[ANN] Bitcredit/CRE - first sidechain, claimable from Bitcoin, pow/pod

[GreydonIselmoe]

I'm sure we'll see more adoption once people start getting wind of it, and especially once the Bitcoin-Bitcredit dual client is released (ability to share single block chain files, send Bitcoin from bitcredit core)

[MRKLYE]

I'm sure we'll see more adoption once people start getting wind of it, and especially once the Bitcoin-Bitcredit dual client is released (ability to share single block chain files, send Bitcoin from bitcredit core)

+1. I think that once the dual compatibility comes out a majority of BTC users might convert. Instead of running bitcoin-qt users could run the Bitcredit-qt wallet and have an extra incentive to keep the wallet running. Excited to see what happens.

[GreydonIselmoe]

I'm sure we'll see more adoption once people start getting wind of it, and especially once the Bitcoin-Bitcredit dual client is released (ability to share single block chain files, send Bitcoin from bitcredit core)

+1. I think that once the dual compatibility comes out a majority of BTC users might convert. Instead of running bitcoin-qt users could run the Bitcredit-qt wallet and have an extra incentive to keep the wallet running. Excited to see what happens.

Agreed! As of tomorrow I will start to set up a dice game for CRE, and add some extra usability (is that even a word?) to the coin!

[marilyn4325]

All sources can be found at https://github.com/gabriel-eiger/bitcredit.

I tried to build it on my Mac, but it stops compiling with this error: http://pastebin.com/QkKx5QM6 Google finds some postings about it, but you already managed to build it, so maybe you know what is wrong. I used the instructions in doc/build-osx and MacPorts.

[Gabriel Eiger]

All sources can be found at https://github.com/gabriel-eiger/bitcredit.

I tried to build it on my Mac, but it stops compiling with this error: http://pastebin.com/QkKx5QM6 Google finds some postings about it, but you already managed to build it, so maybe you know what is wrong. I used the instructions in doc/build-osx and MacPorts.

Have not seen that particular problem before. It has not been tested with MacPorts, only with brew. I'm guessing that it has something to do with the  dependencies, maybe boost?

Will look into it a little more in a few hours.

[Gabriel Eiger]

Call for vote

Some discussions have been going on in the last few days regarding the name of the coin. Unfortunately, there is another coin with some odd properties that as far as I understand started out as Bitcredits and then changed their name to Bitcredit.

At the time of the launch of Bitcredit/CRE we were not aware of the existence of a coin with the same name.

Now, this wouldn't affect us that much if it wasn't the case that they seem to have some odd properties of the coin, premined coins and what seems like some rather sketchy scheme to take places of banks.

I have come to consider that this may hurt adoption of CRE in the long run, for two reasons:
- They have existed longer, meaning that awareness on Bitcointalk is higher on that coin and its' properties. This may affect the image of CRE.
- When searching the web for Bitcredit, CRE is almost impossible to separate from the other coin. With the properties that it has, this may affect the image of CRE in a bad way.

This is therefore a suggestion to update the name to "Credits" instead. I can see two upsides to this:
a. No need to change graphics or the shortname (CRE).
b. In the long run it's probably a better, more generic name, making a world wide impact easier.

To make this change, we need to know that:
a. The majority of the current users who are involved agrees with the name change
b. Make sure that it does not interfere with some other project.

Please voice your opinions, both for and against!

[GreydonIselmoe]

Call for vote

Some discussions have been going on in the last few days regarding the name of the coin. Unfortunately, there is another coin with some odd properties that as far as I understand started out as Bitcredits and then changed their name to Bitcredit.

At the time of the launch of Bitcredit/CRE we were not aware of the existence of a coin with the same name.

Now, this wouldn't affect us that much if it wasn't the case that they seem to have some odd properties of the coin, premined coins and what seems like some rather sketchy scheme to take places of banks.

I have come to consider that this may hurt adoption of CRE in the long run, for two reasons:
- They have existed longer, meaning that awareness on Bitcointalk is higher on that coin and its' properties. This may affect the image of CRE.
- When searching the web for Bitcredit, CRE is almost impossible to separate from the other coin. With the properties that it has, this may affect the image of CRE in a bad way.

This is therefore a suggestion to update the name to "Credits" instead. I can see two upsides to this:
a. No need to change graphics or the shortname (CRE).
b. In the long run it's probably a better, more generic name, making a world wide impact easier.

To make this change, we need to know that:
a. The majority of the current users who are involved agrees with the name change
b. Make sure that it does not interfere with some other project.

Please voice your opinions, both for and against!

My vote is for the the name change. Credits would be the most minimal change we could get away with, but might actually be too generic. If someone were to google search "credits" there would be a huge number of results before we even saw something related to crypto currencies.

TL:DR credits is okay, but my ideal vote would go towards a name like Creditcoin or Depositcoin idk

[marilyn4325]

All sources can be found at https://github.com/gabriel-eiger/bitcredit.

I tried to build it on my Mac, but it stops compiling with this error: http://pastebin.com/QkKx5QM6 Google finds some postings about it, but you already managed to build it, so maybe you know what is wrong. I used the instructions in doc/build-osx and MacPorts.

Have not seen that particular problem before. It has not been tested with MacPorts, only with brew. I'm guessing that it has something to do with the  dependencies, maybe boost?

Will look into it a little more in a few hours.

I tried it with "brew", too. I installed a new "brew" version as explained at brew.sh, then the packages with brew and then a clean "git clone https://github.com/gabriel-eiger/bitcredit.git" and "cd bitcredit". Then "./autogen.sh", "./configure --with-gui" and then "make". Same problem. BTW: The instructions at https://github.com/gabriel-eiger/bitcredit/blob/master/doc/build-osx.md says, I should type "git clone https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git" and "cd bitcoin", which of course is wrong.

[GreydonIselmoe]

All sources can be found at https://github.com/gabriel-eiger/bitcredit.

I tried to build it on my Mac, but it stops compiling with this error: http://pastebin.com/QkKx5QM6 Google finds some postings about it, but you already managed to build it, so maybe you know what is wrong. I used the instructions in doc/build-osx and MacPorts.

Have not seen that particular problem before. It has not been tested with MacPorts, only with brew. I'm guessing that it has something to do with the  dependencies, maybe boost?

Will look into it a little more in a few hours.

I tried it with "brew", too. I installed a new "brew" version as explained at brew.sh, then the packages with brew and then a clean "git clone https://github.com/gabriel-eiger/bitcredit.git" and "cd bitcredit". Then "./autogen.sh", "./configure --with-gui" and then "make". Same problem. BTW: The instructions at https://github.com/gabriel-eiger/bitcredit/blob/master/doc/build-osx.md says, I should type "git clone https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git" and "cd bitcoin", which of course is wrong.

Have you tried it without the "--with-gui" command? I know little about homebrew, but the least I can do it try to see any dissimilarities between his tested build instructions and yours!

[Gabriel Eiger]

All sources can be found at https://github.com/gabriel-eiger/bitcredit.

I tried to build it on my Mac, but it stops compiling with this error: http://pastebin.com/QkKx5QM6 Google finds some postings about it, but you already managed to build it, so maybe you know what is wrong. I used the instructions in doc/build-osx and MacPorts.

Have not seen that particular problem before. It has not been tested with MacPorts, only with brew. I'm guessing that it has something to do with the  dependencies, maybe boost?

Will look into it a little more in a few hours.

I tried it with "brew", too. I installed a new "brew" version as explained at brew.sh, then the packages with brew and then a clean "git clone https://github.com/gabriel-eiger/bitcredit.git" and "cd bitcredit". Then "./autogen.sh", "./configure --with-gui" and then "make". Same problem. BTW: The instructions at https://github.com/gabriel-eiger/bitcredit/blob/master/doc/build-osx.md says, I should type "git clone https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git" and "cd bitcoin", which of course is wrong.

Both of these mention macports, one of them clang. I remember some build problems with clang, not the one you are having, but still. Can't remember what the problem where though.
http://marc.info/?l=macports-tickets&m=137655484104645&w=2
https://trac.macports.org/ticket/40002

If you test the brew route, have you done:
brew upgrade
brew update

and tried again after that?

[Gabriel Eiger]

All sources can be found at https://github.com/gabriel-eiger/bitcredit.

I tried to build it on my Mac, but it stops compiling with this error: http://pastebin.com/QkKx5QM6 Google finds some postings about it, but you already managed to build it, so maybe you know what is wrong. I used the instructions in doc/build-osx and MacPorts.

Have not seen that particular problem before. It has not been tested with MacPorts, only with brew. I'm guessing that it has something to do with the  dependencies, maybe boost?

Will look into it a little more in a few hours.

I tried it with "brew", too. I installed a new "brew" version as explained at brew.sh, then the packages with brew and then a clean "git clone https://github.com/gabriel-eiger/bitcredit.git" and "cd bitcredit". Then "./autogen.sh", "./configure --with-gui" and then "make". Same problem. BTW: The instructions at https://github.com/gabriel-eiger/bitcredit/blob/master/doc/build-osx.md says, I should type "git clone https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git" and "cd bitcoin", which of course is wrong.

This:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3228
references problems with clang and boost. Although not the same problem as you seem to be having, it might be related. I think it was the recompiling of boost from source that solved it for me, but not quite sure. Search for "If you're using Homebrew, the easiest way to workaround this issue is to compile the Boost library from source using the brew command" in the article that I linked.

[MRKLYE]

Call for vote

Some discussions have been going on in the last few days regarding the name of the coin. Unfortunately, there is another coin with some odd properties that as far as I understand started out as Bitcredits and then changed their name to Bitcredit.

At the time of the launch of Bitcredit/CRE we were not aware of the existence of a coin with the same name.

Now, this wouldn't affect us that much if it wasn't the case that they seem to have some odd properties of the coin, premined coins and what seems like some rather sketchy scheme to take places of banks.

I have come to consider that this may hurt adoption of CRE in the long run, for two reasons:
- They have existed longer, meaning that awareness on Bitcointalk is higher on that coin and its' properties. This may affect the image of CRE.
- When searching the web for Bitcredit, CRE is almost impossible to separate from the other coin. With the properties that it has, this may affect the image of CRE in a bad way.

This is therefore a suggestion to update the name to "Credits" instead. I can see two upsides to this:
a. No need to change graphics or the shortname (CRE).
b. In the long run it's probably a better, more generic name, making a world wide impact easier.

To make this change, we need to know that:
a. The majority of the current users who are involved agrees with the name change
b. Make sure that it does not interfere with some other project.

Please voice your opinions, both for and against!

I had a feeling this issue would come up in the future.

Renaming Bitcredit (CRE) would probably be a welcomed fix to limit the confusion with Bitcredits (BCR) which is clearly a completely idea all together.

Not sure if renaming it to "Credits" without a large amount of SEO is a great idea though. As mentioned above it might be buried on google.


On the mining side of things we've seen quite a difficulty jump while seeing a fairly large decrease in overall network hash rate.
For those of you still mining I applaud you, as the deposit rate increases and the network difficulty raises it will be interesting to see who stays in the mining game.

[marilyn4325]

Not sure if renaming it to "Credits" without a large amount of SEO is a great idea though. As mentioned above it might be buried on google.

Yeah, like CLAM

I like "Credits", this is always used in science fiction movies. Another idea would be "latinum" (important property: non-replicable), but would cause even more SEO problems, and probably even copyright problems.

[marilyn4325]

This:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3228
references problems with clang and boost. Although not the same problem as you seem to be having, it might be related. I think it was the recompiling of boost from source that solved it for me, but not quite sure. Search for "If you're using Homebrew, the easiest way to workaround this issue is to compile the Boost library from source using the brew command" in the article that I linked.

I tried to compile boost (although it is a template class library, which means most of it are just header files, not much to compile), but it didn't work.

Turns out it used the boost installation from MacPorts, which was version 1.58. Brew wants to install boost 1.57, but the other installation was in the path first. I uninstalled the MacPorts boost installation and now it works, the Qt client is running and synchronizing with the networ. So there is some problem with boost version 1.58 and maybe the clang compiler, or some incompatibilities with the MacPorts boost installation, when using brew to install the rest. Someone should port it to C++11, then it should be possible to remove boost.

BTW, there are some serious compiler warnings, like using "false" for an argument to a function which expects "bool *" in main_tests.cpp and which is then converted to "NULL", which might be not what you have intended. And a lot signed/unsigned compare warning, which are possible attack points.

[Gabriel Eiger]

This:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3228
references problems with clang and boost. Although not the same problem as you seem to be having, it might be related. I think it was the recompiling of boost from source that solved it for me, but not quite sure. Search for "If you're using Homebrew, the easiest way to workaround this issue is to compile the Boost library from source using the brew command" in the article that I linked.

I tried to compile boost (although it is a template class library, which means most of it are just header files, not much to compile), but it didn't work.

Turns out it used the boost installation from MacPorts, which was version 1.58. Brew wants to install boost 1.57, but the other installation was in the path first. I uninstalled the MacPorts boost installation and now it works, the Qt client is running and synchronizing with the networ. So there is some problem with boost version 1.58 and maybe the clang compiler, or some incompatibilities with the MacPorts boost installation, when using brew to install the rest. Someone should port it to C++11, then it should be possible to remove boost.

BTW, there are some serious compiler warnings, like using "false" for an argument to a function which expects "bool *" in main_tests.cpp and which is then converted to "NULL", which might be not what you have intended. And a lot signed/unsigned compare warning, which are possible attack points.

Ok good to hear that you got it running.

Depending on your local versions of your libraries you may or may not get block script validation errors that may halt the blockchain sync. The way around that is either upgrading to the correct libraries or building a release version. Just telling you in case you run into problems.

Yes, there a compiler warnings and things that definitely needs improvement. If you want to have a stab at it you are quite welcome. Or just give pointers to weak spots, like you just did.

[peaseniz]

Glad to see the source code released hopefully it will bring more on board and get some good stuff going.

Also I agree with the name change to Credits as it would stop people getting it confused with that crap ICO coin. Keep up the good work and can't wait to see what the future has in store.

[GreydonIselmoe]

Glad to see the source code released hopefully it will bring more on board and get some good stuff going.

Also I agree with the name change to Credits as it would stop people getting it confused with that crap ICO coin. Keep up the good work and can't wait to see what the future has in store.

+1 . Signature campaign will be starting late tomorrow, hope to see you on board

[Gabriel Eiger]

Results of call for vote seems clear

Well, it seems as if the results of the vote are pointing in one clear direction - that the name will be changed to "Credits" instead of "Bitcredit", to avoid association with the other coin. Some discussion has occurred regarding exactly what the new name should be but in general almost everyone seems too like the name. The name change (or rather update) will hopefully even be a good thing.

If anyone has any objections, voice them quickly.

An announce will be done in this thread and a new "official" thread will be created as soon as the necessary preparations has been done.

[Gabriel Eiger]

With regards to the dropping networkhashps - I wouldn't think too much about it for a few weeks.

It occurred in direct relation to a large difficulty adjustment and the same day that the source where released. Unless someone turned off a CPU mining farm it's a very strange reaction to largely positive news.

I would contribute it to the way that the approximation calculation is done, I am not fully aware of how the algorithm for the calculation is affected by large difficulty adjustments. There's of course also the possibility of a calculation error in the code due to the changes that have been applied for CRE onto the Bitcoin code base.

But have a look for yourself at https://github.com/gabriel-eiger/bitcredit.

[Gabriel Eiger]

Repo has been renamed in preparation of name change:
https://github.com/credits-currency/credits