Am I the only one for whom the faucet is not sending funds to? 
Edit: Sorry, I forgot the "-testnet" argument.
Edit: Sorry, I forgot the "-testnet" argument.
v0.10.13.x RC5 Testing
- Thread starter eduffield
- Start date
- Status
Gotcha! Maybe teamer should add a "testnet address validity check" to the field when he is out of the hospital againAm I the only one for whom the faucet is not sending funds to?
Edit: Sorry, I forgot the "-testnet" argument.
Evan, any way you can include the "n/a" as 0 when you compute the percentage for the status bar?
As it is now, you jump to 1 round and then stay there for a long time while all the rest of your coins get to 1 round. Makes it look like the client is "stuck" when it there really is no problem.
As it is now, you jump to 1 round and then stay there for a long time while all the rest of your coins get to 1 round. Makes it look like the client is "stuck" when it there really is no problem.
The completion bar stays at 100% even though new funds are being anonymized.
I will edit this post when new funds are anonymized(and if they are anonymized). So far RC5 looks really good. I think this is the RC that will make the price jump sky high. I just hope it won't be moved to mainnet until all bugs are sorted out.
Good job Darkcoin team.
Edit: The bar jumped now to 57% as new funds are being anonymized. I think its just a GUI bug that the completion bar doesn't get set to 0% after job is finished.
Edit2: I just had an error that said "Not compatible with existing transactions".
I will edit this post when new funds are anonymized(and if they are anonymized). So far RC5 looks really good. I think this is the RC that will make the price jump sky high. I just hope it won't be moved to mainnet until all bugs are sorted out.
Good job Darkcoin team.
Edit: The bar jumped now to 57% as new funds are being anonymized. I think its just a GUI bug that the completion bar doesn't get set to 0% after job is finished.
Edit2: I just had an error that said "Not compatible with existing transactions".
Darkcoin test squad, you are doing a tremendous job!
http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-44
http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-46
Thanks for reporting, already noted in JIRA
http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-44
http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-46
I have seen similar behavior, progress bar jumping back and forth during anonymizing.
Anonymizing has completed now. Just one question.
It's probably just me, not fully understanding the progres...
I've set darksend rounds to 8 and 1000 drk's to keep anonymized (2000 in my wallet)
Now after denominating is done, i've checked and i've paid 0.26 tDRK total for denominating (so 21 times). I figured it would cost me just 8 times 0.0125 since i've put 8 rounds.
Is this normal behavior? And if so, is there a way to predict what the cost is going to be before starting the denominating?
I think it's because each round of DS+ doesn't necessarily involve all your DRK (or the DRK you've asked to be anonymised) but instead just whatever is compatable with the pools currently available, which makes it tricky to give precise figures for the total cost per x DRK.
I suppose a further user-selectable option could be added, anonymise cheaply (takes longer) or faster (costs more) but it still wouldn't give you any guarantees so might not be worth it?
Oh ok, i get it.
It would be cool to be able to set some kind of an "anonimizing budget".
I mean, for now it's ok, 0.26 drk is still less dan one dollar. But that could change in the future...
Especially for people who just own a couple of DRK's, I think it would be a scary to see the fees rolling in, not knowing what it would cost in the end to get anonymized.
Now, if i understand correctly, the more users anonymizing at the same time, the more available entries at the pool. That would mean, the anonymizing getting cheaper when used on main net, right?
1000DRK through 8 rounds of DS+ costing 0.00026% is still a bloody good deal... but yes I think an anon-budget might be a good idea in future.
Isn't this address from main net? I thought all testnet addresses started wtih an N or an M?
Yep, and as far as i know he figured out himself :-D
Hell yeah! I won't be the one complaining
But in my experience (web development) i have had a lot of contact with end users during testing. Its with these people in mind i'm thinking now.
When they would see there money "disappearing" (even when it's close to nothing. It is still a red number with a minus symbol), without understanding fully, and more importantly without feeling in control of whats happening. A lot of them will quickly come to the conclusion. "weird stuff, to nerdy, not for me".
Just an update on this, I opened up the wallet again today and the process started again on its own, very cool. I guess I was just impatient yesterday.
I'm participating in this testing as an end user as well, using the windows wallet which imo will be used by mainstream users. Anyways, after being WOWed by the speedy anonymizing of the first 1000 drk... I spent 300 drk, and received 701.99 drk. I left the Options settings the same (1000 drk to be anonymized at 8 rounds), but nothing happened overnight.
This morning I changed the amount to 800, waited, the anonymization progress bar stayed the same at 86%. Restarted the wallet, waited, the progress bar was still the same. Changed the amount to 1000, waited, it didn't make the anonymizing to budge. There have been talks about we can make it even more anonymous by going through 8 rounds a few times. Can this happen yet? How?
I understand that the anonymizing has to wait for compatible pairs, but I'm wondering if this is a bug. The first initial 1000 drk were anonymized fast, but it seems the next process is halted or something.
This morning I changed the amount to 800, waited, the anonymization progress bar stayed the same at 86%. Restarted the wallet, waited, the progress bar was still the same. Changed the amount to 1000, waited, it didn't make the anonymizing to budge. There have been talks about we can make it even more anonymous by going through 8 rounds a few times. Can this happen yet? How?
I understand that the anonymizing has to wait for compatible pairs, but I'm wondering if this is a bug. The first initial 1000 drk were anonymized fast, but it seems the next process is halted or something.
Evan or Flare, could you please explain this with examples:
http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-40
Thank you.
http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-40
Thank you.
I'm curious if the development team has automated testing in place to catch these splitting/mixing bugs. Ideally it should be tested on some kind of testnet or simulated testnet with many different sized inputs and fast confirmation times before the code is pushed out.
If we had enough tDRK which we do, as well as 10 or 20 wallet's on linux it would probably be fairly trivial to build some scripts to just send around the dark's over and over again. This is fairly scriptable from teh linux client though I'm sure there is probably code out there somewhere to help address this. I def agree a commitment to testnet architecture could go a long way in teh bug finding process.
It's not a bug, it's a .. story
Basically it means that Evan is aware that the current queue implementation is sometimes causing "Not compatible transactions found" messages on the clients, and he created this ticket as a work package reminder for himself to get into this - it's Evans' dev work queue if you like
Not sure if this has been discussed...
I am mining solo against the window-qt..
I recieved 2000 tdrk
my setting is, 8 rounds 5000
I now have over 4400 anonimized because it is denominating my mined blocks.... aren't mined blocks already anonymous? I dont think I should have to pay fees on my mined coins?
Jim
I am mining solo against the window-qt..
I recieved 2000 tdrk
my setting is, 8 rounds 5000
I now have over 4400 anonimized because it is denominating my mined blocks.... aren't mined blocks already anonymous? I dont think I should have to pay fees on my mined coins?
Jim
I am working on this - unfortunately Darkcoin does not have the 'regnet' mode (additional to testnet) as in Bitcoin 0.9.x yet, but thats the way we want to go in the future. Evan has his own "mini testnet" in place for development, but the CI-server is still lacking such
I fully agree that bugs in the splitting code are tedious to hunt down with manual testing in testnet, and automated tests are crucial here...
The client has no way of knowing that those DRK have just been mined, it assumes all incoming DRK requires anonymising, which for just about every other case is true.
It would need more overhead than is probably practical to determine whether any particular chunk of coinage is freshly minted or not.
Solution: mine to a wallet with Darksend disabled.
Interesting idea, per definition fresh mined blocks should be anonymous as they are not tainted at all. Perhaps you should file this as feature request.
Nevertheless miners usually don't run their wallet with darksend/denom enabled ^^
How many MNs are we talking, and how much DRK do you need to accomplish that? I might could make a small donation, and there are likely others who would contribute to a robust testnet!
I have some resource but am very rusty in linux, if someone can help me with the setup of the MN i can host MN continuously on test net.
i'm impressed with latest RC5 build, the completion bar is a great addition and the denominate's are going well.
Not seen any collateral fees so far, i'm starting to feel optimistic that it has been squashed as bug completely now.
Not seen any collateral fees so far, i'm starting to feel optimistic that it has been squashed as bug completely now.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status