• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

RC4 issues, bugs & feature requests

Status
Not open for further replies.
RC3 payment system was live for 1.5 month and was working 95% good all the time - and beside some

If we can somehow create a model where miners (PoW) and masternodes (PoSVC) mine independently from eachother, we will even have a solution for further payments for "DarkTor" relays and exit nodes. The current approach (divide PoW reward) seems not flexible enough to achieve this.

I had a similar notion earlier that I posted on BCT:

One possible solution that occurs to me would be a slight change to the X11 algo to go with the update for the rest of us, but that's a big undertaking. Or maybe it isn't, I don't know? If the algo changes then pools/p2pool would have to update for their mined blocks to be considered valid by the network, and the algo itself could include a MN fee check... but at this point I am speculating way above my pay grade...
tongue.gif
 
I had a similar notion earlier that I posted on BCT:

One possible solution that occurs to me would be a slight change to the X11 algo to go with the update for the rest of us, but that's a big undertaking. Or maybe it isn't, I don't know? If the algo changes then pools/p2pool would have to update for their mined blocks to be considered valid by the network, and the algo itself could include a MN fee check... but at this point I am speculating way above my pay grade...
tongue.gif
Yep, saw that - same idea: intrinsic masternode payouts.

During one of my long jogs i thought about something like your modified X11 algo, where miners are dependant on a token from the masternodes to finalize their Proof the Work. But i came to the conclusion that it would introduce another attack/spoof vector.

The current solution (miners share their reward) has the benefit to be simple, but is dependant on good actors. And as you wrote: Changing this is a big undertaking, regardess wether you change the algorithm, add another "Proof-of"-Layer or other changes to the Darkcoin blockchain logic.

I read the TorCoin/TorPath paper, and really like the approach for a Proof-of-Bandwidth algorithm for paying incentives to the exit nodes. The difference between TorCoin and Darkcoin is that Darkcoin is already live, and the coins are not mined by the masternodes, but the miners.

Nevertheless we will need to think about a model which enables us for more complex payout model when we turn to "DarkTor".

Lots of things to consider to find the right trade off between technically possible and economically necessary :)
 
Yep, saw that - same idea: intrinsic masternode payouts.

During one of my long jogs i thought about something like your modified X11 algo, where miners are dependant on a token from the masternodes to finalize their Proof the Work. But i came to the conclusion that it would introduce another attack/spoof vector.

The current solution (miners share their reward) has the benefit to be simple, but is dependant on good actors. And as you wrote: Changing this is a big undertaking, regardess wether you change the algorithm, add another "Proof-of"-Layer or other changes to the Darkcoin blockchain logic.

I read the TorCoin/TorPath paper, and really like the approach for a Proof-of-Bandwidth algorithm for paying incentives to the exit nodes. The difference between TorCoin and Darkcoin is that Darkcoin is already live, and the coins are not mined by the masternodes, but the miners.

Nevertheless we will need to think about a model which enables us for more complex payout model when we turn to "DarkTor".

Lots of things to consider to find the right trade off between technically possible and economically necessary :)
What about having some form of PoService p2pool running on the Masternodes, with each MN 'mining' on it?

edit: I have absolutely no idea how this might be integrated with regular mining. :eek:
 
What about having some form of PoService p2pool running on the Masternodes, with each MN 'mining' on it?

edit: I have absolutely no idea how this might be integrated with regular mining. :eek:
Yep, my first thought as well - will not satisfy our requirements:

a) ~ 20% of PoW coin supply distributed to active masternodes
b) independent of no. of masternodes
c) minor effect on maximum total coin supply
d) fork proof
 
Yep, saw that - same idea: intrinsic masternode payouts.

During one of my long jogs i thought about something like your modified X11 algo, where miners are dependant on a token from the masternodes to finalize their Proof the Work. But i came to the conclusion that it would introduce another attack/spoof vector.

Proof of Stake for Masternodes.

POS is an existing and well tested technology used by dozens of cryptocurrencies.

Only Masternodes are allowed to do it with a fixed stake of 1000 DRK.

Define the interest percentage in such a way that each masternode gets 1 DRK (or whatever else seems reasonable) per day.
 
Proof of Stake for Masternodes.

POS is an existing and well tested technology used by dozens of cryptocurrencies.

Only Masternodes are allowed to do it with a fixed stake of 1000 DRK.

Define the interest percentage in such a way that each masternode gets 1 DRK (or whatever else seems reasonable) per day.
I think the headache lies in the integration with the existing PoW scheme.

If the mining software (pools and p2pool) could be modified to require some MN stamp of approval before being committed to the blockchain that would do it, but I don't know enough to venture how that might be accomplished.

One (truly terrible) thought I had was that MNs could mine/stake/PoS a different coin altogether, perhaps MNDRK, which would be required to purchase services from the MN network. Set a 1:1 exchange rate somehow between MNDRK and DRK and require clients to pay in MNDRK for anonymisation of coins, messages, bandwidth, hosting etc.
 
What if we split the MN voting system from mining. I mean, couldn't we use only one and the same address to collect every 20% block reward and then (and later) to send the funds from this address to selected MN on a regular time basis, randomly or by some algorithm? For example - every time when funds exceed 1DRK, we'll send exactly 1DRK to a MN. I don't know if there is a way to measure the masternode's provided proof-of service, but if there is, we can make a MN reward "waiting list" based on that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What if we split the MN voting system from mining. I mean, couldn't we use only one and the same address to collect every 20% block reward and then (and later) to send the funds from this address to selected MN on a regular time basis, randomly or by some algorithm? For example - every time when funds exceed 1DRK, we'll send exactly 1DRK to a MN. I don't know if there is a way to measure the masternode's provided proof-of service, but if there is, we can make a MN reward "waiting list" based on that.

That would require centralization--one single point of failure.
 
Does anyone have tips for troubleshooting DarkSends that aren't going through? In particular, on the testnet, if there is any difference (e.g. due to fewer master nodes or peers).

I've had a couple clients running overnight that have stalled out. One got through much or all of the splitting phase, but stopped there. The other one hasn't made any progress.

Client 1:
first address: mtobea1SsdewQgqm9JYqGevjk5ybTS1sVk
total balance: 81836 DRK
listaddressgroupings [ [ [ "mveY8aiUq2d3GTZMbGhu8z8VisosTKVLXA", 279.81250000 ], [ "mr7wd1wYnQTYSJisux46kmwR2NV38ba7oa", 29540.18750000 ], [ "mtobea1SsdewQgqm9JYqGevjk5ybTS1sVk", 52000.00000000, "" ], [ "muFkXtY344NWnKxnzNaW7RkgmAetrkbbcG", 16.00000000 ] ] ]

(partially or fully complete with splitting, anonymized balance is 0 DRK)

Client 2:
mnHm5UR6n7G5KmX9Tcx4LtcABwK6GubP65 (balance: 164 DRK)
darksend rounds to use: 1
amount of darkcoin to keep anonymized: 100 DRK (previously tried 161 DRK)

(no transactions, thus 0 DRK anonymized)

Both clients are connected to the network, fully caught up with the blockchain, and DarkSend is not disabled. On the first client, it seems to be intermittently doing some work trying to connect to master nodes/peers. The second client seems to just sit idle.

I'd like to be able to determine whether I can spin up testnet master nodes or peers that will help complete the transations, or whether there is just a software bug that prevents it from going through.
 
Does anyone have tips for troubleshooting DarkSends that aren't going through? In particular, on the testnet, if there is any difference (e.g. due to fewer master nodes or peers).

I've had a couple clients running overnight that have stalled out. One got through much or all of the splitting phase, but stopped there. The other one hasn't made any progress.

Client 1:
first address: mtobea1SsdewQgqm9JYqGevjk5ybTS1sVk
total balance: 81836 DRK
listaddressgroupings [ [ [ "mveY8aiUq2d3GTZMbGhu8z8VisosTKVLXA", 279.81250000 ], [ "mr7wd1wYnQTYSJisux46kmwR2NV38ba7oa", 29540.18750000 ], [ "mtobea1SsdewQgqm9JYqGevjk5ybTS1sVk", 52000.00000000, "" ], [ "muFkXtY344NWnKxnzNaW7RkgmAetrkbbcG", 16.00000000 ] ] ]

(partially or fully complete with splitting, anonymized balance is 0 DRK)

Client 2:
mnHm5UR6n7G5KmX9Tcx4LtcABwK6GubP65 (balance: 164 DRK)
darksend rounds to use: 1
amount of darkcoin to keep anonymized: 100 DRK (previously tried 161 DRK)

(no transactions, thus 0 DRK anonymized)

Both clients are connected to the network, fully caught up with the blockchain, and DarkSend is not disabled. On the first client, it seems to be intermittently doing some work trying to connect to master nodes/peers. The second client seems to just sit idle.

I'd like to be able to determine whether I can spin up testnet master nodes or peers that will help complete the transations, or whether there is just a software bug that prevents it from going through.

Hi, Mr. Atlas,

I have no clue how to troubleshoot Darksend, but I think because there's no one else on testnet, the anonymizing tends to halt because you have no one else mixing coins to pair with (that's my understanding). If you can send me 2000 tdrk, I can get my wallet on testnet. Here's my address:

n2PU5zhzhTqwm67uk1L1uM2teoghM7B3xq

Thank you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anyone have tips for troubleshooting DarkSends that aren't going through? In particular, on the testnet, if there is any difference (e.g. due to fewer master nodes or peers).

I've had a couple clients running overnight that have stalled out. One got through much or all of the splitting phase, but stopped there. The other one hasn't made any progress.

Client 1:
first address: mtobea1SsdewQgqm9JYqGevjk5ybTS1sVk
total balance: 81836 DRK
listaddressgroupings [ [ [ "mveY8aiUq2d3GTZMbGhu8z8VisosTKVLXA", 279.81250000 ], [ "mr7wd1wYnQTYSJisux46kmwR2NV38ba7oa", 29540.18750000 ], [ "mtobea1SsdewQgqm9JYqGevjk5ybTS1sVk", 52000.00000000, "" ], [ "muFkXtY344NWnKxnzNaW7RkgmAetrkbbcG", 16.00000000 ] ] ]

(partially or fully complete with splitting, anonymized balance is 0 DRK)

Client 2:
mnHm5UR6n7G5KmX9Tcx4LtcABwK6GubP65 (balance: 164 DRK)
darksend rounds to use: 1
amount of darkcoin to keep anonymized: 100 DRK (previously tried 161 DRK)

(no transactions, thus 0 DRK anonymized)

Both clients are connected to the network, fully caught up with the blockchain, and DarkSend is not disabled. On the first client, it seems to be intermittently doing some work trying to connect to master nodes/peers. The second client seems to just sit idle.

I'd like to be able to determine whether I can spin up testnet master nodes or peers that will help complete the transations, or whether there is just a software bug that prevents it from going through.

Testnet usage of Darksend has died down and it's shifted to mainnet. I don't think it's a bug, it's just there's no one that has your combination of denominations to merge with. You have a couple of options:

1.) Start a second client and anonymize the same amount. They'll seek each other out and should work fine.
2.) I'm going to be starting testing of RC5 in the next day or two on testnet. This will bring a lot of users back to testnet and you should have parties to join with again.
 
1.) Start a second client and anonymize the same amount. They'll seek each other out and should work fine.

Hey Evan, thanks so much for taking the time to respond. I bet what's happening is, although my darksend settings are identical for both clients, the current pools of funds don't match up in terms of compatibility, so I'll match them up. Probably wouldn't hurt for me to run a testnet MN as well.

In the future, I'd suggest that the testnet be supplied with a healthy number of peers and master nodes at all times for researchers. Perhaps I can add that to documentation of my tips for crypto-currencies to ensure that their currency is friendly to researchers. :)
 
Hey Evan, thanks so much for taking the time to respond. I bet what's happening is, although my darksend settings are identical for both clients, the current pools of funds don't match up in terms of compatibility, so I'll match them up. Probably wouldn't hurt for me to run a testnet MN as well.

In the future, I'd suggest that the testnet be supplied with a healthy number of peers and master nodes at all times for researchers. Perhaps I can add that to documentation of my tips for crypto-currencies to ensure that their currency is friendly to researchers. :)

Hey Kristov, I will get my multiple testnet wallets going and continuously add funds so that people can always denominate/anonymize - great tip :)
 
Hey Evan, thanks so much for taking the time to respond. I bet what's happening is, although my darksend settings are identical for both clients, the current pools of funds don't match up in terms of compatibility, so I'll match them up. Probably wouldn't hurt for me to run a testnet MN as well.

In the future, I'd suggest that the testnet be supplied with a healthy number of peers and master nodes at all times for researchers. Perhaps I can add that to documentation of my tips for crypto-currencies to ensure that their currency is friendly to researchers. :)

Well, here is a call to arms, please follow this thread for temporary testnet activity: Get back on testnet!
 
Is anyone else running a windows qt wallet on Server 2008R2? The same wallet that runs fine under windows 7 s;lows to a crawl on Server2008. Could it be because of the 32-bit code? This has happned for both the RC and 9.X versions. I'm currently running .32, and the problem persists.

Any thoughts?
 
Guys can anybody tell me what are this small 0,0025 inputs on my wallet? I haven`t done anything, is it aa denomination fee from other ppl or what?
screen: http://scr.hu/1ame/3r7wv
 
Guys can anybody tell me what are this small 0,0025 inputs on my wallet? I haven`t done anything, is it aa denomination fee from other ppl or what?
screen: http://scr.hu/1ame/3r7wv
These are prepared ahead-of-time tx fees - the wallet is not even preparing denominations, but also 0.0025 inputs for denomination fees.

EDIT: Hmm, from the screenshot it seems that these are mined, is this correct?
 
Flare can I spend them anyway?
Thnx for response. You`re always here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top