v0.11.1 - InstantX Release

oblox

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,032
537
183
drk.mn - there is no mn with v11.1.19? Why?

I upload v11.1.19 and is presented as v11.0.14...
Looks like the site was updated about 5 minutes ago and is now reflecting the v11.1.19 as the latest (coded as InstantX).
 
  • Like
Reactions: buster

strix

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Sep 14, 2014
140
121
193
The Shadow Lands
Congrats to all--a glorious day indeed. (Yes, I know; glorious means means radiant, shining, brightly lit. But it still applies.:tongue:)

FWIW--using Arch Linux, DRK 0.11.1.19 (like all previous versions) compiled flawlessly using the command: yaourt -Syua --devel . Thank you Vertoe for introducing me to Arch.:D
 
  • Like
Reactions: buster

LucD88

Member
Aug 15, 2014
75
49
58
Woah, now that's some amazing news to read after a full day of working!

Congratulations to the DRK team and it's amazing community, milestone after milestone! :D

All my Masternodes have been updated, experienced no issues at all!
 
  • Like
Reactions: buster

Minotaur

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 7, 2014
452
1,079
263
eduffield

Hey I had an idea for the masternode network today. What if we created a redundancy mode in which I can run a second backup server to a Masternode in a different location or different VPS or even at home so that if my main masternode gets taken down then the backup masternode takes over. This second masternode does not get paid or anything and can only exists if it is tied to an already existing node so you can't use it to sybil attack the network.

In reality the servers act as only one masternode in redundancy mode. This has no benefit to the masternode operators other than supporting the network, VPSs expenses are low and if Darkcoin rises in price I think a lot of people would show support by running in redundancy mode, the backup node could even be one of those raspberry pi 2s people have been testing. So we get the best of both worlds, quality masternodes running on high quality data centers and a backup node running in a different location.

I don't know if its possible, just an idea I had and wanted to present it to you guys, something to think about for the future. If the price of DRK rises a lot we can even require people to run each node with redundancy. You guys can let me know if this makes any sense or if I am completely off. Cheers. :)
 

Rux

Member
Mar 9, 2014
68
32
58
Good one Minotaur

I would setup that masternode in redundancy mode just to secure masternodes in future... even if i had to pay for 2nd server...

imagine someone have ability to ddos some % of masternodes.... and cut them off ... these "plan B" masternodes could kick in... this could be handy to make masternodes even more strong
 

crowning

Well-known Member
May 29, 2014
1,428
2,005
183
Alpha Centauri Bc
Am I the only one?

Without reloading the complete blockchain from scratch all my darkcoind (Masternodes, my local one for the Abe, some others, you name it) end sooner or later with "Corrupted block database detected. Do you want to rebuild the block database now?".

And yes, I did delete peers.dat, called it with --reindex and --upgradewallet and the whole shebang.
And yes, I do use the official Linux binary, not a self build one.

They did work fine after the upgrade, were in the correct blockchain etc., everything looked great.

But stop it, restart it, error....

Update: darkcoind --reindex fixes the problem...until I stop the daemon and start it again...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: TaoOfSatoshi

AlexMomo

New Member
May 19, 2014
33
7
8
Am I the only one?

Without reloading the complete blockchain from scratch all my darkcoind (Masternodes, my local one for the Abe, some others, you name it) end sooner or later with "Corrupted block database detected. Do you want to rebuild the block database now?".

And yes, I did delete peers.dat, called it with --reindex and --upgradewallet and the whole shebang.
And yes, I do use the official Linux binary, not a self build one.

They did work fine after the upgrade, were in the correct blockchain etc., everything looked great.

But stop it, restart it, error....

Update: darkcoind --reindex fixes the problem...until I stop the daemon and start it again...

Happened to me this morning on all my masternodes.
I had to manually zap the blocks and chainstate folders and peers.dat file. I restarted with --reindex and it solved my problem.
 

souptacular

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jun 7, 2014
62
73
158
TX
www.hudsonjameson.com
When was the last protocol update? I was able to just restart darkcoind rather than starting my MN from the wallet although it seems like I should have started from the wallet.
 

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
283
My MNs went offline about an hour after I updated and start-many'd them. Start-many'd them again and it seems to have stuck. Didn't -reindex though, and my MN wallet is v60001 or something, so I was probably asking for trouble.
 

TaoOfSatoshi

Grizzled Member
Jul 15, 2014
2,765
2,616
1,183
Dash Nation
www.dashnation.com
Am I the only one?

Without reloading the complete blockchain from scratch all my darkcoind (Masternodes, my local one for the Abe, some others, you name it) end sooner or later with "Corrupted block database detected. Do you want to rebuild the block database now?".

And yes, I did delete peers.dat, called it with --reindex and --upgradewallet and the whole shebang.
And yes, I do use the official Linux binary, not a self build one.

They did work fine after the upgrade, were in the correct blockchain etc., everything looked great.

But stop it, restart it, error....

Update: darkcoind --reindex fixes the problem...until I stop the daemon and start it again...
I also had this issue. Re-started with -reindex and it seems to be good. I'll wait and see.
 

Stray

Member
May 27, 2014
43
14
48
Debug logs now^

checking inbound connection
could not locate specified vin from possible list
error could not find suitable coins!
Error: Masternode is not in a running status
Error on ping: Masternode is not in a running status
 

tungfa

Administrator
Dash Core Team
Moderator
Foundation Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Apr 9, 2014
8,972
6,740
1,283
IX just got mentioned in one of my BTC chatgroup here , i explained a little to one guy ... and the rest of the crowed went CRAZY on me ! (for real )
all stupid haters, but the point is
we are really onto something here !!!
the crazier they go , the more their fear (of us) taints their judgment .... the more we are coming on the sidelines and showing them (BTC and Crpto in general ) what is actually possible in creative coding !!
dam is this exciting

Congrats again to the team for steady innovation and catapulting us straight to the future

Edit: top hater was a writer for BitcoinMagazine , he just got kicked out (that NEVER ever happened on Coin Dojo which is a very well respected BTC Chatroom !!! lol )
 
Last edited by a moderator:

souptacular

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jun 7, 2014
62
73
158
TX
www.hudsonjameson.com
My MNs went offline about an hour after I updated and start-many'd them. Start-many'd them again and it seems to have stuck. Didn't -reindex though, and my MN wallet is v60001 or something, so I was probably asking for trouble.
Debug logs now^

checking inbound connection
could not locate specified vin from possible list
error could not find suitable coins!
Error: Masternode is not in a running status
Error on ping: Masternode is not in a running status
I figured out my issue. My masternodeprivkey changed. Here are the steps to fix:

1. Open wallet with your 1,000 DRK
2. Unlock wallet
3. Open Debug Console -> enter "masternode genkey"
4. Copy that key into your darkcoin.conf and/or masternode.conf files on BOTH your 1000 DRK wallet and your masternode. (line reads masternodeprivkey=XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
For most set-ups, you will change the darkcoin.conf file you use for your 1000 DRK wallet and you will change that value in the darkcoin.conf file you for your masternode
5. Not sure if this step is neccessary, but I ran:
./darkcoind --upgradewallet
waited a 2 minutes
./darkcoind stop,
./darkcoind --reindex
6. After reindexing is done, go back to your Darkcoin wallet with 1000 DRK.
7. Unlock wallet
8. Open Debug Console (if it isn't already open) -> type "masternode start YOURWALLETPASSWORD"
9. You can check if your masternode is enabled by running the command: "./darkcoind masternode list | grep YOURIPADDRESS" (no port is needed)
 
  • Like
Reactions: buster

moocowmoo

Bovine Bit-flipper
Foundation Member
Jun 15, 2014
483
603
263
masternode.me
Dash Address
XmoocowYfrPKUR6p6M5aJZdVntQe71irCX
Have run into three bugs when trying to send an outbound IX.

All cause this dialog to appear:



Bug 1 -- incoming IX is in progress (hung):
Wallet A sends (IX) 1 drk to wallet B. IX hangs with insufficient signature threshold.
Wallet B selects different, existing, confirmed inputs, attempts outbound IX.
Dialog appears.

Bug 2 -- incoming IX is complete with one block confirmation:
Wallet A sends (IX) 1 drk to wallet B. IX meets signature threshold. Confs equal 5.
Block is discovered. Confs equal 6.
Wallet B selects newly received IX input, attempts outbound IX.
Dialog appears.

Bug 3 -- unrelated outbound ix is blocked until incoming ix reaches 6 blocks.
Also, display count exceeds actual count, confusing when compared to dialog message.
Wallet A sends (IX) 1 drk to wallet B. IX meets signature threshold. Confs equal 5.
Wallet B selects different, existing, confirmed inputs, attempts outbound IX.
Dialog appears.
Block is discovered. Conf display shows 6. Still cant send (dialog appears)
Block is discovered. Conf display shows 7. Still cant send.
Block is discovered. Conf display shows 8. Still cant send.
Block is discovered. Conf display shows 9. Still cant send.
Block is discovered. Conf display shows 10. Still cant send.
Block is discovered. Conf display shows 6.
Wallet B can now successfully send non-related-input outbound IX

Thanks for all your hard work team!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Populandum

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 9, 2014
103
76
178
I'd just like to add this minor inconvenience to what moocowmoo said: I was mixing coins the whole time we were sending coins and thus had the wallet unlocked for anonymization only. To send coins I had to unlock it properly, but the wallet then locked itself completely afterwards aborting the mixing. Obviously the wallet should go back to the state it was in before initiating a transaction, not locking itself no matter what state it was in.

Ninja-edit: Forgot to mention I'm blown away by the fast progress! You guys are the best; made my day!
 
  • Like
Reactions: drkhouse

JGCMiner

Moderator
Moderator
Jun 8, 2014
360
211
113
Have run into three bugs when trying to send an outbound IX.

All cause this dialog to appear:



Bug 1 -- incoming IX is in progress (hung):
Wallet A sends (IX) 1 drk to wallet B. IX hangs with insufficient signature threshold.
Wallet B selects different, existing, confirmed inputs, attempts outbound IX.
Dialog appears.

Bug 2 -- incoming IX is complete with one block confirmation:
Wallet A sends (IX) 1 drk to wallet B. IX meets signature threshold. Confs equal 5.
Block is discovered. Confs equal 6.
Wallet B selects newly received IX input, attempts outbound IX.
Dialog appears.

Bug 3 -- unrelated outbound ix is blocked until incoming ix reaches 6 blocks.
Also, display count exceeds actual count, confusing when compared to dialog message.
Wallet A sends (IX) 1 drk to wallet B. IX meets signature threshold. Confs equal 5.
Wallet B selects different, existing, confirmed inputs, attempts outbound IX.
Dialog appears.
Block is discovered. Conf display shows 6. Still cant send (dialog appears)
Block is discovered. Conf display shows 7. Still cant send.
Block is discovered. Conf display shows 8. Still cant send.
Block is discovered. Conf display shows 9. Still cant send.
Block is discovered. Conf display shows 10. Still cant send.
Block is discovered. Conf display shows 6.
Wallet B can now successfully send non-related-input outbound IX

Thanks for all your hard work team!
Maybe I am confused (someone that knows for sure please help), but doesn't the popup message mean you need 6 POW confirmations for the inputs used in IX. Thus IX 5 + POW 1= 6 confirmations would not be sufficient. I thinks that explains your bug 2 maybe 3 as well depending on what inputs were used. Not sure what is going on with bug 1...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

moli

Grizzled Member
Aug 5, 2014
3,261
1,837
1,183
Still can't InstantX on Mainnet and the transaction fee for DS/IX is quite high if DRK goes up to the moon!

At first:
Status: 0/confirmed (InstantX verification in progress - 12 of 20 signatures ), broadcast through 21 node(s)
Date: 2/11/2015 01:16
To: Wallet 2 XoNGxnL9wqgbJpQQncqtyMGaKhtJMjBZz4
Debit: -1.00 DRK
Transaction fee: -0.100011 DRK
Net amount: -1.100011 DRK

Transaction ID: 8626f59a782081afc65278c78d12f8e6f5d27c1efcb1eaee132876cd8d6b98c1-000

Later:
Status: 4/confirmed (InstantX verification failed)
Date: 2/11/2015 01:16
From: unknown
To: XoNGxnL9wqgbJpQQncqtyMGaKhtJMjBZz4 (own address, label: Wallet 2)
Credit: 1.00 DRK
Net amount: +1.00 DRK
Transaction ID: 8626f59a782081afc65278c78d12f8e6f5d27c1efcb1eaee132876cd8d6b98c1-000

(But I can't disagree due to the "dead change" issue.... I blame it on Aswan though!)
jk :D

EDIT: Second thought: eduffield, when it's a failed IX transaction, could we get our fee money back? Can you make the transaction go without the IX fee somehow? Thanks!
Scratch this. I just checked and realized DS tx's have this fee regardless IX or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: mastermined

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,266
1,130
1,183
This is a serious coming of age for the entire DRK codebase... Feature set and clean... There's about a dozen things that make DRK bigger than anything in crypto now... NExt to DRK BTC doesn't even exist... The tech of DRK is so far ahead of BTC and it's clones they can't even see each other anymore...

Only a flaming retard can argue against DRK vs anything at all...

On to the dirty testnet testing. ;-)
 

Light

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jun 4, 2014
346
256
233
Masternode getinfo shows 'version': 110119 but wallet version is 60001 and protocol version is 70066. Is this OK or I need to do something?