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

[Balthazar]

I've added checkpoint to my litecoind on http://ltcmine.ru too.

[Tittiez]

Although my pool isn't yet public the node is updated, thanks coblee! Also bump.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Bump.

Updated 

[coinotron]

Coinotron - updated

[someguy123]

Liteco.in's server - Updated.
Thanks coblee.

[pekv2]

Windows binaries coming in a few more hours.

Thanks.

Have you even slept yet? I know, I doubt it. After this, get some sleep!

[LoWang]

Hello, got a problem with it:
An error occured while setting up the RPC port 9332 for listening: open: (and now it is in my native language so I will try to translate...) the address used is incompatible with the required protocol.
WTH? It worked before and I did not change anything. Just launched the new Litecoin-qt version...

[coinft]

I added a new checkpoint to repel the potential 51% attack.
It is important for all pools and exchanges to use this new code.
For now, please grab the source and compile yourself. I will work on the binary release soon.

If I may ask, how will this work? Does the client prevent a rollback beyond the checkpoint?

If so, how will this work against the attack being moved to a later time? I realize this will incur additional cost on the attacker, but the next time the attacker may just not warn us, and what then?

(Given there is a real attack even, which I think unlikely but not impossible.)

I am thinking of how this checkpointing could be automated, but everything we do in this regard has the potential to fork the chain, having parts of the network stick to their version even though the majority is against it. Not good either.

-coinft.

[burnside]

burnside's Litecoin Pool (ltc.kattare.com) has updated.

Didn't want to compile on lucid, had to update my libminiupnpc-dev manually.

[coblee]

New binaries released:

Windows (zip): https://github.com/downloads/litecoin-project/litecoin/litecoin-0.6.3c-win32.zip
Windows (exe): https://github.com/downloads/litecoin-project/litecoin/litecoin-0.6.3c-win32-setup.exe
Linux (tgz, 32/64-bit): https://github.com/downloads/litecoin-project/litecoin/litecoin-0.6.3c-linux.tar.gz
Mac OS X: https://github.com/downloads/litecoin-project/litecoin/litecoin-0.6.3c-macosx.dmg

[burnside]

Dunno if this'll help any pools out or not, but I ran into an issue with the getblocknumber call disappearing.  Just use getblockcount instead.

[crosby]

New binaries released:

Windows (zip): https://github.com/downloads/litecoin-project/litecoin/litecoin-0.6.3c-win32.zip
Windows (exe): https://github.com/downloads/litecoin-project/litecoin/litecoin-0.6.3c-win32-setup.exe
Linux (tgz, 32/64-bit): https://github.com/downloads/litecoin-project/litecoin/litecoin-0.6.3c-linux.tar.gz
Mac OS X: https://github.com/downloads/litecoin-project/litecoin/litecoin-0.6.3c-macosx.dmg

Thanks Coblee

[VelvetLeaf]

New binaries released:

Windows (zip): https://github.com/downloads/litecoin-project/litecoin/litecoin-0.6.3c-win32.zip
Windows (exe): https://github.com/downloads/litecoin-project/litecoin/litecoin-0.6.3c-win32-setup.exe
Linux (tgz, 32/64-bit): https://github.com/downloads/litecoin-project/litecoin/litecoin-0.6.3c-linux.tar.gz
Mac OS X: https://github.com/downloads/litecoin-project/litecoin/litecoin-0.6.3c-macosx.dmg

Coblee, you may want to put the link to latest binaries version in your signature so more people know

[ThiagoCMC]

Updated!

[DiCE1904]

thanks for the update!

[foo]

Coblee, I wish you would sign releases with PGP/GnuPG, like the Bitcoin team does. It would give more assurance that these binaries are really authentic.

[coblee]

Coblee, I wish you would sign releases with PGP/GnuPG, like the Bitcoin team does. It would give more assurance that these binaries are really authentic.

Sure I will do that.

[kano]

Since the change is simply to just add a single extra checkpoint to the code (a single line of code) ...
Why not write some code to allow for a checkpoint to be specified in the config file?
That way you can just post a checkpoint and ask everyone to use it
(and it's easy to verify if it is valid)
Thus IF someone was actually going to attempt a 51% it's quicker to get people to add in a new checkpoint.

[pieppiep]

That would only work if the attacker first announces his attack.

[coblee]

Since the change is simply to just add a single extra checkpoint to the code (a single line of code) ...
Why not write some code to allow for a checkpoint to be specified in the config file?
That way you can just post a checkpoint and ask everyone to use it
(and it's easy to verify if it is valid)
Thus IF someone was actually going to attempt a 51% it's quicker to get people to add in a new checkpoint.

That was one of the ideas that I came up with previously. Upside is that it's quicker to release new checkpoints. Downside is that it could cause many different forks if people all have different checkpoints configured. At least with the current way, I know that if you are running 0.6.3c, you will be on the same chain as me.

In the end, I decided to not go through with this idea right now. The solution to a 51% attack is not checkpoints. It's more hashing power. It seems like the threat of an attack has actually galvanized our little community into working together to defend this attack. People have jumped to solo mining in case there was going to be a DDoS of pools. And we saw a lot of miners willing to jump in and help out. Our current network hashrate is at 315 mhash/s. That may be an all time high! So in the end, that's doing a lot more to defend this attack than the checkpoint I added.