It is expected behavior as the alert key was never changed from what is in litecoin.  There are more coins that are going to see this as well I bet.

https://www.box.com/s/oyeoglczqbs1i3ekuzfu

So can someone with graphics skills make up an .icns file for it?

Quote from: twobits on June 20, 2013, 09:43:06 AM

Quote

Only "connect" does this - not "addnode".    With addnode, if a node goes down, another available node is used that's not trusted.  No one runs the wallet with the firewall open so they have 100 connections - most people only use a max of 6 - 12 connections to peers.

While Addnode does not restrict the connection directly,  if all the nodes are up, and you addnode exactly the same number of nodes as you set maxconnections as all the sample config files I was commenting on did, then it does.  You could also get much of the same effect with a better dns seeding routine, and changing the logic to use dns seeds for more then just the bootstrap (this is an example of another way to fix it, not what should be done).

Quote

Once could easily change the max connections to say 12, and have a 75% change of getting a misbehaving node.

Except that was not what was being shown.

Quote

The fix is a larger network.  Its impossible for misbehaving nodes to be eliminated.  You do understand that right?

Sure, though the block chain itself should be ok also long as your are not being 51%ed.   

Quote

This is why it hasn't been fixed in Bitcoin, Litecoin, Novacoin, and the list goes on.  the only fix is no wannabe hax0rs trying to force a false blockchain down the network's throat.

That is not what is happening though.     I never followed NVC, but the same issue has not been present for BTC and LTC so far.   I am wondering if it will hit LTC due in reverse when coins like GLD outgrow it block number wise.  I am thinking probably not due to the less difficulty, but one of these days I need to reread that part of the code to see. 

Quote

Who are you by the way?  which btcointalk troll?  Why not use your real name?

This does not seem to be a real name forum.  Who on here is using their real name?  Have not seen many that are.

wait a sec here, gldcoin said before he was changing the difficulty to 126 blocks - I looked at the code again, trying to figure out how he did it.

Really? Where did he say that? Because I don't think he did that.    I guess the change at 21168 confused you?  At block 21000 the nTargetTimespan drops by 4, though the way it was encoded was far more convoluted than needed.   So the logic for calculating the break points was changed to special case the changeover block.    However, nothing else was special cased.  It does not now subtract the difficulty changeover block to find the next changeover calculation point.    As you are fond of saying, this is a simple matter of math.


21168 modulo  504 = 0 and is then the next changeover point after 21000,  however since the difficulty changes did not get changed to 126 blocks, the next changeover will then of course be 21672.   

DNS seed nodes. DNS seed nodes keep DNS records of all the nodes it encounters through scanning the coins P2P network. When a client/daemon uses a dns seed node, it gets a DNS list of random address picked from the dns seed node records, normally 10 addresses.

These are kind of a pain to set up, DNS is always a pain in the arse...

There are two types of DNS seed nodes.  Both are in use currently by Bitcoin.  I call the one you are describing dynamic.  I have so far only seen it used by some of the bitcoin seeds.  Have you seen some alts using this as well?  I offered to write one for devcoin earlier, but they had no interest in bothering with it.  It would not be too bad to do.   Gets a bit more complicated if you want to try and make it do some geolocation and sorting based on requesters ip address though.   The other type is like the node run by jgarik that just returns a curated list of well known seeds.  That is easy enough to do, and even just adding another to the list returned will be an improvement from what was present before.  That should be just fine for awhile.

Also,  seed nodes are only used during bootstrapping, or if you have not run your client for awhile and all the peers it discovered are now offline.     I am not sure yet if this code has the same issue as the older code where  if you have a dnsSeed the fallback to pnSeeds stops working.  Does not matter yet, since the code has no pnSeeds in it.

https://www.box.com/s/oyeoglczqbs1i3ekuzfu

Quote

Mining a coin is not attacking it.   You also can not attack a coin at the last minute,  unless it is using a non standard  buggy difficulty calculation, as the whole time period is considered.  Namecoin had worse issues  back in 2011 with miners hoping on and off it then this coin has had.

Actually, when someone points 2 gHs at a coin to run a 51% attack, and at the same time bring the difficulty from 1 to 7 in a matter of hours, yes it is an attack.  Again, you have not been around this coin and have no idea what was done to destroy the coin.

A 51% attack is not the same as just mining with an unmodified client.  However a 51% attack is also going to be in control of things, so does not fit at all what you posted the first time.   The time warp fix is in place though so at least it would have to be a real 51% attack.

As soon as the difficulty changed, the hashrate dropped to 100 mH/s, and within a day, down to 30 mH/s (because the real miners left) and eventually you have what is there today.  It was down to 7 mH/s

You again have not described an attack, you have just described rational profit seeking mining behavior.    Do you remember how that used to go with nmc?

If the difficulty was capped in the first place this coin wouldn't be at difficulty 7.3.  Capping the difficulty keeps the coin from being put to death as this coin was by an influx of mining that just drops off after the difficulty changes.  If this coin is allowed to have unlimited difficulty changes, or even 400% Litecoin style adjustments, the coin will be right back here with 7 mH/s hashrates in a matter of weeks again.

All capping the difficulty does is increase the time the coin runs at a lower difficulty then it should.  It is not the growth in difficulty quickly that is the issue, it is the lack of a quick reset back down.

So you propose what?  Do nothing?  Make it possible for difficulty to skyrocket by someone trying to raise difficulty to kill the coin or by simple coin hoppers following coinchoose?

I have my doubts that you are out to help this coin.  I would bet the house on that.

I proposed that we wait and see how the FTC/SunnyKing/PPC inspired code does.   It would not have been my first choice I think, but it is what is in place, and it would cause more issues to try and do anything differently at this point.   

I am not the one who proposed things that are I think are  probably more harmful than helpful.    You only seem to want to make sure that blocks are not generated too slowly.  I am only pointing out that it should still be a concern that they don't get generated and mined out way ahead of schedule either.  It seems you can not keep to a discussion on the merits of the ideas and had to resort to an ad hominem already.