The downloads don’t seem to be working for me… are they working for others?
Edit: Thanks @irritant - silly me!
http://212.129.19.120/nu-3.0.1ban2-win-gitian.zip
http://212.129.19.120/nu-3.0.1ban2-linux-gitian.zip
(without the 1 at the end)
1 Like
Whether the community forks or not, the monetary loss from ditching immutability like this is real. This is extremely comparable to the ETC event, except for the fact that it’s like 10x worse because this theft wasn’t even transparent like the DAO hack was.
1 Like
The market doesn’t seem very concerned about this, as this screenshot I just took shows. Indeed, it is already very much under control:
This is very concerning indeed. I think it is important to know when you found out. The market already took a hit of over 20% (in US$ value) a couple of days ago. How do we know there is no relation with this event?
I’m very uncomfortable with this fork, this time it is 200m from a random shareholder. Would you do the same for a 20m or 50m shareholder? Maybe we should have taken the hit and someone learnt a lesson on how to safely store their tokens. It would be great to hear what happened and whether other shareholders are at risk for this reason.
1 Like
Trying to move to the new upgrade, but having an issue, same as this user: [quote=“Skrudzh, post:2, topic:4941”]
“blkindex.dat” is damaged
[/quote]
Something is not right…
When replacing blkindex.dat with a more recent copy, it appears to sync again, but stop after a while. Restarting results in the same issue again. Will trying to reproduce this consistently and report back.
Edit: the 3.01ban2 version consistently show this behaviour. Syncing with the 3.01 version from Nov-16 still works fine.
Based on my experience I suggest to make a copy of the blockchain first before trying the 3.01ban2 client.
We are a small community, so this kind of decision is relative to make, in future, we need to pass a motion to do so.
Jordan has special privilege? Do others get a fork if their funds are stolen? @Cybnate asks a good question.
Decentralization of Nu is lost. 
EDIT: By this, I mean that Jordan controls the network. His OP announces a new version, and also writes:
To me, this seems to say that Jordan controls the majority of minting shares, which is the antithesis of decentralization.
1 Like
This is essentially why I cashed out and left. There is no point being involved in a centralized Nu. It might as well be dead as it’s just as bad as a central bank now. Not only are its liquidity operations centralized, but the majority of shares are centralized as well.
This is why I keep telling people here to go back to Peercoin. Distribution in Peercoin was done right, one of its biggest principles is immutability of the blockchain and there are big plans for the future. This place has been dead for months now and all the enthusiasm has been sucked out of the room by our overlord, Jordan/Phoenix. Peercoin just announced its first DAC built with the PeerAssets protocol, Indicium. Check it out here…
1 Like
It appears that most of those critical of the upgrade are not shareholders or not significant shareholders. In other words, they don’t care about shareholder interests, such as the NuShare price. I care about the NuShare price, and I am paid to defend it. Allowing 200 million stolen NSR to hit the market isn’t in the interest of shareholders. There are some who hold dogmatic principles as their highest value in this case, like immutability. That isn’t my priority. The interests of NuShare holders are. Remember, forum participants are a different population than NuShare holders. I am a politician representing NuShare holders. If you aren’t a member of my constituency, I’m not very interested in your values.
When people complain about decentralization issues here, it is usually a way of appealing for more influence without owning any NuShares. If you don’t own any NuShares, you have no say in what the network does. That is as it should be, because you have no interest financially in what the network does. In other words, you might be happy to wreck Nu financially by prioritizing rigid dogmas such as immutability. Shareholders aren’t interested in that.
You’re the majority shareholder. Of course everyone critical of you is a minority shareholder, literally everyone but you is minority.
Speak for the shareholders and what properties of consensus they value and what they throw away. After all, they are you, and you know best.
1 Like
I don’t believe in immutability, but @phoenix should give enough evidence/proof to demonstrate the justice of this action.
2 Likes
Interesting fact! The reason I dislike PPC is because there is nothing real value in its blockchain, i.e. lack of scarcity. Bitcoin is scarce because you have to spend millions of money to rebuild same ecosystem with same Hash rate, so is Nu. Nu has introduced scarce resource (BTC, FIAT) into its system, of course whether the scarce is “equity” or “liability” depends on our operation skill.
1 Like
This release is not able to make a full download of the blockchain because some blocked addresses appear in past blocks. So if you need to do a full download (or haven’t run your client for some time) you should first run the official 3.0.1 and only run 3.0.1ban2 when you’re fully synchronized.
Should I make a new version that blocks these address only after a certain block or date?
Note that you can also continue to run 3.0.1 if you don’t support this ban. It’s not a mandatory upgrade. The nodes that run 3.0.1ban2 should not ban other nodes when they propagate transactions with blocked addresses, they will just ignore those transactions and any block containing them. But if shareholders do not agree on that the blockchain may become quite unstable with frequent reorganizations. And if the majority of the shareholders do run the ban the other nodes will have all their blocks orphaned as they try to include blocked transactions. I think this is already happening.
1 Like
Well it is, else you end up on a minority fork. Anyone interested running fork and having more than 10m+ shares?
Looks like it. 2 days of orphans because I couldn’t get synced without the blkindex issue before upgrading until today.
Can someone please publish peers or nodes which run the ban2 client? Even with ban2 peer I cannot connect and my minting block continue being rejected (getpeerinfo doesn’t show ban2 nodes). I suspect I’m on a fork, but without other nodes I can’t do anything.
@sigmike, does the new ban2 node advertise its version on getpeerinfo? I can’t see any on getpeerinfo with 8 peers connected.
There should not be a single fork but instead many small ones, because nodes minting on 3.0.1 will rejoin the branch made by the majority of shareholders as soon as it gets longer (and get their blocks orphaned).
It does, but my full node currently only has 1 ban2 peer out of 28.
Yes, please. Its funded.
You are referring to this post of mine…
Since making that post I’ve learned that history and reputation of a network play a large part of the process and isn’t as easily replicated by just cloning Peercoin. PeerAssets will help tie our network to real world businesses over time. DACs on top of Peercoin, their dev teams and any financial resources they’ve built up through operation are also not easily replicated. All these things will help give the Peercoin network added scarcity in the future.
I also have to add that it looks like your prediction there was wrong. With all that money and marketing behind it, Neucoin failed so hard that it had to shut down…
1 Like
I’ve been on the minting with a ban2 node for 12 hours now. Approximately 1 in 5 blocks are rejected. The blockexplorer is down due to other(?) issues so it is not clear what is going on to me, but my gut feel is that is not good.
Hope you can have a look at the network’s health. My current blockheight is 1308568 at Sun Mar 12 12:53:13 2017.