v0.11.1.x InstantX Testing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Right new non of my wallets does InstantX...it fails everytime.

Need debug.log?

Edit: when I send from my Linux wallet to the Windows wallet I immediately get a notification that a transaction is coming in.

The other way around I not only get no notifiation, it doesn't seem to be broadcast at all...it never shows up outside the wallet.

Edit^2: Win-wallet shows walletversion 60001, Linux 61000 (yes, I already tried -upgradewallet).

Edit^3: finally (after several tries) -upgradewallet worked (both on 61000 now), but still no InstantX...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
About the GUI, I agree that the transaction tab can be improved later, BUT I think it is important to know at a glance of the overview screen (of the sender and reciever) whether or not instantX was successful. My fear is that with the current implementation "laymen" will not know that it worked so they will just assume it is not without even bothering checking the transaction screen.

Given that, Evan (or other devs) is it possible to change the grey symbol under recent transactions to say green (or maybe DRK's blue color) for a successful IX. That should be simple, right?

Then it is clear whether IX worked or not to everybody.
 
jpr said:
I vote to test this stuff for at least few more weeks!
Click to expand...
I don't agree. We all need to remember that Evan and the Dev's are the few people that know this code inside and out. Sure the lehman or lehwomen see's issues that to them are deal breakers or should have extensive amounts of testing done but in the end the guys writing the code know it the best and we need to trust their judgement. If they think the code is ready for mainnet I tend to agree with them.
 
I haven't tested v.11.1.13 yet but it seems v.11.1.11 (windows) has trouble to InstantX DS transactions that are larger than 226 bytes, it freezes the client and has to be shut down.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JGCMiner said:
About the GUI, I agree that the transaction tab can be improved later, BUT I think it is important to know at a glance of the overview screen (of the sender and reciever) whether or not instantX was successful. My fear is that with the current implementation "laymen" will not know that it worked so they will just assume it is not without even bothering checking the transaction screen.

Given that, Evan (or other devs) is it possible to change the grey symbol under recent transactions to say green (or maybe DRK's blue color) for a successful IX. That should be simple, right?

Then it is clear whether IX worked or not to everybody.
Click to expand...
I agree, something clearer is a must. This is a major technology that hasn't been done before, it should at least have a new spot that let's people see it's awesomeness. Whatever that spot may be...
 
Both wallets failed to receive an IX txs /11.1.13/

ix_13.jpg
 
Oh dear, hope Evan didn't go to sleep yet, LOL. Looks like something isn't working on the latest version?? I can't get IX to work either....
 
moli said:
Could you give more details. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I attempt an IX transaction from pc1 to pc2 and IX fails and uses standard block confirmations instead.

example transaction:

PC1 transaction status:
Status: 0/confirmed (InstantX verification in progress - 3 of 20 signatures ), broadcast through 5 node(s)

PC2 transaction status:
Status: 0/confirmed (InstantX verification in progress - 7 of 20 signatures )

-----------------------------------------------

This is as far as it ever gets with InstantX and eventually change status to "(InstantX verification failed)". The transaction will go through eventually after a normal amount of block confirmations. I hope this helps.

I am seeing type of behavior on all my windows PCs.
 
Yah, I don't think it's working for anyone right now. Something got buggered in the last version :p
 
Note: Both the v12 and v13 mac osx links do not work... I tried to post correct links but my account is too new.
 
DrkMNPortChecker appears to have a gigantic time offset, is its clock set to the wrong century? Also I got a Qt build environment set up, and I tried some IX tests, but currently I'm getting a verification failure (4 of 20 signatures after starting without any increase in signatures until timeout.
 
Again, my windows wallet (v.11.1.13) currently has 0 anon coins at 8 rounds, yet when I made IX transactions, it says "Darksent":

upload_2015-2-7_0-59-30.png


upload_2015-2-7_1-0-18.png
 
test.p2pool.masternode.io:18998 went down 9 hrs ago and there is a large fork !!!

{
"blocks" : 104179,
"currentblocksize" : 0,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.03581093,
"errors" : "Warning: The network does not appear to fully agree! Some miners appear to be experiencing issues.",
"genproclimit" : -1,
"networkhashps" : 2664695,
"pooledtx" : 2,
"testnet" : true,
"generate" : false,
"hashespersec" : 0
}

2015-02-07 10:49:15 CheckForkWarningConditions: Warning: Large valid fork found
forking the chain at height 104176 (00000002ad38cf8000b34c31cb99e2f33ba4abfc0e3db733316481877018a874)
lasting to height 104578 (0000000560d3e3d9fe59e4d8cf0aaac3f83efa7bff544914b572cacfc6f1726e).
Chain state database corruption likely.
2015-02-07 10:49:15 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
2015-02-07 10:49:15 CheckForkWarningConditions: Warning: Large valid fork found
forking the chain at height 104176 (00000002ad38cf8000b34c31cb99e2f33ba4abfc0e3db733316481877018a874)
lasting to height 104579 (000000064c4270608600a3a34218a6a84f7ce04aa738d880e781c0e334e97a7b).
Chain state database corruption likely.
2015-02-07 10:49:15 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
2015-02-07 10:49:15 CheckForkWarningConditions: Warning: Large valid fork found
forking the chain at height 104176 (00000002ad38cf8000b34c31cb99e2f33ba4abfc0e3db733316481877018a874)
lasting to height 104580 (000000036d8f3e51b85cb5b3184c909ca2be79b5175371b815b5d08a8cc093d4).
Chain state database corruption likely.
2015-02-07 10:49:15 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
2015-02-07 10:49:15 CheckForkWarningConditions: Warning: Large valid fork found
forking the chain at height 104176 (00000002ad38cf8000b34c31cb99e2f33ba4abfc0e3db733316481877018a874)
lasting to height 104581 (0000000638ea36af1d6bfa3488f66a460f2e0775a5b161f255b546bff6802fee).
Chain state database corruption likely.

So, who's going to hack into Evan's alarm clock and wake him up ;)
 
spatula said:
I attempt an IX transaction from pc1 to pc2 and IX fails and uses standard block confirmations instead.

example transaction:

PC1 transaction status:
Status: 0/confirmed (InstantX verification in progress - 3 of 20 signatures ), broadcast through 5 node(s)

PC2 transaction status:
Status: 0/confirmed (InstantX verification in progress - 7 of 20 signatures )

-----------------------------------------------

This is as far as it ever gets with InstantX and eventually change status to "(InstantX verification failed)". The transaction will go through eventually after a normal amount of block confirmations. I hope this helps.

I am seeing type of behavior on all my windows PCs.
Click to expand...
Was working fine 3 and 4 versions ago, but last 2 have caused forks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top