Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANNOUNCE] New Solidcoin Client Fully Open-Source! - page 9. (Read 23834 times)

member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
USE_UPNP= make -f ../build/makefile.unix solidcoin

Just to clarify: That is USE_UPNP= and then a space. You are specifically setting a temporary shell variable 'USE_UPNP' to blank, then running the make command with that setting. Realized right after I posted that that you might try to correct the "typo" if you're not actually used to building software and have never seen shell variables used to control a build script before. Smiley
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
are the linux binaries up already ?



Tried to compile by myself (have not done that ever yet) but it produces a failure.
I'm guessing it's cause some parts needed are missing on my computer.
Checked for this 'miniupnp' mentioned somewhere above, but could not find it on my system. Later found out it seems that debian hasn't included it in the 'stable' version. Guessing thats the problem why i can't compile myself? At least not do the 'make -f .....' part. Actually no clue what else to do after that then - sorry, totaly new to this and never got to the point: 'searching for a howto compile yourself for newbs' - and then read it.


Wonder if i still could use the 1.02 client to send transactions or if it will screw something up.

Check the build-unix.txt file in the docs folder. For the specific problem you are having:

Requires miniupnpc for UPnP port mapping.  It can be downloaded from
http://miniupnp.tuxfamily.org/files/.  UPnP support is compiled in and
turned off by default.  Set USE_UPNP to a different value to control this:
USE_UPNP=   no UPnP support, miniupnp not required;
USE_UPNP=0  (the default) UPnP support turned off by default at runtime;
USE_UPNP=1  UPnP support turned on by default at runtime.

So basically, you want:
USE_UPNP= make -f ../build/makefile.unix solidcoin

You'll also want to make sure you've installed build-essential, libgtk2.0-dev, libssl-dev -- they actually list the apt-get commands you'll want to run in the build-unix.txt file I mentioned.
legendary
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank
If I understand it correctly and please correct me if I am wrong, this is NOT a new blockchain but a real open source (under MIT licence) version off RealSolid's solidcoin client.
As you know, RealSolid added a really stupid home made "licence" to his version and pissed of most of the solidcoin supporters and the major exchange. Thank you RealSolid for trying to convert all the mined  solidcoins to asspennies. "Good" job, boy!
 
We have a new Open source client, please use it!
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
are the linux binaries up already ?



Tried to compile by myself (have not done that ever yet) but it produces a failure.
I'm guessing it's cause some parts needed are missing on my computer.
Checked for this 'miniupnp' mentioned somewhere above, but could not find it on my system. Later found out it seems that debian hasn't included it in the 'stable' version. Guessing thats the problem why i can't compile myself? At least not do the 'make -f .....' part. Actually no clue what else to do after that then - sorry, totaly new to this and never got to the point: 'searching for a howto compile yourself for newbs' - and then read it.


Wonder if i still could use the 1.02 client to send transactions or if it will screw something up.
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
Yeah, competence comes into play too. As does having a face on the project that we don't want to throw water balloons filled with paint at.

That's quite the colorful expression!

/dodge

It was nicer than saying H2SO4.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
Yeah, competence comes into play too. As does having a face on the project that we don't want to throw water balloons filled with paint at.

That's quite the colorful expression!

/dodge
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
For the record, I'd like to state that I don't support solidcoin...
I just hate when a sucker wants to play god

Thanks for providing an alternative. Although its more than about a license imo.

Yeah, competence comes into play too. As does having a face on the project that we don't want to throw water balloons filled with paint at.
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
For the record, I'd like to state that I don't support solidcoin...
I just hate when a sucker wants to play god

Thanks for providing an alternative. Although its more than about a license imo.
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
Making a new fork would just make people dislike open source.

It will fork anyway if the majority choose to use this client . Just like democracy you dont get a say if 51% imposes their will.

Only CoinHunter dislikes open source. The rest of us here like it just fine.

Why, are you him?

No. I merely want to point out that if the majority use this client it doesnt matter what I or CH thinks if you have the support of more than 51% of the miners.

Ideally you should make another chain instead of trying to fork this one.

Its purely democracy.
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
Making a new fork would just make people dislike open source.

It will fork anyway if the majority choose to use this client . Just like democracy you dont get a say if 51% imposes their will.

Only CoinHunter dislikes open source. The rest of us here like it just fine.

Why, are you him?
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
Making a new fork would just make people dislike open source.

It will fork anyway if the majority choose to use this client . Just like democracy you dont get a say if 51% imposes their will.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1280
May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage
For the record, I'd like to state that I don't support solidcoin...
I just hate when a sucker wants to play god
full member
Activity: 237
Merit: 100
In the end, a new chain will mess people over who mined and invested, keeping an open source version doesn't.  By messing over people who've mined and invested you are strengthening the arguement that cryptocurrencies are a scam, and that's not good for anyone.  If you want a new chain to mine, IX, IO and SC are all still fairly new.

IMO it's irrelevant. Anyone could start a SolidCoin/Bitcoin fork at any point. Why would it make a difference if someone started a SolidCoin fork ("SoldCoin") now versus some other random fork? Supposedly there's something coming up Sep. 7th, and those who want to mine new forks will do so regardless of what happens here.
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
In the end, a new chain will mess people over who mined and invested, keeping an open source version doesn't.  By messing over people who've mined and invested you are strengthening the arguement that cryptocurrencies are a scam, and that's not good for anyone.  If you want a new chain to mine, IX, IO and SC are all still fairly new.

I haven't mined bitcoin since IXCoin came out. I mined around 20k of those. Mined I0 when it came out (still mining it right now as it's the most profitable). Mined SC as well. But I sell all mined coins same day usually.
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
In the end, a new chain will mess people over who mined and invested, keeping an open source version doesn't.  By messing over people who've mined and invested you are strengthening the arguement that cryptocurrencies are a scam, and that's not good for anyone.  If you want a new chain to mine, IX, IO and SC are all still fairly new.
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
I don't think another fork is going to help things, plus you'll cause more problems for miners than anyone else if you do that. 

It's good for miners to have choices in what coin they mine.

If you start another blockchain that's an open source version of Solidcoin, you'll essentially replace Solidcoin leaving the same number of options.
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
I don't think another fork is going to help things, plus you'll cause more problems for miners than anyone else if you do that. 

It's good for miners to have choices in what coin they mine.
sd
hero member
Activity: 730
Merit: 500
I don't think another fork is going to help things, plus you'll cause more problems for miners than anyone else if you do that.

Agreed. Keep the SolidCoin client open source so the network still runs. Replace the closed source ( or whatever ) clients with open source versions.

If anyone wants to use SolidCoin they can and the coinhunter loonypath no longer controls anything.
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
I don't think another fork is going to help things, plus you'll cause more problems for miners than anyone else if you do that.
legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001
Rename the whole shebazzle SaladCoin in honour of the tosser who started solidcoin.

It will be interesting to see if the implementations get into a protocol fight.  
With bitcoin there will presumably be a common set of unit tests for implementers to work against.

With SaladCoin - just throw your code onto the same chopping block and try to keep your fingers clear of the other chefs knives.. don't worry if you're tossing a Waldorf and the other guy's cutting a Caesar - it's all just solid salad in the end!

Pages:
Jump to: