!), but shortly after that all of them where unconfirmed again while one of the eight connections had been cut and the blocknumber went to that one of our blockexplorer again.

[number435398]

is this from new wallet code testing on the main network?

Code:

************************
EXCEPTION: St12out_of_range       
CInv::GetCommand() : type=1073741826 unknown type       
noodlyappendagecoin in ProcessMessages()       



************************
EXCEPTION: St12out_of_range       
CInv::GetCommand() : type=1073741826 unknown type       
noodlyappendagecoin in ProcessMessages() 

I've not seen anything even remotely like that.  could be from the other alt coins.

[nxtraordinary]

(...)

PS: I also had some strange inputs today, had been on a fork with different blocknumber; I closed wallet and once opened again all questioned blocks had been confirmed with rising numbers down the row (!), but shortly after that all of them where unconfirmed again while one of the eight connections had been cut and the blocknumber went to that one of our blockexplorer again.

Again I had the same problem; there seem to be forks outside, that restrict being in another part of the chain, doing it, shortly after connecting.

I made pictures of the situation in time, so at least I can trace it a bit. Should I stop mining, because "somebody" is mining outside the chain with higher difficulty?

I think it seems so.


n.

[number435398]

cave truth ...




n.


PS: I also had some strange inputs today, had been on a fork with different blocknumber; I closed wallet and once opened again all questioned blocks had been confirmed with rising numbers down the row (!), but shortly after that all of them where unconfirmed again while one of the eight connections had been cut and the blocknumber went to that one of our blockexplorer again.

I think what is happening is the other altcoins that our wallets are noticing are making our wallets stall a little bit, trying to consider the value of these non-NDL nodes, so the wallet then ignores new NDL blocks, while someone else's wallet has already blocked the non-NDL nodes, and is mining.  Then when your wallet finally decides to block the non-NDL node, your wallet realizes that that other person's wallet's blockchain is longer than yours and decides "oh, well, so much for our blocks, I'll now update myself with the blocks from that other NDL node that wasn't distracted by the non-NDL node".  

I'm getting close to ironing all this out.  Everything still works with the old wallets, there just seems to be some intermittent hiccups.

[DaveF]

This is actually a worry of mine. One day the node that the explorer talks to is going to walk away on another chain and not come back.
-Dave

[Rossi46]

i have 400k, if anyone is interested pm me

[number435398]

This is actually a worry of mine. One day the node that the explorer talks to is going to walk away on another chain and not come back.
-Dave

Naw, the other alt coins aren't on the same blockchain.  They merely act as a distraction; our wallets see them and consider them, but ultimately our wallets reject them because they don't conform to fundamental NDL chain

[dnp]

This is actually a worry of mine. One day the node that the explorer talks to is going to walk away on another chain and not come back.
-Dave

Naw, the other alt coins aren't on the same blockchain.  They merely act as a distraction; our wallets see them and consider them, but ultimately our wallets reject them because they don't conform to fundamental NDL chain

why are these other alts connecting at all? someone mispublish a port number somewhere? willful attack?

i'm thinking willful attack, i just notice that even though they identify as various differnent altcoins they all
seem to have the same startingheight

[dnp]

okay, i initally tried putting ip# blocks in my firewall for the bad altcoin clients, but it seems to be vast
botnet attack, they just keep coming.

so i put the following code kludge in my daemon, if you are developing a new/test version of ndl wallet/daemon
let me know your useragent subver string and i will add it to my list.

in the meantime if you are finding these altcoin connections are just too painful for your own wallet, instead
of putting
   addnode=coins.dognose.net
in your .conf file, use instead
   connect=coins.dognose.net

and this will ONLY allow your wallet to connect to my daemon and ignore all other nodes
 (my daemon in turn only has other clean connections)
you may put more than one connect= in your .conf and connect to those as well.

Code:

        // in main.cpp ProcessMessage()
        //
        if (!vRecv.empty()) {
            vRecv >> pfrom->strSubVer;
            pfrom->cleanSubVer = SanitizeString(pfrom->strSubVer);
                {               // coins.dognose.net 2018-10-13
                        // unfortunate side-effect of only 'allowed' clients may connect
                        // which complicates development and may encourage clients to 'lie'
                        // but at the moment the network is under attack
                        static char *allowed[] = {"/Satoshi:0.8.6.1",
                                                       "/Satoshi:0.8.5",
                                                       "/Noodlydnp:0.8.6",    // myself, coins.dognose.net :)
                                                        NULL};          // allowed prefix substrings
                        int aa, okay=0;
                        for(aa=0; allowed[aa]; aa++) {
                                if(!strncmp(pfrom->cleanSubVer.c_str(), allowed[aa], strlen(allowed[aa]))) {
                                        okay++;
                                }
                        }
                        if(!okay) {
                                printf("partner %s is not allowed SubVer, got %s -- banning\n",
                                        pfrom->addr.ToString().c_str(),
                                                pfrom->cleanSubVer.c_str());
                                pfrom->Misbehaving(100);                // immediate ban
                        }
                        else {
                                printf("partner %s is allowed SubVer, got %s -- not banning :)\n",
                                        pfrom->addr.ToString().c_str(),
                                                pfrom->cleanSubVer.c_str());
                        }
                }               // coins.dognose.net 2018-10-13
        }

[number435398]

This is actually a worry of mine. One day the node that the explorer talks to is going to walk away on another chain and not come back.
-Dave

Naw, the other alt coins aren't on the same blockchain.  They merely act as a distraction; our wallets see them and consider them, but ultimately our wallets reject them because they don't conform to fundamental NDL chain

why are these other alts connecting at all? someone mispublish a port number somewhere? willful attack?

i'm thinking willful attack, i just notice that even though they identify as various differnent altcoins they all
seem to have the same startingheight

All it takes is one person's wallet to connect to one of these other coins, then those wallets tell our wallets about its other wallets etc.  The current wallet is programmed to connect to all wallets with the proper pchMessage code.  Since, when Noodlyappendagecoin was created, it was programmed with the same pchMessage code as Litecoin (and other alt-coins that weren't modified properly), our wallets see these as valid nodes until they realize that they aren't on the same blockchain (which can take a while).  Our wallets may give each node several hours to try to provide proper blockchain info, but during that time our wallets  will incorporate all that other wallets' nodes to our list of nodes.  In other words, its a mess.

[dnp]

This is actually a worry of mine. One day the node that the explorer talks to is going to walk away on another chain and not come back.
-Dave

Naw, the other alt coins aren't on the same blockchain.  They merely act as a distraction; our wallets see them and consider them, but ultimately our wallets reject them because they don't conform to fundamental NDL chain

why are these other alts connecting at all? someone mispublish a port number somewhere? willful attack?

i'm thinking willful attack, i just notice that even though they identify as various differnent altcoins they all
seem to have the same startingheight

All it takes is one person's wallet to connect to one of these other coins, then those wallets tell our wallets about its other wallets etc.  The current wallet is programmed to connect to all wallets with the proper pchMessage code.  Since, when Noodlyappendagecoin was created, it was programmed with the same pchMessage code as Litecoin (and other alt-coins that weren't modified properly), our wallets see these as valid nodes until they realize that they aren't on the same blockchain (which can take a while).  Our wallets may give each node several hours to try to provide proper blockchain info, but during that time our wallets  will incorporate all that other wallets' nodes to our list of nodes.  In other words, its a mess.

still seems like a willful attack using this vulneratbility.
it's very odd (suspicious) that all the 'different' altcoins have the same blockchain height (total number of blocks.)

[number435398]

This is actually a worry of mine. One day the node that the explorer talks to is going to walk away on another chain and not come back.
-Dave

Naw, the other alt coins aren't on the same blockchain.  They merely act as a distraction; our wallets see them and consider them, but ultimately our wallets reject them because they don't conform to fundamental NDL chain

why are these other alts connecting at all? someone mispublish a port number somewhere? willful attack?

i'm thinking willful attack, i just notice that even though they identify as various differnent altcoins they all
seem to have the same startingheight

All it takes is one person's wallet to connect to one of these other coins, then those wallets tell our wallets about its other wallets etc.  The current wallet is programmed to connect to all wallets with the proper pchMessage code.  Since, when Noodlyappendagecoin was created, it was programmed with the same pchMessage code as Litecoin (and other alt-coins that weren't modified properly), our wallets see these as valid nodes until they realize that they aren't on the same blockchain (which can take a while).  Our wallets may give each node several hours to try to provide proper blockchain info, but during that time our wallets  will incorporate all that other wallets' nodes to our list of nodes.  In other words, its a mess.

still seems like a willful attack using this vulneratbility.
it's very odd (suspicious) that all the 'different' altcoins have the same blockchain height (total number of blocks.)

All the same height likely means that its all litecoin wallets.  Or maybe someone made their own wallet and didn't know what they were doing and named it differently, but its still a litecoin wallet.

I've got a new idea I'm going to try to apply this weekend to the new version of the wallet I'm trying to make.  If I'm successful I would really like to give it a new pchMessage setting so as to immediately reject all those other nodes.

[dnp]

All the same height likely means that its all litecoin wallets.  Or maybe someone made their own wallet and didn't know what they were doing and named it differently, but its still a litecoin wallet.

I've got a new idea I'm going to try to apply this weekend to the new version of the wallet I'm trying to make.  If I'm successful I would really like to give it a new pchMessage setting so as to immediately reject all those other nodes.

besides LitecoinCore versions, i've seen multiple instances (different ip#) of

bitcore:1.1.0
btcseeder:0.0001
litecoinseeder:0.01
unitedbitcoinseeder:1.01
crawler.gamecredits.com:0.1
BitNodes.net:4.0.2
Satoshi:0.13.2
litetroll.net:1.0
CypherfunkCore:0.15.2
DigitalcoinV3.0:3.0.1
FeathercoinCore:0.16.3
FlashcoinCore:0.13.3
FlashcoinCore:0.15.1
I2CcoinCore:0.14.2
Satoshi:0.13.2UASFSegWithBIP148
DevCoinCore:1.0.0
ViaBTC:bitpeer.0.3.0
WorldcoinFoundation:0.8.6.2

all with the same starting height

once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action to quote a bond movie
even valid nodes with same wallet generally dont have the same starting height, that's why they connect -- to catch up.

[Chicago]

It seems like you're skipping a few important changes leading the new code to make connections to old hard-coded IP addresses and legacy DNS seeders.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.13.0/src/chainparamsseeds.h
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a402396dce64c42ea73535b7dde4a9164d430438/src/chainparams.cpp#L117-L122
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a402396dce64c42ea73535b7dde4a9164d430438/src/chainparams.cpp#L211-L214

Have a look at those and the associated scripts in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/v0.13.0/contrib/seeds

Together they work to help you build the set initial connection attempts made by the wallet code.

[number435398]

It seems like you're skipping a few important changes leading the new code to make connections to old hard-coded IP addresses and legacy DNS seeders.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.13.0/src/chainparamsseeds.h
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a402396dce64c42ea73535b7dde4a9164d430438/src/chainparams.cpp#L117-L122
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a402396dce64c42ea73535b7dde4a9164d430438/src/chainparams.cpp#L211-L214

Have a look at those and the associated scripts in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/v0.13.0/contrib/seeds

Together they work to help you build the set initial connection attempts made by the wallet code.

Nope, I'm well beyond that.  The existing problem on the Noodlyappendagecoin network is:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a402396dce64c42ea73535b7dde4a9164d430438/src/chainparams.cpp#L105-L108

All the wallet codes you see, have the same pchMessage setup.  That's not supposed to be how someone makes a new coin.  Each coin should have its own unique code.

The current network spam can only be overcome by changing that code.  Which I'm ready to do with the new beta version of the wallet I'm going to be releasing, hopefully, in the next day or two.

UPDATE:
I seem to have made a new working version of the wallet!  I need to dot a few "i"'s and cross a few "t"'s and then I'll upload and release it in the next few days.  It seems to have no problem with old wallet.dat files, though it doesn't import current paper wallets of NDL for some reason.  May have to update the paperwallet code.  This new version will distinguish us on the network and not even bother with nodes that don't conform to the new pchMessage code I've implemented.  So it will mean everyone will have to update to the new wallet.  Plus it'll include an upgrade to all the BIPs we need to be traded and, I think, even be setup for SegWit to go live in a couple of weeks.

[dnp]

UPDATE:
I seem to have made a new working version of the wallet!  I need to dot a few "i"'s and cross a few "t"'s and then I'll upload and release it in the next few days.  It seems to have no problem with old wallet.dat files, though it doesn't import current paper wallets of NDL for some reason.  May have to update the paperwallet code.  This new version will distinguish us on the network and not even bother with nodes that don't conform to the new pchMessage code I've implemented.  So it will mean everyone will have to update to the new wallet.  Plus it'll include an upgrade to all the BIPs we need to be traded and, I think, even be setup for SegWit to go live in a couple of weeks.

this is called a hard fork, perhaps first a release without the pchVersion change to test everything else in your wallet first?

also, when done, the hardfork/pchVersion change should occur at some future block number or date to give time for people to install the new wallet.

hardforks should have a bit of community consensus...

have you established a testnet?