v0.10.9.x Help test RC2 forking issues

chaeplin · Jun 17, 2014

3 servers of mine banned from mainnet peers( 10 ~ 30 min)
* banned servers ( sv03, sv04, sv05 in graph)
a) 1 server : 0.9.10.1 with p2pool-drk
b) 2 servers : 0.9.10.1, listen = 0, only connect=other is used

some other peers(including drkpool.com, and explorer.darkcoin.io, 23.23.186.131) in mainnet still banning my server ip.

I think this is related log

Code:

2014-06-17 05:45:58 Committing 187 changed transactions to coin database...
2014-06-17 05:45:58 SetBestChain: new best=0000000000149abf7521bdc55c7cfe7c5af2b2e7d9cc9b1ae193034d18046cfd  height=86907  log2_work=58.397491  tx=384123  date=2014-06-17 05:45:55 progress=1.000000
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 50.112.159.232:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 73.176.43.224:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 23.23.186.131:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 188.226.229.144:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 192.99.184.61:9999 (20 -> 40)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 54.200.3.190:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 198.50.148.87:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 69.90.186.9:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 211.99.224.194:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 107.181.250.216:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 24.77.47.67:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 46.22.128.38:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 94.156.77.161:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 54.255.148.0:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 178.32.35.81:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 211.99.224.194:9999 (20 -> 40)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 69.156.106.29:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED

flare · Jun 17, 2014

chaeplin said:

3 servers of mine banned from mainnet peers( 10 ~ 30 min)
* banned servers ( sv03, sv04, sv05 in graph)
a) 1 server : 0.9.10.1 with p2pool-drk
b) 2 servers : 0.9.10.1, listen = 0, only connect=other is used

some other peers(including drkpool.com, and explorer.darkcoin.io, 23.23.186.131) in mainnet still banning my server ip.

I think this is related log

Code:

2014-06-17 05:45:58 Committing 187 changed transactions to coin database...
2014-06-17 05:45:58 SetBestChain: new best=0000000000149abf7521bdc55c7cfe7c5af2b2e7d9cc9b1ae193034d18046cfd  height=86907  log2_work=58.397491  tx=384123  date=2014-06-17 05:45:55 progress=1.000000
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 50.112.159.232:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 73.176.43.224:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 23.23.186.131:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 188.226.229.144:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 192.99.184.61:9999 (20 -> 40)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 54.200.3.190:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 198.50.148.87:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 69.90.186.9:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 211.99.224.194:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 107.181.250.216:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 24.77.47.67:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 46.22.128.38:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 94.156.77.161:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 54.255.148.0:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 178.32.35.81:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 211.99.224.194:9999 (20 -> 40)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 69.156.106.29:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED

Corresponding code block
--> https://github.com/darkcoinproject/darkcoin/blob/v0.9.10.1/src/main.cpp#L4140-L4150

Code:

         if (sigTime/1000000 > GetAdjustedTime() + 5 * 60) {
            printf("dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the future");
            pfrom->Misbehaving(20);
            return false;
        }

        if (sigTime/1000000 <= pindexPrev->GetBlockTime() - 5 * 60) {
            printf("dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the past");
            pfrom->Misbehaving(20);
            return false;
        }

Evan, do the signatures of the vin's expire?

yidakee · Jun 17, 2014

Gentlemen, I'm leaving testnet...
It was both an honour, and a pleasure!!
See you on the other side.

TanteStefana · Jun 17, 2014

By yidakee!

So when do we get to start playing with RC4, LOL :grin:

yidakee · Jun 17, 2014

TanteStefana said:
By yidakee!

So when do we get to start playing with RC4, LOL :grin:

I'd say "why, June 21st of course" ... but unfortunately I dont have that much access to free VPS's :tongue:

TanteStefana · Jun 18, 2014

I'm ready!!! LOL, see you here!

BTW, my debug log also has a ton of dsee failiers, is that normal? Or do I have issues?

moloch · Jun 18, 2014

TanteStefana said:
I'm ready!!! LOL, see you here!

BTW, my debug log also has a ton of dsee failiers, is that normal? Or do I have issues?

i have the same....?

snogcel · Jun 18, 2014

moloch said:
i have the same....?

Seeing the same here - kinda weird (this is on mainnet that I'm seeing it), assuming it's benign but I am curious

TsuyokuNaritai · Jun 18, 2014

LimLims said:
The "ProcessMessage(dsee, 175 bytes) FAILED" errors are apparently due to other masternodes on the network that are still running the old version.

Scriptiee said:
It probably is due to the network being divided into 2 currently (in a way)

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=P...ILED"&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&safe=off

Hope that helped.

snogcel · Jun 18, 2014

TsuyokuNaritai said:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ProcessMessage FAILED&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=FQWhU_W7EeXR8gfzyIDABQ#channel=sb&filter=0&q="ProcessMessage(dsee," "bytes) FAILED"&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&safe=off

Hope that helped.

Thanks man, makes sense - system working as expected

chaeplin · Jun 18, 2014

"ProcessMessage(dsee, 241 bytes) FAILED" are caused by old version clients.

Code:

Client version : 0.9.4.6
Client version : 0.9.4.11
Client version : 0.10.8.6
Client version : 0.10.8.11

Masternode entry is broadcasted to network.
And the relayed msg through the above clients cause ProcessMessage fail.

Networks can't be divided. If devided, two networks can't connect to each other.
(If devided, ProcessMessage fail will not appear)

EDIT: Turned out all old client.
Anyway, These old client will ban new client voluntarily, when they receive a block which has masternode payment.

Code:

/Satoshi:0.10.6.3/
/Satoshi:0.10.8.11/
/Satoshi:0.10.8.6/
/Satoshi:0.10.8.8/
/Satoshi:0.9.2.2/
/Satoshi:0.9.4.11/
/Satoshi:0.9.4.6/
/Satoshi:0.9.4.8/
/Satoshi:0.9.5.1/

daaarkcoins · Jun 18, 2014

yidakee said:
I'd say "why, June 21st of course" ... but unfortunately I dont have that much access to free VPS's :tongue:

Whats holding you back from running a miannet and a testnet darkcoind on the same vps?

yidakee · Jun 18, 2014

daaarkcoins said:
Whats holding you back from running a miannet and a testnet darkcoind on the same vps?

Having picked up linux for the first time about a month ago. I feel like a super-hero. Took me so long to warp my head round properly securing and running nodes, I wouldn't want to poke holes in them, or eventually break something, or even surpass EC2 free tier limitations.

If you could point me to something like Amazon EC2, meaning at least a few month of free service, then I'm all in. I did quick check around when cold/remote got broken, and I dont remember anything as good as Amazon. Digital Ocean and Microsoft Azure had some promo's going, but nothing in the sense of "free tier for very low resource" VPS.

Suggestions welcome though!

daaarkcoins · Jun 18, 2014

I don't think you can surpass the free instance limitations from within the instance.

You can run another darkcoind as a different user and point that one to the testnet.

Can't help you with EC2 alternatives, unfortunately. I have a paid VPS running anyway, so I didn't look for anything else.

yidakee · Jun 18, 2014

daaarkcoins said:
I don't think you can surpass the free instance limitations from within the instance.

You can run another darkcoind as a different user and point that one to the testnet.

Can't help you with EC2 alternatives, unfortunately. I have a paid VPS running anyway, so I didn't look for anything else.

Well, I dont know for sure, will monitor of course, but surely you can exceed free tier from within an EC2 perspective. It auto-scales up if needed. For example, a CPU spike can trigger more CPU allocation, and go over the free tier, and get billed. The same with the disk space... I think its 8gb?

Plus, I feel juuuuuuust that much extra safe closing down :19999.

If I find anything out there that is free for some time (1 or 2 months), and its not Microsoft ... I'll surely do it!

weirdgod · Jun 18, 2014

Well, its not free, but you can take a look at Vultr... VPS start from 0.7cents/hour. Which is 3x cheaper than EC2, and I am really satisfied with them.

Further, you can create a snapshot of your VPS after you are done with it, and destroy instance.
When you need it again, you just deploy new server from saved instance.... This way you can save ever further...

yidakee · Jun 18, 2014

weirdgod said:
Well, its not free, but you can take a look at Vultr... VPS start from 0.7cents/hour. Which is 3x cheaper than EC2, and I am really satisfied with them.

Further, you can create a snapshot of your VPS after you are done with it, and destroy instance.
When you need it again, you just deploy new server from saved instance.... This way you can save ever further...

Getting a bit off-topic, last waffle.

That can be done in EC2 as well, I believe they are called Snapshots.
I certainly will look into it, as I'm on Amazon only because of chaeplin's guide, being my first adventure into linux and all. When MN's start payouts, I will have funds to further invest in my self-taught-sys-admin education

Until then, will let it roll, and head over to build a p2pool node, then I2P knowledge, etc...

TanteStefana · Jun 18, 2014

So I have my testnet wallet running 10.9.13, I didn't actually realize I forgot to update. And I sit down at my computer, and with amazement, my wallet is telling me "Hard Fork Alert: Masternode Payments begin on Friday. Please update! http://goo.gl/ucp4m7" Woot woot! Never new that was implemented, LOL. I can report it works!

Now I'm wondering if I'm on a fork? It's running a QT masternode, so i'm wonering If I'll be keeping those coins? I suspect not, LOL

TanteStefana · Jun 18, 2014

chaeplin said:
"ProcessMessage(dsee, 241 bytes) FAILED" are caused by old version clients.

Code:

Client version : 0.9.4.6 Client version : 0.9.4.11 Client version : 0.10.8.6 Client version : 0.10.8.11

Masternode entry is broadcasted to network.
And the relayed msg through the above clients cause ProcessMessage fail.

Networks can't be divided. If devided, two networks can't connect to each other.
(If devided, ProcessMessage fail will not appear)

EDIT: Turned out all old client.
Anyway, These old client will ban new client voluntarily, when they receive a block which has masternode payment.

Code:

/Satoshi:0.10.6.3/ /Satoshi:0.10.8.11/ /Satoshi:0.10.8.6/ /Satoshi:0.10.8.8/ /Satoshi:0.9.2.2/ /Satoshi:0.9.4.11/ /Satoshi:0.9.4.6/ /Satoshi:0.9.4.8/ /Satoshi:0.9.5.1/

But that's only on a forked blockchain, right? It has no effect on the proper block chain, no?

chaeplin · Jun 18, 2014

TanteStefana said:
But that's only on a forked blockchain, right? It has no effect on the proper block chain, no?

Yes, no effect on the proper block chain.

v0.10.9.x Help test RC2 forking issues

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

snogcel

Guest

Active member

snogcel

Guest

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member