|
kalgecin (OP)
|
 |
June 04, 2014, 11:48:11 PM |
|
Tried to buy some CACHecoin from both Poloniex and Cryptsy. Withdrew both last night, neither has appeared in my wallet (running 5.3). Got the TXID from Poloniex - 6ba3ac3cdfbbbd7e37c031287b65f778a007748db81d62b81a9ff5b7b9629d76 Can't seem to find the TXID for the withdrawal on Cryptsy. Just wondering, is it possible these exchanges are still running the old versions, would that cause my withdrawals to be sent on the wrong chain? Appreciate any ideas/suggestions to give the exchanges? Will raise a couple support tickets I guess. Cheers  doesn't seem to be on the old chain either I did send out emails to all exhanges i had in my contacts to update their wallets. Cryptsy answered that it was going to. Dunno about the rest. Please contact them to dispute this. And please get back and update us on your issue. We are working on automatic wallet updates so as to avoid such nuisance from occurring |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If you don't want people to know you're a scumbag then don't be a scumbag." -- margaritahuyan
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gentamicin
|
|
June 06, 2014, 12:55:02 AM |
|
Anyone have any further features they would like seen added? We do have a large amount lined up, but never know we may have missed one..
an online store with a cache wallet , where people can buy sell with cache. and feedback system where legit sellers will gets +1's ? cache multipool ? possible, for people with asics to buy into cache thus increasing its value. |
|
|
|
|
|
kalgecin (OP)
|
|
June 06, 2014, 05:07:35 AM |
|
people buying on exchanges shouldn't be affected. As the balance is not the wallet balance, but numbers stored in a database. And those exchanges SHOULD be responsible for any loss. I even sent them all emails telling them. Anyone have any further features they would like seen added? We do have a large amount lined up, but never know we may have missed one..
an online store with a cache wallet , where people can buy sell with cache. and feedback system where legit sellers will gets +1's ? cache multipool ? possible, for people with asics to buy into cache thus increasing its value. ONline wallet is in the works. BUt not directly by us. So expect it to be sometime (soon?)  |
|
|
|
mojojojo173
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 5
Merit: 0
|
|
June 06, 2014, 10:14:04 PM |
|
Hi,
Can someone tell me whats happening to my balance?
My balance is currently staking in the v5.0.2 wallet but does not seem to ever complete sync. (Connected to network w/ 2 active connections) When I migrate to the v5.3 wallet, it shows zero balance w/ nothing in stake.
I've also tried starting the v5.3 wallet with -reservebalance, but still nothing...
explorer.cachecoin.org/address/CdnDi8pY5ieNG5GNC2sXd5oHhygQU3AoYG
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
myagui
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1154
Merit: 1001
|
|
June 06, 2014, 10:20:17 PM |
|
Hi,
Can someone tell me whats happening to my balance?
My balance is currently staking in the v5.0.2 wallet but does not seem to ever complete sync. (Connected to network w/ 2 active connections) When I migrate to the v5.3 wallet, it shows zero balance w/ nothing in stake.
I've also tried starting the v5.3 wallet with -reservebalance, but still nothing...
explorer.cachecoin.org/address/CdnDi8pY5ieNG5GNC2sXd5oHhygQU3AoYG
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
Hi mojojojo173, I think you should definitely see your balance restored with the 5.3 wallet, granted that you've finished sync'ing. As you were on a fork with the 5.0.2 wallet, you probably need to delete the blockchain in order to resync properly (just make sure you have a backup, and don't ever ever delete your wallet) Hope this helps. Let us know how it goes... ~ Myagui |
|
|
|
|
kalgecin (OP)
|
|
June 06, 2014, 10:24:01 PM |
|
Hi,
Can someone tell me whats happening to my balance?
My balance is currently staking in the v5.0.2 wallet but does not seem to ever complete sync. (Connected to network w/ 2 active connections) When I migrate to the v5.3 wallet, it shows zero balance w/ nothing in stake.
I've also tried starting the v5.3 wallet with -reservebalance, but still nothing...
explorer.cachecoin.org/address/CdnDi8pY5ieNG5GNC2sXd5oHhygQU3AoYG
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
If you got those coins after May 31st on the 5.0 wallet, those coins are gone. Any new coins in that wallet after 31st are also not valid. explorer.cachecoin.org owner is away for a week or so. he'll update when he's back. My advice (if you got those coins before 31st) delete the blockchain, and use the latest 5.3 wallet and resync. Older wallets cannot connect to the main network, and will never sync |
|
|
|
mojojojo173
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 5
Merit: 0
|
|
June 07, 2014, 05:53:06 AM |
|
hey guys...thanks for the quick reply. Much appreciated and shows the level of support the cachecoin community has. Unfortunately I'm afraid I've hit the worst case scenario mentioned by kalgecin. An updated & sync 5.3 wallet still shows zero balance. Looks like I've lost my entire balance of around 177 cachcoins to old fork staked limbo. <rant> I've missed updating my wallet by 2 days. I've heard many times "Dont invest what you cannot afford to lose". I invested in cache to capitalize on the scrypt ASIC deal put on by FIB, and believing in jasinlee and the involvement FIB and others (such as an active dev) had in this community was happy to keep what little I had left to stake in hopes cache prices would rise again. As a paycheck to paycheck fellow, I am no means a big time investor with money to play around, so every lost dollar does hurt. I cannot say I am not both saddened/upset and a bit angry at losing my coins. Bad luck I suppose. I've lost fiat dollars due to cryptocoin instability and poor choices in the exchanges, I've lost amounts of coins in the past due to local/online wallets being hacked (good old pre-wallet encryption days), exchanges being hacked, exchanges closing, etc....but never from a wallet update. I am not overly familiar with POS coins, so I am not sure why having a staked balance during a fork would force the coins into limbo. I assume there are others in my position who have left their boxes happily humming away staking coins only ending up to lose coins in stake due to an update...IMO this isn't really acceptable. there should have been a way to unstake coins in an unsync'd wallet to enable import into a new version....but my technical knowledge is far from knowing anything. sorry for my venting. I'm not sure if I will continue on or support any other POS coins any longer due to this reason... </rant> jasinlee ask for any future updates in the future - please include an auto-updating wallet and protection on staked balances. IF the cryptocoin community is to survive, issues like this must be addressed as merchants and other users will not adopt a payment system that necessitates constant vigilance to protect themselves from these circumstances. popup box indicating new wallet and time frame to update perhaps? pls donate to: CACH: CdnDi8pY5ieNG5GNC2sXd5oHhygQU3AoYG LTC: LPsonzJwQL94JN6ggGUM5c9z7zQaeewHuA BTC: 1HDRVsxQh8PntXCxFAUQ36uiTtojWop3TQ wallet 5.0.2 http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn178/mojojojo173/cryptocoin/cachecoin_v502.pngwallet 5.3 http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn178/mojojojo173/cryptocoin/cachecoin_v53.png |
|
|
|
|
|
lishbtc
|
|
June 07, 2014, 06:33:53 AM |
|
hey guys...thanks for the quick reply. Much appreciated and shows the level of support the cachecoin community has. Unfortunately I'm afraid I've hit the worst case scenario mentioned by kalgecin. An updated & sync 5.3 wallet still shows zero balance. Looks like I've lost my entire balance of around 177 cachcoins to old fork staked limbo. <rant> I've missed updating my wallet by 2 days. I've heard many times "Dont invest what you cannot afford to lose". I invested in cache to capitalize on the scrypt ASIC deal put on by FIB, and believing in jasinlee and the involvement FIB and others (such as an active dev) had in this community was happy to keep what little I had left to stake in hopes cache prices would rise again. As a paycheck to paycheck fellow, I am no means a big time investor with money to play around, so every lost dollar does hurt. I cannot say I am not both saddened/upset and a bit angry at losing my coins. Bad luck I suppose. I've lost fiat dollars due to cryptocoin instability and poor choices in the exchanges, I've lost amounts of coins in the past due to local/online wallets being hacked (good old pre-wallet encryption days), exchanges being hacked, exchanges closing, etc....but never from a wallet update. I am not overly familiar with POS coins, so I am not sure why having a staked balance during a fork would force the coins into limbo. I assume there are others in my position who have left their boxes happily humming away staking coins only ending up to lose coins in stake due to an update...IMO this isn't really acceptable. there should have been a way to unstake coins in an unsync'd wallet to enable import into a new version....but my technical knowledge is far from knowing anything. sorry for my venting. I'm not sure if I will continue on or support any other POS coins any longer due to this reason... </rant> jasinlee ask for any future updates in the future - please include an auto-updating wallet and protection on staked balances. IF the cryptocoin community is to survive, issues like this must be addressed as merchants and other users will not adopt a payment system that necessitates constant vigilance to protect themselves from these circumstances. popup box indicating new wallet and time frame to update perhaps? pls donate to: CACH: CdnDi8pY5ieNG5GNC2sXd5oHhygQU3AoYG LTC: LPsonzJwQL94JN6ggGUM5c9z7zQaeewHuA BTC: 1HDRVsxQh8PntXCxFAUQ36uiTtojWop3TQ wallet 5.0.2  wallet 5.3  Please rescan Append --rescan to the end of your shortcut and re-open your wallet, please let us know how you get on. Cheers |
|
|
|
|
kalgecin (OP)
|
|
June 07, 2014, 07:01:22 AM |
|
hey guys...thanks for the quick reply. Much appreciated and shows the level of support the cachecoin community has. Unfortunately I'm afraid I've hit the worst case scenario mentioned by kalgecin. An updated & sync 5.3 wallet still shows zero balance. Looks like I've lost my entire balance of around 177 cachcoins to old fork staked limbo. <rant> I've missed updating my wallet by 2 days. I've heard many times "Dont invest what you cannot afford to lose". I invested in cache to capitalize on the scrypt ASIC deal put on by FIB, and believing in jasinlee and the involvement FIB and others (such as an active dev) had in this community was happy to keep what little I had left to stake in hopes cache prices would rise again. As a paycheck to paycheck fellow, I am no means a big time investor with money to play around, so every lost dollar does hurt. I cannot say I am not both saddened/upset and a bit angry at losing my coins. Bad luck I suppose. I've lost fiat dollars due to cryptocoin instability and poor choices in the exchanges, I've lost amounts of coins in the past due to local/online wallets being hacked (good old pre-wallet encryption days), exchanges being hacked, exchanges closing, etc....but never from a wallet update. I am not overly familiar with POS coins, so I am not sure why having a staked balance during a fork would force the coins into limbo. I assume there are others in my position who have left their boxes happily humming away staking coins only ending up to lose coins in stake due to an update...IMO this isn't really acceptable. there should have been a way to unstake coins in an unsync'd wallet to enable import into a new version....but my technical knowledge is far from knowing anything. sorry for my venting. I'm not sure if I will continue on or support any other POS coins any longer due to this reason... </rant> jasinlee ask for any future updates in the future - please include an auto-updating wallet and protection on staked balances. IF the cryptocoin community is to survive, issues like this must be addressed as merchants and other users will not adopt a payment system that necessitates constant vigilance to protect themselves from these circumstances. popup box indicating new wallet and time frame to update perhaps? pls donate to: CACH: CdnDi8pY5ieNG5GNC2sXd5oHhygQU3AoYG LTC: LPsonzJwQL94JN6ggGUM5c9z7zQaeewHuA BTC: 1HDRVsxQh8PntXCxFAUQ36uiTtojWop3TQ wallet 5.0.2 wallet 5.3 Yes, append --rescan. that should give you back coins you had before the fork. As for autoupdate, that is what we are most focused on. We are working on an implementation that would cleanly and painlessly update the wallet automagically at once. and do all the mumbojambo |
|
|
|
|
lishbtc
|
|
June 07, 2014, 08:51:24 AM |
|
~~~... As for autoupdate, that is what we are most focused on. We are working on an implementation that would cleanly and painlessly update the wallet automagically at once. and do all the mumbojambo
Please do think this through carefully - whilst there are technical solutions to auto-update (eg code signing & having the client validate signatures on update packages etc), pools & exchanges must have the ability to disable it and it is very hard to defend against the "one man controls the network" argument - if we want Cache to succeed (and I very much do!) we have to be careful about the perception of centralization. Here's an interesting post from Greg addressing this topic in the Bitcoin context as food for thought "Auto update" is categorically not the same as manual updates.
Bitcoin is an autonomous peer to peer system. It's security, its promises of non-inflation, everything that makes it valuable depends on someone not being able to just flip a switch and redefine it. As you say, "there's no excuse" to introduce that kind of vulnerability. Bitcoin was invented to remove the requirement for that kind of trust, and if you're willing to have that kind of trust you can build systems which are much more efficient than Bitcoin.
Someone with the ability to just push auto updates would be an extreme danger to the network, and that ability would be a potential danger to those who possess it by virtue of making them an attractive target. If the core developers start telling you that you need developer controlled automatic update you can assume that we've somehow been compromised.
There are certainly things that can be done to facilitate smoother updates and we should do them: For example, deploying the gitian updater tool for users to use which checks the gitian signatures and saves them some website clicking would be a nice improvement and would strictly reduce vulnerability. (since not that many users bother to check the signatures today when they update)
Any system which would run _automatically_ if any were to exist at all, however, should only work on a long randomized time delay to allow review and alarm if there is a problem and should support negative acknowledgements, the keys for which could be spread fairly liberally.
So go ahead with your "16 coins" run autoupdates for 15 of them. Bitcoin is a decenteralized system and is staying that way.
|
|
|
|
|
kalgecin (OP)
|
|
June 07, 2014, 11:43:03 AM |
|
~~~... As for autoupdate, that is what we are most focused on. We are working on an implementation that would cleanly and painlessly update the wallet automagically at once. and do all the mumbojambo
Please do think this through carefully - whilst there are technical solutions to auto-update (eg code signing & having the client validate signatures on update packages etc), pools & exchanges must have the ability to disable it and it is very hard to defend against the "one man controls the network" argument - if we want Cache to succeed (and I very much do!) we have to be careful about the perception of centralization. Here's an interesting post from Greg addressing this topic in the Bitcoin context as food for thought "Auto update" is categorically not the same as manual updates.
Bitcoin is an autonomous peer to peer system. It's security, its promises of non-inflation, everything that makes it valuable depends on someone not being able to just flip a switch and redefine it. As you say, "there's no excuse" to introduce that kind of vulnerability. Bitcoin was invented to remove the requirement for that kind of trust, and if you're willing to have that kind of trust you can build systems which are much more efficient than Bitcoin.
Someone with the ability to just push auto updates would be an extreme danger to the network, and that ability would be a potential danger to those who possess it by virtue of making them an attractive target. If the core developers start telling you that you need developer controlled automatic update you can assume that we've somehow been compromised.
There are certainly things that can be done to facilitate smoother updates and we should do them: For example, deploying the gitian updater tool for users to use which checks the gitian signatures and saves them some website clicking would be a nice improvement and would strictly reduce vulnerability. (since not that many users bother to check the signatures today when they update)
Any system which would run _automatically_ if any were to exist at all, however, should only work on a long randomized time delay to allow review and alarm if there is a problem and should support negative acknowledgements, the keys for which could be spread fairly liberally.
So go ahead with your "16 coins" run autoupdates for 15 of them. Bitcoin is a decenteralized system and is staying that way.
Auto update will be optional. You'd be able to disable it. Also, auto update won't just update your wallet straight away, it will notice the update and notify you. If, you won't push the allow update button until the time when your wallet will be rejected from the network by newer wallet, it will update automatically (this won't happen if you have autoupdates off). So the auto update is somewhat not very auto. It's manual until required. And there will be an option to roll back. The packages will be signed and checked upon the auto update, and rejected if found invalid. Also, the wallet will have self diagnostic upon startup, veryfing signatures before loading itself. This would ensure that your wallet hasn't been infected by viruses or compromised. |
|
|
|
|
lishbtc
|
|
June 07, 2014, 12:48:01 PM |
|
~~~... As for autoupdate, that is what we are most focused on. We are working on an implementation that would cleanly and painlessly update the wallet automagically at once. and do all the mumbojambo
Please do think this through carefully - whilst there are technical solutions to auto-update (eg code signing & having the client validate signatures on update packages etc), pools & exchanges must have the ability to disable it and it is very hard to defend against the "one man controls the network" argument - if we want Cache to succeed (and I very much do!) we have to be careful about the perception of centralization. Here's an interesting post from Greg addressing this topic in the Bitcoin context as food for thought "Auto update" is categorically not the same as manual updates.
Bitcoin is an autonomous peer to peer system. It's security, its promises of non-inflation, everything that makes it valuable depends on someone not being able to just flip a switch and redefine it. As you say, "there's no excuse" to introduce that kind of vulnerability. Bitcoin was invented to remove the requirement for that kind of trust, and if you're willing to have that kind of trust you can build systems which are much more efficient than Bitcoin.
Someone with the ability to just push auto updates would be an extreme danger to the network, and that ability would be a potential danger to those who possess it by virtue of making them an attractive target. If the core developers start telling you that you need developer controlled automatic update you can assume that we've somehow been compromised.
There are certainly things that can be done to facilitate smoother updates and we should do them: For example, deploying the gitian updater tool for users to use which checks the gitian signatures and saves them some website clicking would be a nice improvement and would strictly reduce vulnerability. (since not that many users bother to check the signatures today when they update)
Any system which would run _automatically_ if any were to exist at all, however, should only work on a long randomized time delay to allow review and alarm if there is a problem and should support negative acknowledgements, the keys for which could be spread fairly liberally.
So go ahead with your "16 coins" run autoupdates for 15 of them. Bitcoin is a decenteralized system and is staying that way.
Auto update will be optional. You'd be able to disable it. Also, auto update won't just update your wallet straight away, it will notice the update and notify you. If, you won't push the allow update button until the time when your wallet will be rejected from the network by newer wallet, it will update automatically (this won't happen if you have autoupdates off). So the auto update is somewhat not very auto. It's manual until required. And there will be an option to roll back. The packages will be signed and checked upon the auto update, and rejected if found invalid. Also, the wallet will have self diagnostic upon startup, veryfing signatures before loading itself. This would ensure that your wallet hasn't been infected by viruses or compromised. I'm pleased to see you guys have obviously put some thought into it I'd be interested in your thoughts around the 'traditional' model (ie broadcasting an alert in cases of required updates with integrators (pools/exchanges etc) polling the errors attribute from getinfo). Is the general feeling that it's insufficient, or that integrators do not follow this model even when available, or other factors? Or is the target audience for auto-updates primarily the end user? Hope I'm not distracting you with this discussion, just throwing in feedback where I think you may get value from it Cheers |
|
|
|
|
jasinlee
|
|
June 07, 2014, 05:10:42 PM
Last edit: June 07, 2014, 09:15:42 PM by jasinlee |
|
If someone wants to test the social tab for us.
|
|
|
|
mojojojo173
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 5
Merit: 0
|
|
June 07, 2014, 05:25:55 PM |
|
Yes, append --rescan. that should give you back coins you had before the fork.
nope...didn't work. still a zero balance. I've also tried re-deleting the cachecoin folder in %appdata% and resyncing along with appending -rescan. Just out of curiosity...would the nodes in cachcoin.conf make any difference? thanks again for all the help. |
|
|
|
|
|
kenboy
|
|
June 07, 2014, 05:27:15 PM |
|
is it the alo same as vtc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
jasinlee
|
|
June 07, 2014, 05:34:54 PM |
|
Yes, append --rescan. that should give you back coins you had before the fork.
nope...didn't work. still a zero balance. I've also tried re-deleting the cachecoin folder in %appdata% and resyncing along with appending -rescan. Just out of curiosity...would the nodes in cachcoin.conf make any difference? thanks again for all the help. The exchange should be able to delete the tx too, thus restoring your balance on the exchange. |
|
|
|
|
kalgecin (OP)
|
|
June 07, 2014, 05:55:24 PM |
|
Yes, append --rescan. that should give you back coins you had before the fork.
nope...didn't work. still a zero balance. I've also tried re-deleting the cachecoin folder in %appdata% and resyncing along with appending -rescan. Just out of curiosity...would the nodes in cachcoin.conf make any difference? thanks again for all the help. You may send me a copy of the wallet.dat to kalgecin@gmail.com. I'll take a look at it and see what i might be able to do |
|
|
|
|
kalgecin (OP)
|
|
June 07, 2014, 06:00:13 PM |
|
~~~... As for autoupdate, that is what we are most focused on. We are working on an implementation that would cleanly and painlessly update the wallet automagically at once. and do all the mumbojambo
Please do think this through carefully - whilst there are technical solutions to auto-update (eg code signing & having the client validate signatures on update packages etc), pools & exchanges must have the ability to disable it and it is very hard to defend against the "one man controls the network" argument - if we want Cache to succeed (and I very much do!) we have to be careful about the perception of centralization. Here's an interesting post from Greg addressing this topic in the Bitcoin context as food for thought "Auto update" is categorically not the same as manual updates.
Bitcoin is an autonomous peer to peer system. It's security, its promises of non-inflation, everything that makes it valuable depends on someone not being able to just flip a switch and redefine it. As you say, "there's no excuse" to introduce that kind of vulnerability. Bitcoin was invented to remove the requirement for that kind of trust, and if you're willing to have that kind of trust you can build systems which are much more efficient than Bitcoin.
Someone with the ability to just push auto updates would be an extreme danger to the network, and that ability would be a potential danger to those who possess it by virtue of making them an attractive target. If the core developers start telling you that you need developer controlled automatic update you can assume that we've somehow been compromised.
There are certainly things that can be done to facilitate smoother updates and we should do them: For example, deploying the gitian updater tool for users to use which checks the gitian signatures and saves them some website clicking would be a nice improvement and would strictly reduce vulnerability. (since not that many users bother to check the signatures today when they update)
Any system which would run _automatically_ if any were to exist at all, however, should only work on a long randomized time delay to allow review and alarm if there is a problem and should support negative acknowledgements, the keys for which could be spread fairly liberally.
So go ahead with your "16 coins" run autoupdates for 15 of them. Bitcoin is a decenteralized system and is staying that way.
Auto update will be optional. You'd be able to disable it. Also, auto update won't just update your wallet straight away, it will notice the update and notify you. If, you won't push the allow update button until the time when your wallet will be rejected from the network by newer wallet, it will update automatically (this won't happen if you have autoupdates off). So the auto update is somewhat not very auto. It's manual until required. And there will be an option to roll back. The packages will be signed and checked upon the auto update, and rejected if found invalid. Also, the wallet will have self diagnostic upon startup, veryfing signatures before loading itself. This would ensure that your wallet hasn't been infected by viruses or compromised. I'm pleased to see you guys have obviously put some thought into it I'd be interested in your thoughts around the 'traditional' model (ie broadcasting an alert in cases of required updates with integrators (pools/exchanges etc) polling the errors attribute from getinfo). Is the general feeling that it's insufficient, or that integrators do not follow this model even when available, or other factors? Or is the target audience for auto-updates primarily the end user? Hope I'm not distracting you with this discussion, just throwing in feedback where I think you may get value from it Cheers Actually, primary target are the exchanges. They simply cannot keep track of all the wallets they host. It really is difficult, even through alerts. Having worked on an exchange, I know. Thus it'll be much easier for the owners of exchange to enable the auto update, and always be sure to be on the right track. In the end, the coin protocol is always centralized by the core dev team. A coin cannot have a decentralized protocol, since everyone must follow the same rules. I tend to listen to my users and make modifications based on their majority request. We've incorporated many of the requested features and keep listening to you guys. |
|
|
|
|
kalgecin (OP)
|
|
June 07, 2014, 06:23:55 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
