The first secure, decentralized, human-meaningful naming system.
https://forum.namecoin.org/
In the check_pow function you include a comment asking why the byte order is reversed. This page on the Bitcoin Wiki may help explain why.phelix wrote:I recently solved the AuxPOW puzzle myself: http://blockchained.com/stuff/auxpowpuzzle_solve.py_ Learned something.
I will try and make it a proper module.
Ah, thanks. It seems to be an issue of endianness and string / integer interpretation.josephbisch wrote:In the check_pow function you include a comment asking why the byte order is reversed. This page on the Bitcoin Wiki may help explain why.phelix wrote:I recently solved the AuxPOW puzzle myself: http://blockchained.com/stuff/auxpowpuzzle_solve.py_ Learned something.
I will try and make it a proper module.
I don't see any issues with those bounties.biolizard89 wrote:Regarding the 0.5 BTC bounty for finishing the Armory port, can we flesh out specifically which tasks are eligible? Right now there are 5 tickets open on GitHub:
https://github.com/namecoin/BitcoinArmory/issues
I'm leaning towards 0.2 BTC for https://github.com/namecoin/BitcoinArmory/issues/2 , 0.2 BTC for https://github.com/namecoin/BitcoinArmory/issues/3 , and 0.1 BTC for https://github.com/namecoin/BitcoinArmory/issues/4 . The other 2 tickets already have pre-existing bounties.
Is that acceptable?
Okay, cool. @Phelix, is this okay with you?josephbisch wrote:I don't see any issues with those bounties.biolizard89 wrote:Regarding the 0.5 BTC bounty for finishing the Armory port, can we flesh out specifically which tasks are eligible? Right now there are 5 tickets open on GitHub:
https://github.com/namecoin/BitcoinArmory/issues
I'm leaning towards 0.2 BTC for https://github.com/namecoin/BitcoinArmory/issues/2 , 0.2 BTC for https://github.com/namecoin/BitcoinArmory/issues/3 , and 0.1 BTC for https://github.com/namecoin/BitcoinArmory/issues/4 . The other 2 tickets already have pre-existing bounties.
Is that acceptable?
I saw your comment on the other two issues about rebasing on Armory upstream. That is a good idea. I haven't been constantly doing so, because it is annoying to merge changes from upstream in, being that I changed all instances of Bitcoin/bitcoin/BTC to a function that determines the correct form, capitalization, plurality, and currency. So there are a lot of those kind of differences that aren't "real" differences. But being that it is about half a year out of date, it should be rebased.
Awesome, great work. Do I recall correctly that we decided that you could claim the bounty once people had tested and the unit tests were fixed? Does Mhanne's explorer handle Namecoin testnet? I'll try to clear out some time in my schedule for testing the Namecoin Armory code... might be faster if some other people test, given that I'm pretty bogged down this week.josephbisch wrote:I merged in Armory's master branch into my namecoin-core branch. I also updated the URLs to point to namecoin.org. I also removed the report bug button in our fork of Armory so that people don't report bugs with our fork to the upstream Armory team.
https://github.com/josephbisch/BitcoinA ... ecoin-core
I didn't extensively test it, though it does run. I think it is going to be hard to tell if there were any mistakes made during the merge conflict resolution unless there is extensive testing each time I merge from upstream.
Also, I could still use a reliable testnet block explorer to include in the Namecoin fork of Armory.
I think it is reasonable to wait on the bounty until the tests are fixed, because it was said that we wouldn't merge it or release it or whatever until those tests work. I'm pretty busy myself, so it would definitely help if someone tested it just by going around and trying everything they possibly can. Make sure to use --namecoin or --namecoin-testnet to use Namecoin or Namecoin testnet instead of Bitcoin.biolizard89 wrote:Awesome, great work. Do I recall correctly that we decided that you could claim the bounty once people had tested and the unit tests were fixed? Does Mhanne's explorer handle Namecoin testnet? I'll try to clear out some time in my schedule for testing the Namecoin Armory code... might be faster if some other people test, given that I'm pretty bogged down this week.josephbisch wrote:I merged in Armory's master branch into my namecoin-core branch. I also updated the URLs to point to namecoin.org. I also removed the report bug button in our fork of Armory so that people don't report bugs with our fork to the upstream Armory team.
https://github.com/josephbisch/BitcoinA ... ecoin-core
I didn't extensively test it, though it does run. I think it is going to be hard to tell if there were any mistakes made during the merge conflict resolution unless there is extensive testing each time I merge from upstream.
Also, I could still use a reliable testnet block explorer to include in the Namecoin fork of Armory.
checkbiolizard89 wrote:@Phelix the TLS bounty has moved to BountySource https://www.bountysource.com/issues/263 ... rce=github . Please modify your initial post to mention this.
All fine as long as it brings us to something usable. Maybe we should create a separate thread for this bounty so that we can link to it from the OP?biolizard89 wrote:Okay, cool. @Phelix, is this okay with you?josephbisch wrote:I don't see any issues with those bounties.biolizard89 wrote:Regarding the 0.5 BTC bounty for finishing the Armory port, can we flesh out specifically which tasks are eligible? Right now there are 5 tickets open on GitHub:
https://github.com/namecoin/BitcoinArmory/issues
I'm leaning towards 0.2 BTC for https://github.com/namecoin/BitcoinArmory/issues/2 , 0.2 BTC for https://github.com/namecoin/BitcoinArmory/issues/3 , and 0.1 BTC for https://github.com/namecoin/BitcoinArmory/issues/4 . The other 2 tickets already have pre-existing bounties.
Is that acceptable?
I saw your comment on the other two issues about rebasing on Armory upstream. That is a good idea. I haven't been constantly doing so, because it is annoying to merge changes from upstream in, being that I changed all instances of Bitcoin/bitcoin/BTC to a function that determines the correct form, capitalization, plurality, and currency. So there are a lot of those kind of differences that aren't "real" differences. But being that it is about half a year out of date, it should be rebased.
