[ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency

[coins101]

We've got a forum moderator on the troll farm... Any reasonable rebuttal to trolls is being deleted. Raging flame BS is left to stand. Moderator clearly in on the troll action.

Once the moderators become trolls, a forum has lost it's use.

so this gets deleted?

[1714661980]

1714661980

[1714661980]

1714661980

[1714661980]

1714661980

[1714661980]

1714661980

[camosoul]

We've got a forum moderator on the troll farm... Any reasonable rebuttal to trolls is being deleted. Raging flame BS is left to stand. Moderator clearly in on the troll action.

Once the moderators become trolls, a forum has lost it's use.

so this gets deleted?

Probably not. The point is to censor for an agenda. Censoring this would make it obvious.

[CHAOSiTEC]

<@CHAOSiTEC> so, today we gained alot of wisdom, and we are working on a new way to implement masternode payments, that will work... (my idea) :-p
and a bit later...
<@CHAOSiTEC> ive come up with a new solution for masternodes payment, we are working on that now

New dev on the job helping Evan, no ETA was given.

waou ... I thought the current RC3 solution has been extensively tested for weeks on testnet, and suddenly, after two hours following another botched, evan realizes that he needs more development for yet ANOTHER solution AND additional support?

the main net HAS to be stable, we cannot have side forks poping up here and there for longer than 1 block (i.e. orphant blocks) period anything else = unstable network. no solution can be garantied as several things can go wrong, there has been more work on darkcoin than 99% of all altcoins out there, we want things to be perfect, with no risk to the network, nor your money.

not everything can be tested to perfection in limited testnet scenarios, remember those games you used to play, having strange bugs here and there, those games where playtested for hours and hours, but some stuff can slip through...

 I won't qualify myself as an absolute expert, but in 2013 even bitcoin, in a perfect normal and stable context, had a concurrent blockchain for many blocks - that naturally got orphaned and was then abandoned. And as you mentioned, in 4 weeks testing, devs could miss things - after only one hour, how could evan determine that the not-so-surprising forks won't get naturally orphaned? The main code just branched out, for christ sake.

they did, but orphants have to happen descently fast, not keep running for several blocks

[thelonecrouton]

We've got a forum moderator on the troll farm... Any reasonable rebuttal to trolls is being deleted. Raging flame BS is left to stand. Moderator clearly in on the troll action.

Once the moderators become trolls, a forum has lost it's use.

Yep, every time I report a post, one or two of my own posts get deleted. Luckily I have an endless appetite for clouting fools upside their stoopid.  

[Mwalshe89]

We've got a forum moderator on the troll farm... Any reasonable rebuttal to trolls is being deleted. Raging flame BS is left to stand. Moderator clearly in on the troll action.

Once the moderators become trolls, a forum has lost it's use.

so this gets deleted?

Probably not. The point is to censor for an agenda. Censoring this would make it obvious.

Ever thought your reasonable rebuttals are just plain wrong?

And this flaming BS you speak of is actually the truth?

Realisation moment incoming.

[camosoul]

We've got a forum moderator on the troll farm... Any reasonable rebuttal to trolls is being deleted. Raging flame BS is left to stand. Moderator clearly in on the troll action.

Once the moderators become trolls, a forum has lost it's use.

Yep, every time I report a post, one or two of my own posts get deleted. Luckily I have an endless appetite for clouting fools upside their stoopid.  

Only two of mine have gone missing. And they were deleted for being quotes of the original messages that were removed. Moderators are trolling against DRK by removing useful rebuttals and leaving ridiculous crap visible. I've posted plenty of messages that should rightly have been removed, but have not been... I should know, eh? ;-)

BCT has taken the last step to being a complete waste of bandwidth.

[stilgars]

<@CHAOSiTEC> so, today we gained alot of wisdom, and we are working on a new way to implement masternode payments, that will work... (my idea) :-p
and a bit later...
<@CHAOSiTEC> ive come up with a new solution for masternodes payment, we are working on that now

New dev on the job helping Evan, no ETA was given.

waou ... I thought the current RC3 solution has been extensively tested for weeks on testnet, and suddenly, after two hours following another botched, evan realizes that he needs more development for yet ANOTHER solution AND additional support?

the main net HAS to be stable, we cannot have side forks poping up here and there for longer than 1 block (i.e. orphant blocks) period anything else = unstable network. no solution can be garantied as several things can go wrong, there has been more work on darkcoin than 99% of all altcoins out there, we want things to be perfect, with no risk to the network, nor your money.

not everything can be tested to perfection in limited testnet scenarios, remember those games you used to play, having strange bugs here and there, those games where playtested for hours and hours, but some stuff can slip through...

 I won't qualify myself as an absolute expert, but in 2013 even bitcoin, in a perfect normal and stable context, had a concurrent blockchain for many blocks - that naturally got orphaned and was then abandoned. And as you mentioned, in 4 weeks testing, devs could miss things - after only one hour, how could evan determine that the not-so-surprising forks won't get naturally orphaned? The main code just branched out, for christ sake.

they did, but orphants have to happen descently fast, not keep running for several blocks

I still don't get how evan could make this revert-decision based on a non-stabilized environment with massive entropy, just one hour after a hard fork. I mean, you devs did expect orphans and concurrent blocks after a hard fork, dint't you?

[ymer]

This post describes (dick)holders perfectly.

[camosoul]

<@CHAOSiTEC> so, today we gained alot of wisdom, and we are working on a new way to implement masternode payments, that will work... (my idea) :-p
and a bit later...
<@CHAOSiTEC> ive come up with a new solution for masternodes payment, we are working on that now

New dev on the job helping Evan, no ETA was given.

waou ... I thought the current RC3 solution has been extensively tested for weeks on testnet, and suddenly, after two hours following another botched, evan realizes that he needs more development for yet ANOTHER solution AND additional support?

the main net HAS to be stable, we cannot have side forks poping up here and there for longer than 1 block (i.e. orphant blocks) period anything else = unstable network. no solution can be garantied as several things can go wrong, there has been more work on darkcoin than 99% of all altcoins out there, we want things to be perfect, with no risk to the network, nor your money.

not everything can be tested to perfection in limited testnet scenarios, remember those games you used to play, having strange bugs here and there, those games where playtested for hours and hours, but some stuff can slip through...

I won't qualify myself as an absolute expert, but in 2013 even bitcoin, in a perfect normal and stable context, had a concurrent blockchain for many blocks - that naturally got orphaned and was then abandoned. And as you mentioned, in 4 weeks testing, devs could miss things - after only one hour, how could evan determine that the not-so-surprising forks won't get naturally orphaned? The main code just branched out, for christ sake.

they did, but orphants have to happen descently fast, not keep running for several blocks

Yes, there were too many bad actors stacking on the orphans. But they got pruned. If they didn't get in touch with a valid client for several blocks the prune didn't get a chance. But it did prove the prune was working.

A deliberate and correct fork may be impossible... Not trying to troll, but if people won't update the old clients this will never stop happening. at the time of RC3 hitting, there were still over 1/4 bad actors on the network. This made lag by allowing incorrect version numbers to stack by talking only amongst themselves and keeping the pruner from hitting it.

[kurzwell]

Days like this make me appreciate all the more what Satoshi was able to accomplish.  His software wasn't perfect and was tweaked numerous times before people started to pay attention, but he was able to implement some important new technologies successfully.  He did have the big advantage that he had a very small audience looking over his shoulder as he got it working right and they were generally supportive.

[camosoul]

I still don't get how evan could make this revert-decision based on a non-stabilized environment with massive entropy, just one hour after a hard fork. I mean, you devs did expect orphans and concurrent blocks after a hard fork, dint't you?

I'm a bit concerned. This is why.

I'm binge-watching The Walking Dead until the dust settles.

[DyslexicZombei]

I think you're right, the network seemed to be sorting itself out, but maybe Evan spotted something we didn't? I've noticed a minute or two of lag both locally and on my masternodes before, they all always catch up, no forks, no problems.

Also, in case anyone hasn't figured out how to update and restart their masternodes with the newfangled cold/remote setup, here is what worked for me:

On remote:

darkcoind stop
mv darkcoind darkcoind-old-version-number
wget http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/rc/darkcoind
chmod 755 darkcoind
darkcoind

...wait for it to sync up if needed


On local:

Stop local client if running
Edit your darkcoin.conf and put back in:
masternode=1
masternodeprivkey=your-priv-key-for-that-masternode
masternodeaddr=x.x.x.x:9999

Rename your copy wallet for that masternode back to wallet.dat and fire up the local client or daemon
Wait for it to sync up if needed, then
masternode start 'your-wallet-passphrase'

- you should get 'masternode started sucessfully' and you can now take the local wallet offline again, your masternode should appear at http://drk.poolhash.org/masternode.html within a minute or two.

This. +1000

Thank you for offering your solution in a thread that's supposed to be about DRK and not a pissing match between coins. I'm having problems with finding good instructions on upgrading from RC2 to 3 and implementing cold wallet storage.

I also couldn't implement the final command to start payments from the local wallet with coins in the local cold wallet. On the other 3 nodes I was setting up last night, I kept getting a local qt console error that the masternodes variable needed to be set to 1 in the conf file...of which, it was set correctly in both conf files. Configs looked good and matched 100% on both ends.

I just paused my set up of community owned MasterNodes until the situation with RC3 sorts itself out.

Simcom: BTW, I def. saw some strong evidence of sideforking last night. My biz partner sent me 250DRK last night to top out our fifth community owned node and it just never arrived (he was using .9x I was using .10x). I'm assuming this transaction was orphaned since it never arrived (and I *think* it never left his wallet).

[CHAOSiTEC]

<@CHAOSiTEC> so, today we gained alot of wisdom, and we are working on a new way to implement masternode payments, that will work... (my idea) :-p
and a bit later...
<@CHAOSiTEC> ive come up with a new solution for masternodes payment, we are working on that now

New dev on the job helping Evan, no ETA was given.

waou ... I thought the current RC3 solution has been extensively tested for weeks on testnet, and suddenly, after two hours following another botched, evan realizes that he needs more development for yet ANOTHER solution AND additional support?

the main net HAS to be stable, we cannot have side forks poping up here and there for longer than 1 block (i.e. orphant blocks) period anything else = unstable network. no solution can be garantied as several things can go wrong, there has been more work on darkcoin than 99% of all altcoins out there, we want things to be perfect, with no risk to the network, nor your money.

not everything can be tested to perfection in limited testnet scenarios, remember those games you used to play, having strange bugs here and there, those games where playtested for hours and hours, but some stuff can slip through...

I won't qualify myself as an absolute expert, but in 2013 even bitcoin, in a perfect normal and stable context, had a concurrent blockchain for many blocks - that naturally got orphaned and was then abandoned. And as you mentioned, in 4 weeks testing, devs could miss things - after only one hour, how could evan determine that the not-so-surprising forks won't get naturally orphaned? The main code just branched out, for christ sake.

they did, but orphants have to happen descently fast, not keep running for several blocks

Yes, there were too many bad actors stacking on the orphans. But they got pruned. If they didn't get in touch with a valid client for several blocks the prune didn't get a chance. But it did prove the prune was working.

A deliberate and correct fork may be impossible... Not trying to troll, but if people won't update the old clients this will never stop happening. at the time of RC3 hitting, there were still over 1/4 bad actors on the network. This made lag by allowing incorrect version numbers to stack by talking only amongst themselves and keeping the pruner from hitting it.

better handling of non updated clients are also being looked at

[ymer]

Days like this make me appreciate all the more what Satoshi was able to accomplish.  His software wasn't perfect and was tweaked numerous times before people started to pay attention, but he was able to implement some important new technologies successfully.  He did have the big advantage that he had a very small audience looking over his shoulder as he got it working right and they were generally supportive.

Please don't even compare edufield to Satoshi, the DRK developer can't even make a working change to his coin without breaking the whole darkcoin network and promising to fix it the next month... and then the next month...

[coins101]

<@CHAOSiTEC> so, today we gained alot of wisdom, and we are working on a new way to implement masternode payments, that will work... (my idea) :-p
and a bit later...
<@CHAOSiTEC> ive come up with a new solution for masternodes payment, we are working on that now

New dev on the job helping Evan, no ETA was given.

waou ... I thought the current RC3 solution has been extensively tested for weeks on testnet, and suddenly, after two hours following another botched, evan realizes that he needs more development for yet ANOTHER solution AND additional support?

the main net HAS to be stable, we cannot have side forks poping up here and there for longer than 1 block (i.e. orphant blocks) period anything else = unstable network. no solution can be garantied as several things can go wrong, there has been more work on darkcoin than 99% of all altcoins out there, we want things to be perfect, with no risk to the network, nor your money.

not everything can be tested to perfection in limited testnet scenarios, remember those games you used to play, having strange bugs here and there, those games where playtested for hours and hours, but some stuff can slip through...

I won't qualify myself as an absolute expert, but in 2013 even bitcoin, in a perfect normal and stable context, had a concurrent blockchain for many blocks - that naturally got orphaned and was then abandoned. And as you mentioned, in 4 weeks testing, devs could miss things - after only one hour, how could evan determine that the not-so-surprising forks won't get naturally orphaned? The main code just branched out, for christ sake.

they did, but orphants have to happen descently fast, not keep running for several blocks

Yes, there were too many bad actors stacking on the orphans. But they got pruned. If they didn't get in touch with a valid client for several blocks the prune didn't get a chance. But it did prove the prune was working.

A deliberate and correct fork may be impossible... Not trying to troll, but if people won't update the old clients this will never stop happening. at the time of RC3 hitting, there were still over 1/4 bad actors on the network. This made lag by allowing incorrect version numbers to stack by talking only amongst themselves and keeping the pruner from hitting it.

better handling of non updated clients are also being looked at

treat them like stupid anti-virus users. just auto-update

[kurzwell]

Days like this make me appreciate all the more what Satoshi was able to accomplish.  His software wasn't perfect and was tweaked numerous times before people started to pay attention, but he was able to implement some important new technologies successfully.  He did have the big advantage that he had a very small audience looking over his shoulder as he got it working right and they were generally supportive.

Please don't even compare edufield to Satoshi, the DRK developer can't even make a working change to his coin without breaking the whole darkcoin network and promising to fix it the next month... and then the next month...

You read too much into my comment.  I never claimed edufield was Satoshi.  Just commenting that implementing new technologies can be difficult and it is impressive that Satoshi got so much right.

[ymer]

Days like this make me appreciate all the more what Satoshi was able to accomplish.  His software wasn't perfect and was tweaked numerous times before people started to pay attention, but he was able to implement some important new technologies successfully.  He did have the big advantage that he had a very small audience looking over his shoulder as he got it working right and they were generally supportive.

Please don't even compare edufield to Satoshi, the DRK developer can't even make a working change to his coin without breaking the whole darkcoin network and promising to fix it the next month... and then the next month...

You read too much into my comment.  I never claimed edufield was Satoshi.  Just commenting that implementing new technologies can be difficult and it is impressive that Satoshi got so much right.

Yea I misread that a bit.

Well there's one thing that edufield can do better than anyone else, and that is to mistakenly make 10x reward with a broken difficulty re-adjustment and mine 50% of the coins in circulation in the first hours of launch and get away with it 

[stilgars]

Days like this make me appreciate all the more what Satoshi was able to accomplish.  His software wasn't perfect and was tweaked numerous times before people started to pay attention, but he was able to implement some important new technologies successfully.  He did have the big advantage that he had a very small audience looking over his shoulder as he got it working right and they were generally supportive.

Please don't even compare edufield to Satoshi, the DRK developer can't even make a working change to his coin without breaking the whole darkcoin network and promising to fix it the next month... and then the next month...

You read too much into my comment.  I never claimed edufield was Satoshi.  Just commenting that implementing new technologies can be difficult and it is impressive that Satoshi got so much right.

But at the same time, satoshi could several, perhaps a whole team of people.
I mean, I can't believe all of this was done silently by one rogue crypto-specialist.

[dewdeded]

coins101: Your last was very informative. Plz post moar!!!111

[georgem]

I had to create a meme to process what happened today:



Hope it makes someone smile.