Quote from: twoturtles on April 27, 2015, 05:20:41 AM

Quote from: GetGuap$ on April 27, 2015, 05:17:28 AM

Quote from: twoturtles on April 27, 2015, 05:04:46 AM

Quote from: richiela on April 26, 2015, 08:21:56 PM

Sorry for the long silence, it takes time to sort out things like this. As per our usual response, if we detect something wrong with a blockchain where the dev _might_ be involved, I like to post a public statement so everyone has the same information at the same time. Exchanges were informed earlier today when our security measures kicked off.

There seems to be a problem with the "lucky" staking code from what we can tell at this time. There are blocks that were accepted with POS rewards up to 3.3M which is why outside the rate for the coin. Additionally, as of right now there are way more coins in existence than the wallet thinks there should be:

   "balance" : 24751980.90800208,
   "stake" : 0.00000000,
   "blocks" : 4655,
   "timeoffset" : 0,
   "moneysupply" : 21073266.40374496,

This is our current supply. C-Cex and yobit have another combined 5-6M. At this time, we don't know if this is malicious or an error in the staking code. We have cancelled all orders on the market and closed the wallet for the time being. If the devs can please contact us and come up with a solution, we will reopen the market. If we an agreed solution cannot be agreed upon, we will close the market and open the wallet for withdrawal only.

thanks,
richie@bittrex

Hi folks,

So after staring at richie's message for a bit in deep thought and looking through this code a bit thus far I've come up with a theory for what is likely to have happened here.

1. Nearing the end of the PoW phase, there was a fork to "fix" a stuck block
2. Caught up in the launch and mining, etc. no one seemed to notice the diffs in the commits (if they were even shown on the repo, and it wasn't a wiped/fresh push as if it was the original).
3. There was a deposit that tripped the alert and as we've seen that sent the balance well-over what the reported money supply claimed to be in circulation.
4. In the previous version, the code likely rewarded that particular person's address incorrectly and being that there is no block explorer, made it even harder to trace what was transpiring on the chain
5. Knowing that everyone would be caught up in the "bug" that stuck the chain near end of PoW and eager to see the issue resolved so they could continue mining, the new code was forked off
6. Being that the repo has been removed, it's impossible to tell what exactly they changed between the commits (that was intentional) as of right now.

So at this point I'm going through the code for anomalies that stand out in terms of masking the true money supply, transactions, credits, etc. infernoman from my team is setting up a block explorer so we can look into this a bit more and hopefully put together a more solid sequence of events.

Best regards,

syntaks

Thank you neos. We tweeted a bit ago about this. Thank you for volunteering to look this over & brainstorm a possibly feasible solution.

You don't have to thank me but you're welcome. If you can help someone, you should.

Great!