RC4 issues, bugs & feature requests

Status
Not open for further replies.

moli

Grizzled Member
Aug 5, 2014
3,255
1,830
1,183
I'm on testnet testing windows wallet. Got over 6000 tdrk, set 8 rounds and amount to keep anonymized at 5000 drk. So far the wallet got 9 denominates and 2 "payment to yourself". After round 7 the wallet seems to get stuck with (19 locked) and 0 drk anonymized. It's been 3 hours and has not finished anonymizing. I guess this happens because of testnet? And mainnet is much better? (I haven't tried mainnet yet, probably will try it tomorrow.)
 

JGCMiner

Moderator
Moderator
Jun 8, 2014
360
211
113
Sure it gets attention, as every bug we had the last months.
Thanks.

I only posted that because Evan's post yesterday said that it wasn't a bug but people were misunderstanding how Darksend works for large wallets. Good to hear the team will take a look.
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,552
729
183
There is an issue with using coin control to make payments to yrself to bundle inputs while Darksend+ is running,
sometimes the Darksend+ payment to yrself transaction will be processed before a manual payment to yrself has been processed. This leads to the manual payment to yrself not getting confirmed.

link here :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg8397861#msg8397861
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg8398150#msg8398150
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg8398191#msg8398191
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg8398265#msg8398265

Chaeplin is testing it further.

solution looks to be simple :

Make sure you dont have darksend+ running when yr making payments to yrself with coin control.
Only switch it on when the manual payment to yrself has been confirmed (pref 6 times confirmed)

Maybe something can be done in code so these two payment to yrself (manual and those from Darksend+)
wont conflict with each other... maybe a warning to disable Darksend+ first before making manual payments to yrself ?
 

jimbit

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
May 23, 2014
229
103
203
Not sure if this is a problem or not.. but I should have gotten a payment ( a few actually) for my MN

<jimbit_> this payment from wafflepool did not go to ME.. even tho I was the expected payee.
2014-08-17 14:56:54 120629 wafflepool 4182.75 5 1 Xy7NQQ5q4AqSjJags8eNbSRLWxAP9SeX7g RC4 (0.10.12.26+)
<jimbit_> payment should have went to XjYqHv5ibY9DujwbAjC84P1oS7JCyF9rUj
<jimbit_> both are running RC4
 

mbilker

Member
Aug 7, 2014
55
8
48
I have been having problems with transactions are not denominated when the transaction originated from my MN (testnet). To fix this I send the tDRK to another address on the client and it will start denominating about an hour later.
 

stonehedge

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jul 31, 2014
696
333
233
What actually happens to blocks solved on RC3 at the moment? Are those coins going to be lost from circulation when RC4 enforcement happens? I only ask because I'm getting so many non payments to my masternodes which are all RC4.

The payments at 1906 and 1913 today on this node didn't come through for example. http://drk.poolhash.org/masternode.html?srch&nmstr=XthmsSdS1gnqroQPCCYzsKnimtyDauQMgg

I'm totally confused...I'm getting more non payments in my expected payments list than payments. Firstly, is this simply because some pools haven't updated to RC4? Secondly, what happens to the masternode payments on RC3?
 

mbilker

Member
Aug 7, 2014
55
8
48
What actually happens to blocks solved on RC3 at the moment? Are those coins going to be lost from circulation when RC4 enforcement happens? I only ask because I'm getting so many non payments to my masternodes which are all RC4.

The payments at 1906 and 1913 today on this node didn't come through for example. http://drk.poolhash.org/masternode.html?srch&nmstr=XthmsSdS1gnqroQPCCYzsKnimtyDauQMgg

I'm totally confused...I'm getting more non payments in my expected payments list than payments. Firstly, is this simply because some pools haven't updated to RC4? Secondly, what happens to the masternode payments on RC3?
The blocks on RC3 are going to pay RC3 masternodes since they are incompatible with RC4. I don't know if RC4 clients can pick up the block notifications via broadcast.
 

jimbit

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
May 23, 2014
229
103
203
What actually happens to blocks solved on RC3 at the moment? Are those coins going to be lost from circulation when RC4 enforcement happens? I only ask because I'm getting so many non payments to my masternodes which are all RC4.

The payments at 1906 and 1913 today on this node didn't come through for example. http://drk.poolhash.org/masternode.html?srch&nmstr=XthmsSdS1gnqroQPCCYzsKnimtyDauQMgg

I'm totally confused...I'm getting more non payments in my expected payments list than payments. Firstly, is this simply because some pools haven't updated to RC4? Secondly, what happens to the masternode payments on RC3?
afaik, the rc3 mn are getting paid.... anyone have the rc3 MN binary laying around?
 

stonehedge

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jul 31, 2014
696
333
233
For our three nodes we're seeing a less than 50% payment rate based on the expected payment list. In fact, on one of them we're only received about 4/11 payments in the last three days or so.

http://drk.poolhash.org/masternode.html?srch&nmstr=XthmsSdS1gnqroQPCCYzsKnimtyDauQMgg
http://drk.poolhash.org/masternode.html?srch&nmstr=XmG1tHe2NbRfbNb7ise7p4ihzsWLWLmLQj
http://drk.poolhash.org/masternode.html?srch&nmstr=Xk1uXbdeYr6oh2yaXPw76CiCGd97TwFrMU

At what point does it become viable to enforce? There were 820ish masternodes live on RC3 before RC4 was released and only about 650 live on RC4 now. Does that mean the nodes that didn't update are raking in the coins at the moment?

I've spent a lot of my spare time in the last few days contacting pools who are still on RC3 and afaik they are in a minority now. Or so I thought.
 

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Dash Core Team
Moderator
May 20, 2014
3,638
3,538
1,183
For our three nodes we're seeing a less than 50% payment rate based on the expected payment list. In fact, on one of them we're only received about 4/11 payments in the last three days or so.

http://drk.poolhash.org/masternode.html?srch&nmstr=XthmsSdS1gnqroQPCCYzsKnimtyDauQMgg
http://drk.poolhash.org/masternode.html?srch&nmstr=XmG1tHe2NbRfbNb7ise7p4ihzsWLWLmLQj
http://drk.poolhash.org/masternode.html?srch&nmstr=Xk1uXbdeYr6oh2yaXPw76CiCGd97TwFrMU

At what point does it become viable to enforce? There were 820ish masternodes live on RC3 before RC4 was released and only about 650 live on RC4 now. Does that mean the nodes that didn't update are raking in the coins at the moment?

I've spent a lot of my spare time in the last few days contacting pools who are still on RC3 and afaik they are in a minority now. Or so I thought.
https://drk.mn/blocks.html#perversion
 

fernando

Powered by Dash
Dash Core Team
Moderator
Foundation Member
May 9, 2014
1,527
2,058
283
I'm having issues downloading the RC version for Windows from darkcoin.io. flare tells me that's probably github's servers having some issues and that if someone is experiencing this you can download from bamboo.darkcoin.qa
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,861
1,854
1,283
Hi everyone :) I have a couple of questions. My coins have finished denominating, I think, and now I get the insufficient funds message. I have a ton of mined coin entries that I don't believe have been denominated. They're still too small when combined. I suspect that's the issue. The only problem is that my wallet is still unlocked. I think that once you hit the insufficient funds point, the wallet should lock back up, no?

Another question, I just need to confirm what these entries mean:



Where it says "DarkSend" rounds, that shows either "3" which means it made 3 rounds as I requested, and is completed, or "-2 or -3" as they have either completed a single or no rounds (and need to still do 2 or 3 rounds to be denominated to the point I requested). I requested 3 rounds in options.

So, basically, at this point, my wallet is a denominated as it can be. I would like for it to lock itself back up at this point but it doesn't. Is there a "safe" work around, where I can lock it back up without causing the wallet trouble? I see DarkSend is idle, so I don't think I'll be charged a fee. It's just that I'm doing a tutorial and would like to be able to tell people they can now.... blah blah blah. It'd be nice if it were a little more eloquent than closing the wallet and reopening it, but if that's all we can do, that's what I'll write :)

Thanks for any help : )
 
  • Like
Reactions: catlasshrugged

flare

Administrator
Dash Core Team
Moderator
May 18, 2014
2,287
2,406
1,183
Germany
Another question, I just need to confirm what these entries mean:



Where it says "DarkSend" rounds, that shows either "3" which means it made 3 rounds as I requested, and is completed, or "-2 or -3" as they have either completed a single or no rounds (and need to still do 2 or 3 rounds to be denominated to the point I requested). I requested 3 rounds in options.
These "-3" entries are fee denominations. As you know a DS+ transaction is requiring 0.0125DRK fee. The wallet is splitting these values off and keeping them separate, so that they can be used as needed (for the next DS+ transaction) this was introduced to increased anonymity level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fernando

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,861
1,854
1,283
These "-3" entries are fee denominations. As you know a DS+ transaction is requiring 0.0125DRK fee. The wallet is splitting these values off and keeping them separate, so that they can be used as needed (for the next DS+ transaction) this was introduced to increased anonymity level.
Oh, how smart! Love it!

OK, I found a couple of things that I think are wrong in the wallet. First, at the bottom of the Send tab where we see DarkSend Status =>, DarkSend is spelled darkSend . Next, When you see my list above, it's very redundant. It used to list all the addresses with, say 10 coins under one heading of 10, not each address under it's own heading. There should only be one 100 then 50, and 10 or however DarkSend breaks it down, then when you open that "folder", you should see the list of addresses with 10, etc... coins in it. It used to be this way, but now it's spread out in an inefficient way :)

Oh, I just realized... Will the fact that those 3 pre-prepared amounts have the same address cause a connection between the denominated amounts when they are paid? Should they perhaps have their own address? Or?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,861
1,854
1,283
If you choose "no preference" on the send tab, will the wallet mix non-anonymous and anonymous funds? or was that fixed (because that could expose coin origins) If a person leaves the drop down menu on "no preference" which seems to be default, will the wallet use funds only from one type? Thanks, I'd like to have accurate info for my tutorial.
 

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Dash Core Team
Moderator
May 20, 2014
3,638
3,538
1,183
"No Preference" means "Dear Wallet, I don't care, use whatever coins you want"
 
  • Like
Reactions: flare

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
283
I'm not bothered by the current price crash, but can't help thinking now would be a really good time test enforcement. Give 24hrs notice then flip the switch... :tongue:
 
  • Like
Reactions: moli and Stealth923

vertoe

Three of Nine
Mar 28, 2014
2,573
1,652
1,283
Unimatrix Zero One
"No Preference" means "Dear Wallet, I don't care, use whatever coins you want"
But still its dangerous. It's de-denominating all your anonymous funds at once.
flare is the client resetting the anon funds balance on a "no preference" tx yet?

Because after such a tx, the client has to restart denominating again.
 

dotnetmin

Member
Jun 21, 2014
56
19
48
Yes, I think it is a perfect time to implement all the risky main-net updates.
Nice idea, do it now - enforce ! And increase the masternode payments to 35-40% !!!
That will leave the masternode operators onboard. Only fee energy miners can mine on current price
level on a profit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TanteStefana

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
283
Nice idea, do it now - enforce ! And increase the masternode payments to 35-40% !!!
That will leave the masternode operators onboard. Only fee energy miners can mine on current price
level on a profit.
Hmm, I don't agree with the increase in MN %age, it would smack of pandering to market forces. Current split is fine by me, I just think we might as well test the fabled spork while we're at a point where it's the least of many people's worries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpr and darkwing

darkwing

Active Member
Apr 8, 2014
149
110
103
Hmm, I don't agree with the increase in MN %age, it would smack of pandering to market forces. Current split is fine by me, I just think we might as well test the fabled spork while we're at a point where it's the least of many people's worries.
Agreed the current split is fair.

Don't need a miner revolt too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.