v0.10.15.x Testing

thelonecrouton · Oct 13, 2014

Code:

root@crouton3:~/.darkcoin# ./darkcoind getblockhash 46877
00000008fa567018748da5939a55a88028f397529344eb4886b11c9e69805c26
root@crouton3:~/.darkcoin# ./darkcoind masternode list
{
  "107.170.168.162:19999" : 1,
  "188.226.225.170:19999" : 1,
  "198.50.148.87:19999" : 1,
  "92.222.10.179:19999" : 1,
  "69.160.84.100:19999" : 1,
  "107.170.157.216:19999" : 1,
  "178.62.203.249:19999" : 1,
  "176.126.247.191:19999" : 1,
  "108.61.198.220:19999" : 1,
  "23.97.152.145:19999" : 1,
  "191.235.132.246:19999" : 1,
  "137.135.13.83:19999" : 1,
  "191.238.52.72:19999" : 1,
  "138.91.1.101:19999" : 1,
  "23.98.65.243:19999" : 1,
  "168.63.151.85:19999" : 1,
  "191.238.80.67:19999" : 1,
  "202.171.65.13:19999" : 1,
  "50.248.181.2:19999" : 1,
  "202.171.65.14:19999" : 1
}

DrkMiner · Oct 13, 2014

eduffield said:
There's a new type of node that's responsible for telling the network who will get paid. The algorithm is deterministic, but by just having a few of these nodes we'll ensure it can't be attacked. So there's a public key in the source for checking the signatures to make sure it's from one of the privileged nodes.

These nodes are going to be responsible for monitoring the masternodes and could even do testing on ports, run darksend tests, etc. Just to make sure that the nodes are doing their job. Otherwise they won't be paid.

Could someone attack/bring down "these nodes" and by that cripple the Master nodes?

If these nodes are not running or down for some reason what affect will it have on the MN network?

HinnomTX · Oct 13, 2014

Yep, much better now. :smile:
{
"178.62.203.249:19999" : 1,
"92.222.10.179:19999" : 1,
"107.170.168.162:19999" : 1,
"188.226.225.170:19999" : 1,
"198.50.148.87:19999" : 1,
"69.160.84.100:19999" : 1,
"107.170.157.216:19999" : 1,
"176.126.247.191:19999" : 1,
"108.61.198.220:19999" : 1,
"23.97.152.145:19999" : 1,
"191.235.132.246:19999" : 1,
"137.135.13.83:19999" : 1,
"191.238.52.72:19999" : 1,
"138.91.1.101:19999" : 1,
"23.98.65.243:19999" : 1,
"168.63.151.85:19999" : 1,
"191.238.80.67:19999" : 1,
"202.171.65.13:19999" : 1,
"50.248.181.2:19999" : 1,
"202.171.65.14:19999" : 1
}

eduffield · Oct 13, 2014

DrkMiner said:
Could someone attack/bring down "these nodes" and by that cripple the Master nodes?

If these nodes are not running or down for some reason what affect will it have on the MN network?

Nope. There's a few of them on the network. they're anonymous and the network functions without them, just masternode payments wouldn't be as predictable.

illodin · Oct 13, 2014

eduffield said:
./darkcoind getblockhash 46877

All 8 of my tMNs respond the same thing:
00000008fa567018748da5939a55a88028f397529344eb4886b11c9e69805c26

thelonecrouton · Oct 13, 2014

Do regular Masternodes get selected as MasterMasternodes on some random basis? Trying to get a picture of how it works.

Lariondos · Oct 13, 2014

eduffield said:
Can I get everyone to do this that's running v8?

./darkcoind getblockhash 46877
00000008fa567018748da5939a55a88028f397529344eb4886b11c9e69805c26

My 2 tMNs (92.222.../198.50...) match.

HinnomTX · Oct 13, 2014

eduffield said:
It's either a pubkey in the code that enables a centralized node to issue checkpoints, or it's checkpoints in the code that are also centralized. Aren't they both the same, really?

I suppose. Is there a way to empower the entire masternode network to implement a consensus style checkpoint? Sunny King referred to a wind down of checkpoints in PPC due to undesirable centralization (not sure if it ever came to pass). At the least, he did refer to a user enabled emergency checkpoint mode that would only be enabled by consensus if the coin ever came under a persistent 51% attack.
http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=258.0
At least it's good to think about a possible roadmap to go 'no more centralized' than the masternode network for any thorny issues. :smile:

Edit: I just now realized that Bitcoin has hardcoded checkpoints as well:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=194078.0

It seems fair to want to protect the history of the blockchain to prevent tampering. If the masternode network itself could author automatic checkpoints by consensus, that would give some semblance of decentralized blockchain protection.

Tesquenure · Oct 13, 2014

eduffield said:
Can I get everyone to do this that's running v8?

./darkcoind getblockhash 46877
00000008fa567018748da5939a55a88028f397529344eb4886b11c9e69805c26

My 2 MNs are ok

DrkMiner · Oct 13, 2014

being hit with -0.001 "Payment to yourself" 10 DRK / 2 rounds

Darksend Denomin looks ok -0.0125/round

thelonecrouton · Oct 13, 2014

Darksend is certainly progressing much faster with this version.

eduffield · Oct 13, 2014

UdjinM6 · Oct 13, 2014

all 4 tMNs matched 00000008fa567018748da5939a55a88028f397529344eb4886b11c9e69805c26 and updated to .9

Code:

    "version" : 101509,
    "107.170.157.216:19999" : 1,
    "107.170.168.162:19999" : 1,
    "178.62.203.249:19999" : 1,
    "188.226.225.170:19999" : 1,

thelonecrouton · Oct 13, 2014

Updated MN too just for the hell of it.

crowning · Oct 13, 2014

eduffield said:
Nope. There's a few of them on the network. they're anonymous and the network functions without them, just masternode payments wouldn't be as predictable.

I don't like this kind of centralization.

As fall-back for the 'normal' payout heuristic it's kinda okay, but there should be a solution where ALL Masternodes are involved.

DrkMiner · Oct 13, 2014

eduffield,

Still problem with payment to yourself -0.001

All this time I'm trying small amounts. It happens with anon of 10 DRK or less.

Could someone please send 1000 tdrk to: mnPD2jG31ozBwxg9VhCz1noxxMdbTHdygj
Test faucet is not sending any coins. I would like to try with larger amount to see if that problem happens with larger amounts (30, 50 100).

Thanks!

oblox · Oct 13, 2014

I'm also against the idea of centralizing checkpoint nodes. Also, from that standpoint, why could someone inject their own key into the source for these checknodes and alter who gets selected?

qwizzie · Oct 13, 2014

Evan : i sent you a new email both with debug.logs and wallets because i still received 0.1 fees of self payment transactions with v9.
i'm off to bed now and will create new wallets next time so yr free to use them as you see fit.

thelonecrouton · Oct 13, 2014

DrkMiner said:
eduffield,

Still problem with payment to yourself -0.001

All this time I'm trying small amounts. It happens with anon of 10 DRK or less.

Could someone please send 1000 tdrk to: mnPD2jG31ozBwxg9VhCz1noxxMdbTHdygj
Test faucet is not sending any coins. I would like to try with larger amount to see if that problem happens with larger amounts (30, 50 100).

Thanks!

Status: 0/unconfirmed, broadcast through 5 nodes
Date: 13/10/2014 23:57
To: miner247 mnPD2jG31ozBwxg9VhCz1noxxMdbTHdygj
Debit: -1000.00 DRK
Net amount: -1000.00 DRK
Transaction ID: 6ca6544317c7fe20a8507563dccfbb50832232f5f5e145c400ae7e421fae4e9c

Might help my own current DS process.

DrkMiner · Oct 14, 2014

thelonecrouton said:
Status: 0/unconfirmed, broadcast through 5 nodes
Date: 13/10/2014 23:57
To: miner247 mnPD2jG31ozBwxg9VhCz1noxxMdbTHdygj
Debit: -1000.00 DRK
Net amount: -1000.00 DRK
Transaction ID: 6ca6544317c7fe20a8507563dccfbb50832232f5f5e145c400ae7e421fae4e9c

Might help my own current DS process.

Received 1000 tdrk

What amount/rounds are you trying now? will do same amount with you
Thank You!

v0.10.15.x Testing

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Core Developer

Active member

Well-known member

Member

Active member

Member

Active member

Well-known member

Core Developer

Official Dash Dev

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member