moli
Well-known member
I'm not sure what you mean about "closed-source RC". As I understand the only closed-source is Darksend. Did you download the stable v.0.9.12.32 from darkcoin.io? Check your version.
RC4 issues, bugs & feature requests
- Thread starter flare
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure what you mean about "closed-source RC". As I understand the only closed-source is Darksend. Did you download the stable v.0.9.12.32 from darkcoin.io? Check your version.
yes I think he is talking abount 9.12.32
moli
Well-known member
Maybe he had some hidden running processes. Stable v.9.12.32 is running fine on my win7 with 2 Cores. Shouldn't be scared to run it.
darkstrike420
Active member
I am.
moli Closed-source RC is the Darkcoin wallet version with Darksend. I don't have "hidden" processes. The CPU usage was strictly from darkcoin-qt.
Thanks Evan for closing out Jira-33.
moli
Well-known member
I think you can trust Evan with his closed source Darksend. Not trying to be critical... but you trust windows
... Plus DS will be open source soon.
JGCMiner
Active member
Yeah, but we lost enforcement. That seems like it might be ok for now, but in the future leaving things to the pool's generosity could cause major problems if someone wants to do something malicious. Especially if they attempt such after DRK has gotten greater adoption and marketcap.
As it is many pools only pay 10%. I just have a bad feeling about his strategy...
TaoOfSatoshi
Well-known member
This. The goal is to have more Masternodes to make things more anonymous with less chance of bad actors disrupting proceedings.
No enforcement = Less rewards = Less incentive to run MNs = Less MNs = Less security using DRK & more coins on exchanges!
Bad situation. I will keep an open mind until I hear what Evan has to say about this issue.
There are a lot of upset people about this.
Tao
DrkMiner
Active member
Worried? we should... news/rummer like that need to be clarified ASAP. Its already caused some movement in the price.
moli
Well-known member
OKAY.. Let's read what Evan said again from site http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-33:
"It turns out the masternode voting system is over complicated and somewhat risky to the network, so I've removed it (i think he means the bug that was causing "payout code skips blocks and duplicates payments") and am using the RC3 masternode payment system. This means we won't have enforcement (but he doesn't say this is a permanent decision, right?), but it fixes all of these issues and removes the risk to the network."
Please, if you don't understand or don't know for sure, don't spread rumors and fears on BCT and wonder why the price falls. And please tell your friends not to. I am sure Evan will clarify his statement but right now it's night time in America and people do need to rest, you know?
Last edited by a moderator:
moli
Well-known member
Evan's answer posted in BCT a few minutes ago:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg8563225#msg8563225
"The RC4 system has inherent issues that were documented in Jira, plus it also has a systematic risk to the network (Sporking is less risky than a hard fork, but there's a risk the network forks wouldn't actually go away when the spork was turned off after a failure). These few issues combined with the fact that we've reached 80-90% payment efficiency tells me that it's not worth the risk to the network to move from the RC3 payment system.
Also, I have a separate plan I've been considering as an alternative that carries no risk and can be done at RC5's launch. Basically, I would set a minimum protocol version and boot anyone not running RC4 or later off the network. This should get us to 98%+ payments."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg8563225#msg8563225
"The RC4 system has inherent issues that were documented in Jira, plus it also has a systematic risk to the network (Sporking is less risky than a hard fork, but there's a risk the network forks wouldn't actually go away when the spork was turned off after a failure). These few issues combined with the fact that we've reached 80-90% payment efficiency tells me that it's not worth the risk to the network to move from the RC3 payment system.
Also, I have a separate plan I've been considering as an alternative that carries no risk and can be done at RC5's launch. Basically, I would set a minimum protocol version and boot anyone not running RC4 or later off the network. This should get us to 98%+ payments."
I have a question. I ask here because it isn't easy to find the answer elsewhere.
How does the RC3 payment system work? How are masternodes being paid now? Totally randomly?
How does the RC3 payment system work? How are masternodes being paid now? Totally randomly?
fredairbex
New member
Actually, on macosx, the wallet is crashing at startup when it tries to open the log file, which contains a space in it.
Anyone else tried on macosx ?
Anyone else tried on macosx ?
darkwing
Active member
Working fine for me.
I made a new wallet and let it sync then sent all coins to it.
flare
Well-known member
RC3 payment system was live for 1.5 month and was working 95% good all the time - and beside some network propagation problems, where in rare occasions the masternode list was different on certain miner nodes, we saw a good random distribution of payments.
Evan hoped to fix the network propagation issue by switching the payment system to a "Top 20 rank approach", but it seems this introduced more flaws, which led to
http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-33 and
http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-24
So the rollback to RC3 payment system is very logical for me, as it worked most of the time.
As for me, i am still searching for a new approach to make the payments more network intrinsic - MNs should actually mine their coins by proof of service, not rely on good acting miners to share their mined coins.
If we can somehow create a model where miners (PoW) and masternodes (PoSVC) mine independently from eachother, we will even have a solution for further payments for "DarkTor" relays and exit nodes. The current approach (divide PoW reward) seems not flexible enough to achieve this.
Seems like sound logic to me. Cheers flare. Masternode owners do need to know precisely how payments are being run currently though. I'm assuming total random selection which is fair enough.
moli
Well-known member
I'm guessing the current MN payment is still based on this system that Evan explained here:
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/masternode-payment-variance.1636/
It seems to me the MN system is needed for a very important task but at the same time the plan is not to encourage every darkcoin to be stashed away in a masternode, hence, the random selection for payment is implemented. A very smart financial thinking.
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/masternode-payment-variance.1636/
It seems to me the MN system is needed for a very important task but at the same time the plan is not to encourage every darkcoin to be stashed away in a masternode, hence, the random selection for payment is implemented. A very smart financial thinking.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status