Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin v2.0.4 ✦ PoS ✦ Anon ✦ Masternode Whitepaper ✦ Get Juiced! - page 46. (Read 72528 times)

hero member
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
@halofirebtc
I have been getting a few blocks on v2 for the last hours, are these on the right fork?
(this includes blocks mined by rich list list #12 and #9, so if it's a fork, they would be on it as well)

Appreciating your thoughts on risks , but this was actually provided by the development team and if you cannot trust the development team , I do not know who you will. Wink

Technically speaking, the file is not provided by the team, but by a link to a mediafire url.
The trust issue is not about the dev team, but about whether the data you get may or may not actually be from the dev team Smiley

The github source code is trustable, as it is hosted on an https server, with a well identified url and a list of recent changes/commit and git's own tamper-proof hashing, so any hijacking attempt would not go unnoticed, but the mediafire link on the other hand is "meaningless", http, and the data itself hosted by a 3rd party. This is vulnerable to several vectors of attack.

When replacing the db, the wallet will only check the last 2500 blocks, while when using a bootstrap.dat, the wallet will check the whole blockchain, making hijacking attempts as hard as a full-scale 51% attack, so it's okay to host the bootstrap.dat anywhere.



The blockchain download will be coming off the website once we sort out our issues, bootstraps will take the place. I hated having to put the full db up because it isn't how crypto was meant to flow, but it's what worked at the time. We were dev-less, and I had to do what I had to do to keep the chain alive in my position. I've stated I attempted to make bootstraps in the past, they didn't work out. We have bootstrap capabilities now, so downloading those from mediafire shouldn't be an issue as you stated. Smiley

legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1022
We are officially a global network: 11 Countries across the globe. Any news on yesterdays events? Any fixes? I noticed the chain over at chainz hasn't moved for ten hours... I am at work currently so I cannot check my node unfortunately.


The chain just moved some and my node is still the same block height as chainz.cryptoid.info/oc/ which is block 288476. Difficulty of 0.0613  and going up.


legendary
Activity: 1778
Merit: 1000
My wallet is not staking, but last recorded block is 288443
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1041
We are officially a global network: 11 Countries across the globe. Any news on yesterdays events? Any fixes? I noticed the chain over at chainz hasn't moved for ten hours... I am at work currently so I cannot check my node unfortunately.

Cheers!

-Raven

PS Halo I hope you didn't over indulge the beer, Haha! Good Morning Everyone!
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1001
Founder - NavCoin Ⓝ
I have been getting a few blocks on v2 for the last hours, are these on the right fork?
(this includes blocks mined by rich list list #12 and #9, so if it's a fork, they would be on it as well)

Appreciating your thoughts on risks , but this was actually provided by the development team and if you cannot trust the development team , I do not know who you will. Wink

Technically speaking, the file is not provided by the team, but by a link to a mediafire url.
The trust issue is not about the dev team, but about whether the data you get may or may not actually be from the dev team Smiley

The github source code is trustable, as it is hosted on an https server, with a well identified url and a list of recent changes/commit and git's own tamper-proof hashing, so any hijacking attempt would not go unnoticed, but the mediafire link on the other hand is "meaningless", http, and the data itself hosted by a 3rd party. This is vulnerable to several vectors of attack.

When replacing the db, the wallet will only check the last 2500 blocks, while when using a bootstrap.dat, the wallet will check the whole blockchain, making hijacking attempts as hard as a full-scale 51% attack, so it's okay to host the bootstrap.dat anywhere.



Oh Okay mate , got you there the trust issue was with the hosting provider. Smiley I get you now. Believe it was a communication mishap. Smiley Appologies mate.
Enjoy a beer shall we?

Warm Regards,
~SoopY~
legendary
Activity: 1100
Merit: 1032
I have been getting a few blocks on v2 for the last hours, are these on the right fork?
(this includes blocks mined by rich list list #12 and #9, so if it's a fork, they would be on it as well)

Appreciating your thoughts on risks , but this was actually provided by the development team and if you cannot trust the development team , I do not know who you will. Wink

Technically speaking, the file is not provided by the team, but by a link to a mediafire url.
The trust issue is not about the dev team, but about whether the data you get may or may not actually be from the dev team Smiley

The github source code is trustable, as it is hosted on an https server, with a well identified url and a list of recent changes/commit and git's own tamper-proof hashing, so any hijacking attempt would not go unnoticed, but the mediafire link on the other hand is "meaningless", http, and the data itself hosted by a 3rd party. This is vulnerable to several vectors of attack.

When replacing the db, the wallet will only check the last 2500 blocks, while when using a bootstrap.dat, the wallet will check the whole blockchain, making hijacking attempts as hard as a full-scale 51% attack, so it's okay to host the bootstrap.dat anywhere.

hero member
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
@halofirebtc
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1041
At least I can finally relax a little bit, since soopy is now aware of everything.

Thanks for everyone's help today. We will get through this, there's no question there. Smiley

Indeed, Such an AWESOME TEAM! Keep up the hard work, Halo have a beer!
hero member
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
@halofirebtc
At least I can finally relax a little bit, since soopy is now aware of everything.

Thanks for everyone's help today. We will get through this, there's no question there. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1001
Founder - NavCoin Ⓝ
Got past 262799 with the bootstrap, but with the previous version (2.0 did not get past it)

Now trying to switch to 2.0... It's getting stuck :/

Also the July fix seems to have been reverted in 2.0 with a "version bump" comment, alongside actual version bump commits, could that be the bug?

yes it was reverted and reevaluated and re applied to avoid any further issues. Smiley

hero member
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
@halofirebtc
Yay soopy! Just in time for the last PM I sent ya. Yeah, apologies for bombardment. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1041
Btw guys I m going through all your messages on the thread and the one's and on pm.

How are we holding?

I will work on the issues at hand.

Warm Regards,
~SoopY~

Hello Soop!

We're having:
Competing chains due to same protocol different clients/checkpoints. I sent halo some debug clips from various scenarios, building bootstrap, syncing from scratch, copying saved chain. I had a scare with the runtime and constantly terminating , I fixed it... It was an error in the config file. Dummy me.

Sorry for the bombardment earlier, just trying to obtain as much info as possible.

Cheers!

-Raven
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1001
Founder - NavCoin Ⓝ
Btw guys I m going through all your messages on the thread and the one's and on pm.

How are we holding?

I will work on the issues at hand.

Warm Regards,
~SoopY~
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1001
Founder - NavCoin Ⓝ
There are no manipulations. We have had to provide a blockchain due to slow syncing for some users.
Not accusing anyone, just pointing that a mediafire download of a raw db is not trustable in several ways Smiley (it's vulnerable even to simple network corruption)

The bootstrap.dat is a pre-download of the chain on the other hand, but the client will still validate all the blocks (which is why importing a bootstrap is slow), so it's okay to get one from an untrusted source.

Hi mate,

Appreciating your thoughts on risks , but this was actually provided by the development team and if you cannot trust the development team , I do not know who you will. Wink

Warm Regards,
~SoopY~
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1041
Stuck on 272699 from bootstrap. My head hurts! Huh
Edit: it jumped 100
hero member
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
@halofirebtc
Got past 262799 with the bootstrap, but with the previous version (2.0 did not get past it)

Now trying to switch to 2.0... It's getting stuck :/

Also the July fix seems to have been reverted in 2.0 with a "version bump" comment, alongside actual version bump commits, could that be the bug?

I explained to you in the PM's what that was all about.

1.0.8 and prior versions had a bug from cloned MINT code that wouldn't allow the chain to advance past 262800. OC is a MINT clone.
1.0.9 attempted to fix this by extending the YearlyBlockcount in our code by a factor of 4x, thus extending 20% PoS 4 years and delaying the problem.
2.0.0 implemented the MINT git fix for the same problem. Everything was reverted back to pre-1.0.9 code, except the fix I found. This included the Yearlyblockcount which we were already past at that point on the 2.0.0 fork which 1.0.9 clients were able to connect to with their own version of the stuck chain fix and different PoS payout. We have two versions of clients running on the same blockchain with 2 different PoS payouts. I think this is the problem. I've been waiting for soopy to come online. I've already bombarded him with PM's from earlier in the day. So I figured I wait and gather more info before messaging him again.

So reverting back to 1.0.9 fixes the problems we are having now in that client, but for only for 1.0.9 and that chain keeps on plugging along because not everyone is updated to 2.0.0. The Mint fix works, because the clients 2.0.0 shouldn't sync or stake at all on either chain past 262800 if this weren't true, since the code reverted back to original besides the Mint fix.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1041
Got past 262799 with the bootstrap, but with the previous version (2.0 did not get past it)

Now trying to switch to 2.0... It's getting stuck :/

Also the July fix seems to have been reverted in 2.0 with a "version bump" comment, alongside actual version bump commits, could that be the bug?

So Halo, back to our version block conversation.  Wink

Fairglu, I had a feeling there was something wrong, I could close it, open it and the wallet would sync but, then program not responding constantly once I got green checkmark...
legendary
Activity: 1100
Merit: 1032
Got past 262799 with the bootstrap, but with the previous version (2.0 did not get past it)

Now trying to switch to 2.0... It's getting stuck :/

Also the July fix seems to have been reverted in 2.0 with a "version bump" comment, alongside actual version bump commits, could that be the bug?
hero member
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
@halofirebtc
I'm still at 177000, syncing.  Undecided


I used the 285kzip
Need a link to my drop box?

No, I'm ok for now. I was informed I had to rename the file to bootstrap.dat. I had to restart the syncing. yay.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1041
I'm still at 177000, syncing.  Undecided


I used the 286kzip
Need a link to my drop box?
Pages:
Jump to: