lordmick
|
|
June 01, 2015, 11:57:27 PM Last edit: June 02, 2015, 12:31:28 AM by lordmick |
|
Android wallet also stalled to block 1199999 do i have to update this one too?
Edit: there is no update available.
|
|
|
|
lordmick
|
|
June 02, 2015, 02:22:26 PM |
|
windows wallet stay 34 hours behind... connected to my server (this one is ok..) I restart it but still doesnt do anything....
it pass the 1199999 blocks cap but... still..  { "version" : 80319, "protocolversion" : 70001, "walletversion" : 60000, "balance" : 1724.55388000, "blocks" : 1200971, "timeoffset" : 0, "connections" : 1, "proxy" : "", "difficulty" : 72.26059878, "testnet" : false, "keypoololdest" : 1429698377, "keypoolsize" : 101, "paytxfee" : 0.00000000, "errors" : "" }
|
|
|
|
BitQuark (OP)
|
|
June 02, 2015, 02:25:54 PM |
|
I'm working on a fix for the Windows client. I've also contacted the dev of the Android client to make the necessary updates. I will keep you posted.
|
|
|
|
MichelV69
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 9
Merit: 0
|
|
June 07, 2015, 04:41:15 AM |
|
Any progress on updates?
|
|
|
|
BitQuark (OP)
|
|
June 08, 2015, 05:12:46 PM |
|
Any progress on updates?
I'm still at it. I just can't figure out why this problem is only effecting the Windows build of the client. If anybody would like to try and compile a windows version and test it on their machine, please do...any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks guys!
|
|
|
|
OhShBit
Member
Offline
Activity: 114
Merit: 10
¡pI∀˥OOʞ ⅄ƎH
|
|
June 09, 2015, 06:20:46 PM |
|
Has anyone tried to run ./bitquark-qt -reindex par=1? or tried loading another known working blockchain?
|
|
|
|
BitQuark (OP)
|
|
June 09, 2015, 10:29:33 PM |
|
Has anyone tried to run ./bitquark-qt -reindex par=1? or tried loading another known working blockchain?
Yeah I've tried that with no luck. This issue really has me baffled...but I will figure it out as I am working constantly on fixing the problem!
|
|
|
|
OhShBit
Member
Offline
Activity: 114
Merit: 10
¡pI∀˥OOʞ ⅄ƎH
|
|
June 09, 2015, 11:14:10 PM |
|
Has anyone tried to run ./bitquark-qt -reindex par=1? or tried loading another known working blockchain?
Yeah I've tried that with no luck. This issue really has me baffled...but I will figure it out as I am working constantly on fixing the problem! You have been great with your support so far, so I'm sure you'll figure it out.
|
|
|
|
ZeroFossilFuel
|
|
June 10, 2015, 11:43:33 PM |
|
My Linux wallet is 19 hours behind, so it's not just winblows.
|
|
|
|
ZeroFossilFuel
|
|
June 13, 2015, 01:25:19 AM Last edit: June 13, 2015, 01:59:59 AM by ZeroFossilFuel |
|
...and of course, no sooner did I make that post the problem cleared itself up. Figures.
I see the diff adjusting much more frequently now. Are there any adjustments we should make to sgminer to leverage the new DGW2 changes?
Also, I leave my BTQ wallet with daemon running 24/7 to share some load (server=1, listen=1) and to solo mine from time to time. I try to keep my wallet list of nodes up to date but it's a moving target. I usually only pick IP addresses that connect with port 9596. What does it mean when I see IP's connected on really random ports? Is there any point adding these to the node list?
|
|
|
|
ZeroFossilFuel
|
|
June 17, 2015, 11:11:27 AM |
|
Open letter to BTC Guild.....
Your pool hash rate was typically around 15,000 TH/s. Even if your estimate of 3% of total is accurate (which personally I doubt), your pool was still running 5 times greater than Bitminter and double that of Eligius. What makes you think either of these two other pools are any more prepared to defend against a legal attack? I understand your reasons but I also fear that your decision will have a crippling ripple effect. Your pool was the largest. If you cannot withstand then how can any of the others hope to do so either?
If you needed to build a war chest to prepare for a storm, I believe the community at large would happily support higher pool fees to help you do so.
That's my 0.00008BTC.
Z
|
|
|
|
BitQuark (OP)
|
|
June 18, 2015, 10:16:12 PM |
|
I'm thinking the problem with the Windows client has something to do with it being a 32-bit build, whereas the Linux builds are 64-bit. So I'm going to try and compile a 64-bit version of the Windows client and test it.
|
|
|
|
BitQuark (OP)
|
|
June 19, 2015, 02:46:59 AM |
|
UPDATE:
DGWv2 uses double float precision numbers which dont translate well between architectures.
So wallets compiled for 32bit CPUs (like the current windows wallet) is returning a flawed Proof-Of-Work and thus cannot sync.
A new 64bit-only windows wallet will be released in the next couple days as temporary fix.
DGWv3 is being rolled out asap!
|
|
|
|
ZeroFossilFuel
|
|
June 20, 2015, 11:21:58 AM |
|
I also woke this morning to a wallet 10 hours out of sync. I presume the source code we build our Linux wallet from is also 32 bit?
|
|
|
|
BitQuark (OP)
|
|
June 22, 2015, 11:38:25 PM |
|
Ok it looks like I've finally gotten the problem solved!!! I changed some coding and fixed the 32-bit float issue. I will test out the new build and have it available for download in a couple hours! Thanks guys and sorry for any inconvenience!
BTQ Dev
|
|
|
|
smolen
|
|
June 24, 2015, 07:32:33 AM |
|
fixed the 32-bit float issue
Oh, no, way better to get rid from floating point completely
|
Of course I gave you bad advice. Good one is way out of your price range.
|
|
|
BitQuark (OP)
|
|
June 24, 2015, 05:13:08 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
lordmick
|
|
June 25, 2015, 01:21:55 AM |
|
bitquark.info down again??..
|
|
|
|
BitQuark (OP)
|
|
June 25, 2015, 01:53:12 AM |
|
bitquark.info down again??..
I'll have to check, but I think it is. I will try to move everything from my home server to an online server.
|
|
|
|
BitQuark (OP)
|
|
June 27, 2015, 04:00:06 AM |
|
At what block would you guys like to see DarkGravityWave3 start at?
|
|
|
|
|