v0.10.11.x RC3 Prelaunch Testing

Status
Not open for further replies.

moocowmoo

Bovine Bit-flipper
Foundation Member
Jun 15, 2014
483
603
263
masternode.me
Dash Address
XmoocowYfrPKUR6p6M5aJZdVntQe71irCX
Check other node's debug.log.
New ip, New Address, New Genkey.

...

If vin/pubkey is changed, Genkey should be changed also.
Otherwise network will not be noticed.
Thank you chaeplin.

What concerns me the most is I don't know how node 3's address ended up
associated with node 1.

I'll just have to be more careful launching nodes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chaeplin

chaeplin

Active Member
Core Developer
Mar 29, 2014
749
356
133
Code:
[email protected]:~> darkcoind getinfo
{
    "version" : 91102,
    "protocolversion" : 70019,
    "walletversion" : 60000,
    "balance" : 499970.13824742,
    "blocks" : 24884,
;D
 

yidakee

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 16, 2014
1,812
1,168
283
Thank you chaeplin.

What concerns me the most is I don't know how node 3's address ended up
associated with node 1.

I'll just have to be more careful launching nodes.
Are you doing remote/local setup, or only remote?
It has happened to me before, that I accidentally "copied" the remote IP to two different local machines. I had an Excel sheet where I dropped all the info (IP' etc), but for some reason when I did CTLR+C, it did not copy the current one, and kept the previous remote:IP:1999 in mem. I only noticed when my remote server got listed twice with two different pubkeys.

So I had two local machines with the different genkeys pointing to the same remote (A), but remote (B) also got "succcefully astarted masternode" in the debug, but was not listed at all
 
Last edited by a moderator:

moocowmoo

Bovine Bit-flipper
Foundation Member
Jun 15, 2014
483
603
263
masternode.me
Dash Address
XmoocowYfrPKUR6p6M5aJZdVntQe71irCX
Are you doing remote/local setup, or only remote?
It has happened to me before, that I accidentally "copied" the genkkey to two different local machines. I had an Excel sheet where I dropped all the info (IP' etc), but for some reason when I did CTLR+C, it did not, and kept the previous genkey in mem.

That linked 2 pubkeys with 1 remote
local/remote

for testnet, a single conf with sections containing:
# node 1
# pubkey
# wif
#masternodeaddr=blah
#masternodeprivkey=blah

# node 2
# pubkey
# wif
#masternodeaddr=blah
#masternodeprivkey=blah

and several wallet.dat files named:
wallet.dat.node-1
wallet.dat.node-2
wallet.dat.node-3

then I:

Code:
darkcoind stop; cd testnet3; rm wallet.dat; ln -s wallet.dat.node-1 wallet.dat; cd .. ; vim darkcoin.conf ; darkcoin &
uncommenting the relevent section for startup one at a time.

For mainnet, I have scripts that swap out individual conf/wallet symlinks. Which reminds me:

local/remote cold setup seems to work fine over a remote reboot or two, but stopped working for me after a few reboots. (cause unknown)
(is why I ended up building a script to automate the local/remote shutdown/startup/masternode start message.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: yidakee

yidakee

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 16, 2014
1,812
1,168
283
Sorry, just to be clear, what stopped working after a reboot?

So in essence, you have 1 local machine activating multiple remotes. double check your IP entries. Also, when you reboot local, do you "darkcoind masternode start" again? because its not needed. Once the remote is active, local should have no effect on the node, unless you touch the 1k. If rebooting remote, sometimes it auto-activates, sometimes it doesnt.

I cant remember right now, but remotes ping the network every X minutes. (it used to be every 30 minutes, but I think its changed)
 

yidakee

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 16, 2014
1,812
1,168
283
Ah... trouble in paradise for me too! I just went to check on MN health, and one of my nodes is :0

mviW5GSHUqVs8WV81P2f8FL4B8Ny2REtXD a6b8fd94fff9221ecdfe095cb74385910c4904ab 54.76.124.168:19999 0
Local & remote both debug
successfully started masternode
Going to try to find out whats wrong...

EDIT: Figured it out. Sort of. Probably because I sent 1k tDRK around. Cant figure out why! Either something is wrong here or I dont know.

First, despite not necessary, I usually create 2 addresses. One address is address 0, then I do another address to receive funds. flare sent me 100k to this address
mpoM9TqSzKjQ8EeFJuYw4nQyN2jrwqitTX
Then, I create an address 0 and sent myself 1k to activate the masternode, to this address,
mviW5GSHUqVs8WV81P2f8FL4B8Ny2REtXD

Everything is fine, masternode gets listed. So I had 100k balance, and started sending 1k around.

Both remote and local debug successful, but not listed. Upon local reboot, both local and remote say "missing input". Despite having lots of funds, my 1k deposit got touched. And also, I've gotten dozens of addresses I did NOT generate. The main funds got moved from the original receiving address to a new one (??)

Input 1k address has only 15 DRK (3x payout)

[email protected]:~$ darkcoind getbalance
84019.71859844
[email protected]:~$ darkcoind listaddressgroupings
[
[
[
"n1af5psPxQnaNki7RQMU6ZRBovTtftuV8R",
0.00000000
],
[
"n12gD6NJizeqdKPvTRih2j7SUTxJbVqP5A",
0.00000000
],
[
"mxcdVxHQHNDS9Nj3Mgs3jVminf6MzSBNBv",
0.00000000
],
[
"mmPgMXGBzYTwntC36FnLFnQhUHkGWTa7Cb",
0.00000000
],
[
"mi2ygncSyGL4hqWsVzuYJSTqpUzeyQkFPZ",
0.00000000
],
[
"n1kThCZqhycSMYgAk657jaeZXtJzcbpFYH",
0.00000000
],
[
"n12ATYGStyMGLSqNjhwSY3qAdXXLNHgK5z",
84000.00000000
],
[
"mt6Mpp794xyLq3zwWzpZrLpuwb8as3Tttm",
0.00000000
],
[
"n3dk9aXsD1KS9JupbYQkvozxZNQdLcC7tX",
0.00000000
],
[
"mxQjrw9t4qwnuHJewpCJLcTzW9J3SVYiUK",
0.00000000
],
[
"msQj1yXaUKetNoqVTTugC9JgPY54qGrgps",
0.00000000
],
[
"mq7QpPFnBgquBz1PA1Y6KNDwreTwX3LQoi",
0.00000000
],
[
"mmJgA7j9HM8Mf5KkdxsT2qRqEGDHnVHBvZ",
0.00000000
],
[
"mpoM9TqSzKjQ8EeFJuYw4nQyN2jrwqitTX",
4.71859844,
""
]
],
[
[
"mviW5GSHUqVs8WV81P2f8FL4B8Ny2REtXD",
15.00000000,
"0"
]
]
]
Going to re-send 1k to that address...

[email protected]:~$ darkcoind sendtoaddress mviW5GSHUqVs8WV81P2f8FL4B8Ny2REtXD 1000
3081ce6ff3392caaa5a1ad0a9ba26e0c39c31cdc9b3c6c36cd342e51a1b59eb1
Ok... It got sent form the same address 0 (that has only 15 DRK) and does not show "address 0" ... and the receiving address does show "address 0".

This is confusing.

{
"account" : "0",
"address" : "mviW5GSHUqVs8WV81P2f8FL4B8Ny2REtXD",
"category" : "receive",
"amount" : 1000.00000000,
"confirmations" : 4,
"blockhash" : "00000001837d65d577c2faff2119721624d9a7b485fed089c6579b79bb70f872",
"blockindex" : 1,
"blocktime" : 1403686473,
"txid" : "3081ce6ff3392caaa5a1ad0a9ba26e0c39c31cdc9b3c6c36cd342e51a1b59eb1",
"time" : 1403686394,
"timereceived" : 1403686394
},
{
"account" : "",
"address" : "mviW5GSHUqVs8WV81P2f8FL4B8Ny2REtXD",
"category" : "send",
"amount" : -1000.00000000,
"fee" : 0.00000000,
"confirmations" : 4,
"blockhash" : "00000001837d65d577c2faff2119721624d9a7b485fed089c6579b79bb70f872",
"blockindex" : 1,
"blocktime" : 1403686473,
"txid" : "3081ce6ff3392caaa5a1ad0a9ba26e0c39c31cdc9b3c6c36cd342e51a1b59eb1",
"time" : 1403686394,
"timereceived" : 1403686394
}
]
After 6 confirmations, masternode start;

[email protected]:~$ darkcoind masternode list | grep 168
"54.76.124.168:19999" : 1
1k does not get locked like before, when masternode=1
How do I properly manage the funds so I (we) dont screw up our nodes?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,863
1,854
1,283
I probably won't see the answer to this question until tomorrow, but when I try to mine at P2pool I get failed to connect. Does it matter that I'm using minerd? instead of sgminer? P2pool gets can't connect and nomp gets stratum authentication failed.

And finally, despite updating to 10.11.02, both my remote nodes (didn't set master yet) can't seem to sync up properly. One stops at 24903 and the other at 24556. I'll see what I can do to catch up with you all in the morning, and I'll read through the thread. Sorry I'm always behind!
 

moocowmoo

Bovine Bit-flipper
Foundation Member
Jun 15, 2014
483
603
263
masternode.me
Dash Address
XmoocowYfrPKUR6p6M5aJZdVntQe71irCX
If rebooting remote, sometimes it auto-activates, sometimes it doesnt.
This is the issue I'd seen.

sometimes I'd reboot and get the expected:
Code:
CDarkSendPool::EnableHotColdMasterNode()
sometimes I'd reboot and not get the message.

Haven't gotten to the bottom of this one yet.
 

minersday

Member
Apr 9, 2014
77
19
48
NP. I just make 5 more for those extras.. =P
done ;D

edit:
oh ~~ doubled.

Code:
[email protected]:~> darkcoind sendtoaddress msYutqQEWZffG1Suabe68NSbdeBtq2DFnQ 1000
3ba2f373dbbc355a0e5b262e280df27f6a385634f060fb8217e002cad2a8477f
[email protected]:~> darkcoind sendtoaddress mxXzjr3E1AtMGwauVbZ5NNHsaecnXhXdA8 1000
ebf1870ce7279849d96bc0350d83c02599b8fa62a5ce708dff48cda50863b309
[email protected]:~> darkcoind sendtoaddress mhYnT3kUwuZr68ECQMvaVywCwZNVWmmpcT 1000
4acc22b882cdbaf6f5e50cb64442c38d767e0bad936d2edc83027e3832a560c4
[email protected]:~> darkcoind sendtoaddress mkwhKitKC8g44QUwb68okX4Ac8m6GqDWQx 1000
bc1a187bcc6c979d04e2d0ed69d4c518efed53bcff0bb7853f9f1995029565ab
[email protected]:~> darkcoind sendtoaddress mjPo4a6zS3L8GvWZCjDNVG3GeYwc9vQYmA 1000
70fc00ebe63529261041973ea28ada0f8f0c93b04b35fb257409ebc9fa772cea
 
  • Like
Reactions: chaeplin

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,863
1,854
1,283
Also, something weird. I'm just running straight masternodes with the balance inside them. But my coins are not showing up anymore in my masternode. somehow my coins disappeared??? 'course someone could have broken in and taken them??? Not secured very well, LOL.

also both of them say true when I do darkcoind verifychain
 
Last edited by a moderator:

chaeplin

Active Member
Core Developer
Mar 29, 2014
749
356
133
Also, something weird. I'm just running straight masternodes with the balance inside them. But my coins are not showing up anymore in my masternode. somehow my coins disappeared??? 'course someone could have broken in and taken them??? Not secured very well, LOL.

also both of them say true when I do darkcoind verifychain
If those coins are transfered after block 24555, we have https://www.darkcointalk.org/threads/rc3-prelaunch-testing.1523/page-3#post-9682
Code:
****** PLEASE UPDATE TO 9.11.2 OR 10.11.2 ******

The recent issues are caused by the new hashing algorithm, which I've fixed in this version. 
To fix it though, I'm rewinding all blocks since we updated yesterday. 
This is the reason we test changes on testnet first!

To update you'll have to run with -reindex. Then starting and stopping the client won't cause issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flare

minersday

Member
Apr 9, 2014
77
19
48
somethings up with sv01
http://tdrk.poolhash.org/

----
EDIT1: and directed some serious hashing power directly to one of my masternodes..
EDIT2:
darkcoind getinfo
{
"version" : 101102,
"protocolversion" : 70019,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 1015.00000000,
"blocks" : 24963,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"connections" : 8,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 1.06960992,
"testnet" : true,
"keypoololdest" : 1403633398,
"keypoolsize" : 95,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"mininput" : 0.00001000,
"unlocked_until" : 0,
"errors" : ""
}

while tdrk.poolhash.org is going on with 24947
 
Last edited by a moderator:

yidakee

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 16, 2014
1,812
1,168
283
EDIT1: and directed some serious hashing power directly to one of my masternodes..

while tdrk.poolhash.org is going on with 24947
No !! dont do that !! We dont need massive amounts of hash power. What we need is the maximum spread out equal amounts of hashpower! If you please, direct each CPU/GPU to a different wallet, MPOS, NOMP and p2pool (which I think is not working since yesterday)

The problem with the last fork was block being found simultaneously and voted differently. If you point all the hash power to one source, it will skew the block finding and not help testnet.

And yeah, tdrk.poolhash.org is always a little behind, but it works fine. Always about 2 or 3 blocks behing. Since you just pointed lots of power while diff is low, that may be the reason for the bigger difference.
 

minersday

Member
Apr 9, 2014
77
19
48
No !! dont do that !! We dont need massive amounts of hash power. What we need is the maximum spread out equal amounts of hashpower! If you please, direct each CPU/GPU to a different wallet, MPOS, NOMP and p2pool (which I think is not working since yesterday)

The problem with the last fork was block being found simultaneously and voted differently. If you point all the hash power to one source, it will skew the block finding and not help testnet.

And yeah, tdrk.poolhash.org is always a little behind, but it works fine. Always about 2 or 3 blocks behing. Since you just pointed lots of power while diff is low, that may be the reason for the bigger difference.
now miners spread amongst 5 different masternodes..
 
  • Like
Reactions: yidakee

HammerHedd

Member
Mar 10, 2014
182
34
88
I probably won't see the answer to this question until tomorrow, but when I try to mine at P2pool I get failed to connect. Does it matter that I'm using minerd? instead of sgminer? P2pool gets can't connect and nomp gets stratum authentication failed.

And finally, despite updating to 10.11.02, both my remote nodes (didn't set master yet) can't seem to sync up properly. One stops at 24903 and the other at 24556. I'll see what I can do to catch up with you all in the morning, and I'll read through the thread. Sorry I'm always behind!
Probably the first thing to check is that you are mining into x.x.x.x:18998 instead of 8998 (or 7903) for testnet. In conjunction with that, check to make sure that your server or instance has port 18998 and 18999 open.

I'm running dstorm's p2pool and it seems to be working OK. If you are having problems hitting yours, try mining into mine at

stratum+tcp://54.88.172.2:18998

I initially had problems connecting until I changed my AWS EC security settings because I forgot that testnet p2pools use different ports.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

minersday

Member
Apr 9, 2014
77
19
48
So how about announce a "stress test day"? So making testing like an event? We could maybe setup loadbalacer to distribute load to several p2pools by redirecting IPs? So we would have balanced pools, and ofcourse increased change on finding the block at the same time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: David

David

Well-known Member
Dash Support Group
Jun 21, 2014
618
628
163
So how about announce a "stress test day"? So making testing like an event? We could maybe setup loadbalacer to distribute load to several p2pools by redirecting IPs? So we would have balanced pools, and ofcourse increased change on finding the block at the same time?
I'd be all about this! I feel bad because I can't contribute a lot of hashpower to testnet, but for a one-day thing I could divert everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: minersday

Raico

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Dash Support Group
May 28, 2014
138
142
193
If rebooting remote, sometimes it auto-activates, sometimes it doesnt.
Same thing happened to me some time. But the master node works well though. I'm waiting for the ISP to offer me some more vps and it will be done by this week. So I can join the testnet then.
 

yidakee

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 16, 2014
1,812
1,168
283
Same thing happened to me some time. But the master node works well though. I'm waiting for the ISP to offer me some more vps and it will be done by this week. So I can join the testnet then.
If all goes well, you'll be too late :tongue:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raico

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,863
1,854
1,283
If those coins are transfered after block 24555, we have https://www.darkcointalk.org/threads/rc3-prelaunch-testing.1523/page-3#post-9682
Code:
****** PLEASE UPDATE TO 9.11.2 OR 10.11.2 ******

The recent issues are caused by the new hashing algorithm, which I've fixed in this version.
To fix it though, I'm rewinding all blocks since we updated yesterday.
This is the reason we test changes on testnet first!

To update you'll have to run with -reindex. Then starting and stopping the client won't cause issue.
Might be the problem? BTW, what did Evan mean by new hashing algorithm? He didn't change X11, did he? Is there something else that gets hashed now as well? I missed that part, thanks for any clarification. Gotta get back to this later, so sorry!

Dear HammerHead, I didn't see a newer version posted, how do I check my version number? I mean I'm on version 10.11.02 protocolversion 70019. I don't know where to find the "x.x.x.x:18998 instead of 8998 (or 7903)"

Hard drive died, gotta put new one into the main Ubuntu. I stuck it into another machine because I thought the old drive came back to life well enough, LOL, but now I need to finally replace that drive.
 

yidakee

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 16, 2014
1,812
1,168
283
Might be the problem? BTW, what did Evan mean by new hashing algorithm? He didn't change X11, did he? Is there something else that gets hashed now as well? I missed that part, thanks for any clarification. Gotta get back to this later, so sorry!

Dear HammerHead, I didn't see a newer version posted, how do I check my version number? I mean I'm on version 10.11.02 protocolversion 70019. I don't know where to find the "x.x.x.x:18998 instead of 8998 (or 7903)"

Hard drive died, gotta put new one into the main Ubuntu. I stuck it into another machine because I thought the old drive came back to life well enough, LOL, but now I need to finally replace that drive.
He means the new hashing algo so that two block found with different votes do not look the same to the network, thus avoiding mini forks.
 

eduffield

Core Developer
Mar 9, 2014
1,084
5,320
183
Might be the problem? BTW, what did Evan mean by new hashing algorithm? He didn't change X11, did he? Is there something else that gets hashed now as well? I missed that part, thanks for any clarification. Gotta get back to this later, so sorry!
Nope, I just added a new hashing algorithm for uniquely identifying the voting structure of identical blocks to avoid the issues we had on mainnet last launch.

https://github.com/darkcoinproject/darkcoin/blob/forkfix/src/main.cpp#L1812
 

jimbit

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
May 23, 2014
229
103
203
Is anyone running the new code on mainnet yet? can we? should we? when should we?
 

minersday

Member
Apr 9, 2014
77
19
48

darkzero

Member
Jun 6, 2014
44
35
58
I don't know if it's a viable testing strategy but here my 2 cents anyway.
I understand that it's possible to send command to all the nodes of testnet and possibly to only a selection of them.
Instead of throwing hashrate everywhere hoping in a block solved (almost) simultaneously by two or more miners, is it possible to hard code in the test version of masternode a command to schedule the solution of an extremely easy block?
I try to explain with an example:
1. all tMN have hardcoded a command to schedule the propagation of the solution (solution hardcoded or supplied with command) of a (hardcoded) block at a specific height or time
2. the command is sent to 2 or more tMNs only
3. other tMNs behaves normally
4 when height or time event triggers the hardcoded block the solution is propagated to the network (almost) simultaneously by the tMNs that received the command
5 the command can be sent anytime to repeat the test
If the hardcoded easy block is not feasible, i think about a command to lower so much the difficulty for the next block in order to increase the probability for a collision
 

eduffield

Core Developer
Mar 9, 2014
1,084
5,320
183
****** PLEASE UPDATE TO 9.11.3 OR 10.11.3 ******

I've added a new masternode payment system for non-enforcement mode and ported over a bunch of changes/improvements from @rebroad on github (thanks!)

@rebroad's changes
- Added ability to sync from multiple nodes at once
- Added masternodes to address data (allowing mult-sync from masternodes which is awesome)
- Added a bunch of useful debug info, cleaned up some logging
- Added new proxytoo option
- NodeID's for debug purposes

Thanks for this!!

Binaries (stable)
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/forkfix/darkcoin-qt
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/forkfix/darkcoind

RC3 Binaries ( masternodes )
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/rc3/darkcoin-qt
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/rc3/darkcoind
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: flare and minersday

jimbit

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
May 23, 2014
229
103
203
I don't know if it's a viable testing strategy but here my 2 cents anyway.
I understand that it's possible to send command to all the nodes of testnet and possibly to only a selection of them.
Instead of throwing hashrate everywhere hoping in a block solved (almost) simultaneously by two or more miners, is it possible to hard code in the test version of masternode a command to schedule the solution of an extremely easy block?
I try to explain with an example:
1. all tMN have hardcoded a command to schedule the propagation of the solution (solution hardcoded or supplied with command) of a (hardcoded) block at a specific height or time
2. the command is sent to 2 or more tMNs only
3. other tMNs behaves normally
4 when height or time event triggers the hardcoded block the solution is propagated to the network (almost) simultaneously by the tMNs that received the command
5 the command can be sent anytime to repeat the test
If the hardcoded easy block is not feasible, i think about a command to lower so much the difficulty for the next block in order to increase the probability for a collision
This is a good idea imo, but since they are doing a soft launch on mainnet, the point may be moot.
 

jimbit

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
May 23, 2014
229
103
203
updated:
Code:
2014-06-25 17:45:12 ProcessSyncCheckpoint: sync-checkpoint at 00000000470e82349b97e606eb8380238456c499acf5150f89de1ed99042be06
2014-06-25 17:45:12 !!! ENFORCING PAYMENTS 4085657524
2014-06-25 17:45:12 received block 00000000434dbb3f797988204b42edb49f40cbcc216c0cb0546131d4383d4f40 peer=3
2014-06-25 17:45:12 Committing 38 changed transactions to coin database...
2014-06-25 17:45:12 SetBestChain: new best=00000000434dbb3f797988204b42edb49f40cbcc216c0cb0546131d4383d4f40  height=25124  log2_work=45.147152  tx=47438  date=2014-06-25 17:44:43 progress=1.000000
2014-06-25 17:45:12 CDarkSendPool::NewBlock - Is Masternode, resetting
2014-06-25 17:45:12 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
2014-06-25 17:45:12 DarkSendStatusUpdate - state: 2 entriesCount: 0 accepted: -1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.