 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »
|
|
By the way, well done to Evan and the team.
Last week issues were a bump, but lessons were taken, and it was apparently quickly remediated
|
|
|
|
Well, it's after 6 AM here and I stayed up all night because one of my MN didn't show up on the list, and I couldn't figure out why....all night! Then I read a comment where chaeplin said sometimes you need to change the address that holds the coin, and get a new masternodeprivkey, and put that in both config files, then it would work. I almost finished at exactly 6AM, LOL. Couple of minutes after.
Yaaaaaay, I feel sick!
I think I'm gonna go eat some waffles!
At least you didn't completely wipe your remote server (twice) and redo everything because you kept getting a "Can't accept inbound connections on Port 9999" message, only to realize after two hours that the problem wasn't with your firewall, it was the fact that nothing was LISTENING on Port 9999. That's right...darkcoind wasn't running. DUH!!!!! <-- Yep, that was me! Ummm, how does that happen? I did get an error like that at one point, though it was my local and I had port forwarding for the correct machine on the correct internal ip address (and besides, I had previously successfully got my first masternode up and running) So another mystery, LOL For me, it was linked with a rushed update of both local and server conf files, specially with the masternode priv keys. |
|
|
|
spent .25btc last week on razor turned into 16btc  bought more dark.. nice move man |
|
|
|
DarkCoin is now better distributed than most coins - specially shitcoins copycats - you are just an embarrassment for yourself darkota
Just leave
i'm sorry, but REALLY? how can you actually believe that? all evidence shows a massive insta-mine, and the more people who mine the coin, the less there is distributed. this system is HIGHLY lopsided distribution. i would go as far to say that it's the OPPOSITE of fair distribution. well, not as bad as some coins, but it's still NOT GOOD on "fair distribution". the only people who would argue against this is people who are obviously holding alot of DRK lol. again, nobody challenges the fact that there has been an issue with the first 24h mining. Now, today, TODAY the distribution is pretty fair. Please show me a 6-month old coin better distributed if you have examples. If not, STFU. |
|
|
|
|
DarkCoin is now better distributed than most coins - specially shitcoins copycats - you are just an embarrassment for yourself darkota
Just leave
|
|
|
|
Sigh..arguing with idiots. Litecoin was forked from Bitcoin making Dark's code 4-5 years old. Bytecoin had near 0 activity for 2 years. Bitcoin was actively being improved for those 4-5 years. So it isn't equivalent.
Again, you're plain old Lying. Bytecoin was activiely mined for 2 years by those who knew about it, and has been improved upon since being released to the general public(go read the Bytecoin thread Please..) much more than Bitcoin and it's clones, and go check Bytecoin's blockchain yourself. You said it yourself, Darkcoin's code is 4-5 years old, Monero's is only 2 years old, and it's codebase has since changed drastically in the last few weeks, while Darkcoin's has remained the same... There's been several months of improvement by a small team. If you think that gives anywhere near the same result as hundreds of people contributing over 4+ years, you're delusional. The reason it changed drastically is because it was full of bugs and utterly incomplete. That's not exactly a positive. You do realize that both code's are similar, except that Cryptonote coins is much more advanced than Bitcoin's. They don't fall prey to 51% attacks where a double spending is possible, such as Bitcoin's ghash scare last week. They also offer full anonymity, unlike any Bitcoin clones(darkcoin etc) If you're happy with Darkcoin having a 50% instamine and a non-anonymous coinjoin method, then...all I can say is goodluck. There 3 guys in the dev team now by the way. I think everyone took good note of your dislike of darkcoin by now, you could move trying to reanimate the monero thread, thanks. |
|
|
|
As a merchant and a soon to be exchange operator Monero's bloat problems are massive issues. If it ever reaches mass adoption I will have to dedicate extra hardware and bandwidth for their blockchain or resort to using a centralized blockchain which defeats a lot of the advantages in my opinion.
The bloat is caused by dust transactions, recently a upgrade was made for pools to stop dust transactions. AKA problem is solved. Even then, Ring Signature anonymity is Much much better than coinjoin/masternode anonymity.. How can you be so certain, considering Evan hasn't announced all the details on RC4? Monero also uses a lot of computer resources, and it's uncertain whether it can scale. It's a very new technology, so you'd have to be naive to say it's perfect. Monero won't be anywhere near complete for 6 months minimum. Likely closer to a year. Are you being serious..? RC3 failed 2 times, RC4 at this rate might not come out until November for all we know..Ring Signatures isnt new, it's been around for 2 years on the premined coin, Bytecoin... lol! However, what Evan is trying to do is Very new, and Darkcoin might be the one taking a year to have "anonymity" through the use of masternodes/coinjoin. To each their own. If you can't see that Monero is FAR behind, I don't think you're technically literate. You're not making any sense... Darkcoin has yet to deliver anonymity... Darkcoin's RC3 failed 2 times and forked.. Darkcoin's coinjoin isn't anonymous... Monero already delivers anonymity Who's technially illiterate now..? Anyway, discussing potential technical merits is of very little interest, fact is, DRK is making the news ( good or bad  ), not Monero. The masternodes technology is perhaps not the best in terms of anonymity, but it does bring unique features and rewards to investors, bringing goodwill to the coin. |
|
|
|
|
It is a good thing for the coin that the devs go for a more cautious way to implement changes. Less hype, more stable growth, et no crash in case of hiccups
|
|
|
|
The primary buyers / whales of DRK and the largest holders have a different worldview of things compared to the "oh I have 20 DRKs and I call myself an investor" attention-deficit-disorder people.
They have more realistic expectations and are not behaving like ...well.... "stupid people". For the most part, at least those who understand cryptocurrencies, understand that a development plan needs time, effort and even trial & error to get it right. The patience level varies between them as there is no uniformity of what they are willing to accept in terms of delays, but most are quite mature in their approach. Besides, even with the delay, the bump from 10% to 20% ensures that they'll get more than they bargained for.
If you have a testnet and dont get it right the second time, there is no excuse. There were lots of people working hard preparing and deploying masternodes. Its just disappointing. I thougt the Nxt AE would be a tricky one to implement, but they did there homework and it runs smooth. This is getting a million dollar grave. I don't think anybody is looking for excuses here. Masternode payments are a serious hack to the bitcoin protocol because they add further layers of consensus to the network. We could fork another 2 times and still not get it right - until we actually do. The only people "disappointed" are those who do not realize the size of the task, thinking it's something minor. Newsflash: It's isn't. Calibrate your expectations accordingly. Prior to the May 25th fork I wrote: For the bet: I'm not a betting guy anymore.
LOL. If you really believed what you were saying, you would have immediately his DRK under 6$ within 3 weeks' bet. Darkcoin is not Bitcoin. It's in active development. Its code is changing every day and there have been two hard forks in like 10 days. Something can go wrong with a bug, people can flash-crash it in an instant and a candle might appear at 6$. Why bet* on something like that? The masternode hack in particular can be tricky for it requires changes in stratum + p2pools. It got delayed 2 weeks and it'll still have bugs I believe, that might require extra hard fork.Prior to yesterday's fork I wrote: Anyone knows what Evan has been up to lately? If not, my guess is that he is preparing a sick announcement for RC4 tomorrow after hard fork.
Given the path that we followed from alpha-beta etc, usually stuff related to DarkSend were first tested on testnet to check them out for problems... I doubt RC4 will go online straight away as without testing it might break existing functionality. It's a 50mn coin right now, you can't just put large updates without test. But even when it was 1-2mn coin, we still went the testnet route first. So probably we'll first see a call for testing RC4 features, when some of these are ready, and then => RC4 announcement. As for price, I recommend keeping some cash in reserve to chew panic sellers if something goes wrong. No matter how well tested it is, masternode payments are a big hack to the protocol and they may still present problems. This is not FUD, it's just the way it is regarding such fundamental changes. Let's say the right attitude this time round is "cautiously optimistic". Am I prophet for writing the above? I just understand what the task is and what to realistically expect. Anyone thinking that success is 100% guaranteed, is deluded. Even Bitcoin can crash in an instant due to some bug or even fork - without even applying dramatic/fundamental changes. You try your best and hope for the best. If it isn't enough, you try again and again until you succeed. There is no other way. All others are shitting on DRK and then they'll use the same masternode protocol for their own payments, when it's ready. Even Bitcoin might apply something similar to give incentives to node operators as that aspect is not very future-proof. Alex, I understand you well, but ppl have also calibrated their expectations based on what they have read on the forums. If we rewind back just a couple of hours, we would see things like 99.99999% certainty and bullet-proof testing. I don't say the developers said so, but still, it was posted everywhere these last couple of days. |
|
|
|
So the fork failed? No wonder that the price went down. I wasn't there.
Wasn't nearly as bad as last time. Essentially all was working but to get the expected mini-forks pruned more promptly a link between votes and block hashes is needed. They're on the case right now - Evan's ETA 2 to 3 weeks, although it wouldn't surprise me if we see this put in place in a week's time. ETA 2 - 3 weeks? That's way too long IMO. I concur - and if we find again some issue at release since testnest looks pretty useless, we should wait again during the next 2-3 weeks and see DRK to the ground? The rate of adoption of the new RC3 promises to be lower, ppl are tired of mandatory updates every two weeks The fork is failed?  Not failed. The problems were very minor, but Evan, being the responsible dev that he is, thought it best to revert back so that there is ZERO issues. Masternodes got payed, just very fluke incident where two block were solved at the exact same time, producing the same hash but with different votes. The network "forked" ... which is not the real name for it, but lack of a better one.... until the network found consensus and rejected one of them. The netweork then readjusts itelf automatically, creating no real issues, no real side-forks. The problem is that the consensus took longer than 1 tx time, so in pure mathematical theory, there could be a time where this could happen a few times in a row, and the network have multiple little min harmless forks going on, until the entire network finds consensus again, and "many" blocks get orphaned. This is not dangerous at all, but it really really suck, because miners would loose that reward. So in essence, Evan is taking care of EVERYONE in the network, not only the Masternode payments. The hard-fork most certainly worked, but since this coin is going to be the gold standard of privacy and anonymity, he pulled back to iron out this kink. Doublespeak at its finest. The fork has failed since evan made the decision to revert back and cancel the migration for the second time, because of some supposed network instability caused by a bug in the way the consensus is decided. And understating systematically a problem that caused a fall-back procedure and need 2 to 3 weeks of additional testing is not a responsible way of describing things. Contrary to what, just let it go and cause mayhem in the mining world? There is no supposed network instability, there WAS network instability. Not a meltdown, just not perfect smooth. That is going to be addresses. This is not a clone coin my friend. Its real innovation So please don't explain to people it was a remarkable success and the fork did not fail if there was issues and instability, especially since you seem to believe that without this 180 turn, complete mayhem was about to happen. You are completely schizophrenic in the way you describe things. Now you are just being silly and aggressive. It was 100% success in proof-of-concept department. Like when you light the first light bulb and say "SUCCESS", but then and unpredicted power-surge blows it out... and no-one even knew about power-surges until that time. Debate, dont be aggressive. Write something useful. I am debatting, not being agressive, and I respect your opinions - but you ARE schizophrenic. We are not writing scientific papers and debating of the white paper merits here, we need proper execution and implementation. And the fact that two attempts backfired, and the testnet supposedly intensive testing does not seem able to iron out bugs that manifest themselves within 20 minutes after production launch does concern me. there is limits to what you can test in testnet, since you do not have access to the large amount of hashing power, and number of clients in a test net scenario. it might have taken months, if not years to see a collision in testnet, while with the hashing power and number of masternodes in main net it only took minutes.. Ok thank you for answering, best luck in hardening the code for the next couple of days. |
|
|
|
I am debatting, not being agressive, and I respect your opinions - but you ARE schizophrenic.
We are not writing scientific papers and debating of the white paper merits here, we need proper execution and implementation.
And the fact that two attempts backfired, and the testnet supposedly intensive testing does not seem able to iron out bugs that manifest themselves within 20 minutes after production launch does concern me.
Your not being aggressive, yet calling me names. Schizophrenic means, "mind divided" in layman's terms. I have my mind in the right place, and have no doubts. You are the one who has doubts. If in doubt, sell your DRKs and move on. You're bringing zero productive talk, just liquid verborrea. And this is the last troll-cookie I'm throwing at 'ya. You think you are productive by understating everything (I won't list them here, but please read again your PR statement) and then pretending two posts after that total mayhem was looming if evan did not pull out the plug from this "hard-fork that most certainly worked"? I am done too, glad for you if you don't doubt - this is called blind faith, by the way and it is indeed a way out of my league. |
|
|
|
So the fork failed? No wonder that the price went down. I wasn't there.
Wasn't nearly as bad as last time. Essentially all was working but to get the expected mini-forks pruned more promptly a link between votes and block hashes is needed. They're on the case right now - Evan's ETA 2 to 3 weeks, although it wouldn't surprise me if we see this put in place in a week's time. ETA 2 - 3 weeks? That's way too long IMO. I concur - and if we find again some issue at release since testnest looks pretty useless, we should wait again during the next 2-3 weeks and see DRK to the ground? The rate of adoption of the new RC3 promises to be lower, ppl are tired of mandatory updates every two weeks The fork is failed? Not failed. The problems were very minor, but Evan, being the responsible dev that he is, thought it best to revert back so that there is ZERO issues. Masternodes got payed, just very fluke incident where two block were solved at the exact same time, producing the same hash but with different votes. The network "forked" ... which is not the real name for it, but lack of a better one.... until the network found consensus and rejected one of them. The netweork then readjusts itelf automatically, creating no real issues, no real side-forks. The problem is that the consensus took longer than 1 tx time, so in pure mathematical theory, there could be a time where this could happen a few times in a row, and the network have multiple little min harmless forks going on, until the entire network finds consensus again, and "many" blocks get orphaned. This is not dangerous at all, but it really really suck, because miners would loose that reward. So in essence, Evan is taking care of EVERYONE in the network, not only the Masternode payments. The hard-fork most certainly worked, but since this coin is going to be the gold standard of privacy and anonymity, he pulled back to iron out this kink. Doublespeak at its finest. The fork has failed since evan made the decision to revert back and cancel the migration for the second time, because of some supposed network instability caused by a bug in the way the consensus is decided. And understating systematically a problem that caused a fall-back procedure and need 2 to 3 weeks of additional testing is not a responsible way of describing things. Contrary to what, just let it go and cause mayhem in the mining world? There is no supposed network instability, there WAS network instability. Not a meltdown, just not perfect smooth. That is going to be addresses. This is not a clone coin my friend. Its real innovation So please don't explain to people it was a remarkable success and the fork did not fail if there was issues and instability, especially since you seem to believe that without this 180 turn, complete mayhem was about to happen. You are completely schizophrenic in the way you describe things. Now you are just being silly and aggressive. It was 100% success in proof-of-concept department. Like when you light the first light bulb and say "SUCCESS", but then and unpredicted power-surge blows it out... and no-one even knew about power-surges until that time. Debate, dont be aggressive. Write something useful. I am debatting, not being agressive, and I respect your opinions - but you ARE schizophrenic. We are not writing scientific papers and debating of the white paper merits here, we need proper execution and implementation. And the fact that two attempts backfired, and the testnet supposedly intensive testing does not seem able to iron out bugs that manifest themselves within 20 minutes after production launch does concern me. |
|
|
|
that usacryptocoins blog is all FUD, it's such a terrible blog with the author posting articles where he doesn't even have all the facts straight.
stop calling FUD people stating the facts you can circle-jerk all you want about how great is evan, this is again a major failure There may be a fact or two in the article however the way they are manipulated in the text indicates a sincere effort to spread FUD. But then again, with all the "circle-jerking" going on, you might not be able to see it. I'm sure that Bitcointalk has other forums that are "circle-jerk" free. Maybe you should troll there. Sorry for being realistic regarding what just happened. If you have basically zero expectation and regard this whole fiasco as normal business, some don't. In most positions, if you botch twice in a row the same thing, you will probably get fired. We can't fire our benevolent dictator, but still raise our concerns and critics on how things are dealt with to prevent this to happen AGAIN AGAIN. Don't be sorry little troll. I have zero expectation that you will understand that this isn't like the Titantic sinking. I'm curious, to whom would you raise your concerns and critics if you fired our benevolent dictator, as you call him? The High Troll Counsel? /ignore |
|
|
|
So the fork failed? No wonder that the price went down. I wasn't there.
Wasn't nearly as bad as last time. Essentially all was working but to get the expected mini-forks pruned more promptly a link between votes and block hashes is needed. They're on the case right now - Evan's ETA 2 to 3 weeks, although it wouldn't surprise me if we see this put in place in a week's time. ETA 2 - 3 weeks? That's way too long IMO. I concur - and if we find again some issue at release since testnest looks pretty useless, we should wait again during the next 2-3 weeks and see DRK to the ground? The rate of adoption of the new RC3 promises to be lower, ppl are tired of mandatory updates every two weeks The fork is failed? Not failed. The problems were very minor, but Evan, being the responsible dev that he is, thought it best to revert back so that there is ZERO issues. Masternodes got payed, just very fluke incident where two block were solved at the exact same time, producing the same hash but with different votes. The network "forked" ... which is not the real name for it, but lack of a better one.... until the network found consensus and rejected one of them. The netweork then readjusts itelf automatically, creating no real issues, no real side-forks. The problem is that the consensus took longer than 1 tx time, so in pure mathematical theory, there could be a time where this could happen a few times in a row, and the network have multiple little min harmless forks going on, until the entire network finds consensus again, and "many" blocks get orphaned. This is not dangerous at all, but it really really suck, because miners would loose that reward. So in essence, Evan is taking care of EVERYONE in the network, not only the Masternode payments. The hard-fork most certainly worked, but since this coin is going to be the gold standard of privacy and anonymity, he pulled back to iron out this kink. Doublespeak at its finest. The fork has failed since evan made the decision to revert back and cancel the migration for the second time, because of some supposed network instability caused by a bug in the way the consensus is decided. And understating systematically a problem that caused a fall-back procedure and need 2 to 3 weeks of additional testing is not a responsible way of describing things. Contrary to what, just let it go and cause mayhem in the mining world? There is no supposed network instability, there WAS network instability. Not a meltdown, just not perfect smooth. That is going to be addresses. This is not a clone coin my friend. Its real innovation So please don't explain to people it was a remarkable success and the fork did not fail if there was issues and instability, especially since you seem to believe that without this 180 turn, complete mayhem was about to happen. You are completely schizophrenic in the way you describe things. |
|
|
|
So the fork failed? No wonder that the price went down. I wasn't there.
Wasn't nearly as bad as last time. Essentially all was working but to get the expected mini-forks pruned more promptly a link between votes and block hashes is needed. They're on the case right now - Evan's ETA 2 to 3 weeks, although it wouldn't surprise me if we see this put in place in a week's time. ETA 2 - 3 weeks? That's way too long IMO. I concur - and if we find again some issue at release since testnest looks pretty useless, we should wait again during the next 2-3 weeks and see DRK to the ground? The rate of adoption of the new RC3 promises to be lower, ppl are tired of mandatory updates every two weeks The fork is failed? Not failed. The problems were very minor, but Evan, being the responsible dev that he is, thought it best to revert back so that there is ZERO issues. Masternodes got payed, just very fluke incident where two block were solved at the exact same time, producing the same hash but with different votes. The network "forked" ... which is not the real name for it, but lack of a better one.... until the network found consensus and rejected one of them. The netweork then readjusts itelf automatically, creating no real issues, no real side-forks. The problem is that the consensus took longer than 1 tx time, so in pure mathematical theory, there could be a time where this could happen a few times in a row, and the network have multiple little min harmless forks going on, until the entire network finds consensus again, and "many" blocks get orphaned. This is not dangerous at all, but it really really suck, because miners would loose that reward. So in essence, Evan is taking care of EVERYONE in the network, not only the Masternode payments. The hard-fork most certainly worked, but since this coin is going to be the gold standard of privacy and anonymity, he pulled back to iron out this kink. Doublespeak at its finest. The fork has failed since evan made the decision to revert back and cancel the migration for the second time, because of some supposed network instability caused by a bug in the way the consensus is decided. And understating systematically a problem that caused a fall-back procedure and need 2 to 3 weeks of additional testing is not a responsible way of describing things. |
|
|
|
that usacryptocoins blog is all FUD, it's such a terrible blog with the author posting articles where he doesn't even have all the facts straight.
stop calling FUD people stating the facts you can circle-jerk all you want about how great is evan, this is again a major failure There may be a fact or two in the article however the way they are manipulated in the text indicates a sincere effort to spread FUD. But then again, with all the "circle-jerking" going on, you might not be able to see it. I'm sure that Bitcointalk has other forums that are "circle-jerk" free. Maybe you should troll there. Sorry for being realistic regarding what just happened. If you have basically zero expectation and regard this whole fiasco as normal business, some don't. In most positions, if you botch twice in a row the same thing, you will probably get fired. We can't fire our benevolent dictator, but still raise our concerns and critics on how things are dealt with to prevent this to happen AGAIN AGAIN. |
|
|
|
So the fork failed? No wonder that the price went down. I wasn't there.
Wasn't nearly as bad as last time. Essentially all was working but to get the expected mini-forks pruned more promptly a link between votes and block hashes is needed. They're on the case right now - Evan's ETA 2 to 3 weeks, although it wouldn't surprise me if we see this put in place in a week's time. ETA 2 - 3 weeks? That's way too long IMO. I concur - and if we find again some issue at release since testnest looks pretty useless, we should wait again during the next 2-3 weeks and see DRK to the ground? The rate of adoption of the new RC3 promises to be lower, ppl are tired of mandatory updates every two weeks |
|
|
|
that usacryptocoins blog is all FUD, it's such a terrible blog with the author posting articles where he doesn't even have all the facts straight.
stop calling FUD people stating the facts you can circle-jerk all you want about how great is evan, this is again a major failure |
|
|
|
Its going to take one more month for what you call "simple problem" ?
It'd be better to let the devs work without the stress of the market so that they deliver a bug-free feature. IMO the coin's reputation cannot afford a 3rd failure to migrate to the new payments system. A quick & dirty fix that could possibly lead to another problem is by far worse than waiting for some weeks. My 2 cents When the first delay occurred, people were like "if there is a second delay, the coin will die". When the first fork happened, people were like "if there is a second fork, the coin will die". It seems to me like the benchmark is always re-positioned to the next possible make-it/break-it point to add extra excitement and drama. If people have unrealistic expectations of what a development project is, that's their problem. I think the market is showing tremendous levels of maturity and now understands the situation far better. I'm not saying a 3rd failure would be the end, but it would definitely have an impact on the coin's reputation. The bottom line is that the migration plan was not good. Migrations happen everyday on very large scale systems. Nothing breaks, because there are good and well-tested migration plans. Please, keep in mind that there is a serious amount of money that is being traded out there. Be professionals and have a good migration plan next time.  this. It is amazing to think that a pretty straightforward bug, not found during 4 weeks of "intensive" testing, suddenly appeared out of the blue after 20 minutes in the prod environment. It also means that catastrophic showstoppers could potentially occur anytime during the next attempt, since the testnet environment sounds rather much ineffective. ok going to bed truly this time |
|
|
|
|
