Search results

Good to know before I update my MN to 0.10.15.16 which sounds like addressing this problem according Evan's comment. That may be still the case if it takes time for the excessive Masternode announcement messages to quiet down. Could you check the version by getinfo? I got the wrong version with...

Evan, we are still seeing MN's showing up multiple times on the 0.10.15.15 masternode list command: % darkcoind masternode list | sort | uniq -c | grep -v '^[^"]*1' 3 "37.46.114.158:9999" : 1, 2 "37.46.114.175:9999" : 1, 3 "37.46.114.244:9999" : 1, 3...

What is he spoofing?

And, IP address 37.46.114.158 is associated with the address XvH3qoo6F8c9yLCunVaAFt1rY7xj8ngXji which I mentioned in message #384. EDIT: BTW, I'm running 0.10.15.14 with the enforcement patch if that matters.

I ran uniq with "-c" so the first number is number of occurrence. 37.46.114.158 appears three times in the masternode list output.

I just ran this: % darkcoind masternode list | sort | uniq -c | grep --color -v '^ *1' 3 "37.46.114.158:9999" : 1, 2 "37.46.114.244:9999" : 1, 2 "37.46.114.245:9999" : 1, 2 "37.46.114.58:9999" : 1, 2 "37.46.114.66:9999" : 1, 2 "37.46.114.76:9999" : 1...

This makes sense to me assuming nobody is capable of controlling the main chain.

I'm still a believer in DRK. I should have been following the development but my personal life was keeping me busy for the past few weeks.

Just another question. In theory, another enforcement can be applied by pool operators if they decide not to pay the MN's even after our enforcement. Sorry, I know I have many stupid questions. If the operator decide to have his own PROTOCOL_VERSION whether it is a fake one or a real one that is...

Great, with the source code, I think many are starting their own enforcement now.

XvH3qoo6F8c9yLCunVaAFt1rY7xj8ngXji is still getting innmlist and not_detected MN payments that was supposed to be paid to other MN's.

Oh, sorry for my ignorance. I did not know that address is the famous 0.10.14 exploit. I did not see another one that is doing exactly the same thing but I think someone else is doing the same thing with 1000 DRK in his/her wallet to steal others' payments. Let me look up that address again and...

I actually mentioned this three times on this thread already. I should have said this is a serious exploit at the beginning to get better attention. EDIT: Oh, I remember the first time I mentioned this. Someone said it was a miner refuse to pay. But, I replied that drk.mn reports this is a MN...

Go to http://drk.mn/blocks.html and search XwzmEE1cJ6HG84CgJvAt7ADmJ8W9Wh65Tq under Blocks Detail (last 24h). You will find this address received so many MN payments without 1000 DRK.

That's only true if people cannot cheat on the 1000 DRK requirement. However, we are seeing some addresses getting MN payment without the 1000 DRK requirement.

Is there any hard limit on the number of pools/mn's? I think having pools and masternodes are just the same. What we need is one single decentralized pool which make sure no one can cheat by having many pools/mn's. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I'm just asking a theoretical question. In practice, we will always see some exploits.

Can the miner still cheat by having his/her own customized MN?

I like the the idea but how we can migrate from centralized pools to fogpool? If I understand it correctly, the network can split if the miners don't agree.

I re-downloaded the blockchain data leaving only the wallet.dat and darkcoin.conf and other hidden files in .darkcoin directory. Then, it did not get disconnected for the past 24 hrs. But, it hasn't got any paid yet. I missed the long discussion in the past 24 hrs. So, I am not sure if someone...