Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN] [888] [SCRYPT] OctoCoin ◦ The Power of Eight ◦ Don't Blink - page 91. (Read 297708 times)

sr. member
Activity: 344
Merit: 250
ALL IN!
Did someone really just sell 450k?  Grin
more to the point... somebody just bought 420k.  I'm jealous

After months of watching the market, day and night, waiting for a huge block to come up... The one morning I decide to sleep in, someone dumps 450K... Those would have looked nice in my collection.  Tongue

I'm sure they'll be in good hands... Wink

hahhahahahah great news,congrats GWC

I wish... I think Shell picked those up... as implied by the winky-face comment. The 10K+ blocks being offered are rare enough, would have been elated to have, at least, picked up a good chunk of that sell... I guess it's back to Red Bull and coffee, chased by Code Red Mountain Dew, until I find someone offering another block like that.   Shocked Tongue

There's a 100k block at 1650 satoshi Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
 Grin Grin Grin  That's my happy face! I thought there was a 1/100 chance of that order getting filled and I am VERY happy it did! Thank you to whoever made my day!  Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 250
I'm gonna clean up this town
I knew that was shell. With the bitcoin price jumping up last night and every alt other than octo dropping I figured somebody would feed him. So crazy. Well hopefully the sellers made a good profit and I know shell will be happy as well.
full member
Activity: 167
Merit: 100
Did someone really just sell 450k?  Grin
more to the point... somebody just bought 420k.  I'm jealous

After months of watching the market, day and night, waiting for a huge block to come up... The one morning I decide to sleep in, someone dumps 450K... Those would have looked nice in my collection.  Tongue

I'm sure they'll be in good hands... Wink

hahhahahahah great news,congrats GWC

I wish... I think Shell picked those up... as implied by the winky-face comment. The 10K+ blocks being offered are rare enough, would have been elated to have, at least, picked up a good chunk of that sell... I guess it's back to Red Bull and coffee, chased by Code Red Mountain Dew, until I find someone offering another block like that.   Shocked Tongue
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
member of GameCredits Dev team
Did someone really just sell 450k?  Grin
more to the point... somebody just bought 420k.  I'm jealous

After months of watching the market, day and night, waiting for a huge block to come up... The one morning I decide to sleep in, someone dumps 450K... Those would have looked nice in my collection.  Tongue

I'm sure they'll be in good hands... Wink

hahhahahahah great news,congrats GWC
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
Crypto is the Future!
I have contacted the Dev to find out more information on 888, This highly UP trended value.

I will be rating this cyrpto soon
http://cryptoanalytics.trade/
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
Did someone really just sell 450k?  Grin
more to the point... somebody just bought 420k.  I'm jealous

After months of watching the market, day and night, waiting for a huge block to come up... The one morning I decide to sleep in, someone dumps 450K... Those would have looked nice in my collection.  Tongue

I'm sure they'll be in good hands... Wink
full member
Activity: 167
Merit: 100
Did someone really just sell 450k?  Grin
more to the point... somebody just bought 420k.  I'm jealous

After months of watching the market, day and night, waiting for a huge block to come up... The one morning I decide to sleep in, someone dumps 450K... Those would have looked nice in my collection.  Tongue
full member
Activity: 236
Merit: 100
Did someone really just sell 450k?  Grin
more to the point... somebody just bought 420k.  I'm jealous
full member
Activity: 128
Merit: 100
sr. member
Activity: 344
Merit: 250
ALL IN!
Did someone really just sell 450k?  Grin
sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 250
I'm gonna clean up this town
I don't think you're a voice of one Squid but all I'm saying is I believe they are just removing votes that came from more than one account on the same IP address in the same hour. I believe even that is a little cheap since we've literally run out of IPv4 IP addresses on the planet (in my apartment complex each block of 6 units shares an IP address and within my apartment alone are 3 people who all want to get 888 on MP - some of those removed votes were surely from us which sucks) but if the alternative is coins getting a bunch of fraudulent votes I'd rather go with this method. Sure CAPTCHA would make sense or reducing it to one vote/24 hours/account or maybe even requiring verified accounts (scan of photo ID and utility bill) in order to vote every hour would help since that stuff will all be required for US traders before you know it anyway. There are a number of things that could be done here to make it more fair without hurting legitimate votes. But all I'm saying is I'm guessing they aren't removing any paid votes. So while it sucks, sure, we are now #12 and making a run at #11. One of those two pieces of crap at the top will be added any day now which will give us another bump. bitcoin is on the rise right now which could help to create a buyers market for 888 if people start selling to get BTC like they are with every other coin. Maybe this long waiting list will be to our benefit longterm. Somebody was talking about it earlier and I mentioned it earlier as well but seriously - is OctoCoin the only coin that has gone up in value from the start of June? I honestly think it is. Just keep voting when you remember to vote and remember it isn't an emergency. When we're listed we're listed. MintPal often attracts an insane number of bots/etc which just makes things messy sometimes anyway. I'm happy with Bittrex for now but continue to vote at least 8 times per day on MintPal.
full member
Activity: 236
Merit: 100
sr. member
Activity: 458
Merit: 500
Weekend is over lets push the votes like we did last week, it was amazing. We will climb the ladder really fast this week.
hero member
Activity: 780
Merit: 501
Is there a technical reason for using BerklyDB 5.1 specifically:

Code:
      AC_MSG_ERROR([Found Berkeley DB other than 5.1, required for portable wallets (--with-incompatible-bdb to ignore)])

Or can I use 5.3 or still build this against 4.8 like Bitcoin does:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/m4/bitcoin_find_bdb48.m4

I just hate to add another dependency to my servers, and DB 5.1 is deprecated on FreeBSD.

OctoCoin takes advantage of several features not available in Berkeley DB 4.8; I wouldn't recommend building on 4.8.

You can certainly build it using Berkeley DB 5.3 and it will work fine; however... your wallet.dat file will not be compatible with the official OctoCoin binaries (as they are all built using 5.1) so you will receive a warning about losing portability. If you ever need to move the wallet to a different machine/etc you would just need to ensure you build OctoCoin from source again using BDB 5.3.

At the configure step, just use:

–-with-incompatible-bdb (ex: ./configure –-with-incompatible-bdb)

Make sure it is using BDB 5.3 and not 4.8, however, if they're both installed on the machine. Of course, as there is no benefit to using 5.3, 5.1 would be the easiest but it certainly isn't a big deal. Most coins are still using 4.8 (I don't know of any coins that are using BDB 5.3) but I know OctoCoin, Murraycoin (my coin), and Dogecoin are using 5.1.

I was able to build the daemon with 4.8 and it runs, etc.  It's only going to be for mining.  However I think I'll rebuild and use 5.3 instead to ensure I don't run into any unpleasant surprises.  Or would you say that most of the "features" are only relevent with the Qt wallet?

You would likely be fine but if you have the option to rebuild with 5.3, why not? 4.8 uses a different log file format, for starters. Also, among some of the benefits, BDB 5.1 or 5.3 will improve efficiency, reduces the chance of corruption, and, in the case of OctoCoin and Murraycoin at least, assigns a priority level to certain transactions to avoid a potential "deadlock" (this could potentially make a difference if there were enough miners pointed at the client). I just prefer to avoid rocking the boat whenever possible when it comes to dependencies anyway - I've seen some strange things in my day that wasted a lot of my time only to end up being dependency-related (despite no solid reasons why the dependencies were what they were).

Thanks for your help.  I've rebuilt it using DB 5.3 and it works great.  For anyone else who wants to run the daemon (or GUI) on FreeBSD, they can download the port file and instructions here: http://www.unibia.com/unibianet/freebsd/freebsd-ports-many-alternative-crypto-currencies#octocoin

Also, my Octocoin Mining Pool is up again using the new version.

Thanks again.
hero member
Activity: 490
Merit: 510
The Murraycoin Project ▪ Lead Developer
Is there a technical reason for using BerklyDB 5.1 specifically:

Code:
      AC_MSG_ERROR([Found Berkeley DB other than 5.1, required for portable wallets (--with-incompatible-bdb to ignore)])

Or can I use 5.3 or still build this against 4.8 like Bitcoin does:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/m4/bitcoin_find_bdb48.m4

I just hate to add another dependency to my servers, and DB 5.1 is deprecated on FreeBSD.

OctoCoin takes advantage of several features not available in Berkeley DB 4.8; I wouldn't recommend building on 4.8.

You can certainly build it using Berkeley DB 5.3 and it will work fine; however... your wallet.dat file will not be compatible with the official OctoCoin binaries (as they are all built using 5.1) so you will receive a warning about losing portability. If you ever need to move the wallet to a different machine/etc you would just need to ensure you build OctoCoin from source again using BDB 5.3.

At the configure step, just use:

–-with-incompatible-bdb (ex: ./configure –-with-incompatible-bdb)

Make sure it is using BDB 5.3 and not 4.8, however, if they're both installed on the machine. Of course, as there is no benefit to using 5.3, 5.1 would be the easiest but it certainly isn't a big deal. Most coins are still using 4.8 (I don't know of any coins that are using BDB 5.3) but I know OctoCoin, Murraycoin (my coin), and Dogecoin are using 5.1.

I was able to build the daemon with 4.8 and it runs, etc.  It's only going to be for mining.  However I think I'll rebuild and use 5.3 instead to ensure I don't run into any unpleasant surprises.  Or would you say that most of the "features" are only relevent with the Qt wallet?

You would likely be fine but if you have the option to rebuild with 5.3, why not? 4.8 uses a different log file format, for starters. Also, among some of the benefits, BDB 5.1 or 5.3 will improve efficiency, reduces the chance of corruption, and, in the case of OctoCoin and Murraycoin at least, assigns a priority level to certain transactions to avoid a potential "deadlock" (this could potentially make a difference if there were enough miners pointed at the client). I just prefer to avoid rocking the boat whenever possible when it comes to dependencies anyway - I've seen some strange things in my day that wasted a lot of my time only to end up being dependency-related (despite no solid reasons why the dependencies were what they were).
hero member
Activity: 780
Merit: 501
Is there a technical reason for using BerklyDB 5.1 specifically:

Code:
      AC_MSG_ERROR([Found Berkeley DB other than 5.1, required for portable wallets (--with-incompatible-bdb to ignore)])

Or can I use 5.3 or still build this against 4.8 like Bitcoin does:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/m4/bitcoin_find_bdb48.m4

I just hate to add another dependency to my servers, and DB 5.1 is deprecated on FreeBSD.

OctoCoin takes advantage of several features not available in Berkeley DB 4.8; I wouldn't recommend building on 4.8.

You can certainly build it using Berkeley DB 5.3 and it will work fine; however... your wallet.dat file will not be compatible with the official OctoCoin binaries (as they are all built using 5.1) so you will receive a warning about losing portability. If you ever need to move the wallet to a different machine/etc you would just need to ensure you build OctoCoin from source again using BDB 5.3.

At the configure step, just use:

–-with-incompatible-bdb (ex: ./configure –-with-incompatible-bdb)

Make sure it is using BDB 5.3 and not 4.8, however, if they're both installed on the machine. Of course, as there is no benefit to using 5.3, 5.1 would be the easiest but it certainly isn't a big deal. Most coins are still using 4.8 (I don't know of any coins that are using BDB 5.3) but I know OctoCoin, Murraycoin (my coin), and Dogecoin are using 5.1.

I was able to build the daemon with 4.8 and it runs, etc.  It's only going to be for mining.  However I think I'll rebuild and use 5.3 instead to ensure I don't run into any unpleasant surprises.  Or would you say that most of the "features" are only relevent with the Qt wallet?
hero member
Activity: 490
Merit: 510
The Murraycoin Project ▪ Lead Developer
Is there a technical reason for using BerklyDB 5.1 specifically:

Code:
      AC_MSG_ERROR([Found Berkeley DB other than 5.1, required for portable wallets (--with-incompatible-bdb to ignore)])

Or can I use 5.3 or still build this against 4.8 like Bitcoin does:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/m4/bitcoin_find_bdb48.m4

I just hate to add another dependency to my servers, and DB 5.1 is deprecated on FreeBSD.

OctoCoin takes advantage of several features not available in Berkeley DB 4.8; I wouldn't recommend building on 4.8.

You can certainly build it using Berkeley DB 5.3 and it will work fine; however... your wallet.dat file will not be compatible with the official OctoCoin binaries (as they are all built using 5.1) so you will receive a warning about losing portability. If you ever need to move the wallet to a different machine/etc you would just need to ensure you build OctoCoin from source again using BDB 5.3.

As suggested, at the configure step, just use:

./configure –-with-incompatible-bdb

Make sure it is using BDB 5.3 and not 4.8, however, if they're both installed on the machine. Of course, as there is no benefit to using 5.3 in this instance, 5.1 would be the easiest but it certainly isn't a big deal. Most coins are still using 4.8 (I don't know of any coins that are using BDB 5.3) but I know OctoCoin, Murraycoin (my coin), and Dogecoin are using 5.1.
hero member
Activity: 780
Merit: 501
Is there a technical reason for using BerklyDB 5.1 specifically:

Code:
      AC_MSG_ERROR([Found Berkeley DB other than 5.1, required for portable wallets (--with-incompatible-bdb to ignore)])

Or can I use 5.3 or still build this against 4.8 like Bitcoin does:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/m4/bitcoin_find_bdb48.m4

I just hate to add another dependency to my servers, and DB 5.1 is deprecated on FreeBSD.
legendary
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
NICE BUYWALL  Grin



KEEP THAT SHIT ON LOCK SON
Pages:
Jump to: