Search results

Does this mean we will have a hard fork at launch? I deleted my data folders and started with only one connection to a new node.

thank you... btw.. I continue to get forked trying to run my current windows .. even when I limit my connections to 1 and connect to a new testnet node It does OK for about 17 blocks, then this: 2014-07-19 21:51:04 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED 2014-07-19 21:51:04 received block...

windows bins?

:), if you have 100k drk... I dont think you care what it looks like. my opinion, for what its worth is option #2. with the caveat that we can still choose the original wallet in settings. (Im old and resist change) that being said, I do like the new look.

I like #4. mainly because I can see the 'settings' button.... I need easy access to the settings button because I want to set it to the original wallet qt.

This is starting to look like different 'skins'. I personally would pick the original ... hell, the first think I do on a windows machine is load the classic. hate tella tubby look.

fair argument.. my statement stems from the current behavior and I get an error everytime I send coin.

imho, the official qt should be as simple as possible...... only enough to serve the functions necessary. third party wallets can get as fancy as they want.. the only thing wrong with the current qt is that darksend is checked by default, i think it should be off by default.

thank you... maybe Evan can just put in a rewrite rule till he gets the main one up?

I started a separate post not knowing this one is here... this needs to get fixed.. if it is a matter of funds for server, I will donate.. if not funds, what? there doesn't have to be coins on the server right? not a security issue??

There is a thread about PR and lack thereof. I think the 'PR' engine should wait till after rc4 and it is proven to work without major issues. but having the main explorer http://explorer.darkcoin.io/ down does not look good for a number of reasons.. the least of which is that it is linked to...

my latest payment is .5?? "address" : "XmeAwondd3qXGbXATqZwwGX9qYgG6sGT4j", "category" : "immature", "amount" : 0.50340000,

I am running at about 35% of what is expected.. so it appears everything is working as expected.

as I have had a couple of node 'misbehaving' for no apparent reason, I did generate a new key.. but I still have a problem. My own node said I misbehaved. Use case: Node is marked as misbehaving stop node, stop EC2 start ec2 and retrieve new IP edit conf file with new IP start masternode...

I just got this in my debug log 2014-06-26 03:58:15 peer=31 says we are misbehaving 20 2014-06-26 03:58:16 peer=37 says we are misbehaving 20

the : Masternode Payee[from confirmed block] are empty... did Evan turn off payments?

Can we run this on mainnet now?

updated: 2014-06-25 17:45:12 ProcessSyncCheckpoint: sync-checkpoint at 00000000470e82349b97e606eb8380238456c499acf5150f89de1ed99042be06 2014-06-25 17:45:12 !!! ENFORCING PAYMENTS 4085657524 2014-06-25 17:45:12 received block 00000000434dbb3f797988204b42edb49f40cbcc216c0cb0546131d4383d4f40 peer=3...

This is a good idea imo, but since they are doing a soft launch on mainnet, the point may be moot.

Is anyone running the new code on mainnet yet? can we? should we? when should we?