[GPUC] GPU Coin | Mandatory Wallet Update

[waltsmith]

Well, this is a very troubling development.

waltsmith

[1714993486]

1714993486

[1714993486]

1714993486

[1714993486]

1714993486

[micryon]

Multiple forks could be the case, especially with the low nethash. I warned about this a week or 2 ago.

It's not the low nethash rate, it's because we hard forked at 65535.. those who did not update are on a completely different network/different fork.

[micryon]

hello there.

i am running gpucoin p2pool node at http://p2pool.kosmoplovci.org:9404 and noticed a problem with network since yesterday evening which i was able to fix with small change in gpucoin network config in p2pool/bitcoin/networks.py file. in short, p2pool network seem to have 2 blockchains running in paralel on different p2pool nodes, one that is still presuming block rewards are 20000 and another which adopted block halving and is looking like the proper chain to me.

You cannot use that as the fix.. as that was not the only change to the latest code.  The original reason for hard fork was to fix the KGW timewarp vulnerability.  The problem is the official blockexplorer, and some p2p pools have not updated to the actual tot github code.. and causing a second fork of the chain. 

Reverting the code change will only make the situation worse, as most users have updated to the "real" blockchain, however not all pools and service tools have made the upgrade.  Anyways the best thing to do is to be on the latest github code without any changes.. and hope that the alternate forked nodes all gets updated.

But surely some people will lose their mined coins if they are on a pool that did not update.

[richiela]

What is the proper blockheight suppose to be?  Is the blockexplorer to be trusted?  I've resynced the blockchain multiple times and end up on a different blockchain than the blockexplorer.

We are diabling GPUC markets/currencies at bittrex as well until this is sorted out.

Thanks,
Richie

[micryon]

What is the proper blockheight suppose to be?  Is the blockexplorer to be trusted?  I've resynced the blockchain multiple times and end up on a different blockchain than the blockexplorer.

We are diabling GPUC markets/currencies at bittrex as well until this is sorted out.

Thanks,
Richie

Current "official" blockexplorer CANNOT be trusted.  It is on the wrong chain.

If you updated github in the last 2 weeks with mandatory wallet update, then you are on the right chain.

The majority of the hashpower IS on the right fork.  

RIGHT fork (gpucoind version: v0.8.7.2):

{
    "blocks" : 68780,
    "currentblocksize" : 0,
    "currentblocktx" : 0,
    "difficulty" : 0.35755985,
    "errors" : "",
    "generate" : false,
    "genproclimit" : -1,
    "hashespersec" : 0,
    "networkhashps" : 28818280,
    "pooledtx" : 3,
    "testnet" : false
}


WRONG fork:

{
"blocks" : 68709,
"currentblocksize" : 0,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.15970902,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"networkhashps" : 13147052,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false
}

[richiela]

What is the proper blockheight suppose to be?  Is the blockexplorer to be trusted?  I've resynced the blockchain multiple times and end up on a different blockchain than the blockexplorer.

We are diabling GPUC markets/currencies at bittrex as well until this is sorted out.

Thanks,
Richie

Current "official" blockexplorer CANNOT be trusted.  It is on the wrong chain.

If you updated github in the last 2 weeks with mandatory wallet update, then you are on the right chain.

The majority of the hashpower IS on the right fork.  

RIGHT fork (gpucoind version: v0.8.7.2):

{
    "blocks" : 68780,
    "currentblocksize" : 0,
    "currentblocktx" : 0,
    "difficulty" : 0.35755985,
    "errors" : "",
    "generate" : false,
    "genproclimit" : -1,
    "hashespersec" : 0,
    "networkhashps" : 28818280,
    "pooledtx" : 3,
    "testnet" : false
}


WRONG fork:

{
"blocks" : 68709,
"currentblocksize" : 0,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.15970902,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"networkhashps" : 13147052,
"pooledtx" : 0,
"testnet" : false
}

Thank you so much for the quick clarification!  Bittrex.com looks to be at the right place.. reopening back up...

   "version" : 80702,
   "protocolversion" : 70003,
   "walletversion" : 60000,
   "blocks" : 68792,

Thanks,
Richie

[micryon]

If you suspect your pool is on the wrong fork, please get off of it.  Throwing away hashing power.

Right fork is on block 68802 now.

[supernem]

Interesting concept. Too bad the marketcap is low.

[Kennar]

Well that explains my missing 2.2mil gpucoins.

 

[vesperwillow]

Multiple forks could be the case, especially with the low nethash. I warned about this a week or 2 ago.

It's not the low nethash rate, it's because we hard forked at 65535.. those who did not update are on a completely different network/different fork.

I thought you guys had planned to not hard fork?

The correct chain has even less hashpower than the last time I looked. If I'm reading that right, my network could fork the coin, much less folks with real hashpower. This project is in the dumps unfortunately.

[c275]

how is the best exchanger?

[micryon]

Multiple forks could be the case, especially with the low nethash. I warned about this a week or 2 ago.

It's not the low nethash rate, it's because we hard forked at 65535.. those who did not update are on a completely different network/different fork.

I thought you guys had planned to not hard fork?

The correct chain has even less hashpower than the last time I looked. If I'm reading that right, my network could fork the coin, much less folks with real hashpower. This project is in the dumps unfortunately.

It is ok for natural forks to occur due to hashrate.  That's just normal.

The problems are caused by hard forks.. which we did decide was a necssity due to KGW timewarp issue.  Exchanges were blacklisting coins without the security patch.. which is why the majority of coins are updating in the last month.

Anyways yeah obviously due to coin prices and lack of CEO direction hashrate has dropped to all time low...

[richiela]

Has the official blockchain explorer been updated?

I show that we are on the same block now.

[jimlite]

I think Bittrex is good, but don't think Poloniex is.
Any word from CEO?  I vote Micryon takes over.

[vesperwillow]

2 weeks without contact from him?

Local obituaries don't show anything with his name, so he's presumably alive if still in the area.

When he refused to give out his 'computer business name', that was just one of many red flags. Didn't want anyone coming to him locally.

How about the folks who hadn't received their GPU's, have you got them yet?

[wacko]

How about the folks who hadn't received their GPU's, have you got them yet?

Nope, haven't received the card, and he doesn't answer my e-mails to gpu@gpucoin.net and ceo@gpucoin.net. I'm pretty sure this whole coin was a scam planned to "fail" from the beginning, not sure though whether it was only the "ceo" or someone else as well behind this. It just doesn't make sense any other way.. someone can't just start a cryptocurrency and then suddenly become that retarded or "super-busy", it doesn't add up.

I'm not really angry though cause I'm sure now the guy(s) behind this has some nasty stuff coming at him, and for those that got burned (myself included) — it's a good lesson. All is good.

[illiki23]

How about the folks who hadn't received their GPU's, have you got them yet?

Nope, haven't received the card, and he doesn't answer my e-mails to gpu@gpucoin.net and ceo@gpucoin.net. I'm pretty sure this whole coin was a scam planned to "fail" from the beginning, not sure though whether it was only the "ceo" or someone else as well behind this. It just doesn't make sense any other way.. someone can't just start a cryptocurrency and then suddenly become that retarded or "super-busy", it doesn't add up.

I'm not really angry though cause I'm sure now the guy(s) behind this has some nasty stuff coming at him, and for those that got burned (myself included) — it's a good lesson. All is good.

So is it appropriate to begin discussing taking legal action yet?  Obviously this has been a big scam.  A large chunk of the IPO funds are unaccounted for and he is not even shipping the GPUs that are accounted for.

[vesperwillow]

How about the folks who hadn't received their GPU's, have you got them yet?

Nope, haven't received the card, and he doesn't answer my e-mails to gpu@gpucoin.net and ceo@gpucoin.net. I'm pretty sure this whole coin was a scam planned to "fail" from the beginning, not sure though whether it was only the "ceo" or someone else as well behind this. It just doesn't make sense any other way.. someone can't just start a cryptocurrency and then suddenly become that retarded or "super-busy", it doesn't add up.

I'm not really angry though cause I'm sure now the guy(s) behind this has some nasty stuff coming at him, and for those that got burned (myself included) — it's a good lesson. All is good.

So is it appropriate to begin discussing taking legal action yet?  Obviously this has been a big scam.  A large chunk of the IPO funds are unaccounted for and he is not even shipping the GPUs that are accounted for.

I would say with products not being shipped, this is a point which can be taken up legally, but only if wacko wants to pursue it. Services and products are not being rendered/provided, the owner is in breach--regardless of the reason (familial, etc). Not to be callous to whatever his situation is, but he is in the hot seat at this point.

[waldistons]

@Psynthax just posted info. Dunno if it's correct, but it would be useful to pay James a friendly visit and just ask - DUDE, WTF?

[DougB62]

How about the folks who hadn't received their GPU's, have you got them yet?

Nope, haven't received the card, and he doesn't answer my e-mails to gpu@gpucoin.net and ceo@gpucoin.net. I'm pretty sure this whole coin was a scam planned to "fail" from the beginning, not sure though whether it was only the "ceo" or someone else as well behind this. It just doesn't make sense any other way.. someone can't just start a cryptocurrency and then suddenly become that retarded or "super-busy", it doesn't add up.

I'm not really angry though cause I'm sure now the guy(s) behind this has some nasty stuff coming at him, and for those that got burned (myself included) — it's a good lesson. All is good.

So is it appropriate to begin discussing taking legal action yet?  Obviously this has been a big scam.  A large chunk of the IPO funds are unaccounted for and he is not even shipping the GPUs that are accounted for.

I would say with products not being shipped, this is a point which can be taken up legally, but only if wacko wants to pursue it. Services and products are not being rendered/provided, the owner is in breach--regardless of the reason (familial, etc). Not to be callous to whatever his situation is, but he is in the hot seat at this point.

...and in the mean time - someone should sincerely consider taking over this coin. I don't believe that even if there was a "good excuse" for all of this, there would be any credibility left for this coin. It needs a clean break, and a "new beginning". Not talking re-launch or anything, just a public initiative to separate from the things that are clearly wrong, and take GPUC where it could/should have went in the first place. I still believe that this is a great idea, and I am still holding what I have. Partially because I don't want to dump @1, but mostly I still have hopes for it. We are near the top of the list at Mintpal, and I am still voting. I know that's not a massive priority, but if we get a grip on this thing now, and can mitigate some of the damage, it's a good position to be in. If the coin gets a new face, and we get on Mintpal at the same time, it could be quite positive, due to the new exposure.

I know there are die-hards here who are holding lots of GPUC - Let's see if we can't grab this thing by the ba||s and turn it around.