S
snogcel
Guest
we may all be overreacting a bit - I'd give it another week before we consider looking at more drastic types of measures
Forking Megathread
- Thread starter Propulsion
- Start date
It doesn't mean they can't have a MN if they don't register... Forcing them to fork is more centralizing don't you think?
I don't see how being on a mailing list will force bad actors to update... Its no different from gun control: it has no impact on the bad guys, imposes burdens on the good guys, helps the bad guys know exactly what to do... seen this pattern before... its been over a week. This isn't an accident...
Thats my point. Yay, a mailing list! Still run all the wrong masternodes you want! Solves nothing...It doesn't mean they can't have a MN if they don't register... Forcing them to fork is more centralizing don't you think?
Your conspiracy talk had someone spooked, just sold 7k DRK on Cryptsy...
Lols. The shoe fits. Put up 7 masternodes with that and we're a lottle closer to beating onyxnet... the glaas is half full my friend....
Unfortunately. It still has the most DRK volume. I miss MINTPAL...
By the way, BCT is back up!
You don't have to visit that neighborhood if you choose not to. It's a free world. Always some entertaining drama over there at the very least.
I don't and I don't. Its still bad news for crypto that it even exists. But this is the forked in the drk thread...
It never hurts to consider the possibility and create a plan before there is a problem. I consider it probable. None can deny it is exemplified as at least possible. A stick needs to be built is the least one can take away as even if it is not intentional, one might say that it can happen by accident is even worse... it proves that this vector is not as impossible as thought and the only seemingly effective barrier is to cost more... buy your way to network security?
I'm sure we will get through this stronger than ever, like we always do. If you're right, this is akin to a coder finding a bug, Evan will think of a way for it never to be an issue again. Good that it happened now, before DRK is widespread.
This! It seems some folks forget that last week saw 6(!) releases, and in the past (v9, v10) it took at least one week for masternode network to catch up. But V11 is the first time people see the stats for that...
Having that said: v10 masternodes are not forking the blockchain, as they are not mining. Only way to fork a blockchain is to create (aka mine) a block which is "invalid" and not handled properly. Masternodes are passive re. blockchain generation. So please stop putting the responsibility for the forks on the masternode operators.
Flare, thanks for this post. Many people on this forum and IRC keep saying MNs on the older versions caused the forks and I keep saying but the network was stable on the older versions, there must be something in the Core version that rejects the blocks... But I'm a noob, I don't quite understand all this.
What has been causing the forks, flare? and are we out of the woods now? Thank you!
Fact: forks only occured with masternode payment enforcement enabled. Which points me to the payment verification code. This seems to have changed from v10 to v11. So blocks mined by v10 miners may be incompatible with blocks mined by v11 miners and vice versa- in enforcement mode. The solution for me: dont enable enforcement until 90% of miners updated to v11 - this worked in the past and i dont see any reason why it should not work this time.
Didn't we have 80%+ of miners on Core, if so, the majority of nethash should have been mining on the right blockchain. Then again, I read numerous pools rolling back to Onyx for stability so who really knows.
There is still a segfault in v11 we are trying to get hold of. Onyx was pretty mature, crashing with a probability of <1% per day. V11 has a higher crash yield yet.
I think i'm on the right track about this issue in my other post: https://darkcointalk.org/threads/0-11-0-darkcoin-core-release.3601/page-19#post-37589
"getcheckpoint" is no longer in v.11. Evan is trying to get rid of the reference nodes. Am I correct, flare?
Anyways, gotta get some sleep, will read your posts later. Thanks.
"getcheckpoint" is no longer in v.11. Evan is trying to get rid of the reference nodes. Am I correct, flare?
Anyways, gotta get some sleep, will read your posts later. Thanks.
Tx flare for your posts
it helps to get some professional feedback on the issues
appreciate you taking the time !
I know.
V11 was not ready for release and should not have been released on main net.
If you have a stable P2P network and release a new client that causes it to break, is it the old client or the new client that is at fault? I say the latter.
Please correct me if I am wrong but when v11 was released I saw no warnings about potential forks or problems with the network if we didn't update super quick.
Finally, expecting masternode operators to update very quickly is totally unrealistic. Otoh is away travelling at the moment and only has intermittent access to the internet...thats over 100 masternodes that won't be udpated for a while with just one person being away!
TLDR: V11 wasn't tested fully, was released too early and even if the dev team were aware of the possible issues that it could cause there should have been ample notice to the community and vendors to prepare.
The bottom line is that end users, masternode operators, exchanges, pools and merchants have been hit by this and lighting up your torches for a witch hunt to find the people on the older versions is distracting from the fact that THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Things get confusing then using "getblocktemplate" and seeing the bottom information:
,
"noncerange" : "00000000ffffffff",
"sigoplimit" : 20000,
"sizelimit" : 1000000,
"curtime" : 1422004946,
"bits" : "1b126005",
"height" : 207852,
"votes" : [
],
"payee" : "XtFzRjgQsM9YspaWtbNYJ6RhNUQYYevNxF",
"payee_amount" : 175010500,
"masternode_payments" : true,
"enforce_masternode_payments" : true
}
Yeah, and v10 clients show this
Code:
"masternode_payments" : true,
"enforce_masternode_payments" : false
}There's this guy named Evan that disagrees with you.
There is more than one way to cause a fork when your coin has more than one way of validating it's blocks...
The two versions disagree on how mns are selected for winning payment. v11 has more robust BS detector that v10 lacks. When they disagree, we get a fork-like fragmentation of blocks being asserted by v10 which v11 rejects. There are enough v10s still on the network that they keep their own chain alive.
This will keep happening until the network becomes significantly v11 heavy and the bad mnw selections from v10 are made irrelevant to the point that v10 can't peer with itself enough.
Last edited by a moderator: