Search results

  1. O

    v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

    Sure tante: see this: http://test.explorer.darkcoin.qa/tx/53b1f215204ddf9bb54dcd05ea1f978e370d3437790700cb624cce0bc006e890 That was pretty much all the coin that was there. I transferred out 1000 test Drks, the wallet used all the inputs automatically. Edit: I want more Drks but not like this ;)
  2. O

    v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

    Linux Daemons will run with darksend off by default. Encryption also prevents denomination, AFAIK.
  3. O

    v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

    Can someone help me figure out what is going on? I had approx. 5121 Drks at 08:50. I did the upgrade to v.16 I transferred 1000 Drks at 08:59 (I think using "no preference" option) Transaction id...
  4. O

    v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

    I think only coinz3 would be concerned about this :)
  5. O

    v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

    My linux wallet started denominating after 4.5 hours. One collateral bug to report.
  6. O

    v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

    Try this: Create a new address. Send yourself most of your Drks to that new address within your wallet. Choose "no preference". Then wait for it to denominate. I think the client gets stuck.
  7. O

    v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

    Anyone else's Linux QT wallet having issues denominating?
  8. O

    v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

    I just got latest version and it still says: v0.10.12.12-6-ge798b71-beta Edit: But has synced to block 9413
  9. O

    v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

    Possibly, you need to wait for your daemon to catch up to correct block height.
  10. O

    v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

    Me too. Anyone else out of sync? I'm going in sync, out of sync, in sync, out of sync. No internet issues at my end AFAIK.
  11. O

    v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

    I think the fact that multiple wallets will be used for attack is obvious. IP banning is useless, that is also obvious. No one knows how the signing process occurs (other than Evan) but collateral is required, which is deterrent in itself. Also, presumably the amount to be denominated must be...
  12. O

    v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

    Let's assume a DDOS attack is being launched. The person would need to run many, many wallets and to manually force darksend denom. If wallets are being auto denominated, perhaps fee should be waived. Edit: To run lots and lots of wallets with auto denom, will take so many Drks that the cost is...
  13. O

    v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

    And the auto denomination is going into all sorts of random addresses now. No collateral bug here also. Wonder, how this was done, as I have not even updated my client? Edit: The transaction fee is tiny but due to frequency will worry some people. They might think it will keep draining funds.
  14. O

    v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

    Me too. Two counts so far:
  15. O

    v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

    yidakee, from memory, I think collateral goes to collateral wallet. Fee for auto denom goes to miners but as you pointed out should probably be free, or at least let people control what is auto denominated.
  16. O

    v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

    What is latest version number? My client seems to stuck trying to denominate. I appear to be on: v0.10.12.9-2-g06365bc-beta
  17. O

    v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

    Thanks. I guess merchants will run encrypted wallets then.
  18. O

    v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

    woah, how many transacts in 28 mb wallet?
  19. O

    Development Updates - July 7th

    Any comments from dev team re: potential dust and blockchain size? Thanks. :)
  20. O

    RC3 Soft Fork

    I think we were lucky some of the multipools updated because it was not in their best interest. The unknown pools are unlikely to update, IMHO. The random banning of some MNs is a little bit worrying though. Anybody know what is triggering it?
Back
Top