v0.11.2.x Testing

UdjinM6 said:
I saw your question there but I have no answer for it. Yet. :wink: Here are some thoughts though...
We've been discussing p2pool-like solutions ("a secondary, short blockchain", "it holds a month's worth, or 3 rounds worth and dumps the older info to keep it short and sweet") inside dev team some time ago but hadn't yet come to conclusion if it really suits us afaik. Problem with another blockchain - someone has to mine it. And hashrate there must be enough to be at least as secure as main chain. We can make it merge-mined with main or smth like that however but it means same miners will produce consensus for sharing their own block reward with masternodes. And there's something wrong with that model imo. Or we can make it POS-like but I'm not sure how exactly. Also Evan proposed another model some time ago - storing limited MN list changes in blockchain or smth like this if I remember correctly. The idea there was that we can make every node on the network to be aware of the exact same MN list at any given point of time by utilizing the same blockchain. I'm still not sure which approach is better however.:confused:

I see no significant gain from "several masternodes functioning per round" other than making payments more even so people could sleep better :grin: for example for 4 MNs per block you'd get ~ 0.5 DASH almost every day at current MN count. Other than that.... I don't know. As for blockchain bloat - in that example with 4 MNs it means 5 outputs instead of 2 for "normal"-mined block and say 103 instead of 100 for p2pool-mined block (take this one for example http://explorer.dashninja.pl/tx/76ef1856f2c777c26adf95b90db9077bb4986d4079f150f38d67e510c4092f23 - 141(!) outputs). Not too much bloat imo.
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for taking the time to read ;P I'm sure it's all obvious to you guys, and that you will find an eloquent solution soon :D
 
You know what would be really cool? if we hosted the read-only page for viewing the budget-related stuff on the Masternode network.... for better or worse I cut over a small site of mine onto an Apache server running on vultr over the weekend, and it works quite well. A distributed network of Apache servers sharing hosting duties could be pretty awesome. My 75 - 100 hits per day isn't even making my node break a sweat, just sayin'... ;-)
 
TanteStefana said:
I tried using instantX on mainnet a few times today, and it never went through. Has it been inconsistent?
Click to expand...

I have saying this for days, I did message Dev's about it.
Things I noticed in the debug log,
masternode B rank out of range, masternode spamming network and 34% are still on version 0.11.2.22, so am thinking this will get sorted on the next much anticipated release (or not, lol)

MasternodePOS::mnse - MasternodeB ranking is too low
ProcessMessageInstantX::txlreq - masternode is spamming transaction votes: CTxIn(COutPoint
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top