v0.10.15.x Testing

Status
Not open for further replies.

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,549
728
183
correct :

{
"version" : 101507,
"protocolversion" : 70041,
"walletversion" : 60001,
"balance" : 1887.08700000,
"darksend_balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 46859,
"timeoffset" : -9,
"connections" : 5,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.08339494,
"testnet" : true,
"keypoololdest" : 1413021695,
"keypoolsize" : 1000,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"mininput" : 0.00001000,
"unlocked_until" : 0,
"errors" : ""
}


we need to be on protocol 70042 .. correct guys ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: thelonecrouton

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Dash Core Team
Moderator
May 20, 2014
3,637
3,536
1,183
correct :

{
"version" : 101507,
"protocolversion" : 70041,
"walletversion" : 60001,
"balance" : 1887.08700000,
"darksend_balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 46859,
"timeoffset" : -9,
"connections" : 5,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.08339494,
"testnet" : true,
"keypoololdest" : 1413021695,
"keypoolsize" : 1000,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"mininput" : 0.00001000,
"unlocked_until" : 0,
"errors" : ""
}


we need to be on protocol 70042 .. correct guys ?
guess so, on linux:

"version" : 101508,
"protocolversion" : 70042,
 

eduffield

Core Developer
Mar 9, 2014
1,084
5,319
183
What is this line in mnw command handling in main.cpp? Some sort of checking with hardcoded key?
There's a new type of node that's responsible for telling the network who will get paid. The algorithm is deterministic, but by just having a few of these nodes we'll ensure it can't be attacked. So there's a public key in the source for checking the signatures to make sure it's from one of the privileged nodes.

These nodes are going to be responsible for monitoring the masternodes and could even do testing on ports, run darksend tests, etc. Just to make sure that the nodes are doing their job. Otherwise they won't be paid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TaoOfSatoshi

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,549
728
183
Evan is learning the joys of CI-Server :)
:)

note :

i'm getting the 0.001 fees for Darksend self payments too now.. has this changed ? (in my options ''pay transaction fees'' are set to 0.00000000 so i was exspecting 0 Darksend self payments fees too)

Edit : Darksend denominate transactions are coming in.. so this new update looks promising.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kryptofoo

Member
Jul 21, 2014
114
36
78
Germany
There's a new type of node that's responsible for telling the network who will get paid. The algorithm is deterministic, but by just having a few of these nodes we'll ensure it can't be attacked. So there's a public key in the source for checking the signatures to make sure it's from one of the privileged nodes.

These nodes are going to be responsible for monitoring the masternodes and could even do testing on ports, run darksend tests, etc. Just to make sure that the nodes are doing their job. Otherwise they won't be paid.
sounds analogous to a checkpointing node for mining networks. Who will operate these nodes?
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,549
728
183
i'm seeing 0.1 fees for self payments appearing..... not good.
Edit : Also i'm seeing messages about collateral not valid.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

HinnomTX

Active Member
Jul 22, 2014
166
196
103
sounds analogous to a checkpointing node for mining networks. Who will operate these nodes?
Good question. Is there any plan to remove the checkpointing that's done now? It seems we are creeping toward a central authority by checkpointing and using 'privileged nodes'. Essentially we are building trust into the DNA of the coin, and that's scary.
 

illodin

Member
Apr 26, 2014
122
71
78
23.97.152.145 / mpMVevHGJCuBpqxFqbah1dgkSDnyi58nTb
191.235.132.246 / mpCjmn7rKUs6TcXeXxTKoBK1wtkC1Qsune
191.238.52.72 / n43UCKkMybVQ7bFBfyZ2wJciHTetheyuc1
137.135.13.83 / mrtY9qopFHzyqcXju13xFSE2Py6gVUWL6S
168.63.151.85 / moQgMKbaQAZKCCwAqCZvHt6ijouXCNGpYy
23.98.65.243 / myKtKKwAnQWXR78QndMu5sjGoovPbu4jkC
138.91.1.101 / mtohxUb85JwGutcg7y3UoAXhEDKQYkPop9
191.238.80.67 / mkkc3ac6PFKax1AzK7SeqHJUMUhwnHT5sj

Updated to v0.10.15.8
 

HinnomTX

Active Member
Jul 22, 2014
166
196
103
If that's your MN list, that's not what I see at all:
Code:
$ darkcoind getinfo
{
  "version" : 101508,
  "protocolversion" : 70042,
  "walletversion" : 60000,
  "balance" : 19751.98471125,
  "darksend_balance" : 0.00000000,
  "blocks" : 46877,
  "timeoffset" : 0,
  "connections" : 19,
  "proxy" : "",
  "difficulty" : 0.10682378,
  "testnet" : true,
  "keypoololdest" : 1406001326,
  "keypoolsize" : 1001,
  "paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
  "mininput" : 0.00001000,
  "errors" : ""
}
$ darkcoind masternode list
{
  "178.62.203.249:19999" : 1,
  "92.222.10.179:19999" : 1,
  "107.170.168.162:19999" : 1,
  "188.226.225.170:19999" : 1,
  "198.50.148.87:19999" : 1,
  "69.160.84.100:19999" : 1,
  "107.170.157.216:19999" : 1,
  "176.126.247.191:19999" : 1,
  "108.61.198.220:19999" : 1
}
Forked?
 

eduffield

Core Developer
Mar 9, 2014
1,084
5,319
183
Good question. Is there any plan to remove the checkpointing that's done now? It seems we are creeping toward a central authority by checkpointing and using 'privileged nodes'. Essentially we are building trust into the DNA of the coin, and that's scary.
It's either a pubkey in the code that enables a centralized node to issue checkpoints, or it's checkpoints in the code that are also centralized. Aren't they both the same, really?
 

eduffield

Core Developer
Mar 9, 2014
1,084
5,319
183
Can I get everyone to do this that's running v8?

./darkcoind getblockhash 46877
00000008fa567018748da5939a55a88028f397529344eb4886b11c9e69805c26
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,549
728
183
Can I get everyone to do this that's running v8?

./darkcoind getblockhash 46877
00000008fa567018748da5939a55a88028f397529344eb4886b11c9e69805c26
running V8 .. sent you the debug.log per email

ran getblockhash 46877 :

00000008fa567018748da5939a55a88028f397529344eb4886b11c9e69805c26
 

HinnomTX

Active Member
Jul 22, 2014
166
196
103
Can I get everyone to do this that's running v8?

./darkcoind getblockhash 46877
00000008fa567018748da5939a55a88028f397529344eb4886b11c9e69805c26
My MN (108.61.198.220) matches

$ ./darkcoind getblockhash 46877
00000008fa567018748da5939a55a88028f397529344eb4886b11c9e69805c26
 

illodin

Member
Apr 26, 2014
122
71
78
If that's your MN list, that's not what I see at all:
Code:
$ darkcoind getinfo
{
  "version" : 101508,
  "protocolversion" : 70042,
  "walletversion" : 60000,
  "balance" : 19751.98471125,
  "darksend_balance" : 0.00000000,
  "blocks" : 46877,
  "timeoffset" : 0,
  "connections" : 19,
  "proxy" : "",
  "difficulty" : 0.10682378,
  "testnet" : true,
  "keypoololdest" : 1406001326,
  "keypoolsize" : 1001,
  "paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
  "mininput" : 0.00001000,
  "errors" : ""
}
$ darkcoind masternode list
{
  "178.62.203.249:19999" : 1,
  "92.222.10.179:19999" : 1,
  "107.170.168.162:19999" : 1,
  "188.226.225.170:19999" : 1,
  "198.50.148.87:19999" : 1,
  "69.160.84.100:19999" : 1,
  "107.170.157.216:19999" : 1,
  "176.126.247.191:19999" : 1,
  "108.61.198.220:19999" : 1
}
Forked?
Can you see them now? Maybe it just took a while for them to get registered. I'm seeing all those servers you pasted + mine:

"92.222.10.179:19999" : 1,
"178.62.203.249:19999" : 1,
"107.170.168.162:19999" : 1,
"188.226.225.170:19999" : 1,
"198.50.148.87:19999" : 1,
"69.160.84.100:19999" : 1,
"107.170.157.216:19999" : 1,
"176.126.247.191:19999" : 1,
"108.61.198.220:19999" : 1,
"23.97.152.145:19999" : 1,
"191.235.132.246:19999" : 1,
"137.135.13.83:19999" : 1,
"191.238.52.72:19999" : 1,
"138.91.1.101:19999" : 1,
"23.98.65.243:19999" : 1,
"168.63.151.85:19999" : 1,
"191.238.80.67:19999" : 1
 

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
283
Code:
[email protected]:~/.darkcoin# ./darkcoind getblockhash 46877
00000008fa567018748da5939a55a88028f397529344eb4886b11c9e69805c26
[email protected]:~/.darkcoin# ./darkcoind masternode list
{
  "107.170.168.162:19999" : 1,
  "188.226.225.170:19999" : 1,
  "198.50.148.87:19999" : 1,
  "92.222.10.179:19999" : 1,
  "69.160.84.100:19999" : 1,
  "107.170.157.216:19999" : 1,
  "178.62.203.249:19999" : 1,
  "176.126.247.191:19999" : 1,
  "108.61.198.220:19999" : 1,
  "23.97.152.145:19999" : 1,
  "191.235.132.246:19999" : 1,
  "137.135.13.83:19999" : 1,
  "191.238.52.72:19999" : 1,
  "138.91.1.101:19999" : 1,
  "23.98.65.243:19999" : 1,
  "168.63.151.85:19999" : 1,
  "191.238.80.67:19999" : 1,
  "202.171.65.13:19999" : 1,
  "50.248.181.2:19999" : 1,
  "202.171.65.14:19999" : 1
}
 

DrkMiner

Member
Jun 7, 2014
204
63
88
There's a new type of node that's responsible for telling the network who will get paid. The algorithm is deterministic, but by just having a few of these nodes we'll ensure it can't be attacked. So there's a public key in the source for checking the signatures to make sure it's from one of the privileged nodes.

These nodes are going to be responsible for monitoring the masternodes and could even do testing on ports, run darksend tests, etc. Just to make sure that the nodes are doing their job. Otherwise they won't be paid.
Could someone attack/bring down "these nodes" and by that cripple the Master nodes?

If these nodes are not running or down for some reason what affect will it have on the MN network?
 

HinnomTX

Active Member
Jul 22, 2014
166
196
103
Yep, much better now. :)
{
"178.62.203.249:19999" : 1,
"92.222.10.179:19999" : 1,
"107.170.168.162:19999" : 1,
"188.226.225.170:19999" : 1,
"198.50.148.87:19999" : 1,
"69.160.84.100:19999" : 1,
"107.170.157.216:19999" : 1,
"176.126.247.191:19999" : 1,
"108.61.198.220:19999" : 1,
"23.97.152.145:19999" : 1,
"191.235.132.246:19999" : 1,
"137.135.13.83:19999" : 1,
"191.238.52.72:19999" : 1,
"138.91.1.101:19999" : 1,
"23.98.65.243:19999" : 1,
"168.63.151.85:19999" : 1,
"191.238.80.67:19999" : 1,
"202.171.65.13:19999" : 1,
"50.248.181.2:19999" : 1,
"202.171.65.14:19999" : 1
}
 

eduffield

Core Developer
Mar 9, 2014
1,084
5,319
183
Could someone attack/bring down "these nodes" and by that cripple the Master nodes?

If these nodes are not running or down for some reason what affect will it have on the MN network?
Nope. There's a few of them on the network. they're anonymous and the network functions without them, just masternode payments wouldn't be as predictable.
 

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
283
Do regular Masternodes get selected as MasterMasternodes on some random basis? Trying to get a picture of how it works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrkMiner

HinnomTX

Active Member
Jul 22, 2014
166
196
103
It's either a pubkey in the code that enables a centralized node to issue checkpoints, or it's checkpoints in the code that are also centralized. Aren't they both the same, really?
I suppose. Is there a way to empower the entire masternode network to implement a consensus style checkpoint? Sunny King referred to a wind down of checkpoints in PPC due to undesirable centralization (not sure if it ever came to pass). At the least, he did refer to a user enabled emergency checkpoint mode that would only be enabled by consensus if the coin ever came under a persistent 51% attack.
http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=258.0
At least it's good to think about a possible roadmap to go 'no more centralized' than the masternode network for any thorny issues. :)

Edit: I just now realized that Bitcoin has hardcoded checkpoints as well:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=194078.0

It seems fair to want to protect the history of the blockchain to prevent tampering. If the masternode network itself could author automatic checkpoints by consensus, that would give some semblance of decentralized blockchain protection.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DrkMiner

Member
Jun 7, 2014
204
63
88
being hit with -0.001 "Payment to yourself" 10 DRK / 2 rounds

Darksend Denomin looks ok -0.0125/round

 
Status
Not open for further replies.