i think the code seems resilient enough to sort these forks out eventually (so far anyway). it does not seem optimal for use though. losing 700 or so blocks in a reorganise is problematic for any real use. i'd say sort any code changes you want out, then see how the "current" chain is working out  or .. don't put the cart before the horse |
|
|
|
|
getpeerinfo startingheight is annoying not quite useful enough.
it would be handy to be able to display peers bestblock as it is right now,
i seem to recall bitcoin had it way back but removed it for some reason ..
wow, i just did a quick restart and got loads of peers back very quickly
loco getpeerinfo | egrep "addr|starting"
"addr" : "203.91.244.188:48528",
"startingheight" : 34948,
"addr" : "[2a01:e35:2423:7280:a0f9:6e66:89b5:acda]:64487",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "87.159.253.23:62487",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "93.86.119.180:49750",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "82.199.107.147:39066",
"startingheight" : 22984,
"addr" : "198.50.229.39:34575",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "82.66.55.40:64488",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "84.234.52.190:35488",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "176.131.119.177:52758",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "94.34.193.212:56221",
"startingheight" : 12945,
"addr" : "109.172.53.97:52718",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "[2003:7f:6e01:b900:2cfa:42a8:2fea:18c7]:62492",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "213.202.214.140:51723",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "[2607:5300:60:5e6e::3c5:64b2]:42017",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "46.37.194.32:58593",
"startingheight" : 39930,
"addr" : "77.251.63.42:52830",
"startingheight" : 32430,
"addr" : "87.254.75.54:56042",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "46.236.161.66:64134",
"startingheight" : 40821,
"addr" : "218.156.98.243:34575",
"startingheight" : 40319,
"addr" : "180.216.74.93:49697",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "46.233.42.249:65121",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "190.44.37.242:49875",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "151.77.195.64:34575",
"startingheight" : 40822,
"addr" : "190.44.37.242:49879",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "92.233.105.50:51610",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "190.44.37.242:49882",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "79.69.39.40:64173",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "[2001:41d0:8:656c::]:34575",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "88.215.150.2:54925",
"startingheight" : 40744,
"addr" : "95.25.210.103:34575",
"startingheight" : 40744,
|
|
|
|
woot loco getblockhash 40691 acf0ef70f1fa42eb7d5177b23aa28a911e346921a05ba3db8424a35e24e7ab7b i was wondering if half the problem isn't the profligate use of connect=x.x.x.x where the wrong chain is held because the clients aren't listening  |
|
|
|
|
and in an exciting update,
my daemon has decided to join the 40000 (now 40007) block chain
meanwhile the 40193 chain has not moved ..
root@vps:~# loco getpeerinfo | grep starting
"startingheight" : 40007,
"startingheight" : 40193,
"startingheight" : 40193,
"startingheight" : 27539,
"startingheight" : 40007,
"startingheight" : 40193,
"startingheight" : 40007,
"startingheight" : 40193,
"startingheight" : 8765,
"startingheight" : 40007,
"startingheight" : 40007,
"startingheight" : 21345,
"startingheight" : 40007,
"startingheight" : 40007,
"startingheight" : 40193,
"startingheight" : 13174,
"startingheight" : 36363,
|
|
|
|
i'm down to only 18 connections now  i was on 30 yesterday loco getpeerinfo | grep starting "startingheight" : 40000, "startingheight" : 6784, "startingheight" : 27367, "startingheight" : 40193, "startingheight" : 40193, "startingheight" : 40000, "startingheight" : 40193, "startingheight" : 40000, "startingheight" : 40000, "startingheight" : 40193, "startingheight" : 40000, "startingheight" : 40000, "startingheight" : 40000, "startingheight" : 40193, "startingheight" : 40000, "startingheight" : 40000, "startingheight" : 40187, "startingheight" : 38906, "startingheight" : 40000, i currently have two chains of 40000 and 40193, connect the two together and they will not play. perhaps the max re-org depth has been passed ?? lol after minutes of pissing around, they seem to fork at 39281 chain height 40000getblockhash 39280 05563a6656b3905d9995b629e80b7b1b6a89f39629c23e9e5835ffc27e0a6d93 getblockhash 39281 295b8827bcb0440f0b12560dddb5ecd781c88ec73687074289e90949a215ee40 vs chain height 40193this chain matches nightz posted hash loco getblockhash 39327 b4b5eb074c20b1b483d7620ad22519497027c32ca34c7639f4329f4ecf771f08 root@vps:~/.loco# loco getblockhash 39280 05563a6656b3905d9995b629e80b7b1b6a89f39629c23e9e5835ffc27e0a6d93 root@vps:~/.loco# loco getblockhash 39281 50fed4566a0890885ec6def4bcaad28bc79538c1c2ef838d36fd8d794c73369c -- anddddd , neither chain are moving .. |
|
|
|
I'm confused...which is now the correct chain?
When I look at block 39327 I get b4b5eb074c20b1b483d7620ad22519497027c32ca34c7639f4329f4ecf771f08 (which matches the explorer).
This is after downloading Nightz chain but when I look at previous posts they are stating that the correct hash for this block is f1b18e6d3369b17009295d73c3c64edd2c4f9c0b76c404993e8e8ba8561fc560
If you downloaded my chain mate it also reports back b4b5eb074c20b1b483d7620ad22519497027c32ca34c7639f4329f4ecf771f08 12:24:17  getblockhash 39327 12:24:17  b4b5eb074c20b1b483d7620ad22519497027c32ca34c7639f4329f4ecf771f08 i'm definitely on a different fork  getblockhash 39327  74ae08b82924d1057e2522c6680edb6ee0523b86eadf5c54e52200545d5c7cc2 getpeerinfo "addr" : "46.233.42.249:34575", "startingheight" : 39988, "addr" : "198.50.229.39:34575", "startingheight" : 39988, "addr" : "212.85.91.20:34575", "startingheight" : 40190, "addr" : "87.254.86.192:34575", "startingheight" : 39988, "addr" : "77.251.63.42:34575", "startingheight" : 27287, "addr" : "79.69.39.40:34575", "startingheight" : 39988, "addr" : "46.236.161.66:34575", "startingheight" : 40190, "addr" : "151.77.195.64:34575", "startingheight" : 40190, -when i remove peers.dat these are the peers i get from irc it seems. |
|
|
|
|
I was just checking out my mac qt with staking and weight reporting.
it was reporting no weight, and no eligible inputs with the minimum age of my inputs at 500 confirms.
a bit later i staked a bunch
at 625 - 629 confirms, with the qt never reporting itself as eligible.
( the inputs are all pretty similar size - maybe 5% difference)
oh, me linux daemon was also reporting no weight on the same inputs.
|
|
|
|
the wallet for me does not close in a regular way it remin there hanging for no reason
also i'm received block from pos, which are i another fork, i did already synched all the chain again
I will add into the code a lil bit for it to detect shutdown and then it should close correctly, I will also create a bootstrap or upload blk0001.dat for easier syncing on the correct chain. Nightz, check debug.log, you'll see that bloody orphans disaster beginning. if you don't beat it in near future, it'll bury the coin as it did with other clones. maybe more strict rules to mark nodes as misbehaving cd help idk That is a good point mate and I can certainly look into the Banning of bad nodes through misbehaviour  . I also lowered the amount of orphans to be kept in the memory too from 750 to 200. lowering to 200 just made it less resource hungry but doesn't beat anything, look here: https://gist.github.com/ax66/5856bf5a875167b254a46bdb1b3022d3and it's rolling and rolling more of'em it may sound strange but there wasn't such flood in v1.2, it's only now in v1.3 maybe some good code change turned bad in practice maybe the change to weight has caused it. possibly it will calm down when the age /difficulty relationship settles ?? before the change weight did not seem to be playing a major part of staking, i checked a variety of sizes vs age and there seemed really no consistency. but since then i got a string of similar sized stakes all together in one clump also what about ye olde centralised checkpointing that ppc heritage comes with https://github.com/LGLoco/Loco/blob/master/src/checkpoints.cpp#L321ofc that would mean another update |
|
|
|
i'm curious how you can force yr client to remain on the smaller chain at this point.
choose a shitnode and sync to it in closed mode: connect=shitnode listen=0 yeh. that's the only way i can get it to stay on taht chain :p i'm wondering what they're connecting to, each other probably lol |
|
|
|
it certainly seems the code has decided which chain it does prefer loco getblockhash 39216 5b6f941effc391832e22171d646317e444ce0e3e2161bde4854ffecf26848dd8 i'm curious how you can force yr client to remain on the smaller chain at this point. i cant get one to stick with it, keeps reorganising and joining the more popular chain (purely wondering for educational purposes ofc) |
|
|
|
"addr" : "188.33.82.204:57424", "startingheight" : 2123, "addr" : "104.207.133.150:44170", "startingheight" : 39060, "addr" : "196.210.72.59:55389",
"startingheight" : 38897, "addr" : "151.77.195.64:61885", "startingheight" : 39060, "addr" : "93.86.119.180:50418", "startingheight" : 38746, "addr" : "46.233.42.249:34575", "startingheight" : 39060, "addr" : "176.36.240.68:34575", "startingheight" : 27159, "addr" : "198.50.229.39:34575", "startingheight" : 39060, "addr" : "77.28.58.168:53447", "startingheight" : 39060, "addr" : "[2001:41d0:8:656c::]:46556", "startingheight" : 39060, "addr" : "212.85.91.20:34575",
"startingheight" : 38897, "addr" : "46.236.161.66:34575", "startingheight" : 10968, "addr" : "88.206.187.247:33767", "startingheight" : 39061, "addr" : "46.37.194.32:49782", "startingheight" : 39061, "addr" : "197.89.176.121:59469", "startingheight" : 39061, "addr" : "68.185.188.91:62738", "startingheight" : 20109, "addr" : "[2601:47:4202:5d50:753a:cea3:69f7:3695]:65050", "startingheight" : 39061, "addr" : "37.59.18.108:40030", "startingheight" : 39061, "addr" : "45.63.1.27:55274", "startingheight" : 39061, "addr" : "50.191.30.64:65056", "startingheight" : 39061, "addr" : "92.233.105.50:56414", "startingheight" : 39061, "addr" : "77.251.63.42:34575", "startingheight" : 7319, "addr" : "[2001:19f0:0:208c:7090:b8d0:7489:1b67]:57344", "startingheight" : 39061, "addr" : "213.202.214.140:34575", "startingheight" : 39061, "addr" : "[2a01:e35:2423:7280:a0f9:6e66:89b5:acda]:50235", "startingheight" : 39063, "addr" : "84.234.52.190:45476", "startingheight" : 39064, "addr" : "79.69.39.40:63872",
"startingheight" : 38897, "addr" : "[2607:5300:60:5e6e::3c5:64b2]:34575", "startingheight" : 39066, "addr" : "[2002:b024:f044::b024:f044]:54265", "startingheight" : 27318, "addr" : "81.162.199.253:2257",
"startingheight" : 38897, "addr" : "180.216.71.145:49775", "startingheight" : 39074, "addr" : "203.91.244.188:52552", "startingheight" : 39077, "addr" : "190.44.37.242:6099", "startingheight" : 23459, "addr" : "82.66.55.40:50588", "startingheight" : 39082, it certainly seems that the vast majority of my peers are in agreeance with the xplorer. root@vps:~/.loco# loco getblockhash 38289 6ea591f22faf6b84db8e52a415aa380c70a75cb491007f9cd9af926beca731b7 root@vps:~/.loco# loco getblockhash 38431 080691109117a6313facc4291672a3690efd850374aa33b2f9d200dd26cc66a4 only 4 or so seem on the fork featuring the hashes as featured by other users featured in bold loco getblockhash 38289 768182444286b91967de161bb35cbe396651547c55341bb08065f583d3066df5 loco getblockhash 38431 056c84dd712b96c46f50c61563cc0fdea33c902e61070be7bf32b0317d3264d2 -- i have synced twice to the other chain, and both times it's re-organised. i'm curious as to who was on the other chain and has also reorganised |
|
|
|
looks like it forked at #38166 REORGANIZE: Disconnect 720 blocks; 648d9ec26a94cd40bda5ab76e99fed40370a637da978ffbae0240c0526361720..eec3e771a5646 1990eeac9df4d179f68ccd98126aefedf581271c$ REORGANIZE: Connect 160 blocks; 648d9ec26a94cd40bda5ab76e99fed40370a637da978ffbae0240c0526361720..15295e0c39511 c7acb2250aa2c0fb4bdee55b4e201a0c77a4c6dc319$ http://198.50.229.39:3001/block/648d9ec26a94cd40bda5ab76e99fed40370a637da978ffbae0240c0526361720-- the right chain ?? i give up no idea. it does seem that nightz posted the different hash for.. edit (ok. maybe he just agreed with the hash.. it's not entirely clear tbh)
ensure links on API page are valid "api": { "blockindex": 38289, "blockhash": "768182444286b91967de161bb35cbe396651547c55341bb08065f583d3066df5", "txhash": "31d1d24f3efd2a610e26f39a15daf787b091d6d56bb785160474ce3c42e458d9", "address": "68dmHTnpsrhCRACZ6MUFMymSho9G9PWjqU" i've got other stuff to do so i'll come back later and see what other thoughts are. |
|
|
|
FURTHER TO THE ABOVE POST
ok. that hash actually looks correct.
i've just passed that block and share the same hashes
loco getblockhash 38289
768182444286b91967de161bb35cbe396651547c55341bb08065f583d3066df5
loco getblockhash 38431
056c84dd712b96c46f50c61563cc0fdea33c902e61070be7bf32b0317d3264d2
omg and stuff those above, i used connect=212.85.91.20 then i removed that restarted. and looks like the wallet "fixed itself" now i get.. root@vps:~/.loco# loco getblockhash 38289 6ea591f22faf6b84db8e52a415aa380c70a75cb491007f9cd9af926beca731b7 root@vps:~/.loco# loco getblockhash 38431 080691109117a6313facc4291672a3690efd850374aa33b2f9d200dd26cc66a4 lmao |
|
|
|
|
FURTHER TO THE ABOVE POST
ok. that hash actually looks correct.
i've just passed that block and share the same hashes
loco getblockhash 38289
768182444286b91967de161bb35cbe396651547c55341bb08065f583d3066df5
loco getblockhash 38431
056c84dd712b96c46f50c61563cc0fdea33c902e61070be7bf32b0317d3264d2
|
|
|
|
well it seems that the explorer does not match the earlier info from nightz // ensure links on API page are valid
"api": {
"blockindex": 38289,
"blockhash": "768182444286b91967de161bb35cbe396651547c55341bb08065f583d3066df5",
"txhash": "31d1d24f3efd2a610e26f39a15daf787b091d6d56bb785160474ce3c42e458d9",
"address": "68dmHTnpsrhCRACZ6MUFMymSho9G9PWjqU"
vs explorer with "hash": "6ea591f22faf6b84db8e52a415aa380c70a75cb491007f9cd9af926beca731b7", "confirmations": 615, "size": 444, "height": 38289, so i assume that suggests the other blockhash posted is more correct. i'm not even up to that block yet , when i do i will post to confirm currently i'm syncing using connect to the longer peers EDIT
hang on, i just re-read, that's not the correct hash that i've crossed out is it
lol
haha oh well i'll worry about it when i sync more |
|
|
|
bumbacoin, then the explorer is in the right chain?
i dont' think so. it doesnt match the hashes other people posted. (my problem above is i was on the apparently incorrect fork, and the source i am compiling from has incorrect checkpoints so won't sync past block 27494) apparently correct getblockhash 38431 056c84dd712b96c46f50c61563cc0fdea33c902e61070be7bf32b0317d3264d2 explorer "hash": "080691109117a6313facc4291672a3690efd850374aa33b2f9d200dd26cc66a4", "confirmations": 409, "size": 400, "height": 38431, |
|
|
|
pah. i'm stuck on block 27494 hmmz. source has incorrect checkpoint?? here follows explorer, which is matched by older copy of chain. http://198.50.229.39:3001/api/getblock?hash=080691109117a6313facc4291672a3690efd850374aa33b2f9d200dd26cc66a4{ "hash": "be66ba09dba083386195219196c6219d974a728dbee9d81af7fc6aa22fe12c87", "confirmations": 11360, "size": 400, "height": 27495, "version": 7, "merkleroot": "23819d496c5c137adfaa33dc69637c1e5e75941ec453b224a11a62e9bc68669f", "mint": 3.8741392, "time": 1461760528, "nonce": 0, "bits": "1b00c52f", "difficulty": 85082.94062878, "blocktrust": "14c5c3d294951", "chaintrust": "1e0a250cd303ab96", "previousblockhash": "e53a6af5999cb393b9554863617ece6f385decc037a7c1c30c4ee6247d453a5a", "nextblockhash": "0ab03f2b989fe9099d3fa5527292ffc3b795048f293130daa7617e9c082985fb", "flags": "proof-of-stake", "proofhash": "0001921c0d850e4f6f4c50f9a3300ab4438d4a89010dd4a87f45df2d7ff2d608", "entropybit": 1, "modifier": "736f21a0fef706f2", "modifierv2": "cae92862ada89aa078f5a86fc84dbc4a9374046e1444ae1baf0dfdd497d90c70", "tx": [ "f6948c1ab907e5bb4df73600c858d46e1ba1775297850c5a077d06314b439352", "c1a0838e12235c820556e964ce54152f33bab1860a140f9fbbc1e551e5770574" ], "signature": "3045022100d4e72c5943feaf400a9e002a3fd6a8a4979908693e17e01c879c5056143f659f02201 6649af019ddbc37c44dd52f630a11561b73a908fc5df4ca4e7ee7e00a59af7a" } vs checkpoints.cpp #28 static MapCheckpoints mapCheckpoints = boost::assign::map_list_of ( 0, uint256("0xd4487c6a177d2c4562828fd650047f17878e19dd4dfb93635162ec4e2bf4b7f5")) ( 1, uint256("0xe6057d915dbdef6a3dc0563da369da63aadf920568d36bd1da93817cd4ef3688")) ( 2, uint256("0xf8e19eefb6654e9ee189689b5ee59fbff71abece243400a66a72514ef12607db")) ( 3, uint256("0x6b9d5e52913cf0af6444977216ad2d502f4cb6256f2cc46e33c62157a9f4e65a")) ( 527, uint256("0xa3a93b813757a08bb2f5c1ba59bbf074a702e7f34d8184c972ca8dcc92ec2cfc")) ( 1492, uint256("0x094d8c91d43dd0ef32dc1f2b5b2d10bbacb2edbfe9ba153ce63c7e359fec0ae1")) ( 4476, uint256("0xd18f5f3d1d799eb207abcf62a83337e2d68ec63bbbc139ef478473e44e2a30bb")) ( 8765, uint256("0xc1da7d04404f2ccf5f2d0e879d60604579b383d0764ae030da753195e2ed65fa")) ( 13491, uint256("0xac00e19fa376354ab545233ad6acfc819e33ef8f66a6aad1e20c0efa1fe4b883")) ( 17868, uint256("0x33af61ad46c6b15fbfdf4861a901132781c9a5561e19dd0554b910ee01b8efd7")) ( 20234, uint256("0xc526f989c1ba737ac18ccf94fc99108154a27166050b0be199a88358ff48882a")) ( 22998, uint256("0x8b36be985e5e477f5dbe6abb8817ee0aac326f7688052f7f35322b3f13520052")) ( 27495, uint256("0xc526f989c1ba737ac18ccf94fc99108154a27166050b0be199a88358ff48882a")) ( 31772, uint256("0x8b36be985e5e477f5dbe6abb8817ee0aac326f7688052f7f35322b3f13520052")) ( 35448, uint256("0x8b36be985e5e477f5dbe6abb8817ee0aac326f7688052f7f35322b3f13520052")) ; lol. source copy i have is wrong. github is different. https://github.com/LGLoco/Loco/blob/master/src/checkpoints.cpp#L28pah. i will have to recompile mac qt if anyone else is using such.. |
|
|
|
explorer on wrong fork too http://198.50.229.39:3001/api/getblock?hash=080691109117a6313facc4291672a3690efd850374aa33b2f9d200dd26cc66a4{ "hash": "080691109117a6313facc4291672a3690efd850374aa33b2f9d200dd26cc66a4", "confirmations": 409, "size": 400, "height": 38431, "version": 7, "merkleroot": "c50bbb0e84f223b795e8661967a554b26b30dc75566774eb1b62186d88a3557a", "mint": 1.41686715, "time": 1462139632, "nonce": 0, "bits": "1b02a7e0", "difficulty": 24676.53612796, "blocktrust": "6064e9a4984f", "chaintrust": "38048be3ccd8e7fe", "previousblockhash": "ce4fa9da4406ae45aa3b1b1b479f62ce207ca7b315a24bf7b317a685a42a62b9", "nextblockhash": "63175c73a8d75591a5bc47a265a88822cbce1ab5632d5a3410ee127aa2c4b4c0", "flags": "proof-of-stake", "proofhash": "000851e241ca1784d434e8e8a2106296adb10700f7ae0866c66cff4280999b36", "entropybit": 0, "modifier": "95a249408d2a45c3", "modifierv2": "4130fe538ab4eda595b405d4396d30d43f937e4e1327a8e167a06cceba8c4f93", "tx": [ "1aafaae60f50a26b98f3147d1544bd565e6d36a04203c21f51fb80aca36b3308", "eb2d8800eabe12b578d6a13538be97e6cd039ab05fc1229feab02e12d5a6a76b" ], "signature": "30440220351e6467867464802b962cb189e4be63d496ee34ac05c7a58b3b926ae3ccf213022077d ca71411f1b6de0f30a88a7b4ec4cda68e73800c6502f2810b9fd9d9a00012" } |
|
|
|
locod getblockhash 38431
056c84dd712b96c46f50c61563cc0fdea33c902e61070be7bf32b0317d3264d2
updated...is this the right chain?
root@vps:~# loco3 getpeerinfo | egrep "startingheight|subver" "subver" : "/Go2:1.3.0/", "startingheight" : 38760, "subver" : "", "startingheight" : -1, "subver" : "/Go2:1.3.0/", "startingheight" : 38761, "subver" : "/Go2:1.3.0/", "startingheight" : 37356, "subver" : "/Go2:1.3.0/", "startingheight" : 38863, "subver" : "", "startingheight" : -1, "subver" : "/Go2:1.3.0/", "startingheight" : 37436, "subver" : "", "startingheight" : -1, my blockheight 38756 root@vps:~# loco3 getblockhash 38289 6ea591f22faf6b84db8e52a415aa380c70a75cb491007f9cd9af926beca731b7 root@vps:~# loco3 getblockhash 38431 080691109117a6313facc4291672a3690efd850374aa33b2f9d200dd26cc66a4 aye, there be a fork. i'm currently syncing to the longer fork and hopefully the correct chain |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
