Know whats funny........so called crypto market experts.
Oh the charts say this is gonna go up. The charts say that we've created a new bottom...yada yada yada.
Just read a so called expert article sating how the recent bitcoin rise will peak at $565 usd no way to break that barrier. Haha hope he isnt short right now.
Just random thoughts......
Topic: [ANN][C2.1] Coin2 | Pow/PoS | ChainOfConflict[FPS] The Future of Gaming is Now - page 218. (Read 499723 times)
May 30, 2014, 10:07:27 AM
May 30, 2014, 10:02:17 AM
Is eastward really yoda?
May 30, 2014, 09:36:06 AM
C2 why repeated murderous? Mysterious disappearance of why? Why the delay in the development team can not solve the problem? Who's to stop C2 currency exchange? And who developed the anonymous C2? Anonymous C2 in the end there? All this is someone behind the scenes or fate? Who is the real driving force behind the scenes? Stay tuned for tonight's "Into science" 
LOL... Chinese dub version
My Coin Fu is better then yours!
May 30, 2014, 09:18:08 AM
C2 why repeated murderous? Mysterious disappearance of why? Why the delay in the development team can not solve the problem? Who's to stop C2 currency exchange? And who developed the anonymous C2? Anonymous C2 in the end there? All this is someone behind the scenes or fate? Who is the real driving force behind the scenes? Stay tuned for tonight's "Into science"
LOL... Chinese dub version
May 30, 2014, 08:59:18 AM
C2 why repeated murderous? Mysterious disappearance of why? Why the delay in the development team can not solve the problem? Who's to stop C2 currency exchange? And who developed the anonymous C2? Anonymous C2 in the end there? All this is someone behind the scenes or fate? Who is the real driving force behind the scenes? Stay tuned for tonight's "Into science"
May 30, 2014, 08:47:49 AM
Thanks guys. I understand this isnt easy. I just dont want to see someone who has supported from the beginning get left out because of technical knowledge of computers and programming. If we want the mainstream to adopt (for the fps) than we need to start maiking these actions very user friendly or it might not get adopted as quickly as everyone thinks.
There is still a main barrier up for entrence into the crypto scene for the main stream: ease of use as well as security of one's investment.
There is still a main barrier up for entrence into the crypto scene for the main stream: ease of use as well as security of one's investment.
May 30, 2014, 08:33:46 AM
Is it possible that someone created an anon for C2 and is using that to bypass the double spender's address filter?
May 30, 2014, 08:29:38 AM
Just my 2 cents but the transfer needs to be "dummied" down. I myself am not an advanced IT person but can figure things out if given the path. I know some people though who dont know the first thing about computers. They can not be excluded from this transfer due to the lack of knowledge of how to accomplish it. Last time was nice and easy. Send to an exchange, wait for the transfer, withdraw into the new wallet. Can someone explain why we are veering away from this method. I though we were going to send to either bittrex or nxt-e and let them do the transfer.
Just an fyi ive learned a lot in the past couple of months about cryptos and programming itself just from this community. Thanks all
Just an fyi ive learned a lot in the past couple of months about cryptos and programming itself just from this community. Thanks all
basically - transactions doesn't get confirmed anymore
May 30, 2014, 08:28:18 AM
I want to know when to begin to change the C2
I don't want to miss
Can anyone tell me roughly the time and way
The new wallet will be released soon.I don't want to miss
Can anyone tell me roughly the time and way
Please come here to check announcements of like the FB page to receive Dev team updates.
May 30, 2014, 08:25:16 AM
Just my 2 cents but the transfer needs to be "dummied" down. I myself am not an advanced IT person but can figure things out if given the path. I know some people though who dont know the first thing about computers. They can not be excluded from this transfer due to the lack of knowledge of how to accomplish it. Last time was nice and easy. Send to an exchange, wait for the transfer, withdraw into the new wallet. Can someone explain why we are veering away from this method. I though we were going to send to either bittrex or nxt-e and let them do the transfer.
Just an fyi ive learned a lot in the past couple of months about cryptos and programming itself just from this community. Thanks all
Just an fyi ive learned a lot in the past couple of months about cryptos and programming itself just from this community. Thanks all
basically - transactions doesn't get confirmed anymore
May 30, 2014, 08:18:48 AM
I want to know when to begin to change the C2
I don't want to miss
Can anyone tell me roughly the time and way
I don't want to miss
Can anyone tell me roughly the time and way
May 30, 2014, 08:07:49 AM
Just my 2 cents but the transfer needs to be "dummied" down. I myself am not an advanced IT person but can figure things out if given the path. I know some people though who dont know the first thing about computers. They can not be excluded from this transfer due to the lack of knowledge of how to accomplish it. Last time was nice and easy. Send to an exchange, wait for the transfer, withdraw into the new wallet. Can someone explain why we are veering away from this method. I though we were going to send to either bittrex or nxt-e and let them do the transfer.
Just an fyi ive learned a lot in the past couple of months about cryptos and programming itself just from this community. Thanks all
Just an fyi ive learned a lot in the past couple of months about cryptos and programming itself just from this community. Thanks all
May 30, 2014, 06:48:05 AM
Someone is messing with network again. What are those recent 600+ coin transactions? Another double spend attack?
May 30, 2014, 06:47:18 AM
Speaking of untrusted info and the way to help devs - you just gave me another idea btw
Dev can make simple form to request only this kind of info - "old address, signed message, new address". So there will be no need to make transaction and it can be nicely automated too.
[snip]
What do you guys think?
Dev can make simple form to request only this kind of info - "old address, signed message, new address". So there will be no need to make transaction and it can be nicely automated too.
[snip]
What do you guys think?
Hey there UdjinM6 .
I like this approach... no need to try and get corrupt wallets to send a transaction, instead holders prove they own an address.
Hopefully this is something the guys can use.
Thank you for your proposal. It's look like a good solution to me and it isn't too difficult for common users if the instructions are well clear.
In a first step, I'm trying to understand what's happen with the blockchain since we launched the coins deposit to exchanges.
It seems to me a node is mining and his blocks only are confirmed by other nodes. I can't say if it is a real attack using the PoW vulnerability or if somebody took accidentally control of the blockchain because he thought about mining to secure the Network. Of this fact nodes are not allowed to generate new PoS blocks and transactions (PoS blocks too?) are never confirmed.
If I understand this well, he could have a monopoly on the blockchain because he's generating more blocks than other nodes and his block chain is always longer than other ones.
My idea: if we were able to take the control of the blockchain and to secure the network again, we could relaunch the coins deposit to exchanges in the standard way.
If you are able to make some diagnostics and to find a solution, your help will be appreciated.
Here what I have in my debug.log btw
Code:
>>> CheckStakeKernelHash: nTimeWeight = 169512
>>> CheckStakeKernelHash: passed GetKernelStakeModifier
>>> bnCoinDayWeight = 1179, bnTargetPerCoinDay=44181385987935051930350383809369221721160212308295210935944315142144
>>> CheckStakeKernelHash - hashProofOfStake too much
I have a lot of similar messages like that where only nTimeWeight and bnCoinDayWeight differ.>>> CheckStakeKernelHash: passed GetKernelStakeModifier
>>> bnCoinDayWeight = 1179, bnTargetPerCoinDay=44181385987935051930350383809369221721160212308295210935944315142144
>>> CheckStakeKernelHash - hashProofOfStake too much
I guess this message came from
https://github.com/coin2-project/Coin2.0/blob/3223cb835711b2b78f8dfeb74928bab238785763/src/kernel.cpp#L326
And that's the good news - I think we know where to start digging. So basically something is wrong with the protocol and prevents to generate PoS block correctly. But I don't really understand what caused this protocol break - an attack or an error. And here come bad news - I'm pretty poor at C (C++) so have now idea how/where to dig next.
May 30, 2014, 06:32:23 AM
Speaking of untrusted info and the way to help devs - you just gave me another idea btw
Dev can make simple form to request only this kind of info - "old address, signed message, new address". So there will be no need to make transaction and it can be nicely automated too.
[snip]
What do you guys think?
Dev can make simple form to request only this kind of info - "old address, signed message, new address". So there will be no need to make transaction and it can be nicely automated too.
[snip]
What do you guys think?
Hey there UdjinM6 .
I like this approach... no need to try and get corrupt wallets to send a transaction, instead holders prove they own an address.
Hopefully this is something the guys can use.
Thank you for your proposal. It's look like a good solution to me and it isn't too difficult for common users if the instructions are well clear.
In a first step, I'm trying to understand what's happen with the blockchain since we launched the coins deposit to exchanges.
It seems to me a node is mining and his blocks only are confirmed by other nodes. I can't say if it is a real attack using the PoW vulnerability or if somebody took accidentally control of the blockchain because he thought about mining to secure the Network. Of this fact nodes are not allowed to generate new PoS blocks and transactions (PoS blocks too?) are never confirmed.
If I understand this well, he could have a monopoly on the blockchain because he's generating more blocks than other nodes and his block chain is always longer than other ones.
My idea: if we were able to take the control of the blockchain and to secure the network again, we could relaunch the coins deposit to exchanges in the standard way.
If you are able to make some diagnostics and to find a solution, your help will be appreciated.
May 30, 2014, 06:23:32 AM
I am happy the community supports Dev Team and comes up with new interesting solutions to solve issue.
But overall please do not forget we have users here that do not have the IT-knowledge. If I see ppl having
problems with just open cmd and then open their coin2-qt with the parameters -rescan, they (understandably)
will be overcharged with a swapping way like this
In my opinion swapping has to be usable for every coinholder
But overall please do not forget we have users here that do not have the IT-knowledge. If I see ppl having
problems with just open cmd and then open their coin2-qt with the parameters -rescan, they (understandably)
will be overcharged with a swapping way like this
In my opinion swapping has to be usable for every coinholder
May 30, 2014, 06:07:08 AM
Speaking of untrusted info and the way to help devs - you just gave me another idea btw
Dev can make simple form to request only this kind of info - "old address, signed message, new address". So there will be no need to make transaction and it can be nicely automated too.
[snip]
What do you guys think?
Dev can make simple form to request only this kind of info - "old address, signed message, new address". So there will be no need to make transaction and it can be nicely automated too.
[snip]
What do you guys think?
Hey there UdjinM6 .
I like this approach... no need to try and get corrupt wallets to send a transaction, instead holders prove they own an address.
Hopefully this is something the guys can use.
May 30, 2014, 05:17:15 AM
Correction to idea with RPC calls:
- I thought about it a little more and that's not that good idea actually - rpc protocol is plain http, we cannot trust it. One can write his rpc server and fake responses easily.
Regarding 2 latest ideas:
- simple daemon that run locally can be easily compromised too and I'm not sure we are capable of writing another safe crypto thing just for swapping coins
- I don't think exchanges are going to swap balance by unconfirmed deposits - pretty risky for them
Sorry, can't join IRC right now, please post ideas here too. Be back in 8-10 hours.
Thanks.
- I thought about it a little more and that's not that good idea actually - rpc protocol is plain http, we cannot trust it. One can write his rpc server and fake responses easily.
Regarding 2 latest ideas:
- simple daemon that run locally can be easily compromised too and I'm not sure we are capable of writing another safe crypto thing just for swapping coins
- I don't think exchanges are going to swap balance by unconfirmed deposits - pretty risky for them
Sorry, can't join IRC right now, please post ideas here too. Be back in 8-10 hours.
Thanks.
I am not an expert on the blockchain.... but, with regards the RPC method,
if we use listUnspent() then shouldn't the response be verifiable ?
Well, afaik "listunspent" gives you a list of transaction outputs (vout) that are not seen in inputs (vin) of any other transaction. And this info is publicly available in blockchain. As an example look at that address http://nc2chain.info/address/CeNudFti4pMv2DGhQny9tPZcgpBzh7pTa9
Note (U)nspent and (S)pent in transaction outputs...
Speaking of untrusted info and the way to help devs - you just gave me another idea btw
Dev can make simple form to request only this kind of info - "old address, signed message, new address". So there will be no need to make transaction and it can be nicely automated too.
This is how to make it work (yes, using console again, sorry everyone
):1. some person sign his address as a message (you can sign any message with
Code:
signmessage
for exampleCode:
signmessage CHAiN12348eGFtwQsMTVPFfGwQRniAMqw1 CHAiN12348eGFtwQsMTVPFfGwQRniAMqw1
and the output will be something like that (for this example)Code:
HGlGZcNK54gFlnKLOPUlFYdBlvyfaFrL6HRXJyJHtjoONPyr0JYaC940kuRgOYM3WIMySeoDNUoVhl8F33AB1oE=
2. this person enters data in form I mentioned before- old address - CHAiN12348eGFtwQsMTVPFfGwQRniAMqw1
- signed message - HGlGZcNK54gFlnKLOPUlFYdBlvyfaFrL6HRXJyJHtjoONPyr0JYaC940kuRgOYM3WIMySeoDNUoVhl8 F33AB1oE=
- new address - SomeNewAddressForOurNewCoin2walletqt
3. devs can easily verify that this person own this address by making RPC call to old daemon
Code:
verifymessage
or for my example Code:
verifymessage CHAiN12348eGFtwQsMTVPFfGwQRniAMqw1 HGlGZcNK54gFlnKLOPUlFYdBlvyfaFrL6HRXJyJHtjoONPyr0JYaC940kuRgOYM3WIMySeoDNUoVhl8F33AB1oE= CHAiN12348eGFtwQsMTVPFfGwQRniAMqw1
that should give dev an outputCode:
true
if everything match orCode:
false
if there is something wrong with that address or signature (so maybe someone is trying to fool dev)4. dev can use whatever method they like to get old balance, for example nc2chain.info API
Code:
http://nc2chain.info/api/address/CHAiN12348eGFtwQsMTVPFfGwQRniAMqw1/balance
Code:
7555.502597
5. ... and credit this person to his SomeNewAddressForOurNewCoin2walletqt by making RPC call to new daemonCode:
sendtoaddress
likeCode:
sendtoaddress SomeNewAddressForOurNewCoin2walletqt 7555.502597
What do you guys think?
May 30, 2014, 03:39:05 AM
I can see a lot of unhappy and frustrated posters on here (not to mention the ungrateful ones). There is quite a few people waiting for trading to resume, so they can buy. If you are not happy with the board/progress/how the issues are handled, then I suggest you sell when it re-opens. Your coins will end up being bought by people that are actually supporting this project and will be happy to let the board do it's job.
Good words! I like you FightFear!
Jump to: