Topic: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine - page 54. (Read 578565 times)

Yes, that is very similar to how the screen looked. Is this only happening to me or do other people also have this issue?

◾"Damaged" app. – The app has been altered by something other than the developer. This message will appear no matter the Gatekeeper option chosen.
◦ "App name" is damaged and can't be opened. You should move it to the Trash.

http://support.apple.com/kb/ht5290

Hi, when running the Mac OS X client I get the following error:

===
"Cryptonite-Qt" is damaged and can't be opened. You should move it to the Trash.
com.apple.WebKit.Plugin.64 created this file today at XX:XX
[Cancel] [Move to Trash]
===

Does anyone know why I get this error? I use Mac OS 10.9.5.

Thanks for a great initiative and for any hints regarding this issue...

What we really need is something that people can do with their XCN. I propose a crowd funded just-dice style betting site.

That always brings a crowd.

most alt-coins die, because the devs are giving up after a month or two. I think in the future, only those coins have a chance which offer:

1. something unique (like XCN's mini-blockchain and more)
2. show continuous work and support

can i sell a gpu on here for xcn? or is that against the rules?

Whoa I just realized how substantial some of those recent donations were.

We have 16K XCN and 1 BTC in donations, so lets do something useful with that.

Clearly I'm not a marketing guru so I'm open to ideas about how we can promote Cryptonite.

I will not let this coin die, don't anybody worry about that. It's too innovative to die.

So lets hear those ideas.

yea ur wishful thinking isn't gonna work buddy. thats what leads to the deaths of altcoins.

XCN needs to be put out there, work with other Devs. Collaborate

nah, just getting some taccos. XCN hoarders just don't want to attract too much attention  

There's more of us sticking around. I wish I had the means to help drive real world usage towards XCN, but unfortunately I have neither the skills nor the time for now. I'm confident that the community, however small it is today, will continue to grow, and figure out ways to push XCN forward.

Happy mining!

PPL are leaving,I choose to stay with dev here.

I don't think I've actually ever tried setting the withdrawal limit on an address to 0 and I'm not sure if it can be undone, I'll have to ask catia about it. One thing to keep in mind is that when you increase the withdrawal limit it will take 100 blocks before the withdrawal limit gets updated. But I'm not sure why it's saying you have insufficient funds, I'm guessing it has something to do with your withdrawal limit being 0. The setlimit transactions are pretty weird, the input and output address are the same, where the output value is the new limit value and the difference between the input and output values is the fee. But I think if you use a command like gettransaction it wont show the true structure of the tx, it will show a simplified version of the transaction which makes more sense.

Not sure if this is a bug or a feature, but I set the withdrawal limit of an address to zero and now I am unable to raise the withdrawal limit.  I looked at the debug log output for the CommitTransaction process, and I noticed that the error message for the AcceptToMemoryPool step was "insufficient funds".  So I set my transaction fee to zero hoping that would allow the transaction to go through.  Although the transaction still failed, when I checked the debug log output again, the error message for the AcceptToMemoryPool step was changed to "no inputs/outputs".  So with no transaction fee, at least it seems to have failed for a different reason.  I even tried putting some XCN in a new address in the same wallet, and then reinstating the transaction fee, hoping that it could somehow draw the transaction fee from the funds available in the new address.  However, the setlimit transaction still failed.  I also tried giving more than one address argument to setlimit, but all I got was a usage message.

Bitfreak, do you know of any way that I can raise the withdrawal limit for an address once it has been set to zero?  At the very least, this may be a situation that you would want to consider idiot-proofing in a future software update.  In my defense, since I'm the idiot in this situation  , a naive user might consider doing this as a way to protect the funds at an address he/she intends to use for long-term storage.

It's kind of hard to explain. I believe the issue was preventing all new addresses from showing up properly on the explorer. When the block explorer was first set up most of the addresses were properly processed by manually running the script which I'm now running as a cron job. So after I stopped doing it manually and set up the cron job it was running under a different user, which led to permission issues when it was faced with an address it hadn't seen before.

Why would that affect one address and not others?

After a bit of debugging I found the problem and it should be fixed now. Turns out that the cron job wasn't running as the apache user and so it couldn't create new files properly. Something to keep in mind for anyone running the block explorer.

Hmmm looks like you've found some sort of bug in the block explorer. I'll look into it shortly.

On the blockchain explorer I looked up two wallets I have. One lists the two transactions and the total, the other lists only a total balance but there were three transactions. Is there a reason for this?

http://explorer.cryptonite.info/?address=CWKcW3XCGe6VntryY7pEmKv8cs51TWMUZj
Should show three transactions.

I dont mind about it. To me, XCN is like Bitcoin in 2009.

I'd also like to make the point that keeping the focus on shit and scam coins inhibits the growth of more legitimate crypto projects.

There's more than a few payment options that stand to lose money, if good projects catch on, and in addition to the obvious money to be made by scammers, if people get fed up with crypto because of them, then these same companies are beating their competition.

I'm saying that, it's highly likely that in addition to obvious scammers, there's an active movement toward keeping good competition down, and I wouldn't  be surprised at all if groups outside of cryptocurrencies are taking an active role in purposely keeping the focus on shit coins, because it'll cost them less in the long run.