invalid_address_mt2ScQSwpsohN8KC9CuFGCuCuvyJkCY8iEn1K5Y5JGe5svtfmrJ6J9McsZPJdWXPvuRq
sgminer.exe -k x11mod -d 2 -o stratum+tcp://54.213.244.5:18998 -u mpoM9TqSzKjQ8EeFJuYw4nQyN2jrwqitTX -p 1 --auto-fan --gpu-fan 25-65 --temp-cutoff 92 --temp-overheat 88 --temp-target 64 -I 19 -g 1 -w 256 --lookup-gap 2 --thread-concurrency 8192 --gpu-powertune 20 --gpu-engine 1090 --gpu-memclock 1500
It was actually never required. It will lock the money no matter which account it's stored in.Really? Well I missed that change it seems. But now that we're on it, a few versions back, when we did use address 0, when masternode=1 was in the conf file, when we tried to move more than the 1k deposit the daemon would "lock" it, not allowing moving those funds. That was a great failsafe feature to not accidentally deactivate the masternode.
Would be cool to have that.
Now that address 0 is not required, how can be sure not to touch the 1k deposit?
Evan, for some reason these past versions seem to be getting stuck really easily. I've been having to do --rescan and --reindex way too often to get to blockheight. I'm only using addnode 23.xx.xx ... but in any case, it seem to be a recent issue. And from IRC accounts, not really isolated to me.
2014-06-24 00:37:43 ThreadRPCServer method=validateaddress
2014-06-24 00:37:45 ThreadRPCServer method=submitblock
2014-06-24 00:37:45 ERROR: CheckProofOfWork() : hash doesn't match nBits
2014-06-24 00:37:45 ERROR: CheckBlock() : proof of work failed
2014-06-24 00:37:45 ERROR: ProcessBlock() : CheckBlock FAILED
nomp got a block 24574.
Code:darkcoind getblockhash 24574 b953b04943c1af8c4df601b428050fd41c28cab0ef5e6884e0ca8d2e470b76a9
testnet block explorer has 24555.
nomp got a block 24574.
Code:darkcoind getblockhash 24574 b953b04943c1af8c4df601b428050fd41c28cab0ef5e6884e0ca8d2e470b76a9
testnet block explorer has 24555.
getblockhash 24574
00000001957e24fcaa805beb4bc25abd020b2c94c0d99e4607c7d08882aca106
getinfo:
{
"version" : 101002,
"protocolversion" : 70018,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 34839.73663900,
"blocks" : 24599,
"timeoffset" : 1,
"connections" : 109,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.21854908,
"testnet" : true,
"keypoololdest" : 1403509661,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"mininput" : 0.00001000,
"errors" : "Hard Fork Alert: Masternode Payments begin on Friday. Please update! http://goo.gl/ucp4m7"
}
my MN has b953b04943c1af8c4df601b428050fd41c28cab0ef5e6884e0ca8d2e470b76a9
but my mining rig, solo on qt is on a fork me thinks.
this rig was definetly on the proper fork last night and nothing has changed except the MN was updated.
Code:getblockhash 24574 00000001957e24fcaa805beb4bc25abd020b2c94c0d99e4607c7d08882aca106 getinfo: { "version" : 101002, "protocolversion" : 70018, "walletversion" : 60000, "balance" : 34839.73663900, "blocks" : 24599, "timeoffset" : 1, "connections" : 109, "proxy" : "", "difficulty" : 0.21854908, "testnet" : true, "keypoololdest" : 1403509661, "keypoolsize" : 101, "paytxfee" : 0.00000000, "mininput" : 0.00001000, "errors" : "Hard Fork Alert: Masternode Payments begin on Friday. Please update! http://goo.gl/ucp4m7" }
are the window versions compiled?Update your client.
from 10.10.2 --> to 10.11.x
I think that it always did that, no matter which address you used. The masternode recognizes the 1000 coin address, and still locks it. I don't think I ever bothered to use "account 0"Really? Well I missed that change it seems. But now that we're on it, a few versions back, when we did use address 0, when masternode=1 was in the conf file, when we tried to move more than the 1k deposit the daemon would "lock" it, not allowing moving those funds. That was a great failsafe feature to not accidentally deactivate the masternode.
Would be cool to have that.
Now that address 0 is not required, how can be sure not to touch the 1k deposit?
donecan anyone send over some test dark coins i can help with testnet setting up some solo mining now
mxh2uAZBUYyGnEqy3Z5ZgEJju3zRkXPqnQ
nope.2014-06-24 04:51:13 DarkCoin version v0.10.11.1-beta (2014-06-23 19:30:06 -0700)
cd .darkcoin; rm -rf testnet3 ; darkcoind
- works
darkcoind stop; darkcoind
- dies with Error: Failed to connect best block
two chains on testnet?
2014-06-24 04:51:15 ERROR: ConnectBlock() : tried to overwrite transaction
2014-06-24 04:51:15 InvalidChainFound: invalid block=00000ac3a0c9df709260e41290d6902e5a4a073099f11fe8c1ce80aadc4bb331 height=12 log2_work=23.70046 date=2014-04-28 19:20:21
2014-06-24 04:51:15 InvalidChainFound: current best=00000ce430de949c85a145b02e33ebbaed3772dc8f3d668f66edc6852c24d002 height=11 log2_work=23.584983 date=2014-04-28 19:20:07
2014-06-24 04:51:15 InvalidChainFound: invalid block=00000ac3a0c9df709260e41290d6902e5a4a073099f11fe8c1ce80aadc4bb331 height=12 log2_work=23.70046 date=2014-04-28 19:20:21
2014-06-24 04:51:15 InvalidChainFound: current best=00000ce430de949c85a145b02e33ebbaed3772dc8f3d668f66edc6852c24d002 height=11 log2_work=23.584983 date=2014-04-28 19:20:07
2014-06-24 04:51:15 ERROR: SetBestBlock() : ConnectBlock 00000ac3a0c9df709260e41290d6902e5a4a073099f11fe8c1ce80aadc4bb331 failed
2014-06-24 04:51:15 IS DARKSEND MASTER NODE
2014-06-24 04:51:15 addr 64.32.6.172:19999
2014-06-24 04:51:15 init message: Loading addresses...
2014-06-24 04:51:15 Loaded 423 addresses from peers.dat 1ms
2014-06-24 04:51:15 Error: Failed to connect best block
2014-06-24 04:51:15 Shutdown : In progress...
darktest@sv1:~/py_webcheck> darkcoind getblockhash 11
00000ce430de949c85a145b02e33ebbaed3772dc8f3d668f66edc6852c24d002
darktest@sv1:~/py_webcheck> darkcoind getblockhash 12
00000ac3a0c9df709260e41290d6902e5a4a073099f11fe8c1ce80aadc4bb331
2014-06-24 05:01:48 received block 000001128124cab4756edc387dce2b8762514916d953a4993971a40d78240978
2014-06-24 05:01:48 SetBestChain: new best=000001128124cab4756edc387dce2b8762514916d953a4993971a40d78240978 height=10 log2_work=23.459452 tx=11 date=2014-04-28 19:20:03 progress=0.000531
2014-06-24 05:01:48 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
2014-06-24 05:01:48 received block 00000ce430de949c85a145b02e33ebbaed3772dc8f3d668f66edc6852c24d002
2014-06-24 05:01:48 SetBestChain: new best=00000ce430de949c85a145b02e33ebbaed3772dc8f3d668f66edc6852c24d002 height=11 log2_work=23.584983 tx=12 date=2014-04-28 19:20:07 progress=0.000579
2014-06-24 05:01:48 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
2014-06-24 05:01:48 received block 00000ac3a0c9df709260e41290d6902e5a4a073099f11fe8c1ce80aadc4bb331
2014-06-24 05:01:48 SetBestChain: new best=00000ac3a0c9df709260e41290d6902e5a4a073099f11fe8c1ce80aadc4bb331 height=12 log2_work=23.70046 tx=13 date=2014-04-28 19:20:21 progress=0.000627
2014-06-24 05:01:48 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
2014-06-24 05:01:48 received block 00000b526b34e733532d706c1f4cef93eefe707b87c2c3cb2978e1a84b97c501
2014-06-24 05:01:48 SetBestChain: new best=00000b526b34e733532d706c1f4cef93eefe707b87c2c3cb2978e1a84b97c501 height=13 log2_work=23.807375 tx=14 date=2014-04-28 19:20:21 progress=0.000675
2014-06-24 05:01:48 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
2014-06-24 05:01:48 received block 00000799cc6963498a215e04402737fc1a08e696a91540756b0697f1ac7b23a8
2014-06-24 05:01:48 SetBestChain: new best=00000799cc6963498a215e04402737fc1a08e696a91540756b0697f1ac7b23a8 height=14 log2_work=23.906911 tx=15 date=2014-04-28 19:20:24 progress=0.000724
2014-06-24 05:01:48 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
I can't find. Maybe InternetApe will compile.are the window versions compiled?