[ANN] Slimcoin : Proof of Burn NEW BLOCK GEN, Mineable by low power computer! - page 157.

primer-

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: qiuxiang on June 02, 2014, 01:02:48 PM

Still waiting for PoB block, haven't seen anything in the past 3 days after burnt 250 coins..
Angry

by the way, developer, can you help me to take a look at the pm i sent you? I suspect there are some problem with wallet.

Read the previous few posts moron, the coin is broken and we are waiting for the dev to fork it.

qiuxiang

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Still waiting for PoB block, haven't seen anything in the past 3 days after burnt 250 coins..
Angry

by the way, developer, can you help me to take a look at the pm i sent you? I suspect there are some problem with wallet.

mvag

newbie

Activity: 44

Merit: 0

Quote from: CrypJ on June 02, 2014, 11:46:37 AM

Is there a block explorer? Or does someone know how many coins have been mined so far?

"moneysupply" : 79842.07140000
"Formatted nEffectiveBurnCoins" : "36039.528827"

CrypJ

newbie

Activity: 10

Merit: 0

Is there a block explorer? Or does someone know how many coins have been mined so far?

Free_Lancer

newbie

Activity: 39

Merit: 0

Quote from: dstorm on June 02, 2014, 10:36:08 AM

Quote from: dstorm on May 31, 2014, 01:39:55 PM

p2pool is working on testnet now but it requires some changes to slimcoin and a hardfork is needed.

1. The last coinbase transaction in p2pool is always a 0 value transaction. Minimum transaction value in slimcoin is currently 0.01 SLM.

2. Do not the check signature for PoW blocks in CBlock::CheckBlock().

This has already been fixed in Novacoin.

slimcoin, do you have any plans to fix this?

What now? Are we waiting dev? or?

dstorm

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Quote from: dstorm on May 31, 2014, 01:39:55 PM

p2pool is working on testnet now but it requires some changes to slimcoin and a hardfork is needed.

1. The last coinbase transaction in p2pool is always a 0 value transaction. Minimum transaction value in slimcoin is currently 0.01 SLM.

2. Do not the check signature for PoW blocks in CBlock::CheckBlock().

This has already been fixed in Novacoin.

slimcoin, do you have any plans to fix this?

mbk

member

Activity: 106

Merit: 10

Don't be so hard on devs. They've done a nice whitepaper and brought something new to the the old game. And it really worked so far! Don't forget they've done it all for nothing. No significant premine/instamine contrary to DRK and countless others. They deserve some gratitude.

Quote from: JohnDorien on June 02, 2014, 10:15:05 AM

Quote from: primer- on June 02, 2014, 10:11:21 AM

Quote from: mbk on June 02, 2014, 10:08:22 AM

We have a real problem with the coin. Just look at your debug.log. Mine is full of new POW block founds that are rejected due to the check below in main.cpp.

Quote

if(bnTarget <= 0 || bnTarget > bnProofOfWorkLimit)
return error("CheckProofOfWork() : nBits below minimum work");

I am not surprised. The DEV is a fucking tard.

thats just one line in the miner (missing? / modified?).

read the source, even when you mine bitcoin now and remove the pre-diff-checl from the miner source part you'll have shitloads of this in your debug.log

jadefalke

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1014

Quote from: eugenetsou on June 02, 2014, 10:25:25 AM

Is the blocks stuck at 4258???

sometimes it helps if you read the last post's instead of blindpost...

eugenetsou

full member

Activity: 124

Merit: 100

Is the blocks stuck at 4258???

JohnDorien

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: primer- on June 02, 2014, 10:11:21 AM

Quote from: mbk on June 02, 2014, 10:08:22 AM

We have a real problem with the coin. Just look at your debug.log. Mine is full of new POW block founds that are rejected due to the check below in main.cpp.

Quote

if(bnTarget <= 0 || bnTarget > bnProofOfWorkLimit)
return error("CheckProofOfWork() : nBits below minimum work");

I am not surprised. The DEV is a fucking tard.

thats just one line in the miner (missing? / modified?).

read the source, even when you mine bitcoin now and remove the pre-diff-checl from the miner source part you'll have shitloads of this in your debug.log

primer-

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: mbk on June 02, 2014, 10:08:22 AM

We have a real problem with the coin. Just look at your debug.log. Mine is full of new POW block founds that are rejected due to the check below in main.cpp.

Quote

if(bnTarget <= 0 || bnTarget > bnProofOfWorkLimit)
return error("CheckProofOfWork() : nBits below minimum work");

I am not surprised. The DEV is a fucking tard.

mbk

member

Activity: 106

Merit: 10

We have a real problem with the coin. Just look at your debug.log. Mine is full of new POW block founds that are rejected due to the check below in main.cpp.

Quote

if(bnTarget <= 0 || bnTarget > bnProofOfWorkLimit)
return error("CheckProofOfWork() : nBits below minimum work");

primer-

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: mbk on June 02, 2014, 09:38:29 AM

We are frozen at block 4258. POW blocks are not accepted by wallet/daemon due to low difficulty(?). There is an actual check in the code.

Quote

if(bnTarget <= 0 || bnTarget > bnProofOfWorkLimit)
return error("CheckProofOfWork() : nBits below minimum work");

It looks like we need a hard fork. DEV, look at the problem ASAP.

I think its the difficulty retargeting that is causing slow blocks, lets give it couple more minutes.

EDIT: Still on 4258. Not good.

mbk

member

Activity: 106

Merit: 10

We are frozen at block 4258. POW blocks are not accepted by wallet/daemon due to low difficulty(?). There is an actual check in the code.

Quote

if(bnTarget <= 0 || bnTarget > bnProofOfWorkLimit)
return error("CheckProofOfWork() : nBits below minimum work");

It looks like we need a hard fork. DEV, look at the problem ASAP.

primer-

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: TheRealSteve on June 02, 2014, 09:24:50 AM

Quote from: primer- on June 02, 2014, 09:21:50 AM

Not really, cloudflare filters http/s protocol only.

You mean the actual pool was being DDoS'd? If so, was it intentional or just an influx of people connecting and the machine not keeping up? (as unlikely as that seems...)

I dont know but i seriously doubt it was a DDoS. Most likely influx of people, i myself had 30 servers connected in a couple of seconds. Maybe that triggered some kind of an alert at the provider that flagged it as DDoS.

TheRealSteve

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

FUN > ROI

Quote from: primer- on June 02, 2014, 09:21:50 AM

Not really, cloudflare filters http/s protocol only.

You mean the actual pool was being DDoS'd? If so, was it intentional or just an influx of people connecting and the machine not keeping up? (as unlikely as that seems...)

primer-

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Stormbringer on June 02, 2014, 09:21:11 AM

Can cloudflare prevent ddos attacks on pool?

Not really, cloudflare filters http/s protocol only.

primer-

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

"difficulty" : 0.01352948,

Solo mining possible again.

Someone probably killed off 500+ Amazon instances. We are going to stay stuck on block 4258 for some time..

Stormbringer

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Can cloudflare prevent ddos attacks on pool?

sandor111

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

Please stop PM'ing me about the pool, I know it's down, I'm going to have the new server up pretty soon.

Topic: [ANN] Slimcoin : Proof of Burn NEW BLOCK GEN, Mineable by low power computer! - page 157. (Read 284956 times)