Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - monsterer

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 125
166
Technical Support / Assert Exception my->_key != empty_pub: elliptic_secp256k1.cpp:118 serialize
« on: December 17, 2015, 05:43:23 pm »
Got a bizarre error trying to send a transaction:

Code: [Select]
{code:1,message:10 assert_exception:Assert Exception
my->_key != empty_pub: 
    {}
    th_a  elliptic_secp256k1.cpp:118 serialize

    {"from":"metaexchangebtc","to":"usd-collateral-holder-453","amount":"12206.79294","asset_symbol":"BTS","memo":"mX: buy BTS_BTC","broadcast":true}
    th_a  wallet.cpp:2002 transfer,data:{code:10,name:assert_exception,message:Assert Exception,stack:[{context:{level:error,file:elliptic_secp256k1.cpp,line:118,method:serialize,hostname:,thread_name:th_a,timestamp:2015-12-17T00:38:13},format:my->_key != empty_pub: ,data:{}},{context:{level:warn,file:wallet.cpp,line:2002,method:transfer,hostname:,thread_name:th_a,timestamp:2015-12-17T00:38:13},format:,data:{from:metaexchangebtc,to:usd-collateral-holder-453,amount:12206.79294,asset_symbol:BTS,memo:mX: buy BTS_BTC,broadcast:true}}]}}
Any idea what's going on there?

This is making sending transactions impossible. @bytemaster  @theoretical

167
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: December 17, 2015, 10:59:57 am »
Quote from: xeroc on December 17, 2015, 10:51:54 am
though I think you can still have "plausible deniability", can't you? Why would anyone know that I own a particular private account?
Furthermore, to my understanding, the private account only contains the 'root' private key and the funds are stored in child-keys making it impossible to to link funds to the private account without the private key. (unless of course you add your account name into the memo, which has been the case in BTS1)

Authorities just cross reference this forum with the usernames, seize the database and get access to personal information which can be used to follow up their investigations.

Authorities will just seize the hardware, within that will be the wallets with all child keys.

168
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: December 17, 2015, 10:00:13 am »
For anyone who's interested, CNX proposal lacks the following critical feature:

* Sender and receiver of a transaction can prove a connection between themselves.

This doesn't sound that bad at first, but if you think about some authority confiscating private keys of some service using this system, then they have access to the usernames of all users who sent them transactions. This totally defeats the purpose.

169
General Discussion / Re: Why did we suddnely make two releases in two days?
« on: December 16, 2015, 09:16:30 pm »
Any way to tell what version I'm running from the command line?

170
General Discussion / Re: New release 2.0.151209
« on: December 16, 2015, 03:55:57 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on December 16, 2015, 03:52:02 pm
Quote from: monsterer on December 16, 2015, 03:42:12 pm
Wow. Just wow. So, all the unique id's which exchanges have been diligently filing and storing are now worthless? Or worse still after exchanges upgrade they can be subject to double spends against users deposits since the the original deposit txid is now totally different?
The amount of affected operation IDs is (as per my understanding) limited to only a few hours worth of transactions .. definitely not all of them ..

This really needs clarifying as it is critical for all exchanges processing transactions. All exchanges must be notified of the recommend course of action to prevent double crediting users.

171
General Discussion / Re: New release 2.0.151209
« on: December 16, 2015, 03:42:12 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on December 16, 2015, 03:26:20 pm
confirmed ..
There was a security issue that has been fixed now that resulted in a change in opIDs ..
it's unfortunate but necessary .. It could definitely have been communicated better.

As an alternative for a unique identifier I would recommend the transaction HASH which is given by get_block and can be derived from any signed transaction by using the cli_wallet's call "get_transaction_id" ... it has the form of a transaction id in bitcoin and will NEVER change because it is signed by the user and a change in the transaction would invalidate the signature of the user

Wow. Just wow. So, all the unique id's which exchanges have been diligently filing and storing are now worthless? Or worse still after exchanges upgrade they can be subject to double spends against users deposits since the the original deposit txid is now totally different?

172
General Discussion / Re: Do you think what is kill feather on BTS platform
« on: December 16, 2015, 02:50:09 pm »
Quote from: BTSdac on December 16, 2015, 01:05:39 pm
my poor english    :'( :'(

Better than my mandarin! :)

173
General Discussion / Re: New release 2.0.151209
« on: December 16, 2015, 02:34:30 pm »
Quote from: ngkong on December 16, 2015, 02:31:10 pm
I've just upgraded and all tx id changed? anyone can confirm?

For example tx id was 1.11.13306 , now it is changed to 1.11.13305.

My system rely on this tx id, as the result i get a lot of duplicate deposits recently, and forced to roll back our bts deposits.

I assume this tx id is not reliable for identifying a transaction? Are we doing it wrong?

Thank you

That would a completely critical failure - @bytemaster, @xeroc can you confirm

174
General Discussion / Re: Do you think what is kill feather on BTS platform
« on: December 16, 2015, 08:54:17 am »
For the OP:

Feather:



Feature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature

175
General Discussion / Re: METAFEES owners discussion
« on: December 15, 2015, 03:35:08 pm »
Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on December 15, 2015, 11:18:22 am
what day does the metafees sale finish?

December 25th

christmas day (uk/ us/ some other places)

176
General Discussion / Re: Market Maker Incentivization Worker Proposal ($300)
« on: December 15, 2015, 02:19:42 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on December 15, 2015, 02:18:26 pm
If we assume that the asset issuer only allocates 50% of trading fees to the incentive program then, the MAKER asset would receive 10% of all trading fees.

Where can I vote for the far superior, dilution less alternative proposed by @Chronos?

177
General Discussion / Re: BitShares Dice FBA
« on: December 14, 2015, 06:45:45 pm »
Quote from: puppies on December 14, 2015, 05:44:18 pm
I was thinking more along the lines of creating an account not linked to me.  Sending blinded funds to it.  Unblinding those funds.  Upgrading to ltm, and using that account to fund and or gamble.  The final hop would be open for all to see anyways.

Edit.  And yes I know I could do all that now, it's just a lot more work than it should be and there is very little blinded activity to hide mine.

That's still just as traceable isn't it? The unlinked account knows who sent it blinded funds and the gambling bank knows the unlinked account for the same reason.

178
General Discussion / Re: BitShares Dice FBA
« on: December 14, 2015, 05:24:37 pm »
Quote from: puppies on December 14, 2015, 05:18:37 pm
Imo prior to gambling taking off we need stealth transactions. 

With stealth transactions I could safely help fund development, and could safely partake.

No you couldn't. The hole in the proposal design would be exposed with any seizure of private keys. The government can see who sent them the coins, if they own the private keys.

179
General Discussion / Re: BitShares Dice FBA
« on: December 14, 2015, 04:48:30 pm »
You could probably emulate a crude decentralised Dice by having a feed price which was just a random number between 0 and 100, say. You'd have to trust the feed producer, which isn't ideal, tho...

180
General Discussion / Re: BitShares Dice FBA
« on: December 14, 2015, 04:42:42 pm »
Quote from: Freebieservers on December 14, 2015, 03:34:42 pm
How many of you guys would actually be interested in backing the house if we launch a dice based project (open source maybe)  ?
Keep in mind, it will be basic and not decentralized, but functional and good enough to get things rolling.
Should, ofcourse ask kuro and hybridd if its even possible, but yea.

Many people would probably take that risk, but not me, because without a gambling licence you can expect a knock at the door from your local authorities who would confiscate the bank :)

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 125

Page created in 0.186 seconds with 22 queries.