v0.10.15 - Onyx Release

cryptoyogi

New Member
Jun 9, 2014
18
18
3
Keep seeing evans chart reposted on dct.
Was curious about higher masternode counts.
Even with most of today's outstanding DRK put into masternodes, the ROI is fantastic!
...just bought another. :)

What I think most people don't understand is that ROI is of the current value. The ROI doesn't change, but the dollar amount returned will continue to go up as the value of DRK goes up. So the yearly return may be $300 this year but $5,000 next year. As more people come to understand this, the more people will buy masternodes which will make this a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ourlink

donho

Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Apr 16, 2014
96
20
58
What I think most people don't understand is that ROI is of the current value. The ROI doesn't change, but the dollar amount returned will continue to go up as the value of DRK goes up. So the yearly return may be $300 this year but $5,000 next year. As more people come to understand this, the more people will buy masternodes which will make this a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm kind of worried that the MN share will be too much once the price will go up.
For mining you'll just have more miners, so it's self balancing (See BTC). But with the 1000 DRK needed there can only be so many MNs.
Don't get me wrong, I think raising the MN reward was a good idea to get closer to ~3000 MNs (can't remember the exact number evan stated as desireable).
I'm just not sure if the share MN holders will receive will be fair in the long run (with much higher prices :) )
Of course the MN stake of 1k DRK will also be worth a lot... Maybe it's a non-issue
It's just something that is nagging me from time to time...
I'll be more than happy if someone can allay my conerns :D
 

djcrypto

Member
May 27, 2014
180
94
88
make sure you see correct version in getinfo output
Code:
"version" : 101519,
Yes I get the correct version listed in the getinfo output. When I updated to 101521 I get the same message and when I try to do "masternode start" command I get a safe mode error.
error: {"code":-2,"message":"Safe mode: Warning: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade."}
 

oblox

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,032
537
183
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: ourlink

oblox

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,032
537
183
The enforcement was switched on almost 3 days ago... They should pay more attention..
Not only that, if you are going to run any sort of pool, you should be checking at least once a day to make sure you aren't forked, that your blocks aren't orphans, and any of the other issues that arise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ourlink

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Dash Core Team
Moderator
May 20, 2014
3,638
3,538
1,183
Yes I get the correct version listed in the getinfo output. When I updated to 101521 I get the same message and when I try to do "masternode start" command I get a safe mode error.
error: {"code":-2,"message":"Safe mode: Warning: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade."}
I guess I was wrong about version issue. According to source code
Code:
    // Longer invalid proof-of-work chain
    if (pindexBest && nBestInvalidWork > nBestChainWork + (pindexBest->GetBlockWork() * 6).getuint256())
    {
        nPriority = 2000;
        strStatusBar = strRPC = _("Warning: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade.");
    }
I think there is something wrong with your blockchain data. Try running darkcoind (or qt-wallet) with -reindex option.
 

feeleep

New Member
Oct 18, 2014
29
33
13
anything happened to the network? no blocks for 1 hr!

EDIT: finally found :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: splawik21

innergy

Member
Jun 27, 2014
46
13
48
At what block do the 30% rewards for MNs kick in?
November 23rd

if(nHeight > 158000) ret += blockValue / 20; //25.0% - 2014-10-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*1)) ret += blockValue / 20; //30.0% - 2014-11-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*2)) ret += blockValue / 20; //35.0% - 2014-12-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*3)) ret += blockValue / 40; //37.5% - 2015-01-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*4)) ret += blockValue / 40; //40.0% - 2015-02-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*5)) ret += blockValue / 40; //42.5% - 2015-03-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*6)) ret += blockValue / 40; //45.0% - 2015-04-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*7)) ret += blockValue / 40; //47.5% - 2015-05-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*9)) ret += blockValue / 40; //50.0% - 2015-07-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*11)) ret += blockValue / 40; //52.5% - 2015-09-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*13)) ret += blockValue / 40; //55.0% - 2015-11-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*15)) ret += blockValue / 40; //57.5% - 2016-01-23
if(nHeight > 158000+((576*30)*17)) ret += blockValue / 40; //60.0% - 2016-03-23
 
Last edited by a moderator:

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Dash Core Team
Moderator
May 20, 2014
3,638
3,538
1,183
I noticed that my qt-wallet is acting strange.
Sometimes it refuses to sync on first run and it syncs just fine on second run.
That looks like it stuck on wrong chain or something and then catch the right one.

Last time it happen just now and I was wondering what's going on so I issued getcheckpoint command
Code:
getcheckpoint

{
"synccheckpoint" : "0000000000013405800ae1054ff5995798a65969bc095bbc667fcd65dbac57db",
"height" : 168537,
"timestamp" : 1415815968,
"subscribemode" : "enforce",
"enforcing" : "off"
}
enforcing is off...

Closed wallet and run it again (it synced), issued getcheckpoint and this time
Code:
getcheckpoint

{
"synccheckpoint" : "00000000001077126c85b08589a571aefe4bd9c57cbecd06258d37511a07152b",
"height" : 168575,
"timestamp" : 1415822003,
"subscribemode" : "enforce",
"enforcing" : "on"
}
everything is fine...

This behavior is really confusing me and I guess a lot of newcomers could be confused even more.
So questions are:
Did someone else noticed the same behavior?
How can it be fixed?

EDIT: I'm on Mac OS 10.10 btw
 

illodin

Member
Apr 26, 2014
122
71
78
Yeah, I just launched 4 wallets and 3 of them started fine, but one of them not:

getcheckpoint
{
"synccheckpoint" : "0000000000070559f92aeab3e205497f18d01ad4321216973f639cd5cc5eecd0",
"height" : 167960,
"timestamp" : 1415725210,
"subscribemode" : "enforce",
"enforcing" : "off"
}
 

moli

Grizzled Member
Aug 5, 2014
3,255
1,830
1,183
My wallet said enforcing was off when it was trying to sync, but once it's synced it's ok.

getcheckpoint
{
"synccheckpoint" : "00000000000a507b6d49abf25d1255a4659297a83bbee3eb0b1949c7b9519d8d",
"height" : 168628,
"timestamp" : 1415830791,
"subscribemode" : "enforce",
"enforcing" : "on"
}
 

Light

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jun 4, 2014
346
256
233
I noticed that my qt-wallet is acting strange.
Sometimes it refuses to sync on first run and it syncs just fine on second run.
That looks like it stuck on wrong chain or something and then catch the right one.

Last time it happen just now and I was wondering what's going on so I issued getcheckpoint command
Code:
getcheckpoint

{
"synccheckpoint" : "0000000000013405800ae1054ff5995798a65969bc095bbc667fcd65dbac57db",
"height" : 168537,
"timestamp" : 1415815968,
"subscribemode" : "enforce",
"enforcing" : "off"
}
enforcing is off...

Closed wallet and run it again (it synced), issued getcheckpoint and this time
Code:
getcheckpoint

{
"synccheckpoint" : "00000000001077126c85b08589a571aefe4bd9c57cbecd06258d37511a07152b",
"height" : 168575,
"timestamp" : 1415822003,
"subscribemode" : "enforce",
"enforcing" : "on"
}
everything is fine...

This behavior is really confusing me and I guess a lot of newcomers could be confused even more.
So questions are:
Did someone else noticed the same behavior?
How can it be fixed?

EDIT: I'm on Mac OS 10.10 btw
Yes, I have to close and open my wallet 2-3 times before it fully syncs. I am also on Mac OS.
 

AjM

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jun 23, 2014
1,335
571
283
Finland
I noticed that my qt-wallet is acting strange.
Sometimes it refuses to sync on first run and it syncs just fine on second run.
That looks like it stuck on wrong chain or something and then catch the right one.

Last time it happen just now and I was wondering what's going on so I issued getcheckpoint command
Code:
getcheckpoint

{
"synccheckpoint" : "0000000000013405800ae1054ff5995798a65969bc095bbc667fcd65dbac57db",
"height" : 168537,
"timestamp" : 1415815968,
"subscribemode" : "enforce",
"enforcing" : "off"
}
enforcing is off...

Closed wallet and run it again (it synced), issued getcheckpoint and this time
Code:
getcheckpoint

{
"synccheckpoint" : "00000000001077126c85b08589a571aefe4bd9c57cbecd06258d37511a07152b",
"height" : 168575,
"timestamp" : 1415822003,
"subscribemode" : "enforce",
"enforcing" : "on"
}
everything is fine...

This behavior is really confusing me and I guess a lot of newcomers could be confused even more.
So questions are:
Did someone else noticed the same behavior?
How can it be fixed?

EDIT: I'm on Mac OS 10.10 btw
Same here, win7 x64, sync problems are very annoying.