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

v0.10.15 - Onyx Release

moocowmoo said:
Keep seeing evans chart reposted on dct.
Was curious about higher masternode counts.
Even with most of today's outstanding DRK put into masternodes, the ROI is fantastic!
...just bought another. :)

eRbbSev.png
Click to expand...

What I think most people don't understand is that ROI is of the current value. The ROI doesn't change, but the dollar amount returned will continue to go up as the value of DRK goes up. So the yearly return may be $300 this year but $5,000 next year. As more people come to understand this, the more people will buy masternodes which will make this a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
cryptoyogi said:
What I think most people don't understand is that ROI is of the current value. The ROI doesn't change, but the dollar amount returned will continue to go up as the value of DRK goes up. So the yearly return may be $300 this year but $5,000 next year. As more people come to understand this, the more people will buy masternodes which will make this a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Click to expand...

I'm kind of worried that the MN share will be too much once the price will go up.
For mining you'll just have more miners, so it's self balancing (See BTC). But with the 1000 DRK needed there can only be so many MNs.
Don't get me wrong, I think raising the MN reward was a good idea to get closer to ~3000 MNs (can't remember the exact number evan stated as desireable).
I'm just not sure if the share MN holders will receive will be fair in the long run (with much higher prices :) )
Of course the MN stake of 1k DRK will also be worth a lot... Maybe it's a non-issue
It's just something that is nagging me from time to time...
I'll be more than happy if someone can allay my conerns :D
 
UdjinM6 said:
make sure you see correct version in getinfo output
Code: 
"version" : 101519,
Click to expand...

Yes I get the correct version listed in the getinfo output. When I updated to 101521 I get the same message and when I try to do "masternode start" command I get a safe mode error.
error: {"code":-2,"message":"Safe mode: Warning: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade."}
 
moli said:
The enforcement was switched on almost 3 days ago... They should pay more attention..
Click to expand...
Not only that, if you are going to run any sort of pool, you should be checking at least once a day to make sure you aren't forked, that your blocks aren't orphans, and any of the other issues that arise.
 
oblox said:
Not only that, if you are going to run any sort of pool, you should be checking at least once a day to make sure you aren't forked, that your blocks aren't orphans, and any of the other issues that arise.
Click to expand...

I agree! Our pool has been running Onyx 10.15.21 since Friday...
 
djcrypto said:
Yes I get the correct version listed in the getinfo output. When I updated to 101521 I get the same message and when I try to do "masternode start" command I get a safe mode error.
error: {"code":-2,"message":"Safe mode: Warning: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade."}
Click to expand...
I guess I was wrong about version issue. According to source code
Code: 
    // Longer invalid proof-of-work chain
    if (pindexBest && nBestInvalidWork > nBestChainWork + (pindexBest->GetBlockWork() * 6).getuint256())
    {
        nPriority = 2000;
        strStatusBar = strRPC = _("Warning: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade.");
    }
I think there is something wrong with your blockchain data. Try running darkcoind (or qt-wallet) with -reindex option.
 
David said:
At what block do the 30% rewards for MNs kick in?
Click to expand...

November 23rd

if(nHeight > 158000) ret += blockValue / 20; //25.0% - 2014-10-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*1)) ret += blockValue / 20; //30.0% - 2014-11-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*2)) ret += blockValue / 20; //35.0% - 2014-12-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*3)) ret += blockValue / 40; //37.5% - 2015-01-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*4)) ret += blockValue / 40; //40.0% - 2015-02-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*5)) ret += blockValue / 40; //42.5% - 2015-03-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*6)) ret += blockValue / 40; //45.0% - 2015-04-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*7)) ret += blockValue / 40; //47.5% - 2015-05-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*9)) ret += blockValue / 40; //50.0% - 2015-07-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*11)) ret += blockValue / 40; //52.5% - 2015-09-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*13)) ret += blockValue / 40; //55.0% - 2015-11-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*15)) ret += blockValue / 40; //57.5% - 2016-01-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*17)) ret += blockValue / 40; //60.0% - 2016-03-23
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I noticed that my qt-wallet is acting strange.
Sometimes it refuses to sync on first run and it syncs just fine on second run.
That looks like it stuck on wrong chain or something and then catch the right one.

Last time it happen just now and I was wondering what's going on so I issued getcheckpoint command
Code: 
getcheckpoint

{
"synccheckpoint" : "0000000000013405800ae1054ff5995798a65969bc095bbc667fcd65dbac57db",
"height" : 168537,
"timestamp" : 1415815968,
"subscribemode" : "enforce",
"enforcing" : "off"
}

enforcing is off...

Closed wallet and run it again (it synced), issued getcheckpoint and this time
Code: 
getcheckpoint

{
"synccheckpoint" : "00000000001077126c85b08589a571aefe4bd9c57cbecd06258d37511a07152b",
"height" : 168575,
"timestamp" : 1415822003,
"subscribemode" : "enforce",
"enforcing" : "on"
}

everything is fine...

This behavior is really confusing me and I guess a lot of newcomers could be confused even more.
So questions are:
Did someone else noticed the same behavior?
How can it be fixed?

EDIT: I'm on Mac OS 10.10 btw
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top