Search content
Sort by
Showing 16 of 16 results by Rick Storm
Re: Does Pascalcoin offer something new and exciting or is this just another p'n'd?
I think what a lot of people are missing (including the dev?) is that PascalCoin solves the problem in Bitcoin of uncontrolled uxto-set growth. In Bitcoin this data grows with every unspent output. With PascalCoin the uxto-set is effectively replaced by accounts, which grow at a predictable and stable rate. The down-side of this is that anyone can't just create a new addresss/account, they need to be mined/exchanged.
Re: [ANN] [PASC] PascalCoin, deletable blockchain & bank account system [PASA]
Funky stuff going on with this coin. Has anyone fluent in Pascal done an in depth examination of the code? I would but I haven't looked at pascal since High School. I've forgotten more than I remember. It's such an old language that there are guaranteed vulnerabilities and opportunities for deception. Be careful.
I've looked at the code in quite some detail. I didn't notice anything malicious. Of course don't just take my word, Pascal is easy to read if you have experience of c++, c#, etc. so I encourage anyone to have a look.
As for the "old" language, it runs on modern compilers with the same back-end as c++ compilers, so I wouldn't be worried about that.
Re: Pascal Coin: P2P cryptocurrency without need of historical operations
Being coded in Pascal means that is has years of experience withing development environments, meaning that it is malleable and also a secure programming language.
I respectfully disagree. As people said before, Pascal is an old and dying language. Those used to be written in Pascal almost all replaced by C++ and Java. C++/Java (and other new languages) are clearly much more secure than Pascal. You can write a coin using Fortran, as people did in the eighties, nothing wrong with it, the coin can still work. But I will say that it's a bad choice, why? because it will be difficult to be maintained, enhanced, or linked/interfaced with latest web and internet based environment.
I respectfully disagree. You seem to think Pascal of the 80's. The latest versions of Delphi (Pascal) is cross-platform, allowing for easy development even on platforms like OSX, iOS and Android, much easier than with any C++/Java version out there.
I rephrase my question:
1) given arbitrary inputs, does the SHA-256 function really generate outputs that are evenly distributed?
2) given block headers** as inputs, does the SHA-256 function really generate outputs that are evenly distributed?
1) given arbitrary inputs, does the SHA-256 function really generate outputs that are evenly distributed?
2) given block headers** as inputs, does the SHA-256 function really generate outputs that are evenly distributed?
Yes, yes. If not, it would not be a good hash function and it would be open to attacks.
But what you don't have in the log is the content of the record XXX which therefore cannot be restored unless you actually restore an older backup (this is the meaning of D in ACID transaction which is what all serious RDBMS do - i.e. once deleted always deleted).
...
and it should be clear that they could not do this simply because the information has not been preserved in the transaction log
...
and it should be clear that they could not do this simply because the information has not been preserved in the transaction log
This doesn't sound right. Afaik all major databases store the deleted record in the transaction log, e.g. SQL Server:
https://sqlfascination.com/2010/02/03/how-do-you-decode-a-simple-entry-in-the-transaction-log-part-1/
Re: URGENT: please peer review a possible back door in Bitcoin?
I think this is relevant to the question:
http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/779/hashing-or-encrypting-twice-to-increase-security
The relevant bit:
http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/779/hashing-or-encrypting-twice-to-increase-security
The relevant bit:
Quote
SHA-256(SHA-256(x)) was proposed by Ferguson and Schneier in their excellent book "Practical Cryptography" (later updated by Ferguson, Schneier, and Kohno and renamed "Cryptography Engineering") as a way to make SHA-256 invulnerable to "length-extension" attack. They called it "SHA-256d".
...
I wouldn't be surprised if the inventors of Bitcoin used it for similar reasons.
...
I wouldn't be surprised if the inventors of Bitcoin used it for similar reasons.
Re: [UNOFFICIAL] VNL | Vanillacoin 0.3.7 MANDATORY UPD | Node Incentives | ZeroTime
It's pointless to say anything to you because you are like stupid parrot which repeats things that don't understand.
You can only copy/paste and repeat things and by now we all know that...
So just stop with you idiotic role you play because such role can permanently reflect on your personality.
You can only copy/paste and repeat things and by now we all know that...
So just stop with you idiotic role you play because such role can permanently reflect on your personality.
Stop blaming the messengers for the message being delivered.
It's not our fault VNL's core dev is a code thief who, when caught red-handed, refused to do the honorable thing and confess/repent.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1189125.msg12507853#msg12507853
;-)
There are many places where Vanillacoin copied Bitcoin code. I have pointed out a good example previously, it won't be hard to find dozens more.
There's nothing wrong with copying and modifying the Bitcoin code, the MIT license allows you to do with it what you like, it just ask you not to be a scumbag and remove attribution and pretend you wrote the code in the first instance.
Re: [BOUNTY] VNL - Vanillacoin - ZeroTime double-spend reward
"
In order for an attacker to rig the voting system they must control at least
50% of the K closest votes to the current block height of the recipient of a
transaction. We can calculate this as (((1 in N where N = Total Network
Nodes) / K) / 32767.5). Therefore the probability of an attacker owning 50%
of the transaction recipients K-closest votes is approximately (((1 in 350) /
64) / 32767.5) / (score > -1) ? inf : 1 = 1.36e-09 (1.36%)
"
This formula makes no sense.
Firstly, probabilities are numbers between 0 and 1, with 1 being 100%. How on earth does 0.00000000136 equate to 1.36%?
Secondly, the formula should have a variable for the number of nodes the attacker controls. This is central to how a consensus system works. From his formula one might deduce that the attacker has 1 node (1 / 350). So if we assume the attacker has all the nodes, 350, then the formula is 350/350/64/32767.5 = 4.76e-7. Is this 476% in this strange probability scale being used? One would expect the answer to approach 100%.
In order for an attacker to rig the voting system they must control at least
50% of the K closest votes to the current block height of the recipient of a
transaction. We can calculate this as (((1 in N where N = Total Network
Nodes) / K) / 32767.5). Therefore the probability of an attacker owning 50%
of the transaction recipients K-closest votes is approximately (((1 in 350) /
64) / 32767.5) / (score > -1) ? inf : 1 = 1.36e-09 (1.36%)
"
This formula makes no sense.
Firstly, probabilities are numbers between 0 and 1, with 1 being 100%. How on earth does 0.00000000136 equate to 1.36%?
Secondly, the formula should have a variable for the number of nodes the attacker controls. This is central to how a consensus system works. From his formula one might deduce that the attacker has 1 node (1 / 350). So if we assume the attacker has all the nodes, 350, then the formula is 350/350/64/32767.5 = 4.76e-7. Is this 476% in this strange probability scale being used? One would expect the answer to approach 100%.
Re: [BOUNTY] VNL - Vanillacoin - ZeroTime double-spend reward
From the paper:
"
2. Lock Race Attack
In a lock race attack the sender forms two transactions and two locks and
submits one to the merchant and the other to the rest of the network. In this
case the locks will cancel each other out and the transaction MUST wait for
block inclusion before being considered confirmed.
"
So in the face of a simple double spend attempt, ZeroTime is no better than any other coin, it still needs to comfirm the transaction at least once with a Pow/Pos block.
Comparing a sample piece of code it is clear that at least some of it is based on Bitcoin code:
From vanillacoin - https://github.com/john-connor/vanillacoin/blob/master/src/address_manager.cpp#L1315
From Bitcoin 0.9.2 in addrman.cpp:
The above code from vanillacoin is based on bitcoin, albeit renamed, refactored, reformatted and re-commented at almost every possible occasion.
The algorithm is the same line by line and even the esoteric identifier name "IsTerrible"/"is_terrible" is used in both.
My guess is John started with a old bitcoin code base and refactored, renamed and recommented the code to a huge degree.
There has also been additions like the zerotime stuff which is not like anything in Bitcoin:
https://github.com/john-connor/vanillacoin/blob/master/src/zerotime.cpp
From vanillacoin - https://github.com/john-connor/vanillacoin/blob/master/src/address_manager.cpp#L1315
Code:
* Try to find an entry that can be erased.
*/
for (auto it = bucket_new.begin(); it != bucket_new.end(); ++it)
{
assert(address_info_map_.count(*it));
auto & info = address_info_map_[*it];
if (info.is_terrible())
{
if (--info.reference_count == 0)
{
std::lock_guard l1(mutex_random_ids_);
swap_random(
info.random_position,
static_cast (random_ids_.size() - 1)
);
random_ids_.pop_back();
network_address_map_.erase(info.addr);
address_info_map_.erase(*it);
number_new_--;
}
bucket_new.erase(it);
return;
*/
for (auto it = bucket_new.begin(); it != bucket_new.end(); ++it)
{
assert(address_info_map_.count(*it));
auto & info = address_info_map_[*it];
if (info.is_terrible())
{
if (--info.reference_count == 0)
{
std::lock_guard l1(mutex_random_ids_);
swap_random(
info.random_position,
static_cast (random_ids_.size() - 1)
);
random_ids_.pop_back();
network_address_map_.erase(info.addr);
address_info_map_.erase(*it);
number_new_--;
}
bucket_new.erase(it);
return;
From Bitcoin 0.9.2 in addrman.cpp:
Code:
// first look for deletable items
for (std::set::iterator it = vNew.begin(); it != vNew.end(); it++)
{
assert(mapInfo.count(*it));
CAddrInfo &info = mapInfo[*it];
if (info.IsTerrible())
{
if (--info.nRefCount == 0)
{
SwapRandom(info.nRandomPos, vRandom.size()-1);
vRandom.pop_back();
mapAddr.erase(info);
mapInfo.erase(*it);
nNew--;
}
vNew.erase(it);
return 0;
}
}
for (std::set::iterator it = vNew.begin(); it != vNew.end(); it++)
{
assert(mapInfo.count(*it));
CAddrInfo &info = mapInfo[*it];
if (info.IsTerrible())
{
if (--info.nRefCount == 0)
{
SwapRandom(info.nRandomPos, vRandom.size()-1);
vRandom.pop_back();
mapAddr.erase(info);
mapInfo.erase(*it);
nNew--;
}
vNew.erase(it);
return 0;
}
}
The above code from vanillacoin is based on bitcoin, albeit renamed, refactored, reformatted and re-commented at almost every possible occasion.
The algorithm is the same line by line and even the esoteric identifier name "IsTerrible"/"is_terrible" is used in both.
My guess is John started with a old bitcoin code base and refactored, renamed and recommented the code to a huge degree.
There has also been additions like the zerotime stuff which is not like anything in Bitcoin:
https://github.com/john-connor/vanillacoin/blob/master/src/zerotime.cpp
Re: Links to died coins INDICATOR DC ...........................
About BITCASH looks dead.
I tried post on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737857.0 but I received it message:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
I guess that is necessary reply for ask about if it coin is definitely dead an mark it.
What do you think? Somebody else?
I tried post on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737857.0 but I received it message:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
I guess that is necessary reply for ask about if it coin is definitely dead an mark it.
What do you think? Somebody else?
I think define "dead coin" as when you cannot download the blockchain anymore. This way you can download the wallet and check for yourself if the coin is "dead" and you won't have to post "coin is dead?" in every thread.
But in case that coin is dead, Could be necessary to revives thread to can mark with RIP anyway, so better and more effective ask on the thread. Don´t you think so?
Anyway your idea of download wallet could work in cases where thread is locked for long time.........
Asking in the thread is annoying and it gives a subjective answer. The objective things you can measure yourself.
Re: Links to died coins INDICATOR DC ...........................
About BITCASH looks dead.
I tried post on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737857.0 but I received it message:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
I guess that is necessary reply for ask about if it coin is definitely dead an mark it.
What do you think? Somebody else?
I tried post on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737857.0 but I received it message:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
I guess that is necessary reply for ask about if it coin is definitely dead an mark it.
What do you think? Somebody else?
I think define "dead coin" as when you cannot download the blockchain anymore. This way you can download the wallet and check for yourself if the coin is "dead" and you won't have to post "coin is dead?" in every thread.
@Rick Storm - you can't disagree.. because i agree with YOU hahahha
all that was needed was to change a few lines of code
and modelling the release and reward after Bitcoin is a very good thing.
Securecoin was started at very low block rewards and was gradually increased over time.
Many other coins do the opposite.. why is that ?
Regardless of what one is better they are both good i just think Securecoin is more promising and has a brighter future.
but.. i will list Quark too and provide links etc
And Spots you are correct sir
all that was needed was to change a few lines of code
and modelling the release and reward after Bitcoin is a very good thing.
Securecoin was started at very low block rewards and was gradually increased over time.
Many other coins do the opposite.. why is that ?
Regardless of what one is better they are both good i just think Securecoin is more promising and has a brighter future.
but.. i will list Quark too and provide links etc
And Spots you are correct sir
Wow what a friendly chap
Securecoin / SRC
- This is what Quark should have been.. this coin is Quark modeled after Bitcoin with an extra fair release by an experienced coin dev.
- First to use a combo of new algo's with Quark and so far there is no GPU miner that works on pools publicly.
- This is what Quark should have been.. this coin is Quark modeled after Bitcoin with an extra fair release by an experienced coin dev.
- First to use a combo of new algo's with Quark and so far there is no GPU miner that works on pools publicly.
I have to disagree here. The SecureCoin developer literally changed a few lines of Quark code, whereas Quark developed the unique 9-round hashing algorithm and a new coin distribution model, whereas SecureCoin just stuck to the Bitcoin model.
Baritus even admitted he's not a good coder
Hello guys,
After a while of mining some errors popped up.. But now everytime i want to start mining i get this:
10/26/2013 6:54:08 PM Started
Accepted: 1 at 10/26/2013 6:57:59 PM
Rejected: 1 at 10/26/2013 6:57:59 PM
Hardware error: 5 at 10/26/2013 6:57:59 PM
Accepted: 2 at 10/26/2013 6:58:55 PM
Hardware error: 6 at 10/26/2013 6:58:55 PM
Accepted: 3 at 10/26/2013 6:59:03 PM
Accepted: 4 at 10/26/2013 6:59:34 PM
Accepted: 5 at 10/26/2013 7:00:03 PM
Accepted: 6 at 10/26/2013 7:03:41 PM
Hardware error: 7 at 10/26/2013 7:03:41 PM
Accepted: 7 at 10/26/2013 7:06:00 PM
Hardware error: 9 at 10/26/2013 7:06:00 PM
Accepted: 8 at 10/26/2013 7:06:49 PM
Accepted: 9 at 10/26/2013 7:11:55 PM
Hardware error: 10 at 10/26/2013 7:11:55 PM
Accepted: 10 at 10/26/2013 7:12:28 PM
Accepted: 11 at 10/26/2013 7:13:36 PM
Hardware error: 11 at 10/26/2013 7:13:36 PM
Accepted: 12 at 10/26/2013 7:15:16 PM
Can someone explain to me what it is?
After a while of mining some errors popped up.. But now everytime i want to start mining i get this:
10/26/2013 6:54:08 PM Started
Accepted: 1 at 10/26/2013 6:57:59 PM
Rejected: 1 at 10/26/2013 6:57:59 PM
Hardware error: 5 at 10/26/2013 6:57:59 PM
Accepted: 2 at 10/26/2013 6:58:55 PM
Hardware error: 6 at 10/26/2013 6:58:55 PM
Accepted: 3 at 10/26/2013 6:59:03 PM
Accepted: 4 at 10/26/2013 6:59:34 PM
Accepted: 5 at 10/26/2013 7:00:03 PM
Accepted: 6 at 10/26/2013 7:03:41 PM
Hardware error: 7 at 10/26/2013 7:03:41 PM
Accepted: 7 at 10/26/2013 7:06:00 PM
Hardware error: 9 at 10/26/2013 7:06:00 PM
Accepted: 8 at 10/26/2013 7:06:49 PM
Accepted: 9 at 10/26/2013 7:11:55 PM
Hardware error: 10 at 10/26/2013 7:11:55 PM
Accepted: 10 at 10/26/2013 7:12:28 PM
Accepted: 11 at 10/26/2013 7:13:36 PM
Hardware error: 11 at 10/26/2013 7:13:36 PM
Accepted: 12 at 10/26/2013 7:15:16 PM
Can someone explain to me what it is?
You sometimes get hardware errors on your GPU when you set the intensity parameter too high. Try lowering it and see if the problem goes away.