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

[rrodent]

The bad pools have caused enforcement not to work correctly, basically what's happening is they continued to mine the invalid chain with a lot of hashpower and ended up getting our clients into safemode, which automatically disables masternode payments. I'm writing a patch for 11.1.25 to fork and ban their clients. It will be available soon.

If you're having any issues, just restart with --reindex

Write it so they are banned for at least a week...  longer if possible.  malicious little punks.

No way of really doing that as they would just generate a new primary mining address and be on their way.

ban the IP...  a bit more of a hassle to change than the wallet address...

[1714923372]

1714923372

[splawik21]

The bad pools have caused enforcement not to work correctly, basically what's happening is they continued to mine the invalid chain with a lot of hashpower and ended up getting our clients into safemode, which automatically disables masternode payments. I'm writing a patch for 11.1.25 to fork and ban their clients. It will be available soon.

If you're having any issues, just restart with --reindex

Write it so they are banned for at least a week...  longer if possible.  malicious little punks.

No way of really doing that as they would just generate a new primary mining address and be on their way.

ban the IP...  a bit more of a hassle to change than the wallet address...

+1 they act like a parasite!

[NoveltyLab]

The bad pools have caused enforcement not to work correctly, basically what's happening is they continued to mine the invalid chain with a lot of hashpower and ended up getting our clients into safemode, which automatically disables masternode payments. I'm writing a patch for 11.1.25 to fork and ban their clients. It will be available soon.

If you're having any issues, just restart with --reindex

We are currently updating HolyTransaction to .24

[oblox]

lol, version 666 masternode: https://drk.mn/?mnregexp=%28XdUSY1bcm299hG6eciHRziZNYZ819fh8qb%29#mnlistdetail

[BrainShutdown]

The bad pools have caused enforcement not to work correctly, basically what's happening is they continued to mine the invalid chain with a lot of hashpower and ended up getting our clients into safemode, which automatically disables masternode payments. I'm writing a patch for 11.1.25 to fork and ban their clients. It will be available soon.

If you're having any issues, just restart with --reindex

I've updated Suprnova to .24 and the message is gone ... looks ok here..

Great! What block height do you have?

[rrodent]

The bad pools have caused enforcement not to work correctly, basically what's happening is they continued to mine the invalid chain with a lot of hashpower and ended up getting our clients into safemode, which automatically disables masternode payments. I'm writing a patch for 11.1.25 to fork and ban their clients. It will be available soon.

If you're having any issues, just restart with --reindex

Write it so they are banned for at least a week...  longer if possible.  malicious little punks.

No way of really doing that as they would just generate a new primary mining address and be on their way.

ban the IP...  a bit more of a hassle to change than the wallet address...

or if you want to be even more punitive in nature...  ban that wallet address from sending any transactions to the network for a month or so...  yeah they got the coin... but they can't do anything with it... probably not a good idea in the over all scheme of things PR wise but damn it would be nice to smash some fingers beyond them ever being able to use a keyboard again.

[oblox]

The bad pools have caused enforcement not to work correctly, basically what's happening is they continued to mine the invalid chain with a lot of hashpower and ended up getting our clients into safemode, which automatically disables masternode payments. I'm writing a patch for 11.1.25 to fork and ban their clients. It will be available soon.

If you're having any issues, just restart with --reindex

Write it so they are banned for at least a week...  longer if possible.  malicious little punks.

No way of really doing that as they would just generate a new primary mining address and be on their way.

ban the IP...  a bit more of a hassle to change than the wallet address...

or if you want to be even more punitive in nature...  ban that wallet address from sending any transactions to the network for a month or so...  yeah they got the coin... but they can't do anything with it... probably not a good idea in the over all scheme of things PR wise but damn it would be nice to smash some fingers beyond them ever being able to use a keyboard again.

As frustrating as it is, manipulating the blockchain es no bueno. I'd love to see their pool fail though from miners leaving. They're a bunch of twats.

[ocminer]

The bad pools have caused enforcement not to work correctly, basically what's happening is they continued to mine the invalid chain with a lot of hashpower and ended up getting our clients into safemode, which automatically disables masternode payments. I'm writing a patch for 11.1.25 to fork and ban their clients. It will be available soon.

If you're having any issues, just restart with --reindex

I've updated Suprnova to .24 and the message is gone ... looks ok here..

Great! What block height do you have?

You can always see the Block Height the pool is on here:

https://dark.suprnova.cc/index.php?page=statistics&action=pool

[rrodent]

The bad pools have caused enforcement not to work correctly, basically what's happening is they continued to mine the invalid chain with a lot of hashpower and ended up getting our clients into safemode, which automatically disables masternode payments. I'm writing a patch for 11.1.25 to fork and ban their clients. It will be available soon.

If you're having any issues, just restart with --reindex

Write it so they are banned for at least a week...  longer if possible.  malicious little punks.

No way of really doing that as they would just generate a new primary mining address and be on their way.

ban the IP...  a bit more of a hassle to change than the wallet address...

or if you want to be even more punitive in nature...  ban that wallet address from sending any transactions to the network for a month or so...  yeah they got the coin... but they can't do anything with it... probably not a good idea in the over all scheme of things PR wise but damn it would be nice to smash some fingers beyond them ever being able to use a keyboard again.

As frustrating as it is, manipulating the blockchain es no bueno. I'd love to see their pool fail though from miners leaving. They're a bunch of twats.

True statement...  anybody have a street address for these boneheads?  we can get it taken care of old school.

[qwizzie]

if we upgraded to .24 could we still be seeing that error  ''Warning : the network does not appear to fully agree etc''
because we are all thrown into safemode ? I have 1 MN showing that error and 1 not .. both MN's are on the same block
and with same version .24

[BrainShutdown]

The bad pools have caused enforcement not to work correctly, basically what's happening is they continued to mine the invalid chain with a lot of hashpower and ended up getting our clients into safemode, which automatically disables masternode payments. I'm writing a patch for 11.1.25 to fork and ban their clients. It will be available soon.

If you're having any issues, just restart with --reindex

I've updated Suprnova to .24 and the message is gone ... looks ok here..

Great! What block height do you have?

You can always see the Block Height the pool is on here:

https://dark.suprnova.cc/index.php?page=statistics&action=pool

Oh brain freeze... thanks  

[Taylor05]

Does anyone know the details about the reconverge technology? My MNs and client nodes are all at a few different block heights. I would normally reindex to get on the right fork, but I'm taking this as an opportunity to test it. How long should I wait to see if my nodes and MNs reconverge? Is it a certain number or frequency of blocks that it checks? Will my MNs require a "masternode start" when they figure out the right fork? They currently show in the masternode list, but I imagine when they switch to the correct fork, that may no longer be the case.

I would love a good explanation of what to expect, or if anyone knows that they reconverged. Are there any messages in the log file that could confirm it is working?

Thanks all! Looking forward to testing this out!

[rrodent]

if we upgraded to .24 could we still be seeing that error  ''Warning : the network does not appear to fully agree etc''
because we are all thrown into safemode ? I have 1 MN showing that error and 1 not .. both MN's are on the same block
and with same version .24

run -reindex on the node with the error.  fixes it right up.

[qwizzie]

if we upgraded to .24 could we still be seeing that error  ''Warning : the network does not appear to fully agree etc''
because we are all thrown into safemode ? I have 1 MN showing that error and 1 not .. both MN's are on the same block
and with same version .24

run -reindex on the node with the error.  fixes it right up.

doing that as i type this.. but weird thing is that i already did that and then i got that error.

[rrodent]

if we upgraded to .24 could we still be seeing that error  ''Warning : the network does not appear to fully agree etc''
because we are all thrown into safemode ? I have 1 MN showing that error and 1 not .. both MN's are on the same block
and with same version .24

run -reindex on the node with the error.  fixes it right up.

doing that as i type this.. but weird thing is that i already did that and then i got that error.

delete peers.dat first...  might just be talking to the same nodes that took you down the wrong fork.

[eduffield]

Does anyone know the details about the reconverge technology? My MNs and client nodes are all at a few different block heights. I would normally reindex to get on the right fork, but I'm taking this as an opportunity to test it. How long should I wait to see if my nodes and MNs reconverge? Is it a certain number or frequency of blocks that it checks? Will my MNs require a "masternode start" when they figure out the right fork? They currently show in the masternode list, but I imagine when they switch to the correct fork, that may no longer be the case.

I would love a good explanation of what to expect, or if anyone knows that they reconverged. Are there any messages in the log file that could confirm it is working?

Thanks all! Looking forward to testing this out!

Just --reindex, there are some issues with reconverge. We're going to test it more on testnet to figure out a better implementation of the tech.

[Taylor05]

Does anyone know the details about the reconverge technology? My MNs and client nodes are all at a few different block heights. I would normally reindex to get on the right fork, but I'm taking this as an opportunity to test it. How long should I wait to see if my nodes and MNs reconverge? Is it a certain number or frequency of blocks that it checks? Will my MNs require a "masternode start" when they figure out the right fork? They currently show in the masternode list, but I imagine when they switch to the correct fork, that may no longer be the case.

I would love a good explanation of what to expect, or if anyone knows that they reconverged. Are there any messages in the log file that could confirm it is working?

Thanks all! Looking forward to testing this out!

Just --reindex, there are some issues with reconverge. We're going to test it more on testnet to figure out a better implementation of the tech.

OK, doing that right now. Only two of my MNs ended up on the wrong chains. If you are testing this weekend, I can finally participate! Earnings season is behind me as of yesterday, so I'm not working weekends like I was.

[qwizzie]

if we upgraded to .24 could we still be seeing that error  ''Warning : the network does not appear to fully agree etc''
because we are all thrown into safemode ? I have 1 MN showing that error and 1 not .. both MN's are on the same block
and with same version .24

run -reindex on the node with the error.  fixes it right up.

doing that as i type this.. but weird thing is that i already did that and then i got that error.

delete peers.dat first...  might just be talking to the same nodes that took you down the wrong fork.

did a delete of peers.dat and re-index and both my MN's show that message. Both are on block 219620
and both on .24

must be that safemode giving us that message

[spatula]

I updated to .25 and half of my MN are showing this:



Corrupted block database detected.

Do you want to rebuild the block database now?

[qwizzie]

I updated to .25 and all my MN are showing this:



Corrupted block database detected.

Do you want to rebuild the block database now?

nooo .. dont use .25 !! only .24