Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

Avatar

cryptozeny

View GitHub Profile
@cryptozeny
cryptozeny / SHA256SUM.asc
Last active Apr 5, 2020
no_relation_with_civil_labs
View SHA256SUM.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
9f642663eab004723152c21f1fa3d5484e4a67110a2762f1c3d4b3a857fc3ad7 no_relation_with_civil_labs.md
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJeiZBvAAoJELndveKqrcQhyT8QAMxr+GfBHqcQ8Rx61TMEUWA4
93OXz+7HV5gBvJLy3HR9b0zOjTqGi8HFHbXQucC7AzcmpMmyraQMQ9ZS4xH8PJxi
sNs4oSCJa0GjiXwgKrZuy0K9av/AAmIRicHP0z1C5Hv+6NJNjlUk1m66W6if/Unv
View keybase.md

Keybase proof

I hereby claim:

  • I am cryptozeny on github.
  • I am cryptozeny (https://keybase.io/cryptozeny) on keybase.
  • I have a public key whose fingerprint is BB27 9FE1 59A0 E40E D02B 3365 B9DD BDE2 AAAD C421

To claim this, I am signing this object:

@cryptozeny
cryptozeny / wjcloud.md
Last active Aug 23, 2019
Clarification
View wjcloud.md

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5177722.msg52235070#msg52235070

Hello, this is cryptozeny.

There is one thing to explain. I posted a Sugarchain mainnet launch announcement on bitcointalk.org. A person named cpuminerdev started to claim that (cryptozeny) was the same as wjcloud, the culprit of the Bitcoin Platinum case.

In conclusion, this is not true at all.

  1. wjcloud A few years ago I only had a phone call with the wjcloud. The call was asked to help the wjcloud develop coin including Ethereum ProgPow hard fork. I refused because I already knew the trueth of wjcloud. Since then, He subsequently came to the community and asked again, but declined each time. I've (cryptozeny) never met wjcloud offline, but according to the testimonies of my friends, the wjcloud is an ordinary Korean high school student. I heard that he
View ssh_without_password
targetUSER="root" && \
targetIP="149.28.43.9" && \
ssh ${targetUSER}@${targetIP} mkdir -p .ssh && \
cat ~/.ssh/id_rsa.pub | ssh ${targetUSER}@${targetIP} 'cat >> .ssh/authorized_keys'
enter password twice
@cryptozeny
cryptozeny / gitian-BTC-v0.16.3.md
Last active Oct 8, 2020
gitian cross compilation for BTC v0.16.3
View rsync-homedir-excludes
# rsync-homedir-excludes
#
# A list of files to exclude when backing up *nix home directories using rsync.
#
# Author: Ruben Barkow <https://github.com/rubo77/rsync-homedir-excludes>
# Version: 2015-08-30
#
# #Usage:
# USER=<homedir username here>
# rsync -aP --exclude-from=rsync-homedir-excludes.txt /home/$USER/ /media/$USER/linuxbackup/home/$USER/
@cryptozeny
cryptozeny / pow_tests.cpp
Created Jan 1, 2019
negativeTimeAttack_test
View pow_tests.cpp
// Copyright (c) 2015-2017 The Bitcoin Core developers
// Distributed under the MIT/X11 software license, see the accompanying
// file COPYING or http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php.
#include <chain.h>
#include <chainparams.h>
#include <pow.h>
#include <random.h>
#include <util.h>
#include <test/test_bitcoin.h>
@cryptozeny
cryptozeny / pow_test.cpp
Last active Dec 27, 2018
ridiculous pow_tests issue: target is going to zero(0)
View pow_test.cpp
// Copyright (c) 2015-2017 The Bitcoin Core developers
// Distributed under the MIT/X11 software license, see the accompanying
// file COPYING or http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php.
#include <chain.h>
#include <chainparams.h>
#include <pow.h>
#include <random.h>
#include <util.h>
#include <test/test_bitcoin.h>
@cryptozeny
cryptozeny / pow_tests.cpp
Last active Dec 27, 2018
pow_tests ridiculous issue: target went to 0
View pow_tests.cpp
// Copyright (c) 2015-2017 The Bitcoin Core developers
// Copyright (c) 2018 The Susucoin Core developers
// Distributed under the MIT/X11 software license, see the accompanying
// file COPYING or http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php.
#include <chain.h>
#include <chainparams.h>
#include <pow.h>
#include <random.h>
#include <util.h>
@cryptozeny
cryptozeny / _issue.md
Last active Dec 27, 2018
LWMA-1 pow_tests: difficulty 0 issue
View _issue.md

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpNscUBpffU

@zawy#5864 I have a problem. With 0 interval hash attack Difficulty increases correctly. But after that I change to a very large interval, the difficulty becomes 0. Whats the problem? I am on LWMA-1

CODE:

    /* BEGIN - HUGE ATACK */
    // Add 5000 blocks: small attack: with 0 interval
    printf("*** HUGE ATTACK: Add 5000 blocks: attack: with 0 interval: insanely higher\n");
    for ( int j = 0; j < 5000; j++ ) {