Topic: Spam Terracoin? (Read 7039 times)
I presume that the hardcoded minimum difficulty is done based on the typical hashrate seen throughout the lifetime of TRC network, i.e. around 30~40 G h/s from diehard supporters. The inability to go lower would significantly reduce the problem of huge numbers of orphan/invalid blocks seen at really low difficulty. Hopefully, this would enable pools like Coinotron to bring back the TRC pool and make the network more secure.
Note that difficulty can't drop under 5255.042 since it is hardcoded value in new wallets.
What are the potential implications of this?
If the network hash rate gets too low, blocks will take a long time to solve. This has the effect of slowing down all the transactions.
Note that difficulty can't drop under 5255.042 since it is hardcoded value in new wallets.
What are the potential implications of this?
Quote
This version is obviously bogus: the resulting binary behaves like the newest fork (it orphaned several blocks).
Sorry, a bit new to all this.. I thought you meant that the resulting version was "bogus" and not the correct version.
Output of getinfo shows "blocks" : 104383 .. that's the correct block number people are getting on the windows binary?
http://dustcoin.com/mining shows we're up to block 104380 .. which doesn't match.
104397 now.
Yeah, it looks like dustcoin is behind on just more than TRC. The FRC block count is off also.
The PPC count is right, I do know he polls PPC from cryptocoinexplorer. I do not remember if he polls trc and frc too.
I could go look at the logs if it continues to be an issue.
104397 now, the same as blockchain explorer shows:
http://www.cryptocoinexplorer.com:3750/chain/Terracoin?count=60&hi=104397
Note that difficulty can't drop under 5255.042 since it is hardcoded value in new wallets.
http://www.cryptocoinexplorer.com:3750/chain/Terracoin?count=60&hi=104397
Note that difficulty can't drop under 5255.042 since it is hardcoded value in new wallets.
So when miners run away, it won't go lower and you'll be mining at a big loss and/or coin dies?
Quote
This version is obviously bogus: the resulting binary behaves like the newest fork (it orphaned several blocks).
Sorry, a bit new to all this.. I thought you meant that the resulting version was "bogus" and not the correct version.
Output of getinfo shows "blocks" : 104383 .. that's the correct block number people are getting on the windows binary?
http://dustcoin.com/mining shows we're up to block 104380 .. which doesn't match.
Seems the same to me with my resulting version. So where to get the source so I can compile the latest "mandatory" update?
If the dev didn't miss anything else than updating the version number:
Code:
git clone git://github.com/terracoin/terracoin.git
I'm on Linux, these are useless to me.
git master compiled version shows :
Terracoin version v0.1.2-51-gd147fa7-dirty-beta (2013-04-09 20:48:28 +0200)
This version is obviously bogus: the resulting binary behaves like the newest fork (it orphaned several blocks).
But what matters is the protocol version supported:
So to sum things up:
git master compiled version shows :
Terracoin version v0.1.2-51-gd147fa7-dirty-beta (2013-04-09 20:48:28 +0200)
This version is obviously bogus: the resulting binary behaves like the newest fork (it orphaned several blocks).
But what matters is the protocol version supported:
Code:
terracoind getinfo
{
"version" : 80000,
"protocolversion" : 70001,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 104383,
"timeoffset" : -2,
"connections" : 12,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 5254.96236407,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1365634022,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}
{
"version" : 80000,
"protocolversion" : 70001,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 104383,
"timeoffset" : -2,
"connections" : 12,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 5254.96236407,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1365634022,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}
So to sum things up:
- the repository doesn't have all the files used to build the published binaries (or the versions would match)
- there's no provision to warn users that their code is deprecated (see the "errors" field above? it shouldn't be empty on an orphaned chain)
- everything happened behind the back of miners: their rigs worked for nothing and most still do. Asking for more mining power to secure the coin when most of it is already wasted is ridiculous.
Seems the same to me with my resulting version. So where to get the source so I can compile the latest "mandatory" update?
If you really want to be cautious, backup your wallet. If you are on the forked chain, you will not lose your coins,
Unless you mined them or mined on a pool using an orphaned chain...
That happened to 30% of my coins, the other coins matured.
That's one of the reasons I stop mining TRC until it is solved.
I don't like to waste my GPU cycles on an orphaned chain...
If you really want to be cautious, backup your wallet. If you are on the forked chain, you will not lose your coins,
Unless you mined them or mined on a pool using an orphaned chain...
As long as I'm on a "nodes banned list" and nobody can explain why, I have all reasons to worry.
I'm trying to mine TRC but it looks broken to me, that's worrying me because I have a shitload of them and I am afraid to send them to BTC-E because I don't know if BTC-E is on the right fork now.
Exactly the reason i wrote what I did. You have probably been on various nodes banned list from time to time throughout your use of crypto-coins and not even noticed.
Anyway, it is fine.
In fact I will go back and strike out my statement, and everybody publish all the node banned lists you want.
It might be slightly entertaining to watch all the panic that might ensue....
Oh, and BTC-E is on the right fork, I have been able to move TRC in since this mourning (I updated all my systems when I updated Cryptocoinexplorer last night). So if your up to date and you block height matches the explorer..go for it.
If you really want to be cautious, backup your wallet. If you are on the forked chain, you will not lose your coins, However it can be a pain in the but to remove the transaction from your wallet so your client does not see the coins as spent. (You can us PYwallet to erase the transactions from a wallet if that happens)
I can confirm BTC-E is on the right chain (or at least on my chain)
To test things I did two things now:
I sent 0.5 TRC to BTC-E on the old address that I use for a while now.
Then I generated a new address in BTC-E and sent another 0.5 TRC.
All for the sake of science
Now wait if they show up @ BTC-E... If they don't it's borked?
I sent 0.5 TRC to BTC-E on the old address that I use for a while now.
Then I generated a new address in BTC-E and sent another 0.5 TRC.
All for the sake of science
Now wait if they show up @ BTC-E... If they don't it's borked?
unless btc-e simply stops polling the old funding address, once a new one was generated?
As long as I'm on a "nodes banned list" and nobody can explain why, I have all reasons to worry.
I'm trying to mine TRC but it looks broken to me, that's worrying me because I have a shitload of them and I am afraid to send them to BTC-E because I don't know if BTC-E is on the right fork now.
Exactly the reason i wrote what I did. You have probably been on various nodes banned list from time to time throughout your use of crypto-coins and not even noticed.
Anyway, it is fine.
In fact I will go back and strike out my statement, and everybody publish all the node banned lists you want.
It might be slightly entertaining to watch all the panic that might ensue....
Oh, and BTC-E is on the right fork, I have been able to move TRC in since this mourning (I updated all my systems when I updated Cryptocoinexplorer last night). So if your up to date and you block height matches the explorer..go for it.
If you really want to be cautious, backup your wallet. If you are on the forked chain, you will not lose your coins, However it can be a pain in the but to remove the transaction from your wallet so your client does not see the coins as spent. (You can us PYwallet to erase the transactions from a wallet if that happens)
To test things I did two things now:
I sent 0.5 TRC to BTC-E on the old address that I use for a while now.
Then I generated a new address in BTC-E and sent another 0.5 TRC.
All for the sake of science
Now wait if they show up @ BTC-E... If they don't it's borked?
I sent 0.5 TRC to BTC-E on the old address that I use for a while now.
Then I generated a new address in BTC-E and sent another 0.5 TRC.
All for the sake of science
Now wait if they show up @ BTC-E... If they don't it's borked?
I'm on Linux, these are useless to me.
git master compiled version shows :
Terracoin version v0.1.2-51-gd147fa7-dirty-beta (2013-04-09 20:48:28 +0200)
This version is obviously bogus: the resulting binary behaves like the newest fork (it orphaned several blocks).
But what matters is the protocol version supported:
So to sum things up:
git master compiled version shows :
Terracoin version v0.1.2-51-gd147fa7-dirty-beta (2013-04-09 20:48:28 +0200)
This version is obviously bogus: the resulting binary behaves like the newest fork (it orphaned several blocks).
But what matters is the protocol version supported:
Code:
terracoind getinfo
{
"version" : 80000,
"protocolversion" : 70001,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 104383,
"timeoffset" : -2,
"connections" : 12,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 5254.96236407,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1365634022,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}
{
"version" : 80000,
"protocolversion" : 70001,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 104383,
"timeoffset" : -2,
"connections" : 12,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 5254.96236407,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1365634022,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}
So to sum things up:
- the repository doesn't have all the files used to build the published binaries (or the versions would match)
- there's no provision to warn users that their code is deprecated (see the "errors" field above? it shouldn't be empty on an orphaned chain)
- everything happened behind the back of miners: their rigs worked for nothing and most still do. Asking for more mining power to secure the coin when most of it is already wasted is ridiculous.
I already have this version for 10 hours or so. When I woke up, I updated my wallet to -33 and installed/configured Python, Twister and P2Pool because multipool.in was offline, again...
While mining P2Pool, approx. 30% of my mined coins disappeared (rejected), others (before and after) matured without problems.
All IPs listed above were submitting or relaying invalid blocks, which is very bad thing so banscore went from 0 -> 100 immidiately. Listed IPs are of
those who use older wallet versions, so not neccessarily an attacker but I've listed them anyway. From my perspective, there is not so much difference
between ignoring mandatory updates and intentionaly attacking the network.
those who use older wallet versions, so not neccessarily an attacker but I've listed them anyway. From my perspective, there is not so much difference
between ignoring mandatory updates and intentionaly attacking the network.
I am in this list. I compiled the client from git master's head less than 24h ago. What nonsense is this? The chain is forked by the devs at a whim?
Same for me. As soon as I saw the new client and before I started mining at P2Pool, I updated my client to terracoin-0.1.3-33-win32.
I only setup my P2Pool 7-8 hours ago because multipool.in was giving me trouble again and I wanted to mine TRC.
I'm looking around but can't find any newer, so I don't think the problem is at my side.
But I still get banned.
DO NOT WORRY IF YOU ARE ON A NODES BANNED LIST...AND PLEASE STOP PUBLISHING NODE BANNED LISTS
As long as I'm on a "nodes banned list" and nobody can explain why, I have all reasons to worry.
I'm trying to mine TRC but it looks broken to me, that's worrying me because I have a shitload of them and I am afraid to send them to BTC-E because I don't know if BTC-E is on the right fork now.
http://terracoin.org/news/
Official news posted about the situation.
Official news posted about the situation.
I compile for linux by pulling from git with:
After doing this and compiling, "About Terracoin" says v0.1.3rc0-beta ... is this the latest version? If not, what am I doing wrong here? thanks!
EDIT: I have previously been told to ignore the resulting terracoin version numbers when compiling myself.. mainly interested to confirm I am getting the latest code by cloning from git like this.
EEDIT: If I'm NOT getting the latest version here, then how to get the proper linux source?
Code:
git clone https://github.com/terracoin/terracoin.git
After doing this and compiling, "About Terracoin" says v0.1.3rc0-beta ... is this the latest version? If not, what am I doing wrong here? thanks!
EDIT: I have previously been told to ignore the resulting terracoin version numbers when compiling myself.. mainly interested to confirm I am getting the latest code by cloning from git like this.
EEDIT: If I'm NOT getting the latest version here, then how to get the proper linux source?
DO NOT WORRY IF YOU ARE ON A NODES BANNED LIST...AND PLEASE STOP PUBLISHING NODE BANNED LISTS
Unless you are having problems connecting to the network, and are being blocked by multiple nodes, it is nothing to worry about.
Just make sure you are using the latest client. TRC is having enough issues without starting another completely unnecessary fire.
To avoid such confusions the devs might want to publish chain forking changes a little bit earlier (less than a day, seriously?) and/or broadcast a message like Bitcoin devs did when their chain forked.
Apparently they are even quite a lot of miners on a previous fork (so that makes it at least 3 simultaneous TRC chains) on P2Pool as MaGNet's previous post shows.
Both my clients are @ block 104.380 as we speak.
I am able to move coins around, just tested it with 0.5 TRC
Jump to: