moli
Well-known member
Oh my... forever funny fatung.... funnier each day! lol
Now you're really going to mix FORTY drk?
v0.11.0 - Darkcoin Core Release
- Thread starter eduffield
- Start date
Now you're really going to mix FORTY drk?
I saw this on BCT
"Where is the motivation to upgrade? I upgrade right away, don't get paid. Someone on v10 stays at v10, gets paid twice. "
this might have to be addresses at some point if we need/want faster upgrades
(thats why they hang around the old versions so long !!)
Edit:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg10224716#msg10224716
and onwards ....>
"Where is the motivation to upgrade? I upgrade right away, don't get paid. Someone on v10 stays at v10, gets paid twice. "
this might have to be addresses at some point if we need/want faster upgrades
(thats why they hang around the old versions so long !!)
Edit:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg10224716#msg10224716
and onwards ....>
Last edited by a moderator:
jpr
Well-known member
Answer: Do you even realize if you don't upgrade, the whole system will finally crash an you will loose your investment. So please be so kind and cooperate, you lazy, greedy fuck.
jpr
Well-known member
Had 2 MNs commit CPU seppuku overnight, daemons were still running but completely unresponsive and needed a killall to put them out of my misery before I could rm peers.dat and do a reindex. All those old versions out there pushing bad bits I suspect.
Why should I update my masternodes to a version that I know to be unstable? If I have x masternodes running perfectly well, why should I upgrade them to a version that seemingly kills them once or twice a day? Fingers crossed 11.10 has resolved this...people will start to update then.
EDIT: Why do you think old versions aren't booted from the network? Just in case the new version doesn't work?
That would actually be a big improvement over people either seeing what they wanted to see or not even bothering to look.
Main net is too fragmented. More structured testing and a better way of dealing with those too lazy to update are needed.
edit: And don't give me any hippie nonsense about 'OMG centralisation!' and 'You can't force people to do what you want!' - You bloody can and you certainly should enforce network compliance. :tongue:
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to agree to an extent. I've always diligently updated my MNs as soon as the latest versions are available. Sadly, all it seems to bring me is hassle and lost MN payments... Of course, the reason I stick to my policy of updating ASAP is because I want to 'do the right thing' for the good of the network. However, it must have cost me at least 25DRK of lost MN payments over the last six months. Small beer some may say but I can quite easily see how a less altruistic MN owner may look at such a situation and take the view that updating is costly and should be avoided if at all possible...!
It's a tricky situation...
Walter
Take it easy~ You know what i mean. And you are definitely have right to update or not. It's your Freedom. On the other hand, hat off to the ppl who update their MN on main net and contribute to the WHOLE Darkcoin network.
Edit:
btw, i own some MN on my hand to operate directly and some on flare's service. I appreciate that flare's professional service that try to protect the clients' interest by only updating from stable to stable. And i just update my side MN in every single version that release by the Dev.team. I think it's a way to show my support to their hard work.
Last edited by a moderator:
Now that I use a masternode hosting service I trust the judgement of that service on when they update my masternodes.
I don't really care about lost DRK, I care about testnet being improved so that this isn't even an issue. I decided to use a masternode hosting service when I was eating up into family time repeatedly updating my masternodes around release dates.
I appreciate that it is almost impossible to create a realistic test environment in testnet but surely there are improvements to be made to reduce the number of on the fly updates we see once a release hits main net?
Evan has mentioned that IX will be coming as part of a true Proof of Service implementation. Hopefully those nodes unable to prove their service compliance will be penalised.
Could every running client (regular users, MN ops, pools) check for the latest version and then if needed:
1. Issued a warning to the user: 'This software isdeprecated old and must be updated within 48hrs or it will cease to work.'
2. Cease to work after 48hrs.
I have mentioned checksums a few times. Is it possible for the client to verify itself as unmodified? Isn't that how a lot of games prevent cheating? Could we learn something from the gaming industry? - Run the right software or you don't get to play. Surely someone somewhere has already solved this problem?
Or clients are required to obtain verification from (up to date) Masternodes?
Running a Masternode is a job, it requires a commitment. That's why you get paid. Most jobs don't continue to pay you if you don't turn up/don't do the work...
Could every running client (regular users, MN ops, pools) check for the latest version and then if needed:
1. Issued a warning to the user: 'This software is
2. Cease to work after 48hrs.
I have mentioned checksums a few times. Is it possible for the client to verify itself as unmodified? Isn't that how a lot of games prevent cheating? Could we learn something from the gaming industry? - Run the right software or you don't get to play. Surely someone somewhere has already solved this problem?
Or clients are required to obtain verification from (up to date) Masternodes?
Running a Masternode is a job, it requires a commitment. That's why you get paid. Most jobs don't continue to pay you if you don't turn up/don't do the work...
Last edited by a moderator:
There are a number of problems that need addressing and if you arrange them into a hierarchy, the one that needs fixing first is main net release stability rather than enforcing updates onto potentially unstable releases. If 90% of our main net releases were stable then people would update quickly. Main net should never be used for testing intentionally or not.
This is weird. I'm off to work now to have pretty much the same discussion about a faulty release.
crowning
Well-known member
A lot of Masternode-owners never see a client or the output of their Masternodes.
I have a gamer-friend who hates the online-registration stuff. He always buys the games and waits until a no-internet, no-steam, no-you-name-it patch is available before he plays.
He never has to wait long...
That can be changed. And if the damn thing just shut itself down because it wasn't fit for work any more the operator might start to pay some attention.
Understood, but that doesn't mean that no effort should be made at all. Most of the useless DRM crap is imposed by publishers, not the game coders...
This is a currency, allowing anyone who pleases to bugger things up at will isn't a realistic approach.
I agree, it's probably not the top priority right now, I'm just voicing some notions.
jpr
Well-known member
Refusing to update the nodes is not helping us. Evan is the lead dev and this is the way he works. I can sacrifice 10 min a day to update my nodes even if I might loose a payment or 2, because my goal is not a few $ but to get thousands out of it. What is Evans motivation going to be if he see people refusing to cooperate.
Now I do understand and agree we need a bigger stronger testnet but as for now we do not have it and we should do as devs ask.
Peace.
Now I do understand and agree we need a bigger stronger testnet but as for now we do not have it and we should do as devs ask.
Peace.