Topic: [ANN] [CPU mining] Yenten v2.0.1 [YTN] [YescryptR16] [Exchange avilable] - page 16. (Read 147165 times)

What exactly do you think are the chances for that happening any time soon?

Seriously, people. Be pragmatic and update. I don't care which build. Just update and don't wait for the tooth fairy to appear.

The coin needs time to recover from the massive dumping but if not enough people update what we've just seen will likely repeat itself. Getting the network stable should be number one priority right now. Cool features can be added later.

With .002$ per YENTEN.. mining is useless..

Conan needs to reappear.and release YENTEN 3.0asap

Oh...thanks for your trying!
Probably I wouldn't be able to figure out the issue by my almost zero experience about Mac though,
but curious how it doesn't work...any error message?

Doesn't work on Mac bro. Thanks for your efforts anyway.

I've uploaded my private updated wallets as v2.0.2 on GitHub:
https://github.com/ohashi3d/yenten/releases

These are same as previous CVE-2018-17144-fixed wallets functionally.
Just changed the version from 2.0.1 to 2.0.2 for distinction.

I've added macOS binaries in this time...though I'm a extremely beginner about Mac
Here is my tweet (sorry in Japanese) with screenshots:
https://twitter.com/ohashi3d/status/1057719622160441344

Try at your own risk, please!

I'v been checking with bitcoin forums for negative balance cases.  It is a sign of double spending due to
CVE-2018-17144 inflation attack if not a bug in the explore.  The amount is just immense.

we don't know maybe he going long vacation to use money from last year.

Yes, same here. I do C programming for many many years but i have not done much blockchain development at all aside from writing/optimizing miners. My impression is those BIPs (and their functionality) are not related to an attack though. They are just responsible for the changes in block versions (like 20000000 to 20000001) and the rejection logic in 2.0.1.

The whole block version thing is quite complicated. From my research it seems between 1.3.1 and 2.0.1 the whole meaning was changed. In 1.3.1 it was simply an incrementing number like "2". In 2.0.1 though it has become a bitfield. where the upper bits are static and represent a version(?) but the lower bits are flags (like .bit=0 for the BIPs above). Rejections being based on the amount of block having a certain bit set after activation time.


In general i agree. It's just strange 1.3.1 and 2.0.1 were even still on the same chain at 248958. At least BIP66 should have already split them at 198765 and the version bits mentioned above should have also had the ability to split the chain before 248958.

Anyways, the 2 mentioned blocks that got the CVE fixed wallet stuck are indeed very suspicious and there is little doubt about them in my opinion. The real question is how to deal with them and there aren't exactly many options. One part is getting the network updated to prevent future events and the other isn't very elegant. Think about it. I hope you get what i mean.

Yeah,  BIP68, BIP112 and BIP113 have started from 2018-10-01...though I've not studied them, OP_CSV enough.
I'm not sure how OP_CSV related to the attacks or not... I need more and more studies about blockchain.

There were two block/hash as the candidate at height 248958:
 (a) 00000022193d53b1aa17ac7b86fce2ceecbaba36f0e6d2a0a483c227d7aa4d67
 (b) 0000002390e6be74008db3fd88a144657de442cf03f72e9f8a2e446fd6f304f1

Here is my quick check thead on my twitter (sorry in Japanese) again:
https://twitter.com/ohashi3d/status/1054404573526294528

The block/hash (a) has block version = 2,
and if block version=2 and BIP66 activated, such a block/hash will be rejected by v2.0.1-based wallet:
https://github.com/ohashi3d/yenten/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L2973

and BIP66 was activated at block height 198765 in v2.0.1-based wallet:
https://github.com/conan-equal-newone/yenten/blob/master/src/chainparams.cpp#L81

The block/hash (b) has ridiculous/absurd transactions as mentioned in my previous post.
Both block/hash (a)(b) look suspicious for me...

So...
Conan's original v2.0.1-fix (this '-fix' doesn't mean CVE-2018-17144) wallet rejected block/hash (a),
and picked block/hash (b), though it might be polluted by duplicate input attack.
In opposite, v1.3.1 wallet picked block/hash (a) and rejected (b) as duplicate input attack.
...this is my guess for blockchain split mechanism, and CVE-2018-17144-fixed wallet rejected both block/hash in this situation, and got stuck...

Thanks anyway ptdvz.
Very very feel bad because i spent over 4000 $ to purchase Yenten @0.12 $ in february and now i cannot access it.
Why Conan doesn't fix the core wallet ?

Well, unless you are able to trust a third party binary your only option is learning to compile it yourself. Otherwise finding someone who is able to build on/for macOS is your best bet.

I also did a quick search and https://github.com/tpoechtrager/osxcross seems to have a crosscompiler toolchain for macOS(?). I am likely not the ideal person to try this though (zero experience with macOS, no possibility to test resulting binaries, ...) and given i was just called to an urgent family problem i don't see how i would have the time/patience anywhere soon but, seriously, i can't be the only person with a crosscompiler fetish who likes a good challenge? Come on guys!

I try to install 2.0.1. on Mac but i having a error, it say that is not working with my macOS version (macOS MOJAVE 10.14).
What should i do now ?

I agree. It is quite likely that CVE-2018-17144 attacks have happened which is why updating to a fixed wallet is important (2.0.2 unofficial or ohashi3d sources does not matter in this aspect - only difference is 2.0.2 unofficial makes it possible to check how many nodes have updated by advertizing a unique version string). I don't think the chain split is related though. If you look at chainparams.cpp lines 93-96 you see deployment of of BIP68, BIP112, and BIP113 has started 2018-10-01 (i think you noticed this yourself too) and i have seen a 2.0.1 node reject a 1.3.1 block for consensus reason (block versions between 1.3.1 and 2.0.1 are very different and 2.0.1 has started to enforce it's own version). Sadly i did not save the log but in my opinion it that is the reason for the split.


You can still use the official 2.0.1 wallet. It is not ideal but it will let you connect to the network and there is a Mac version i think. Ohashi3d is right about problems if your 1.3.1 blocks are beyond the split point. You will have to either resync from start and if that fails (likely with 2.0.1) use block data from http://yenten-pool.ml/blocks_yenten_last.zip or maybe https://github.com/conan-equal-newone/yenten/releases/tag/2.0.1_block_data.

Edit: Just a little explanation so everyone understands why people are taking action on their own. Look at https://github.com/conan-equal-newone/yenten/pull/24. It is a pull request at the official repository for fixing the exact same problem as ohashi3d or 2.0.2 unofficial and it is sitting there unanswered for over a month now...

Hi guys, just a little hello to thank you to keep this community alive

Yenten was once my favorite coin and I'll never forget it!

Long live to Yenten, long live to you community !

Seriously ! where is Conan

Frankly i dont feel confidence to download wallet from unofficial source or non-developer source. Many bad things happened in the past with various coins. lessons learned.
Now without Mac wallet updated, should i consider my coin lost ?

As described in my previous posts (#3936 and #3940),
my CVE-2018-17144-fixed wallet got stuck twice, at block height 248957 and 250704, so far.
It means that block height 248958 and 250705 were not acceptable,
and the transaction you referred above is included in block height 250705.  

I think there were CVE-2018-17144 related (duplicate input) attacks to Yenten blockchain,
and Yenten blockchain was forked at block height 248958.
Now there are two blockchains in Yenten world:
 - v1.3.1 wallet is running around block height 253914
 - v2.0.1 wallet is running around blcok height 258800

v1.3.1 chain after block height 248958 is not compatible to v2.0.1 chain,
and it might be difficult to update to v2.0.1 if you made any transaction after block height 248958...

Thank you for your kind words.


If it would have been released by the Yenten team (which is really just one guy aka Conan who is inactive) it would be official. You are right, it is risky. I am not going to lie, if i didn't knew first hand that it was clean i would be very suspicious also and there is nothing i can do to prove my words. You can of course compare the source code to the official wallet but one can never know if that is really what the executables was build from.


You have to upgrade at least to 2.0.1. 1.3.1 chain has split (reading the source code it seems that might actually have been intentional - see chainparams.cpp lines 93 to 96) from 2.0.1. In my opinion upgrading to 2.0.2 (unofficial) would be better but 2.0.1 will at least be able to connect to the network. Also i don't know anyone who would be able to build Mac executables for 2.0.2, sorry.


Exactly. As the site says feedback and ideas are very welcome. If someone has the skills and motivation to actually investigate problems and write some code it is even better.

good

People with development skills can cooperatively develop with Yenten-Discord.
What he did is his first step.