v0.10.9.x Help test RC2 forking issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
donho said:
You could sign the 1000DRK Masternode address to an IP. Once they get moved or signed to another IP the first one gets removed from the masternode list.
No problem. No can of worms ;)
Click to expand...
That's like the actual procedure, but for the cold storage ?
The masternode must check the amount in the "cold" address and it must be proved that this address belongs to the MN owner.
Code: 
if address checked amount < 1000
{
    The MN is invalid and can't start
}
else if address doesn't belong to MN owner
{
    The MN is invalid and can't start
}
else
{
     The MN is valid and can start
}
Or,
Code: 
if (address checked amount > 1000 && address belongs to MN owner)
{
    The MN is valid and can start
}
else
{
    The MN is invalid and can't start
}
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kai said:
Authorizing the cold storage for a MN is, in my opinion, a big can of worms. Using a remote setup server---->server instead of local----->server seems to be, for me, the best solution.

What prevents somebody to move around the funds, and create 10 MN with the same 1000 DRK.
If the address is monitored with a new parameter like "coldaddress=Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx", what prevents somebody to use an address, which does not belong to him, but with the right amount to setup a masternode ?
Click to expand...

I think it could be simply done by the wallet address. Easily checked and as long as the funds are still there, the master node can continue to function, if the funds are moved, then the system should know immediately. After all, the blockchain does.

Cold storage means nothing. It just means it's off line, but the account and it's contents are known by anyone with a blockchain.

You start your masternode with the funded wallet giving authority as we do now, but once that's done, there is no need to have the wallet online. If the funds are moved, the masternode can be shut down,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TanteStefana said:
I think it could be simply done by the wallet address. Easily checked and as long as the funds are still there, the master node can continue to function, if the funds are moved, then the system should know immediately. After all, the blockchain does.

Cold storage means nothing. It just means it's off line, but the account and it's contents are known by anyone with a blockchain.

You start your masternode with the funded wallet giving authority as we do now, but once that's done, there is no need to have the wallet online. If the funds are moved, the masternode can be shut down,
Click to expand...
In that case we must find a way to prove the ownership of that address. Otherwise, what keeps somebody to use any address with 1000+ DRK to a setup a MN. (sorry for the off topic)
 
AlexGR said:
If someone hacks a client to show correct protocol version but has mismatching behavior (due to being different), can he sabotage the network?
Click to expand...

Somebody should probably hack up a daemon to try intentionally breaking things on testnet, to make sure all types of misbehavior is detected for node banning. Also, the github source is still at v9.5.3
 
Last edited by a moderator:
stable binary
Code: 
darktest@sv2:~/bin> ll
-rw-r--r-- 1 darktest users 53405738 Jun  6 01:23 darkcoind

darktest@sv2:~/bin> strip darkcoind
darktest@sv2:~/bin> ll
-rw-r--r-- 1 darktest users 6686208 Jun  6 14:25 darkcoind

-rw-r--r-- 1 darktest users 6.4M Jun  6 14:25 darkcoind
 
Explorer seems to be stuck at Block 14344 since 24hours
Whereas http://tdrk.poolhash.org/ is at 14872 - same as my nodes
Isn't 23.23.186.131 supposed to be the checkpoint master? Is just abe output incorrect or is the daemon really stuck?

In the meantime voting system has reached equilibrium again - seems each update to masternodes takes some time to propagate through the network :smile:

Code: 
Blockheight    Pubkey    Votes
14867    fQ8f51bZQ1NaQ7H1q2m5iSbKWVWKGd2b9    6
14868    esmt4Uw9ZH3UyvtxiKqZe4RCR77VHBK8o    5
14869    gCkN5y3FYXn7ZjcVhHLLsa726qDHTpMpA    4
14870    RwR5f5bwbcUTuwhA7yTYuC7yYxJTS2BpP    3
14871    TJq8ec6initP2SJqr5Ymi2wfi4kbypXR4    2
14872    ZjyiAjbn2UHVq2zoCguPcT1pGLZhH6BkW    1
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kai said:
Otherwise, what keeps somebody to use any address with 1000+ DRK to a setup a MN. (sorry for the off topic)
Click to expand...
That they cannot prove possession of the private keys without providing a valid signature (or disclosing the keys themselves :eek:, edit: or solving a challenge). That's the most fundamental thing of cryptos, guys. If there wasn't a way to determine who owns what, how would a cryptocurrency even work? :what:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Question to Masternode owner on testnet.

Have you opened port 19999 ?

1) VM user : allow port 19999 from outside.
2) Home and NAT user : port forwarding 19999 to internel ip and 19999
 
chaeplin said:
Question to Masternode owner on testnet.

Have you opened port 19999 ?

1) VM user : allow port 19999 from outside.
2) Home and NAT user : port forwarding 19999 to internel ip and 19999
Click to expand...

I dont know if that is for me chaeplin, I will try this morning to have 2x local.online VM wallets -> 2 EC2 Masternode - if I can fix my "not capable masternode" issue

But right now I'm only remote on EC2

Problem is, one of my nodes started "not capable masternode" as soon as I updated from 10.9.3 to 10.9.4.
Didnt do anything, except send 1k to my second node to activate it. It kept on working fine until I updated. Wallet still has 1k @ address 0.

So I decided to start fresh, stopped daemon, backep up wallet, the "sudo rm -r .darkcoin", reinstalled, stopped darkcoin, copied the backup testnet wallet to /.darkcoin/testnet3/

Same thing... I'm getting this

ubuntu@ip-172-31-23-208:~/.darkcoin$ darkcoind masternode start
not capable masternode
Click to expand...

getbalance = 9075.40000000

ubuntu@ip-172-31-23-208:~/.darkcoin$ darkcoind listaddressgroupings
[
[
[
"moLhAGqnkxN5K9ptRrPbhrCMHDhyr7YGUg",
75.40000000,
"0"
]
],
[
[
"mg5uov3yz3fZPNKzVujfCXezyA6UvZTVc9",
9000.00000000
],
[
"n2kqAZWuLjRpBMKniJ6F85TFjSo1UPPESy",
0.00000000,
""
]
]
]
Click to expand...

But, 1k was there!

{
"account" : "0",
"address" : "moLhAGqnkxN5K9ptRrPbhrCMHDhyr7YGUg",
"category" : "receive",
"amount" : 1000.00000000,
"confirmations" : 525,
"blockhash" : "00000000780ebd38f04fc6346b53cbed1f1dce145a04dea16f1dbb0e0462eeb1",
"blockindex" : 1,
"blocktime" : 1401964089,
"txid" : "c31cd8dd362d4bb53a44a369051f00ca2eacd9e84071e1d70493456424c058b5",
"time" : 1401963977,
"timereceived" : 1401963977
},
{
"account" : "",
"address" : "moLhAGqnkxN5K9ptRrPbhrCMHDhyr7YGUg",
"category" : "send",
"amount" : -1000.00000000,
"fee" : 0.00000000,
"confirmations" : 525,
"blockhash" : "00000000780ebd38f04fc6346b53cbed1f1dce145a04dea16f1dbb0e0462eeb1",
"blockindex" : 1,
"blocktime" : 1401964089,
"txid" : "c31cd8dd362d4bb53a44a369051f00ca2eacd9e84071e1d70493456424c058b5",
"time" : 1401963977,
"timereceived" : 1401963977
},
Click to expand...

Here is the 1k sendtoadddress 0 of my second node. It was not sent from address 0 account as you can see
"account" : "",
"address" : "mkvupfUxpTTQmH9eaQqDPn8X4XH7FXwg8K",
"category" : "send",
"amount" : -1000.00000000,
"fee" : 0.00000000,
"confirmations" : 386,
"blockhash" : "0000000044e5f9badfc9291556c7862ed84263c3d741052f55b9bd51a05a51a4",
"blockindex" : 1,
"blocktime" : 1401986301,
"txid" : "53019166acf119648cc5a8ba312aa447e86fd2f993ce669bde69de0c74500377",
"time" : 1401986246,
"timereceived" : 1401986246
},
Click to expand...

So there is absolutely no apparent reason why this MN would not be valid. Whats wrong here?
Checked on the testnet explorer, and the balances dont check - and I'm on the right fork!

http://184.73.179.148:1234/address/moLhAGqnkxN5K9ptRrPbhrCMHDhyr7YGUg

On closer inspection, it seems 1000 DRK was sent from address "0" to my second node, but it shows up and "not yet redeemed"

onXSr9X.png


That address is the Address "0" of my second node. How can that be? If you check above, the real address is NOT the address "0" for first masternode.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
chaeplin said:
3 "subver" : "/Satoshi:0.10.9.3/",
25 "subver" : "/Satoshi:0.10.9.4/",
1 "subver" : "/Satoshi:0.9.4.11/",
5 "subver" : "/Satoshi:0.9.5.3/",

http://tdrk.poolhash.org/blocks/subver.txt
Click to expand...

Code: 
~/.darkcoin$ ./darkcoind getpeerinfo | grep subver | sort -V | uniq -c
      3         "subver" : "/Satoshi:0.9.4.11/",
      3         "subver" : "/Satoshi:0.9.5.3/",
      1         "subver" : "/Satoshi:0.10.7.3/",
      1         "subver" : "/Satoshi:0.10.9.3/",
     30         "subver" : "/Satoshi:0.10.9.4/",
 
I managed to start my first node again by re-sending myself 1000 DRK to the same address 0.

I still don't understand how what happened. I had 10.000 DRK balance, and sent myself 1k to addr=0 to activate node, once active I sent 1k from first node to second node addr=0.

I would appreciate if someone could explain it to me, what I did wrong?
 
Kai said:
That's like the actual procedure, but for the cold storage ?
The masternode must check the amount in the "cold" address and it must be proved that this address belongs to the MN owner.
Code: 
if address checked amount < 1000
{
    The MN is invalid and can't start
}
else if address doesn't belong to MN owner
{
    The MN is invalid and can't start
}
else
{
     The MN is valid and can start
}
Or,
Code: 
if (address checked amount > 1000 && address belongs to MN owner)
{
    The MN is valid and can start
}
else
{
    The MN is invalid and can't start
}
Click to expand...
Yeah of course that's how it's done now. But non of these steps requires (theoretically) the wallet with the 1000Drk to be online. The blockchain knows wheter the funds have been moved or not! The signing of the funds to the ip must be stored in the network then there will be no need for the wallet fund to br online!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top