Forking Megathread

[flare]

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...

I don't see a disagreement here: Miners forked the network because they did not receive mnw messages.

I repeat: Only miners can fork the network, passive nodes can't - claiming this is like saying: Using Bitcoin 0.7 wallets will fork Bitcoin.

If Darkcoin network is vulnerable to nwm propagation issues we need to fix that - otherwise it will be part of the next DDos attack.

 

[camosoul]

I don't see a disagreement here: Miners forked the network because they did not receive mnw messages.

I repeat: Only miners can fork the network, passive nodes can't - claiming this is like saying: Using Bitcoin 0.7 wallets will fork Bitcoin.

If Darkcoin network is vulnerable to nwm propagation issues we need to fix that - otherwise it will be part of the next DDos attack.

But there are enough v10s around to keep too many connections alive to those miners. When they validate a block based on the bad input, v11 correctly rejects it but v10 keeps it alive.

v10 is finally getting minoritized enough that it's losing it's ability to hold enough connections to get it's mnw input validated.

 

[flare]

But there are enough v10s around to keep too many connections alive to those miners. When they validate a block based on the bad input, v11 correctly rejects it but v10 keeps it alive.

Root cause found: Why are v11 miners accepting masternode entries of v10 masternodes? v9 did not have that, v10 neither.

I know that this was supposed to be an improvement to faciliate network updates, but it seems we opened a can of worms here.

Btw: Keeping it alive does not make a large fork - you still need (v10) miners to mine that chain.

 

[camosoul]

The bottom line remains; UPDATE!

 

[camosoul]

Root cause found: Why are v11 miners accepting masternode entries of v10 masternodes? v9 did not have that, v10 neither.

I know that this was supposed to be an improvement to faciliate network updates, but it seems we opened a can of worms here.

Btw: Keeping it alive does not make a large fork - you still need (v10) miners to mine that chain.

Not entirely. The not-quite-a-fork as I originally called it is occuring at the point of propogation, not validation like we're accustomed. A block gets validated, but then other clients say that block is no good when they get the new block. It's as large as the grouping of clients that accept the block.

"Woah, this is the block, but the winner selected doesn't match what it should be, piss on this fraud block!"

v11 and v10 were thought to play together at the point of release. As stated in other threads, this couldn't be true... I've been harping about it for a reason, the same reason I was running v0.11.0.4 on mainnet before release...

 

[flound1129]

What is the current status? Is it safe to mine on v11 or not?

 

[moli]

What is the current status? Is it safe to mine on v11 or not?

The current version is 11.0.13. It seems very stable, and it's mandatory for all users to update.

You can get the downloads from https://www.darkcoin.io/.

 

[vertoe]

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.

I fully agree. These immature releases have to stop. Now we just need a strategy to convince evan about that.

 

[oblox]

If testnet isn't proving to be a good battleground representative of mainnet, why not create a test coin that is merge mined with DRK? Not sure if there is a way to have the existing masternode network function on both though. The nodes would still be setup using the primary blockchain (Darkcoin's existing blockchain) and the 1000k requirement, but all masternodes would also have test features embedded for this "test coin" to see what works and doesn't.

 

[vertoe]

If testnet isn't proving to be a good battleground representative of mainnet, why not create a test coin that is merge mined with DRK?

No, testnet is perfeclty fine. We are simply not using it correctly. The source code has too many exceptions for testnet and we go live on main net even with big major issues left behind.

 

[camosoul]

No, testnet is perfeclty fine. We are simply not using it correctly. The source code has too many exceptions for testnet and we go live on main net even with big major issues left behind.

I disagree.

Software Version ZERO.ONEONE

Mainnet is still testnet. Testnet is too small and too sterile. You can't even generate the conditions there to test adversely. Even in other industries, you never really know what your product is going to do until about 100,000 people buy it... The general public can fuck up anything...

People just need an attitude adjustment. This is deep beta. 0.11 - I know we all want adoption and to buy a McMansion on the moon with plenty left over, but detaching one's self from reality won't make reality change... Ask a democrat. No, wait, that won't do any good...

 

[vertoe]

I disagree.

Software Version ZERO.ONEONE

Mainnet is still testnet. Testnet is too small and too sterile. You can't even generate the conditions there to test adversely. Even in other industries, you never really know what your product is going to do until about 100,000 people buy it... The general public can fuck up anything...

People just need an attitude adjustment. This is deep beta. 0.11 - I know we all want adoption and to buy a McMansion on the moon with plenty left over, but detaching one's self from reality won't make reality change... Ask a democrat. No, wait, that won't do any good...

Reread my quote again. There were critical known issues on testnet at the time we went live. I don't see a reason why we should go live on main network with known issues.

I agree that main network is the better testnet, but as long as we have bugs unfixed on testnet, why bothering going live?