[ANN] Litecoin - a lite version of Bitcoin. Launched!

[CAMOPEJB]

hello,
could someone this 283-live-solidcoin24-and-btc-e-data-in-sierrachart software for e-btc ltc / ltc btc / usd modify?
cu

Here ya go: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XRSUMTBF
If you're on Win you need first to install Python 2.7 (Not 3.xx !)
http://www.python.org/ftp/python/2.7.2/python-2.7.2.msi
Then start cmd and type:
PATH C:\Python27;%PATH%
To start script you type:
Python C:\src\solidchartfeed.py -s btceBTC -a 10
or
Python C:\src\solidchartfeed.py -s btceUSD -a 10

wow ... it works without problems. Thank you.

NP - just modified two numbers in source  
Njoy  

[1680336184]

1680336184

[1680336184]

1680336184

[1680336184]

1680336184

[1680336184]

1680336184

[CAMOPEJB]

hahaha! Someone is feeling threatened by LTC.....

http://blockexplorer.sytes.net/address/LgFZdGwKdwD4jN6i6Uh8Tom5bDJQtFxkRb

https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Litecoin&action=history

 

[tomba]

hahaha! Someone is feeling threatened by LTC.....

http://blockexplorer.sytes.net/address/LgFZdGwKdwD4jN6i6Uh8Tom5bDJQtFxkRb

https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Litecoin&action=history

 

I don't get what they are trying to achieve spamming those 0.00000001 sends, but the Wiki edits are priceless Luke-jr probably invested in some other cryptocoin

[Matoking]

Block chain updating.

I've got about 1700 transactions with the value of one 0.00000001 LTC and it's still increasing. Someone must've been REALLY bored.

[ElectricMucus]

While LTCs value finally seems to have gotten more stable something must be wrong with the reported difficulty.

I haven't gotten a block since almost 2 weeks, am I just unlucky?

[boonies4u]

While LTCs value finally seems to have gotten more stable something must be wrong with the reported difficulty.

I haven't gotten a block since almost 2 weeks, am I just unlucky?

You must be solo mining, so yes, probably.

[kano]

hahaha! Someone is feeling threatened by LTC.....

http://blockexplorer.sytes.net/address/LgFZdGwKdwD4jN6i6Uh8Tom5bDJQtFxkRb

https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Litecoin&action=history

 

LOL ah Luke is a moron sometimes ... that's funny.
Maybe you should just ban him from editing the wiki since he's just being destructive and isn't that a reason for banning an account?

[Schwede65]

hahaha! Someone is feeling threatened by LTC.....

http://blockexplorer.sytes.net/address/LgFZdGwKdwD4jN6i6Uh8Tom5bDJQtFxkRb

https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Litecoin&action=history

 

Is it possible to get rid of these spammings?

Is BTC protected against such things?

Client-update LTC?

[ehmdjii]

is there a litecoin mining pool that allows connections on port 80? thanks!

[terrytibbs]

is there a litecoin mining pool that allows connections on port 80? thanks!

Pool-X does: http://pool-x.eu/gettingstarted

[tomba]

hahaha! Someone is feeling threatened by LTC.....

http://blockexplorer.sytes.net/address/LgFZdGwKdwD4jN6i6Uh8Tom5bDJQtFxkRb

https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Litecoin&action=history

 

Is it possible to get rid of these spammings?

Is BTC protected against such things?

Client-update LTC?

I'd like to see this fixed also. BTC-e.com has suspended deposits which leaves 111 of my LTC's in limbo...

[kano]

Meanwhile ... on the subject of the micro txn spam ...
Hmm I guess it must be someone who visits this forum.

Up to now, I've received just over 1,000 micro txn's and all to the address I list in my sig (none to any other address)
Does seem a rather odd way to do it.
If anyone wants addresses they can just look in the block-chain

For me, litecoind is working fine - no problems so far.
Apparently BTC-e is having trouble with it (according to comments in the chat box)
Though, with BTC-e they will just keep all the micro-txn's they get since they already keep any amount they receive below 0.0001 LTC

As I've said in the other thread, I don't really see an issue with it since Litecoin should be able to handle it.
However, is anyone considering actually posting in here a fee/txn limit like gmaxwell suggested (except his are way too high)
and I'm wondering if we'd need to pretty much shutdown everyone and restart to make sure there are no fork issues for people accepting or not accepting the txn's?

Certainly if the fee was implemented I'd suggest a much lower one - maybe like 0.001 for txn's under 1 LTC (with a definite review of those 2 numbers in a month if the value of LTC increases)

Pretty suspicious that gmaxwell posts that just before it happened.
Either he knew about it indirectly from the culprits or is involved in it.

[bulanula]

This needs to be fixed. Probably some SC trolls.

[terrytibbs]

Pretty suspicious that gmaxwell posts that just before it happened.
Either he knew about it indirectly from the culprits or is involved in it.

There is no doubt in my mind that gmaxwell is not the person spamming us with transactions.

[kano]

Pretty suspicious that gmaxwell posts that just before it happened.
Either he knew about it indirectly from the culprits or is involved in it.

There is no doubt in my mind that gmaxwell is not the person spamming us with transactions.

Then he must have heard about it before it was going to happen.
I don't really care either way - just it would have been better to post his thread in here with comments for coblee (or you or whoever) to discuss and suggest a change - posting a code change in his own thread is pretty much pointless.
coblee around?
Anyone else have access to the git?
Any change should be agreed upon and be in the official git before anyone else starts posting changes anywhere else.

Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0 no one should be dictating anything

[coblee]

Pretty suspicious that gmaxwell posts that just before it happened.
Either he knew about it indirectly from the culprits or is involved in it.

There is no doubt in my mind that gmaxwell is not the person spamming us with transactions.

I'm guessing gmaxwell's post got someone to start thinking what would happen if there were a ton of these small transactions. And he's testing that out. The current fees for Litecoin is way too low because we are using the same fees as Bitcoin. But since the value of an LTC is about 1/200 of that of BTC, we would need to have fees about 200x that of Bitcoin to deter this behavior. I'm going to make the minimum transaction fee for Litecoin be 0.1 LTC for transactions that are large and low-priority.

This change will not fork the chain, because clients are not going to reject blocks with transactions containing too little fees. This just prevents transactions with too little fees to be propagted or put into blocks by clients/miners running this new code.

I'm working on testing out the code right now to make sure everything is ok. Will release the source and binary soon.

[terrytibbs]

I'm guessing gmaxwell's post got someone to start thinking what would happen if there were a ton of these small transactions. And he's testing that out. The current fees for Litecoin is way too low because we are using the same fees as Bitcoin. But since the value of an LTC is about 1/200 of that of BTC, we would need to have fees about 200x that of Bitcoin to deter this behavior. I'm going to make the minimum transaction fee for Litecoin be 0.1 LTC for transactions that are large and low-priority.

This change will not fork the chain, because clients are not going to reject blocks with transactions containing too little fees. This just prevents transactions with too little fees to be propagted or put into blocks by clients/miners running this new code.

I'm working on testing out the code right now to make sure everything is ok. Will release the source and binary soon.

This is not going to stop the spammer from confirming these transactions by himself, but it's a step in the right direction.

[kano]

...
Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0 no one should be dictating anything

Your not even going to take input from anyone about it?
Wouldn't hurt to get other input on the subject from the forum users (i.e. give it a day for people to respond)

[terrytibbs]

...
Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0 no one should be dictating anything

Your not even going to take input from anyone about it?
Wouldn't hurt to get other input on the subject from the forum users (i.e. give it a day for people to respond)

People respond by using, or not using, the new client.

[coblee]

...
Edit: yes this isn't SolidCoin 2.0 no one should be dictating anything

Your not even going to take input from anyone about it?
Wouldn't hurt to get other input on the subject from the forum users (i.e. give it a day for people to respond)

I've been talking to a lot of people about this issue on IRC. At first, I wasn't going to do anything about it b/c the guy isn't totally malicious. He's actually donating coins to people. But it seems like he's not going to stop and the size of the chain is growing big. And since our fees are too low, he can keep doing this forever and it won't cost him much. So it makes sense to increase the fees to make it at least cost something to perform this DDoS spam attack.

Since I believe this change is pretty harmless, I didn't think we needed to have a long discussion about this. If you think 0.1 LTC is too little or too much or if you have another way to solve this problem, please post it. We can always put in a better fix later. But I think I need to act now to address this problem.