xcoind: main.cpp:2822: bool InitBlockIndex(): Assertion `hash == hashGenesisBlock' failed.
Aborted (core dumped)
edit:just realized their src were 2 years dated while the OP says (ready) ....
original subject was "Re: [ANN][XCO] XCoin | CPU - Fast, Easy Mine, * NO PREMINE * | Official Thread"
to
"Re: [ANN][DRK] DarkCoin | Anonymous (alpha) | KGW | No Premine | ASIC Resistant"
to
Re: [ANN][DRK] DarkCoin | DarkSend (exciting new feature) | KGW | No Premine
to
Re: [ANN][DRK] DarkCoin | First Anonymous Coin (DarkSend) | No Premine | Runs 30% cooler than scrypt
to
Re: [ANN][DRK] DarkCoin | First Anonymous Coin | No Premine | DGW | ASIC Resistant
to
No where did it have X11 in its original post until...
Re: [ANN][DRK] DarkCoin | First Anonymous Coin | First X11 | First DGW | ASIC Resistant
March 24, 2014, 07:20:34 PM
https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/421615.msg5878610#msg5878610First user mentioning "X11"
Hi Evan, I just wanted to tell you that I will be using your X11 algorithm for a coin I'm creating. It definitely seems like the best solution out there right now. I'm currently using a KGW implementation with a time warp limitation but will be upgrading to your Dark Gravity Wave when it's completed - full credit given wherever I can . Although I won't be using your Darksend when it becomes open source, I believe that is yours to keep and have as a selling point for Darkcoin.
Thank you for all your contributions to the crypto community.
Interesting when chain coin appears to be using the same 11 algorithms (just in a different order). Note date of launch. About 2 months prior:
https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/422149.msg4592564#msg4592564So the whole claim of "First X11" or "Inventor of X11" is very questionable.
Plus inventing X11 isn't something you should be bragging about:
If any one of the hashes in the chain of 11 hashes has a lower entropy then the entire chain does. Say you found this vulnerability and didn't announce it. Instead you could use it to amplify your hashrate. With that you could take unfair levels of mining rewards, or potentially launch double-spend attacks.
Fixing it after the fact also probably means the inability to unwind the damage already done if it had gone on a long time undetected.
So 11 hashes is 11 times more likely to have a vulnerability than 1 hash.
Evan has yet to refute this, and he was the one asked me to point out the weakness.
https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/1118138.msg12539649#msg12539649As for what you plan meeting reality and mashing algos together being good crypto, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Yes, lets just talk about this then. How is X11 bad for crypto?
It's used for proof-of-work and protecting our decentralized oracle implementation. How would you use a weakness in one of the 11 algorithms to attack the currency?
Do you also realize if I'm wrong and we got attacked, we would just switch to another algorithm? Just like if SHA256 had issues, the bitcoin team would have to switch as well. Instead of switching out the entire algorithm, we could use 10 hashes instead of 11 as the chain.
Also, speaking of distribution. The whole idea behind inventing X11 was that it would reduce the heat/wear-and-tear on GPUs that were used for mining. This allowed a really long period (...still going after 1.5 years) of hobbyist miners using GPUs to mine Dash.
