V12 Testing Thread

moli said:
Something is sticky... I clicked on "Reset Options", it restarted the wallet. Now I'm able to change the rounds and amount from the options screen and it does so on the wallet.
Click to expand...

Haha, I was just the opposite, I could make changes to the options screen but they didn't show up on the Overview page... restarted the wallets though and all is fine now :smile:
 
bertlebbert said:
Haha, I was just the opposite, I could make changes to the options screen but they didn't show up on the Overview page... restarted the wallets though and all is fine now :smile:
Click to expand...
Yes same here. Maybe I wasn't clear. I could change the numbers on the Options screen but it would not change on the Overview. So I thought maybe the "Reset" button would change the Overview page but instead it reset and restarted the wallet.. lol .. That was what I meant to tell you :)

And because I was running 3 wallets on the same puter, it made my other two wallets to restart also when I tried to click on a tab on those two wallets.
 
moli said:
Yes same here. Maybe I wasn't clear. I could change the numbers on the Options screen but it would not change on the Overview. So I thought maybe the "Reset" button would change the Overview page but instead it reset and restarted the wallet.. lol .. That was what I meant to tell you :)

And because I was running 3 wallets on the same puter, it made my other two wallets to restart also when I tried to click on a tab on those two wallets.
Click to expand...

Sometimes if you change those Rounds and Amount settings in one wallet, then on a restart the other wallet will also change to those settings...
 
Your last block was over an hr ago, I will leave 1 meg on over night and hope that Udjin is not upset with me by the morning :wink:
 
Hey :),
DS is failing for me, it gives me "DarkSend Idle" and keeps restarting, no funds denominated; any tips?

Pablo.
 
Lukas_Jackson said:
8 rounds / 510 coins. I had 7 rounds not so long ago and now I have astonishing 19 :eek:

Sjfhfkw.jpg
Click to expand...
That's an old issue I still have to look at...

moli said:
UdjinM6 - On his post, https://dashtalk.org/threads/v12-testing-thread.5484/page-25#post-57793, Evan said:

What does that mean? I thought you guys removed the DS messages but didn't?
Click to expand...

MSG_ENTRIES_ADDED is an ID of a message. So we don't send messages itself but IDs and then we get the message by ID on client. MSG_ENTRIES_ADDED ID/message pair wasn't implemented correctly.

Sub-Ether said:
Your last block was over an hr ago, I will leave 1 meg on over night and hope that Udjin is not upset with me by the morning :wink:
Click to expand...

Yep, throw some hashes on testnet, we need blockchain moving and I have nothing to debug on miners side afaik :grin:
 
eduffield said:
- Removed PoSe due to consensus issues - eduffield
Click to expand...

does this affect: http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-...issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-10489 ?

Will users still be able to bind multiple 1k inputs to a single ip? There are several currently on mainnet.

Code: 
$ darkcoind masternode list | grep ENABLED | sort | uniq -c | sort
...snip...
      2     "124.244.253.110:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "179.43.128.135:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "179.43.128.204:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "179.43.128.218:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "185.77.129.120:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "185.77.129.128:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "185.77.129.136:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "185.77.129.156:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "185.77.129.157:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "185.77.129.162:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "185.77.129.185:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "185.77.129.26:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "185.77.129.61:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "185.77.129.71:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "185.77.129.79:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "185.77.129.94:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "37.157.250.18:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "37.157.250.20:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "37.157.250.26:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "37.157.250.37:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "37.157.253.65:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "46.228.193.110:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "46.228.193.112:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "46.228.193.113:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "46.228.193.120:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "46.228.193.121:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "46.228.193.93:9999" : "ENABLED",
      2     "46.228.193.96:9999" : "ENABLED",
      3     "179.43.128.208:9999" : "ENABLED",
      3     "37.157.253.66:9999" : "ENABLED",
      3     "46.228.193.115:9999" : "ENABLED",
 
Would it make sense to create a couple of DS Liquidity Provider MN's, who's only function would be to atomatically ping pong each other demonimated amounts at high frequency in semi-randomized sync?

This would create a faux-DS-mempool super highway of sorts, and real DS would jump straight into and increase efficiency.
 
yidakee said:
Would it make sense to create a couple of DS Liquidity Provider MN's, who's only function would be to atomatically ping pong each other demonimated amounts at high frequency in semi-randomized sync?

This would create a faux-DS-mempool super highway of sorts, and real DS would jump straight into and increase efficiency.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see all masternodes have the option of a small deposit that is consistently mixed on some random intervals.
More noise to hide the signals in.
 
moocowmoo said:
I'd like to see all masternodes have the option of a small deposit that is consistently mixed on some random intervals.
More noise to hide the signals in.
Click to expand...

This could very well be a blockchain governance project. Multi-sig funds that could not be hijacked, just cover the participating node's mixing fee.

.
 
yidakee said:
This could very well be a blockchain governance project. Multi-sig funds that could not be hijacked, just cover the participating node's mixing fee.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the node would have to move the funds to mix them so multisig is out of the question.
But, it could be made more secure by only loading the second key into ram at time of startup...
 
fible1 said:
Initial Suggestions:

1. I don't think Darksend should be "on" (box ticked) by default. It takes a while to mix funds and when you get the wallet up for the first time and want to send a payment it gives you an error because you have no DS funds ready (naturally); this is an easy fix and will greatly reduce first time user friction.

2. I think Coin Control should be on by default, I had to go hunt for it in settings. If I recall correctly previous wallets had coin control available from the start. I think the risk of newbie users mucking something up with CC is low and it's an important feature many newbies who will need it will not know about unless they go trolling in settings.

:)

Pablo.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with 1) but completely disagree with 2)

A newbie taking a peek at coin control will freak out. Change addresses are confusing as they are and a potential disaster for incremental backups. Without CC, things seem and feel much much simpler and straight forward.

What I would absolutely love to see would be an option to insert non-darksend fixed change address somewhere in options that doesn't reset on shut-down. That could eventaully be extended to specific sub-fixed-change addresses to specific inputs. That would be coin control heaven.

.
 
moocowmoo said:
Unfortunately the node would have to move the funds to mix them so multisig is out of the question.
But, it could be made more secure by only loading the second key into ram at time of startup...
Click to expand...

Couldn't the multi-sig authorizationit be done with a second layer collateral fund with dasrksenproviderprivkey= in config file? Then, participating MN could even receive a dividend from the applied mixing fees as compensation?
 
Been running DS for about 14 hours, still "idle", not a single tDash mixed.

Pablo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top