v0.10.15 - Onyx Release

[GermanRed+]

Evan, we are still seeing MN's showing up multiple times on the 0.10.15.15 masternode list command:

% darkcoind masternode list | sort | uniq -c | grep -v '^[^"]*1'
3 "37.46.114.158:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.175:9999" : 1,
3 "37.46.114.244:9999" : 1,
3 "37.46.114.245:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.58:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.66:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.76:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.94:9999" : 1,

Please notice that 37.46.114.24{4,5} were listed twice before 0.10.15.15. They are listed thrice now. Is anyone else seeing the same thing on their darkcoind? Will that be addressed by the enforcement or is it another exploit? If this is another exploit, will simply checking the number of occurrences and rejecting these nodes get rid of this problem, at lease temporarily?

And, thanks for the update. Let's hope the enforcement will soon get rid of the nodes getting paid without acting as a masternode.

 

[DrkMiner]

Evan, we are still seeing MN's showing up multiple times on the 0.10.15.15 masternode list command:

% darkcoind masternode list | sort | uniq -c | grep -v '^[^"]*1'
3 "37.46.114.158:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.175:9999" : 1,
3 "37.46.114.244:9999" : 1,
3 "37.46.114.245:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.58:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.66:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.76:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.94:9999" : 1,

Please notice that 37.46.114.24{4,5} were listed twice before 0.10.15.15. They are listed thrice now. Is anyone else seeing the same thing on their darkcoind? Will that be addressed by the enforcement or is it another exploit? If this is another exploit, will simply checking the number of occurrences and rejecting these nodes get rid of this problem, at lease temporarily?

And, thanks for the update. Let's hope the enforcement will soon get rid of the nodes getting paid without acting as a masternode.

V10.15.16
./darkcoind masternode list | grep 37.46.114.158

Shows 3 times

 

[GermanRed+]

V10.15.16
./darkcoind masternode list | grep 37.46.114.158

Shows 3 times

Good to know before I update my MN to 0.10.15.16 which sounds like addressing this problem according Evan's comment. That may be still the case if it takes time for the excessive Masternode announcement messages to quiet down. Could you check the version by getinfo? I got the wrong version with a typo in the git command in one of the updates. If there is nothing wrong, please ignore me.

 

[DrkMiner]

Good to know before I update my MN to 0.10.15.16 which sounds like addressing this problem according Evan's comment. That may be still the case if it takes time for the excessive Masternode announcement messages to quiet down. Could you check the version by getinfo? I got the wrong version with a typo in the git command in one of the updates. If there is nothing wrong, please ignore me.

Version 15.16 Latest download link works

 

[djcrypto]

So is 15.15 already obsolete? Do I need to update to 15.16 now?

 

[AjM]

So is 15.15 already obsolete? Do I need to update to 15.16 now?

Yes, it is recommended.

 

[DrkMiner]

So is 15.15 already obsolete? Do I need to update to 15.16 now?

Yes.... Even said: "It's not mandatory to update, but please do if you can"

 

[GermanRed+]

% darkcoind masternode list | sort | uniq -c | grep -v '^[^"]*1'
3 "37.46.114.158:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.244:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.245:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.58:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.66:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.76:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.94:9999" : 1,

After update to v0.10.15.16, 37.46.114.24{4,5} are back to listed twice now. Not sure if 0.10.15.16 has anything to do with this. But, hope that more people updating to 0.10.15.6 will help in reducing these duplicated MN entries on the list.

 

[bertlebbert]

So is 15.15 already obsolete? Do I need to update to 15.16 now?

Not to worry, Evan said Last update till InstantX :smile:

 

[eduffield]

Evan, we are still seeing MN's showing up multiple times on the 0.10.15.15 masternode list command:

% darkcoind masternode list | sort | uniq -c | grep -v '^[^"]*1'
3 "37.46.114.158:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.175:9999" : 1,
3 "37.46.114.244:9999" : 1,
3 "37.46.114.245:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.58:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.66:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.76:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.94:9999" : 1,

Please notice that 37.46.114.24{4,5} were listed twice before 0.10.15.15. They are listed thrice now. Is anyone else seeing the same thing on their darkcoind? Will that be addressed by the enforcement or is it another exploit? If this is another exploit, will simply checking the number of occurrences and rejecting these nodes get rid of this problem, at lease temporarily?

And, thanks for the update. Let's hope the enforcement will soon get rid of the nodes getting paid without acting as a masternode.

Those masternodes are indeed unique and valid DRK. They're just tied to the same daemon. Addresses are not unique within the system due to the fact that, someone who doesn't actually own it could claim it in the masternode list, then you couldn't register your node. There's a couple proposed solutions to this such as the multi-path routing system, which I've been working on. So, it's a known issue and it needs to be dealt with carefully.

 

[DrkMiner]

eduffield, with the latest updated, could we run 1 wallet with multiple addresses?

masternode start many

 

[crowning]

eduffield, with the latest updated, could we run 1 wallet with multiple addresses?

masternode start many

I'm not Evan nor do I play him in films, but nope, it's not in the source code so most probably also not in the binaries.

 

[darkstrike420]

Those masternodes are indeed unique and valid DRK. They're just tied to the same daemon. Addresses are not unique within the system due to the fact that, someone who doesn't actually own it could claim it in the masternode list, then you couldn't register your node. There's a couple proposed solutions to this such as the multi-path routing system, which I've been working on. So, it's a known issue and it needs to be dealt with carefully.

Regarding the planned IP obfuscation feature, wouldn't it be easier to just run the Darkcoin network under I2P similar to how other coins are doing it?

I2P is being recoded in C++. You can look at it here: https://github.com/PrivacySolutions/i2pd

 

[bertlebbert]

I'm not Evan nor do I play him in films, but nope, it's not in the source code so most probably also not in the binaries.

One wallet, multiples of 1000 DRK - each in a separate address... That doesn't work?

 

[splawik21]

One wallet, multiples of 1000 DRK - each in a separate address... That doesn't work?

You mean having one file wallet.dat and inside of him many getnewaddresss MN# so having 10k coins you have 1 main address with 9 getnewaddresses which contains 1000drk....
well this is still in alpha mode but heard it worked... didn`t try....yet....

 

[bertlebbert]

You mean having one file wallet.dat and inside of him many getnewaddresss MN# so having 10k coins you have 1 main address with 9 getnewaddresses which contains 1000drk....
well this is still in alpha mode but heard it worked... didn`t try....yet....

Yes, one wallet, 10 different 0-addresses... I thought someone said that worked

 

[UdjinM6]

only 3 left for me on 15.16

darkcoind masternode list | sort | uniq -c | grep -v '^[^"]*1'
      2     "37.46.114.158:9999" : 1,
      2     "37.46.114.244:9999" : 1,
      2     "37.46.114.245:9999" : 1,

 

[splawik21]

Yes, one wallet, 10 different 0-addresses... I thought someone said that worked

Flare was using this as i remember.... but he said that it is still alpha and that need to be feeded

 

[crowning]

Yes, one wallet, 10 different 0-addresses... I thought someone said that worked

Not with this version.

flare posted a link to a test-version, but with all the updates since then I wouldn't use that old version any more.

 

[GermanRed+]

Those masternodes are indeed unique and valid DRK. They're just tied to the same daemon.

When a masternode is unique, shouldn't it have a single external IP address? I could imagine something like running the same daemon thrice with some intelligent firewall tagging and forwarding may let some run three darkcoind on the same host. Or, I'm completely off here. Please enlighten me in the dark.

Addresses are not unique within the system due to the fact that, someone who doesn't actually own it could claim it in the masternode list, then you couldn't register your node. There's a couple proposed solutions to this such as the multi-path routing system, which I've been working on. So, it's a known issue and it needs to be dealt with carefully.

I don't really get it. I understand the danger of letting someone who doesn't own the addresses claim it and prevent the true owner from registering the node. It should hurt the owner. But, it seems to me that this guy at 37.46.114.158 is claiming others' addresses and hijack other MN payments? Then, I'm confused because you said these MN's are unique and valid. Sorry, I must misunderstood something since I'm not a network programmer. I don't want to take too much time of your time to explain this to me since it seems that you are very busy implementing a solution. Perhaps, someone else will do this on the forum for you when they have time and the knowledge.