What version are we supposed to be using? Doublec or KR105?
Compiled both from github and can't get either one to download complete block chain.
Doublec throws errors in the getinfo message field and the kr105 stops downloading at 299k blocks
Topic: New Ixcoin fork -> I0coin - page 8. (Read 217126 times)
kr105 could answer that. I thought he said he also produced an updated daemon.
Does all this talk of a -qt version mean there is not a normal bitcoind to go with it? Or is it a normal release where you can compile the bitcoind by itself without having to make the -qt thing?
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
I0coin hash rate is back to 277 GH/s on Vircurex. All seems to be nominal in I0 land.
I'm a little unsure why people expect (on any coin) someone who has 51% of the hash rate to want to kill the coin
(unless they aren't mining long term, but luke-jr has been)
There's always that suspicion because luke-jr has killed before. If you're correct, then luke-jr should want to see i0coin continue and he'd have no problem with upgrading to the latest client.
i.e. by not upgrading he is controlling what everyone else has to do.
Sounds like him
I'm a little unsure why people expect (on any coin) someone who has 51% of the hash rate to want to kill the coin
(unless they aren't mining long term, but luke-jr has been)
There's always that suspicion because luke-jr has killed before. If you're correct, then luke-jr should want to see i0coin continue and he'd have no problem with upgrading to the latest client.
My IOcoin never went down. It's still happily hashing away getting blocks and confirmations
We could get another fork come Oct-2012 if 51% of miners are not using the new -qt client. That should be plenty of time.
This will never happen as you won't be able to get the majority of hash power to convert. Luke-jr (afaik) controls 600 Ghash or so of the chain and I doubt he'd update.If he controlled 51% of the mining he could have killed off I0coin months ago. He wouldn't have to wait for a new client.
So there is a definite advantage for him to not kill it ...
I'm a little unsure why people expect (on any coin) someone who has 51% of the hash rate to want to kill the coin
(unless they aren't mining long term, but luke-jr has been)
Maybe he tried a roll back after cashing out at vircurex ... for the fun of it
We could get another fork come Oct-2012 if 51% of miners are not using the new -qt client. That should be plenty of time.
This will never happen as you won't be able to get the majority of hash power to convert. Luke-jr (afaik) controls 600 Ghash or so of the chain and I doubt he'd update.If he controlled 51% of the mining he could have killed off I0coin months ago. He wouldn't have to wait for a new client.
We could get another fork come Oct-2012 if 51% of miners are not using the new -qt client. That should be plenty of time.
This will never happen as you won't be able to get the majority of hash power to convert. Luke-jr (afaik) controls 600 Ghash or so of the chain and I doubt he'd update. Are you saying htat the kr105 version of the i0coind is not the official realse, not the 35029 download from http://i0coin.bitparking.com/?
35029 is an older version released on 2011-12-22. The I0coin-qt client was just released a few weeks ago. It's based on a much more recent version of bitcoin. As far as I know it's not been posted anywhere but this forum (post # 1652). Someone probably should post it on http://i0coin.bitparking.com/. There shouldn't be any reason not to upgrade as long as the -qt version mines ok. We could get another fork come Oct-2012 if 51% of miners are not using the new -qt client. That should be plenty of time.
Vircurex is online again with I0C deposits and withdrawals.
Are you saying htat the kr105 version of the i0coind is not the official realse, not the 35029 download from http://i0coin.bitparking.com/?
The new I0coin-qt client (from post# 1652) is working fine too. I just downloaded the entire block chain with no problems. Has anyone tried mining with the new client? I don't know if it had anything to do with the crash. It's more likely because of two different client versions being used for mining at the same time. Maybe the BIP16 & BIP30 patches kicked in before the 1 Oct 2012 deadline. If the new client works miners should be migrating to it to eliminate conflicts between the two.
Well - looking at the IP addresses where the blocks/coinbase txns are coming from will most likely tell you the answer.
(I don't have a chain running so I wont be looking)
But taking a wild guess at it ... luke-jr also used to use his pool to merge mine I0coins so maybe he's doing something destructive again like he did to that other coin ... ?
(I don't have a chain running so I wont be looking)
But taking a wild guess at it ... luke-jr also used to use his pool to merge mine I0coins so maybe he's doing something destructive again like he did to that other coin ... ?
Just stopped p2pmining.com i0coin merged mining. We where contributing about 10 Gh/s. I saw the DB error message in the getinfo message field. Any reason compelling to start merge mining this coin again?
I fired up my 32509 client again. It is normally loading blocks (no errors from getinfo), difficulty 5000 (at around block 300000 we "only" hat around 6000) and 1 block nearly every minute. Something feels strange. If the pools are offline -who is hashing? ... and with at least equal power as before (diff rising, fast blocks ...)?
Just stopped p2pmining.com i0coin merged mining. We where contributing about 10 Gh/s. I saw the DB error message in the getinfo message field. Any reason compelling to start merge mining this coin again?
Block is 330755, downloaded more than 10000 blocks in 10 minutes.
Using http://kr105.com/i0release.rar
MD5: b6e857ce844e3a9634e2cdb3d8789b6c
SHA256: be7392209ed3bb00b8deabaf8394b83e79201ce2bce52be6d31d8044f6fa2996
Using http://kr105.com/i0release.rar
MD5: b6e857ce844e3a9634e2cdb3d8789b6c
SHA256: be7392209ed3bb00b8deabaf8394b83e79201ce2bce52be6d31d8044f6fa2996
I'll do that (after all the backups are done, dont want to loose anything). Fired up my Mac OS X daemon, same result, error, so seems to be OS independent (at least for Ubuntu and OS X)
I there there's a fix for it in the bitcoin tree. They had a similar error when they cause a fork at the time of BIP 16 and a release candidate had a date that it switched on too early.
I'll do that (after all the backups are done, dont want to loose anything). Fired up my Mac OS X daemon, same result, error, so seems to be OS independent (at least for Ubuntu and OS X)
Jump to: