v0.10.13.x RC5 Testing

flare · Sep 5, 2014

moli said:
Evan or Flare, could you please explain this with examples:

http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-40

Thank you.

It's not a bug, it's a .. story

Basically it means that Evan is aware that the current queue implementation is sometimes causing "Not compatible transactions found" messages on the clients, and he created this ticket as a work package reminder for himself to get into this - it's Evans' dev work queue if you like

jimbit · Sep 5, 2014

Not sure if this has been discussed...

I am mining solo against the window-qt..

I recieved 2000 tdrk
my setting is, 8 rounds 5000
I now have over 4400 anonimized because it is denominating my mined blocks.... aren't mined blocks already anonymous? I dont think I should have to pay fees on my mined coins?

Jim

flare · Sep 5, 2014

catlasshrugged said:
I'm curious if the development team has automated testing in place to catch these splitting/mixing bugs. Ideally it should be tested on some kind of testnet or simulated testnet with many different sized inputs and fast confirmation times before the code is pushed out.

I am working on this - unfortunately Darkcoin does not have the 'regnet' mode (additional to testnet) as in Bitcoin 0.9.x yet, but thats the way we want to go in the future. Evan has his own "mini testnet" in place for development, but the CI-server is still lacking such

I fully agree that bugs in the splitting code are tedious to hunt down with manual testing in testnet, and automated tests are crucial here...

thelonecrouton · Sep 5, 2014

jimbit said:
Not sure if this has been discussed...

I am mining solo against the window-qt..

I recieved 2000 tdrk
my setting is, 8 rounds 5000
I now have over 4400 anonimized because it is denominating my mined blocks.... aren't mined blocks already anonymous? I dont think I should have to pay fees on my mined coins?

Jim

The client has no way of knowing that those DRK have just been mined, it assumes all incoming DRK requires anonymising, which for just about every other case is true.

It would need more overhead than is probably practical to determine whether any particular chunk of coinage is freshly minted or not.

Solution: mine to a wallet with Darksend disabled. :smile:

flare · Sep 5, 2014

jimbit said:
aren't mined blocks already anonymous? I dont think I should have to pay fees on my mined coins?

Interesting idea, per definition fresh mined blocks should be anonymous as they are not tainted at all. Perhaps you should file this as feature request.

Nevertheless miners usually don't run their wallet with darksend/denom enabled ^^

stonehedge · Sep 5, 2014

I'm willing to provide a large quantity of test masternodes in return for DRK to cover the hosting costs. Would more masternodes in testnet help?

David · Sep 5, 2014

stonehedge said:
I'm willing to provide a large quantity of test masternodes in return for DRK to cover the hosting costs. Would more masternodes in testnet help?

How many MNs are we talking, and how much DRK do you need to accomplish that? I might could make a small donation, and there are likely others who would contribute to a robust testnet!

jpr · Sep 5, 2014

stonehedge said:
I'm willing to provide a large quantity of test masternodes in return for DRK to cover the hosting costs. Would more masternodes in testnet help?

Willing to contribute, depends what numbers we are talking about.

Miner237 · Sep 5, 2014

stonehedge said:
I'm willing to provide a large quantity of test masternodes in return for DRK to cover the hosting costs. Would more masternodes in testnet help?

I have some resource but am very rusty in linux, if someone can help me with the setup of the MN i can host MN continuously on test net.

qwizzie · Sep 5, 2014

i'm impressed with latest RC5 build, the completion bar is a great addition and the denominate's are going well.
Not seen any collateral fees so far, i'm starting to feel optimistic that it has been squashed as bug completely now.

coingun · Sep 5, 2014

I can fairly rapidly deploy MN's on testnet through vultr if needed. Built some simply shell scripts that can boot a node with darkcoind setup and running upon first login. All you'd have to do is send the 1000 coins and set the darkcoin.conf file. MN could be up in about the time it takes to confirm the coins.

Miner237 · Sep 5, 2014

add my test wallet send me some anon coins

mqkjv2Fk1KqcpQhXu2tMGd16pZfYTWaDXp

jpr · Sep 5, 2014

Miner237 said:
add my test wallet send me some anon coins

mqkjv2Fk1KqcpQhXu2tMGd16pZfYTWaDXp

sent 1200

you can use this faucet https://drkipn.com/test/faucet/

Miner237 · Sep 5, 2014

coingun said:
I can fairly rapidly deploy MN's on testnet through vultr if needed. Built some simply shell scripts that can boot a node with darkcoind setup and running upon first login. All you'd have to do is send the 1000 coins and set the darkcoin.conf file. MN could be up in about the time it takes to confirm the coins.

can you post the script I could try to setup some local virtual servers.

eduffield · Sep 5, 2014

****** PLEASE UPDATE TO v9.13.3 (Stable) OR 10.13.3 (RC) *******

- This update deals with freezing, slow wallets, slow load times and the "not compatible" error. I debugged one of the slow wallets and found it had 38,000 keys in the keypool, then after more investigation I found the passive Darksend process has been reserve keys for every attempt! To rectify this I've modified the queuing system, so users wait in a masternode queue without actually sending the transactions until the queue is full.

Please move any testing funds to a new wallet to test the new version.

Stable Binaries
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/master-rc5/darkcoin-qt
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/master-rc5/darkcoind

RC5 Binaries
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/rc5/darkcoin-qt
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/rc5/darkcoind

David · Sep 5, 2014

Not sure I'd call this a bug just yet, but it's taking hours for my last 25 tdrk to anonymize...

flare · Sep 5, 2014

eduffield said:
****** PLEASE UPDATE TO v9.13.3 (Stable) OR 10.13.3 (RC) *******

- This update deals with freezing, slow wallets, slow load times and the "not compatible" error. I debugged one of the slow wallets and found it had 38,000 keys in the keypool, then after more investigation I found the passive Darksend process has been reserve keys for every attempt! To rectify this I've modified the queuing system, so users wait in a masternode queue without actually sending the transactions until the queue is full.

Please move any testing funds to a new wallet to test the new version.

darkstrike420 · Sep 5, 2014

eduffield said:
****** PLEASE UPDATE TO v9.13.3 (Stable) OR 10.13.3 (RC) *******

- This update deals with freezing, slow wallets, slow load times and the "not compatible" error. I debugged one of the slow wallets and found it had 38,000 keys in the keypool, then after more investigation I found the passive Darksend process has been reserve keys for every attempt! To rectify this I've modified the queuing system, so users wait in a masternode queue without actually sending the transactions until the queue is full.

Please move any testing funds to a new wallet to test the new version.

Stable Binaries
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/master-rc5/darkcoin-qt
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/master-rc5/darkcoind

RC5 Binaries
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/rc5/darkcoin-qt
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/rc5/darkcoind

init message: Loading wallet... (Generating keys 1000/1000)
init message: Loading wallet... (Generating keys 1001/1000)

Is this how it is supposed to be?

Ubuntu 14.04

This bug was also in the first RC5.

jpr · Sep 5, 2014

the 10.13.3 that Evan linked still says 10.13.2 in getinfo

"version" : 101302,
"protocolversion" : 70036,
"walletversion" : 60001,
"balance" : 1999.97400000,
"anonymized_balance" : 999.00000023,
"blocks" : 26626,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"connections" : 8,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.61918349,
"testnet" : true,
"keypoololdest" : 1409946073,
"keypoolsize" : 1001,
"paytxfee" : 0.00100000,
"mininput" : 0.00001000,
"errors" : ""
}

kryptofoo · Sep 5, 2014

David said:
Not sure I'd call this a bug just yet, but it's taking hours for my last 25 tdrk to anonymize...

same here, last 500 stuck waiting for last round for 7 hours.

v0.10.13.x RC5 Testing

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Core Developer

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member