[DVC]DevCoin - Official Thread - Moderated

[Unthinkingbit]

..
The problem is with the devcoind daemon, or at least between the daemon and the server. I'm not sure if I've somehow inadvertently blocked access to the network for the devcoin daemon or what, but the other daemons don't seem to be having any issues so I've done something specifically to this.

The P2Pool is running fine with the other merged mine coins (at least they seem to be, but we haven't found any blocks yet).
..

I suggest a 24 share bounty to the pool which mines the first devcoin block with Sidhujag's daemon. Any objections?

[1713265995]

1713265995

[1713265995]

1713265995

[1713265995]

1713265995

[1713265995]

1713265995

[1713265995]

1713265995

[1713265995]

1713265995

[emfox]

..
The problem is with the devcoind daemon, or at least between the daemon and the server. I'm not sure if I've somehow inadvertently blocked access to the network for the devcoin daemon or what, but the other daemons don't seem to be having any issues so I've done something specifically to this.

The P2Pool is running fine with the other merged mine coins (at least they seem to be, but we haven't found any blocks yet).
..

I suggest a 24 share bounty to the pool which mines the first devcoin block with Sidhujag's daemon. Any objections?

I'm not objecting but is it better if we have an hashpower criteria, e.g. if the pool hash reach 20g, then it's ok for the 24 shares bounty. So not every pool who has deploy the same code can apply this bounty.

[ranlo]

I agree with Notabot. I am following it loosely, images don't work with some things (like fiction stories unless you draw them yourself) I don't want to penalize someone for that. I do look for grammar, spelling, etc and plagiarism of course. If it is a non-fiction, I look for backing information and links, but I don't pay much attention to how I feel about the article so much as if it is a good article or story. I don't think I should penalize the author just because it was something that didn't catch my fancy or that I wasn't interested in.

Is it worth editing the rating guide page and putting a summary of how you rate it (in the same vein as what's there I suppose), so other raters in the future can see it's really up to them how they rate it?

It does say it's up to the rater, but this round I found myself following the basic guide more than just doing what I did the first time I rated. My ratings tended to go more towards "Strong references and logical arguments" for opiniony/blog/non-fiction things, and images only if I felt it would have made it easier to read/understand the topic.

I go based on a mix, really. If it's something that should be factual, I expect proof of where the information came from. If it's an opinion or something, I don't. Images where needed are important as well, to me.

But, with that said, every article is different. I'm an authority source on what I write about; so for me to link to *other sources* isn't really possible; I'm the one people come to for information. Not the other way around. And I understand that there are a couple others here that may be in a similar situation. I try to judge the best I can.

[Hunterbunter]

..
The problem is with the devcoind daemon, or at least between the daemon and the server. I'm not sure if I've somehow inadvertently blocked access to the network for the devcoin daemon or what, but the other daemons don't seem to be having any issues so I've done something specifically to this.

The P2Pool is running fine with the other merged mine coins (at least they seem to be, but we haven't found any blocks yet).
..

I suggest a 24 share bounty to the pool which mines the first devcoin block with Sidhujag's daemon. Any objections?

I'm not objecting but is it better if we have an hashpower criteria, e.g. if the pool hash reach 20g, then it's ok for the 24 shares bounty. So not every pool who has deploy the same code can apply this bounty.

I'm also not objecting what you're saying, but isn't it quite hard to get a devcoin block now anyway? Its difficulty is up there with bitcoin, so even the pool I set up is going to take a while to get an actual block I believe.

Speaking of which...wtb moar hashpower! Server's looking stable and sexy. The good thing about p2pool is even if mine goes down, you can automatically connect to a backup p2pool node in your conf files and keep going with the shares and everything you left off with.

Hmm is the mergedmine proxy running? Thats what calls getauxblock..

You using latest source? Try to delete your wallet too if you dont have coins in it...

Is minimg happening when it crashes? Try to just get the mode up stable and synced before tirning on the proxy for the pool.

Did you do a clean build? Delete obj files manually?

Sometimes if its not closed properly it corrupts wallet amd database and crashes when reopened.. thats not a devcoin issue.

Can I vpn in or ssh to see?

Hmm I just read this more thoroughly. I realized the one thing I did was start p2pool before devcoin was fully synced - it had a corrupted database and I had to reindex it anyway, and after that it wouldn't work properly. It's the latest source, deleted all source files and re-cloned. I didn't have to clean the git did I? Anyway, now it's fully reindexed, and seems to have stopped crashing after I restarted p2pool without devcoin. The daemon seems to be running ok, and connections are growing again (connected to 12 so far).  

Restarting p2pool now with devcoin merging...pray for my /wrists.

EDIT: sigh, no...basically p2pool tries to connect to devcoin which causes devcoind to go belly up:

p2pool log

Code:

> Error while calling merged getauxblock on http://127.0.0.1:52332/:
2014-02-07 21:08:51.551955 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2014-02-07 21:08:51.552099 >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 577, in _runCallbacks
2014-02-07 21:08:51.552274 >     current.result = callback(current.result, *args, **kw)
2014-02-07 21:08:51.552390 >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 1155, in gotResult
2014-02-07 21:08:51.552509 >     _inlineCallbacks(r, g, deferred)
2014-02-07 21:08:51.552615 >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 1097, in _inlineCallbacks
2014-02-07 21:08:51.552736 >     result = result.throwExceptionIntoGenerator(g)
2014-02-07 21:08:51.552848 >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/python/failure.py", line 389, in throwExceptionIntoGenerator
2014-02-07 21:08:51.552971 >     return g.throw(self.type, self.value, self.tb)
2014-02-07 21:08:51.553082 > --- <exception caught here> ---
2014-02-07 21:08:51.553188 >   File "/home/amit/p2pool/p2pool/util/deferral.py", line 41, in f
2014-02-07 21:08:51.553301 >     result = yield func(*args, **kwargs)
2014-02-07 21:08:51.553409 >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 1097, in _inlineCallbacks
2014-02-07 21:08:51.553530 >     result = result.throwExceptionIntoGenerator(g)
2014-02-07 21:08:51.553640 >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/twisted/python/failure.py", line 389, in throwExceptionIntoGenerator
2014-02-07 21:08:51.553768 >     return g.throw(self.type, self.value, self.tb)
2014-02-07 21:08:51.553879 >   File "/home/amit/p2pool/p2pool/util/jsonrpc.py", line 133, in _http_do
2014-02-07 21:08:51.553994 >     raise Error_for_code(resp['error']['code'])(resp['error']['message'], resp['error'].get('data', None))
2014-02-07 21:08:51.554117 > p2pool.util.jsonrpc.NarrowError: -1 CreateNewBlock() : ConnectBlock failed

devcoind log - the getinfo I did just to see if it was working before restarting p2pool

Code:

ThreadRPCServer method=getinfo
keypool reserve 2
keypool return 2
CTxMemPool::accept() : accepted 5912842f1c77966b57d9976f6b1db1f208dee045f06dd8bc4ff21249e86a25fe (poolsz 1)
received getdata for: tx 5912842f1c77966b57d9976f6b1db1f208dee045f06dd8bc4ff21249e86a25fe
received getdata for: tx 5912842f1c77966b57d9976f6b1db1f208dee045f06dd8bc4ff21249e86a25fe
Flushed 1755 addresses to peers.dat  80ms
keypool reserve 2
ERROR: CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : txout.nValue negative
ERROR: CheckBlock() : CheckTransaction failed

[Unthinkingbit]

..
I'm not objecting but is it better if we have an hashpower criteria, e.g. if the pool hash reach 20g, then it's ok for the 24 shares bounty. So not every pool who has deploy the same code can apply this bounty.

The reason for the bounty is to see if Sidhujag's Daemon makes devcoin blocks that the old clients accept. We just need a single block for that. If it does, then we can make Sidhujag's the official client and archive the old one.

Edit: Even though we only need a single block, I'll make it a standard bounty with half (12) for the block found by a second pool, so that more pools have incentive to try Sidhujag's code.

[emfox]

..
I'm not objecting but is it better if we have an hashpower criteria, e.g. if the pool hash reach 20g, then it's ok for the 24 shares bounty. So not every pool who has deploy the same code can apply this bounty.

The reason for the bounty is to see if Sidhujag's Daemon makes devcoin blocks that the old clients accept. We just need a single block for that. If it does, then we can make Sidhujag's the official client and archive the old one.

Ok, it make sense.

I thought it's for the mining business bounty... so it's basically a wallet testing bounty

..
The problem is with the devcoind daemon, or at least between the daemon and the server. I'm not sure if I've somehow inadvertently blocked access to the network for the devcoin daemon or what, but the other daemons don't seem to be having any issues so I've done something specifically to this.

The P2Pool is running fine with the other merged mine coins (at least they seem to be, but we haven't found any blocks yet).
..

I suggest a 24 share bounty to the pool which mines the first devcoin block with Sidhujag's daemon. Any objections?

I'm not objecting but is it better if we have an hashpower criteria, e.g. if the pool hash reach 20g, then it's ok for the 24 shares bounty. So not every pool who has deploy the same code can apply this bounty.

I'm also not objecting what you're saying, but isn't it quite hard to get a devcoin block now anyway? Its difficulty is up there with bitcoin, so even the pool I set up is going to take a while to get an actual block I believe.

Speaking of which...wtb moar hashpower! Server's looking stable and sexy. The good thing about p2pool is even if mine goes down, you can automatically connect to a backup p2pool node in your conf files and keep going with the shares and everything you left off with.

Ok, I've not considering the pool as p2pool when I post the last reply. Yes, it's enough when we mined one first block out.

[sidhujag]

..
I'm not objecting but is it better if we have an hashpower criteria, e.g. if the pool hash reach 20g, then it's ok for the 24 shares bounty. So not every pool who has deploy the same code can apply this bounty.

The reason for the bounty is to see if Sidhujag's Daemon makes devcoin blocks that the old clients accept. We just need a single block for that. If it does, then we can make Sidhujag's the official client and archive the old one.

You really think its half the amount of work to test a pool than it is to develop the source? So does this mean he would have to dive into the source to figure out whats wrong if that os the case? Seems most of the hard work is in the code since that would be the problem and not the setup of a generic p2pool.

[sidhujag]

Seems it throws a fit when creating a block? Doesntthis get called when doenloading blocks from the chain? whats the difference. Is it the transaction stuff tht happens after checkblock is called?

Seems there is an issue in the creation of a new block... Hmm how would i debug this one?

Good thing is it is consistent.. so the p2ppool is sending the command right away amd I can put a bunch of console output statements to see what is going on.. I can add these to github ill tell you when to rebuild.

[emfox]

..
I'm not objecting but is it better if we have an hashpower criteria, e.g. if the pool hash reach 20g, then it's ok for the 24 shares bounty. So not every pool who has deploy the same code can apply this bounty.

The reason for the bounty is to see if Sidhujag's Daemon makes devcoin blocks that the old clients accept. We just need a single block for that. If it does, then we can make Sidhujag's the official client and archive the old one.

You really think its half the amount of work to test a pool than it is to develop the source? So does this mean he would have to dive into the source to figure out whats wrong if that os the case? Seems most of the hard work is in the code since that would be the problem and not the setup of a generic p2pool.

Calm down man, I think it's more hard work developing wallet than testing it, but having mining pool is also important.

I think I'd like to propose bounty of 12 shares every round for sidhujag, after his wallet made official and as long as he continuously maintain it.

[bit-fxtrader]

Do the references / links have to be to outside sources or can it be my previous articles on devtome?

Lot of my articles posted recently are for trading systems which are either created by me or my modifications of trading systems I've found from publicly accessible threads on trading forums. Referencing this would be an issue as the source is basically my mind? An added problem is that even for the strategies I've modified, for a lot I can't even remember where I got the original idea from. As there is no copyright on trading systems I never really bothered to keep track of where I borrowed ideas from.

I plan to change up the type of content I post starting from the next round so I don't expect this to be an issue going forward but obviously I wouldn't want to get stuck with a bad rating in the meantime.

[novacadian]

I think I'd like to propose bounty of 12 shares every round for sidhujag, after his wallet made official and as long as he continuously maintain it.

Would that not fall under the share for being a full time Open Source developer? Assuming there were shares given out for the original development? Please don't consider this a vote pro or con... just a question.

- Nova

[wiser]

I just signed up four or five new writers. If you messaged me in the past two days and still haven't gotten a reply, please message me again as that means I missed you.

I'm getting enough requests that I'm processing them in batches once a day or every other day, so if you don't hear back right away, that's why.

Welcome aboard to all the new writers. It appears word about the Devtome opportunity is getting out.

[bit-fxtrader]

Hey, me again. I'm confused, I noticed someone put some of my articles in my assigned categories but I still haven't been contacted re payment or added to the list. Is this list not being regularly updated and where can I see my ''review'' score?

http://dvccountdown.blisteringdevelopers.com/devtome

I understand that there is a backlog as most of my newer articles have yet to be categorized but doesn't this process go hand in hand with article reviews?

Hey bitfxtrader, I like your articles.

Anyway, dvccountdown uses sessions to track your last searched name, so if you link the bare address it'll only show what other people were looking at previously.

http://dvccountdown.blisteringdevelopers.com/devtome/31/hunterbunter

If you put the round and your username in the url like above, you can link it so others can see.

To answer your question, the review score should show up there - like mine is 80.48 according to the "Rating Median" if you scroll to the right. If it hasn't shown up yet then I think that means you just haven't been rated yet, and you'll get a default median that pays in the middle (ie 1.0 multiplier). I could be wrong, but that's what I got the first round.

The scripts aren't run until after deadline and the newest ratings are added etc, so no one knows what they're getting paid (concerning the multipliers) until after that point.

Thanks, glad someone is reading them haha

I tried searching myself and nothing came up so I guess noone has put me on the list yet.

[Hunterbunter]

..
I'm not objecting but is it better if we have an hashpower criteria, e.g. if the pool hash reach 20g, then it's ok for the 24 shares bounty. So not every pool who has deploy the same code can apply this bounty.

The reason for the bounty is to see if Sidhujag's Daemon makes devcoin blocks that the old clients accept. We just need a single block for that. If it does, then we can make Sidhujag's the official client and archive the old one.

You really think its half the amount of work to test a pool than it is to develop the source? So does this mean he would have to dive into the source to figure out whats wrong if that os the case? Seems most of the hard work is in the code since that would be the problem and not the setup of a generic p2pool.

I agree with you, and I'll split the bounty with you if we can figure this out together, and the pool manages to get a raw devcoin block. Whatever amount you think is fair. It may not even be a problem with the source at all, and just a problem with my server, which another pool might not have. The server seemed to have been working fine up until I announced it yesterday, and then my isp replaced faulty ram and it died a horrible death in many ways. Everything got back up except devcoind, which didn't have a problem up until then. It's probably not a source problem, but I need source advice to try and identify a potential problem with my server. Either way, if you can help me fix it, everyone wins.

On a side note, I do also agree with emfox's suggestion that the devcoin wallet/daemon developers need to be well taken care of. Our whole network runs off it! One could easily spend 40 hours a week on something like the source and make it awesome + features.

Seems it throws a fit when creating a block? Doesntthis get called when doenloading blocks from the chain? whats the difference. Is it the transaction stuff tht happens after checkblock is called?

Seems there is an issue in the creation of a new block... Hmm how would i debug this one?

Good thing is it is consistent.. so the p2ppool is sending the command right away amd I can put a bunch of console output statements to see what is going on.. I can add these to github ill tell you when to rebuild.

I'm not sure if it's when it tries to create a block, it looks like it's failing when it's trying to check the transactions. There might be something incompatible with what p2pool thinks its asking and what devcoind is expecting. Have you (or anyone else) made any changes to the transaction code after the fork?

What looks like is happening is the daemon starts up fine, gets the new blocks fine, and then as soon as p2pool throws what I linked above at it (merged getauxblock), it refuses connections until it terminates. We need to figure out what's causing this:

Code:

ERROR: CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : txout.nValue negative
ERROR: CheckBlock() : CheckTransaction failed

whenever p2pool tries to getauxblock on it. (and more specifically:  p2pool.util.jsonrpc.NarrowError: -1 CreateNewBlock() : ConnectBlock failed) source for p2pool is https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool/

[Hunterbunter]

Thanks, glad someone is reading them haha

I tried searching myself and nothing came up so I guess noone has put me on the list yet.

What's your devtome username again?

[sidhujag]

..
I'm not objecting but is it better if we have an hashpower criteria, e.g. if the pool hash reach 20g, then it's ok for the 24 shares bounty. So not every pool who has deploy the same code can apply this bounty.

The reason for the bounty is to see if Sidhujag's Daemon makes devcoin blocks that the old clients accept. We just need a single block for that. If it does, then we can make Sidhujag's the official client and archive the old one.

You really think its half the amount of work to test a pool than it is to develop the source? So does this mean he would have to dive into the source to figure out whats wrong if that os the case? Seems most of the hard work is in the code since that would be the problem and not the setup of a generic p2pool.

I agree with you, and I'll split the bounty with you if we can figure this out together, and the pool manages to get a raw devcoin block. Whatever amount you think is fair. It may not even be a problem with the source at all, and just a problem with my server, which another pool might not have. The server seemed to have been working fine up until I announced it yesterday, and then my isp replaced faulty ram and it died a horrible death in many ways. Everything got back up except devcoind, which didn't have a problem up until then. It's probably not a source problem, but I need source advice to try and identify a potential problem with my server. Either way, if you can help me fix it, everyone wins.

On a side note, I do also agree with emfox's suggestion that the devcoin wallet/daemon developers need to be well taken care of. Our whole network runs off it! One could easily spend 40 hours a week on something like the source and make it awesome + features.

Seems it throws a fit when creating a block? Doesntthis get called when doenloading blocks from the chain? whats the difference. Is it the transaction stuff tht happens after checkblock is called?

Seems there is an issue in the creation of a new block... Hmm how would i debug this one?

Good thing is it is consistent.. so the p2ppool is sending the command right away amd I can put a bunch of console output statements to see what is going on.. I can add these to github ill tell you when to rebuild.

I'm not sure if it's when it tries to create a block, it looks like it's failing when it's trying to check the transactions. There might be something incompatible with what p2pool thinks its asking and what devcoind is expecting. Have you (or anyone else) made any changes to the transaction code after the fork?

What looks like is happening is the daemon starts up fine, gets the new blocks fine, and then as soon as p2pool throws what I linked above at it (merged getauxblock), it refuses connections until it terminates. We need to figure out what's causing this:

Code:

ERROR: CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : txout.nValue negative
ERROR: CheckBlock() : CheckTransaction failed

whenever p2pool tries to getauxblock on it.

I made fee changes that may have broke it.. maybe its a good idea to work backwards from the first stable release like 1.0.3 or whatenot looking at history.

[Unthinkingbit]

..
You really think its half the amount of work to test a pool than it is to develop the source? So does this mean he would have to dive into the source to figure out whats wrong if that os the case? Seems most of the hard work is in the code since that would be the problem and not the setup of a generic p2pool.

It is less than half the work. If blocks can be mined with your code you will also get the pledges. Given that the shares this month will be less than 130,000, the pledges of at least 6 million are worth at least 46 additional shares, in total probably around a hundred. So 24 would be about a quarter of that.

I think I'd like to propose bounty of 12 shares every round for sidhujag, after his wallet made official and as long as he continuously maintain it.

Would that not fall under the share for being a full time Open Source developer? Assuming there were shares given out for the original development? Please don't consider this a vote pro or con... just a question.

- Nova

Sidhujag is getting admin salary for developing the devcoin source. On top of that for ongoing open source development, he also qualifies for the bitcoin share list. Sidhujag, please contact Hunterbunter to go on that list:
http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=earn_devcoins_by_developing

[Unthinkingbit]

..
Thanks, glad someone is reading them haha

I tried searching myself and nothing came up so I guess noone has put me on the list yet.

It's too late to get into round 32, you'll go into round 33. We need about a week to approve new writers, each writer is checked by three people.

[Hunterbunter]

I made fee changes that may have broke it.. maybe its a good idea to work backwards from the first stable release like 1.0.3 or whatenot looking at history.

Ok I'm a bit git nooby, this is what I'm doing to get a previous version:

git checkout 016bd1e7f8c289b05158e8005a69ff33bb262573 (whichever branch I want to use)
cd ~/devcoin/src && make -f makefile.unix

that then compiles what I think is the branch version, whose executable I can use to run. Is this the correct way to do it?

[emfox]

Thanks for the excellent pool, finally we have such a pool that pays out devcoins!

I immediately switched my 3G hash/s miner to your pool and everything seems fine with cgminer. then I goto your page at blisterpool.com, and try to register with my bitcoin and devcoin address, but it shows a message "VALIDATION_ERROR: 'module' object has no attribute 'Validate'". something wrong with the page? or should I do something more? Also, I see the "Stats" Column writing "Coming Soon", I think it should be implemented first, 'cause people don't like throw their hash power into a pool which cannot observe the mining status instantly

Hey again, I saw your miner hop back on when the pool was back up...did you find the pool stats page at the top? (http://blisterpool.com/stats ) That shows how much is going through by bitcoin address if you scroll down. It's just a basic open-source front end for the p2pool, not very fancy, but I still have to dive into the p2pool data to figure out how it's actually storing stuff so I can give better stats and figure out the bonus payouts etc.

Also, I noticed you got a p2pool share this morning, yay! It means I have something to work with for the bonus payout scripts.

while I can see the share in 'payout' page, but cannot find in the 'last blocks', what's the problem? or did I missing something?