Anon Thread for December 2020

by BlakeKeiller, Friday, December 04, 2020, 16:12 (296 days ago)

Anonymous posts will be replies in this thread until the next anon topic thread is posted.

How to post anonymously: https://proofgold.org/messaging.html

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by , Thursday, April 15, 2021, 17:38 (164 days ago) @ BlakeKeiller

[CSK] Not sure this is the right place to post this, but equiv_int_mod in the Megalodon file PfgEFeb2021Preamble.mgs isn't defined correctly. divides (m + - k) n should be divides n (m + - k).

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by Brown, Sunday, April 25, 2021, 16:33 (154 days ago) @

I've been meaning to log in and thank you for pointing this out. I plan to fix it in the next Megalodon release. Please let me know if you find any other bugs.

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by , Sunday, April 18, 2021, 19:09 (161 days ago) @ BlakeKeiller

[CSK] My proofgold node has some trouble staying connected and in sync. Earlier today it was 6 blocks behind and had only 1 connection. I tried 'requestblock' but it said 'no peer has' the block. I've tried restarting but now my node has 0 connections. Can anyone suggest something? According to the node it is 'Listening for incoming connections via ip 165.227.1.34 on port 21805.'

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by Brown, Sunday, April 25, 2021, 16:34 (154 days ago) @

I've explicitly added your node as a peer the past few days so hopefully you're in sync now. Let me know if it's still an issue.

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by , Sunday, April 25, 2021, 14:04 (154 days ago) @ BlakeKeiller

[CSK] I think I have a document that solves one of the bounty problems, but when I run commitdraft it says 'Cannot find a spendable utxo to use to publish the marker.' What am I doing wrong?

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by Brown, Sunday, April 25, 2021, 16:37 (154 days ago) @

My guess is that you don't have enough proofgold bars to pay the tx fee for the commitment tx. If you post an address from your wallet (the command 'newaddress' will generate one), then I'll send you a bar. The tx fee should be much less than that. If that turns out not to be the issue, I'll ask for more information to try to debug what's happening.

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by , Monday, April 26, 2021, 23:22 (153 days ago) @ BlakeKeiller

[CSK] That must be the problem. I don't currently have any proofgold. Here's my address: PrQgi9ygs5GDU13fwmRr36VCSybBWjJ2riE

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by , Wednesday, April 28, 2021, 21:15 (151 days ago) @ BlakeKeiller

[CSK] I used commitdraft and sendtx to create and send the commitment transaction, but it has not confirmed in the last two days. Is something wrong? The txid is db2d71167168a102cb0fd0b0a1a2277f3c5061b4df719325615907d56896a781. The txpool gives the full tx in hex as: 69ffa707f8612cd21553786f3445bfa585533ce23e608129b90faf7dd4caaca6cfa6a167df4f0d8739f0baf6bde52a5539cdf6ac90f67f7a801fc6225d3185f74653f45b5a38c5236e000000b838f28e02fc6eb84b4474d1b7c0aacba127a04aa52a78601a111a9d73c171dabdba9a52df3417df5c46c24d981f1722c1f7cd533f327b4473f1e138425db79e7117922fc5ac844ec3de32792507b2c34783a329852591a1b73a34fb1a847b89114b46304b94288cd3fc7470ecd4239c16b20720f944eee84098ab7fe412a60f5d3c7f157cf426d3cd076ad40a2e34934ded27eabb0a9946acba4103

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by Brown, Thursday, April 29, 2021, 15:30 (150 days ago) @

It probably just didn't propagate for some reason. My txpool didn't have it. Fortunately it now looks like it confirmed in Block 8112, so you should be able to use publishdraft after Block 8124.

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by , Thursday, May 27, 2021, 17:47 (122 days ago) @ BlakeKeiller

[CSK] Possible bug report: I sent a few thousand txs two weeks ago and most of them confirmed, but about 200 did not and seemed to drop out of the tx pool. Any idea how this could have happened?

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by , Tuesday, June 01, 2021, 23:10 (117 days ago) @ BlakeKeiller

[ffproofs] I have initiated the transfer of proofgold.org.

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by , Wednesday, June 09, 2021, 11:40 (109 days ago) @ BlakeKeiller

[g02] The code to create ltc txs without dust change outputs is wrong. It treats amounts < 1000 litoshis as dust, but the dust limit is higher than that. According to https://theliteschool.com/lsc/staging-core-releases-and-litecoin-dust the dust limit for segwit utxos is 29400 litoshis. However, I have utxos smaller than that so I suspect the dust limit is 2940 litoshis.

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by BlakeKeiller, Sunday, July 11, 2021, 17:21 (77 days ago) @

Thanks. I have it in my notes to fix this before the next release.

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by , Friday, June 11, 2021, 18:28 (107 days ago) @ BlakeKeiller

[BernoulliTrial] This is just a test post.

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by , Friday, June 11, 2021, 18:29 (107 days ago) @

[BernoulliTrial] This is just a test reply.

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by , Friday, June 11, 2021, 18:29 (107 days ago) @

[BernoulliTrial] This is just a second test reply.

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by , Friday, June 11, 2021, 18:30 (107 days ago) @ BlakeKeiller

[BernoulliTrial] An interesting idea about how to use proofgold bounties as a predication market came up today. The idea grew from a statement of someone who said: 'placing a bounty on a proposition is like betting it won't be proven.' The person who said it can claim credit publicly if he or she wants. Also, since I can't make paragraphs with the posttop command, I'll put each paragraph in a reply to this post, hopefully.

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by , Friday, June 11, 2021, 18:33 (107 days ago) @

[BernoulliTrial] Suppose Alice does not think the proposition P will be proven in the next year. She can place a bounty of 1000 bars onto P with an expiration at a block that should occur in a year, with the expiration address being one of Alice's addresses. If she wins (P isn't proven) after the block in a year passes she can reclaim the bounty. That really is not like betting since if Alice wins she only gets her original bars back (minus tx fees) and if she loses she loses her bars to whoever proved P. So this does not quite work.

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by , Friday, June 11, 2021, 18:35 (107 days ago) @

[BernoulliTrial] Suppose Alice does not think the proposition P will be proven in the next year but Bob things it will. Alice and Bob can both contribute 1000 bars for a 2000 bar bounty on P with an expiration at a block that should occur in a year, with the expiration address being one of Alice's addresses. If Alice wins (P isn't proven) after the block in a year passes she can reclaim the bounty (with an extra 1000 bars now). It still does not quite work as a bet because if a third party (Charlie) proves P within the time limit, then Charlie will claim the 2000 bar bounty. Unless Charlie and Bob are the same, Bob will not obtain the profit from 'winning' the bet.

Re: Anon Thread for December 2020

by , Friday, June 11, 2021, 18:41 (107 days ago) @

[BernoulliTrial] Again suppose Alice does not think the proposition P will be proven in the next year but Bob thinks it will. Suppose Bob creates a secret S which provably satisfies Q(S). For example, Q(x) could say the SHA256 hash of x is H and S could be a secret that has H as its SHA256 hash. Alice and Bob could put their 1000 bars into a 2000 bar bounty on the proposition 'P and exists x.Q(x)', again expiring in a year with Alice's address. Since only Bob knows the secret, only Bob can prove this theorem, and Bob can only prove the proposition using a proof of P (which may have been published by a third party). Again if P is not proven in time, Alice will 'win' the 2000 bars. But in this case, if P is proven in time, then Bob can easily prove 'P and exists x.Q(x)' and claim the 2000 bar bounty.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum