mikegi
|
|
September 02, 2016, 07:36:29 AM |
|
First payment for my newest masternode just came.
Less than 41 hours after starting it.
|
|
|
|
kokokoin
|
|
September 02, 2016, 07:38:30 AM |
|
Seems v 2.1.2.1 fixed all issues! Controller wallet and all masternodes running without any problems since installing. Good work, devs.
|
|
|
|
kokokoin
|
|
September 02, 2016, 07:40:33 AM |
|
We just burned the 60k at block 279917.
If you look at the Total Coins in the previous block, you will see that this block is 60k less. The coins were sent as a network fee which are destroyed.
But why network fee was destroyed and not given to miner?
|
|
|
|
B1tUnl0ck3r
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 854
Merit: 277
liife threw a tempest at you? be a coconut !
|
|
September 02, 2016, 10:48:04 AM |
|
A milestone achieved! Congrats. Like kokokoin I don't understand what you mean by "coins were sent as a network fee which are destroyed"? And like him I ask myself what happen to network fees since POS? they get splitted at the same rate as the MN/Stake reward?
|
When the people of the world will get that covid was intentionally released to frame china, steal the election from trump, assure massive bail outs and foster the forced vaccination agendas...they will forget, like 911, wmds in irak, uss liberty or pedogate.
|
|
|
BitcoinFX
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1722
https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF
|
|
September 02, 2016, 01:45:34 PM |
|
A milestone achieved! Congrats. Like kokokoin I don't understand what you mean by "coins were sent as a network fee which are destroyed"? And like him I ask myself what happen to network fees since POS? they get splitted at the same rate as the MN/Stake reward? Some crypto-currencies 'destroy' transaction fees, whilst others add transaction fees into new blocks. It is generally more common for PoS coins (over PoW) to 'destroy' transaction fees, I think. @s3v3nh4cks - well that turned out to be a simple enough solution, should really of thought of that one!
|
|
|
|
BitcoinFX
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1722
https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF
|
|
September 02, 2016, 01:49:48 PM |
|
The majority of DNET Tor addnode=.onion's nodes appear to be at the correct block height now.
~ An anonymous source has forwarded 4 new DNET addnode=.onion nodes ;
addnode=dnetxef3rmouy5qo.onion:989 { DQ2bY1Suks8Zs3hXMEXgfZK2qTErfWyWET }
addnode=dnetxcvx4iqeunnk.onion:989 { DNzSSB3hUCL7pEHdoSsAwX41qRkrZAeG85 }
addnode=dnetxn4m5kfh4xhr.onion:989 { DPXWTuVufYDFK6FyNXry6DvuFVCrDEb2md }
addnode=dnetxu5edp35e4rm.onion:989 { DRoa9N5cNK6VQUkYTrzhyDVDsRTjbAdfea }
Nodes seem to be working OK currently. If you use DNET with Tor then perhaps send a couple of coins to one of these DNET addresses.
Noticed that these nodes seem to be running the stable release now also. Think that we now have enough 'public' nodes to produce some good Tor 'howto' documentation etc.,
|
|
|
|
4x13 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1011
|
|
September 02, 2016, 02:04:37 PM |
|
We just burned the 60k at block 279917.
If you look at the Total Coins in the previous block, you will see that this block is 60k less. The coins were sent as a network fee which are destroyed.
But why network fee was destroyed and not given to miner? Yes, at the change to PoS, network fees are now destroyed. Though it is fractional, it does help overtime with inflation, and now we can remove coins from the total coin cap if needed... instead of having them just sit there at an address somewhere. Thats how burning coins should work..
|
|
|
|
mikegi
|
|
September 02, 2016, 02:22:42 PM |
|
We just burned the 60k at block 279917.
If you look at the Total Coins in the previous block, you will see that this block is 60k less. The coins were sent as a network fee which are destroyed.
But why network fee was destroyed and not given to miner? Yes, at the change to PoS, network fees are now destroyed. Though it is fractional, it does help overtime with inflation, and now we can remove coins from the total coin cap if needed... instead of having them just sit there at an address somewhere. Thats how burning coins should work.. I guess the "any 60k" was burned even though a significant number of forum members voted for the original. Original 60k  20 (31.3%) Any 60k  44 (68.8%) Total Voters: 64 I suppose no one here is interested in having any more forks.
|
|
|
|
crackfoo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3542
Merit: 1126
|
|
September 02, 2016, 03:17:18 PM |
|
just tried to build and sync the lastest wallet to get some coins out of my wallet... and it stop here with this messsage:
2016-09-02 15:15:02 UpdateTip: new best=1adab33fa2b16e7a8cd4c36c95b3dbe8b33aba7350ad2b573e3656d662bd8004 height=261411 log2_work=58.56341 tx=371842 date=2016-08-19 10:42:59 progress=0.733523 cache=49469 2016-09-02 15:15:02 UpdateTip: new best=b36a5126d8a757b3fffad42d4b329fc21511be6e785032f54ee0c4491ad194de height=261412 log2_work=58.564562 tx=371844 date=2016-08-19 10:43:21 progress=0.733531 cache=49471 2016-09-02 15:15:02 UpdateTip: new best=222d6060369732a5c503ae4b074637fbcee576ec022f620ca91f3a2d5b8528af height=261413 log2_work=58.56575 tx=371846 date=2016-08-19 10:43:25 progress=0.733537 cache=49473 2016-09-02 15:15:02 UpdateTip: new best=7a59132c4ca71c428db0706f117a19b82b03f1eff0bb08e686fc415f4910d22d height=261414 log2_work=58.566993 tx=371848 date=2016-08-19 10:44:09 progress=0.733549 cache=49475 2016-09-02 15:15:02 UpdateTip: new best=1df7fae82fc5f2a08cb9dc0be60cc8e1bdfab6539e8e3b3275cc81c88e6c0ef4 height=261415 log2_work=58.568251 tx=371851 date=2016-08-19 10:43:52 progress=0.733554 cache=49478 2016-09-02 15:15:02 ERROR: GetTransaction : Deserialize or I/O error - ReadCompactSize() : size too large 2016-09-02 15:15:02 ERROR: CheckProofOfStake() : INFO: read txPrev failed 2016-09-02 15:15:02 WARNING: ProcessBlock(): check proof-of-stake failed for block cdda49c926cec1d4806e633011bc6f1d30c280e0a3e911f2f6427f0a7b945e1a 2016-09-02 15:15:02 ERROR: ProcessNewBlock : AcceptBlock FAILED 2016-09-02 15:15:03 ERROR: GetTransaction : Deserialize or I/O error - ReadCompactSize() : size too large 2016-09-02 15:15:03 ERROR: CheckProofOfStake() : INFO: read txPrev failed 2016-09-02 15:15:03 WARNING: ProcessBlock(): check proof-of-stake failed for block cdda49c926cec1d4806e633011bc6f1d30c280e0a3e911f2f6427f0a7b945e1a 2016-09-02 15:15:03 ERROR: ProcessNewBlock : AcceptBlock FAILED 2016-09-02 15:15:03 ERROR: GetTransaction : Deserialize or I/O error - ReadCompactSize() : size too large 2016-09-02 15:15:03 ERROR: CheckProofOfStake() : INFO: read txPrev failed 2016-09-02 15:15:03 WARNING: ProcessBlock(): check proof-of-stake failed for block cdda49c926cec1d4806e633011bc6f1d30c280e0a3e911f2f6427f0a7b945e1a 2016-09-02 15:15:03 ERROR: ProcessNewBlock : AcceptBlock FAILED2016-09-02 15:15:26 keypool reserve 6528 2016-09-02 15:15:26 keypool return 6528 2016-09-02 15:15:26 keypool reserve 6528 2016-09-02 15:15:26 keypool return 6528 2016-09-02 15:15:54 connect() to 80.236.18.96:51472 failed after select(): Connection refused (111) 2016-09-02 15:15:56 connect() to 185.77.129.23:51472 failed after select(): Connection refused (111) 2016-09-02 15:15:58 keypool reserve 6528 2016-09-02 15:15:58 keypool return 6528 2016-09-02 15:16:02 spork - new fe5e321483e33c9b559f9d4338f9359ee172d1f04763a60b12afedd9f4c1b812 ID 10011 Time 0 bestHeight 261415
|
ZPOOL - the miners multipool! Support We pay 10 FLUX Parallel Assets (PA) directly to block rewards! Get paid more and faster. No PA fee's or waiting around for them, paid instantly on every block found!
|
|
|
borris123
|
|
September 02, 2016, 03:24:19 PM |
|
looks like alot of people switching to ipv6 ips. cheaper do at only $1 a node on vultr.
|
|
|
|
4x13 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1011
|
|
September 02, 2016, 03:33:32 PM |
|
We just burned the 60k at block 279917.
If you look at the Total Coins in the previous block, you will see that this block is 60k less. The coins were sent as a network fee which are destroyed.
But why network fee was destroyed and not given to miner? Yes, at the change to PoS, network fees are now destroyed. Though it is fractional, it does help overtime with inflation, and now we can remove coins from the total coin cap if needed... instead of having them just sit there at an address somewhere. Thats how burning coins should work.. I guess the "any 60k" was burned even though a significant number of forum members voted for the original. Original 60k  20 (31.3%) Any 60k  44 (68.8%) Total Voters: 64 I suppose no one here is interested in having any more forks. Not entirely sure what you are implying, but there was a vote, and we did what the vote said.
|
|
|
|
q327K091
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1792
Merit: 1010
|
|
September 02, 2016, 04:34:12 PM |
|
Seems v 2.1.2.1 fixed all issues! Controller wallet and all masternodes running without any problems since installing. Good work, devs.
second that, meantime due to reports of stability I have switched from POS to master nodes configuration all 48 of them , as soon as I collect new nodes are being added
|
|
|
|
borris123
|
|
September 02, 2016, 05:27:48 PM |
|
my wallet is nakered.
when i try to send coins it wont let me and says transaction rejected. this might happen if some of the coins are already spent.
I have tried rescan, zap wallets. sync from scratch but still same error. what can i do??
|
|
|
|
Haunebu81
|
|
September 02, 2016, 05:33:04 PM |
|
my wallet is nakered.
when i try to send coins it wont let me and says transaction rejected. this might happen if some of the coins are already spent.
I have tried rescan, zap wallets. sync from scratch but still same error. what can i do??
Enable coin control, click the Send tab, then click on "Inputs" and make sure you're not trying to spend coins that have less than 100 confirmations.
|
|
|
|
borris123
|
|
September 02, 2016, 05:51:04 PM |
|
my wallet is nakered.
when i try to send coins it wont let me and says transaction rejected. this might happen if some of the coins are already spent.
I have tried rescan, zap wallets. sync from scratch but still same error. what can i do??
Enable coin control, click the Send tab, then click on "Inputs" and make sure you're not trying to spend coins that have less than 100 confirmations. thank you sir! been stressing me out for few hours now
|
|
|
|
mikegi
|
|
September 02, 2016, 08:15:17 PM |
|
We just burned the 60k at block 279917.
If you look at the Total Coins in the previous block, you will see that this block is 60k less. The coins were sent as a network fee which are destroyed.
But why network fee was destroyed and not given to miner? Yes, at the change to PoS, network fees are now destroyed. Though it is fractional, it does help overtime with inflation, and now we can remove coins from the total coin cap if needed... instead of having them just sit there at an address somewhere. Thats how burning coins should work.. I guess the "any 60k" was burned even though a significant number of forum members voted for the original. Original 60k  20 (31.3%) Any 60k  44 (68.8%) Total Voters: 64 I suppose no one here is interested in having any more forks. Not entirely sure what you are implying, but there was a vote, and we did what the vote said. I am happy that 60k coins were burnt. I understand that finding transactions containing the initial 60k premine for the masternodes would be more work and would need a more complex transaction to burn them than what was carried out. Whatever decisions are made, or whatever is done, not everyone will be happy. While proposals might be described and discussed in bitcointalk. I think the decision to stray from the original plan should have been formalized with a proposal and vote. In the case of a crisis, security incident, etc. it could be acceptable for the developers make changes that need to be done quickly. There is no way for the poll to reflect the share of masternode voters. I think that this is why we have this masternode based proposal and voting system. Seeing that the system is not being used reduces its credibility. In my understanding it was an informal poll (unless I missed a message explaining it), which indicated that for 20 out of 64 who participated, It mattered which coins were burnt. Votes are not always decided based on 50% majority. Enough, that it could be discussed further... and a decision to stray from the initial plan, it could be formalized by a proposal and vote. As for the comment about the fork, this is definitely a small issue. There is not much at stake and no change in the intended supply of DNET. The Ethereum hard fork and Ethereum classic is a good example of what can happen when there is a lot at stake and when differences in principles.
|
|
|
|
borris123
|
|
September 02, 2016, 08:36:54 PM |
|
flicking through using the ipv6 on vultr option i think i have it sorted just wondering how you do ./darknet-cli getinfo for all of them? I found the exe in cd /var/lib/ but it does not accept commands and gives error
You must set rpcpassword=<password> in the configuration file: /root/.darknet/darknet.conf If the file does not exist, create it with owner-readable-only file permissions.
i have done that for the 5 that are on there
any help appreciated
|
|
|
|
mikegi
|
|
September 02, 2016, 09:34:14 PM |
|
flicking through using the ipv6 on vultr option i think i have it sorted just wondering how you do ./darknet-cli getinfo for all of them? I found the exe in cd /var/lib/ but it does not accept commands and gives error
You must set rpcpassword=<password> in the configuration file: /root/.darknet/darknet.conf If the file does not exist, create it with owner-readable-only file permissions.
i have done that for the 5 that are on there
any help appreciated
You could run ./darknet-cli -rpcconnect=IPNUMPER -rpcuser=masternodeusername -rpcpassword=yoursecurepassword getinfo I assume you are running this from within your masternode's server... You might need to set "rpcallowip=" to allow you to connect from wherever you are trying to connect to. It's prudent to set rpcallowip to only allow internal connections. (best to firewall all unnecessary ports). RPC could be used over ssl, but I suppose this could be used to generate extra load on the server if left open, and worse is possible if you use easily guessable usernames and passwords.
|
|
|
|
borris123
|
|
September 02, 2016, 09:39:25 PM |
|
flicking through using the ipv6 on vultr option i think i have it sorted just wondering how you do ./darknet-cli getinfo for all of them? I found the exe in cd /var/lib/ but it does not accept commands and gives error
You must set rpcpassword=<password> in the configuration file: /root/.darknet/darknet.conf If the file does not exist, create it with owner-readable-only file permissions.
i have done that for the 5 that are on there
any help appreciated
You could run ./darknet-cli -rpcconnect=IPNUMPER -rpcuser=masternodeusername -rpcpassword=yoursecurepassword getinfo I assume you are running this from within your masternode's server... You might need to set "rpcallowip=" to allow you to connect from wherever you are trying to connect to. It's prudent to set rpcallowip to only allow internal connections. (best to firewall all unnecessary ports). RPC could be used over ssl, but I suppose this could be used to generate extra load on the server if left open, and worse is possible if you use easily guessable usernames and passwords. Remembering all the user names and passwords bit of a pain and don't like saving them. I try to make them unique and not the same as well. Does it matter?
|
|
|
|
jakiman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1638
Merit: 1011
jakiman is back!
|
|
September 02, 2016, 10:20:26 PM |
|
Remembering all the user names and passwords bit of a pain and don't like saving them. I try to make them unique and not the same as well. Does it matter?
If your rpcallowip is the loopback address, then the username/password doesn't really matter much Script by mxnsch creates all the instances with same username & password. Just different rpc port. So to fire CLI commands at each instance from the server's console, it's as easy as: /usr/local/bin/darknet-cli -rpcuser=xxxx -rpcpassword=yyyy -rpcport=zzzz getinfo(where zzzz is the rpcport of each instance. e.g. 4441, 4442, 4443, 4444, 4445)
|
|
|
|
|