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
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?Centralization of voluntary action? Gain nothing forcible. Centralize for no benefit...
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...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...
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....Your conspiracy talk had someone spooked, just sold 7k DRK on Cryptsy...
And over 10k DRK on bitfinex.Your conspiracy talk had someone spooked, just sold 7k DRK on Cryptsy...
Words to live by!All carrot and no stick means eventually someone who doesn't value your carrot fucks you.
Wait. Craptsy still exists?Your conspiracy talk had someone spooked, just sold 7k DRK on Cryptsy...
Unfortunately. It still has the most DRK volume. I miss MINTPAL...Wait. Craptsy still exists?
There goes the neighborhood...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.There goes the neighborhood...
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...You don't have to visit that neighborhood if you choose not to.
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?we may all be overreacting a bit - I'd give it another week before we consider looking at more drastic types of measures
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.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?
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...we may all be overreacting a bit - I'd give it another week before we consider looking at more drastic types of measures
Thank you for that, bud. Are there any ideas as to what IS causing this, then?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.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.
Thank you for that, bud. Are there any ideas as to what IS causing this, then?
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.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!
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.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.
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.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.
I think you are right.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.
Tx flare for your postsThere 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 know.Thank you for that, bud. Are there any ideas as to what IS causing this, then?
Things get confusing then using "getblocktemplate" and seeing the bottom information: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.
Yeah, and v10 clients show thisThings 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
}
"masternode_payments" : true,
"enforce_masternode_payments" : false
}
There's this guy named Evan that disagrees with you.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.
There is more than one way to cause a fork when your coin has more than one way of validating it's blocks...Nope, nearly all of the miners are up-to-date. The problem was "mnw" messages failed to propagate to part of the network, which then couldn't tell who to pay. So we just had fragmentation.