Search results

If he moves to Siberia, I will donate a miner to help keeping him warm. :tongue:

Not to criticize you. However, I want to point out that you sound like Tor is going to solve everything automatically. However, as we know, even Flash in a browser needs to be disabled in order for Tor to work without leaking information that may be useful for NSA. So, I think taking the minimal...

How does i2pd sound here? It is i2p re-written in C++. Would that be a good starting point for darkcoin?

A home without internet is the worst thing that could happen these days. So, I just mean the attack will not cost extra money like some VPS that is billed based on the bandwidth.

The DDOS will not cost the MN operator extra money if he/she is on a monthly unlimited fiber home plan. :grin:

I feel that the original idea of forcing one IP per MN is to increase the cost of running a MN. With cheap VPS, that cost is really cheap. If we pay MNs according to the number of darksend transactions served, it also rewards MN operators who invest more resources (e.g. bandwidth, skills, etc.)...

It isn't illegal today but it may be illegal in the future. We never know what the banksters will ask our politicians do about something they hate. So, I somehow think MN anonymity is something wanted if technically possible.

I forgot to say that I vote for #1. If option #2 is the ultimate end product, it will be nice to see that MNs are getting paid according to the number of darksend transactions being served instead.

I agree with what you pointed out. What I am worrying is whether the VPS providers can be the weakest link if someone wants to control a lot of MNs (without buying any DRKs to set them up).

While we are on this subject of having one IP per MN or not, is there any incentive to change the payment method to round ribbon based on the total number of darksend transactions served by MNs instead of the total number of MNs on the network? I mean renting a VPS can be cheap too. Would it be...

While the VPN or MN hosting cost is interesting, I want to ask why we are seeing hosts with same IP addresses again. There are ~1900 MNs and only ~1500 unique MNs IP addresses.

How about we name Ape who mined the first coin but then left the community?

I also have a script checking activity of MN's and winners. After I stopped running the script, the problem goes away. Do you want to try stop running your script? There may be some bug that kicks the MN off the list after certain query limit. EDIT: Have been running without being kicked off...

The suggested patch does not completely fix the issue. The MN's will still become non-active (i.e. grep will return : 0).

I don't mind immediate fix. But, upgrading all MN's immediately sounds like a bad idea. We had reports of these issues so it would be better if we were not asked to choose between upgrade or get no MN payment.

Why is there a rush to upgrade for v16 when v15 had a long waiting period to the enforcement? There is no reason to suddenly force people to upgrade immediately when v15 took 21 builds to become stable. The protocol should also be backward compatible until the v16 becomes stable.

May I ask why Onyx v2 MN is not backward compatible with Onyx? There should not be any technical issues preventing that? Right?

It wasn't off last night some time after I started the upgraded daemon. However, after my MN's got kicked off like what happened to others, the enforcement is off since I restarted them.

I don't think it is necessary. At least, I did not "stop and start" in the previous upgrade from v0.10.15.19 to v0.10.15.21.

Just write down the block after you see your node on the masternode list. Then, add 1300 and wait until that block. If you don't get anything after 1300 blocks, you may want to report it here again.