|
Hangterisaan
|
 |
September 26, 2017, 08:12:48 PM |
|
Hello i was curious as to how Colx is doing so far...and what are you opinions on it so far?
Far from ideal, pools, stop working, blockchain seems to stop to several times per day, nova wallet down ouple times a day. Pools stopped working after maybe 30 minutes after launch, solo mining was impossible yet someone was mining millions (all found blocks for several hours went to 1 adress. So i guess a lot has to be done. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even in the event that an attacker gains more than 50% of the network's
computational power, only transactions sent by the attacker could be
reversed or double-spent. The network would not be destroyed.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
moonswamp
Member
 Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
September 26, 2017, 08:32:49 PM |
|
all news in this thread been updated on Chinese Colx website: https://colx.co/news/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steven3iii
|
|
September 26, 2017, 09:27:12 PM |
|
This is dodgy...I have mined yesterday and only 1000 coins made it to the wallet. A transaction pre 2961. I think there is a real problem and we need to stop mining.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
steve321
|
|
September 26, 2017, 11:26:00 PM |
|
Resynced from scratch using nodes from explorer. Blocks do not match. Wallet = 3152 right now, explorer = 3213 Mined coins are at address, and on explorer, not in wallet... |
|
|
|
|
presstab
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000
Blockchain Developer
|
|
September 26, 2017, 11:47:40 PM |
|
Resynced from scratch using nodes from explorer. Blocks do not match. Wallet = 3152 right now, explorer = 3213 Mined coins are at address, and on explorer, not in wallet... What is your block hash for 3152? |
|
|
|
bedjoea
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 32
Merit: 0
|
|
September 27, 2017, 12:22:54 AM |
|
something wrong with block chain, so i confused, i can't sinkronisasi my wallet, then cannot put this coin to pool68.netfor dev, do you have real and trusted nodes? |
|
|
|
|
SteamOctanePool
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
sopool.us - One of the fastest pools!
|
|
September 27, 2017, 12:29:02 AM |
|
 NOTICE: All, I know were having some coin issues and the majority are mining on my pool. Just an FYI that I am in contact with one of the main Dev's on the issue. The dev has been very responsive and usually has good fixes! We will get everything sorted out!  |
Sopool.us - High performance cloud pool | DDOS Protection | Auto Load Scaling | Pool build & hosting services | Node Hosting Service | Need a pool for your favorite coin? PM us and let us know about it!
|
|
|
|
steve321
|
|
September 27, 2017, 12:40:49 AM |
|
Resynced from scratch using nodes from explorer. Blocks do not match. Wallet = 3152 right now, explorer = 3213 Mined coins are at address, and on explorer, not in wallet... What is your block hash for 3152? 000000000556724d6ab8ea6533d2030aca852fdeb27334dbd80d33309b0245b9 |
|
|
|
|
CrunchyCrypto
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 37
Merit: 0
|
|
September 27, 2017, 12:50:49 AM |
|
I compared the hashes from the block explorer with those of my wallet (debug.log).
It seems that there was a chain split (fork) at block 2090:
The hash for #2089 matches (`...de13`), but the hash for #2090 differs (wallet: `...afef`, explorer `...0e12`).
This means that all transactions / payments after block #2089 (2017-09-26 03:05:45) are either in one side of the chain OR the other.
Edit: I now see that it's literally in the log (for blocks #2090 AND (on one side of the chain) #3187):
2017-09-26 04:59:56 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlockHeader: forked chain older than max reorganization depth (height 2090)
2017-09-27 00:47:27 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlockHeader: forked chain older than max reorganization depth (height 3187)
|
|
|
|
|
SteamOctanePool
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
sopool.us - One of the fastest pools!
|
|
September 27, 2017, 01:04:25 AM |
|
I compared the hashes from the block explorer with those of my wallet (debug.log).
It seems that there was a chain split (fork) at block 2090:
The hash for #2089 matches (`...de13`), but the hash for #2090 differs (wallet: `...afef`, explorer `...0e12`).
This means that all transactions / payments after block #2089 (2017-09-26 03:05:45) are either in one side of the chain OR the other.
Edit: I now see that it's literally in the log (for blocks #2090 AND (on one side of the chain) #3187):
2017-09-26 04:59:56 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlockHeader: forked chain older than max reorganization depth (height 2090)
2017-09-27 00:47:27 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlockHeader: forked chain older than max reorganization depth (height 3187)
That is correct. Talking with the dev about the possibility of a checkpoint to force the chain into the miners chain. The other chain has like 1-2 miners hitting all the blocks. Thanks, |
Sopool.us - High performance cloud pool | DDOS Protection | Auto Load Scaling | Pool build & hosting services | Node Hosting Service | Need a pool for your favorite coin? PM us and let us know about it!
|
|
|
|
|
CrunchyCrypto
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 37
Merit: 0
|
|
September 27, 2017, 01:17:45 AM |
|
...
It seems that there was a chain split (fork) at block 2090:
...
That is correct. Talking with the dev about the possibility of a checkpoint to force the chain into the miners chain. The other chain has like 1-2 miners hitting all the blocks. Thanks, Personally, I think the lack of masternodes has caused a lot of 'misbehaving nodes' and disconnects, which then forced us into adjusting the banscore and using addmode=n.n.n.n. But I think its better to *not* use addnode and let the software decide. Because by having all wallets connect to the same nodes, we have created a wallet 'island', apparently with one or two miners of its own, resulting in these forks. |
|
|
|
|
SteamOctanePool
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
sopool.us - One of the fastest pools!
|
|
September 27, 2017, 01:18:31 AM |
|
There was a fork on the chain. In talks with the dev about a checkpoint. Here are the nodes the pool is connected too. You may want to try ONLY the following nodes in the config file. addnode=82.211.30.118:51572 addnode=84.200.16.124:51572 addnode=35.203.147.109:51572 addnode=35.199.165.239:51572 |
Sopool.us - High performance cloud pool | DDOS Protection | Auto Load Scaling | Pool build & hosting services | Node Hosting Service | Need a pool for your favorite coin? PM us and let us know about it!
|
|
|
SteamOctanePool
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
sopool.us - One of the fastest pools!
|
|
September 27, 2017, 01:19:43 AM |
|
...
It seems that there was a chain split (fork) at block 2090:
...
That is correct. Talking with the dev about the possibility of a checkpoint to force the chain into the miners chain. The other chain has like 1-2 miners hitting all the blocks. Thanks, Personally, I think the lack of masternodes has caused a lot of 'misbehaving nodes' and disconnects, which then forced us into adjusting the banscore and using addmode=n.n.n.n. But I think its better to *not* use addnode and let the software decide. Because by having all wallets connect to the same nodes, we have created a wallet 'island', apparently with one or two miners of its own, resulting in these forks. True. But could easily be fixed using a checkpoint of the blockchain the dev deems appropriate. I would assume the majority would rule here, and we have around 121 miners on the pool right now.  |
Sopool.us - High performance cloud pool | DDOS Protection | Auto Load Scaling | Pool build & hosting services | Node Hosting Service | Need a pool for your favorite coin? PM us and let us know about it!
|
|
|
bgm
Member
Offline
Activity: 95
Merit: 10
|
|
September 27, 2017, 01:22:09 AM |
|
All I know is that the community agreed to cut the total supply in half and add masternodes. Mining after the premined swap amount defeats this purpose. Not once in all these day to day posts did the word swap get confused with the words flash mining. This is why people are confused long term cv2 holders have not been given due diligence. For all this confusion I apologize for not keeping up with the last minute info. A 2:1 swap with mining on top beforehand does not cut the total supply in half. Sure it might just be a fraction over but that is not the point. Good luck with the future colx but I for one am tired of wallet clones that do nothing but gain value from hype and ignore where they come from. And yes this coin is just a clone.
|
|
|
|
|
bgm
Member
Offline
Activity: 95
Merit: 10
|
|
September 27, 2017, 01:36:08 AM |
|
However, in defense for the colx community from my previous post, even if I did have beforehand mining knowledge, I still wouldn't have been able to figure it out. I only know how to mine sha256 and scrypt so everything else is foreign to me. I tried to use -a quark or whatever but it shut my miner down instantly. The problem could be that I am comfortable with bfgminer and maybe it is the wrong one, idk but it feels like these things should have been made more clear.
|
|
|
|
|
CrunchyCrypto
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 37
Merit: 0
|
|
September 27, 2017, 01:37:53 AM |
|
Here are the nodes the pool is connected too.
You may want to try ONLY the following nodes in the config file.
addnode=82.211.30.118:51572
addnode=84.200.16.124:51572
addnode=35.203.147.109:51572
addnode=35.199.165.239:51572
Again, using `addnode` is the source of this problem, not a solution. It's adding centralization to a decentralized coin. Also it won't work unless people also delete their peers.dat. Else these 4 nodes will only be added to the existing list of nodes (including the 'wrong' nodes and in fact, almost all wallets are on the 'wrong' chain at the moment). Finally I don't think the wallet will reorganize more than 100 blocks. If a checkpoint changes that, then we'll probably need that. Is NovaExchange on the right side of the chain btw? Most transactions will have been to/from them. |
|
|
|
|
|
Hangterisaan
|
|
September 27, 2017, 01:52:11 AM |
|
Should have listened when i said shut it down, fix problems and start over again. Dev started testing 1 week before launch date, then we were told 1 week extra to guarantee a smooth launch. Only to see nothing but crashes, forks and to hear mining was only tested with a single cpu solo mining wallet. Only thing needed was to ask if some people wanted to hash on testnet. I would have gladly offered my rigs for this.
I surely hope this coin survives this miserable launch (never seen this in all my years in crypto btw) or at least that i can still get a nice price for my millions CV2 if it does not...
|
|
|
|
|
|
