Ok, so I got around to fixing UPNP. Turns out all UPNP code had been stripped out of the client, so compiling with USE_UPNP=- had pretty much no effect, ever since Noirbits was launched. Also turns out this a case for other coins (up to you to find out which ones).
I have updated the OP with the link for the new version, and changes have been pushed to the repository also.
Topic: [ANN] Noirbits TAKEOVER ! Update v2.2.5.0 - fixes sync issue - page 14. (Read 24747 times)
I don't know if it's a good move or not, future will tell. It was at least a move!
I like this coin and I watch its evolution since the beginning but I admit it looked quite on standby lately with difficulty jumping up and down.
I'd love to see some changes but it would be better if it's without hard feelings
. Coin coups doesn't usually end well...
I which you good luck and I'll follow it.
Thanks for your work.
I like this coin and I watch its evolution since the beginning but I admit it looked quite on standby lately with difficulty jumping up and down.
I'd love to see some changes but it would be better if it's without hard feelings
. Coin coups doesn't usually end well...I which you good luck and I'll follow it.
Thanks for your work.
Thanks for you support.
I know a coup is not necessarily the best way to proceed, but I felt there was no other way. And I have not taken things as far as I could. I'm leaving the noirbits.com & noirbits.org domains pointed at barwizi's version, despite me owning the domains and having the possibility to take over the website too.
Despite what barwizi wants everyone to believe, I am not imposing this upon the community. If the majority follows up on this, I will then update the website with the new client. Until then, I'm not touching it.
I don't know if it's a good move or not, future will tell. It was at least a move!
I like this coin and I watch its evolution since the beginning but I admit it looked quite on standby lately with difficulty jumping up and down.
I'd love to see some changes but it would be better if it's without hard feelings. Coin coups doesn't usually end well...
I wish you good luck and I'll follow it.
Thanks for your work.
I like this coin and I watch its evolution since the beginning but I admit it looked quite on standby lately with difficulty jumping up and down.
I'd love to see some changes but it would be better if it's without hard feelings
. Coin coups doesn't usually end well...I wish you good luck and I'll follow it.
Thanks for your work.
Since you have already taken such action the entire community is left with no choice but to follow you, yet this should have been a commune decision. I understand the need for expediency, but in doing so , you are harming the core values i envisioned for this coin. If you can get it to actually work, that would be great.
Sorry folks, you need to update again... 
Github and links updated.
Github and links updated.I can't sync up the new UPNP wallet, even with the node you told me to add earlier...
Also, the UPNP option is still greyed out.
Sync should be fixed with the new link (first post updated), even though UPNP on the Windows client should have no incidence : makefiles for Noirbits-qt had been stripped of the UPNP compile flags, so it didn't have much effect anyways, since all previous versions of Noirbits-qt compiled without UPNP no matter what flag you specified.
Also, make sure you have reset your block database.
You can also addnode 54.229.50.161.
seems a lot has happened in my absence.
You were online, goofing around :
GPU miner coming soon.
I however feel that throwing a quick solution that has not been really thought through and discussed is in bad taste, this coin is not mine, i stressed the point that it is community owned and managed. Giving you access to my git would also give you access to some projects i am not yet willing to share. Make a fork, improve it if you will, and if people like it, i'll integrate it into the main chain. As for blaming me about check points, you are right i slacked on that, but i thought we had agreed that the update you were working on would include the checkpoints?
I'll let you handle that part. Changes are ready on my repo, I still need to test them so I won't be issuing a pull request yet.
my honest feeling is that you have gone commando on this and added yet another fork, some people have followed your update yet others were waiting for me to say something. I approached this by first asking cryptsy to put a hold on trading, this allows us to maintain legitimacy and gives us time to figure things out, some may lose their coins if they try any transfers right now.
Since you have already taken such action the entire community is left with no choice but to follow you, yet this should have been a commune decision. I understand the need for expediency, but in doing so , you are harming the core values i envisioned for this coin. If you can get it to actually work, that would be great.
Ok, we'll need to add checkpoints also, it's been a while.
I'll let you handle that part. Changes are ready on my repo, I still need to test them so I won't be issuing a pull request yet.
my honest feeling is that you have gone commando on this and added yet another fork, some people have followed your update yet others were waiting for me to say something. I approached this by first asking cryptsy to put a hold on trading, this allows us to maintain legitimacy and gives us time to figure things out, some may lose their coins if they try any transfers right now.
Since you have already taken such action the entire community is left with no choice but to follow you, yet this should have been a commune decision. I understand the need for expediency, but in doing so , you are harming the core values i envisioned for this coin. If you can get it to actually work, that would be great.
Yeah, I'm a meanie. But at least I'm trying to maintain this coin. The Github excuse is a poor one. You can give per-project collaborator access. My update has not added a fork, it it uses one of the existing forks.
But what's really harming the community is you big-mouthing about the coin and planned features, while in essence, all you're doing is waiting up on others to write up code. And trying to inflate the coin's value on exchanges. My feeling on this is that you don't really care about the coin, given it's currently low value, and are more interested in profit than anything. But I may be mistaken...
As for giving choice to the community, I'm actually giving everyone the choice : wait up on you to fix up Noirbits, or switch over. I'm not forcing anyone into anything.
seems a lot has happened in my absence. I however feel that throwing a quick solution that has not been really thought through and discussed is in bad taste, this coin is not mine, i stressed the point that it is community owned and managed. Giving you access to my git would also give you access to some projects i am not yet willing to share. Make a fork, improve it if you will, and if people like it, i'll integrate it into the main chain. As for blaming me about check points, you are right i slacked on that, but i thought we had agreed that the update you were working on would include the checkpoints?
I'll let you handle that part. Changes are ready on my repo, I still need to test them so I won't be issuing a pull request yet.
my honest feeling is that you have gone commando on this and added yet another fork, some people have followed your update yet others were waiting for me to say something. I approached this by first asking cryptsy to put a hold on trading, this allows us to maintain legitimacy and gives us time to figure things out, some may lose their coins if they try any transfers right now.
Since you have already taken such action the entire community is left with no choice but to follow you, yet this should have been a commune decision. I understand the need for expediency, but in doing so , you are harming the core values i envisioned for this coin. If you can get it to actually work, that would be great.
Ok, we'll need to add checkpoints also, it's been a while.
I'll let you handle that part. Changes are ready on my repo, I still need to test them so I won't be issuing a pull request yet.
my honest feeling is that you have gone commando on this and added yet another fork, some people have followed your update yet others were waiting for me to say something. I approached this by first asking cryptsy to put a hold on trading, this allows us to maintain legitimacy and gives us time to figure things out, some may lose their coins if they try any transfers right now.
Since you have already taken such action the entire community is left with no choice but to follow you, yet this should have been a commune decision. I understand the need for expediency, but in doing so , you are harming the core values i envisioned for this coin. If you can get it to actually work, that would be great.
Sorry folks, you need to update again... Github and links updated.
Github and links updated.I can't sync up the new UPNP wallet, even with the node you told me to add earlier...
Also, the UPNP option is still greyed out.
Sorry folks, you need to update again... Github and links updated.
Github and links updated.
They retarget on every block too.... 
I am not up to date with the current Algo for Noirbits, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt. This is mostly just my observations as a miner who watches the 30+ serious AltCoins that contend for top profitability on a daily basis...
As an example, BottleCaps, I don't know what their Algo for recalculations is, but they can handle multiple MultiPool types of hash power being dumped on them all at once, and it handles it without issue. It bounces back fairly quickly, and it has a decent steady following since it proved it can take the speed bumps well.
Can someone that knows a thing or two about the Algo's compare them with Noirbits?
As an example, BottleCaps, I don't know what their Algo for recalculations is, but they can handle multiple MultiPool types of hash power being dumped on them all at once, and it handles it without issue. It bounces back fairly quickly, and it has a decent steady following since it proved it can take the speed bumps well.
Can someone that knows a thing or two about the Algo's compare them with Noirbits?
Stuck on block 29999:
Code:
{
...
}So are my nodes. Most likely rejecting the next block because of the checkpoint. Apparently, we are not getting connections to the block explorer and other peers who have the proper chain... I'm going to look into it.
EDIT: I'm waiting up on a reply from diatonic to get block data for block 30000. We should then be good to go...
Hum:
Code:

23:47:33

getpeerinfo
[
{
"addr" : "54.213.23.213:55884",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1375997491,
"lastrecv" : 1375997492,
"conntime" : 1375997315,
"version" : 60002,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:2.0.0/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 29999,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "98.117.216.26:55884",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1375997323,
"lastrecv" : 1375997323,
"conntime" : 1375997323,
"version" : 60001,
"subver" : "\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : -1,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "54.229.50.161:55884",
"services" : "00000000",
"lastsend" : 1375997404,
"lastrecv" : 1375998443,
"conntime" : 1375997404,
"version" : 0,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : -1,
"banscore" : 10
}
]
Stuck on block 29999:
Code:
{
"version" : 2000000,
"protocolversion" : 60002,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 29999,
"connections" : 3,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.10583356,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1375997302,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"mininput" : 0.00010000,
"errors" : ""
}So are my nodes. Most likely rejecting the next block because of the checkpoint. Apparently, we are not getting connections to the block explorer and other peers who have the proper chain... I'm going to look into it.
EDIT: I'm waiting up on a reply from diatonic to get block data for block 30000. We should then be good to go...
Stuck on block 29999:
Code:
{
"version" : 2000000,
"protocolversion" : 60002,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 29999,
"connections" : 3,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.10583356,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1375997302,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"mininput" : 0.00010000,
"errors" : ""
}
UPNP version now available for Windows.
You can add this to your configuration file :
addnode=54.213.23.213
addnode=54.213.23.213
All clear!
You can add this to your configuration file :
addnode=54.213.23.213
EDIT :I'm still waiting for a reaction from barwizi. He's been active around the forum after I posted this. This should give you a hint on his involvement...
EDIT : I'm working on the UPNP version for Windows.
addnode=54.213.23.213
EDIT :I'm still waiting for a reaction from barwizi. He's been active around the forum after I posted this. This should give you a hint on his involvement...
EDIT : I'm working on the UPNP version for Windows.
The new wallet doesn't want to sync up. Could the lack of UPNP be in cause? I never had a problem with any of the older clients.
EDIT: I think your move was justified by the emergency situation (Might be unrelated, but the coin just took a hard crash on cryptsy...). Hopefully barwizi just join in on this!
EDIT: I think your move was justified by the emergency situation (Might be unrelated, but the coin just took a hard crash on cryptsy...). Hopefully barwizi just join in on this!
i need to read Barwizi's opinion about this.
you have a point, maybe barwizi's time is fragmented between alot of things, but, he is the og dev and taking over doesnt sounds right.
If he doesnt care anymore more about the future of his creation, he has to say it, and the community will follow the dev that wants to step up (i know, you have been active already).
i believe, he wont have any problem to give you the "active dev" mark, but not by forcing yourself into it.
(sorry (again) for my bad english)
Snaider.
you have a point, maybe barwizi's time is fragmented between alot of things, but, he is the og dev and taking over doesnt sounds right.
If he doesnt care anymore more about the future of his creation, he has to say it, and the community will follow the dev that wants to step up (i know, you have been active already).
i believe, he wont have any problem to give you the "active dev" mark, but not by forcing yourself into it.
(sorry (again) for my bad english)
Snaider.
You do have a point, but the fork is forcing me to act up. We can't wait for barwizi to randomly show up... I did ask him once for access to the Git, he never replied...
On a side note, pulling out a foocoin clone and changing params does not make you a dev... the only commits he did were pushing checkpoints.
i need to read Barwizi's opinion about this.
you have a point, maybe barwizi's time is fragmented between alot of things, but, he is the og dev and taking over doesnt sounds right.
If he doesnt care anymore more about the future of his creation, he has to say it, and the community will follow the dev that wants to step up (i know, you have been active already).
i believe, he wont have any problem to give you the "active dev" mark, but not by forcing yourself into it.
(sorry (again) for my bad english)
Snaider.
you have a point, maybe barwizi's time is fragmented between alot of things, but, he is the og dev and taking over doesnt sounds right.
If he doesnt care anymore more about the future of his creation, he has to say it, and the community will follow the dev that wants to step up (i know, you have been active already).
i believe, he wont have any problem to give you the "active dev" mark, but not by forcing yourself into it.
(sorry (again) for my bad english)
Snaider.
Jump to: