v0.10.9.x Help test RC2 forking issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
flare said:
As a proof of concept i modified my local client and did some solomining ---> Block 15989 pays 50% to the lucky masternode winner :grin:

http://tdrk.poolhash.org/
Code: 
6 mins ago    06/08 11:12:21    5    15989    0.304    151    mt4tHZtz2b8dnyUP2DeVzc8vxPLwWpEUpR    mqGXfPgqp2Gr4qKm2CSjeCHjJnAhimFMQB    75.510    mqGXfPgqp2Gr4qKm2CSjeCHjJnAhimFMQB

EDIT: We have another winner, Block 15992

Code: 
1 min ago    06/08 11:21:39    4    15992    0.345    151    n2TnVWkgFQ3sq95beCay4aj5AXPbznqSdS    ms9JqmHQ6QrLbeFFyAp22cofqnR5PNuHkK    75.533    moqpGCABQQefuujQ9nsAMJVEiwAXyAMw6o
Click to expand...

Interesting find... I thought the whole point of the hard fork was to make sure that blocks that were tampered with would be rejected by the network. I guess that part is not yet implemented/not functioning as intended. :confused:
 
****** Please update to 9.5.8 or 10.9.8 *******

Please everyone update just to make sure we're all on the same version (even if your version is 9.5.8 or 10.9.8). If the network is stable for the rest of the day I'll start merging in the changes into master and have the network update.

Binaries (stable)
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/forkfix/darkcoin-qt
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/forkfix/darkcoind

RC3 Binaries ( masternodes )
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/rc3/darkcoin-qt
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/rc3/darkcoind
 
JGCMiner said:
Interesting find... I thought the whole point of the hard fork was to make sure that blocks that were tampered with would be rejected by the network. I guess that part is not yet implemented/not functioning as intended. :confused:
Click to expand...

Yeah, the code is in there but the checkpointer is not enforcing that... yet.
 
12% [==============> ] 7,020,544 113K/s eta 6m 59s

zzzzZZzZzZzZZzz :what:

edit:

56% [==============> ] 31,334,400 22.7K/s eta 4m 25s

:confused:
 
3 nodes are updated to github 9.5.8(git clone -b forkfix).
nomp restarted(20%) + github 9.5.8(git clone -b forkfix).
 
I am updated...
ubuntu@ip-10-252-204-115:~$ darkcoind masternode list
{
"37.187.47.129:19999" : 1,
"50.191.199.127:19999" : 1,
"184.73.179.148:19999" : 1,
"87.230.94.57:19999" : 1,
"54.76.47.232:19999" : 1,
"184.73.179.187:19999" : 1,
"188.226.243.116:19999" : 0,
"184.73.179.196:19999" : 0,
"104.33.210.231:19999" : 1,
"54.203.217.224:19999" : 1
}
ubuntu@ip-10-252-204-115:~$ darkcoind getinfo
{
"version" : 100908,
"protocolversion" : 70017,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 5890.52530000,
"blocks" : 16142,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"connections" : 5,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.25119590,
"testnet" : true,
"keypoololdest" : 1401626368,
"keypoolsize" : 99,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"mininput" : 0.00001000,
"unlocked_until" : 0,
"errors" : ""
}
Click to expand...
 
chaeplin said:
flare Is this yours ?
http://184.73.179.148:1234/block/00000001154167f62ee6b6742ba4133b4f59ccea78be8d808759ea948bf04f54
0.151 ? keke :sad:
Click to expand...

Yep, sorry guy - but needed this as a proof of concept that the miner is currently free to choose what masternode payout to pay. So 50% - proofed, 0.1% proofed.

What i don't get so far: Why is the check that Evan has in his code already not triggered and the clients reject my blocks. The code is here, but it does not care...

https://github.com/darkcoinproject/darkcoin/blob/forkfix/src/main.cpp#L2677-L2682
https://github.com/darkcoinproject/darkcoin/blob/forkfix/src/main.cpp#L2723-L2724

But i'm happy i found this while still on testnet - i cannot image the market price drop if this occured in mainnet.

As i am a IT-QA/QM engineer in real life i have to say: No, we are not ready for rollout to production yet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
flare said:
Yep, sorry guy - but needed this as a proof of concept that the miner is currently free to choose what masternode payout to pay. So 50% - proofed, 0.1% proofed.

What i don't get so far: Why is the check that Evan has in his code already is not triggered.
Click to expand...

That's the next thing on my list after the testnet network is stable with all of this new code. Happily all of the checkpointing stuff doesn't require the rest of the network to update, so I can work on that while the network updates in the next week to 9.5.10.
 
updated to github

It's like dsee storm.
Code: 
2014-06-08 16:25:16 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-08 16:25:16 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-08 16:25:16 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-08 16:25:16 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-08 16:25:16 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
 
flare said:
Yep, sorry guy - but needed this as a proof of concept that the miner is currently free to choose what masternode payout to pay. So 50% - proofed, 0.1% proofed.

What i don't get so far: Why is the check that Evan has in his code already not triggered and the clients reject my blocks. The code is here, but it does not care...

https://github.com/darkcoinproject/darkcoin/blob/forkfix/src/main.cpp#L2677-L2682
https://github.com/darkcoinproject/darkcoin/blob/forkfix/src/main.cpp#L2723-L2724

But i'm happy i found this while still on testnet - i cannot image the market price drop if this occured in mainnet.

As i am a IT-QA/QM engineer in real life i have to say: No, we are not ready for rollout to production yet.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right. This is starting to feel rushed. I'm going to move RC3 to the 27th to ensure everything works properly.
 
chaeplin said:
updated to github

It's like dsee storm.
Code: 
2014-06-08 16:25:16 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-08 16:25:16 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-08 16:25:16 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-08 16:25:16 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-08 16:25:16 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
Click to expand...

FAILED means it's the old version trying to communicate with you, and our clients are ignoring them. So that's a good thing, looks like my changes this morning fixed all of the spam issues. Once everyone updates the "FAILED" messages should go away.
 
eduffield said:
Yeah, you're right. This is starting to feel rushed. I'm going to move RC3 to the 27th to ensure everything works properly.
Click to expand...

Tough decision but the only right one here. Much appreciated. Better to have the rollout postponed than to have trouble with bugs in production, especially when you think of DRK being a 50mn$+ project at the moment.

I am happy to continue my effort to support you with hunting the bugs out of RC3.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upgraded to 10.9.9 and just getting lots of

Code: 
2014-06-08 17:00:06 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-08 17:00:06 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-08 17:00:06 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-08 17:00:06 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-08 17:00:06 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-08 17:00:06 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
My log file can't take this for too long and is growing at 1Mb per minute.
 
FoldingTime said:
Upgraded to 10.9.9 and just getting lots of

Code: 
2014-06-08 17:00:06 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-08 17:00:06 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-08 17:00:06 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-08 17:00:06 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-08 17:00:06 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-08 17:00:06 ProcessMessage(dsee, 249 bytes) FAILED
My log file can't take this for too long and is growing at 1Mb per minute.
Click to expand...

try printtoconsole=1

the crazy amount of FAILED should start to go away soon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top