[ANN][1CR] 1CRedit Coin Relaunch

[lara59236]

whats after??

[SmallVern]

Check out our roadmap to see what we're working on next!

https://twitter.com/1CreditOfficial/status/783700334921351168

[aamarket]

So everybody is eagerly waiting for 20th October big news. But as somebody above mentioned, the stable blockchain needs to be a priority.

[SmallVern]

Exactly. The blockchain actually has been somewhat stabilized, transactions just can take a couple hours to get through. There's no risk of losing your 1CR if you send it through the blockchain though. We're moving full-speed ahead towards our online arcade, set to release on October 20th!

1CRLaunch.com

[almightyruler]

Exactly. The blockchain actually has been somewhat stabilized, transactions just can take a couple hours to get through. There's no risk of losing your 1CR if you send it through the blockchain though. We're moving full-speed ahead towards our online arcade, set to release on October 20th!

?? Is there a new blockchain? The one I'm on has the last block from 4 days ago, at height 59729. Current difficulty is about 6000

[myriadforce]

Exactly. The blockchain actually has been somewhat stabilized, transactions just can take a couple hours to get through. There's no risk of losing your 1CR if you send it through the blockchain though. We're moving full-speed ahead towards our online arcade, set to release on October 20th!

?? Is there a new blockchain? The one I'm on has the last block from 4 days ago, at height 59729. Current difficulty is about 6000

Join the Slack group - it's where all the 1CR action is -
https://1cr.slack.com

[almightyruler]

Exactly. The blockchain actually has been somewhat stabilized, transactions just can take a couple hours to get through. There's no risk of losing your 1CR if you send it through the blockchain though. We're moving full-speed ahead towards our online arcade, set to release on October 20th!

?? Is there a new blockchain? The one I'm on has the last block from 4 days ago, at height 59729. Current difficulty is about 6000

Join the Slack group - it's where all the 1CR action is -
https://1cr.slack.com

I don't mean the "relaunch" - I mean the chain as it stands now.

When I posted the above message, the height was 59729, and the block at that height was 4 days old.

Now according to the blockchain it has been regularly extended over the past few days, instead of stalling for 4 days with zero blocks as it did from my POV...

Is the network forking and then correcting itself, or is it some sort of hidden block attack? I note that this is not the first time that mystery blocks and reorgs have been mentioned in this thread.

Code:

2016-10-06 11:36:38 REORGANIZE: Disconnect 21 blocks; 2833d4be08b004cb2ae6bbb2bd5a31b0d955a7cb7050caffdf1912d703a8a6de..
2016-10-06 11:36:38 REORGANIZE: Connect 441 blocks; ..e8a80a47d46c46854eb229b626d662aa0bb2b80faa2a5eed8385bb5aa7250651

There's the correction... drop 21 blocks from the top, add 441. 

[welshy9]

Pool 


http://cryptominers.online:8080/getting_started

Configure Your Miners

stratum+tcp://cryptominers.online:3002 -u YOUR WALLET -p x

ports vardriff

Port: 3001, Diff: 8 Port: 3002, Diff: 256 Port: 3003, Diff: 18192

Happy Mining  Payouts are every 10 mins after blocks has been confirmed

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Cryptoman82 - Skype - cryptominers.online

[no-ice-please]

Poloniex is going to be preventing deposits for how long?

[SmallVern]

We're not sure how long deposits will be disabled, but we're tradable on 2 other exchanges if you're mining. Check out Tradesatoshi.com and Novaexchange. We're actually seeing decent volume on Trade Satoshi, with us being their 2nd highest volume coin usually.

I know that that's no fix or solution to your question about Poloniex, and it would be ideal if miners were able to deposit into Poloniex. However, since we can't control this, depositing on the other two exchanges are possibilities.

[almightyruler]

With such massive corrections there's potential for double spends; I don't think Poloniex will be re-enabling it in a hurry. Here's the latest reorg, replacing 809 previously mined blocks with 889 different blocks:

Code:

2016-10-12 09:56:29 REORGANIZE: Disconnect 809 blocks; b4a55ae0785d43ba05f086589f1c1d57a50358fcd3ffc07be5b2ac1f439f5d27..
2016-10-12 09:56:29 REORGANIZE: Connect 889 blocks; ..0b2cffde39f6ab3cc34afd113f43a9d4bf2ffe85a6d3dc1e3c2e91e819b9b19e

I changed the client to log which IPs blocks are received from. This shows there are 3 different IPs which are sending large numbers of blocks in a short space of time. I suspect at least one of these is doing hidden mining or some other form of attack. The other two could also be part of it, or they could just be relaying new blocks from the attacker.

[no-ice-please]

With such massive corrections there's potential for double spends; I don't think Poloniex will be re-enabling it in a hurry. Here's the latest reorg, replacing 809 previously mined blocks with 889 different blocks:

Code:

2016-10-12 09:56:29 REORGANIZE: Disconnect 809 blocks; b4a55ae0785d43ba05f086589f1c1d57a50358fcd3ffc07be5b2ac1f439f5d27..
2016-10-12 09:56:29 REORGANIZE: Connect 889 blocks; ..0b2cffde39f6ab3cc34afd113f43a9d4bf2ffe85a6d3dc1e3c2e91e819b9b19e

I changed the client to log which IPs blocks are received from. This shows there are 3 different IPs which are sending large numbers of blocks in a short space of time. I suspect at least one of these is doing hidden mining or some other form of attack. The other two could also be part of it, or they could just be relaying new blocks from the attacker.

I am totally confused, and am not a miner nor a tech person, and don't want to add confusion, but... the explorer at cryptoid shows two different protocols mining. Is the explorer watching two chains that are mining differently? Is it possible that rather than an "exploit" it is just two groups, each mining, with some heavy computers on one side or the other that thrash the network, though in a way that is visible, in which case the other computers on that network see the regular progression but the other network gets blindsided?

Here are the two groups https://chainz.cryptoid.info/1cr/#!network

70023
addnode=103.253.43.162
addnode=115.178.253.118
addnode=178.217.56.195
addnode=192.99.62.23
addnode=46.254.11.158
addnode=80.245.117.132
addnode=85.214.125.73
addnode=85.236.188.28
addnode=86.61.113.84
addnode=91.134.233.254
addnode=96.127.136.18

70024
addnode=109.94.0.77
addnode=162.208.11.59
addnode=203.20.114.252
addnode=46.226.109.16
addnode=5.189.144.97
addnode=84.200.210.130
addnode=84.200.7.231
addnode=88.206.141.110
addnode=91.121.77.74
addnode=94.175.27.83
addnode=98.115.147.74


Are they two separate mining groups forming two chains? They are spread among a lot of countries
Germany
Russian Federation
United States of America
Sweden
Canada
Australia
Hong Kong
Indonesia
United Kingdom
Ukraine
Slovenia
France
Bulgaria
Luxembourg

I have no clue about what's going on and don't want to provide cover for an exploit but I also want to be sure what is actually going on.

Is it possible the "3 different IPs which are sending large numbers of blocks" are just the 3 most powerful computers on one of the two protocols? If there is an exploit then it has to be dealt with, but if it is not an exploit, just two groups on different wallets then somebody has to fix things so every computer sees all the blocks of both protocols.

[Coin_trader]

in order to get the attention of those non-english traders or investors, this ANN must translate into some other languages. there are a lot of translators in this forum, we translate everything for a bounty, if in case you need one, i can do the Filipino translation.

[almightyruler]

With such massive corrections there's potential for double spends; I don't think Poloniex will be re-enabling it in a hurry. Here's the latest reorg, replacing 809 previously mined blocks with 889 different blocks:

Code:

2016-10-12 09:56:29 REORGANIZE: Disconnect 809 blocks; b4a55ae0785d43ba05f086589f1c1d57a50358fcd3ffc07be5b2ac1f439f5d27..
2016-10-12 09:56:29 REORGANIZE: Connect 889 blocks; ..0b2cffde39f6ab3cc34afd113f43a9d4bf2ffe85a6d3dc1e3c2e91e819b9b19e

I changed the client to log which IPs blocks are received from. This shows there are 3 different IPs which are sending large numbers of blocks in a short space of time. I suspect at least one of these is doing hidden mining or some other form of attack. The other two could also be part of it, or they could just be relaying new blocks from the attacker.

I am totally confused, and am not a miner nor a tech person, and don't want to add confusion, but... the explorer at cryptoid shows two different protocols mining. Is the explorer watching two chains that are mining differently? Is it possible that rather than an "exploit" it is just two groups, each mining, with some heavy computers on one side or the other that thrash the network, though in a way that is visible, in which case the other computers on that network see the regular progression but the other network gets blindsided?

In general, minor differences in protocol versions shouldn't affect the blockchain, just interconnections between peers. The client may check for a minimum protocol version, and reject (disconnect) any peers that try to communicate with one that is too old (1credit does this; any peer presenting a version below 70023 is disconnected.) If there are people who are still using older clients this could, in theory, create two split networks with separate blockchains, but the only way I can think the two could ever cross (and fight it out for best chain) is if someone upgraded their older client, and presented the "stale" blockchain to the rest of the network.

There is another aspect to the odd reorganisations and that is that the miner seems to be incredibly powerful, solving blocks with very high difficulty in a matter of minutes. For example:

Code:

12-Oct-2016 12:30:55 height: 60616  ....
12-Oct-2016 12:34:52 height: 60617  difficulty: 1065.01468489  tx: 1
12-Oct-2016 12:41:42 height: 60618  difficulty: 3591.31622451  tx: 1
12-Oct-2016 12:50:31 height: 60619  difficulty: 1133.15787057  tx: 1
12-Oct-2016 12:56:14 height: 60620  difficulty: 1038.8069821  tx: 1
12-Oct-2016 13:09:35 height: 60621  difficulty: 1042.25380468  tx: 1

That's 5 blocks over 39 minutes. The average difficulty is about 1573 and the average spacing is about 7.8 minutes (468 seconds).

At difficulty 1573 you'll solve 0.01278 blocks per 86400 seconds per MH

So you'll solve 0.01278 * (468 / 86400) = 0.000069225 blocks per 468 seconds per MH

To solve 1 block within 468 seconds requires (1 / 0.000069225) = 14445 MH/s. That's 14 gigahashes!

Now these calcs are fairly rough, and not all blocks are difficulty 1000+, but it still does show there's something funny going on. Either someone has a lot of power and for some reason they like messing with this coin, or there's some sort of timing element involved with the attack.

[golfhuso]

Im here for the pump  

[no-ice-please]

Im here for the pump  

It's already $456k.   In the short term obviously somebody put a lot of money into buying up Poloniex. If they are working to make a solid longterm project then 1cr could do well. it might be just a short pump though.

The big issue is whether the connection that the game has to the coin economy is sustainable.

The best design is something like huc or the original moto where a person mines by playing a game. There is a payoff for playing and it is sustainable because the 'cost' is actually just mining.

The other gamecoins depend mostly on attracting people by making 'popular' games but the underlying economies there are kind of weak long term probably.

With all the money somebody has invested in this coin, they could pay huc devs or other devs to build an algorithm that continues a steady emission of 1 coin per block, but with mining done by players, if somebody wants to 'mine', they just play the game. There are a lot of challenges involved long term in a project like that but some huge opportunities too. have to wait and see what Vern has done.

-

add
As of right now 8:52:47 AM utc Sunday, October 16, 2016 the explorer shows 4 days without a block. The last block was
Block #60710
Hash    54fe6e256eca1d81bd6f84661b09cdaa5f01dd03402f271ea2549f6492e286da
Date/Time   2016-10-13 16:05:42
Transactions   1 0.2 kB
Value Out   1.0 1CR
Difficulty   4189.79652439
Outstanding   60,710.0 1CR
Created   1.0 1CR

So from Oct 13 16:05:42 to Oct 16 8:52:47 there have been no blocks found.



http://imgur.com/a/xKkju

[almightyruler]

So from Oct 13 16:05:42 to Oct 16 8:52:47 there have been no blocks found.

Last week the network was stuck at block 59729 for about 4 1/2 days, then suddenly everything "corrected," and the blockchain now shows there were apparently about 600 blocks regularly and consistently mined over that period.

Thing is, my debug log shows that the 17 different peer IPs which connected with me over that 4 1/2 day period all presented 59729 as their height, so it wasn't like my client was the only one that thought the network was stalled. The "network" from the point of view of our 18 clients was not moving at all, until something rewrote the blockchain history.

I expect something similar will happen this time.

[no-ice-please]

We are back to the mystery address CLHHW7MTXNjj4WFqkSzXtCNxF59xhZeWU6 https://chainz.cryptoid.info/1cr/address.dws?CLHHW7MTXNjj4WFqkSzXtCNxF59xhZeWU6.htm
and its associated address CLuu5ymUnn3GtzJkxRG5cWbtQSh2HoRP9y https://chainz.cryptoid.info/1cr/address.dws?CLuu5ymUnn3GtzJkxRG5cWbtQSh2HoRP9y.htm

Some questions I have.

1) Why would anybody mine 1cr when they know that the field is so uneven? That computer owns the network. What is the point of other computers mining?

2) The exploit, if it is that, seems to involve a fake difficulty. Is there a legitimate reason why the coin was created with an unstable difficulty, or could the design have been to deliberately allow an exploit?

3) Can a person see the progression of connections outward from CLHH... to the computers that propagate the 'new' chain? Does the debug log have that information?

4) Why is somebody investing money in the coins at Poloniex, churning volume, when there is a big question about the coin. They have probably spent several btc just on polo commissions. Would it be better to ask polo to halt trading until the network issue has been resolved? At this rate the price will be 1 btc soon, which is great since I own hundreds of 1cr, but until the issue is solved, any and all discussion and development may be just unwittingly promoting a mystery.

5) Regarding development, I hope it is real, but why the effort to hide details? Vern is obviously a little more gifted with a lot of things than the average joe. I hope development is legitimate but there have to be common sense measures to limit pumpiness when the network is owned and development is secretive.

add
polo seems to have 32,764 1CR, and if development is done well the market cap is certainly still in the low range of good game coins. So it's unlikely 1 pumper has bought up Poloniex unless it's Donald Trump.

-

This is very off topic, but it baffles me. There are lots of game coins that have risen rapidly lately, but valuations do not seem to make a lot of sense.
HUC / 100% known developers / strong history / market cap usd 300k http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/huntercoin/

1CR / development unknown / market cap usd 500k  http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/1credit/

GAME / Shaky history / a lot of unknowns / market cap usd 9,000k http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/gamecredits/

And there are a lot of new smaller coins just coming out.

Game coins that connect some human activity to the currency are going to be valuable, but the coins will not be practical until human activity is directly involved in creating the coins. So far only huc has taken that step.

add2
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/1cr/address.dws?CLHHW7MTXNjj4WFqkSzXtCNxF59xhZeWU6.htm



http://imgur.com/a/DLpSV

[almightyruler]

Wait, wut? All of the mystery miner blocks are credited to the exact same address? This just gets stranger.

(I thought that using a single address may have been another "innovation" from the dev to encourage miners to hodl, but in my transaction list the mined blocks go to a different address each time, as one would expect.)

[no-ice-please]

Very possible I am just not understanding some basic thing about mining or am otherwise generally confused. I hope that somebody who understands this stuff can unjumblefuck the mining so that it produces steady blocks in a fair way, since that is what has given this coin an edge, and hopefully the game project Vern is working on will turn out to be legitimate. My brain has to regenerate for a while before I can look at that blockchain again.