Yep, you're right, all my fault lol
You guys can blame me all you want, but CUBE has more than pretty much any coin other than the top few and most of it is run by Paul or myself (with pretty much no help from any of you), and a coin and blockchain that work great
We've done our part
Topic: 💸 DigiCube 🔷 NOW ON RAWX (NEW MCXNOW) 💸 EARN 50K CUBE/WEEK WITH TWITTER! - page 125. (Read 460458 times)
June 09, 2016, 03:26:42 AM
June 09, 2016, 03:13:45 AM
20 satoshi bravo iGotSpots 
shitcubecoin
shitcubecoin June 08, 2016, 11:43:14 PM
BITTREX SLACK DISCUSSION WITH BITTREX-RICHIE
XXXXXXXXX [4:11 AM]
Hi BITTREX. I have a special request regarding DIGICUBE. On behalf of the team, I request that DIGICUBE should not be delisted from BITTREX. We need to resolve this issue. Isn't there any way to RELIST DIGICUBE back to BITTREX? We still have till 15th June to resolve this issue.
bittrex-richie [4:14 AM]
XXXXXXXXX: i’d rather have that conversation in public if you really want to have it
[4:15]
but bottom line, the dev thinks theres nothing wrong with the blockchain… i think otherwise… and up to this point hes insulted and then threatened us even when i tried to explain the issue.
[4:17]
XXXXXXXXX [4:11 AM]
Hi BITTREX. I have a special request regarding DIGICUBE. On behalf of the team, I request that DIGICUBE should not be delisted from BITTREX. We need to resolve this issue. Isn't there any way to RELIST DIGICUBE back to BITTREX? We still have till 15th June to resolve this issue.
bittrex-richie [4:14 AM]
XXXXXXXXX: i’d rather have that conversation in public if you really want to have it
[4:15]
but bottom line, the dev thinks theres nothing wrong with the blockchain… i think otherwise… and up to this point hes insulted and then threatened us even when i tried to explain the issue.
[4:17]
It could be settled with a chat over beers ? Spots don't let us down. Don't let all the hard work goto waste.
we’ve already posted on the thread what the issue is.
They think the chain is broken while we have hundreds of users agreeing on blocks that it's not. There's not much left for me to say
I think they wanted an apology from you last time I read the posts from Bittrex.
For what? I don't give a fuck if I hurt someone's feelings when they are wrong and trying to blame the coin. Toughen up, buttercup
How is that arrogance? If anything, it's apathy towards stupid people who don't know where to point their fingers
June 08, 2016, 11:18:48 PM
We need to sort out the BITTREX fiasco, not because BITTREX is right, but purely for PR purposes.
Any noob just observing from a distance will just assume that this is a scam coin, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT
Any coin that is delisted is assumed to be a scam coin. WE ARE SENDING OUT THE WRONG MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC.
This situation has scared many NOOB and NEWBIE investors away, so we need to sort this out, for the sake of uninformed investors.
Any noob just observing from a distance will just assume that this is a scam coin, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT
Any coin that is delisted is assumed to be a scam coin. WE ARE SENDING OUT THE WRONG MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC.
This situation has scared many NOOB and NEWBIE investors away, so we need to sort this out, for the sake of uninformed investors.
June 08, 2016, 10:44:58 PM
BITTREX SLACK DISCUSSION WITH BITTREX-RICHIE
XXXXXXXXX [4:11 AM]
Hi BITTREX. I have a special request regarding DIGICUBE. On behalf of the team, I request that DIGICUBE should not be delisted from BITTREX. We need to resolve this issue. Isn't there any way to RELIST DIGICUBE back to BITTREX? We still have till 15th June to resolve this issue.
bittrex-richie [4:14 AM]
XXXXXXXXX: i’d rather have that conversation in public if you really want to have it
[4:15]
but bottom line, the dev thinks theres nothing wrong with the blockchain… i think otherwise… and up to this point hes insulted and then threatened us even when i tried to explain the issue.
[4:17]
XXXXXXXXX [4:11 AM]
Hi BITTREX. I have a special request regarding DIGICUBE. On behalf of the team, I request that DIGICUBE should not be delisted from BITTREX. We need to resolve this issue. Isn't there any way to RELIST DIGICUBE back to BITTREX? We still have till 15th June to resolve this issue.
bittrex-richie [4:14 AM]
XXXXXXXXX: i’d rather have that conversation in public if you really want to have it
[4:15]
but bottom line, the dev thinks theres nothing wrong with the blockchain… i think otherwise… and up to this point hes insulted and then threatened us even when i tried to explain the issue.
[4:17]
It could be settled with a chat over beers ? Spots don't let us down. Don't let all the hard work goto waste.
we’ve already posted on the thread what the issue is.
They think the chain is broken while we have hundreds of users agreeing on blocks that it's not. There's not much left for me to say
I think they wanted an apology from you last time I read the posts from Bittrex.
For what? I don't give a fuck if I hurt someone's feelings when they are wrong and trying to blame the coin. Toughen up, buttercup
June 08, 2016, 06:11:20 PM
long time no see trade cube , last saw the price of 20k upwards and is now just 20 satoshi alone , 
It is sad, because we need bittrex
June 08, 2016, 05:56:59 PM
long time no see trade cube , last saw the price of 20k upwards and is now just 20 satoshi alone ,
June 08, 2016, 05:00:08 PM
Well it looks like were at a stalemate, as both parties are convinced they are right.
For the sake of the coin and it's community can we not settle the differences and work together to sort this mess out.
I can understand Spots not wanting to apologise if the coin forked for an unknown reason, but then corrected itself.
But, I can also see Rich's argument that it shouldn't have forked, and he has/may have lost money on this.
Is it not possible to draw a line in the sand so to speak and work together to make sure this doesn't happen again, but get the coin back on Bittrex (with checkpoint verification active if it really is just a few lines of code)?
For the sake of the coin and it's community can we not settle the differences and work together to sort this mess out.
I can understand Spots not wanting to apologise if the coin forked for an unknown reason, but then corrected itself.
But, I can also see Rich's argument that it shouldn't have forked, and he has/may have lost money on this.
Is it not possible to draw a line in the sand so to speak and work together to make sure this doesn't happen again, but get the coin back on Bittrex (with checkpoint verification active if it really is just a few lines of code)?
They confirmed over 550k CUBE that were sold on the market that did not actually exist. The people who sent them to Bittrex then sent them to C-CEX on the real chain and dumped the same coins twice
June 08, 2016, 04:58:12 PM
Well it looks like were at a stalemate, as both parties are convinced they are right.
For the sake of the coin and it's community can we not settle the differences and work together to sort this mess out.
I can understand Spots not wanting to apologise if the coin forked for an unknown reason, but then corrected itself.
But, I can also see Rich's argument that it shouldn't have forked, and he has/may have lost money on this.
Is it not possible to draw a line in the sand so to speak and work together to make sure this doesn't happen again, but get the coin back on Bittrex (with checkpoint verification active if it really is just a few lines of code)?
For the sake of the coin and it's community can we not settle the differences and work together to sort this mess out.
I can understand Spots not wanting to apologise if the coin forked for an unknown reason, but then corrected itself.
But, I can also see Rich's argument that it shouldn't have forked, and he has/may have lost money on this.
Is it not possible to draw a line in the sand so to speak and work together to make sure this doesn't happen again, but get the coin back on Bittrex (with checkpoint verification active if it really is just a few lines of code)?
They are the ones that are upset, not me. No users of CUBE lost anything, only Bittrex did, so there's really nothing to be done on our end
June 08, 2016, 04:53:23 PM
Well it looks like were at a stalemate, as both parties are convinced they are right.
For the sake of the coin and it's community can we not settle the differences and work together to sort this mess out.
I can understand Spots not wanting to apologise if the coin forked for an unknown reason, but then corrected itself.
But, I can also see Rich's argument that it shouldn't have forked, and he has/may have lost money on this.
Is it not possible to draw a line in the sand so to speak and work together to make sure this doesn't happen again, but get the coin back on Bittrex (with checkpoint verification active if it really is just a few lines of code)?
For the sake of the coin and it's community can we not settle the differences and work together to sort this mess out.
I can understand Spots not wanting to apologise if the coin forked for an unknown reason, but then corrected itself.
But, I can also see Rich's argument that it shouldn't have forked, and he has/may have lost money on this.
Is it not possible to draw a line in the sand so to speak and work together to make sure this doesn't happen again, but get the coin back on Bittrex (with checkpoint verification active if it really is just a few lines of code)?
June 08, 2016, 04:46:47 PM
OK, the question I've got here is: Is the way blocks are generated actually coded uniquely for DigiCube or is the difference just with the usual things like maturing and block time, number of confirmations and the staking environment? If the 'backbone' code wasn't altered then Bittrex might be correct in saying that the unique characteristics of DigiCube might have favored the resulting problems but the fault itself is actually present in any coin using these block generating techniques and confirms transactions in less than that day it took Bittrex to correct itself. The 'only' thing for them between alright and exploit is the ability of people to reproduce the factors leading to the problem for a given coin and exchange.
If there is a deep problem in this coin, it will be in every coin that has ever been based off Peercoin
Hint: There's not. Checkpoints are created for a reason. All the invalid blocks they confirmed had no new checkpoints, while everyone on the correct chain with checkpoints continued as normal
It is what it is
Richie's response is 'the wallet confirms checkpoints' - While true, that means nothing to this. If you don't validate that they are recent, then what good are they..? You would think a site trying to act like a financial institution would actually pay attention to the tools they are given, though.. Checkpoints are there for a reason. If you don't check that they are recent and valid, then you are not using the tools available to secure user funds that people trust you to secure
It's literally 10 lines of code to pull checkpoints from the daemon and compare timestamps to see how recent it is. If it's longer than an hour or so, you should probably check to make sure nothing is wrong.. This goes for all coins. A site holding millions of dollars of other people's money, you would hope, has at least this very simple fail-safe in place..
We want to get back to BITTREX for PR reasons
June 08, 2016, 04:37:05 PM
OK, the question I've got here is: Is the way blocks are generated actually coded uniquely for DigiCube or is the difference just with the usual things like maturing and block time, number of confirmations and the staking environment? If the 'backbone' code wasn't altered then Bittrex might be correct in saying that the unique characteristics of DigiCube might have favored the resulting problems but the fault itself is actually present in any coin using these block generating techniques and confirms transactions in less than that day it took Bittrex to correct itself. The 'only' thing for them between alright and exploit is the ability of people to reproduce the factors leading to the problem for a given coin and exchange.
If there is a deep problem in this coin, it will be in every coin that has ever been based off Peercoin
Hint: There's not. Checkpoints are created for a reason. All the invalid blocks they confirmed had no new checkpoints, while everyone on the correct chain with checkpoints continued as normal
It is what it is
Richie's response is 'the wallet confirms checkpoints' - While true, that means nothing to this. If you don't validate that they are recent, then what good are they..? You would think a site trying to act like a financial institution would actually pay attention to the tools they are given, though.. Checkpoints are there for a reason. If you don't check that they are recent and valid, then you are not using the tools available to secure user funds that people trust you to secure
It's literally 10 lines of code to pull checkpoints from the daemon and compare timestamps to see how recent it is. If it's longer than an hour or so, you should probably check to make sure nothing is wrong.. This goes for all coins. A site holding millions of dollars of other people's money, you would hope, has at least this very simple fail-safe in place..
June 08, 2016, 04:35:32 PM
Hint: There's not. Checkpoints are created for a reason. All the invalid blocks they confirmed had no new checkpoints, while everyone on the correct chain with checkpoints continued as normal
It is what it is
It is what it is
at least trex, ccex and all nodes which made 500k+ (in total)
deposits on trex during those 1721 blocks were on the "wrong" chain.
not trex fault
Right, so in that full day of the problem (1700 blocks), not one other person moved coins. Only one place lost any coins, but you're right.. the coin must be fucked
June 08, 2016, 04:17:31 PM
OK, the question I've got here is: Is the way blocks are generated actually coded uniquely for DigiCube or is the difference just with the usual things like maturing and block time, number of confirmations and the staking environment? If the 'backbone' code wasn't altered then Bittrex might be correct in saying that the unique characteristics of DigiCube might have favored the resulting problems but the fault itself is actually present in any coin using these block generating techniques and confirms transactions in less than that day it took Bittrex to correct itself. The 'only' thing for them between alright and exploit is the ability of people to reproduce the factors leading to the problem for a given coin and exchange.
If there is a deep problem in this coin, it will be in every coin that has ever been based off Peercoin
Hint: There's not. Checkpoints are created for a reason. All the invalid blocks they confirmed had no new checkpoints, while everyone on the correct chain with checkpoints continued as normal
It is what it is
June 08, 2016, 04:12:35 PM
Well you know sometimes to lose is also to win. CUBE on Bittrex was the best place for it and without it we are left struggling.
Not apologizing for something that wasn't my, or the coin's, fault. That's ludicrous. I could not care less if they got their feelings hurt
Side note.. why the fuck would you guys want to be on an exchange that already demonstrated it confirms invalid transactions..? I would rather have less volume knowing that the coins being traded actually exist, unlike the phantom CUBE Bittrex was trading..
June 08, 2016, 04:10:21 PM
OK, the question I've got here is: Is the way blocks are generated actually coded uniquely for DigiCube or is the difference just with the usual things like maturing and block time, number of confirmations and the staking environment? If the 'backbone' code wasn't altered then Bittrex might be correct in saying that the unique characteristics of DigiCube might have favored the resulting problems but the fault itself is actually present in any coin using these block generating techniques and confirms transactions in less than that day it took Bittrex to correct itself. The 'only' thing for them between alright and exploit is the ability of people to reproduce the factors leading to the problem for a given coin and exchange.
If there is a deep problem in this coin, it will be in every coin that has ever been based off Peercoin
Hint: There's not. Checkpoints are created for a reason. All the invalid blocks they confirmed had no new checkpoints, while everyone on the correct chain with checkpoints continued as normal
It is what it is
June 08, 2016, 04:09:23 PM
BITTREX SLACK DISCUSSION WITH BITTREX-RICHIE
XXXXXXXXX [4:11 AM]
Hi BITTREX. I have a special request regarding DIGICUBE. On behalf of the team, I request that DIGICUBE should not be delisted from BITTREX. We need to resolve this issue. Isn't there any way to RELIST DIGICUBE back to BITTREX? We still have till 15th June to resolve this issue.
bittrex-richie [4:14 AM]
XXXXXXXXX: i’d rather have that conversation in public if you really want to have it
[4:15]
but bottom line, the dev thinks theres nothing wrong with the blockchain… i think otherwise… and up to this point hes insulted and then threatened us even when i tried to explain the issue.
[4:17]
XXXXXXXXX [4:11 AM]
Hi BITTREX. I have a special request regarding DIGICUBE. On behalf of the team, I request that DIGICUBE should not be delisted from BITTREX. We need to resolve this issue. Isn't there any way to RELIST DIGICUBE back to BITTREX? We still have till 15th June to resolve this issue.
bittrex-richie [4:14 AM]
XXXXXXXXX: i’d rather have that conversation in public if you really want to have it
[4:15]
but bottom line, the dev thinks theres nothing wrong with the blockchain… i think otherwise… and up to this point hes insulted and then threatened us even when i tried to explain the issue.
[4:17]
It could be settled with a chat over beers ? Spots don't let us down. Don't let all the hard work goto waste.
we’ve already posted on the thread what the issue is.
They think the chain is broken while we have hundreds of users agreeing on blocks that it's not. There's not much left for me to say
I think they wanted an apology from you last time I read the posts from Bittrex.
For what? I don't give a fuck if I hurt someone's feelings when they are wrong and trying to blame the coin. Toughen up, buttercup
Well you know sometimes to lose is also to win. CUBE on Bittrex was the best place for it and without it we are left struggling.
June 08, 2016, 04:08:30 PM
OK, the question I've got here is: Is the way blocks are generated actually coded uniquely for DigiCube or is the difference just with the usual things like maturing and block time, number of confirmations and the staking environment? If the 'backbone' code wasn't altered then Bittrex might be correct in saying that the unique characteristics of DigiCube might have favored the resulting problems but the fault itself is actually present in any coin using these block generating techniques and confirms transactions in less than that day it took Bittrex to correct itself. The 'only' thing for them between alright and exploit is the ability of people to reproduce the factors leading to the problem for a given coin and exchange, Bittrex in this case.
June 08, 2016, 04:06:33 PM
BITTREX SLACK DISCUSSION WITH BITTREX-RICHIE
XXXXXXXXX [4:11 AM]
Hi BITTREX. I have a special request regarding DIGICUBE. On behalf of the team, I request that DIGICUBE should not be delisted from BITTREX. We need to resolve this issue. Isn't there any way to RELIST DIGICUBE back to BITTREX? We still have till 15th June to resolve this issue.
bittrex-richie [4:14 AM]
XXXXXXXXX: i’d rather have that conversation in public if you really want to have it
[4:15]
but bottom line, the dev thinks theres nothing wrong with the blockchain… i think otherwise… and up to this point hes insulted and then threatened us even when i tried to explain the issue.
[4:17]
XXXXXXXXX [4:11 AM]
Hi BITTREX. I have a special request regarding DIGICUBE. On behalf of the team, I request that DIGICUBE should not be delisted from BITTREX. We need to resolve this issue. Isn't there any way to RELIST DIGICUBE back to BITTREX? We still have till 15th June to resolve this issue.
bittrex-richie [4:14 AM]
XXXXXXXXX: i’d rather have that conversation in public if you really want to have it
[4:15]
but bottom line, the dev thinks theres nothing wrong with the blockchain… i think otherwise… and up to this point hes insulted and then threatened us even when i tried to explain the issue.
[4:17]
It could be settled with a chat over beers ? Spots don't let us down. Don't let all the hard work goto waste.
we’ve already posted on the thread what the issue is.
They think the chain is broken while we have hundreds of users agreeing on blocks that it's not. There's not much left for me to say
I think they wanted an apology from you last time I read the posts from Bittrex.
For what? I don't give a fuck if I hurt someone's feelings when they are wrong and trying to blame the coin. Toughen up, buttercup
June 08, 2016, 04:05:55 PM
BITTREX SLACK DISCUSSION WITH BITTREX-RICHIE
XXXXXXXXX [4:11 AM]
Hi BITTREX. I have a special request regarding DIGICUBE. On behalf of the team, I request that DIGICUBE should not be delisted from BITTREX. We need to resolve this issue. Isn't there any way to RELIST DIGICUBE back to BITTREX? We still have till 15th June to resolve this issue.
bittrex-richie [4:14 AM]
XXXXXXXXX: i’d rather have that conversation in public if you really want to have it
[4:15]
but bottom line, the dev thinks theres nothing wrong with the blockchain… i think otherwise… and up to this point hes insulted and then threatened us even when i tried to explain the issue.
[4:17]
XXXXXXXXX [4:11 AM]
Hi BITTREX. I have a special request regarding DIGICUBE. On behalf of the team, I request that DIGICUBE should not be delisted from BITTREX. We need to resolve this issue. Isn't there any way to RELIST DIGICUBE back to BITTREX? We still have till 15th June to resolve this issue.
bittrex-richie [4:14 AM]
XXXXXXXXX: i’d rather have that conversation in public if you really want to have it
[4:15]
but bottom line, the dev thinks theres nothing wrong with the blockchain… i think otherwise… and up to this point hes insulted and then threatened us even when i tried to explain the issue.
[4:17]
It could be settled with a chat over beers ? Spots don't let us down. Don't let all the hard work goto waste.
we’ve already posted on the thread what the issue is.
They think the chain is broken while we have hundreds of users agreeing on blocks that it's not. There's not much left for me to say
I think they wanted an apology from you last time I read the posts from Bittrex.
Jump to: