Quote
lol
[WTB] 10,000PHS for 0.1BTC PM me, digeros
[WTB] 10,000PHS for 0.1BTC PM me, digeros
Would be kinda tough to mine 10k with the stake diff surges imo
That said, WTB 10k too
Topic: [ANN] Philosopherstone - PHS | No Premine | Mandatory update 1.2Beta3 - page 15. (Read 81104 times)
August 13, 2013, 04:40:25 PM
Would be kinda tough to mine 10k with the stake diff surges imo
That said, WTB 10k too
August 13, 2013, 04:38:13 PM
Not on any exchanges yet.
Forks.
Dev left.
Forks.
Dev left.
Its just like bitcoin was
August 13, 2013, 03:53:12 PM
Not on any exchanges yet.
Forks.
Dev left.
Forks.
Dev left.
lol
[WTB] 10,000PHS for 0.1BTC PM me, digeros
August 13, 2013, 03:48:06 PM
Not on any exchanges yet.
Forks.
Dev left.
Forks.
Dev left.
lol
August 13, 2013, 03:45:18 PM
Not on any exchanges yet.
Forks.
Dev left.
Forks.
Dev left.
August 13, 2013, 03:20:38 PM
Still no need for a block explorer?
August 13, 2013, 02:34:43 PM
Ok, here it is, it worked fine for me:
https://mega.co.nz/#!FU9z1ZgK!W8qFu2kqExLsE-q1oAxS8Gdhp95plBgy8wxpStAkPVw
https://mega.co.nz/#!FU9z1ZgK!W8qFu2kqExLsE-q1oAxS8Gdhp95plBgy8wxpStAkPVw
do you want your PHS back? they confirmed btw but i spent the litecoins. pls post address so i can return them to you at once
August 13, 2013, 02:31:43 PM
By reading the messages here I am getting lost... from the version 1.2 code it seems a time-based switch. So 1.2 and 1.0/1.1 should be the same before the switch point. Why we should sync 1.0 then 1.2? Is the "good" chain not following the 1.2 strictly? in which case we should either ask dev or someone can just compile a good client (since the code is public source)...
I am trying to sync with 1.2 only and theoretically it should work?
I am trying to sync with 1.2 only and theoretically it should work?
It should, but it doesn't seem to. This has worked, but whether it will continue to work is anybody's guess: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2920741
TL;DR: Sync with 1.0 then switch to 1.2.
The dev bailed, and I haven't figured out the problem. Maybe someone else will.
Where can we find 1.0?
There's an updated link to 1.0 and 1.1 here. Others have posted elsewhere:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2920741
August 13, 2013, 02:21:03 PM
Ok, here it is, it worked fine for me:
https://mega.co.nz/#!FU9z1ZgK!W8qFu2kqExLsE-q1oAxS8Gdhp95plBgy8wxpStAkPVw
https://mega.co.nz/#!FU9z1ZgK!W8qFu2kqExLsE-q1oAxS8Gdhp95plBgy8wxpStAkPVw
August 13, 2013, 01:59:27 PM
would be nice, I am stuck at 7768 anyone else stuck here as well?
August 13, 2013, 01:51:51 PM
It was uploaded couple of pages back?
I can upload my v 1.0 (or 1.1, I can't tell, but it worked fine with my wallets) ?
I can upload my v 1.0 (or 1.1, I can't tell, but it worked fine with my wallets) ?
August 13, 2013, 01:49:51 PM
By reading the messages here I am getting lost... from the version 1.2 code it seems a time-based switch. So 1.2 and 1.0/1.1 should be the same before the switch point. Why we should sync 1.0 then 1.2? Is the "good" chain not following the 1.2 strictly? in which case we should either ask dev or someone can just compile a good client (since the code is public source)...
I am trying to sync with 1.2 only and theoretically it should work?
I am trying to sync with 1.2 only and theoretically it should work?
It should, but it doesn't seem to. This has worked, but whether it will continue to work is anybody's guess: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2920741
TL;DR: Sync with 1.0 then switch to 1.2.
The dev bailed, and I haven't figured out the problem. Maybe someone else will.
Where can we find 1.0?
August 13, 2013, 12:37:13 PM
johntawaki, are you here?
100+ consecutive blocks only PoS
10700-10840+
How are you determining this? 100+ consecutive blocks only PoS
10700-10840+
if someone can disprove it is my opinion
I'm just glad
August 13, 2013, 11:27:49 AM
johntawaki, are you here?
100+ consecutive blocks only PoS
10700-10840+
100+ consecutive blocks only PoS
10700-10840+
How are you determining this?
August 13, 2013, 11:21:26 AM
By reading the messages here I am getting lost... from the version 1.2 code it seems a time-based switch. So 1.2 and 1.0/1.1 should be the same before the switch point. Why we should sync 1.0 then 1.2? Is the "good" chain not following the 1.2 strictly? in which case we should either ask dev or someone can just compile a good client (since the code is public source)...
I am trying to sync with 1.2 only and theoretically it should work?
I am trying to sync with 1.2 only and theoretically it should work?
It should, but it doesn't seem to. This has worked, but whether it will continue to work is anybody's guess: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2920741
TL;DR: Sync with 1.0 then switch to 1.2.
The dev bailed, and I haven't figured out the problem. Maybe someone else will.
August 13, 2013, 11:18:32 AM
The Windows binaries might not even be built on the exact sources provided.
Yeah seems to be the case...
Very curious why the dev would bail, if pump and dump he prolly would of waited for some exchange listing?
Philosophered
August 13, 2013, 11:09:57 AM
Anyone can share me version 1.0 client ?
This contains version Windows Binaries for 1.0 and 1.1. Version 1.1 says 1.0 in the about box. There are clickable shortcuts for rescan and salvagewallet, don't use them unless you know what you're doing.
These are the files as I received them from the original download posted in good faith, YOU ASSUME ALL RESPONSIBILITY for ANYTHING that goes wrong.
https://mega.co.nz/#fmbRsHiKSQ
I will update the original post so there's a single link to send people to.
Somewhat odd, but the 1.1 files on github (if you build em) actually show 1.1 in about box, wonder if this has anything to do with the forks?
if you want to try to build em or I can send you the windows 1.1 bin to test out and compare with your 1.0
I reject your reality and substitute my own:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2858429
You can just download mine and do a byte comparison. It sort of doesn't matter, because 1.0 will get people past 6084 and that's really all that's needed, but it's an unnecessary complication. Thanks for pointing it out, tho.
I've compared 1.0 and 1.2 and can't find any reason why one would treat 6084 differently than the other, although I'm far from an expert. The main changes are 1.2 has an additional checkpoint and includes the code to half the block reward every ~3mos. which was absent from 1.0.
Is it confirmed that Linux people hang at 6084 in 1.2 and get through in 1.0? The Windows binaries might not even be built on the exact sources provided.
August 13, 2013, 10:44:05 AM
johntawaki, are you here?
100+ consecutive blocks only PoS
10700-10840+
100+ consecutive blocks only PoS
10700-10840+
Pretty sure johntawaki bailed on us at the first sign of complications.
August 13, 2013, 06:16:50 AM
johntawaki, are you here?
100+ consecutive blocks only PoS
10700-10840+
100+ consecutive blocks only PoS
10700-10840+
August 13, 2013, 05:00:47 AM
By reading the messages here I am getting lost... from the version 1.2 code it seems a time-based switch. So 1.2 and 1.0/1.1 should be the same before the switch point. Why we should sync 1.0 then 1.2? Is the "good" chain not following the 1.2 strictly? in which case we should either ask dev or someone can just compile a good client (since the code is public source)...
I am trying to sync with 1.2 only and theoretically it should work?
I am trying to sync with 1.2 only and theoretically it should work?
Jump to: