They updated the page with the link to the source adding a note saying the source code shown is old code but the new code will be added shortly.
That means they're still making changes. Merged mining could come back..? We'll have to wait and see.
Topic: [ANNOUNCE] RuCoin - Russian alternate cryptocurrency - exchange is up already! - page 7. (Read 34429 times)
April 16, 2012, 10:55:12 AM
April 16, 2012, 02:16:54 AM
Well it wouldn't if its just a normal bitcoin minimally hacked to put out the free two million coins in block one and to use the different ports and handshake.
But if that is what they are now using, I guess they just don't want to be merged-mined, which probably severely limits how much mining will ever happen on their chain. Oh well, if they don't want people to get involved thats their choice. Too bad, I was going to set up trading of it on my Open Transactions server but not much point if they are deliberately making it so vulnerable to attack (by discouraging people from mining it).
-MarkM-
But if that is what they are now using, I guess they just don't want to be merged-mined, which probably severely limits how much mining will ever happen on their chain. Oh well, if they don't want people to get involved thats their choice. Too bad, I was going to set up trading of it on my Open Transactions server but not much point if they are deliberately making it so vulnerable to attack (by discouraging people from mining it).
-MarkM-
April 16, 2012, 12:45:46 AM
well its a fork from the 6004 bitcoin edition/version. sourcefile is here https://www.rucoin.org/rucoin-0.401.tar.gz
https://www.rucoin.org
Well i made a similar expirience with the version prior to this actual one.. thats why i updated, but after the chain was up to date and i started the miner it didnt work with merged mining..
https://www.rucoin.org
Quote
I have been merged-mining a long long time now but still not one transaction, even an orphan, showing in list transactions.
Well i made a similar expirience with the version prior to this actual one.. thats why i updated, but after the chain was up to date and i started the miner it didnt work with merged mining..
April 15, 2012, 05:51:05 PM
merged mining seems not to work anymore since version 2.2-1711
Do you mean "edition" rather than "version"? As version numbers don't seem to look like that?
Also, where are you finding it? And is source code available yet?
I have been merged-mining a long long time now but still not one transaction, even an orphan, showing in list transactions.
-MarkM-
April 15, 2012, 07:42:22 AM
merged mining seems not to work anymore since version 2.2-1711
April 13, 2012, 09:15:16 PM
after update - all my mined RUC since Block ~18500 are gone!
April 12, 2012, 06:37:38 PM
nvm, i was using an old version, new one works
April 12, 2012, 06:34:01 PM
Is anyone else having trouble downloading the blockchain?
March 14, 2012, 09:17:56 AM
Not really sandboxed but it can't do much damage if it were bad.. everything can be rebuilt.
I have no idea about licensing... I avoid that kind of stuff. Its possible that the source is still coming. Without their forums working it's hard to tell.
I have no idea about licensing... I avoid that kind of stuff. Its possible that the source is still coming. Without their forums working it's hard to tell.
March 13, 2012, 10:38:10 PM
I hope you have their binaries well sandboxed, remember these are the guys who lied about their code not including any "premined" coins given out and gosh knows what else. No wonder they went proprietary, they probably realised they could modify the alert code to put any kinds of trojans and worms in that they wanted to and send out a trigger for them later once it was on enough machines or they found a customer for such a service...
In other news, I have taken my "PRGcoin" template and made a very new code version of RUCoin in case maybe the code they used to make their binary was recent enough to have the checksums on messages turned on or something like that. No connections so far but its still flipping through address so maybe just hasn't found them hidden among all the actual bitcoin daemons yet.
By the way, is not giving out source code a violation of the BSD license? Maybe they are in violation of that like SolidCoin was?
-MarkM-
In other news, I have taken my "PRGcoin" template and made a very new code version of RUCoin in case maybe the code they used to make their binary was recent enough to have the checksums on messages turned on or something like that. No connections so far but its still flipping through address so maybe just hasn't found them hidden among all the actual bitcoin daemons yet.
By the way, is not giving out source code a violation of the BSD license? Maybe they are in violation of that like SolidCoin was?
-MarkM-
March 13, 2012, 10:26:16 PM
That's one possible idea..
The other thing is.. I wonder what "edition" is which shows up with this binary version..
The other thing is.. I wonder what "edition" is which shows up with this binary version..
Code:
:~/apps$ ./clients/rucoind-5 getinfo
{
"version" : 50200,
"edition" : "2.1-892",
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 17423,
"connections" : 4,
"proxy" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"difficulty" : 1789.00569829,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1328304975,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}
March 13, 2012, 09:31:58 PM
One of the attempts you desribed drops connection after version is sent.
So maybe they decided they don't want to connect to their old version and simply check that the version number is not too low.
So we could try using a higher version number.
-MarkM-
So maybe they decided they don't want to connect to their old version and simply check that the version number is not too low.
So we could try using a higher version number.
-MarkM-
March 13, 2012, 09:00:43 PM
Well.. I'm taking a break from this for this evening.. I'll do some more tests tomorrow evening if I get a chance (if my wife will let me).
Last note though...
Windows connecting to linux (custom build from your source) doesn't work... connect attemps are made but is dropped
Windows connecting to linux pre-compiled build works.. but packets look odd compared to this page says it should go.. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification
The pre-compiled linux binary is downloading the block chain now where the custom build wouldn't. I'm thinking there's more to the protocol than just the magic id that needs to be looked at but that's for another day.
Last note though...
Windows connecting to linux (custom build from your source) doesn't work... connect attemps are made but is dropped
Windows connecting to linux pre-compiled build works.. but packets look odd compared to this page says it should go.. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification
The pre-compiled linux binary is downloading the block chain now where the custom build wouldn't. I'm thinking there's more to the protocol than just the magic id that needs to be looked at but that's for another day.
March 13, 2012, 08:45:10 PM
The precompiled linux binary doesn't seem to get far enough in a connection to send the data packet with the magic id..
From the debug log:
Which means the Windows binary and Linux binary connect differently...
From the debug log:
Code:
connected 192.168.50.51:8883
socket closed
disconnecting node 192.168.50.51:8883
Which means the Windows binary and Linux binary connect differently...
March 13, 2012, 08:36:54 PM
Wiped out the block data to try and download clean with the customized version but it won't connect to anything...
From the debug log:
This is my windows box running the 5.x binary from the site.
Packet sniffer shows the connection and a couple of tcp packets back and forth. The data packet with the version information is sent and rather than a "verack" response, the reply is a disconnect packet. So while we are sending the same magic code that the pre-compiled binaries send it's still being rejected.
From the debug log:
Code:
trying connection 192.168.50.51:8883 lastseen=-342135.4hrs lasttry=-369913.2hrs
ThreadRPCServer started
connected 192.168.50.51:8883
sending: version (85 bytes)
socket closed
disconnecting node 192.168.50.51:8883
This is my windows box running the 5.x binary from the site.
Packet sniffer shows the connection and a couple of tcp packets back and forth. The data packet with the version information is sent and rather than a "verack" response, the reply is a disconnect packet. So while we are sending the same magic code that the pre-compiled binaries send it's still being rejected.
March 13, 2012, 08:06:57 PM
Here's what I did:
Magic code set to:
I set the characters in order as I see them on the packet sniffer because looking at the bitcoin source code, they are in order and not reversed like that website I linked previously shows.
Compiled, ran with addnode= windows ip
Windows box is running the 5.x binary from rucoin website.
Packet sniffer running picked up the same magic code in the same order as above which is good.
However, the new client didn't hold the connection. It dropped but did connect to two other hosts (one using port 8883 and one on port 8333).
I also noticed that running the compiled linux binary from the website is also acting up now. I noticed one of the binaries dropped about 2000 blocks out of the linux chain so I'm going to wipe it out and start over.
Testing continues....
Magic code set to:
Code:
char pchMessageStart[4] = { 0xfa, 0xbf, 0xba, 0xdb };
I set the characters in order as I see them on the packet sniffer because looking at the bitcoin source code, they are in order and not reversed like that website I linked previously shows.
Compiled, ran with addnode= windows ip
Windows box is running the 5.x binary from rucoin website.
Packet sniffer running picked up the same magic code in the same order as above which is good.
However, the new client didn't hold the connection. It dropped but did connect to two other hosts (one using port 8883 and one on port 8333).
I also noticed that running the compiled linux binary from the website is also acting up now. I noticed one of the binaries dropped about 2000 blocks out of the linux chain so I'm going to wipe it out and start over.
Testing continues....
March 13, 2012, 07:14:52 PM
Ok, give me a few minutes to test some stuff here.
I'll compile your version with the new magic ID, force it to connect to my windows box and will see what it puts onto the network.
I'll compile your version with the new magic ID, force it to connect to my windows box and will see what it puts onto the network.
March 13, 2012, 07:07:48 PM
OK I changed it for main net to the magic ID you say above, and to the reverse, and neither got me connections in a short time.
I am using
char pchMessageStart[4] = { 0xDB, 0xBA, 0xBF, 0xFA };
again now for a longer trial as it has to flop through many many addresses that have no one at them at all it seems.
Is it still using same port number, even? (8883)
-MarkM-
I am using
char pchMessageStart[4] = { 0xDB, 0xBA, 0xBF, 0xFA };
again now for a longer trial as it has to flop through many many addresses that have no one at them at all it seems.
Is it still using same port number, even? (8883)
-MarkM-
March 13, 2012, 06:34:56 PM
Ok, lets see if I got this right...
bitcoin and rucoin v4.x is using the magic id of D9B4BEF9 (sent as F9 BE B4 D9) from https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification
If this is the code you're looking for then the rucoin 5.x binaries is sending across the wire "FA BF BA DB" reversing to become the magic id of DBBABFFA....
If I'm completely off.. let me know.
bitcoin and rucoin v4.x is using the magic id of D9B4BEF9 (sent as F9 BE B4 D9) from https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification
If this is the code you're looking for then the rucoin 5.x binaries is sending across the wire "FA BF BA DB" reversing to become the magic id of DBBABFFA....
If I'm completely off.. let me know.
March 13, 2012, 06:15:37 PM
I can run a packet sniffer to find out but I need to run some tests to see how it'll appear.
Where in the source code is the handshake id set? (Groupcoin as an example)
Where in the source code is the handshake id set? (Groupcoin as an example)
Jump to: