Thinking back, that's what I did, eventually, once I realised the transaction had in reality been sent.  And yes... it did figure it out eventually (i.e. when the tx was confirmed).

The problem is that this wa in a point of sale transaction at a pub, and I was standing there waiting while my phone said 'transaction not sent yet'.  Unfortunately, the design of the point of sale system is such that the bar staff have to press a key after I send the transaction - the terminal doesn't get notified asynchrounously.  So, unaware of this protocol failure mode, I just believed what the wallet was telling me.  I now know that what I should have done is ignored what the client was telling me and simply asked the bar staff to check if the payment had arrived.

But I shouldn't have to understand P2P protocol failure modes in order to use the app :-)

EDIT: Oh, it's TCP, so that shouldn't really happen.  Hmm...  (Somehow I was assuming the P2P protocol was UDP - dunno why.)

When you say 'reconnect' does this involve the client actually knowing that the network dropped first?  So if the inv packets from peers were simply dropped by the network, would you not just sit in the 'waiting for transaction to be sent' state?

It's only happened to me once, and I didn't even know that the client logged by default.  I only mentioned the date to give you an idea of what app version I would have been running.  But if it happens again I'll be sure to grab the logs.

So if the network suffers an outage immediately after sending the tx message, you may miss seeing the transaction advertised by the other peers.  At this point you can try resending the inv and/or tx messages all you like but presumably you'll not get anything more back, right?

roy

EDIT: Oh, I guess you could poll peers with getdata to see if they have recieved the transaction.  That wouldn't even require multiple peers, would it?

I don't really understand the P2P protocol - how does the sender of a tx message know whether it was successfully received?   Does the receiver readvertise the transaction to the original sender in an inv message?

No, I've never used it.

Just to say - I had this happen to me on 10 August (can't guarantee the wallet app was bang up to date).  The client got stuck on "this transaction has not been sent yet" even though the recipient had seen the transaction.  AFAICT the client continued to show "this transaction has not been sent yet" until the transaction confirmed.

I think I might indeed have had a slightly flaky Internet connection at the time.

roy

Are failed miner notifications still supported - I don't seem to get them any more?  Also, although I still see the checkboxes to enable SMS notifications, I don't see the SMS credits showing up on my account any more.  Or maybe I just don't know where to look...

Or have SMS notifications gone away?  All notifications gone away?

roy

Is this any different, in term of privacy implications, from having a bitcoin address in your sig?

Oh, sure I can use an external drive.... but having to lug one around seriously impacts the portability of my computer.  Anyway, none of this is intended to be a criticism of Armory - I'm very appreciative of the work that etotheipi has done and continues to do.  I'm just pushing back against this idea that resources are somehow infinite because you can always upgrade your machine.  That's clearly not true (and if it were there'd be no need for the ram reduction etotheipi is working on).

roy

EDIT: Fortunately I don't think anyone is seriously saying the cost of reducing the RAM usage below 4GB will be to increase the disk usage above 1TB - so this discussion is somewhat academic

Is that true?  Pretty sure it used to be the case that Gnome was way more of a resource hog than Windows.

Maybe Linux desktops have got better (and Windows worse) in this respect...

I'd also point out that Armory 0.87 still seems to work on my little old Macbook Air (OS X 10.6; 4GB RAM; 128B SSD).  Not sure it will much longer, and tbh I'm surprised it does now.  Kinda cool that it does though

roy

Right, but on a laptop increasing either is often hard.

Sure, the RAM reduce work you're doing is appreciated - of course I'd rather have the blockchain on disk than in RAM.  But not everyone has 1TB of anything.  Fortunately 128GB will, I hope, be enough in the short term.

roy

It really isn't about what you can afford, it's about what you can do.  If you're on a laptop with an SSD, you have 128GTB, maybe 256GB if it's a new one.

Sure that's enough for now.... but what's this 2TB you're going to plug in to your laptop and how is it going to work?

roy

Sure, but they weren't known when burnin estimated EUR 470, so quite possibly he was using a lower price in his estimate.  Also, you need to order at least five reels (of 3,000 chips each) to get a discount - so maybe, maybe not - that's quite a lot of chips to order up front.  And lets allow cyrptx the 10% markup on the chips that we allowed zefir and sebastian.

Sure, none of that explains the EUR 700 price....  I think you can easily come up with scenarios which justify EUR 600, but I agree it's hard to see where the EUR 700 goes.... and the silence here does no one any favours.

But as I say (despite your assertions to the contrary) we have little to no information;  mainly just speculation.

Unless you know what CryptX is paying burnin for the boards (and how much he is paying for the chips) you (or I) have no idea whether he is greedy or not.

And it's too early to tell whether he's trustworthy or not.  As I said, I've not seen anything he's done so far that has caused me concern.  (EDIT: Sure I'm disappointed with the price, but I have no idea whether that's due to CryptX being greedy, burnin being greedy, the Bitfury chips being more expensive than expected, the boards being more compciated than expected, all of the above, or none of the above.  I prefer not to speculate without information.)

Anyway, time will tell.  There's nothing more I can add here.

EDIT TO ADD: Jumping to conclusions and assuming the worst is par for the course in these forums.  It shoudln't be, but it is.  I understand that burnin would rather spend his time developing boards than reading the forum, but it should be CryptX's job to read the forums and respond to concerns, accusations, criticisms, etc.  CryptX is really not doing a good job of promoting the product he's supposed to be reselling.

And as for the speed....  I'm sure CryptX is just quoting the specs burnin has given to him.

Well, we all bought burnin's Bitburner boards, nominally 5.62 GH/s, but comfortably overclockable to 8.62 GH/s, and to 9 GH/s or more at a pinch.

We all know the specs of the Bitfury chips.... on paper the boards can do 40 GH/s.  Burnin has said he's aiming to get 5 GH/s per chip - which would give us 80 GH/s per board.... but who knows what the overclocking capabilities of this chip is - burnin is driving it faster than anyone else ever has, so no one knows what the capabilities are.

I'm happy to place my order for a couple of boards based on my belief that burnin will produce a well designed product that will push the chips to their limit.  But yes, it's a gamble.

I don't see how it's CryptX's fault that burnin is being honest rather than pulling a figure out of the air like most of the other vendors do and quoting performance figures for products that havan't even been built yet.  I don't see how burnin can win here - whatever he does there will be people in these forums that will rip him to pieces.  I quite understand why he doenst want to deal with the forums and would rather leave them to soeone else.

roy

It's long since not been a DIY project.   It was a full time 7-day-a-week job for burnin for far too long.  Hence why he was chosen not to spend the time on the forums and not deal with customers direct at all for his new product.

Also, for someone working full time on this, he deserves to earn a decent salary from his work.

roy

EDIT TO ADD: burnin went the reseller route because he didn't have the time to devote to the forums, so his absence is expected.  CryptX's absence is slightly more disappointing.  His customer service, over e-mail, has been top notch, but he's not exactly doing anything in the forums to engage with the community.

I'm not sure it was ever announced at 470 Euro.  It was an estimated possible price of a future product that wasn't, at that point, even definitely going to be release.

But yes, I think people emotionally commited to the 470 Euro Bitfury board as being the magic money-earning board that would recoup their Avalon losses.

Word to the wise: there is no longer any such thing as a magic money earning board.

roy

 

CryptX is supplying the chips - and has one of the first of the '20 September' batches of chips - which he says he already has in hand.  So any other source of boards someone would have to get hold of some chips (at what cost?  and when would they ship?  Does anyone have them in stock at a sensible price?)

And we really don't know how much profit either burnin or CryptX is making on this - we know that burnin said the component costs were higher than he had anticipated.  Am I disappointed that it's not 470 Euros?  Sure.  But like any other product, it is up to you and me to decide if it is worth it or not at the price offered.

I haven't seen either burnin or CryptX do anything wrong up to now, and really don't get what has some people so upset.

As far as the Avalon miners go, they were sold with no refund.  If burnin now offers a refund, you can't really complain that you don't like the terms.

And as for CryptX's own mine - you really think he should cancel plans for a mine because he agreed to distribute the Fury boards?  Besides, AIUI CryptX is supplying the chips for the Bitburner Fury boards he distributes, so every chip going into a board we buy is a chip not going into his mine.

As always, too much drama in this forum.  I just want my Bitburners to arrive (both XX and Fury)

roy