◈◈Bitcredit ◈◈ Migrating to UniQredit◈◈

[dragos_bdi]

Could this be adapted? The gitian conf files are in the DASH repo, maybe just a  find/replace of a few strings? I think you need to sign up as an Apple Developer to get the right OSX libs to plug in, they're not freely distributable. I know that you can't do it under Openbox, as it doesn't support subvirtualisation.

https://dashtalk.org/threads/how-to-gitian-build-dash-under-debian-jessie-using-lxc.5397/

I installed gcc 4.7, but now I have some problems with qt ...

[gavrilo77]

Wallet stopped to sync at 199999 block. Client i am using is RC 3. Any idea? I re synced from the beginning but still no sync.

Thanks

[sawa]

Same problem:

bitcredit-cli getinfo
{
    "version" : 301609,
    "protocolversion" : 70008,
    "walletversion" : 60000,
    "balance" :
    "darksend_balance" : 0.00000000,
    "blocks" : 199999,
    "timeoffset" : 0,
    "moneysupply" : 19594284.99810301,
    "connections" : 59,
    "proxy" : "",
    "difficulty" : 0.00001604,
    "testnet" : false,
    "keypoololdest" : 1440360763,
    "keypoolsize" : 2,
    "paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
    "relayfee" : 0.00001000,
    "errors" : ""
}

[debug.log]
...
2015-08-27 19:50:39 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader : block is marked invalid
2015-08-27 19:50:39 ERROR: invalid header received
2015-08-27 19:50:39 ProcessMessage(headers, 9702 bytes) FAILED peer=57
2015-08-27 19:50:43 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader : block is marked invalid
2015-08-27 19:50:43 ERROR: invalid header received
2015-08-27 19:50:43 ProcessMessage(headers, 9702 bytes) FAILED peer=44
2015-08-27 19:51:12 receive version message: /Section 32:0.30.16.8/: version 70008, blocks=200108, us=82.200.205.30:8877, peer=68, blockchain=Bitcredit
2015-08-27 19:51:12 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader : block is marked invalid
2015-08-27 19:51:12 ERROR: invalid header received
2015-08-27 19:51:12 ProcessMessage(headers, 9791 bytes) FAILED peer=68
2015-08-27 19:51:49 receive version message: /Section 32:0.30.16.8/: version 70008, blocks=200108, us=82.200.205.30:8877, peer=69, blockchain=Bitcredit
2015-08-27 19:51:49 Added time data, samples 22, offset -22 (+0 minutes)
2015-08-27 19:51:51 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader : block is marked invalid
2015-08-27 19:51:51 ERROR: invalid header received
2015-08-27 19:51:51 ProcessMessage(headers, 9791 bytes) FAILED peer=69
2015-08-27 19:51:51 ProcessMessages(addr, 31 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read(): end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
2015-08-27 19:51:51 ProcessMessage(addr, 31 bytes) FAILED peer=69
2015-08-27 19:52:14 receive version message: /Minato:0.30.16.8/: version 70008, blocks=200108, us=82.200.205.30:8877, peer=70, blockchain=Bitcredit
2015-08-27 19:52:14 Added time data, samples 23, offset +27 (+0 minutes)
2015-08-27 19:52:14 nTimeOffset = +0  (+0 minutes)
2015-08-27 19:52:14 ProcessMessages(addr, 31 bytes) : Exception 'CDataStream::read(): end of data' caught, normally caused by a message being shorter than its stated length
2015-08-27 19:52:14 ProcessMessage(addr, 31 bytes) FAILED peer=70
2015-08-27 19:52:14 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader : block is marked invalid
2015-08-27 19:52:14 ERROR: invalid header received
2015-08-27 19:52:14 ProcessMessage(headers, 9791 bytes) FAILED peer=70
...

[sawa]

On https://bittrex.com/Status

Inactve    BCR    200015    1    18 minutes    Fri Aug 28 2015 00:52:35 GMT+0600
Wallet under maintenance

So many peers with wallets version 0.30.16.8 https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bcr/#!network
Latest blocks - 50 BCR:

Block Height   Age   Transactions   Value Out   Difficulty   Extracted by
200126   2 minutes    1   50.0 BCR   0.0000   P2Pool
200125   2 minutes    1   50.0 BCR   0.0000   P2Pool
200124   3 minutes    1   50.0 BCR   0.0000   P2Pool
200123   3 minutes    1   50.0 BCR   0.0000   P2Pool
200122   5 minutes    1   50.0 BCR   0.0000   P2Pool

=> FORK

[thelonecrouton]

I think the RC had bidding scheduled to start at block 200000, my BN wallets (all 30.16.8 I think) seem to be fine/synced, and my local QT/daemon  compiled from the 30.16.8 Master branch a while back seems good too.

I don't think there's a fork, just the RC builds have stopped working...? Guess it depends what p2pool servers are running?

120 + Banknodes still active and being paid.

[thelonecrouton]

I've made a quick python script to semiautomagically take all the service reward inputs from my BNs and send them to a consolidation address, since the banknode conf. donation thing doesn't work. You give the script your bitcreditd path and whatever address you want the mining inputs sent to, unlock your wallet for 30 secs or whatever, then run the script and it sends 'em off 5 at a time, eg: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bcr/block.dws?200210.htm

I might expand it to 10 at a time but putting the createrawtransaction string together to pass to the daemon is a tedious business.

Should work with anything Bitcoin-derived, just eg. swap out the bitcreditd path for dashd. I'll post it when I've tested it a bit more and we've had some clarification on the current situation with block 200000/RC/syncing.

The hope is that it might help multiple-BN owners hoover up their earnings more easily, to create new BNs with. At least that's my plan.

[Bobekko]

What's the skinny on this one? Seems cheap given all the work going on. Why so?

[proletariat]

What's the skinny on this one? Seems cheap given all the work going on. Why so?

I'm going through all of the devs posts from the beginning to figure out what's going on and how it has been managed, not done with it yet but I suggest you do the same and try to clear your doubts after. Currently I'm in a state of "what the fuck have I been doing in other coins" this thing is a hidden gem with absolutely no hype, the dev is so passionate about his project and his work ethic is something I have not seen around here and has managed to get very smart people contributing to the code and ideas. ANN needs a revamp with things that are being worked on but also the same fact keeps unwanted people away IMO.

[thelonecrouton]

What's the skinny on this one? Seems cheap given all the work going on. Why so?

I'm going through all of the devs posts from the beginning to figure out what's going on and how it has been managed, not done with it yet but I suggest you do the same and try to clear your doubts after. Currently I'm in a state of "what the fuck have I been doing in other coins" this thing is a hidden gem with absolutely no hype, the dev is so passionate about his project and his work ethic is something I have not seen around here and has managed to get very smart people contributing to the code and ideas. ANN needs a revamp with things that are being worked on but also the same fact keeps unwanted people away IMO.

I think the only people left on BCT are the scammers chasing an ever dwindling population of marks and the die-hard supporters of a (very) few other projects that actually have some real development going on.

Nobody in the real world was ever interested, or ever will be, in digital tokens with absurdly high 'manufacturing' costs. The ideologues will never suss that out either, they'll be arguing about bloody block sizes until they grow old and die and the rest Planet Earth still won't care about a Ponzi scheme that needs petawatts of electricity to process a pitifully small number of transactions per second.

Bitcredit is bringing digital fluidity and physical assets together in as practical and useful a way as possible. Best of both worlds. When the bidding system is up and running I really don't think it will be long before there's a whole lot more interest from the 99.99999% of the world that hear about competitive PoW, laugh and move on. Pissing away money to utility and hardware companies does not lend a currency value.

Bitcoin has a blockchain backed by hot air. Bitcredit will have an assetchain.

[SockPuppetAccount]

What's the skinny on this one? Seems cheap given all the work going on. Why so?

Posting in this thread for the first time in a long, long time.  I noticed this coin early on in it's life, and was following all it's developments closely for a while.  The reason I haven't been active in this thread is probably for the same reasons that this coin is so cheap and getting such little attention.  There is SO much going on here, so much being done, so many updates, so much work and development that it can be hard to keep up with.  This is by no means a bad thing.  It is a direct effect of this coin having one of the most, if not THE most, dedicated developers in altcoins today.  He is just consistently pushing out update after update, commit after commit, and doing it all without any funding or an ICO.  Developers like this are practically extinct today.

So while I haven't posted here in a long time, I am still sitting on my stash of bitcredits and am glad to see the project evolving further.  This is absolutely THE hidden gem right under everyone's noses.

[LucD88]

The latest wallet gets stuck synchronizing at block 189981, even after starting the wallet with the -reindex parameter. Also when I try to close the wallet it gets stuck at the "Closing the Bitcredit Core wallet..." message, I have to kill the process.

Any clues?

EDIT:
I removed the files inside the data folder and started the wallet again. Whilst having just 1 connection to the network it took a while (~1 hour) but it synchronized a bit further this time. However, I'm stuck again:

{
"version" : 301609,
"protocolversion" : 70008,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"darksend_balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 199999,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"moneysupply" : 19594284.99810301,
"connections" : 1,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.00001604,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1440751523,
"keypoolsize" : 2,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"relayfee" : 0.00001000,
"errors" : ""
}

[gavrilo77]

The latest wallet gets stuck synchronizing at block 189981, even after starting the wallet with the -reindex parameter. Also when I try to close the wallet it gets stuck at the "Closing the Bitcredit Core wallet..." message, I have to kill the process.

Any clues?

EDIT:
I removed the files inside the data folder and started the wallet again. Whilst having just 1 connection to the network it took a while (~1 hour) but it synchronized a bit further this time. However, I'm stuck again:

{
"version" : 301609,
"protocolversion" : 70008,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"darksend_balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 199999,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"moneysupply" : 19594284.99810301,
"connections" : 1,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.00001604,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1440751523,
"keypoolsize" : 2,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"relayfee" : 0.00001000,
"errors" : ""
}

Same here

[sawa]

The problem is that many have not updated the wallet to the new version.

http://crypto.office-on-the.net:8776/ - new version of the wallet. Node is stopped
http://p2pool.website:8776 - new version of the wallet. Node is stopped
http://bcrp2pool.website:8776 - old version, Keep mining blocks with 50BCR value out.
Bitcredit Blockchain Explorer https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bcr/ - old version, shows blocks with 50BCR value out.

Dev, what are we gonna do?

[thelonecrouton]

The problem is that many have not updated the wallet to the new version.

http://crypto.office-on-the.net:8776/ - new version of the wallet. Node is stopped
http://p2pool.website:8776 - new version of the wallet. Node is stopped
http://bcrp2pool.website:8776 - old version, Keep mining blocks with 50BCR value out.
Bitcredit Blockchain Explorer https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bcr/ - old version, shows blocks with 50BCR value out.

Dev, what are we gonna do?

The old and current master branch builds work fine, it's the RC versions that have stopped syncing at block 199999, as the bidding system isn't finalised yet.

Block reward was never meant to change from 50 BCR AFAIK?

[sawa]

The problem is that many have not updated the wallet to the new version.

http://crypto.office-on-the.net:8776/ - new version of the wallet. Node is stopped
http://p2pool.website:8776 - new version of the wallet. Node is stopped
http://bcrp2pool.website:8776 - old version, Keep mining blocks with 50BCR value out.
Bitcredit Blockchain Explorer https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bcr/ - old version, shows blocks with 50BCR value out.

Dev, what are we gonna do?

The old and current master branch builds work fine, it's the RC versions that have stopped syncing at block 199999, as the bidding system isn't finalised yet.

Block reward was never meant to change from 50 BCR AFAIK?

From https://github.com/bitcreditscc/bicreditsnew/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1490

Code:

    if (nHeight> 199999){ 
		nSubsidy = 18* COIN;

[thelonecrouton]

The problem is that many have not updated the wallet to the new version.

http://crypto.office-on-the.net:8776/ - new version of the wallet. Node is stopped
http://p2pool.website:8776 - new version of the wallet. Node is stopped
http://bcrp2pool.website:8776 - old version, Keep mining blocks with 50BCR value out.
Bitcredit Blockchain Explorer https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bcr/ - old version, shows blocks with 50BCR value out.

Dev, what are we gonna do?

The old and current master branch builds work fine, it's the RC versions that have stopped syncing at block 199999, as the bidding system isn't finalised yet.

Block reward was never meant to change from 50 BCR AFAIK?

From https://github.com/bitcreditscc/bicreditsnew/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1490

Code:

    if (nHeight> 199999){ 
		nSubsidy = 18* COIN;

Haha, I've been thinking in terms of total daily emission this morning, plotting long term backing values, I'd forgotten about the actual superblocks. 

Guess we'll await instructions from the boss.

[bitcreditscc]

Hi

sorry, had some personal stuff to deal with. I'm going to take a look and figure out what's wrong. It may take a few hours.

[sawa]

I think that in this situation there are two options:
1. Make another fork. Then from 199999 block will turn on the new version of the protocol. And wallets of old and new versions will stop communicating.
2. Or cancel the upgrade and return to the older version of the core.

[gaazje]

I think that in this situation there are two options:
1. Make another fork. Then from 199999 block will turn on the new version of the protocol. And wallets of old and new versions will stop communicating.
2. Or cancel the upgrade and return to the older version of the core.

in that case I vote for opinion 2

[bitcreditscc]

I think that in this situation there are two options:
1. Make another fork. Then from 199999 block will turn on the new version of the protocol. And wallets of old and new versions will stop communicating.
2. Or cancel the upgrade and return to the older version of the core.

Hmmm, looking at things from my PoV, the pools are already upgraded according to hack_, the upgraded version works as expected..... i think we should force everyone to upgrade, as most of the stragglers are multiple BN owners who just do not want the hassle.

We had a similar situation where people tried to exploit the compatibility between upgrades , and i think we should forge ahead now like we did then.

I am going to release an minor update that cuts off old clients... If anyone disagrees, i'm open to discuss the issue for the next few hours, but after that we have to act decisively.