[ANN] [888] [SCRYPT] OctoCoin ◦ The Power of Eight ◦ Don't Blink

[edric]

Just did a manual payout on Edric's pool and had a 4 Octo TX fee. Pretty high ...when did this change? I remember the TX fees being something like 0.1

That's the pool I use mostly, definitely not seen a fee like that before. How much did you withdraw?

Sorry about that guys. I thought I'd mentioned the TX fees before. Maybe I didn't?  I'm getting ready to lower it back down because that is kinda high. I do recommend setting your autopayouts a bit higher, anyway, to avoid having to pay TX fees several times a day. I'm going to change TXfees to 2 in just a minute.

[GWCalvert]

nice, more action on octohub.org!

ps: is the spinning stuff new? saw it on my smartphose some days ago, and there was only the logo

The spin has been there, all along. I haven't looked at it on my phone, yet...

[djslick]

re: the mintpal votes being taken away

while i agree that giving a user 24 votes to spend in a 24 hour period would be the best solution, i'm not convinced of any wrongdoing on mintpal's part for their recent auditing of their voting system. all evidence shows that they had all votes logged per user and per IP since the beginning, and have only recently made use of that database in repealing votes from different accounts from the same IP. This move was retroactive going back months. (this is what it seems to be at least, without direct data from mintpal, it's hard to say we'll ever know %100, but all the evidence we have so far suggests this)

while the occurrence of multiple people in an office using the same ip and legitimately voting on separate accounts does happen, it is collateral damage to get rid of people who could be voting on 100 different accounts on the same computer. Aidencoin lost almost 10,000 votes because of this (no way they got that many votes in the last couple of days, this was an ongoing fraud campaign). And while Murraycoin only lost a handful, i do not think that they were voted in the past week or so, they could have been voted months ago, and they were probably not malicious attempts at voter fraud, more likely 2 people in the same house voting on separate accounts.

i don't know the inner workings of the exchange, so really it's all speculation on our part, but the insinuation that they did this just to "force people to use paid votes" is a bit strained. All coins were given the same shakedown, equally ridding duplicate IP votes from the polls. There was no favoritism one way or another, therefore everything else being equal, all the coins should be in the exact same position as they were beforehand, not "requiring" them to start paying for votes. The only way you'd feel pressure is if you just lost half your votes from fraud.

Yes, they are a business, and making money is their prerogative, however they make far more money in 6 hours trading then they do in a month of voting. Voting (from what i've seen) has always been a community tool to gauge interest in a coin so that they can list what rises to the top and THEN make money from it. They (as all exchanges) support every coin they list, as it's pragmatic for them to do so.  

A) It's worth it to keep the playing field level, and seeing coins like the #2 Aidencoin take such a fall shows that there were users who were actively exploiting the voting system as such.

B) we directly benefitted moving from #16 to #12, so if anything we should be over the moon that they took this measure?

[SquidsIn]

re: the mintpal votes being taken away

while i agree that giving a user 24 votes to spend in a 24 hour period would be the best solution, i'm not convinced of any wrongdoing on mintpal's part for their recent auditing of their voting system. all evidence shows that they had all votes logged per user and per IP since the beginning, and have only recently made use of that database in repealing votes from different accounts from the same IP. This move was retroactive going back months. (this is what it seems to be at least, without direct data from mintpal, it's hard to say we'll ever know %100, but all the evidence we have so far suggests this)

while the occurrence of multiple people in an office using the same ip and legitimately voting on separate accounts does happen, it is collateral damage to get rid of people who could be voting on 100 different accounts on the same computer. Aidencoin lost almost 10,000 votes because of this (no way they got that many votes in the last couple of days, this was an ongoing fraud campaign). And while Murraycoin only lost a handful, i do not think that they were voted in the past week or so, they could have been voted months ago, and they were probably not malicious attempts at voter fraud, more likely 2 people in the same house voting on separate accounts.

i don't know the inner workings of the exchange, so really it's all speculation on our part, but the insinuation that they did this just to "force people to use paid votes" is a bit strained. All coins were given the same shakedown, equally ridding duplicate IP votes from the polls. There was no favoritism one way or another, therefore everything else being equal, all the coins should be in the exact same position as they were beforehand, not "requiring" them to start paying for votes. The only way you'd feel pressure is if you just lost half your votes from fraud.

Yes, they are a business, and making money is their prerogative, however they make far more money in 6 hours trading then they do in a month of voting. Voting (from what i've seen) has always been a community tool to gauge interest in a coin so that they can list what rises to the top and THEN make money from it. They (as all exchanges) support every coin they list, as it's pragmatic for them to do so.  

A) It's worth it to keep the playing field level, and seeing coins like the #2 Aidencoin take such a fall shows that there were users who were actively exploiting the voting system as such.

B) we directly benefitted moving from #16 to #12, so if anything we should be over the moon that they took this measure?

or... if you paid for votes in good faith and those votes effectively got removed.  And, yes, I did.  This isn't the first time they did this, a few hundred votes went missing a couple of months ago.  There is no audit, no proof, no warning, no announcement, without any of those things, Mintpal taking BTC for votes and then removing them on some bullshit excuse constitutes fraud.

[MEGAman]

I'm not too worried about the votes. Buncha whiners! I know me and my roommate were always voting from the same IP usually almost around the exact same time (one of us would remind the other). Sure it's not a great way to determime uniqueness but if it's their only defense against fraud it is probably the lesser of two evils. Now only one of us gets to vote for Octo and the other can vote for something else decent way down the list. MintPal axed a bunch of votes and we moved UP the list so really it's a good thing. Maybe they will just wise up soon and add us when they realize we have one of the only legit coins on that damn voting list pretty much.

[djslick]

re: the mintpal votes being taken away

while i agree that giving a user 24 votes to spend in a 24 hour period would be the best solution, i'm not convinced of any wrongdoing on mintpal's part for their recent auditing of their voting system. all evidence shows that they had all votes logged per user and per IP since the beginning, and have only recently made use of that database in repealing votes from different accounts from the same IP. This move was retroactive going back months. (this is what it seems to be at least, without direct data from mintpal, it's hard to say we'll ever know %100, but all the evidence we have so far suggests this)

while the occurrence of multiple people in an office using the same ip and legitimately voting on separate accounts does happen, it is collateral damage to get rid of people who could be voting on 100 different accounts on the same computer. Aidencoin lost almost 10,000 votes because of this (no way they got that many votes in the last couple of days, this was an ongoing fraud campaign). And while Murraycoin only lost a handful, i do not think that they were voted in the past week or so, they could have been voted months ago, and they were probably not malicious attempts at voter fraud, more likely 2 people in the same house voting on separate accounts.

i don't know the inner workings of the exchange, so really it's all speculation on our part, but the insinuation that they did this just to "force people to use paid votes" is a bit strained. All coins were given the same shakedown, equally ridding duplicate IP votes from the polls. There was no favoritism one way or another, therefore everything else being equal, all the coins should be in the exact same position as they were beforehand, not "requiring" them to start paying for votes. The only way you'd feel pressure is if you just lost half your votes from fraud.

Yes, they are a business, and making money is their prerogative, however they make far more money in 6 hours trading then they do in a month of voting. Voting (from what i've seen) has always been a community tool to gauge interest in a coin so that they can list what rises to the top and THEN make money from it. They (as all exchanges) support every coin they list, as it's pragmatic for them to do so.  

A) It's worth it to keep the playing field level, and seeing coins like the #2 Aidencoin take such a fall shows that there were users who were actively exploiting the voting system as such.

B) we directly benefitted moving from #16 to #12, so if anything we should be over the moon that they took this measure?

or... if you paid for votes in good faith and those votes effectively got removed.  And, yes, I did.  This isn't the first time they did this, a few hundred votes went missing a couple of months ago.  There is no audit, no proof, no warning, no announcement, without any of those things, Mintpal taking BTC for votes and then removing them on some bullshit excuse constitutes fraud.

ok, so that's a pretty big accusation, what evidence do you have to support it? I've never heard of anyone paying for votes then having them disappear. That would be a pretty large scandal if true. Paying for 500 votes out of 5000 total votes, then seeing 500 votes disappear after auditing, well there's no correlation that one has to do with the other. And i've never seen anyone else making this claim.

They did do a similar audit a few months ago when they removed all of the votes that were voted using bots. these are the only 2 audits that i've been aware of, both of them IMO have been a good thing for any honest coin. but again, i could be wrong, please show me otherwise.

I think this is about the timeline that you're referring to, March 2014?
https://support.mintpal.com/index.php?module=announce&sec=view&id=11

[djslick]

NICE BUYWALL  



KEEP THAT SHIT ON LOCK SON

[tuaris]

Is there a technical reason for using BerklyDB 5.1 specifically:

Code:

      AC_MSG_ERROR([Found Berkeley DB other than 5.1, required for portable wallets (--with-incompatible-bdb to ignore)])

Or can I use 5.3 or still build this against 4.8 like Bitcoin does:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/m4/bitcoin_find_bdb48.m4

I just hate to add another dependency to my servers, and DB 5.1 is deprecated on FreeBSD.

[bholzer]

Is there a technical reason for using BerklyDB 5.1 specifically:

Code:

      AC_MSG_ERROR([Found Berkeley DB other than 5.1, required for portable wallets (--with-incompatible-bdb to ignore)])

Or can I use 5.3 or still build this against 4.8 like Bitcoin does:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/m4/bitcoin_find_bdb48.m4

I just hate to add another dependency to my servers, and DB 5.1 is deprecated on FreeBSD.

OctoCoin takes advantage of several features not available in Berkeley DB 4.8; I wouldn't recommend building on 4.8.

You can certainly build it using Berkeley DB 5.3 and it will work fine; however... your wallet.dat file will not be compatible with the official OctoCoin binaries (as they are all built using 5.1) so you will receive a warning about losing portability. If you ever need to move the wallet to a different machine/etc you would just need to ensure you build OctoCoin from source again using BDB 5.3.

As suggested, at the configure step, just use:

./configure –-with-incompatible-bdb

Make sure it is using BDB 5.3 and not 4.8, however, if they're both installed on the machine. Of course, as there is no benefit to using 5.3 in this instance, 5.1 would be the easiest but it certainly isn't a big deal. Most coins are still using 4.8 (I don't know of any coins that are using BDB 5.3) but I know OctoCoin, Murraycoin (my coin), and Dogecoin are using 5.1.

[tuaris]

Is there a technical reason for using BerklyDB 5.1 specifically:

Code:

      AC_MSG_ERROR([Found Berkeley DB other than 5.1, required for portable wallets (--with-incompatible-bdb to ignore)])

Or can I use 5.3 or still build this against 4.8 like Bitcoin does:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/m4/bitcoin_find_bdb48.m4

I just hate to add another dependency to my servers, and DB 5.1 is deprecated on FreeBSD.

OctoCoin takes advantage of several features not available in Berkeley DB 4.8; I wouldn't recommend building on 4.8.

You can certainly build it using Berkeley DB 5.3 and it will work fine; however... your wallet.dat file will not be compatible with the official OctoCoin binaries (as they are all built using 5.1) so you will receive a warning about losing portability. If you ever need to move the wallet to a different machine/etc you would just need to ensure you build OctoCoin from source again using BDB 5.3.

At the configure step, just use:

–-with-incompatible-bdb (ex: ./configure –-with-incompatible-bdb)

Make sure it is using BDB 5.3 and not 4.8, however, if they're both installed on the machine. Of course, as there is no benefit to using 5.3, 5.1 would be the easiest but it certainly isn't a big deal. Most coins are still using 4.8 (I don't know of any coins that are using BDB 5.3) but I know OctoCoin, Murraycoin (my coin), and Dogecoin are using 5.1.

I was able to build the daemon with 4.8 and it runs, etc.  It's only going to be for mining.  However I think I'll rebuild and use 5.3 instead to ensure I don't run into any unpleasant surprises.  Or would you say that most of the "features" are only relevent with the Qt wallet?

[bholzer]

Is there a technical reason for using BerklyDB 5.1 specifically:

Code:

      AC_MSG_ERROR([Found Berkeley DB other than 5.1, required for portable wallets (--with-incompatible-bdb to ignore)])

Or can I use 5.3 or still build this against 4.8 like Bitcoin does:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/m4/bitcoin_find_bdb48.m4

I just hate to add another dependency to my servers, and DB 5.1 is deprecated on FreeBSD.

OctoCoin takes advantage of several features not available in Berkeley DB 4.8; I wouldn't recommend building on 4.8.

You can certainly build it using Berkeley DB 5.3 and it will work fine; however... your wallet.dat file will not be compatible with the official OctoCoin binaries (as they are all built using 5.1) so you will receive a warning about losing portability. If you ever need to move the wallet to a different machine/etc you would just need to ensure you build OctoCoin from source again using BDB 5.3.

At the configure step, just use:

–-with-incompatible-bdb (ex: ./configure –-with-incompatible-bdb)

Make sure it is using BDB 5.3 and not 4.8, however, if they're both installed on the machine. Of course, as there is no benefit to using 5.3, 5.1 would be the easiest but it certainly isn't a big deal. Most coins are still using 4.8 (I don't know of any coins that are using BDB 5.3) but I know OctoCoin, Murraycoin (my coin), and Dogecoin are using 5.1.

I was able to build the daemon with 4.8 and it runs, etc.  It's only going to be for mining.  However I think I'll rebuild and use 5.3 instead to ensure I don't run into any unpleasant surprises.  Or would you say that most of the "features" are only relevent with the Qt wallet?

You would likely be fine but if you have the option to rebuild with 5.3, why not? 4.8 uses a different log file format, for starters. Also, among some of the benefits, BDB 5.1 or 5.3 will improve efficiency, reduces the chance of corruption, and, in the case of OctoCoin and Murraycoin at least, assigns a priority level to certain transactions to avoid a potential "deadlock" (this could potentially make a difference if there were enough miners pointed at the client). I just prefer to avoid rocking the boat whenever possible when it comes to dependencies anyway - I've seen some strange things in my day that wasted a lot of my time only to end up being dependency-related (despite no solid reasons why the dependencies were what they were).

[tuaris]

Is there a technical reason for using BerklyDB 5.1 specifically:

Code:

      AC_MSG_ERROR([Found Berkeley DB other than 5.1, required for portable wallets (--with-incompatible-bdb to ignore)])

Or can I use 5.3 or still build this against 4.8 like Bitcoin does:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/m4/bitcoin_find_bdb48.m4

I just hate to add another dependency to my servers, and DB 5.1 is deprecated on FreeBSD.

OctoCoin takes advantage of several features not available in Berkeley DB 4.8; I wouldn't recommend building on 4.8.

You can certainly build it using Berkeley DB 5.3 and it will work fine; however... your wallet.dat file will not be compatible with the official OctoCoin binaries (as they are all built using 5.1) so you will receive a warning about losing portability. If you ever need to move the wallet to a different machine/etc you would just need to ensure you build OctoCoin from source again using BDB 5.3.

At the configure step, just use:

–-with-incompatible-bdb (ex: ./configure –-with-incompatible-bdb)

Make sure it is using BDB 5.3 and not 4.8, however, if they're both installed on the machine. Of course, as there is no benefit to using 5.3, 5.1 would be the easiest but it certainly isn't a big deal. Most coins are still using 4.8 (I don't know of any coins that are using BDB 5.3) but I know OctoCoin, Murraycoin (my coin), and Dogecoin are using 5.1.

I was able to build the daemon with 4.8 and it runs, etc.  It's only going to be for mining.  However I think I'll rebuild and use 5.3 instead to ensure I don't run into any unpleasant surprises.  Or would you say that most of the "features" are only relevent with the Qt wallet?

You would likely be fine but if you have the option to rebuild with 5.3, why not? 4.8 uses a different log file format, for starters. Also, among some of the benefits, BDB 5.1 or 5.3 will improve efficiency, reduces the chance of corruption, and, in the case of OctoCoin and Murraycoin at least, assigns a priority level to certain transactions to avoid a potential "deadlock" (this could potentially make a difference if there were enough miners pointed at the client). I just prefer to avoid rocking the boat whenever possible when it comes to dependencies anyway - I've seen some strange things in my day that wasted a lot of my time only to end up being dependency-related (despite no solid reasons why the dependencies were what they were).

Thanks for your help.  I've rebuilt it using DB 5.3 and it works great.  For anyone else who wants to run the daemon (or GUI) on FreeBSD, they can download the port file and instructions here: http://www.unibia.com/unibianet/freebsd/freebsd-ports-many-alternative-crypto-currencies#octocoin

Also, my Octocoin Mining Pool is up again using the new version.

Thanks again.

[Litesire]

Weekend is over lets push the votes like we did last week, it was amazing. We will climb the ladder really fast this week.

[SquidsIn]

re: the mintpal votes being taken away

while i agree that giving a user 24 votes to spend in a 24 hour period would be the best solution, i'm not convinced of any wrongdoing on mintpal's part for their recent auditing of their voting system. all evidence shows that they had all votes logged per user and per IP since the beginning, and have only recently made use of that database in repealing votes from different accounts from the same IP. This move was retroactive going back months. (this is what it seems to be at least, without direct data from mintpal, it's hard to say we'll ever know %100, but all the evidence we have so far suggests this)

while the occurrence of multiple people in an office using the same ip and legitimately voting on separate accounts does happen, it is collateral damage to get rid of people who could be voting on 100 different accounts on the same computer. Aidencoin lost almost 10,000 votes because of this (no way they got that many votes in the last couple of days, this was an ongoing fraud campaign). And while Murraycoin only lost a handful, i do not think that they were voted in the past week or so, they could have been voted months ago, and they were probably not malicious attempts at voter fraud, more likely 2 people in the same house voting on separate accounts.

i don't know the inner workings of the exchange, so really it's all speculation on our part, but the insinuation that they did this just to "force people to use paid votes" is a bit strained. All coins were given the same shakedown, equally ridding duplicate IP votes from the polls. There was no favoritism one way or another, therefore everything else being equal, all the coins should be in the exact same position as they were beforehand, not "requiring" them to start paying for votes. The only way you'd feel pressure is if you just lost half your votes from fraud.

Yes, they are a business, and making money is their prerogative, however they make far more money in 6 hours trading then they do in a month of voting. Voting (from what i've seen) has always been a community tool to gauge interest in a coin so that they can list what rises to the top and THEN make money from it. They (as all exchanges) support every coin they list, as it's pragmatic for them to do so.  

A) It's worth it to keep the playing field level, and seeing coins like the #2 Aidencoin take such a fall shows that there were users who were actively exploiting the voting system as such.

B) we directly benefitted moving from #16 to #12, so if anything we should be over the moon that they took this measure?

or... if you paid for votes in good faith and those votes effectively got removed.  And, yes, I did.  This isn't the first time they did this, a few hundred votes went missing a couple of months ago.  There is no audit, no proof, no warning, no announcement, without any of those things, Mintpal taking BTC for votes and then removing them on some bullshit excuse constitutes fraud.

ok, so that's a pretty big accusation, what evidence do you have to support it? I've never heard of anyone paying for votes then having them disappear. That would be a pretty large scandal if true. Paying for 500 votes out of 5000 total votes, then seeing 500 votes disappear after auditing, well there's no correlation that one has to do with the other. And i've never seen anyone else making this claim.

They did do a similar audit a few months ago when they removed all of the votes that were voted using bots. these are the only 2 audits that i've been aware of, both of them IMO have been a good thing for any honest coin. but again, i could be wrong, please show me otherwise.

I think this is about the timeline that you're referring to, March 2014?
https://support.mintpal.com/index.php?module=announce&sec=view&id=11

No, the event I'm talking about happened later than that. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=504265.msg6436713#msg6436713

My point is that if I paid for votes and then the number of votes that exist is reduced, where is the evidence to show that some of that reduction didn't include the votes I paid for?  Do we just accept the word of Mintpal that the removal was legitimate? where is the audit trail? where is the independent confirmation that what they've done is legitimate?  Hell the last two times vote reductions have happened there hasn't even been an announcement so we're not even asked to accept their "word".  We are supposed to just put up and shut up.

Yes, we benefited from the last change but does nobody care that they can just do what the fuck they like without consequence or accountability whilst taking BTC for votes?

Yes, I realise crypto is the new Wild West, everything is unregulated and uncontrolled and nobody is forcing anybody to be part of it, etc, etc.  But Mintpal is a UK company not a couple of teenagers in a bedroom office, I am a UK business owner and taxpayer and if there is the slightest hint they are corrupt I will shout it from the rooftops.

Since it's obvious I'm a voice of one on here i'll STFU about it, save to say; 1) I'm done voting on Mintpal since they are forever changing the goal posts and 2) I will certainly NEVER pay for a vote again.

[MEGAman]

I don't think you're a voice of one Squid but all I'm saying is I believe they are just removing votes that came from more than one account on the same IP address in the same hour. I believe even that is a little cheap since we've literally run out of IPv4 IP addresses on the planet (in my apartment complex each block of 6 units shares an IP address and within my apartment alone are 3 people who all want to get 888 on MP - some of those removed votes were surely from us which sucks) but if the alternative is coins getting a bunch of fraudulent votes I'd rather go with this method. Sure CAPTCHA would make sense or reducing it to one vote/24 hours/account or maybe even requiring verified accounts (scan of photo ID and utility bill) in order to vote every hour would help since that stuff will all be required for US traders before you know it anyway. There are a number of things that could be done here to make it more fair without hurting legitimate votes. But all I'm saying is I'm guessing they aren't removing any paid votes. So while it sucks, sure, we are now #12 and making a run at #11. One of those two pieces of crap at the top will be added any day now which will give us another bump. bitcoin is on the rise right now which could help to create a buyers market for 888 if people start selling to get BTC like they are with every other coin. Maybe this long waiting list will be to our benefit longterm. Somebody was talking about it earlier and I mentioned it earlier as well but seriously - is OctoCoin the only coin that has gone up in value from the start of June? I honestly think it is. Just keep voting when you remember to vote and remember it isn't an emergency. When we're listed we're listed. MintPal often attracts an insane number of bots/etc which just makes things messy sometimes anyway. I'm happy with Bittrex for now but continue to vote at least 8 times per day on MintPal.

[Stonerboy]

Did someone really just sell 450k? 

[he-man]

lol, yeah.

[SquidsIn]

Did someone really just sell 450k? 

more to the point... somebody just bought 420k.  I'm jealous

[GWCalvert]

Did someone really just sell 450k? 

more to the point... somebody just bought 420k.  I'm jealous

After months of watching the market, day and night, waiting for a huge block to come up... The one morning I decide to sleep in, someone dumps 450K... Those would have looked nice in my collection. 

[shellbunner]

Did someone really just sell 450k? 

more to the point... somebody just bought 420k.  I'm jealous

After months of watching the market, day and night, waiting for a huge block to come up... The one morning I decide to sleep in, someone dumps 450K... Those would have looked nice in my collection. 

I'm sure they'll be in good hands...