v0.10.17 - Onyx v3

@ this ver i see that the wallet gets locked after sending funds, this bug has been fixed...excellent!
 
Nodes offline until broadcast/announce bug and fragmentation are fixed.

My guess is that the changes related to making MNs more pingable, somehow islanded the announce call from start-many. Start-many does all it's stuff, but calls the announcement and the name of that process has changed. It's untrapped, so no output except telling me that all is well while it does nothing instead.

No idea why I'm seeing shards tho...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This happens when clicked MAC OSX (same problem also in Darkcoin.io website download section)

EDIT: False alarm! It works now :)

TPUTIOi.png
 
2000 DRK anon limit still present. Was unclear if this was a temporary thing for testnet, or intended to be part of this release...
 
flare said:
Perfect! Can you lower the update time to 15mins until drk.mn has been updated?
Click to expand...

Done. I'll leave it at that for the rest of the day.

I'll change it back to 60 minutes once the network is stable again, because I fear the geo-location provider will ban me when I create too much traffic.

I had to switch the provider already 3x....
 
crowning said:
Done. I'll leave it at that for the rest of the day.

I'll change it back to 60 minutes once the network is stable again, because I fear the geo-location provider will ban me when I create too much traffic.

I had to switch the provider already 3x....
Click to expand...
Maybe you can create a stripped down version, just showing the IPs without geolocation ;)
 
camosoul said:
Nodes offline until broadcast/announce bug and fragmentation are fixed.

My guess is that the changes related to making MNs more pingable, somehow islanded the announce call from start-many. Start-many does all it's stuff, but calls the announcement and the name of that process has changed. It's untrapped, so no output except telling me that all is well while it does nothing instead.

No idea why I'm seeing shards tho...
Click to expand...

I can confirm this, had the same problem. Had nothing but issues so far using start-many so I decided to move the funds to seperate wallets again.

I intend to review the code next week and submit a pull request for better start-many support. I'm thinking of adding the transaction and output index as a parameter for each masternode in masternode.conf so that one can manage each vin and associated masternode individually from the same wallet. Individual masternodes could then also be started/stopped from the same wallet. Any feedback is appreciated.
 
freynder said:
I can confirm this, had the same problem. Had nothing but issues so far using start-many so I decided to move the funds to seperate wallets again.

I intend to review the code next week and submit a pull request for better start-many support. I'm thinking of adding the transaction and output index as a parameter for each masternode in masternode.conf so that one can manage each vin and associated masternode individually from the same wallet. Individual masternodes could then also be started/stopped from the same wallet. Any feedback is appreciated.
Click to expand...
Cool! One more pair of eyes and hands would be very helpful! :smile:
Drop a link to pull request there http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-127 when you have it :wink:
 
UdjinM6 said:
Cool! One more pair of eyes and hands would be very helpful! :smile:
Drop a link to pull request there <link> when you have it :wink:
Click to expand...

Oops, didn't realize this was already proposed by camosoul. Will update the ticket when ready as requested.
 
The only reason we were getting this high MN counts was because of start-many... The coins needed are already out there. I don't want to throw stones, but neglecting this most obvious thing while claiming to want to get MN count up seems more like artificially keeping the pie slices fat... More MNs is bad in the eyes of those already running them... Be that the case or not, that's how it looks, and it's been looking that way for many months. The Ouija Board/Market Watcher types wonder why the price doesn't move but we surge almost 50% in nodes? Cuz the coins are already held, but like me, who wants to dick around copying dozens of files full of money and make just one mistake... No. We don't do that with our money. Go juggle stacks of hundred dollar bills in a tornado, go ahead, I'll watch... I ain't fuckin' doing it, and neither are a lot of other people. They're not stupid.

The market doesn't have to move one duff to double the MN count. So, why are we keeping thos duffs out of MNs while saying we want more MNs? Did you not see the adjacent blocks of MN IPs going up in stacks at a time?

I wouldn't suggest it as true, but it makes DRK look like it's devs are up to something... Perception.

Oh, and was that 2000DRK mix limit supposed to make it into the non-test-net release? Because it did... I was going to mix out a bunch of coins I had geocached and set up a few more racks of MNs, but grr.... MN tool I need is busted, mixing won't let me mix big piles... RAWR!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From channel #darkcoin-git:

[07:00:59] <gitcow> [ darkcoin | master | Evan Duffield | 2 minutes ago ] 25a07f1 reduced spam / better filter for asking for masternodes

Looks like Evan is still awake, he'd better get some sleep or he'll fall asleep at the conference! :grin:
 
camosoul said:
The only reason we were getting this high MN counts was because of start-many... The coins needed are already out there. I don't want to throw stones, but neglecting this most obvious thing while claiming to want to get MN count up seems more like artificially keeping the pie slices fat... More MNs is bad in the eyes of those already running them... Be that the case or not, that's how it looks, and it's been looking that way for many months. The Ouija Board/Market Watcher types wonder why the price doesn't move but we surge almost 50% in nodes? Cuz the coins are already held, but like me, who wants to dick around copying dozens of files full of money and make just one mistake... No. We don't do that with our money. Go juggle stacks of hundred dollar bills in a tornado, go ahead, I'll watch... I ain't fuckin' doing it, and neither are a lot of other people. They're not stupid.

The market doesn't have to move one duff to double the MN count. So, why are we keeping thos duffs out of MNs while saying we want more MNs? Did you not see the adjacent blocks of MN IPs going up in stacks at a time?

I wouldn't suggest it as true, but it makes DRK look like it's devs are up to something... Perception.

Oh, and was that 2000DRK mix limit supposed to make it into the non-test-net release? Because it did... I was going to mix out a bunch of coins I had geocached and set up a few more racks of MNs, but grr.... MN tool I need is busted, mixing won't let me mix big piles... RAWR!
Click to expand...
I don't use the start-many as I know it hasn't really been a targeted feature for full functionality, however, with the new -wallet argument, it's as easy as using the -conf and -wallet arguments in a shortcut (all OS's support them) adjusted for each masternode's config and respective wallet file. I opted not to use the -datadir argument as I wanted to use one blockchain instead of having a folder for each. Yes that means I have to load each masternode manually but it's far better than renaming wallet files to wallet.dat and specifying which config to load. When I'm done, I just delete the wallet and config files from the computer and go back on with my day.
 
camosoul said:
The only reason we were getting this high MN counts was because of start-many... The coins needed are already out there. I don't want to throw stones, but neglecting this most obvious thing while claiming to want to get MN count up seems more like artificially keeping the pie slices fat... More MNs is bad in the eyes of those already running them... Be that the case or not, that's how it looks, and it's been looking that way for many months. The Ouija Board/Market Watcher types wonder why the price doesn't move but we surge almost 50% in nodes? Cuz the coins are already held, but like me, who wants to dick around copying dozens of files full of money and make just one mistake... No. We don't do that with our money. Go juggle stacks of hundred dollar bills in a tornado, go ahead, I'll watch... I ain't fuckin' doing it, and neither are a lot of other people. They're not stupid.

The market doesn't have to move one duff to double the MN count. So, why are we keeping thos duffs out of MNs while saying we want more MNs? Did you not see the adjacent blocks of MN IPs going up in stacks at a time?

I wouldn't suggest it as true, but it makes DRK look like it's devs are up to something... Perception.

Oh, and was that 2000DRK mix limit supposed to make it into the non-test-net release? Because it did... I was going to mix out a bunch of coins I had geocached and set up a few more racks of MNs, but grr.... MN tool I need is busted, mixing won't let me mix big piles... RAWR!
Click to expand...

I would suggest that it's a matter of priorities. Improving Darksend and releasing InstantX are higher on the list, at the moment. Start-many is a great thing, but it's trumped at the moment by other items of importance. As Oblox said, there has been progress in calling different wallet files from the command line, so things are getting easier.
 
can't connect with p2pool to the new version? rpc port works fine, but p2p port gives

2014-12-05 14:33:29.636843 Testing bitcoind P2P connection to 'localhost:12102'...
2014-12-05 14:33:34.637752 ...taking a while. Common reasons for this include all of bitcoind's connection slots being used...

using 81fc6c5-dirty
from https://bitbucket.org/dstorm/p2pool-drk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top