• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

RC4 issues, bugs & feature requests

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes i am speaking about latest stable version. I don't use closed-source RC at all.

I'm not sure what you mean about "closed-source RC". As I understand the only closed-source is Darksend. Did you download the stable v.0.9.12.32 from darkcoin.io? Check your version.
 
I'm not sure what you mean about "closed-source RC". As I understand the only closed-source is Darksend. Did you download the stable v.0.9.12.32 from darkcoin.io? Check your version.
yes I think he is talking abount 9.12.32
 
I am.

moli Closed-source RC is the Darkcoin wallet version with Darksend. I don't have "hidden" processes. The CPU usage was strictly from darkcoin-qt.

I think you can trust Evan with his closed source Darksend. Not trying to be critical... but you trust windows :p ... Plus DS will be open source soon.
 
Thanks Evan for closing out Jira-33.


Yeah, but we lost enforcement. That seems like it might be ok for now, but in the future leaving things to the pool's generosity could cause major problems if someone wants to do something malicious. Especially if they attempt such after DRK has gotten greater adoption and marketcap.

As it is many pools only pay 10%. I just have a bad feeling about his strategy...
 
We need enforcement!

In the last week (2 MN running) 3 pools didn't pay fee, 2 paid only 10%
Thats 4 DRK lost.

Whats stopping pools from using pre RC3 wallet and pay 0% fee?
 
We need enforcement!

In the last week (2 MN running) 3 pools didn't pay fee, 2 paid only 10%
Thats 4 DRK lost.

Whats stopping pools from using pre RC3 wallet and pay 0% fee?

This. The goal is to have more Masternodes to make things more anonymous with less chance of bad actors disrupting proceedings.

No enforcement = Less rewards = Less incentive to run MNs = Less MNs = Less security using DRK & more coins on exchanges!

Bad situation. I will keep an open mind until I hear what Evan has to say about this issue.

There are a lot of upset people about this.

Tao
 
I think you guys are too worried. It's a good thing that the MN system is over complicated, to discourage any copycats that want to replicate the same system.
 
I think you guys are too worried. It's a good thing that the MN system is over complicated, to discourage any copycats that want to replicate the same system.

Worried? we should... news/rummer like that need to be clarified ASAP. Its already caused some movement in the price.
 
Worried? we should... news/rummer like that need to be clarified ASAP. Its already caused some movement in the price.

OKAY.. Let's read what Evan said again from site http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-33:

"It turns out the masternode voting system is over complicated and somewhat risky to the network, so I've removed it (i think he means the bug that was causing "payout code skips blocks and duplicates payments") and am using the RC3 masternode payment system. This means we won't have enforcement (but he doesn't say this is a permanent decision, right?), but it fixes all of these issues and removes the risk to the network."

Please, if you don't understand or don't know for sure, don't spread rumors and fears on BCT and wonder why the price falls. And please tell your friends not to. I am sure Evan will clarify his statement but right now it's night time in America and people do need to rest, you know?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Evan's answer posted in BCT a few minutes ago:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg8563225#msg8563225

"The RC4 system has inherent issues that were documented in Jira, plus it also has a systematic risk to the network (Sporking is less risky than a hard fork, but there's a risk the network forks wouldn't actually go away when the spork was turned off after a failure). These few issues combined with the fact that we've reached 80-90% payment efficiency tells me that it's not worth the risk to the network to move from the RC3 payment system.

Also, I have a separate plan I've been considering as an alternative that carries no risk and can be done at RC5's launch. Basically, I would set a minimum protocol version and boot anyone not running RC4 or later off the network. This should get us to 98%+ payments."
 
I have a question. I ask here because it isn't easy to find the answer elsewhere.

How does the RC3 payment system work? How are masternodes being paid now? Totally randomly?
 
Actually, on macosx, the wallet is crashing at startup when it tries to open the log file, which contains a space in it.
Anyone else tried on macosx ?
 
I have a question. I ask here because it isn't easy to find the answer elsewhere.

How does the RC3 payment system work? How are masternodes being paid now? Totally randomly?
RC3 payment system was live for 1.5 month and was working 95% good all the time - and beside some network propagation problems, where in rare occasions the masternode list was different on certain miner nodes, we saw a good random distribution of payments.

Evan hoped to fix the network propagation issue by switching the payment system to a "Top 20 rank approach", but it seems this introduced more flaws, which led to

http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-33 and
http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-24

So the rollback to RC3 payment system is very logical for me, as it worked most of the time.

As for me, i am still searching for a new approach to make the payments more network intrinsic - MNs should actually mine their coins by proof of service, not rely on good acting miners to share their mined coins.

If we can somehow create a model where miners (PoW) and masternodes (PoSVC) mine independently from eachother, we will even have a solution for further payments for "DarkTor" relays and exit nodes. The current approach (divide PoW reward) seems not flexible enough to achieve this.
 
Seems like sound logic to me. Cheers flare. Masternode owners do need to know precisely how payments are being run currently though. I'm assuming total random selection which is fair enough.
 
I'm guessing the current MN payment is still based on this system that Evan explained here:

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/masternode-payment-variance.1636/

It seems to me the MN system is needed for a very important task but at the same time the plan is not to encourage every darkcoin to be stashed away in a masternode, hence, the random selection for payment is implemented. A very smart financial thinking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nothing is happening.
After 20 hours of waiting NOTHING .
Here is the debuglog
 

Attachments

  • debug.txt
    13.5 KB · Views: 159
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top