v0.10.16.x Testing

Status
Not open for further replies.

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,863
1,854
1,283
I just replaced my darkcoind and darkcoin-qt files, that's all I did and both started up with no problems. I don't think there is anything wrong with my port settings. I think this has something to do with the latest version of the wallets. both QT and daemon.

Thanks for your help crowning, but I've got so much work to do, LOL. I guess I probably won't get any payments until I'm properly updated but I'm going to run the older version until something is updated again. BTW, a couple of other people experienced this on BCT as well.
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,669
809
183
I just replaced my darkcoind and darkcoin-qt files, that's all I did and both started up with no problems. I don't think there is anything wrong with my port settings. I think this has something to do with the latest version of the wallets. both QT and daemon.

Thanks for your help crowning, but I've got so much work to do, LOL. I guess I probably won't get any payments until I'm properly updated but I'm going to run the older version until something is updated again. BTW, a couple of other people experienced this on BCT as well.
i just had it too .. i set a rule in my firewall to open port 9999 but it still said inbound port 9999 not open, in the end i got it working by deleting the maxconnections=....line and adding some
stabile nodes :

addnode=54.187.228.106:9999
addnode=68.226.51.134:9999
addnode=192.241.246.214:9999
addnode=93.95.228.131:9999
addnode=94.23.148.203:9999
addnode=212.129.12.103:9999
addnode=81.134.134.100:9999
addnode=108.61.211.107:9999

it restarted then from cold wallet. Afterwards i deleted the rule in my firewall and added the
maxconnections=256 back in my darkcoin.conf
It sure was weird.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,863
1,854
1,283
well, I updated to 16.9 and it's been, I don't know, has it been an hour? My ip's dropped off the list :(

should I :
1. wait and see if I come back onto the network?
2. try qwizzie's method on 16.8?
3. Hang myself?
4. go to sleep with some potent sleeping pills?

LOL

I just thought of a 5th option, that I'm gonna use. Mai tai time!
 

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Dash Core Team
Moderator
May 20, 2014
3,639
3,537
1,183
well, I updated to 16.9 and it's been, I don't know, has it been an hour? My ip's dropped off the list :(

should I :
1. wait and see if I come back onto the network?
2. try qwizzie's method on 16.8?
3. Hang myself?
4. go to sleep with some potent sleeping pills?

LOL

I just thought of a 5th option, that I'm gonna use. Mai tai time!
16.11 is out :)
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,863
1,854
1,283
still not working for me :( Get same problem and qwizzie's solution isn't working either. Something is not right....

16.6 works
16.7-11 don't

I deleted peers.dat again
I tried qwizzie's solution, nope
I'm at the end of my rope :mad:
 

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Dash Core Team
Moderator
May 20, 2014
3,639
3,537
1,183
you can check ports by
Code:
netstat -an | grep 9999
or
Code:
netstat -an | grep 19999
respectively

also check debug.log - maybe daemon banned your local machine for some time (24h by default)
Code:
cat ~/.darkcoin/debug.log | banned
you can remove peers.dat or/and try to use this option then
Code:
-bantime=<n>           Number of seconds to keep misbehaving peers from reconnecting (default: 86400)
 

DrkMiner

Member
Jun 7, 2014
204
63
88
still not working for me :( Get same problem and qwizzie's solution isn't working either. Something is not right....

16.6 works
16.7-11 don't

I deleted peers.dat again
I tried qwizzie's solution, nope
I'm at the end of my rope :mad:
Did you change something in the darkcoin.conf (hot wallet)?

masternodeaddr=178.xxx.xxx.xxx:9999
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,863
1,854
1,283
nope, nothing at all. except recently when I deleted maxconnections and inserted addnodes as suggested above ^^^
 

DrkMiner

Member
Jun 7, 2014
204
63
88
I was getting "not capable masternode" only when I used "masternode start-many" without the correct setup.
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,863
1,854
1,283
I haven't tried that. I have only 2 so it wasn't worth it for me to try something new....

Edit:

Now I've installed ntp to keep track of time, and sync'd both machines
I've dumped my ip address, and got a new one
I got a new masternode private key
I placed the info in all the correct places (both conf files)

and I still get "not capable masternode" on the remote server. I am giving up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,863
1,854
1,283
couple of things in my debug log I'm going to extract here in case anyone understands them. It seems to me that my wallet is looking at itself to see if it is capable to be a masternode. But that's my ignorant intermpretation:

2014-11-16 06:11:10 GetMyExternalIP() received [54.67.52.191] 54.67.52.191:0
2014-11-16 06:11:10 GetMyExternalIP() returned 54.67.52.191
2014-11-16 06:11:10 AddLocal(54.67.52.191:9999,4)
2014-11-16 06:11:10 Successfully synced, asking for Masternode list and payment list
2014-11-16 06:11:10 CActiveMasternode::RegisterAsMasterNode() - Checking inbound connection to '54.67.52.191:9999'
2014-11-16 06:11:10 trying connection 54.67.52.191:9999 lastseen=0.0days
2014-11-16 06:11:10 connected 54.67.52.191:9999
2014-11-16 06:11:10 send version message: version 70046, blocks=170454, us=54.67.52.191:9999, them=54.67.52.191:9999, peer=3
2014-11-16 06:11:10 maxconnections check 248
2014-11-16 06:11:10 accepted connection 54.67.52.191:50831
2014-11-16 06:11:10 connected to self at 54.67.52.191:50831, disconnecting
2014-11-16 06:11:10 disconnecting node 54.67.52.191:50831
2014-11-16 06:11:10 socket closed
2014-11-16 06:11:10 disconnecting node 54.67.52.191:9999
2014-11-16 06:11:10 ProcessSyncCheckpoint: sync-checkpoint at 00000000000c7cf65f2dfd36eb3cd06e1ec18859824e43ae405e90b7ddbce159
2014-11-16 06:11:10 socket send error 9
2014-11-16 06:11:10 getblocks -1 to 0 limit 500 peer=2

And further down, this is how I stopped and closed:

2014-11-16 06:13:18 dsee - Got NEW masternode entry 108.61.198.250:9999
2014-11-16 06:13:18 dsee - Accepted masternode entry -1 -1
2014-11-16 06:13:19 Added 1 addresses from 144.76.238.2: 10 tried, 8315 new
2014-11-16 06:13:20 CDarkSendPool::UpdateState() == 3 | 3
2014-11-16 06:13:50 CDarkSendPool::UpdateState() == 3 | 3
2014-11-16 06:14:17 dsee - Got NEW masternode entry 162.244.78.229:9999
2014-11-16 06:14:17 dsee - Accepted masternode entry -1 -1
2014-11-16 06:14:17 Added 162.244.78.229:9999 from 178.62.217.165: 10 tried, 8315 new
2014-11-16 06:14:20 CDarkSendPool::UpdateState() == 3 | 3
2014-11-16 06:14:32 dsee - Got NEW masternode entry 108.61.221.47:9999
2014-11-16 06:14:32 dsee - Accepted masternode entry -1 -1
2014-11-16 06:14:37 Added 1 addresses from 54.64.125.248: 10 tried, 8315 new
2014-11-16 06:14:50 CDarkSendPool::UpdateState() == 3 | 3
2014-11-16 06:15:05 AcceptToMemoryPool: 37.59.118.30:9999 /Satoshi:0.10.16.7/ : accepted 0a3e5b34ab7cc8670e41246cbe29923a3a8b4661bbe9c3fd95bf8f53a1c019c8 (poolsz 1)
2014-11-16 06:15:19 Added 1 addresses from 37.59.118.30: 10 tried, 8314 new
2014-11-16 06:15:20 CDarkSendPool::UpdateState() == 3 | 3
2014-11-16 06:15:30 ThreadRPCServer method=masternode
2014-11-16 06:15:36 ThreadRPCServer method=stop
2014-11-16 06:15:36 opencon thread interrupt
2014-11-16 06:15:36 dumpaddr thread stop
2014-11-16 06:15:36 Shutdown : In progress...
2014-11-16 06:15:36 addcon thread interrupt
2014-11-16 06:15:36 Flush(false)
2014-11-16 06:15:36 wallet.dat refcount=0
2014-11-16 06:15:36 wallet.dat checkpoint
2014-11-16 06:15:36 net thread interrupt
2014-11-16 06:15:36 msghand thread interrupt
2014-11-16 06:15:36 wallet.dat detach
2014-11-16 06:15:36 wallet.dat closed
2014-11-16 06:15:36 DBFlush(false) ended 23ms
2014-11-16 06:15:36 StopNode()
2014-11-16 06:15:36 Flushed 8324 addresses to peers.dat 41ms
2014-11-16 06:15:36 Committing 385 changed transactions to coin database...
2014-11-16 06:15:36 Flush(true)
2014-11-16 06:15:36 wallet.dat refcount=0
2014-11-16 06:15:36 wallet.dat checkpoint
2014-11-16 06:15:36 wallet.dat detach
2014-11-16 06:15:36 wallet.dat closed
2014-11-16 06:15:36 DBFlush(true) ended 20ms
2014-11-16 06:15:36 Shutdown : done
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,863
1,854
1,283
Well, now I'm up all night again. I've tried creating a new wallet, and doing everything over from scratch, from the beginning. I got my local to say masternode started, and it shows the remote server's ip address on the list, but the remote server insists it's not a capable masternode and does not see the other wallet on the masternode list. Why am I always the one that has everything screwed up? (bangs head against the wall)

Just shoot me, seriously, I'm such an old dog, shoot me!

I don't know when this happened, or how but somehow I had my wallet on my local on 15.x!

After I fixed this and created a new private key, and put it in both wallets, my remote wallet still claimed "not capable masternode". However, after starting my local hot masternode, it showed up on the remote as "successfully started"

Now, if it is still running In the morning, I may not kill myself! LOL (JK)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

superplus

New Member
Jul 29, 2014
18
5
3
i've got a question concerning instantx,
i read all the possible attacks through in the white paper, but what happens if the masternode network is ddos attacked and some bad actor masternodes overtake the network for a short period.
wouldn't that be a scenario for doublespending?
 

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Dash Core Team
Moderator
May 20, 2014
3,639
3,537
1,183
i've got a question concerning instantx,
i read all the possible attacks through in the white paper, but what happens if the masternode network is ddos attacked and some bad actor masternodes overtake the network for a short period.
wouldn't that be a scenario for doublespending?
That's a good question. I think the easiest way to protect from this kind of attack is by simply stopping providing InstantX functionality if there is less then SomeReasonableNumberOfMasternodes. And set SomeReasonableNumberOfMasternodes to.. let's say 1000.
 

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
283
That's a good question. I think the easiest way to protect from this kind of attack is by simply stopping providing InstantX functionality if there is less then SomeReasonableNumberOfMasternodes. And set SomeReasonableNumberOfMasternodes to.. let's say 1000.
Compared to the vulnerability of over 50% of the total nethash being controlled be 3 or 4 people, this isn't even worth thinking about.
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,863
1,854
1,283
My MNs are still running, I'm a very happy camper :)

However, this brain of mine is a serious issue. It needs re-programming (or new hardware). Any suggestions? :what::confused::eek::tongue::oops:
 
  • Like
Reactions: thelonecrouton

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
283
My MNs are still running, I'm a very happy camper :)

However, this brain of mine is a serious issue. It needs re-programming (or new hardware). Any suggestions? :what::confused::eek::tongue::oops:
Congrats Tante, just finished rebuilding all mine from scratch too. I've given up trying to improve my brain, it's too far gone. :tongue:
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,863
1,854
1,283
Thing is, I've always been this way. And it's so hard to figure out where you went wrong when it could be anything, regardless of logic. LOL I'm sincerely sorry for wasting everyone's time :( I will NOT give you a list of my nicknames ;P but you can guess what they're like.... LOL)
 

illodin

Member
Apr 26, 2014
122
71
78
That's a good question. I think the easiest way to protect from this kind of attack is by simply stopping providing InstantX functionality if there is less then SomeReasonableNumberOfMasternodes. And set SomeReasonableNumberOfMasternodes to.. let's say 1000.
This has been in the discussions before, and iirc the problem was it's hard to reach a trustless consensus on the number of running masternodes without every node pinging every masternode constantly. Perhaps it's not hard at all if you know how to do it though. :)
 

superplus

New Member
Jul 29, 2014
18
5
3
This has been in the discussions before, and iirc the problem was it's hard to reach a trustless consensus on the number of running masternodes without every node pinging every masternode constantly. Perhaps it's not hard at all if you know how to do it though. :)
but nodes could just be checked in case of an instant tx, couldn't they? nodes have to be connected anyway during the election process

minimum_nodes connected could be 70% of the average of the last 2 months or something.
maybe the number of nodes could be found in the blockchain by scanning the masternodepayments?
 

crowning

Well-known Member
May 29, 2014
1,415
1,998
183
Alpha Centauri Bc
i've got a question concerning instantx,
i read all the possible attacks through in the white paper, but what happens if the masternode network is ddos attacked and some bad actor masternodes overtake the network for a short period.
wouldn't that be a scenario for doublespending?
This scenario is handled in chapter 4.5 "Multiple Consensus Messages" in Evan's whitepaper.

A locking message is propagated to ALL clients, so in case of a conflicting message ('bad' Masternodes send different messages for the same lock) it's (relatively, poor Evan has to implement this :) ) easy to find out that the same inputs are spent twice and switch back to 'normal' block confirmation.

So, if anything, it's more a kind of DDOS for the transaction-speed(!), not the function itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thelonecrouton

oblox

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,032
537
183
I'm with a 0.9.x client on testnet currently. What are you up to?
The latest release (10.16.16) would be the one you would use on testnet until Evan pushes testnet only releases with instantx and/or other features implemented.
 

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Dash Core Team
Moderator
May 20, 2014
3,639
3,537
1,183
Mixing 1000/8 on v0.10.16.16.... please join :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.