How much DRK do you have anonymized?
I got the same error (Unable to locate enough darksend) from using normal transaction on the same platform on v5...
v0.10.16.x Testing
- Thread starter eduffield
- Start date
- Status
This may be testnet related but three of my wallets stuck at the same block ~63137 had to close them and restart for it to move on.
i also added addnode=darkcoin.io:19999 before I opened the wallets or got to that block, should that be left in or taken out of darkcoin.conf?
"Create Normal Transaction" will only take non-denom inputs that have nothing to do with Darksend. So if you've even started denominating, that setting won't work. You'd have to use no-pref to spend the denominated rounds that haven't met the rounds minimum.
So yeah, this is confusing and needs to be removed. Someone suggested just removing it entirely and spending inputs by prioritizing anonymity, then it'll popup and say HOW anonymous the transaction is going to be and ask you if you want to continue. That's prob the best bet.
I'm for removing it. I justed wanted to see if I could duplicate his issue. If I am sending anything, I either use from darksend transaction or no preference so the normal seems out of place, especially if it will go bust the second the DS process is started.
Benefit of leaving fund preferences in: User is able to do a non-private funds transaction without using up private funds.
May be a bit annoying having to redenominate funds.
Although.. without the fees I imagine people will just anonymize everything anyway..
*edit* Maybe private and no preference options only?
May be a bit annoying having to redenominate funds.
Although.. without the fees I imagine people will just anonymize everything anyway..
*edit* Maybe private and no preference options only?
difficulty is rising on testnet 20 min from .9 to 2.9
17:13:12
"blocks" : 63424,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.96693520,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"networkhashps" : 30616028,
"pooledtx" : 1,
"testnet" : true
17:37:17
"version" : 101605,
"protocolversion" : 70045,
"walletversion" : 60001,
"balance" : 158.13588474,
"darksend_balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 63437,
"timeoffset" : -2,
"connections" : 11,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 2.95644463,
"testnet" : true,
"keypoololdest" : 1413539175,
"keypoolsize" : 1001,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"mininput" : 0.00001000,
"errors" : ""
17:13:12
"blocks" : 63424,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.96693520,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"networkhashps" : 30616028,
"pooledtx" : 1,
"testnet" : true
17:37:17
"version" : 101605,
"protocolversion" : 70045,
"walletversion" : 60001,
"balance" : 158.13588474,
"darksend_balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 63437,
"timeoffset" : -2,
"connections" : 11,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 2.95644463,
"testnet" : true,
"keypoololdest" : 1413539175,
"keypoolsize" : 1001,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"mininput" : 0.00001000,
"errors" : ""
I agree with darkwing. Always good to have an option for anonymous or public transactions. Maybe by having a prompt come up just after you send coins asking which coins you would like to use..
Just my thoughts
I had a thought. Can somebody examine that? 
[(1)(2 3 4 5 6 7 8)]
Now we can set number of rounds between 2-8 with fees but fees are traceable.
What if you, Evan, could make additional first round (1) for free just to be used later by fees. This would be hidden from user. It would have some rounds of denomination in it. User wouldn't be able to set one (free) round and spam the network. It always will be 2-8 rounds. But before real denomination occurs (with fees) you would have already some drk anonymised (it can be hidden also) just for fees. It will be like fractals. Denomination in denomination. There could be some fee for stopping during first round.
I think there could be a problem because the whole anonymization would be as strong as that additional round.
I don't know. Just a thought
[(1)(2 3 4 5 6 7 8)]
Now we can set number of rounds between 2-8 with fees but fees are traceable.
What if you, Evan, could make additional first round (1) for free just to be used later by fees. This would be hidden from user. It would have some rounds of denomination in it. User wouldn't be able to set one (free) round and spam the network. It always will be 2-8 rounds. But before real denomination occurs (with fees) you would have already some drk anonymised (it can be hidden also) just for fees. It will be like fractals. Denomination in denomination. There could be some fee for stopping during first round.
I think there could be a problem because the whole anonymization would be as strong as that additional round.
I don't know. Just a thought
Last edited by a moderator:
last wallet I was running was 16.3 and it sat at 99% (hadn't budged since 16.2) all last night and this morning. I'm having trouble downloading the wallet at the moment, but will start 'er up again as soon as I can grab it.
Can anyone help? I updated darkcoind for my masternodes both remotely and locally. I started it as I always do, with darkcoind -daemon on the server and ./darkcoind -masternodeaddr=54.ipaddress:9999 -daemon, ./darkcoind walletpassphrase, ./darkcoind masternode start
The local works and says masternode started remotely, plus if I do ./darkcoind masternode list, I see my server's IP address.
But the remote, after waiting over half an hour, says not capable masternode
What's up?
Edit: I used my QT wallet and it worked. Perhaps starting with the remote ip address no longer works? It used to not work for me when I left it out.... go figure, LOL
The local works and says masternode started remotely, plus if I do ./darkcoind masternode list, I see my server's IP address.
But the remote, after waiting over half an hour, says not capable masternode
What's up?
Edit: I used my QT wallet and it worked. Perhaps starting with the remote ip address no longer works? It used to not work for me when I left it out.... go figure, LOL
Last edited by a moderator:
It's hard to trust anything daemons report at the moment, my local QT (which I used to start the remote MN) still sees my MN on the list, but the MN itself doesn't see itself at all any more... and different people are all seeing different counts... I'm just going to wait 24hrs and see what happens.
Same, half my masternodes grepped 1 on the remote masternode list, the others, nothing. Then loading up my primary wallet (not a masternode wallet) and getting the list, the same ones don't show.
Hum, ok then, we'll see tomorrow
Mine no longer sees their ip address but still report that the masternode was started successfully. Hopefully that's good ;P
Mine no longer sees their ip address but still report that the masternode was started successfully. Hopefully that's good ;P
Maybe Evan has worked in IP obfuscation already? :tongue:Hum, ok then, we'll see tomorrow
Mine no longer sees their ip address but still report that the masternode was started successfully. Hopefully that's good ;P
LOL, yes, and I guess this is a taste of what is to come. We may not be able to check our masternodes so easily in the future! Well, one of mine got a payment, so I'm guessing everything is OK.
I just want to report that I've been trying to update to 16.8 and they won't connect to the port (I think). Nothing has changed, I double checked my ip addresses and my router and my remote, they're all open to port 9999.
However when I start darkcoind on my server, and I do "masternode debug" I get "not capable masternode" instead of the other message (forgot) that says to check documentation, etc... and when, on the local, I try to start the masternode, I get an error that says port is closed. I'm guessing it's a port issue in both instances. Has anyone gotten 16.8 to work?
BTW, I also deleted peers.dat and I also reduced maxconnections to 100
Thanks for any help.
However when I start darkcoind on my server, and I do "masternode debug" I get "not capable masternode" instead of the other message (forgot) that says to check documentation, etc... and when, on the local, I try to start the masternode, I get an error that says port is closed. I'm guessing it's a port issue in both instances. Has anyone gotten 16.8 to work?
BTW, I also deleted peers.dat and I also reduced maxconnections to 100
Thanks for any help.
i heard maxconnections should be 100+ specially with 16.8 ?
personally i have set it to 256 for 16.8 (while i'm waiting for a downloadable windows 32 bit version of 16.8)
personally i have set it to 256 for 16.8 (while i'm waiting for a downloadable windows 32 bit version of 16.8)
Oh, I thought he said to lower it.... regardless, it seems that the latest version is interfering with my port. Though nothing had changed, and I have amazon EC2s running my masternodes, which are very easy to configure with their security groups. Also, I'm having port issues (not open) on my local machine, which is open as far as I can figure. It's weird. What else could I have done to close the ports? All I did was upgrade darkcoind! I must admit, though I can see my security groups are still opening port 9999, if I do the command telnet host 9999 I get "could not resolve host/9999 no address associated with host name." Why? I have no idea!
I just installed nmap and I ran nmap -A [myip] -p 9999 and failed to ping. It looks like it's my servers and my local machines that are blocking the port. But everything was working prior to upgradeing! And all 3 machines are having the same problem. WTH?
Using the internal ip address, I get this:
[email protected]:/usr/bin$ nmap -A internalip -p 9999
Starting Nmap 6.40 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2014-11-15 22:38 UTC
Nmap scan report for ip-internalip.compute.internal (internalip)
Host is up (0.00010s latency).
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
9999/tcp closed abyss
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at http://nmap.org/submit/ .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 0.34 seconds
[email protected]:/usr/bin$
If anyone can see what I might have done wrong, please let me know Thanks
I just installed nmap and I ran nmap -A [myip] -p 9999 and failed to ping. It looks like it's my servers and my local machines that are blocking the port. But everything was working prior to upgradeing! And all 3 machines are having the same problem. WTH?
Using the internal ip address, I get this:
[email protected]:/usr/bin$ nmap -A internalip -p 9999
Starting Nmap 6.40 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2014-11-15 22:38 UTC
Nmap scan report for ip-internalip.compute.internal (internalip)
Host is up (0.00010s latency).
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
9999/tcp closed abyss
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at http://nmap.org/submit/ .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 0.34 seconds
[email protected]:/usr/bin$
If anyone can see what I might have done wrong, please let me know
Thanks
Last edited by a moderator:
Your computer can't resolve the hostname to an IP, this has nothing to do with the port....try to use the IP directly.
You mean like this?
[email protected]:/usr/bin$ telnet host myip
telnet: could not resolve host/myip: Servname not supported for ai_socktype
I think I'm going to give up until we hear from Evan again. I'm going back to the last version I had installed
[email protected]:/usr/bin$ telnet host myip
telnet: could not resolve host/myip: Servname not supported for ai_socktype
I think I'm going to give up until we hear from Evan again. I'm going back to the last version I had installed
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status