v0.10.13.x RC5 Testing

David · Sep 9, 2014

moli said:
Evan, if we have 1000 drk to be anonymized and we stop the anonymizing midway, we have 0 anon drk, right? This is like a batch processing. I'm thinking if somehow we can have 1 drk anonymized at a time and throw the 1 anon drk in the box, then the next drk.. and so on..

Exactly what I was trying to say. It's like batch processing. One denomination may finish before another, but each denomination must make it all the way through the Darksend process before you have any anonymized coins at all.

MangledBlue · Sep 9, 2014

eduffield said:
Darksend Overview Proposal

To make the wallet less intrusive (starting when you boot up the wallet and asking for info) I've added a big "start anon" button, along with removing a lot of the more advanced functionality (you could still set rounds via commandline, but "Amount to anon" would be gone).

What's everyone think of this?

I think this is good - but - does Anon actually STOP right now? Maybe it should have a progress bar pop-up when you click STOP to show when the current Anon funds have and/or will be completed.

flare · Sep 9, 2014

David said:
So the RC5 client will deny connections from anybody running RC2, for instance?

Exact, they are not backward compatible on protocol level - actually this was already done with RC3 and RC4

raze · Sep 9, 2014

flare said:
Exact, they are not backward compatible on protocol level - actually this was already done with RC3 and RC4

Would it be possible for someone to spoof the version number?

kryptofoo · Sep 9, 2014

flare said:
Exact, they are not backward compatible on protocol level - actually this was already done with RC3 and RC4

If users compile it themselves they could simply bump the protocol version of a previous client and compile it? Is there any way to prevent this, e.g. check for a certain block of code that is unique and required for the current protocol version and compare that to the stated version, and then error out if they don't match?

Edit: never mind, I guess they could change that logic before compiling too!

moli · Sep 9, 2014

David said:
Exactly what I was trying to say. It's like batch processing. One denomination may finish before another, but each denomination must make it all the way through the Darksend process before you have any anonymized coins at all.

Unless if the threshold is built into the code, 1 drk gets anonymized at a time.. AND FAST... then shows up on the "Anonymized: xxx DRK" box... It can be like a jackpot ... lol... Hey, i think it can happen

raganius · Sep 9, 2014

That's great. The simpler the better.

Thank you.

flare · Sep 9, 2014

raze said:
Would it be possible for someone to spoof the version number?

Of course, it's just a number in the code - but to achieve what?

David · Sep 9, 2014

flare said:
Of course, it's just a number in the code - but to achieve what?

20% additional mining payments (not paying MNs).

vertoe · Sep 9, 2014

David said:
20% additional mining payments (not paying MNs).

The 20% are not depending on the client versoin but the stratum protocol. that's a different story (unfortunately).

flare · Sep 9, 2014

David said:
20% additional mining payments (not paying MNs).

You don't need to change the protocol version for that - simply don't pay the MN. As long as the MN payments are not enforced (i don't like the term) MN operators are relying on volunteer MN payments - but that's well known and has been discussed several times.

David · Sep 9, 2014

flare said:
You don't need to change the protocol version for that - simply don't pay the MN. As long as the MN payments are not enforced (i don't like the term) MN operators are relying on volunteer MN payments - but that's well known and has been discussed several times.

OK, so I don't understand the point? Evan said in a different post that kicking off old protocol versions would give us 90+% payments?

dark-sailor · Sep 9, 2014

I think after anonymizing the backup screen should appear with a message stating its Extremely Important To Backup wallet .dat or something similar. I could see this being a problem for newbies.

sorry if already mentioned else where

David · Sep 9, 2014

dark-sailor said:
I think after anonymizing the backup screen should appear with a message stating its Extremely Imported To Backup wallet .dat or something similar. I could see this being a problem for newbies.

sorry if already mentioned else where

Good point--and possibly a button to do it (select directory to save in, etc.). With wallet.dat being in %appdata%, not many novices will ever be able to find it.

flare · Sep 9, 2014

David said:
OK, so I don't understand the point? Evan said in a different post that kicking off old protocol versions would give us 90+% payments?

I think you are refering to this post:

eduffield said:
I'm going to kick older protocol versions off of the network with RC5. We should be able to get 90%+ because of this. This is also another reason enforcement isn't needed right now, I'd like to try this first.

I don't know how Evan comes to the conclusion that solely the protocol version has a impact on MN payment rate - actually ~90% is the status quo. Even if we kick all pre RC5 clients from the network, the pools that did not update their stratum code will still pay whatever they want.

David · Sep 9, 2014

flare said:
I think you are refering to this post:

I don't know how Evan comes to the conclusion that solely the protocol version has a impact on MN payment rate - actually ~90% is the status quo. Even if we kick all pre RC5 clients from the network, the pools that did not update their stratum code will still pay whatever they want.

It blows my mind that the core of our entire technology relies on people *voluntarily* sacrificing 20% of their mining revenue...

It's not that 90% payment rate is insufficient, it's that I don't like the entire protocol depending on altruism!

flare · Sep 9, 2014

David said:
It blows my mind that the core of our entire technology relies on people *voluntarily* sacrificing 20% of their mining revenue...

It's not that 90% payment rate is insufficient, it's that I don't like the entire protocol depending on altruism!

Welcome to my world

stonehedge · Sep 9, 2014

flare said:
Welcome to my world

If you carry on tugging on the heartstrings like that flare we'll have to fly out to Germany and buy you real Guinesses.

flare · Sep 9, 2014

flare said:
compiling

moli · Sep 9, 2014

Thank you, flare, for doing all the compiling for us ...

BTW, the testnet faucet is down. Is there another faucet?
Thank you.

v0.10.13.x RC5 Testing

Well-known member

MangledBlue

Guest

Well-known member

King of the Morlocks

Active member

Well-known member

cryptoPag.com

Well-known member

Well-known member

Three of Nine

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member