v0.10.15 - Onyx Release

GermanRed+

Active Member
Aug 28, 2014
299
109
113
Ah.. Yes.. I have the site open with his address all the time... We all know the story.. But if you see anymore new address, feel free to report here. Thanks :)
Oh, sorry for my ignorance. I did not know that address is the famous 0.10.14 exploit. I did not see another one that is doing exactly the same thing but I think someone else is doing the same thing with 1000 DRK in his/her wallet to steal others' payments. Let me look up that address again and see if I have the same conclusion right now. I will definitely let you guys know if I see something suspicious.
 

GermanRed+

Active Member
Aug 28, 2014
299
109
113
Oh, sorry for my ignorance. I did not know that address is the famous 0.10.14 exploit. I did not see another one that is doing exactly the same thing but I think someone else is doing the same thing with 1000 DRK in his/her wallet to steal others' payments. Let me look up that address again and see if I have the same conclusion right now. I will definitely let you guys know if I see something suspicious.
XvH3qoo6F8c9yLCunVaAFt1rY7xj8ngXji is still getting innmlist and not_detected MN payments that was supposed to be paid to other MN's.
 

GermanRed+

Active Member
Aug 28, 2014
299
109
113
You can find more information about this exploit on here... it's an injected masternode list. Fixed in later releases (certainly in onyx) but will ocassionally get paid due to lack of enforcement. Nothing new by any means.
Great, with the source code, I think many are starting their own enforcement now.
 

moli

Grizzled Member
Aug 5, 2014
3,255
1,830
1,183
Oh, sorry for my ignorance. I did not know that address is the famous 0.10.14 exploit. I did not see another one that is doing exactly the same thing but I think someone else is doing the same thing with 1000 DRK in his/her wallet to steal others' payments. Let me look up that address again and see if I have the same conclusion right now. I will definitely let you guys know if I see something suspicious.
There's no ignorance here, you just didn't know. If you want to follow the development since the first exploit was discovered, it's here:
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/please-update-to-v10-14-1-masternode-security-update.2615/
And then Evan started doing more testing to fix this problem plus other problems, you can see it here:
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/v0-15-testing.2611/page-2
After this was the release of Onyx... But stay tuned .. still more development going on... :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: GermanRed+

GermanRed+

Active Member
Aug 28, 2014
299
109
113
Just another question. In theory, another enforcement can be applied by pool operators if they decide not to pay the MN's even after our enforcement. Sorry, I know I have many stupid questions. If the operator decide to have his own PROTOCOL_VERSION whether it is a fake one or a real one that is written to exploit the network and disconnect peers from all normal versions. Then, have another node that accept both his own PROTOCOL_VERSION and other normal versions at the same time. What will happen to the network in this scenario?
 

GermanRed+

Active Member
Aug 28, 2014
299
109
113
There's no ignorance here, you just didn't know. If you want to follow the development since the first exploit was discovered, it's here:
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/please-update-to-v10-14-1-masternode-security-update.2615/
And then Evan started doing more testing to fix this problem plus other problems, you can see it here:
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/v0-15-testing.2611/page-2
After this was the release of Onyx... But stay tuned .. still more development going on... :)
I'm still a believer in DRK. I should have been following the development but my personal life was keeping me busy for the past few weeks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moli

eth1

Member
Jul 1, 2014
40
64
58
Quebec, Canada
SuchPool.pw
Just another question. In theory, another enforcement can be applied by pool operators if they decide not to pay the MN's even after our enforcement. Sorry, I know I have many stupid questions. If the operator decide to have his own PROTOCOL_VERSION whether it is a fake one or a real one that is written to exploit the network and disconnect peers from all normal versions. Then, have another node that accept both his own PROTOCOL_VERSION and other normal versions at the same time. What will happen to the network in this scenario?
In the case there would be enforcement, I guess the coins would simply not be accepted on the main chain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GermanRed+

GermanRed+

Active Member
Aug 28, 2014
299
109
113
Ya, getting that a lot as well. What's really weird to me is that from each MN IP that I log into, it will show up :1, but checking my other nodes will show :0. So for example logging into

mn a will show a:1 b:0 c:0
mn b will show a:0 b:1 c:0
mn c will show a:0 b:0 c:1

They see themselves on the network but not my other ones. --a

EDIT: Deleted peers.dat on local, will try on remote as well and see. Seems to have fixed so far. Will see in the morning
I just ran this:

% darkcoind masternode list | sort | uniq -c | grep --color -v '^ *1'
3 "37.46.114.158:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.244:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.245:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.58:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.66:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.76:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.94:9999" : 1,

Why are we seeing multiple MN's for the same IP address?
 

MrMime

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
169
36
188
I just ran this:

% darkcoind masternode list | sort | uniq -c | grep --color -v '^ *1'
3 "37.46.114.158:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.244:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.245:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.58:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.66:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.76:9999" : 1,
2 "37.46.114.94:9999" : 1,

Why are we seeing multiple MN's for the same IP address?
It doesn't look like the same IP to me.
 

GermanRed+

Active Member
Aug 28, 2014
299
109
113
Oh I see. Hmmmm.. no idea.
And, IP address 37.46.114.158 is associated with the address XvH3qoo6F8c9yLCunVaAFt1rY7xj8ngXji which I mentioned in message #384.

EDIT: BTW, I'm running 0.10.15.14 with the enforcement patch if that matters.
 

MrMime

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
169
36
188
He's just spoofing then I'd assume? This should get fixed when enforcement turns on?
 

crowning

Well-known Member
May 29, 2014
1,414
1,997
183
Alpha Centauri Bc
Here's a little brain teaser for you all. I opened up my "transfer" wallet only to find out I'm getting MN payments. Not that I'm complaining about getting a total of 3DRK, but I'd like to know why.

Here's one tx:
http://explorer.darkcoin.io/tx/4668c8064f29035a943a0864a895ae2ed8f7ed72f256a2ae252809a9b8ad4a3a

Anybody have a guess?
In other words, you got 2 payments to an address which once WAS a Masternode.

Interesting....I'll open another JIRA issue for that...

Edit: Done, see http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-107
 

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Core Developer
Dash Core Group
May 20, 2014
3,639
3,537
1,183
In other words, you got 2 payments to an address which once WAS a Masternode.

Interesting....I'll open another JIRA issue for that...

Edit: Done, see http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-107
I have the same situation
Good news:
I finally got 1 payment after a lot of tx_out and so on

Bad news:
It came on old mn address that is not online for a few days now and I have no 1000 DRK there :what:
http://explorer.darkcoin.fr/tx/a29e1d92427dc7eef8c9136d84e6bca833b11bc128e1e3dbb366379a00f9bd19

PS. http://explorer.darkcoin.io/chain/Darkcoin stuck on block 156371
EDIT: explorer seems to be fixed now but now it refuses to search by txid :)
and one more payment received on old address today
http://explorer.darkcoin.io/tx/655e04e8993130482fc46db5e090f55781944f2d995a640768a7cc1cf935700a

EDIT: commented on JIRA
 

oblox

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,032
537
183
The enforcement period is too long. Plain and simple. No reason to be longer than a week of waiting for people to update, most are done same day or within a few days. Anything longer encourages leeching. Miners shouldn't be mining with pools that don't give two shits about being on the latest wallet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JGCMiner

eth1

Member
Jul 1, 2014
40
64
58
Quebec, Canada
SuchPool.pw
The enforcement period is too long. Plain and simple. No reason to be longer than a week of waiting for people to update, most are done same day or within a few days. Anything longer encourages leeching. Miners shouldn't be mining with pools that don't give two shits about being on the latest wallet.
3 days is enough. Prior notification of an upcoming update is also an option to make sure pool ops would be on stand-by ready to apply updates as they come.
 

moli

Grizzled Member
Aug 5, 2014
3,255
1,830
1,183
The enforcement period is too long. Plain and simple. No reason to be longer than a week of waiting for people to update, most are done same day or within a few days. Anything longer encourages leeching. Miners shouldn't be mining with pools that don't give two shits about being on the latest wallet.
You were in the channel when Evan said he's waiting until some block# then he's going to switch the enforcement on, right? he said it would be about ~3 days. So it's coming, right?
 

oblox

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,032
537
183
You were in the channel when Evan said he's waiting until some block# then he's going to switch the enforcement on, right? he said he would be about ~3 days. So it's coming, right?
I brought that up from an email with Evan about block 158k because that's when masternode payouts bump from 20 to 25%. He is looking to see how many pools have updated their stratum code for the dynamic payout. He still wants to see 85% which I'm not sure will be possible with the one solo miner (90 is for sure out).
 

moocowmoo

Bovine Bit-flipper
Foundation Member
Jun 15, 2014
483
603
263
masternode.me
Dash Address
XmoocowYfrPKUR6p6M5aJZdVntQe71irCX
You were in the channel when Evan said he's waiting until some block# then he's going to switch the enforcement on, right? he said it would be about ~3 days. So it's coming, right?
src/main.cpp: if(nHeight > 158000) ret += blockValue / 20; //25.0% - 2014-10-23

block 158001 is the shift. Assuming 2.5 minute blocks thats 46.6 hours from now. w00t!
 
  • Like
Reactions: moli and flare

crowning

Well-known Member
May 29, 2014
1,414
1,997
183
Alpha Centauri Bc
src/main.cpp: if(nHeight > 158000) ret += blockValue / 20; //25.0% - 2014-10-23

block 158001 is the shift. Assuming 2.5 minute blocks thats 46.6 hours from now. w00t!
That would be great if my Masternodes would stay active long enough (which they don't) to get some votes [hint, hint].
 

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
283
Yep, from day one. Didn't change anything, every 74 minutes (average) they go inactive until I give them a loving kick in the nuts :rolleyes:
Where are you seeing them as :0?

15.14 is consistent for me so far across all my nodes and local wallet, poolhash.org still on 15.13, don't go by that.
 

eth1

Member
Jul 1, 2014
40
64
58
Quebec, Canada
SuchPool.pw
Myself and moocowmoo have had issues of some masternodes not seeing some others in the network. Also not always getting the HotCold mention upon starting a masternode since 15.14. Some of moo's nodes won't see some of my nodes unless he restarts his.

We also don't see the same masternode count on every nodes.
My results:
664 , 641 , 640 , 641 , 642 , 652
 
Last edited by a moderator:

crowning

Well-known Member
May 29, 2014
1,414
1,997
183
Alpha Centauri Bc
Where are you seeing them as :0?

15.14 is consistent for me so far across all my nodes and local wallet, poolhash.org still on 15.13, don't go by that.
I have darkcoinds (for logging) running with the same version as the Masternodes, right now I'm speaking of v.0.15.14.

My local darkcoinds and those running on my VPS' report the same (with minimal time delays of course).