Welcome to the Dash Forum!

Please sign up to discuss the most innovative cryptocurrency!

12.1 Testnet Testing Phase Two Ignition

Discussion in 'Testing' started by eduffield, Sep 26, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AndyDark

    AndyDark Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2014
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    691
    Trophy Points:
    163
    on the governance changes in 12.1, the advanced functions are there, we're just not using the advanced features yet. is more like foundational changes that needed to be done ready for Evolution. there's a lot of improvements outside of just governance in 12.1 though
     
  2. AndyDark

    AndyDark Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2014
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    691
    Trophy Points:
    163
    hey @camosoul which version was that, did it include setting up a MySQL instance? (because that's gone now)
     
  3. snogcel

    snogcel Well-known Member
    Dash Core Team Foundation Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    203
    Thanks @fible1! It's honestly been a little bit of a challenge to find a good way to frame budget proposal start/stop times. I like the idea of relating it to voting (trying to make this easier for non-dash-nerds, no offense intended to any of us lol). I've adjusted the verbiage to "Voting Deadline", do you guys think this is clear?

    Thanks @AjM! Going to see what we can do about this one.

    Thanks @TanteStefana! If I had a Testnet Masternode you'd have my vote :)
     
  4. camosoul

    camosoul Grizzled Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    Messages:
    2,146
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    1,183
    Yeah, it had the MySQL business in it.

    In a slightly off-topic point that need be made. XVC has (had?) an important feature in it's IX implementation. The RECIPIENT could request a TX lock.

    This would preclude a merchant that requires IX having to bork the TX, bounce it, wait for user to do it correctly, etc. When the user fails to do it correctly.

    It could also plug a potential exploit. Even if DASH decides that all TXes are IXes by default, it would still be possible for a modified client to not issue lock requests and ficntion as a legacy blockchain 1.0 bitclone, letting the backward compatibility be used against the merchant. Relying on the sender alone could present a problem if someone gets clever. So, having the recipient be able to request lock and not just rely on all clients to play fair (which is the mistake of double-spendable bitclones), is a security measure that people in the real world need.

    Think of the potential for ugliness if the sender could still dump a ton of TXes from the same inputs into the memory pool, and then determine for himself which one gets a lock request... the mode of operations would be virtually no different that fee priority of a bitclone double-spend. That's a guaranteed double-spend. It seems much more secure for lock requests to come from the recipient end. the recipient is the one that needs the assurance. The sender has nothing to lose from failing this, and if not wearing a white hat, everything to gain...

    If this were arbitrated by the nodes, and neither side had any say, that would be even better...

    But, it's a complete departure from the current implementation.

    this has multiple advantages... If someone tries to dick over a merchant in the current methodology, all they have to do is not use IX. They could claim it's an accident, oops, sorry. But, if the lock originates from the recipient, any conflicting/competing lock request would be a flag of deliberate fraud. Closed-loop instead of the current open-loop. The intent becomes defined. Kind of like adding an abstain vote; it gives is a definition between null for unknown reasons, and null for a specific reason. If the IX lock request is legit, then there is only one on the network. If a second lock request appears, and has a valid signature from the sender, we know the sender is deliberately trying to defraud the recipients lock.

    Lock requests could be based on the privatekey of the recipient address or sender inputs. Lock request spam from 3rd party observers would be automatically ignored because they won't have the sig.

    This could also lead to identity-less banning of receiving addresses which attempt to defraud IX locks. That would be a kickass feature. If the address was in a deterministic string, oh man, there could actually be consequences for being a dickhead on the network without exposing an identity. Real enforcibility. If it were extended to contracts... If you could blacklist all inputs for X blocks into the future... 3 strikes and you're out... Wow.
     
    #274 camosoul, Dec 20, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2016
  5. qwizzie

    qwizzie Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    693
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Mixing seems to be working again fast and furocious with latest build version v0.12.1.0-8c16880
    and with multi-session enabled.

    Note : i do come across a difference in enabled number of masternodes between my wallets (some show 5, some show 58), but it does not seem to effect the mixing
    Update : the "enabled number of masternodes 58" also seems to be dropping over time, i guess the network is still busy with sorting that out.

    [​IMG]
     
    #275 qwizzie, Dec 20, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  6. gujo82

    gujo82 New Member
    Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2014
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    8
    started last night trying to get a test-MN running on azure since i realized i had plenty of MSDN credits which are never used :) but having issues connecting to it, i have added port 19999 in the FW but my local win-qt wallet keeps saying its not a capable node (cant find external IP) when trying to activate..

    am i missing some openings or its simply the wrong port? once i get it sorted i will deploy a 2nd masternode for testing also :)
     
  7. flare

    flare Administrator
    Dash Core Team Moderator

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,304
    Likes Received:
    2,434
    Trophy Points:
    1,183
    How do your dash.conf and masternode.conf files look like?
     
  8. gujo82

    gujo82 New Member
    Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2014
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    8
    on the MN as below. actually occured to me now it could be the addnodes parameter perhaps? i basically took it from my prod-MN's..

    noticed when i was pasting that rcpport was wrong, changed it but now i get "
    Error: Unable to bind to 0.0.0.0:19999 on this computer. Dash Core is probably already running.
    Error: Failed to listen on any port. Use -listen=0 if you want this.
    " when trying to run.

    "
    Dash.conf



    #CHANGE THE FOLLOWING TO STRONG RANDOM STRING#

    rpcuser=

    rpcpassword=

    rpcallowip=127.0.0.1

    rpcport=19999

    listen=1

    server=1

    daemon=1

    logtimestamps=1

    maxconnections=256

    addnode=23.23.186.131

    # IF YOU PLAN ON RUNNING YOUR MASTER-NODE VIA TOR UNCOMMENT THE FOLLOWING & REFER TO THE TOR GUIDES #

    #proxy=127.0.0.1:9050

    #--- DO NOT FORGET TO ENTER THE CORRECT PUBLIC IP# Enter
    Code:
     curl icanhazip.com
    
    #--------------------------------------------------
    
    externalip=13.69.252.102
    
    masternode=1
    
    masternodeprivkey=X
    
    "
     
  9. gujo82

    gujo82 New Member
    Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2014
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    8
    and masternode.conf;

    # Masternode config file
    # Format: alias IP:port masternodeprivkey collateral_output_txid collateral_output_index
    # Example: mn1 127.0.0.2:19999 93HaYBVUCYjEMeeH1Y4sBGLALQZE1Yc1K64xiqgX37tGBDQL8Xg 2bcd3c84c84f87eaa86e4e56834c92927a07f9e18718810b92e0d0324456a67c 0
    RolandMN-TS01 13.69.252.102:19999 91sE66vU6NQtYjooTyogTD2FFFFFFFFFFFFFFsXgYqgGp424TG yTfeeHYXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXtyBxdqZ7vy8q9Zm 0
     
  10. flare

    flare Administrator
    Dash Core Team Moderator

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,304
    Likes Received:
    2,434
    Trophy Points:
    1,183
    rpcport should be different from 19999 (which is the p2p port)
     
  11. gujo82

    gujo82 New Member
    Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2014
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Ahh i see. Changed the rpc port and dashd will launch, but still wont detect external IP for some reason. still wont detect the external ip for some reason. i have externalip set in both conf files..
     
  12. flare

    flare Administrator
    Dash Core Team Moderator

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,304
    Likes Received:
    2,434
    Trophy Points:
    1,183
    From the looks of it your dash.conf files are missing

    Code:
    testnet=1
    line. Please double check all dash.conf files (wallet + masternode) for that entry. Restart all if you have missed them.

    The format is incorrect, instead of yTfeeHYXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXtyBxdqZ7vy8q9Zm you'll need the txid of the 1000 tDash transaction. Use

    https://test.explorer.dash.org/address/yTfeeHYXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXtyBxdqZ7vy8q9Zm

    to lookup the correct value.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. TanteStefana

    TanteStefana Moderator
    Linguistic Foundation Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2014
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    1,854
    Trophy Points:
    1,283
    I just opened up my debug console and this appeared:
    And I'm on the wrong chain :p Dash Core version v0.12.1.0-88ee7a3 (64-bit)

    Updated
     
    #283 TanteStefana, Dec 21, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2016
  14. gujo82

    gujo82 New Member
    Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2014
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Yeah i simply altered the adresses to not post the correct ones, guess it wont matter for test, but security sticks for all things i guess :)

    think i might have figured the problem, forgot to configure the masternode.conf on the MN itself, only did it on the cold-wallet qt PC..so will check that tomorrow :)

    edit: fixed the masternode.conf on the MN, restarted.. but something is weird.. doing "dash-cli masternode list-conf" simply gives me 2 empty brackets.. so it doesnt seem to load the conf :/
     
    #284 gujo82, Dec 21, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2016
  15. mastermined

    mastermined Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2014
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    380
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Hello all you Testnet people!

    The community appreciates your participation in testnet and in part voted for the DashForce proposal to help fund it. Splawik21 reached out to a few members last week on behalf of DashForce but no new members have joined the Dash nation testnet_tips slack channel since then. So far just a handful of people have received testnet tips including tantestefana, ec1warc1, bertlebbert, gustafx and I just sent a tip to flare and udjinm6.
    A little birdy told me there is also a bigger testnet proposal in the works to help in whatever ways are needed. But for now the community has tasked DashForce with showing their appreciation for your dedication and all the hard work that goes into testnet.

    I know everyone in here is here because of their passion for the project but please allow the community to show y'all some love too.:)

    If you don't want to join slack then please just post a Dash address in your sig or send me a PM. Thanks

    Dash Nation slack invite
    http://dash-nation-invite.herokuapp.com/
     
    • Like Like x 4
  16. t0dd

    t0dd Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2016
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Dash Address:
    XyxQq4qgp9B53QWQgSqSxJb4xddhzk5Zhh
    Hello everyone!

    The 12.1 build rate seems to be slowing down a bit, which is great for the prospects of a next stable release. As I have been doing for quite some time now, I continue to build for both the unstable (testnet) Dash Core and maintain the stable release for the Red Hat family of operating systems. And as I do periodically, here's a reminder where you can get your hot fresh packages. These packages (and repositories) are the easiest distribution of Dash Core to install, update, and maintain -- latest test net: build 750 or v0.12.1.0-g1c6c0d8

    If you have already configured your linux system to point at my repositories, open up your Software Management Application and click "Update"
    ...or just type this on the commandline: sudo dnf upgrade -y

    If you have not, or are simply curious, read on...


    Dash Core on Fedora Linux, CentOS, and RHEL

    Discussion: Dash Core for Fedora, CentOS, and RHEL
    https://gist.github.com/taw00/b2382aaabb321b0cf9ce104185e1b3b7

    Instruction: v12.1 Testnet Masternode setup
    https://gist.github.com/taw00/e978f862ee1ad66722e16bcc8cf18ca5

    Dash Core source packages, for Fedora, CentOS, and RHEL:
    https://github.com/taw00/dashcore-srpms

    yum/dnf repository head: https://toddwarner.keybase.pub/repo/dashcore/

    If you know your way around yum or dnf, then you probably could get started with just this bit of knowledge…
    curl https://gist.github.com/taw00/4b66dcf87d7883c120544680195ba24e/raw -o dashcore-fedora.repo
    curl https://gist.github.com/taw00/0c755c153cbc43a3e1e2b5b4b671e44f/raw -o dashcore-centos.repo
     
    #286 t0dd, Dec 22, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  17. tungfa

    tungfa Administrator
    Dash Core Team Foundation Member Masternode Owner/Operator Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    6,689
    Trophy Points:
    1,283
    please keep this thread to tech - testing ONLY
    we let the above pass but please stick to the plan - TESTING :rolleyes:
     
  18. flare

    flare Administrator
    Dash Core Team Moderator

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,304
    Likes Received:
    2,434
    Trophy Points:
    1,183
    I can confirm, latest build works like charm, mixed 1000tDash in ~60mins

    upload_2016-12-22_12-53-45.png
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 3
  19. t0dd

    t0dd Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2016
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Dash Address:
    XyxQq4qgp9B53QWQgSqSxJb4xddhzk5Zhh
    Removed the related blurb about the proposal.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. splawik21

    splawik21 Grizzled Member
    Dash Core Team Foundation Member Dash Support Group

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    1,884
    Likes Received:
    1,276
    Trophy Points:
    1,283
    Yep mixing is going fast!!!!
    8 rounds and 1000 coins all lasted 1h 59 min
    In the end 1100 coins were mixed.
     

    Attached Files:

  21. gujo82

    gujo82 New Member
    Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2014
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    8
    seems like i have gotten 1/2 MNs running with sentinel, thx alot to @flare for troubleshooting :)

    Iam curious if there is any "to-do list" of testcases etc to run? iam no developer by any means, but im quite tech-savvy :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  22. flare

    flare Administrator
    Dash Core Team Moderator

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,304
    Likes Received:
    2,434
    Trophy Points:
    1,183
    Yep :)

    Code:
    $ dash-cli masternode list full 13.69.252.102
    {
      "ff26fdc7b0097b54e8198fe3c570d210ec4391db88bc5124667d36812e3420c7-1": "        ENABLED 70204 yTfeeHYc2ct8QDmPAD1tyBxdqZ7vy8q9Zm 1482434051    39438 1482428253 123532 13.69.252.102:19999"
    }
     
  23. GNULinuxGuy

    GNULinuxGuy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2014
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Dash Address:
    XjkXfrYTSvdYe4738DtNVX5XfUz7qU9HnY
    Dedicated tMN updated to v0.12.1.0-c438e74 and synced nmarley sentinel. Did a few mixing tests with speedy results. Now running a liquidity provider which also appears to be functioning properly.

    Is there any specific area that core devs feel we should be focusing on testing right now?
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  24. TanteStefana

    TanteStefana Moderator
    Linguistic Foundation Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2014
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    1,854
    Trophy Points:
    1,283
    Dash Core version v0.12.1.0-1c6c0d8 (64-bit) windows and linux versions running very well. Checking to see if there is a new version. I didn't watch to see how long it took, but mixing finished up pretty quickly for me.

    Ugh, yes, there is a new version :p I'll update now :D Xmas to New Years will be very busy for me, I hope I can keep up with testing :/ Sorry if I drop out :(
     
  25. TanteStefana

    TanteStefana Moderator
    Linguistic Foundation Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2014
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    1,854
    Trophy Points:
    1,283
    Hi developers, please read :) :

    I am attempting to run a testnet p2pool instance

    because I am already running one on the only machine I currently have to work with, I thought there would be no problem since 12.1 runs in .dashcore instead of .dash.

    Except that when I set up .dashcore/dash.conf for testnet, and ran dash-qt from my folder, it tried to connect to mainnet (which was running/open) and .dash folder - and failed. (latest build 64 bit linux)

    I then ran dashd instead and had no problems.

    I'm guessing nobody has noticed because everyone uses dashd??
     
  26. TanteStefana

    TanteStefana Moderator
    Linguistic Foundation Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2014
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    1,854
    Trophy Points:
    1,283
    I'm on the latest wallet, trying to send my android wallet (testnet) 880 tDash via private send. It tells me it's unable to locate enough mixed funds. My mixed balance is 2340+

    Why is this happening? Cant I send up to 1000 coins privately?

    OK, I was able to send 500 coins privately. maybe this is a new limit? Is that so? If so, is this a compliance issue? Trying to stay under $10,000?
     
  27. TanteStefana

    TanteStefana Moderator
    Linguistic Foundation Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2014
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    1,854
    Trophy Points:
    1,283
    I see a problem with our system. If someone (assume a merchant) requests instant send, the other user can still choose not to send fund via instant send by unclicking that box. Because funds are then in limbo, the customer won't resend, and the merchant is stuck with waiting for the funds, completely ruining the point of instant send.

    So the merchant either has to detain the customer or make them come back to pick up their merchandise, or else he's stuck with the same problem as Bitcoin has, to risk the customer leaving with the goods while he waits for a confirmation.

    We need a way, so that when the merchant, or the receiver requests a payment with instant send, the payer can not change that to non-instant. Is that possible? It has to be part of the system, not just the wallets. Otherwise, a wallet that allows you to uncheck the instant pay box will simply be made. There needs to be something that blocks acceptance of non-instant sends.
     
  28. camosoul

    camosoul Grizzled Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    Messages:
    2,146
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Trophy Points:
    1,183
    This is why I brought it up... IX was designed from a snowflake perspective; me me me me me. So much "me" that it doesn't even realize that it does not actually deliver on it's premise.

    We're not supposed to be testing the fundamentals, I guess....

    This is a defect that was exposed in the IX model by the DASH vending machine a year ago. What was done about it? Changed the name to something even less sensible, altered the failed dynamic not at all... This is why I don't call it IS/InstantSend. Bitcoin has InstantSend... Hell, all cryptos have InstantSend... Locks are supposed to be about Instant RECEIVE. IX, InstanTX, at least makes half sense...

    The whole point of Transaction Locks is that the RECEIVER can be assured. Thus, it has to be initiated from the RECEIVER side.

    The clueless snowflake mentality is painfully obvious in that all that is talked about is how the end user can spend, with no concern for how the vendor would receive.

    If a TX lock is initiated by the recipient as soon as the owning client detects it's own address in the memory pool, we not only have a way of making this more real-world workable (eliminate the derps, the deliberate un-ckechers, and the black-hat modified clients), we can also detect and mark known bad actors who attempt to defraud TXes; there should be only one lock request presented to the network for any TX, ever! The submitting client should be able to present an appropriate signature based on the keypair. Anything else submitted can be flagged as a bad actor, and if any available deterministic string exists for that address (or just that address if not, which trivializes the potential repercussions), there could be consequences for the user without exposing his identity. Anyone attempting to submit multiple sends with one of his own addresses as the receiving address, which then makes the lock request, gives us positive feedback that the TX in question definitely won't reach the appropriate recipient... It works out perfectly. Closed-loop. It's a thing. A measurable response, not a blind hope. 3rd party observers submitting Lock requests just to spam it up or create false positives on the fraud check? They won't have a valid keysig, so throw it out. Nip it in the bud to save pipe... We've reduced bad actors to nothing but an increasingly futile attempt to waste bandwidth.

    Has any thought even been given to this? Just how totally unconcerned is DASH with the recipient actually getting his money? IX is a gimmick in it's current implementation. How is it being changed? Is it being changed? Does anyone give a damn?

    It looks like the network currently locks an input until it's one block deep. In case of chain wag, I think this should be deeper.

    InstantReceive, not instant re-receive. This gives assurance that no TX can come from nowhere, like chainless instant re-send techs. The money has to be "seasoned" by the ledger before it can be IXed. Kinda like trying to buy a $0.5mil house with cash...
     
    #298 camosoul, Dec 24, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2016
  29. TanteStefana

    TanteStefana Moderator
    Linguistic Foundation Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2014
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    1,854
    Trophy Points:
    1,283
    Yes, that's why it has to be somehow un-trickable and part of the network. Maybe they can't do this yet, but will be able to in Evolution with contracts? It would be nice to get clarification on this??? @afreer ? Or is that you, @AndyDark ?

    And I like your point about the name. :D
     
  30. qwizzie

    qwizzie Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    693
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Looks like latest build v0.12.1.0-70b3740 introduced some forks, some of my wallets are on block 124639 and the rest is on block 124635

    https://test.explorer.dash.org/chain/tDash has block 124635

    [​IMG]

    Also the mixing is progressing more slowly then with previous build.
     
    #300 qwizzie, Dec 24, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page