So if a fork is made all the current coins would dissapear? 
No a fork only affects the logic for determining the valid chain going forward from a specific block (in this case)
Topic: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development - page 93. (Read 380091 times)
No a fork only affects the logic for determining the valid chain going forward from a specific block (in this case)
So if a fork is made all the current coins would dissapear?
I would go for a couple incremental upgrades. First ameliorate the issue adjusting the PoW/PoS balance. Run that for a while, then implement anything more advanced. We may come up with some other features to add in the second upgrade.
Can/should we put this up for a vote? Can a decision ultimately be up to sairon? I'm wondering/anxious on what the next step will be...
I wouldn't want to put the pressure on sairon, but I would be willing to let him and Joe_Bauers have the final say. After the lengthy discussion that was had here, I believe the ramifications of doing nothing outweigh the risk of hard forking to fix chain trust issues.
Yea, voting probably would be a waste of time considering all factors. Thanks so much sairon and Joe. I am pretty ignorant on how this hard fork would go down.
Can/should we put this up for a vote? Can a decision ultimately be up to sairon? I'm wondering/anxious on what the next step will be...
I wouldn't want to put the pressure on sairon, but I would be willing to let him and Joe_Bauers have the final say. After the lengthy discussion that was had here, I believe the ramifications of doing nothing outweigh the risk of hard forking to fix chain trust issues.
Can/should we put this up for a vote? Can a decision ultimately be up to sairon? I'm wondering/anxious on what the next step will be...
So, it's unofficialy dead?
Not sure where you got that idea - just decision making to determine the update being made or setting a time to fork with the changes sairon already proposed.
So, it's unofficialy dead?
Bugger. Thank you for your help, anyway.
So I couldn't just send a YAC to the address and include a message with that transaction? Sorry to be such a newbie.
Nope you can't. That's one of the misconceptions that blockchain.info is spreading (un-)intentionally.
So I couldn't just send a YAC to the address and include a message with that transaction? Sorry to be such a newbie.
No joy. I tried all of your suggestions. Would there be some way to use the "sign message" functionality to see if any (perhaps honest) person has received the coins?
First you need to find that person, though.
No joy. I tried all of your suggestions. Would there be some way to use the "sign message" functionality to see if any (perhaps honest) person has received the coins?
I don't really know how this happened, Sairon. I've got the YAC wallet locally, but my address is different. I'm guessing that the transaction is unredeemed means no-one is using that address. The coins were sent from Cryptsy, but the customer support there is not entirely helpful; they just closed the ticket with an "issue solved!" sort of message.
It only means no one has spent these coins yet. Unless you tend to copy-paste someone else's addresses, I think you have the private key to this address somewhere (or it's an exchange deposit addr).Double-check all your exchange accounts for deposits of 1371.497218 YAC.
Did you use more wallets? (Do you have more wallet.dat files?) If so, try to find these and see if the coins are there.
You could also try typing "validateaddress Y9MYeV2WcNbYJtMzE9Qs8dgS5yyAyvs9YF" into the debug window of YAC client. If you see something like "ismine: true" - then good news, the key to that address is in your wallet (but the client missed the transaction, somehow).
Other than that, dunno.
I don't really know how this happened, Sairon. I've got the YAC wallet locally, but my address is different. I'm guessing that the transaction is unredeemed means no-one is using that address. The coins were sent from Cryptsy, but the customer support there is not entirely helpful; they just closed the ticket with an "issue solved!" sort of message.
Somehow during the time that YAC went down around Xmas I managed to send some YAC from cryptsy to an invalid address...anyone know if it's possible to rescue these coins? The transaction shows as unredeemed the blockchain. And apologies if this isn't the right place to post this, I'm assuming that my YAC are MIA, this is something of a last effort.
http://ec2-54-247-145-77.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com/tx/d7d2e47942fc5732c37997cfca7aa468bd39d6e20c3fcc3d26171cdb21722e70#o1
There ain't such thing as an invalid address... Is it your deposit address on some exchange? Your wallet's change address? Someone else's address? http://ec2-54-247-145-77.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com/tx/d7d2e47942fc5732c37997cfca7aa468bd39d6e20c3fcc3d26171cdb21722e70#o1
Somehow during the time that YAC went down around Xmas I managed to send some YAC from cryptsy to an invalid address...anyone know if it's possible to rescue these coins? The transaction shows as unredeemed the blockchain. And apologies if this isn't the right place to post this, I'm assuming that my YAC are MIA, this is something of a last effort.
http://ec2-54-247-145-77.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com/tx/d7d2e47942fc5732c37997cfca7aa468bd39d6e20c3fcc3d26171cdb21722e70#o1
http://ec2-54-247-145-77.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com/tx/d7d2e47942fc5732c37997cfca7aa468bd39d6e20c3fcc3d26171cdb21722e70#o1
2 all
Guys, I suppose that you need block hashes caching , this approach would allow you to reduce startup time significantly (30x-100x times at least). This could be done through merging with NVC blockindex code and addition of your network rules.
I think this will resolve all your performance issues.
Guys, I suppose that you need block hashes caching , this approach would allow you to reduce startup time significantly (30x-100x times at least). This could be done through merging with NVC blockindex code and addition of your network rules.
I think this will resolve all your performance issues.
Good to know there is another point of reference in case performance issue does not entirely clear. Thanks.
How I see ilostcoins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erlw-ODVZxU
2 all
Guys, I suppose that you need block hashes caching , this approach would allow you to reduce startup time significantly (30x-100x times at least). This could be done through merging with NVC blockindex code and addition of your network rules.
I think this will resolve all your performance issues.
Guys, I suppose that you need block hashes caching , this approach would allow you to reduce startup time significantly (30x-100x times at least). This could be done through merging with NVC blockindex code and addition of your network rules.
I think this will resolve all your performance issues.
Good to know there is another point of reference in case performance issue does not entirely clear. Thanks.
I don't see the problem here. g++ 4.8 is already available even for that windoze crap.
4.8 is purposed for compiler monkeys, it's not for production use until it has no /debian/stable/ packages. Jump to: