• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

v0.10.9.x Help test RC2 forking issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
YsnbzAm.png


3 servers of mine banned from mainnet peers( 10 ~ 30 min)
* banned servers ( sv03, sv04, sv05 in graph)
a) 1 server : 0.9.10.1 with p2pool-drk
b) 2 servers : 0.9.10.1, listen = 0, only connect=other is used

some other peers(including drkpool.com, and explorer.darkcoin.io, 23.23.186.131) in mainnet still banning my server ip.

I think this is related log
Code:
2014-06-17 05:45:58 Committing 187 changed transactions to coin database...
2014-06-17 05:45:58 SetBestChain: new best=0000000000149abf7521bdc55c7cfe7c5af2b2e7d9cc9b1ae193034d18046cfd  height=86907  log2_work=58.397491  tx=384123  date=2014-06-17 05:45:55 progress=1.000000
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 50.112.159.232:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 73.176.43.224:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 23.23.186.131:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 188.226.229.144:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 192.99.184.61:9999 (20 -> 40)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 54.200.3.190:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 198.50.148.87:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 69.90.186.9:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 211.99.224.194:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 107.181.250.216:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 24.77.47.67:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 46.22.128.38:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 94.156.77.161:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 54.255.148.0:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 178.32.35.81:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 211.99.224.194:9999 (20 -> 40)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 69.156.106.29:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
 
Last edited by a moderator:
YsnbzAm.png


3 servers of mine banned from mainnet peers( 10 ~ 30 min)
* banned servers ( sv03, sv04, sv05 in graph)
a) 1 server : 0.9.10.1 with p2pool-drk
b) 2 servers : 0.9.10.1, listen = 0, only connect=other is used

some other peers(including drkpool.com, and explorer.darkcoin.io, 23.23.186.131) in mainnet still banning my server ip.

I think this is related log
Code:
2014-06-17 05:45:58 Committing 187 changed transactions to coin database...
2014-06-17 05:45:58 SetBestChain: new best=0000000000149abf7521bdc55c7cfe7c5af2b2e7d9cc9b1ae193034d18046cfd  height=86907  log2_work=58.397491  tx=384123  date=2014-06-17 05:45:55 progress=1.000000
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 50.112.159.232:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 73.176.43.224:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 23.23.186.131:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 188.226.229.144:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 192.99.184.61:9999 (20 -> 40)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 54.200.3.190:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 198.50.148.87:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 socket closed
2014-06-17 05:45:58 disconnecting node 69.90.186.9:9999
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 211.99.224.194:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 107.181.250.216:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 24.77.47.67:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 46.22.128.38:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 94.156.77.161:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 54.255.148.0:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 178.32.35.81:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 211.99.224.194:9999 (20 -> 40)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED
2014-06-17 05:45:58 dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the pastMisbehaving: 69.156.106.29:9999 (0 -> 20)
2014-06-17 05:45:58 ProcessMessage(dseep, 116 bytes) FAILED

Corresponding code block
--> https://github.com/darkcoinproject/darkcoin/blob/v0.9.10.1/src/main.cpp#L4140-L4150

Code:
         if (sigTime/1000000 > GetAdjustedTime() + 5 * 60) {
            printf("dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the future");
            pfrom->Misbehaving(20);
            return false;
        }

        if (sigTime/1000000 <= pindexPrev->GetBlockTime() - 5 * 60) {
            printf("dseep: Signature rejected, too far into the past");
            pfrom->Misbehaving(20);
            return false;
        }

Evan, do the signatures of the vin's expire?
 
I'm ready!!! LOL, see you here!

BTW, my debug log also has a ton of dsee failiers, is that normal? Or do I have issues?
 
"ProcessMessage(dsee, 241 bytes) FAILED" are caused by old version clients.
Code:
Client version : 0.9.4.6
Client version : 0.9.4.11
Client version : 0.10.8.6
Client version : 0.10.8.11

Masternode entry is broadcasted to network.
And the relayed msg through the above clients cause ProcessMessage fail.

Networks can't be divided. If devided, two networks can't connect to each other.
(If devided, ProcessMessage fail will not appear)

EDIT: Turned out all old client.
Anyway, These old client will ban new client voluntarily, when they receive a block which has masternode payment.
Code:
/Satoshi:0.10.6.3/
/Satoshi:0.10.8.11/
/Satoshi:0.10.8.6/
/Satoshi:0.10.8.8/
/Satoshi:0.9.2.2/
/Satoshi:0.9.4.11/
/Satoshi:0.9.4.6/
/Satoshi:0.9.4.8/
/Satoshi:0.9.5.1/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whats holding you back from running a miannet and a testnet darkcoind on the same vps? ;)

Having picked up linux for the first time about a month ago. I feel like a super-hero. Took me so long to warp my head round properly securing and running nodes, I wouldn't want to poke holes in them, or eventually break something, or even surpass EC2 free tier limitations.

If you could point me to something like Amazon EC2, meaning at least a few month of free service, then I'm all in. I did quick check around when cold/remote got broken, and I dont remember anything as good as Amazon. Digital Ocean and Microsoft Azure had some promo's going, but nothing in the sense of "free tier for very low resource" VPS.

Suggestions welcome though!
 
I don't think you can surpass the free instance limitations from within the instance.

You can run another darkcoind as a different user and point that one to the testnet.

Can't help you with EC2 alternatives, unfortunately. I have a paid VPS running anyway, so I didn't look for anything else.
 
I don't think you can surpass the free instance limitations from within the instance.

You can run another darkcoind as a different user and point that one to the testnet.

Can't help you with EC2 alternatives, unfortunately. I have a paid VPS running anyway, so I didn't look for anything else.

Well, I dont know for sure, will monitor of course, but surely you can exceed free tier from within an EC2 perspective. It auto-scales up if needed. For example, a CPU spike can trigger more CPU allocation, and go over the free tier, and get billed. The same with the disk space... I think its 8gb?

Plus, I feel juuuuuuust that much extra safe closing down :19999.

If I find anything out there that is free for some time (1 or 2 months), and its not Microsoft ... I'll surely do it!
 
Well, its not free, but you can take a look at Vultr... VPS start from 0.7cents/hour. Which is 3x cheaper than EC2, and I am really satisfied with them.

Further, you can create a snapshot of your VPS after you are done with it, and destroy instance.
When you need it again, you just deploy new server from saved instance.... This way you can save ever further...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, its not free, but you can take a look at Vultr... VPS start from 0.7cents/hour. Which is 3x cheaper than EC2, and I am really satisfied with them.

Further, you can create a snapshot of your VPS after you are done with it, and destroy instance.
When you need it again, you just deploy new server from saved instance.... This way you can save ever further...

Getting a bit off-topic, last waffle.

That can be done in EC2 as well, I believe they are called Snapshots.
I certainly will look into it, as I'm on Amazon only because of chaeplin's guide, being my first adventure into linux and all. When MN's start payouts, I will have funds to further invest in my self-taught-sys-admin education :confused:

Until then, will let it roll, and head over to build a p2pool node, then I2P knowledge, etc...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So I have my testnet wallet running 10.9.13, I didn't actually realize I forgot to update. And I sit down at my computer, and with amazement, my wallet is telling me "Hard Fork Alert: Masternode Payments begin on Friday. Please update! http://goo.gl/ucp4m7" Woot woot! Never new that was implemented, LOL. I can report it works!

Now I'm wondering if I'm on a fork? It's running a QT masternode, so i'm wonering If I'll be keeping those coins? I suspect not, LOL
 
"ProcessMessage(dsee, 241 bytes) FAILED" are caused by old version clients.
Code:
Client version : 0.9.4.6
Client version : 0.9.4.11
Client version : 0.10.8.6
Client version : 0.10.8.11

Masternode entry is broadcasted to network.
And the relayed msg through the above clients cause ProcessMessage fail.

Networks can't be divided. If devided, two networks can't connect to each other.
(If devided, ProcessMessage fail will not appear)

EDIT: Turned out all old client.
Anyway, These old client will ban new client voluntarily, when they receive a block which has masternode payment.
Code:
/Satoshi:0.10.6.3/
/Satoshi:0.10.8.11/
/Satoshi:0.10.8.6/
/Satoshi:0.10.8.8/
/Satoshi:0.9.2.2/
/Satoshi:0.9.4.11/
/Satoshi:0.9.4.6/
/Satoshi:0.9.4.8/
/Satoshi:0.9.5.1/
But that's only on a forked blockchain, right? It has no effect on the proper block chain, no?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top