Warren getting upset about Feathercoin
-
[url=https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/401797786347114496]https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/401797786347114496[/url]
So, Feathercoin should jump right on this and implement it before [i]Coin of Destiny[/i] does.
-
[quote name=“Kirjokansi” post=“34892” timestamp=“1384818812”]
I haven’t paid much attention to the Feathercoin forums until Bitcoin started going up and people started writing memoirs for it. Now that I have, I’ve found your views interesting. Maybe I haven’t read enough backwards, but I can’t figure out why are you so active and spend alot of time explaining yourself if Feathercoin’s got nothing going on for it?I find your thoughts interesting, though. I’m not big on coding, I’m a front ender, a UI-designer, but I’m always interested in the theory of it all.
[size=8pt]Offtopic: Has anyone ever thought of making a voting sytem based on a crypto currency? I’ve been looking at the discussion around it in my country and if something needs to be decentralized, it’s voting. [/size]
[/quote]I didn’t say it’s got nothing going for it. I really like some of the members of the community. I think it has a lot of potential, but it’s largely unrealized. I’m involved in a number of crypto-currency projects, and Feathercoin has one of the nicest, most passionate communities around. Being a part of that energy is addictive and I really enjoy most of the discussions I find myself having here. Most other discussions are technology based and tend to be rather dry, but life is never boring here.
Re: voting. Yep. Tons of work has been done in this realm. CommitCoin comes to mind: [url=http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~clark/papers/2012_fc.pdf]http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~clark/papers/2012_fc.pdf[/url]
-
[quote name=“Kevlar” post=“34879” timestamp=“1384815994”]
[quote author=Tuck Fheman link=topic=4440.msg34878#msg34878 date=1384815470]
[quote author=Kevlar link=topic=4440.msg34859#msg34859 date=1384809396]
I’ve been devoting my free time to other crypto-currencies who do have a solid development process in place, and my own coding projects. [b]The recent Zerocoin enhancements were a lot of work and it’s taken this long to get it there.[/b]
[/quote]What coin is this?
[/quote]The soon-to-be-alt-coin that will implement Zerocoin, name still TBD. It’s not just a library any more, they’ve decided to do a reference implementation in their own blockchain. They went this route because, after much debate, it was decided that there wasn’t an existing coin worth implementing it in. Litecoin and Feathercoin was heavily considered, but eventually turned down due to a lack of development leadership; any coin that implements it would need some pretty heavy hand holding moving forward, not to mention a hard fork, and without a dedicated team capable of pulling it off it was decided it was best to just launch our own without all the legacy problems, and if individual developers of alt-coins wanted to they could just do their own implementation by forking their reference implementation.
[/quote]As I have mentioned it earlier, the current implementation of Zerocoin library is alpha quality. Experimental, not tried even on some kind of testnet, so there is a long way to production use. Yes, the concept is interesting and the results may be outstanding if everything is done properly. If they released a reference library with a decent documentation, I could work on getting it implemented in some altcoin. However, they want a coin with a highly skilled dedicated team of coders to integrate their concept. Well, things don’t work this way. If you invent anything and want to get it into production, you have to convince partners and investors first. You build a reference design, write the documentation, do a few demo runs, prepare a business plan or road map. I haven’t seen anything of it. I haven’t seen them coming and discussing a potential partnership in public or in private. It’s been nearly half a year since their annoucement. They change plans and decide to launch a coin of their own. No worries. One more, one less. We have seen many of them already. I hope they realise what they’re getting into. Time flies, competition gets stronger. Old tricks don’t work any more. I wish them good luck though.
-
[quote name=“Vonkraut” post=“34870” timestamp=“1384813526”]
Now this is interesting from Warren:[quote]Now that FTC is much discredited and near delisting, I suppose there is no harm in telling more of this story. Hopefully this will help others to avoid losing money to scams in the future.
The Litecoin devs agreed months ago that although we are capable of destroying their network due to their not fixing any security issues in their client, we were not willing to do anything that could be construed as illegal. I’m surprised that nobody else has done so as some of the possible attacks were known to the public and were previously used against the Bitcoin and Litecoin networks. For example, active attacks were the reason for the Bitcoin 0.8.3 emergency security release.
So with dev’s unwillingness to attack, some of the large Litecoin investors and pools came up with a plan to use entirely legal means to destroy FTC’s economy. Roughly 45% of the LTC hashrate under the control of several pool ops were willing to turn their hash power against the FTC network to strip mine and dump on the exchanges at a loss, subsidized by the large LTC investors. We devs were amused by this plan but we were pleased to leave it to the pools to work on. The reference client devs do not work on pool software, and client devs have lots of other higher priorities.
Some of the pools were testing the tech to do this. Then out of nowhere someone else entirely began a series of massive reorg attacks against the FTC network. The hashrate to do it wasn’t coming from the existing LTC pools, so our best guess is it came from GPU farms switching from Bitcoin hoping to manipulate the markets for trading profit. The reorg attacks, and especially the BIG time-travelling attack with the 72 block reorg, made a complete mess of FTC. The pools were then afraid to go forward with the economy draining strip mining plan because the cost would be too high if their blocks were orphaned in another reorg attack.
In the end, it turns out that FTC did a good job of killing itself and didn’t need Litecoin’s help.
The marketing shills, shiny videos and promises of “innovation” were unfortunately effective at attracting suckers to buy their meritless product that they were incapable of defending. It was surprising to me the extent of which they lacked engineering competence, we thought they would copy 0.8.x months ago. In any case, even if they were competent, there is simply no way to defend a copy when you are always a tiny % of the global hashrate capable of being used against your network. This is proven by the repeated, spectacular failures of Terracoin. Their centralized broadcast checkpoints was a final an act of desperation, an act of capitulation and the beginning of the slow death spiral.
I give Feathercoin this offer. Want a working Feathercoin 0.8.5.1 client with all of your innovations integrated and working? I’ll do it for a one-time payment of 100 BTC. You seem to hire help whenever you can’t figure out simple coding issues, so why not hire now? =)[/quote]
[/quote]That guy is so hostile. At least we have ACP without which we would still experience large block reorgs with time travel attacks. Without it we would not be here anymore. I’m glad to have shown a way for small but popular coins to survive. Going forward we need a working alternative or huge hash rate though that is not enough alone in my opinion unless you are Bitcoin. ACP works so an alternative does not need to work out of the box, like PoS does not really work immediately. It is something that builds up its usefulness over time. However 0% PoS does not seem viable to me, no one wants to see their coins disappear for 520 confirms for no return. It may work now but what about in 10 years time, generating PoS blocks with 0% may be simply be avoided. We should not rely on the altruistic nature of future generations.
Kevlar, if you provide any code for Feathercoin I will make sure that you will have all the credit :)
There were changes to key.cpp recently by Sipa in preparation for HD wallets. This change stops ACP and CAlert from working. I’ve looked into this and got a running daemon that throws errors. Sunny kindly took a look but we are still getting errors. I have not spent too much time on it as I am not sure how to progress with this error. I’m very sure that this is easy to the person with the right skills but Warren seems unlikely to help out. Chances are that the problem is a simple one and perhaps you would kindly take a look at the assertion error.
I do what I can do, apologies for not being able to do more :-[
-
Sickening to me that they can’t just do their own thing and let the other coins rise or fall on their own. So juvenile to attack like that, and somewhat ironic they are afraid of a little competition.
Yes I didn’t use proper sentence structure. Blow me.
-
Well, any technical issues aside, there is one thing I know about successful people.
They do not give a shit about anything else going on around them because there isn’t any need to.
When you start writing long, lengthy diatribes about what you perceive to be your competition, your base needs to start worrying.
Singling out FTC and not making it a general diatribe against [i]every other scrypt-based coin built off that work[/i], warts and all, means something’s scaring him. And there’s no reason for it. There’s nothing that’s been accomplished here with people’s blood, sweat and tears that he could assemble a team to do the exact same or even excel at it.
And that he’s not done that… well. You just have to look back a little further than a decade to see examples of that strategy in play.
He’s ready to bail. OR. He’s got something crazier queued up.
Be weary. Wary? Weary. Sh’up, I should be in bed.
Just the same, remember. Feathercoin? Billy Goats Gruff.
[img]http://akinandgarvey.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/3Billys.jpg[/img]
-
[quote name=“Bushstar” post=“34899” timestamp=“1384822573”]
That guy is so hostile. At least we have ACP without which we would still experience large block reorgs with time travel attacks. Without it we would not be here anymore. I’m glad to have shown a way for small but popular coins to survive. Going forward we need a working alternative or huge hash rate though that is not enough alone in my opinion unless you are Bitcoin. ACP works so an alternative does not need to work out of the box, like PoS does not really work immediately. It is something that builds up its usefulness over time. However 0% PoS does not seem viable to me, no one wants to see their coins disappear for 520 confirms for no return. It may work now but what about in 10 years time, generating PoS blocks with 0% may be simply be avoided. We should not rely on the altruistic nature of future generations.Kevlar, if you provide any code for Feathercoin I will make sure that you will have all the credit :)
There were changes to key.cpp recently by Sipa in preparation for HD wallets. This change stops ACP and CAlert from working. I’ve looked into this and got a running daemon that throws errors. Sunny kindly took a look but we are still getting errors. I have not spent too much time on it as I am not sure how to progress with this error. I’m very sure that this is easy to the person with the right skills but Warren seems unlikely to help out. Chances are that the problem is a simple one and perhaps you would kindly take a look at the assertion error.
I do what I can do, apologies for not being able to do more :-[
[/quote]This is the fragile environment I’m talking about. It has nothing to do with complexity. It has everything to do with C++ and filenaming standards and throwing a bunch of classes in one place being retarded. Like back when ASM instructions had to be followed by a goto.
Solution:
Put HD wallet code in a storage/HDwallet folder.
If you need to modify key.cpp for HD wallets, do that in storage/HDwallet/HDwallet_key.cpp.
Then key.cpp and HDwallet_key.cpp should inherit/include common/common_key.hPut ACP code in tools/security/ACP and CAlert in utils/message/CAlert.
This will allow you to get organized.
I’ll take those 100 BTCs now. :) Convert to FTC and send them to my tip jar.
-
ZD, I like your view that crypto is still in its infancy. This is true but it is now growing fast. Hats of to Bitcoin for pushing adoption in this space and Litecoin for showing that there can be alts. On that note I’ve been talking with Warren but to no avail. He is making the point that he is better than us which is not fair considering the arguments he has against us were the same ones levelled at Litecoin by Bitcoiners early on. It is not a good look to stand there and keep saying that you are better than others.
As far as I could tell they kept the move to 0.8.5 completely behind closed doors to which I tried to offer a large donation to their fund raising to be able to partake, like buying into a co-operative. We got the offer of merge mining which would have completely marginalised us. The Litecoin clique is closed unfortunately which is why we are here. Our development is open and now we are being attacked because of this.
I do wonder why Warren wants to attack us if we are finished as he says we are. For some reason they still find us a threat. I never intended this to happen as Litecoin showed that there should be alts and I never saw Litecoin as a competitor to Bitcoin, just another solution in this domain of which there can be many. How odd that Warren who codes for Litecoin is against others working in this same open source space. The mantra that there should only be two coins is no better than those who said that there should only be one. Feathercoin has clearly faced different pressures than Litecoin and has found solutions for young coins to survive in an increasingly hostile environment. Hats off to Feathercoin :)
-
Hey Zerodrama,
I like your suggestion. Should we move the thread back to software development and get something useful done?
-
[quote name=“Bushstar” post=“35124” timestamp=“1384938457”]
ZD, I like your view that crypto is still in its infancy. This is true but it is now growing fast. Hats of to Bitcoin for pushing adoption in this space and Litecoin for showing that there can be alts. On that note I’ve been talking with Warren but to no avail. He is making the point that he is better than us which is not fair considering the arguments he has against us were the same ones levelled at Litecoin by Bitcoiners early on. It is not a good look to stand there and keep saying that you are better than others.As far as I could tell they kept the move to 0.8.5 completely behind closed doors to which I tried to offer a large donation to their fund raising to be able to partake, like buying into a co-operative. We got the offer of merge mining which would have completely marginalised us. The Litecoin clique is closed unfortunately which is why we are here. Our development is open and now we are being attacked because of this.
I do wonder why Warren wants to attack us if we are finished as he says we are. For some reason they still find us a threat. I never intended this to happen as Litecoin showed that there should be alts and I never saw Litecoin as a competitor to Bitcoin, just another solution in this domain of which there can be many. How odd that Warren who codes for Litecoin is against others working in this same open source space. The mantra that there should only be two coins is no better than those who said that there should only be one. Feathercoin has clearly faced different pressures than Litecoin and has found solutions for young coins to survive in an increasingly hostile environment. Hats off to Feathercoin :)
[/quote]We have to do the work they don’t want to do. This closed off nature present us with an opportunity to be the coin that serves its community. Tuneman1980 is working on a Task Organiser for the Forum, we could improve the way the community reaches its decisions so that the devs work on behalf of the people here and present them with a range of choices and let them steer the ship with some range of controls.
In terms of competition, while the code is open source the money itself is not. That is finite. Every BTC and USD that is spent on Feathercoin is one that could have been spent on Litecoin and helped raise the price. Not saying that’s what’s motivating Warren but it does piss off a few people and it is a consideration.
-
[quote=“warren”]You may want to be aware that [b]I might have added a trap to Litecoin’s code several months ago that opens an obscure vulnerability when used with certain non-Litecoin parameters[/b]. Did I actually do this? I certainly had plenty of time to do it before the source was opened with 0.8.3.x. Do you have the ability to figure out if I did it? It is incredibly sad that you haven’t even managed to make a copy of Litecoin 0.8.5 work in all this time. The key refactor really isn’t all that complicated. How is anyone supposed to trust your ability to ship mission critical software when you have demonstrated that you don’t understand the code that you copied?[/quote]
This is amusing. Mike Burns said something about traps in his Phenixcoin code. When I was preparing v0.6.5.0, I walked through all of it with diff only to find out he was bluffing. There was nothing except his poorly written code.
One more thing. I don’t get why the Litecoin trolls say their coin is superior to Feathercoin and the latter has to die. Speaking of the code, Litecoin is a quick fork of Bitcoin with 4x more coins, 4x faster blocks and the Scrypt algorithm borrowed from Tenebrix. There is no real innovation at all. Feathercoin is more advanced currently due to ACP, better retargets and network alerts. Even though a big credit goes to Sunny King for his contributions, Feathercoin is superior technically to Litecoin.
-
[quote name=“ghostlander” post=“35160” timestamp=“1384954509”]
[quote=“warren”]You may want to be aware that [b]I might have added a trap to Litecoin’s code several months ago that opens an obscure vulnerability when used with certain non-Litecoin parameters[/b]. Did I actually do this? I certainly had plenty of time to do it before the source was opened with 0.8.3.x. Do you have the ability to figure out if I did it? It is incredibly sad that you haven’t even managed to make a copy of Litecoin 0.8.5 work in all this time. The key refactor really isn’t all that complicated. How is anyone supposed to trust your ability to ship mission critical software when you have demonstrated that you don’t understand the code that you copied?[/quote]This is amusing. Mike Burns said something about traps in his Phenixcoin code. When I was preparing v0.6.5.0, I walked through all of it with diff only to find out he was bluffing. There was nothing except his poorly written code.
One more thing. I don’t get why the Litecoin trolls say their coin is superior to Feathercoin and the latter has to die. Speaking of the code, Litecoin is a quick fork of Bitcoin with 4x more coins, 4x faster blocks and the Scrypt algorithm borrowed from Tenebrix. There is no real innovation at all. Feathercoin is more advanced currently due to ACP, better retargets and network alerts. Even though a big credit goes to Sunny King for his contributions, Feathercoin is superior technically to Litecoin.
[/quote]Seems to me like Warren is eaten by fear from inside, sad story ::)
-
[quote name=“mirrax” post=“35167” timestamp=“1384955979”]
Seems to me like Warren is eaten by fear from inside, sad story ::)
[/quote]
