Search found 17 matches
- Thu Jan 16, 2014 6:36 pm
- Forum: Bounties
- Topic: Google Summer of Code
- Replies: 48
- Views: 40210
Re: Google Summer of Code
Integrate a lightweight, forwarding (and optionally caching) DNS service into the client and have it serve .bit from the blockchain. It should autodetect the existing resolver and forward the other TLDs to it. Fire up namecoind, set your nameserver to 127.0.0.1, and away you go!
- Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:11 pm
- Forum: Official Namecoin softwares
- Topic: Order Matching Logic for a NMC/BTC Exchange
- Replies: 1
- Views: 3669
Re: Order Matching Logic for a NMC/BTC Exchange
Now with the more flexible approach that I am implementing I not only have "buy NMC for BTC", I also have "sell BTC for NMC". My current thoughts are that the sell order of the reversed order of currency is the same as a buy order with a unitprice of 1/unitprice. Example Buy (BTC) Sell-Side 30 NMC/...
- Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:52 am
- Forum: Mining
- Topic: [masterpool.eu] DISCONTINUED - shut down at the end of Feb
- Replies: 87
- Views: 249448
Re: [masterpool.eu] Merged Mining - 1% Fee - TX fees distrib
After your nap and the storm... :) Unfortunately I still don't know your user ID/name USER264. Well, it makes sense that my software is doing something wrong (inadvertently) and getting booted as an attacker. Good that you have such controls. Apologies for the "attack" if that's what happened. I do ...
- Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:22 am
- Forum: Mining
- Topic: [masterpool.eu] DISCONTINUED - shut down at the end of Feb
- Replies: 87
- Views: 249448
Re: [masterpool.eu] Merged Mining - 1% Fee - TX fees distrib
I find something wrong, and I have TCP packet dumps in case you want to read them. The main symptom is that I get lots (hundreds) of shares and then suddenly the reject rate jumps from 0 to over 50%. I looked at a network traffic dump and saw what looks like invalid HTTP from us01.masterpool.eu. My ...
- Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:21 pm
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Creating an official namecoin tree ?
- Replies: 6
- Views: 5925
Re: 51% Attack - Countermeasure Roundup
We could also create an "official" namecoin tree that is dedicated to releases & fix (bitcoin works like that with bitcoin/bitcoin and each user has his forked tree) ? => https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin Excellent! I find the descriptions of khal/namecoin and vinced/namecoin on http://dot-bit.o...
- Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:38 am
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: 51% Attack - Countermeasure Roundup
- Replies: 21
- Views: 35511
Re: 51% Attack - Countermeasure Roundup
If a real 51% attach starts we need a way to exclude or disadvantage the chain built by the attacking miners. Any idea how we would do that? We still want to be an open system while defending. Thanks for asking. I'd like us to acknowledge that after 19200, we are ultimately sunk if more hashing pow...
- Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:54 am
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Namecoin is Prime for a 51% attack
- Replies: 61
- Views: 86238
Re: Namecoin is Prime for a 51% attack
So what I read from this is, we'd like a lockin at the merged-mining block. Maybe the next release should simply refuse to accept blocks starting at 19200 (MM start) in the hope that we can quickly agree on a 19199 lock-in and upgrade. Whoever stays at 0.3.24.62 get to see a bunch of noise from the...
- Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:55 pm
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Namecoin is Prime for a 51% attack
- Replies: 61
- Views: 86238
Re: Namecoin is Prime for a 51% attack
As far as I know ArtForz doesn't have a lock-in bypass though. The problem he found with merged mining is that, because the Namecoin client has no block chain lockins, an attacker can rewrite history to drive down the difficulty, get to the merged mining point relatively cheaply but with a chain th...
- Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:40 pm
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: Testnet Merged Mining Block Number
- Replies: 45
- Views: 170726
Re: Testnet Merged Mining Block Number
Yes, and thank you very much for implementing it.vinced wrote:I agree, this is a cleaner solution. I think my solution is still good enough because you can increase the size of the merkle tree cheaply so collisions can be avoided.
- Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:19 pm
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: implications of merged mining / shared blockchain
- Replies: 44
- Views: 37070
Re: implications of merged mining / shared blockchain
I wouldn't go that far.jtimon wrote:If that never happens, merged mining was a bad idea after all.
Not in the way you mean.jtimon wrote:Is it possible to distribute a client with a checkpoint in the future (19099)?