23 Skidoo CHAO Information

[romeshomey]

Hello All. I stored on cryptopia 0.00050113 CHAO. What do I do, how to get my savings back?
Thaks.

user balances will also be restored as far as i know. just need to wait until auxpow kicks in at block 825000

I wondered the same thing.  Hadn't been aware it was delisted until today. 

Thanks

[Doommann]

Hello All. I stored on cryptopia 0.00050113 CHAO. What do I do, how to get my savings back?
Thaks.

user balances will also be restored as far as i know. just need to wait until auxpow kicks in at block 825000

I wondered the same thing.  Hadn't been aware it was delisted until today.  

Thanks

"That's what I wrote for support:
Unfortunately the CHAO wallet was recently the victim of a 51% attack during which we lost 0.003 CHAO. We allowed withdrawals of CHAO until our wallet was empty and have now taken the wallet offline.

The new developer has been in touch and we are working with him to top up our wallet and get CHAO relisted here. If the wallet does end up getting topped up you will see the balance of your CHAO as normal on Cryptopia.

Any further questions please let us know."

I update to new version

I updated too
the synchronization process is in progress

[heratys111]

I've been trying to upgrade to the 11.1 version in Ubuntu 16.04 but I'm getting the fun "must build with position-independent code" error.

After: make -j4:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[...]

  CXX      qt/qt_libskidooqt_a-bitcoinunits.o
In file included from /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt5/QtGui/qwindowdefs.h:37:0,
                 from /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt5/QtWidgets/qwidget.h:37,
                 from /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt5/QtWidgets/qframe.h:37,
                 from /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt5/QtWidgets/qlabel.h:37,
                 from /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt5/QtWidgets/QLabel:1,
                 from qt/bitcoingui.h:14,
                 from qt/bitcoingui.cpp:5:
/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt5/QtCore/qglobal.h:1067:4: error: #error "You must build your code with position independent code if Qt was built with -reduce-relocations. " "Compile your code with -fPIC (-fPIE is not enough)."
 #  error "You must build your code with position independent code if Qt was built with -reduce-relocations. "\
    ^
[...]

Makefile:4075: recipe for target 'qt/qt_libskidooqt_a-bitcoinunits.o' failed
make[2]: *** [qt/qt_libskidooqt_a-bitcoinunits.o] Error 1
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
Makefile:4047: recipe for target 'qt/qt_libskidooqt_a-bitcoinamountfield.o' failed
make[2]: *** [qt/qt_libskidooqt_a-bitcoinamountfield.o] Error 1
Makefile:4061: recipe for target 'qt/qt_libskidooqt_a-bitcoingui.o' failed
make[2]: *** [qt/qt_libskidooqt_a-bitcoingui.o] Error 1
Makefile:5454: recipe for target 'qt/qt_skidoo_qt-bitcoin.o' failed
make[2]: *** [qt/qt_skidoo_qt-bitcoin.o] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory '/media/qishtu31/ExtraDrive1/skidoo/src'
Makefile:6234: recipe for target 'all-recursive' failed
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory '/media/qishtu31/ExtraDrive1/skidoo/src'
Makefile:632: recipe for target 'all-recursive' failed
make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My configure line is currently as follows: "./configure --with-gui=qt5 --with-incompatible-bdb --with-pic".

In an effort to circumvent this and/or interpret the part in the build-unix.md documentation file where it has the instructions (inherited from BTC):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Always use absolute paths to configure and compile bitcoin and the dependencies, for example, when specifying the the path of the dependency:

../dist/configure --enable-cxx --disable-shared --with-pic --prefix=$BDB_PREFIX

Here BDB_PREFIX must absolute path - it is defined using $(pwd) which ensures the usage of the absolute path."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I followed the steps here: ( https://altcoinkingdom.com/compile-bitcoin-core-from-source-on-ubuntu-16-04.html ) --downloading the berkeleyDB 4.8 version, etc up to the line:
 "./configure CPPFLAGS="-I${BDB_PREFIX}/include/ -O2“ LDFLAGS=”-L${BDB_PREFIX}/lib/" —with-gui"

which produced errors:
configure: error: in `/[directories]/skidoo':
configure: error: C++ compiler cannot create executables
See `config.log' for more details

(the config.log has:
...gcc version 5.4.0 20160609 (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.4)
configure:3764: $? = 0
configure:3753: g++ -V >&5
g++: error: unrecognized command line option '-V'
g++: fatal error: no input files
compilation terminated.
configure:3764: $? = 1
configure:3753: g++ -qversion >&5
g++: error: unrecognized command line option '-qversion'
g++: fatal error: no input files
compilation terminated.
...

So with or without BerkeleyDB 4.8... I was wondering if there are some parameters I can pass at the terminal (as environment variables) before autogen and configure (or to configure) to get this built.
 
Perhaps it is some permutation using export in Ubuntu similar to:

export PATH=/usr/local/cuda-8.0/bin${PATH:+:${PATH}} # which adds /usr/local/cuda-8.0/bin to the PATH environment variable

or

export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/cuda-8.0/lib64 # which adds /usr/local/cuda-8.0/lib64 to LD_LIBRARY_PATH and is followed by:
sudo ldconfig # needed to implement revised LD_LIBRARY_PATH

 If I have to go in and adjust several files to make it work I'm fine with doing that too.   (I'm currently at step 8 of the guide https://cryptocurrencytalk.com/topic/2023-quick-guide-how-to-rebuild-a-qt-wallet-if-you-lost-your-coins/ that I posted earlier).

Thank you in advance for any help to get this thing built; hopefully it's not too elaborate a fix.  There is no issues tab on the github page so this seemed the place (rather than Ubuntu forums that wouldn't be helpful with altcoin info).

[FallingKnife]

What the fuck.
Let's roll it back.
When did the attack start?

[Marcboy123]

the new wallet is not working i cannot find my wallet address?

[startsts]

the new wallet is not working i cannot find my wallet address?

What actually doesnt work?   

Why nobody trades CHAO at cryptohub?

[4oshio]

in console bar,type
getaccountaddress ""

address show

[Dave the Hat]

I noticed the piecharts on the other thread were down, something something externally hosted.
In case anyone found them useful:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/DrDaveTheHat/skidoopie1_zpslm1vmcp6.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/DrDaveTheHat/skid2_zpsuqyayagq.png

Total rewards (exc tx fees) ~0.00022/day.

[Dave the Hat]

Also, I'm a bit confused about this 51%.
Per Bitcoin Wiki:

The [51%] attacker can't:
...
Create coins out of thin air
Send coins that never belonged to him

As I understand it, a 51% works by making transactions, gaining the benefit of the transactions, then undoing them by replacing the blockchain with a chain that doesn't have those transactions on.
So, if I were a 51% attacker, I could sell my CHAO for BTC, then roll back the CHAO blockchain so that I get to keep both my sold CHAO and the BTC ("Double spend").
Cryptopia seem to be saying that a series of unauthorised withdrawals were made from the exchange, which isn't the same.

Could someone set me right if I've misunderstood either 51% attacks or the details of Cryptopia's loss?

[kris BTC]

So whats happened to all the coins on Cryptopia, have we just lost all of them? all coins have disappeared from the wallet section.

[infernoman]

So whats happened to all the coins on Cryptopia, have we just lost all of them? all coins have disappeared from the wallet section.

user balances will also be restored as far as i know. just need to wait until auxpow kicks in at block 825000

[kris BTC]

seems like Cryptopia given up.

Thanks for contacting Cryptopia.

CHAO, among some of other coins, have recently been the targets of an ongoing series of 51% attacks that are hitting the networks without a substantial amount of hash behind them. If you’re not familiar with how a 51% attack works, rogue nodes commit blocks to the chain and then roll back the chain, invalidating what was already confirmed.

Unfortunately due this attack the majority of CHAO coins were lost. This is the reason it was delisted, and we opened the wallet for users to withdraw what was left in the wallet. The wallet is now empty so regrettably there are no more coins for users to withdraw.

As it is the Coin's team who are responsible for ensuring their network is secure, any further Complaints and support requests should be directed towards the CHAO team.

Kind regards,


Cryptopia Support.

I have half a bitcoin in CHAO and now what i've lost that for good or does anyone know that they still trying to restore peoples coins

[4oshio]

is 2 days,wallet windows not sync network???

[startsts]

is 2 days,wallet windows not sync network???

try add this nodes:
158.69.126.193:36397
125.161.168.125:23457
73.75.116.191:34298



Trade CHAO at cryptohub!

https://cryptohub.online/market/CHAO/

[PeterTheGrape]

I'm not clear on what happened but I bought a lot of Chaocoin when it was cheap and can contribute some to either Cryptopia or to users who lost in the attack.

In my opinion the problem should be fixed reasonably first, maybe Cryptopia requiring a high number of confirmations for deposit then people who trade there agreeing not to accept crooked side chains. In that case the Cryptopia node would be authoritative and some people might have philosophical problems with that but it is better than a highjacker node being authoritative.

I'm not where I can run coin wallets at the moment but I'll defer to whatever infernoman says for the time being and make available what I can towards whatever he decides, as long as it looks sensible. If the same thing is going to happen at cryptohub what is the point of trading? Every time the hijacker wants coins he takes what he wants until they are all gone? It makes no sense.

[startsts]

I'm not clear on what happened but I bought a lot of Chaocoin when it was cheap and can contribute some to either Cryptopia or to users who lost in the attack.

In my opinion the problem should be fixed reasonably first, maybe Cryptopia requiring a high number of confirmations for deposit then people who trade there agreeing not to accept crooked side chains. In that case the Cryptopia node would be authoritative and some people might have philosophical problems with that but it is better than a highjacker node being authoritative.

I'm not where I can run coin wallets at the moment but I'll defer to whatever infernoman says for the time being and make available what I can towards whatever he decides, as long as it looks sensible. If the same thing is going to happen at cryptohub what is the point of trading? Every time the hijacker wants coins he takes what he wants until they are all gone? It makes no sense.

I set 100 confirmations at cryptohub,  but yes it's not enough for be defended from hijacker.
To protect the coin we need some permanent miner with ASIC for this algo.  He should have at least 2-3% of net hashrate and mine all the time even if there are no waiting transactions in memory pool.  It means he will mine almost or totally without reward, since rewards 1,10,100 satoshi can not be used due to high relay fee.   1000 satoshi reward is very rare.
But community can pay to that miner by another way.

[heratys111]

Would changing the algorithm be something feasible and that would allow more security? (To the end of making it easier for people to mine this coin and support the network/coin.) I don't personally have an ASIC... I can only purchase bitcoin and use Nicehash or something if I want to mine this algo with any effectiveness.  Whereas I've found algorithms such as cryptonight, cryptolight, qubit, nist5, lyra2rev2, Zcoin's algo, and a couple others to be pretty easy to GPU mine).  Some coins with those algorithms have quite sizable network hash rates.   

Obviously noone's mining CHAO lately (the block explorer shows more than three days since a block was mined), so if the mechanism described in the Cryptopia quote is what occurred it is likely to happen again if there's not a sustained hashrate applied to this coin.  23-Skidoo seems kind of a victim of there being too many other coins out there and not a lot of attention paid to maintaining it (and the circumstance is somewhat bizarre because it's far scarcer than Unobtanium but the latter seems to be thriving).

This situation also points out the dangers of having too much coin parked at an exchange w/o at least a portion in a wallet under one's personal control/agency (and, in particular, a paper wallet for some of it).  Apparently an exchange can be an obvious centralized target for thieving cretins.

[startsts]

Would changing the algorithm be something feasible and that would allow more security? (To the end of making it easier for people to mine this coin and support the network/coin.) I don't personally have an ASIC... I can only purchase bitcoin and use Nicehash or something if I want to mine this algo with any effectiveness.  Whereas I've found algorithms such as cryptonight, cryptolight, qubit, nist5, lyra2rev2, Zcoin's algo, and a couple others to be pretty easy to GPU mine).  Some coins with those algorithms have quite sizable network hash rates.   

Obviously noone's mining CHAO lately (the block explorer shows more than three days since a block was mined), so if the mechanism described in the Cryptopia quote is what occurred it is likely to happen again if there's not a sustained hashrate applied to this coin.  23-Skidoo seems kind of a victim of there being too many other coins out there and not a lot of attention paid to maintaining it (and the circumstance is somewhat bizarre because it's far scarcer than Unobtanium but the latter seems to be thriving).

This situation also points out the dangers of having too much coin parked at an exchange w/o at least a portion in a wallet under one's personal control/agency (and, in particular, a paper wallet for some of it).  Apparently an exchange can be an obvious centralized target for thieving cretins.

There is no problem with algorithm.  The problem is reward method.   Nobody will mine a coin that has 0 block reward and 0 transactions in that block (means 0 fees).
Solutions are:
1) increase block rewards, I think can remain different block reward amount but increase it, for example: 250 sat / 500 sat / 750 sat / 1000 sat / 1500 sat (instead of 0/1/10/100/1000).   After pay relay fee the mined amount will be 50 / 300 / 550 / 800 / 1300
2) decrease relay fee.  Last prices of the coin are very high, so with relay fee 1000 sat  the coin has more tx fee than bitcoin, nobody thinks that is not ok?

[CRW-Infernoman]

Would changing the algorithm be something feasible and that would allow more security? (To the end of making it easier for people to mine this coin and support the network/coin.) I don't personally have an ASIC... I can only purchase bitcoin and use Nicehash or something if I want to mine this algo with any effectiveness.  Whereas I've found algorithms such as cryptonight, cryptolight, qubit, nist5, lyra2rev2, Zcoin's algo, and a couple others to be pretty easy to GPU mine).  Some coins with those algorithms have quite sizable network hash rates.   

Obviously noone's mining CHAO lately (the block explorer shows more than three days since a block was mined), so if the mechanism described in the Cryptopia quote is what occurred it is likely to happen again if there's not a sustained hashrate applied to this coin.  23-Skidoo seems kind of a victim of there being too many other coins out there and not a lot of attention paid to maintaining it (and the circumstance is somewhat bizarre because it's far scarcer than Unobtanium but the latter seems to be thriving).

This situation also points out the dangers of having too much coin parked at an exchange w/o at least a portion in a wallet under one's personal control/agency (and, in particular, a paper wallet for some of it).  Apparently an exchange can be an obvious centralized target for thieving cretins.

There is no problem with algorithm.  The problem is reward method.   Nobody will mine a coin that has 0 block reward and 0 transactions in that block (means 0 fees).
Solutions are:
1) increase block rewards, I think can remain different block reward amount but increase it, for example: 250 sat / 500 sat / 750 sat / 1000 sat / 1500 sat (instead of 0/1/10/100/1000).   After pay relay fee the mined amount will be 50 / 300 / 550 / 800 / 1300
2) decrease relay fee.  Last prices of the coin are very high, so with relay fee 1000 sat  the coin has more tx fee than bitcoin, nobody thinks that is not ok?

The relay fee should be decreased IMO, but that is a decision I'm going to leave up to the community. once merge mining is implemented correctly. There will be more than enough hashrate on the chain to keep it stable and secure with the current fee's and rewards.

[heratys111]

The relay fee should be decreased IMO, but that is a decision I'm going to leave up to the community. once merge mining is implemented correctly. There will be more than enough hashrate on the chain to keep it stable and secure with the current fee's and rewards.

Yeah, it would be useful if that relay fee was decreased for sure.  Simply looking at how much effort it takes to accumulate this coin mining it and then to have such a significant fee vaporize the effort away with any fund movement... not the most functioning thing.

It's awesome to see the chain moving again today -- although I wouldn't mind if there was a pool that allowed NiceHash mining of this coin as I don't have an ASIC available [yet?].  Wmikrut.com doesn't have a high enough difficulty to allow NiceHash to work (I tried).

Someday when I get more spare time I hope to get a wallet/daemon compiled and working again (the old 0.9 version worked adequately until there were no longer connections online of that version and most recently I got that fun "compile code with position-independent code" [something along those lines] error when I tried to compile it in Ubuntu and haven't found a fix yet by trial-and-error or searching       ) .