BTCD is no more

[paulthetafy]

aehm, any1 have the guts to arbitrage from cryptsy?  

After weeks, they finally just cancelled my withdraw request
If you are able to predict prices 3 weeks ahead then I highly suggest cryptsy for arbitraging, unless it is for more than 20 BTCD, those are blocked

How much btcd do you have stuck there on cryptsy? Is there any hints of weird behavior going on other than incompetence? Did they screw up somehow and don't have the btcd to cover depositers funds? How much of the total btcd do they hold? What is the significance of the btcd funds you have stuck on bter and their importance in relation to supernet?

Serious questions.

I have 4000 BTCD in cryptsy. The only way to get it out seems to be to sell it and withdraw the BTC and repurchase
I certainly dont have time for 200 withdraw requests

It appears to be total incompetence. I estimate that they have less than 10% of BTCD, probably only about 3%

The expected percentage of BTCD versus the SuperNET funding is 2% that is in bter. As soon as we get Trustees for BTCD, I will setup a regular sweep whenever the exposure gets too big

James

Bought around 1k couple of weeks ago at 9k and withdrew immediately without any problems. All my bots are also having no issues whatsoever withdrawing different cryptos (including BTCD) over the API to trusted addresses.

Does that include withdrawals within the last 24 hours?  I have 27 of them stuck now

[TheWhale]

Wallet Issues

I'm also having issues with the BTCD wallet. Works fine on one computer, doesn't sync on my other computer. I've installed the new wallet and put in the .conf file and everything.

[jl777]

Wallet Issues

I'm also having issues with the BTCD wallet. Works fine on one computer, doesn't sync on my other computer. I've installed the new wallet and put in the .conf file and everything.

there is new version
did you get it from a few hours ago

[TheWhale]

Wallet Issues

I'm also having issues with the BTCD wallet. Works fine on one computer, doesn't sync on my other computer. I've installed the new wallet and put in the .conf file and everything.

there is new version
did you get it from a few hours ago

Yeah I just installed it (20 minutes ago) from the top. Uninstalled the antivirus and everything on the computer that is having issues. It just won't sync at all. 

[jd1959]

I'm running v1.0.0.0-g32a928e my staking seems screwy my weight = balance without decimal place. Yesterday it said 26 days now it says 33 days...... Just doesn't look right

Also indicates fully up to date then anything up to 1K+ blocks behind...then up to date...repeat infinitely

Jon  

Edit: might be out of line...but could it have anything to do with stake holders splitting there stake into multiple address's creating bloat on the blockchain ?

[Breasal]

The telepod idea does seem very interesting, especially if the anonymity scheme it uses is better than coin mixing and ring sigs. I had a brief look at the way it works and it is pretty hard to understand, the white paper could use some diagrams. But I would be interested in seeing how compatible it is with the mini-blockchain scheme, keeping in mind that the mini-blockchain scheme does not use scripts at all and BTCD apparently has full turing complete scripting.

EDIT: ok well I think I understand it a bit better now, but I can't really understand why this isn't just a long winded way of making a normal tx. It seems to ensure that a new address will always be made for receiving payments, which is great for anonymity, but generating new addresses for receiving payments isn't exactly difficult to do without an elaborate system like this. Maybe I'm still not fully grasping the concept.

EDIT: also worth noting is that we actually discourage the use of sending coins to addresses which haven't been seen by the network before, because it increases the size of the account tree. To help prevent dust from bloating up the account tree we don't allow the output value to be lower than the tx fee if the receiving address doesn't exist in the account tree.

Sounds like syncing issues are taking over the thread but I x-post this anyway from the XCN (mini-blockchain coin) thread as I begin to think about the teleport tech more. It has been interesting to re-read the teleporting paper and re-think how teleport will actually happen. Not to introduce skepticism but to better understand is why I ask.

I wonder how BTCD and teleport will deal with the possible massive blockchain bloating issue that can occur with all of the proposed multi-level sigs? Also how to deal with all of the "dust" from sending to addresses that have not been seen by the network? (these ideas are from bitfreak! from XCN thread but I too am curious how teleport will handle these issues) Please correct me if I am way off.

[jl777]

The telepod idea does seem very interesting, especially if the anonymity scheme it uses is better than coin mixing and ring sigs. I had a brief look at the way it works and it is pretty hard to understand, the white paper could use some diagrams. But I would be interested in seeing how compatible it is with the mini-blockchain scheme, keeping in mind that the mini-blockchain scheme does not use scripts at all and BTCD apparently has full turing complete scripting.

EDIT: ok well I think I understand it a bit better now, but I can't really understand why this isn't just a long winded way of making a normal tx. It seems to ensure that a new address will always be made for receiving payments, which is great for anonymity, but generating new addresses for receiving payments isn't exactly difficult to do without an elaborate system like this. Maybe I'm still not fully grasping the concept.

EDIT: also worth noting is that we actually discourage the use of sending coins to addresses which haven't been seen by the network before, because it increases the size of the account tree. To help prevent dust from bloating up the account tree we don't allow the output value to be lower than the tx fee if the receiving address doesn't exist in the account tree.

Sounds like syncing issues are taking over the thread but I x-post this anyway from the XCN (mini-blockchain coin) thread as I begin to think about the teleport tech more. It has been interesting to re-read the teleporting paper and re-think how teleport will actually happen. Not to introduce skepticism but to better understand is why I ask.

I wonder how BTCD and teleport will deal with the possible massive blockchain bloating issue that can occur with all of the proposed multi-level sigs? Also how to deal with all of the "dust" from sending to addresses that have not been seen by the network? (these ideas are from bitfreak! from XCN thread but I too am curious how teleport will handle these issues) Please correct me if I am way off.

The the M of N fragments are constructed and reconstructed offblockchain
the usage of addresses will not change the blockchain as BTCD isnt doing the miniblockchain thing. When you send to an address it takes the same space on the blockchain whether it is a new one or not. Now, if we are leaving behind utxo, there could be some extract RAM usage, but cloning totally spends all inputs, so this is not an issue.

The one thing that does increase the size a bit is using standard denominations, so sending 8 would be 5 + 1 + 1 + 1 or 4 inputs and outputs instead of 1 input, 1 outputs (incl change). But if you are sending 10 then it will actually save a bit of space due to not needing change output

[Finley]

Just one question.
When we release Teleport ?

[jl777]

Just one question.
When we release Teleport ?

I would have to stop goofing off so much and get back to coding a good solid stretch at a time, I estimate 1 week to beta IF I can avoid having to deal with fires.

I solved the escrow issue today and that was the last major thing for the SuperNET, so from here it should be pretty smooth running

James

[chicken65]

James,

Would Neoscoin make a good candidate for Supernet/Teleport?
I cant see why it wouldn't, but im no expert by any stretch...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=757984.0

[McDoxy]

James,

Would Neoscoin make a good candidate for Supernet/Teleport?
I cant see why it wouldn't, but im no expert by any stretch...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=757984.0

I would say people should stop asking James about this... it only creates unnecessary pumps if James answers anything posivitely. If you think a coin should join the superNET convince the developers to apply through the official application process. That's what it's for.

[LOL1993]

Just one question.
When we release Teleport ?

I would have to stop goofing off so much and get back to coding a good solid stretch at a time, I estimate 1 week to beta IF I can avoid having to deal with fires.

I solved the escrow issue today and that was the last major thing for the SuperNET, so from here it should be pretty smooth running

James

Good job!Finally we can release our core function

[chicken65]

James,

Would Neoscoin make a good candidate for Supernet/Teleport?
I cant see why it wouldn't, but im no expert by any stretch...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=757984.0

I would say people should stop asking James about this... it only creates unnecessary pumps if James answers anything posivitely. If you think a coin should join the superNET convince the developers to apply through the official application process. That's what it's for.

I dont know if the coin is an ideal candidate. Thats why Im asking.

[Breasal]

The the M of N fragments are constructed and reconstructed offblockchain
the usage of addresses will not change the blockchain as BTCD isnt doing the miniblockchain thing. When you send to an address it takes the same space on the blockchain whether it is a new one or not. Now, if we are leaving behind utxo, there could be some extract RAM usage, but cloning totally spends all inputs, so this is not an issue.

The one thing that does increase the size a bit is using standard denominations, so sending 8 would be 5 + 1 + 1 + 1 or 4 inputs and outputs instead of 1 input, 1 outputs (incl change). But if you are sending 10 then it will actually save a bit of space due to not needing change output

This is very good, thanks for clarifying.

[torshammer]

James,

Would Neoscoin make a good candidate for Supernet/Teleport?
I cant see why it wouldn't, but im no expert by any stretch...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=757984.0

I would say people should stop asking James about this... it only creates unnecessary pumps if James answers anything posivitely. If you think a coin should join the superNET convince the developers to apply through the official application process. That's what it's for.

I dont know if the coin is an ideal candidate. Thats why Im asking.

The criteria have been stated a number of times on this thread and on the supernet page. Unique features, involved community etc. Read and ye shall find.

And people really need to stop asking here - it smells of fake pump, harms your coin, and will not be answered anyhow.

[31049685]

Yeah this is the thread of BTCD.Stop asking xxcoin can join the supernet or something.Let's talk about BTCD!

[threecats]

Old wallet not working, new one same problem. Can someone please post a step by step of how to replace the wallet, one that woeks? Thx : -)

[paulthetafy]

Old wallet not working, new one same problem. Can someone please post a step by step of how to replace the wallet, one that woeks? Thx : -)

Is it just not synching?  Do you have the BitcoinDark.conf file with the AddNode lines specified in the OP?

[Cassius]

I've not replaced my wallet for a while (probably a couple of months) as it's been working fine. I assume I need to I've just been waiting for the NXT-inside version or multi-SuperWallet.

I assume the onion routing used by Teleport can/will be used for other functions. I think I read something about private messaging. But what about a mini-BitcoinDarkWeb? Is that possible or on the cards? It would add to the full SuperNet crypto ecosystem.

[#BiT_pOL]

Old wallet not working, new one same problem. Can someone please post a step by step of how to replace the wallet, one that woeks? Thx : -)

same problem ... blocking sync near 1199 ..