v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing
- Thread starter eduffield
- Start date
- Status
Well it seems that coin control won't display the 'wallet address' or any in-wallet addresses you have generated because once denomination has finished there's nothing left in these addresses... I guess best-practise for security would be not to give out your 'wallet address' but instead have coins sent to one of the burner change addresses?
flare
Well-known member
Yep, Evan is working on this, it's a race condition in the DarkSendPool implementation of the Masternode code - wait for v0.12.10.15
darkwing
Active member
So if the whole balance is denominated after every transaction this will cost you transaction fees + denomination fees + take X hours to redenominate?
The fees sound reasonable for the large amounts you are using on test net but if you take it down to smaller balances - the amounts will reflect a significant percentage if the above is true.
Add to that future increase in value and people may be hesitant in future to denominate. And we need everyone denominating as often as possible.
With the amount of transactions always going on due to the denomination is it not worth lowering the fees?
Is there a way around redenominating the whole balance after each transaction?
I know I'm being annoying but our competitors are going to jump on any shortcomings perceived or real. And only being able to send 1 transaction every few hours is one in my opinion.
If I've misunderstood please correct me I thought it was worth posting this as I can't be the only one thinking this.
The fees sound reasonable for the large amounts you are using on test net but if you take it down to smaller balances - the amounts will reflect a significant percentage if the above is true.
Add to that future increase in value and people may be hesitant in future to denominate. And we need everyone denominating as often as possible.
With the amount of transactions always going on due to the denomination is it not worth lowering the fees?
Is there a way around redenominating the whole balance after each transaction?
I know I'm being annoying but our competitors are going to jump on any shortcomings perceived or real. And only being able to send 1 transaction every few hours is one in my opinion.
If I've misunderstood please correct me I thought it was worth posting this as I can't be the only one thinking this.
Great - those race conditions are hard to troubleshoot! - hence why we need to test as much as we can!Yep, Evan is working on this, it's a race condition in the DarkSendPool implementation of the Masternode code - wait for v0.12.10.15
I would expect that the denomination fee can be modified (lowered) in future if the price does shoot up significantly. Edit - the fee's especially collateral needs to be kept at a certain threshold vs price to stop bad actors from doing anything substantial to the network.
Additionally with the entire network denominating and from what I have seen on testnet when its working well, new funds transferred to your wallet would be anonymized very quickly, certainly not hours.
Your wallet has started denominating and is charging the fees.
If 0.003 is a fee then calling it "payment to yourself" is confusing. Shouldn't it simply say "denomination fee"?
flare
Well-known member
And as it seems he is on mainnet, the wallet will fail denominating ^^
Is it something I should be concerned?
What do you recommend me to do? roll back to the old version?daaarkcoins
Member
Yes, roll back. If you really are on mainnet, updating to anything posted on this thread doesn't work at best or you'll even start losing your DRKs donating your DRKs to the bounty fund little by little through collaterals. These versions weren't made for mainnet, so there can be unexpected behavior.
Last edited by a moderator:
flare
Well-known member
Nothing be concerned yet - just be aware that you are using a unreleased RC4 version on your real DRK and bad things might happen... that's what testnet is for.Is it something I should be concerned?
I would stay on testnet for the time being...
LOL, well spotted flare. Light, yeah you shouldn't be using an RC4 wallet on main net, it ain't gonna work out well... close it and fire up your old wallet again... :grin:
flare I rolled back to the currently available main-net version from darkcoin.io but this mac version also have address font issue
Could you please fix mainnet version so that the new comers don't freak out when they can't see the addresses.
JGCMiner
Active member
Yep, Evan is working on this, it's a race condition in the DarkSendPool implementation of the Masternode code - wait for v0.12.10.15
Is issue also the reason for the collateral fees?
Also this is a crosspost from Camosoul on bitcointalk....
Seems plausible. Has this been considered?
flare
Well-known member
You are right, we are due delivering 0.9.11.7 and 0.10.11.7 for Mac...flare I rolled back to the currently available main-net version from darkcoin.io but this mac version also have address font issue
N
nj47
Guest
I accidently did the same yesterday and was a little worried, thankfully nothing bad happened (which probably is a good sign...)
After that I decided it would just be easier to write a bash script to start my wallet and not have to worry.
Code:
#!/bin/bash
echo Starting primary wallet on main net
./darkcoin-qt.10.11.6 -datadir=/home/nathan/darkcoin/mainnet/.darkcoin & disown
Code:
#!/bin/bash
echo Starting testnet wallet on testnet
./darkcoin-qt.10.12.14 -darksendrounds=8 -datadir=/home/nathan/darkcoin/testnet/.darkcoin & disown
echo Starting testnet wallet 2 on testnet
./darkcoin-qt.10.12.14 -listen 0 -darksendrounds=2 -datadir=/home/nathan/darkcoin/testnet/.darkcoin2 & disownI even sent some coins (non-anonymized) to an exchange with the mainnet version (v0.10.12.14-beta) and it went through perfectly. I have a feeling that RC4 is gonna be a huge success. Can't wait!
LOL congratulations, you are the first RC4 user on mainnet!
- Status