Topic: [ANN][SUPERCOIN] Unique Most Advanced Anonymous Trustless Multisig Technology - page 91. (Read 288838 times)

The Community (even those of us who think our coin are safe) would like a fair solution. The developers and exchanges remain obdurate. I have suggested a reduction in pos reward to allow losers a fresh stake on the current blockchain. But the principle players will only act if the community shows solidarity... even at a cost to ourselves. I reject the arrogance and complacency of the Management Team.

I can see reasoning in every side of the story...

- Bittrex could have acted faster. Reports of missing coins to Bittrex started 7 days ago! You can't just blame the devs surely.
- Devs could have acted faster. Faster block explorer update could have helped although it was a bit outside of dev's control.
- Users acted fastest. Many stopped transferring very early on. Reported it to Bittrex, devs etc. But we are losing out...

And I'm not the only one.

There are people who could lose more than I.

I am mentally preparing myself as I would have lost everything, because, with this kind of events, that's real possibility too...


If I had remembered well, when vericoin was stolen, they restored the blockchain to earlier state, right?

I am not competent to say does that solves the problem, but...

I have even worse problem:

Those coins showed by jakiman - if we are on the new fork - they would be at bittrex , and since they would be on the old fork - i'm losing it

If we are on the old fork - coins are not at the bittrex , so, where are my coins then? Maybe would be in wallet, maybe not...  Either way I could lose this coins, and that's same result as  if I would be scammed.

Before i leave crypto world once and for all, I'm waiting epilog of this situation...

The day after the wallet update. So exchanges were left watching the blockchain with the wrong explorer and Investors were led to the wrong fork.
This is essentially a Management Problem and the fault lies in the complacency of the Supercoin Management Team. Refusal to accept any responsibility merely compounds the errors.

Devs, I recommend you guys setup an IRC channel so it can be sorted out more quickly instead of back & forth forum posts here.

Fork will die along with any coin on that fork.
So is this the roadmap for the future? More forks more fixes and more losses? Because uneven pos generation and faster block times will continue to be fundamental properties of the coin.
I should add that my remaining coin are in the latest wallet and staking with approx 30% rejects. This compares with Mammothcoin staking with about 2% rejects. Both using the same codebase.

Richiela, potential fork issue was reported to Bittrex over a week ago it seems right about the time of the first fork.
I would expect an exchange to take these very seriously and perform own checks/tests or disable trade? (and ask the dev here etc)
Heck, even I knew about the potential fork last week and stopped any new transfers after some tiny transfer tests that failed.
Supercoindev fixed the issue very quickly and have official block explorer was updated within a day of the fork fix wallet.
How could they have done better? I believe it was all publicized on twitter when this happened also...

??

So if you move to new fork we lose coins on Bittrex?

Explorers are not done by dev team, we informed as soon as possible the dev for explorer and helped to get it fixed.

Again fork is a common problem. Exchanges are responsible to watch it and suspend trading as needed. The dev team will help as much as we can to resolve the issues.

As supercointeam said, as soon as we found out there are possible forks, we released a new version with new checkpoints. If you use the new version, you can only sync to the correct block chain.

And because the sync time is usually very long (the program will take long time to find out the right chain from the forked ones), we posted the correct block chain files a few days ago. So as long as you download it, and sync from there, it should be pretty fast to sync.

Use block explorer to check if you are on the correct blockchain.

Answers to a few questions:

Q1: Is the github 1.6 version wrong? why I am blocked at block 428419?
A1: The github 1.6 code is correct. If you are blocked at 428419, it means you are on a forked chain. There's a checkpoint at block 428420. This is the purpose of checkpoint. We compiled directly from github and tested a few times, there is no problem at all. Both released 3.1 windows client and the github 1.6 code are correct.

If it takes too long for you to sync, download the blockchain file and sync from there.

Q2: Why fork happen?
A2: Fork happens due to network hash / pos generation unevenly, and also faster block time (which makes transactions a lot faster) may cause forking problems. This fork problem is very common in the alt coins. Most coins have fork issues at one point. Nothing is strange there. When fork occurs, dev team usually release a new version with more checkpoints that block the forked chain. Once everyone use the correct chain, fork will die.

Q3: Why after sync my balance is different?
A3: After fully sync'ed, use repairwallet command in console.

Thanks all for your patience and support.

When the wallet was updated the Block Explorer was Not updated. The Block Explorer is the tool used to investigate the Blockchain. Maintenance of the tools (wallet and explorer) is the responsibility of the Developers.
But neither side is willing to compromise in order to help Investors. And if it's left like that then whichever fork wins, this coin has zero chance of survival. The situation creates no confidence for the future.

@fairglue the chain we picked is the official one we  don't know which chain is in the exchange.

I don't get your point there. If you see many reports there for missing coins, you should suspend the trading and investigate. You did not do that, you missed it, now you try to blame the dev. It is your job to watch all the coins trading in your exchange. You are the only one to watch it, not dev, not other people. When you have issues, consult with the dev or check the coin thread. It is as simple as that, I don't see your points trying to find a scapegoat there.

Well ideally, the checkpoint should have validated the exchanges fork, apparently it validated the other fork, hence the trouble.

If MintPal is on the same fork bittrex was before suspension, then a better solution would be to revert the last update and make the exchange fork the official one.
Then bittrex get their coins back, deposits return to their original wallets, no minting is required, MintPal withdrawals are ok, and the only losses are the stakes performed on the other form (which I guess should be a minor evil).

Of course if MintPal is on a third fork... that would make thinks complicated.

Because exchanges never asks when they add a crypto or when they remove. This is their job to watch for forks, willingly added cryptos, they know fork risks, they can build block explorers and follow our thread and github. Or simply they do not add. if exchange sees reports of missing coins, exchange should suspend the trading and investigate. If an exchange missed that or ignore these which serves a good lesson for the future.
we offered  the solution. We will do again if needed. This is not our first fork fix with bittrex. they acted without problem in the old one.

We love bittrex and we have no problem with them. We still want to see them opening our market and will keep them first line within other exchanges if they want to cooperate. Next time i will closely care and alert bittrex before any other exchange. I also suggest them they make a system can follow github updates and they set up own block explorers so it will not be issue there again.

Blockdata only affects wallet db, explorer db is synchronized from it, but does its own checks.

However as I wrote, time is not part of the explorer checks, only block order / precedence.


Yes, that's what I explained. I've updated the transaction page to make it more obvious.

I wasn't aware of the time constraint for PoS, and only assumed that block order & time served as reference like for PoW chains.


I'll see about surfacing it in the "raw" technical data. As far as regular users are concerned, I think the block time makes the most sense, as it's the one that matters for confirming things with exchanges, merchants, etc. when looking up a transaction.

Assuming the time field in the transactions is created by a client (is it?), it is not as important as someone could have created a transaction with no or poor connectivity (and the tx would then only be seen by the net after a rebroadcast), or a de-synchronized clock, or just plain faked it by voluntarily adjusting his clock.

(that said, if you feel like other info could be clarified or added, feel free to PM me or open a ticket, might be easier to discuss technical details)

That would be the explorer released or promoted by the Supercoin Team, along with the Wallet, and referred to on Page One of this thread, along with all the elaborate promotional material.

sounds reasonable, it would be the best if supercoinDEV could respond to this so we have every necessary detail at hand to sort it out.