Ok so
just for my own piece of mind do i need t check my own wallet to make sure that is still on the right fork and if so how often should i do it.
And most of all how do i do it?
cheers
Topic: Open Discussion: DigiCube - page 2. (Read 2942 times)
not sure id know if it had lol. 
im still quite new to all this.
What we need is more info so we know what to watch for, with this stuff.
Most off us are just newbies, trying to make a few quid extra.
or is it just a strange gambling addiction lol.
Still working it out
im still quite new to all this.
What we need is more info so we know what to watch for, with this stuff.
Most off us are just newbies, trying to make a few quid extra.
or is it just a strange gambling addiction lol.
Still working it out
other people sent coins out on that day too from Bittrex i sent 26290.50958900 to a friend and they just never confirmed but no one got in-touch or offed a replacement i had to replace them my self.
Because they were on their own fork and everyone else was on mainnet.. that's what I've been trying to say but nobody is listening
Do you think that BITTREX are in a hurry to delist CUBE, just to cover their tracks? I remember a coin that I had with them in the not so distant past - a theft occurred, but Bittrex just delisted that coin without bothering to stop/catch the culprit, because BITTREX tries to protect their own interests.
I believe what they are saying is true with rollback blocks. The misunderstanding is they think the entire network rolled back, which it did not
You guys are not understanding what I am saying. The wallet validates checkpoints, yes, but if there are no new ones on the fork Bittrex was on, the wallet has nothing to verify.. They should have checks in order to stop the wallet if no checkpoints are coming in and no invalid transactions would have occured
This is a simple case of wallets being mismanaged. If you don't validate that checkpoints are recent, then what good are they..?
I've no idea
all i know is i sent coins out and they did not confirm when they got there.
Im not saying its anyone's fault as im not that clued up on how all this stuff works, just trying to get my head around what is being said, but if its what i think it is then id vote for a checkpoint.
all i know is i sent coins out and they did not confirm when they got there.
Im not saying its anyone's fault as im not that clued up on how all this stuff works, just trying to get my head around what is being said, but if its what i think it is then id vote for a checkpoint.
other people sent coins out on that day too from Bittrex i sent 26290.50958900 to a friend and they just never confirmed but no one got in-touch or offed a replacement i had to replace them my self.
Because they were on their own fork and everyone else was on mainnet.. that's what I've been trying to say but nobody is listening
Do you think that BITTREX are in a hurry to delist CUBE, just to cover their tracks? I remember a coin that I had with them in the not so distant past - a theft occurred, but Bittrex just delisted that coin without bothering to stop/catch the culprit, because BITTREX tries to protect their own interests.
So if Im getting this wright, what your saying is without a check point anyone can run on a different chain and then send the coins to the exchange and they will still be accepted?
other people sent coins out on that day too from Bittrex i sent 26290.50958900 to a friend and they just never confirmed but no one got in-touch or offed a replacement i had to replace them my self.
Because they were on their own fork and everyone else was on mainnet.. that's what I've been trying to say but nobody is listening
other people sent coins out on that day too from Bittrex i sent 26290.50958900 to a friend and they just never confirmed but no one got in-touch or offed a replacement i had to replace them my self.
The trouble about this is it's really hard to figure this out without being a dev or even hobby programmer myself. Bittrex seems to be right that it looks like there was an issue with the checkpoint server restart. The question here I'd like to know is if the checkpoint server was indeed staking? Then checkpoint server are not really compliant with the idea of decentralization, but so are exchanges for that matter.
Now spots has a point too. There are coins using checkpoints and if indeed it's a matter of running a script, and I see no reason why this shouldn't be the case, then someone like an exchange really should run one to put a wallet in maintenance if things look wrong. Checkpoints may be a source for problems but that doesn't change by disregarding them. For an exchange it's either checking them or refusing any coins running them in the first place. Anyway, my question here would be: If checkpoints are a manual thing and the whole mainchain was on the other fork from it, how did it resolve such quickly? Were such few wallets online that the power of 2-3 people actually checking and spots itself pulled everyone else around?
Now spots has a point too. There are coins using checkpoints and if indeed it's a matter of running a script, and I see no reason why this shouldn't be the case, then someone like an exchange really should run one to put a wallet in maintenance if things look wrong. Checkpoints may be a source for problems but that doesn't change by disregarding them. For an exchange it's either checking them or refusing any coins running them in the first place. Anyway, my question here would be: If checkpoints are a manual thing and the whole mainchain was on the other fork from it, how did it resolve such quickly? Were such few wallets online that the power of 2-3 people actually checking and spots itself pulled everyone else around?
sprout coin has had no checkpoints (dev left the coin a year or so ago) and the coin runs without issue.
Here CUBE's checkpoint server stopped (why?, did he turn it off? was it a power failure?, why did it stop?) this question still isn't answered.
and i asked him 3 times what exactly did he do during the reboot phase, and his only reply has been just calling me stupid and saying we all just believe trex and he's done with this coin. what kind of answer is that except one that is in denial and hiding something...
I don't think it's realistic for an exchange to be able to manage so many checkpoint servers without enough man power to do that, since it's not an automated system. or they would have to develop one that notifies them of any such issues arising like a script that issues a flag saying the coin hasn't had a checkpoint in X amount of time.
And let's point out it is very interesting that CUBE is now without a checkpoint in over 24hrs and are no problems. It was only that moment after gregofdoom was the first to post about there being no checkpoint for 500 blocks that shit started to happen.... WHY?!
And trex was receiving VALID blocks, they were as valid as the blocks being confirmed RIGHT NOW with no checkpoints. It's when the rollback happened because the server said oh wait none of these 1700 blocks were checked at the restart point, so it has to invalidate ALL THOSE blocks and start all over again.....
If there's another explanation to this, god please give one
Well, from the point of view of someone in a fork blocks would look valid as well, but it really looks like that doesn't apply here. Because on the explorer about 12h of blocks are missing. If there was a fork and the fork was killed off then the clients of the minor fork, like Bittrex or the explorer, would resync with the real valid blocks from the 'main fork'. Not just 12h of nothing. Since the explorer gives me no AM/PM on a 12h time scale I couldn't find the exact spot in a hurry, though, just noticed the time runs from 12:00 to 12:00 twice before the date changes on normal days but does so only once on the 18th of May and it contains about the number of disputed blocks less than other days. So one thing really happened: It was a complete rollback of the blockchain and not a normal repair of a fork as usual. Now, why did that happen?
It's that simple. You just compare checkpoint timestamp with current time. Anyone responsible for millions of dollars of other people's money surely would have the most basic, rudimentary failsafes such as this in place. Not having at least something to verify the available tools at hand is pure incompetence. Their responses mean that not one other person moved coins anywhere other than Bittrex in an entire day. Anyone who believes this is a fucking moron who deserves to lose everything
Ok so we know its not going back on you know where.
So How do we move on and put all this behind us.
just advertising the same old sh-t, is not doing anyone any good or the coin.
we need to get back on track.
Make sure the coin is secure and safe for all.
And it make's a reasonable profit for all concerned including the Dev's.
so we need some positive thinking .
So How do we move on and put all this behind us.
just advertising the same old sh-t, is not doing anyone any good or the coin.
we need to get back on track.
Make sure the coin is secure and safe for all.
And it make's a reasonable profit for all concerned including the Dev's.
so we need some positive thinking .
The trouble about this is it's really hard to figure this out without being a dev or even hobby programmer myself. Bittrex seems to be right that it looks like there was an issue with the checkpoint server restart. The question here I'd like to know is if the checkpoint server was indeed staking? Then checkpoint server are not really compliant with the idea of decentralization, but so are exchanges for that matter.
Now spots has a point too. There are coins using checkpoints and if indeed it's a matter of running a script, and I see no reason why this shouldn't be the case, then someone like an exchange really should run one to put a wallet in maintenance if things look wrong. Checkpoints may be a source for problems but that doesn't change by disregarding them. For an exchange it's either checking them or refusing any coins running them in the first place. Anyway, my question here would be: If checkpoints are a manual thing and the whole mainchain was on the other fork from it, how did it resolve such quickly? Were such few wallets online that the power of 2-3 people actually checking and spots itself pulled everyone else around?
Now spots has a point too. There are coins using checkpoints and if indeed it's a matter of running a script, and I see no reason why this shouldn't be the case, then someone like an exchange really should run one to put a wallet in maintenance if things look wrong. Checkpoints may be a source for problems but that doesn't change by disregarding them. For an exchange it's either checking them or refusing any coins running them in the first place. Anyway, my question here would be: If checkpoints are a manual thing and the whole mainchain was on the other fork from it, how did it resolve such quickly? Were such few wallets online that the power of 2-3 people actually checking and spots itself pulled everyone else around?
sprout coin has had no checkpoints (dev left the coin a year or so ago) and the coin runs without issue.
Here CUBE's checkpoint server stopped (why?, did he turn it off? was it a power failure?, why did it stop?) this question still isn't answered.
and i asked him 3 times what exactly did he do during the reboot phase, and his only reply has been just calling me stupid and saying we all just believe trex and he's done with this coin. what kind of answer is that except one that is in denial and hiding something...
I don't think it's realistic for an exchange to be able to manage so many checkpoint servers without enough man power to do that, since it's not an automated system. or they would have to develop one that notifies them of any such issues arising like a script that issues a flag saying the coin hasn't had a checkpoint in X amount of time.
And let's point out it is very interesting that CUBE is now without a checkpoint in over 24hrs and are no problems. It was only that moment after gregofdoom was the first to post about there being no checkpoint for 500 blocks that shit started to happen.... WHY?!
And trex was receiving VALID blocks, they were as valid as the blocks being confirmed RIGHT NOW with no checkpoints. It's when the rollback happened because the server said oh wait none of these 1700 blocks were checked at the restart point, so it has to invalidate ALL THOSE blocks and start all over again.....
If there's another explanation to this, god please give one
Well, from the point of view of someone in a fork blocks would look valid as well, but it really looks like that doesn't apply here. Because on the explorer about 12h of blocks are missing. If there was a fork and the fork was killed off then the clients of the minor fork, like Bittrex or the explorer, would resync with the real valid blocks from the 'main fork'. Not just 12h of nothing. Since the explorer gives me no AM/PM on a 12h time scale I couldn't find the exact spot in a hurry, though, just noticed the time runs from 12:00 to 12:00 twice before the date changes on normal days but does so only once on the 18th of May and it contains about the number of disputed blocks less than other days. So one thing really happened: It was a complete rollback of the blockchain and not a normal repair of a fork as usual. Now, why did that happen?
It's that simple. You just compare checkpoint timestamp with current time. Anyone responsible for millions of dollars of other people's money surely would have the most basic, rudimentary failsafes such as this in place. Not having at least something to verify the available tools at hand is pure incompetence. Their responses mean that not one other person moved coins anywhere other than Bittrex in an entire day. Anyone who believes this is a fucking moron who deserves to lose everything
Like I said, you're an idiot
Checkpoints weren't staking, but of course you ignore my answer again because you're fucking stupid and didn't read the explanation above which explains why it doesn't matter even if it was anyway. Funny how their answer is that a node submitting no blocks (just accepting) is to blame. Very professional response, shows highly intelligent leadership and shills
I'm so done with this, I wish they would just delist it already. My trust in their competency is gone and I'm glad you're posting logs from their chat so I know the other stupid fucks that don't understand how coins actually work; this is a clinic in stupidity, so thanks for the longer list of morons. I'm done with this coin, fuck all this noise lol I don't have time for this amateur bullshit. You can thank Bittrex for killing it, and of course the simpletons will blame me, but I don't really give a shit. I know what I know and that's good enough for me so I'm done with this entire thread. You're on your own now, homie. I'm not gonna dump, I'll just stake and ride the ship down. Should be fun
Checkpoints weren't staking, but of course you ignore my answer again because you're fucking stupid and didn't read the explanation above which explains why it doesn't matter even if it was anyway. Funny how their answer is that a node submitting no blocks (just accepting) is to blame. Very professional response, shows highly intelligent leadership and shills
I'm so done with this, I wish they would just delist it already. My trust in their competency is gone and I'm glad you're posting logs from their chat so I know the other stupid fucks that don't understand how coins actually work; this is a clinic in stupidity, so thanks for the longer list of morons. I'm done with this coin, fuck all this noise lol I don't have time for this amateur bullshit. You can thank Bittrex for killing it, and of course the simpletons will blame me, but I don't really give a shit. I know what I know and that's good enough for me so I'm done with this entire thread. You're on your own now, homie. I'm not gonna dump, I'll just stake and ride the ship down. Should be fun 
Wuher BOT [12:22 AM]
Also, the reality is also that the checkpointing server, being that far behind, can't sync with the other fork either
bittrex-richie [12:28]
but i've checked this with numerous devs and other individuals.. i dont see how a chain rolling back is our fault
d3m0nkings [12:31 AM]
ya the thing that doesn't line up, is if checkpoint server failed, then sprout coin should've forked after it stopped doing checkpoints
bittrex-richie [12:31 AM]
thats not what happens
Wuher BOT [12:32 AM]
@d3m0nkings: the fork occurs when you bring the checkpoint server back up afterwards
bittrex-richie [12:32 AM]
if its on the wrong chain
[12:32]
liek if it was staking
Wuher BOT [12:32 AM]
(and/or in between, forks can occur if there's no checkpointing server, but that's not guaranteed to happen)
bittrex-richie [12:32 AM]
it chooses its own staked block instead of what the network was doing the entire time it was offline.
[12:32]
its all messy when it comes to checkpoint servers
Wuher BOT [12:32 AM]
and yes, it's only most likely to happen when the checkpointing server is staking
d3m0nkings [12:48 AM]
but richie technically speaking conclusion here is the coin actually didn't have a problem with it's code, it's just watever reason the checkpoint server stopped, (power failure, or w.e.)
[12:48]
and spot's method of restarting it
[12:48]
so it wasn't code just human error
[12:48]
possibly
fuzzyhobbit BOT [12:48 AM]
I would call it mismanagement of the checkpointing server
d3m0nkings [12:49 AM]
ya
Wuher BOT [12:49 AM]
well, it's not a coin issue, it's a blockchain issue
Wuher BOT [12:49 AM]
which resulted from mismanagement of the checkpoint server
bittrex-richie [12:49 AM]
agreed with fuzzy/wuher.... what it isn't is the exchanges fault :wink:
d3m0nkings [12:49 AM]
right but the blockchain issue was the resault of human error
gritt-n-auld [12:50 AM]
Yes, human error of the one managing the checkpoint server.
Also, the reality is also that the checkpointing server, being that far behind, can't sync with the other fork either
bittrex-richie [12:28]
but i've checked this with numerous devs and other individuals.. i dont see how a chain rolling back is our fault
d3m0nkings [12:31 AM]
ya the thing that doesn't line up, is if checkpoint server failed, then sprout coin should've forked after it stopped doing checkpoints
bittrex-richie [12:31 AM]
thats not what happens
Wuher BOT [12:32 AM]
@d3m0nkings: the fork occurs when you bring the checkpoint server back up afterwards
bittrex-richie [12:32 AM]
if its on the wrong chain
[12:32]
liek if it was staking
Wuher BOT [12:32 AM]
(and/or in between, forks can occur if there's no checkpointing server, but that's not guaranteed to happen)
bittrex-richie [12:32 AM]
it chooses its own staked block instead of what the network was doing the entire time it was offline.
[12:32]
its all messy when it comes to checkpoint servers
Wuher BOT [12:32 AM]
and yes, it's only most likely to happen when the checkpointing server is staking
d3m0nkings [12:48 AM]
but richie technically speaking conclusion here is the coin actually didn't have a problem with it's code, it's just watever reason the checkpoint server stopped, (power failure, or w.e.)
[12:48]
and spot's method of restarting it
[12:48]
so it wasn't code just human error
[12:48]
possibly
fuzzyhobbit BOT [12:48 AM]
I would call it mismanagement of the checkpointing server
d3m0nkings [12:49 AM]
ya
Wuher BOT [12:49 AM]
well, it's not a coin issue, it's a blockchain issue
Wuher BOT [12:49 AM]
which resulted from mismanagement of the checkpoint server
bittrex-richie [12:49 AM]
agreed with fuzzy/wuher.... what it isn't is the exchanges fault :wink:
d3m0nkings [12:49 AM]
right but the blockchain issue was the resault of human error
gritt-n-auld [12:50 AM]
Yes, human error of the one managing the checkpoint server.
The trouble about this is it's really hard to figure this out without being a dev or even hobby programmer myself. Bittrex seems to be right that it looks like there was an issue with the checkpoint server restart. The question here I'd like to know is if the checkpoint server was indeed staking? Then checkpoint server are not really compliant with the idea of decentralization, but so are exchanges for that matter.
Now spots has a point too. There are coins using checkpoints and if indeed it's a matter of running a script, and I see no reason why this shouldn't be the case, then someone like an exchange really should run one to put a wallet in maintenance if things look wrong. Checkpoints may be a source for problems but that doesn't change by disregarding them. For an exchange it's either checking them or refusing any coins running them in the first place. Anyway, my question here would be: If checkpoints are a manual thing and the whole mainchain was on the other fork from it, how did it resolve such quickly? Were such few wallets online that the power of 2-3 people actually checking and spots itself pulled everyone else around?
Now spots has a point too. There are coins using checkpoints and if indeed it's a matter of running a script, and I see no reason why this shouldn't be the case, then someone like an exchange really should run one to put a wallet in maintenance if things look wrong. Checkpoints may be a source for problems but that doesn't change by disregarding them. For an exchange it's either checking them or refusing any coins running them in the first place. Anyway, my question here would be: If checkpoints are a manual thing and the whole mainchain was on the other fork from it, how did it resolve such quickly? Were such few wallets online that the power of 2-3 people actually checking and spots itself pulled everyone else around?
sprout coin has had no checkpoints (dev left the coin a year or so ago) and the coin runs without issue.
Here CUBE's checkpoint server stopped (why?, did he turn it off? was it a power failure?, why did it stop?) this question still isn't answered.
and i asked him 3 times what exactly did he do during the reboot phase, and his only reply has been just calling me stupid and saying we all just believe trex and he's done with this coin. what kind of answer is that except one that is in denial and hiding something...
I don't think it's realistic for an exchange to be able to manage so many checkpoint servers without enough man power to do that, since it's not an automated system. or they would have to develop one that notifies them of any such issues arising like a script that issues a flag saying the coin hasn't had a checkpoint in X amount of time.
And let's point out it is very interesting that CUBE is now without a checkpoint in over 24hrs and are no problems. It was only that moment after gregofdoom was the first to post about there being no checkpoint for 500 blocks that shit started to happen.... WHY?!
And trex was receiving VALID blocks, they were as valid as the blocks being confirmed RIGHT NOW with no checkpoints. It's when the rollback happened because the server said oh wait none of these 1700 blocks were checked at the restart point, so it has to invalidate ALL THOSE blocks and start all over again.....
If there's another explanation to this, god please give one
Well, from the point of view of someone in a fork blocks would look valid as well, but it really looks like that doesn't apply here. Because on the explorer about 12h of blocks are missing. If there was a fork and the fork was killed off then the clients of the minor fork, like Bittrex or the explorer, would resync with the real valid blocks from the 'main fork'. Not just 12h of nothing. Since the explorer gives me no AM/PM on a 12h time scale I couldn't find the exact spot in a hurry, though, just noticed the time runs from 12:00 to 12:00 twice before the date changes on normal days but does so only once on the 18th of May and it contains about the number of disputed blocks less than other days. So one thing really happened: It was a complete rollback of the blockchain and not a normal repair of a fork as usual. Now, why did that happen?
You can go swimming 1000 times and not drown, but that doesn't make you waterproof. Good luck with any coin that isn't using checkpoints lol that's like using your hand to pound in a nail when the hammer is right next to you. Inefficient use of tools available
Demon, you're a moron, I already answered your questions many times
No, checkpoint server did not reset. I shut it down over half a day after they were on the real chain
No, checkpoint server had no coins, so even if it did reset, it wouldn't do what they are suggesting
You are stupid as hell. Bittrex could be selling time machines and you'd be first in line to preorder
Demon, you're a moron, I already answered your questions many times
No, checkpoint server did not reset. I shut it down over half a day after they were on the real chain
No, checkpoint server had no coins, so even if it did reset, it wouldn't do what they are suggesting
You are stupid as hell. Bittrex could be selling time machines and you'd be first in line to preorder
Why would anyone want to rework a coin where that chimp owns half of the supply?
Fork it and if i knew code find a way to make it so he just can't access the new chain to carry over his coins. or make some kind of verification system to allow access by verified individuals only.
It's code surely someone knows something that's possible.
Fuck you in the face with a giant whale dick for suggesting this. I bought my coins same as you cunts. NOT TO MENTION, THERE WAS NO MINING OR ICO, I GAVE ALL THE COINS AWAY AT THE BEGINNING. I don't have to disclose how many coins I have because it's none of your shithead's business. I said I had 40+ mil now because I don't give a fuck anymore. Destroy my stash lol you're a fucking lunatic. Honestly, you and GREEDYJOHN are the reason I don't give a fuck anymore. You two are both stupid shitheads that have annoyed me into apathy towards the situation. Fuck yourselves
Honestly, fuck your stupid face
It is a good thing that you own most of the coins. People want to invest in coins that the DEV owns.
IGOTSPOTS, you were angry, so you misunderstood my sincere intentions.
Why would anyone want to rework a coin where that chimp owns half of the supply?
Fork it and if i knew code find a way to make it so he just can't access the new chain to carry over his coins. or make some kind of verification system to allow access by verified individuals only.
It's code surely someone knows something that's possible.
Fuck you in the face with a giant whale dick for suggesting this. I bought my coins same as you cunts. NOT TO MENTION, THERE WAS NO MINING OR ICO, I GAVE ALL THE COINS AWAY AT THE BEGINNING. I don't have to disclose how many coins I have because it's none of your shithead's business. I said I had 40+ mil now because I don't give a fuck anymore. Destroy my stash lol you're a fucking lunatic. Honestly, you and GREEDYJOHN are the reason I don't give a fuck anymore. You two are both stupid shitheads that have annoyed me into apathy towards the situation. Fuck yourselves
Honestly, fuck your stupid face
He just doesn't want to
Hi all
so i asked the Question.
Hi There
Please could you let the community know if Digi-cube is getting reinstated as the checkpoint system as now been removed as stated in the forum. And the community as tried too get this resolved to there best ability .
cheers
new link
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15185265
cheers
And the reply was.
Ryan Hentz (Bittrex)
Jun 13, 06:25 PDT
Hi,
There are no plans for this coin to remain listed at this time.
Thank you,
Ryan
This is because the DEV does not know how to resolve simple issues. This argument was not supposed to become so verbal on the thread, especially with BITTREX. so i asked the Question.
Hi There
Please could you let the community know if Digi-cube is getting reinstated as the checkpoint system as now been removed as stated in the forum. And the community as tried too get this resolved to there best ability .
cheers
new link
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15185265
cheers
And the reply was.
Ryan Hentz (Bittrex)
Jun 13, 06:25 PDT
Hi,
There are no plans for this coin to remain listed at this time.
Thank you,
Ryan
Hi all
so i asked the Question.
Hi There
Please could you let the community know if Digi-cube is getting reinstated as the checkpoint system as now been removed as stated in the forum. And the community as tried too get this resolved to there best ability .
cheers
new link
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15185265
cheers
And the reply was.
Ryan Hentz (Bittrex)
Jun 13, 06:25 PDT
Hi,
There are no plans for this coin to remain listed at this time.
Thank you,
Ryan
so i asked the Question.
Hi There
Please could you let the community know if Digi-cube is getting reinstated as the checkpoint system as now been removed as stated in the forum. And the community as tried too get this resolved to there best ability .
cheers
new link
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15185265
cheers
And the reply was.
Ryan Hentz (Bittrex)
Jun 13, 06:25 PDT
Hi,
There are no plans for this coin to remain listed at this time.
Thank you,
Ryan
Jump to: