[DEAD] Coiledcoin - yet another cryptocurrency, but with OP_EVAL!

[ovidiusoft]

Not to mention that there's very little chance to miss an old tx.

New miners can't "receive all tx'es".  They can only receive newly broadcast txs. So basically every time a new miner comes online, it will be missing lots of old txs.

I might be reading the protocol specs wrong but I was under the impression that it's at least possible (if not the default) to receive all objects in the peer's inv message, which can include blocks and/or tx-es. As long as the peers are correctly broadcasting known tx-es not linked to blocks, a newly connected node should see old tx-es too. Maybe someone with a better understanding of the implementation can tell us if that's so or you are right?

If you are right, I guess that's a problem which should be fixed, independent of my idea.

[1713241243]

1713241243

[1713241243]

1713241243

[1713241243]

1713241243

[Tittiez]

I threw the source up on github for safekeeping, maybe someone will fork it?

https://github.com/Tittiez/coiledcoin

And if anyone needs a windows client, here:

http://www.mediafire.com/?1pg3jb55p17r2k8  -  Daemon Included

[smoothie]

News at 11

Luke Jr. can't take down LTC so he 51% attacks a new GPU currency

Is this still true?

[markm]

As far as I know he switched to just plain old mining it. Using his pool's users' hashing power, of course.

-MarkM-

[Rubberduckie]

As far as I know he switched to just plain old mining it. Using his pool's users' hashing power, of course.

-MarkM-

Probably didn't bother telling his miners though

[coblee]

As far as I know he switched to just plain old mining it. Using his pool's users' hashing power, of course.

-MarkM-

Probably didn't bother telling his miners though

Yes, he used Eligius miners to merge mine this and killed it by rejecting any transactions. Not sure if he's still doing this.
He cannot perform the same attack on Litecoin, because Litecoin uses scrypt and cannot be merge mined with Bitcoin.

[Luke-Jr]

News at 11

Luke Jr. can't take down LTC so he 51% attacks a new GPU currency

Is this still true?

Not quite. There are a couple of vulnerabilities in Litecoin that can be used as soon as they're disclosed. I don't think they can be used in a legal manner (without permission from the targets), though. Would be nice to see real-world effects of one of them being exploited, so I'm hoping the Litecoin dev team and some volunteer users can agree on a specific day to do this.

As far as I know he switched to just plain old mining it. Using his pool's users' hashing power, of course.

Not quite "plain old mining", since I only accepted huge transaction fees. And it didn't use the pool users.

[markm]

He didn't just reject transactions, in fact I don't know if he rejected transactions at all. He "killed" it by rejecting blocks he didn't mine, so no one else could mine blocks.

Most other miners dropped out, I see only two connections since long long ago, one of which might be him. However I do not have an incoming port routed so it is possible there are other miners out there that also have no incoming port thus that I cannot attain a connection with.

I have been getting blocks for a long time, but not many since Elgius (or whoever it is that is still mining it) has a lot more hashing power than I do.

-MarkM-

[smoothie]

News at 11

Luke Jr. can't take down LTC so he 51% attacks a new GPU currency

Is this still true?

Not quite. There are a couple of vulnerabilities in Litecoin that can be used as soon as they're disclosed. I don't think they can be used in a legal manner (without permission from the targets), though. Would be nice to see real-world effects of one of them being exploited, so I'm hoping the Litecoin dev team and some volunteer users can agree on a specific day to do this.

As far as I know he switched to just plain old mining it. Using his pool's users' hashing power, of course.

Not quite "plain old mining", since I only accepted huge transaction fees. And it didn't use the pool users.

So essentially it is still true until you have the vulnerability info...lol

[markm]

So, anyone actually got any coiledcoins left?

Luke-Jr, how about you? Presumably you racked up quite a few of them during your attack?

Since dirt cheap cryptocurrencies are really fun for gamers to have fun with, players are interested in how much these things go for nowadays...

-MarkM-

[Luke-Jr]

So, anyone actually got any coiledcoins left?

Luke-Jr, how about you? Presumably you racked up quite a few of them during your attack?

Since dirt cheap cryptocurrencies are really fun for gamers to have fun with, players are interested in how much these things go for nowadays...

-MarkM-

Testnet works.

[markm]

Testnet works.

We gave up on using testnet for games a long long time ago, because of a chain-restart.

It does not matter if the game-coins in a game-character's pocket are worthless, but having them vanish from their pocket is not acceptable.

This is why we are trying to only use coins that are already secured by one or more hardcoded checkpoints. Antique coins of a "dead" (aka "darknet"?) chain are great for game use, as the more hardcoded checkpoints that have gone by the more confidence players have that if enough hashing power can ever be mobilised to bring them back out of the closet the coins their character has will still be in the blockchain.

-MarkM-

[bitcool]

sounds spooky

[markm]

Someone mentioned in a PPCoin thread they were having trouble compiling a copy of coiledcoind.

I don't know which one I am using, when I do "git pull" to see where I pull it from I get asked for username and password, so I think maybe whatever github repo I had been pulling it from is no longer up there or something.

I have archived the copy I am using, I would have added a checkpoint but my debug.log only shows some aux proofs of work found no normal ones and I am not sure if the aux ones would work as checkpoints.

Also, the thing totally lacks any checkpoints, the whole checkpoints array contents are commented out.

I have created a directory for CoiLedCoin at https://sourceforge.net/projects/galacticmilieu/files/

-MarkM-

[K1773R]

Someone mentioned in a PPCoin thread they were having trouble compiling a copy of coiledcoind.

I don't know which one I am using, when I do "git pull" to see where I pull it from I get asked for username and password, so I think maybe whatever github repo I had been pulling it from is no longer up there or something.

I have archived the copy I am using, I would have added a checkpoint but my debug.log only shows some aux proofs of work found no normal ones and I am not sure if the aux ones would work as checkpoints.

Also, the thing totally lacks any checkpoints, the whole checkpoints array contents are commented out.

I have created a directory for CoiLedCoin at https://sourceforge.net/projects/galacticmilieu/files/

-MarkM-

it was me:

CLC: auxpow.cpp:127: fatal error: opening dependency file obj/nogui/auxpow.d: File not found
CLC source from: https://github.com/Tittiez/coiledcoin <-- any other source?
GRP: success -> 2 connections lol

another question, whats this: http://sourceforge.net/projects/galacticmilieu/files/RUCoin/

[baggyp]

I don't particularly have any incentive to respond to the scammers that I foiled, given the significant cost (in time) to do so. Nor do I have any financial loss or care particularly if people want to stop mining on Eligius because they were in on the scam (or any other reason). I will clarify that Eligius miners were not adversely impacted by this, and that the CLC mining involved only adding data that I hashed myself to my own transactions; and I was careful to ensure that nobody lost any confirmed CLC. If any Eligius miner wishes to inquire further, I will take the time to answer specific to-the-point questions which are signmessage'd with an active (ie, has mined in the past week) Eligius payout address that has earned at least 2000 TBC (5.36870912 BTC) over all time.

Eligius is a Bitcoin mining pool and I am, as always, committed to doing my best to contribute to and protect the Bitcoin ecosystem. Pyramid schemes built upon forks of the Bitcoin software ultimately discredit and harm Bitcoin's reputation. I hope CoiledCoin will be the last of such scams now that it is clear there are people (not just myself) willing to stand up to them. Namecoin alone demonstrates a legitimate, innovative use of Bitcoin technology, and while I don't personally agree with their ideals/goals, I see it as a good thing for Bitcoin and worth cooperating with.

cablepair, regarding Devcoin, I don't see any reason to treat it as different from any other scamcoin. I will at least discuss it with you on IRC before doing anything other than mining it with the almost-unmodified (zero txn fee, zero post-maturity delay) Devcoin client.

P.S. While the opposition seem to be very venemous and vocal, I have gotten a lot more positive support from a head-count perspective.

This is better than I could ever imagine: religious freakery mixed with golden calf worship really produces comedy gold.

Godminer-Jr is warning you: if you have a nice little research chain it would be sad to see it unable to process transactions. It has been written on the tablets revealed on Mt.Sinai: Thou shalt have none other chains before mine (Deuteronomy 5:4-21).

[/quote

"Thou shalt not post in the necrotic threads of times forgotten... Unless it amuses thee." (Bagz 13:37)

[markm]

This chain has been humming along nicely lately, not a very high difficulty and you can merged-mine it so what the heck eh.

There are not enough reasonably well behaved merged-mine-able coins in existence to really see how many one could reasonably mine at once, but this one seems well-behaved so it doesn't hurt to include it in the merge.

(i0coin on the other hand tended to eat 20+% of my 8 gigs of RAM and since yesterday is for some reason now eating about 40% (40+% yesterday, 39.9% right now).

-MarkM-

[K1773R]

This chain has been humming along nicely lately, not a very high difficulty and you can merged-mine it so what the heck eh.

There are not enough reasonably well behaved merged-mine-able coins in existence to really see how many one could reasonably mine at once, but this one seems well-behaved so it doesn't hurt to include it in the merge.

(i0coin on the other hand tended to eat 20+% of my 8 gigs of RAM and since yesterday is for some reason now eating about 40% (40+% yesterday, 39.9% right now).

-MarkM-

im dropping i0coin soon, with every block it gets more insane (since the memleak in validating blocks). CLC is doing fine tou.

[iamrickrock]

Is there a qt client for this? I want to do some test mining on it.

[markm]

I suspect it pre-dates qt, as it uses multicoin, which was a system intended to let you design coins in the config file without having to hack the code. I think qt came along later.

Maybe though once it is on some exchanges people might manage to rustle up some spare coin to make a bounty for updating it to base in on bitcoin-qt...

-MarkM-