Search found 17 matches

by johntobey253
Thu Jan 16, 2014 6:36 pm
Forum: Bounties
Topic: Google Summer of Code
Replies: 48
Views: 12729

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!
by johntobey253
Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:11 pm
Forum: Official Namecoin softwares
Topic: Order Matching Logic for a NMC/BTC Exchange
Replies: 1
Views: 1475

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/...
by johntobey253
Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:52 am
Forum: Mining
Topic: [masterpool.eu] DISCONTINUED - shut down at the end of Feb
Replies: 87
Views: 33504

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 ...
by johntobey253
Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:22 am
Forum: Mining
Topic: [masterpool.eu] DISCONTINUED - shut down at the end of Feb
Replies: 87
Views: 33504

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 ...
by johntobey253
Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:21 pm
Forum: General Discussion
Topic: Creating an official namecoin tree ?
Replies: 6
Views: 2114

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...
by johntobey253
Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:38 am
Forum: General Discussion
Topic: 51% Attack - Countermeasure Roundup
Replies: 21
Views: 22221

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...
by johntobey253
Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:54 am
Forum: General Discussion
Topic: Namecoin is Prime for a 51% attack
Replies: 61
Views: 37304

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...
by johntobey253
Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:55 pm
Forum: General Discussion
Topic: Namecoin is Prime for a 51% attack
Replies: 61
Views: 37304

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...
by johntobey253
Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:40 pm
Forum: Project direction
Topic: Testnet Merged Mining Block Number
Replies: 45
Views: 78402

Re: Testnet Merged Mining Block Number

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.
Yes, and thank you very much for implementing it.
by johntobey253
Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:19 pm
Forum: General Discussion
Topic: implications of merged mining / shared blockchain
Replies: 44
Views: 12540

Re: implications of merged mining / shared blockchain

jtimon wrote:If that never happens, merged mining was a bad idea after all.
I wouldn't go that far.
jtimon wrote:Is it possible to distribute a client with a checkpoint in the future (19099)?
Not in the way you mean.