Quote from: K1773R on October 31, 2014, 12:01:24 AM

Current Status (including past) on Craptsy

- They created non-standard transactions (bigger than 100KB)
- I mined their transactions for free, for quite some time.
- They have stolen ~0.9 BTC in the meantime from me in a "waiting game".
- They fail to broadcast transcations, offered them to mine those transactions, if they send me the raw transaction.
- Craptsy (or anyone else) never gave me with a raw transaction to mine.

Hence im now done with craptsy. No more mining of their non-standard transaction.
Tickets on issues are just closed, blatantly ignored or im told "its in process/your on a list", tough there's nothing that needs weeks of work (its just a missing withdrawal).
Unless this gets resolved, i wont help craptsy nor anyone who uses it again (including myself of course).

1. We created perfectly standard transactions via sendtoaddress

2. We do appreciate you mining the transactions

3. How?!

4. I have broadcast all transactions and all withdrawals are confirmed

5. It was over 100 transactions. I came up with a solution to do it in house

Quote from: Gnosis- on October 29, 2014, 07:28:33 AM

Quote from: thunderjet on October 29, 2014, 12:14:42 AM

Thanks Gnosis for quick answer on mine previous question.Now I found something much more serious.In Bitcoin before v0.8.6 wallet.cpp code had one serious bug which allows relaying of invalid transactions.Error in code allowed insertion of empty transactions into vtxPrev which nasty consequence was that nodes whose transmitting such transactions were banned - causing shutdown parts of network, problems in nodes communications and acception of transactions.This bug was never fixed in Anoncoin wallet.cpp:

Bug is on wallet.cpp Line 850 of anoncoin code - if (!tx.IsCoinBase()) should be if (!tx.IsCoinBase() && !tx.vin.empty())

Quote from: GroundRod on October 29, 2014, 02:14:35 AM

@thunderjet - Excellent find! Spent allot of time in that RelayWalletTransaction(), convinced that was where the problem must be @. My initial reaction here is that you've nailed it. My experience is primarily with the 0.9.2+ codebase & there is significant differences between the two there, did not know that about 0.8.6. We'll have to see what Gnosis thinks, but I'm really happy you pointed this out!

This is encouraging! I'll take a closer look when I wake up in ~9 hours.

This would fit the issues we have been having pretty well but not sure as none of the transactions ever contained empty outputs.

It also goes well with what flound pointed out earlier.