[ANN] [XMG] MAGI | CPU mining | mPoW | mPoS | [MagiPay]

[starmman]

wallet always show  "out of sync",but already 1446791,why?

I'm also stuck at the same block - maybe there are only a couple of nodes past that point, hopefully the chain will start moving soon.

Is anybody on a moving chain?

[starmman]

Really hoping the issues can be fix soon and have everything back to normal. It's my favorite coin to CPU mine.
I can see Joe is working hard for a fix and I thank him for his time.
Love this coin but I just want it back to running smoothly again

Likewise 

Great post - Magi is awesome =) Thanks for all your hard work Joe

[111magic]

All give the chain some time to become more stable.
If you like to mine don't use big hashrate.

[xinwao]

New blockchain/client is stuck. Please add some working nodes. Thx.

[ex33s]

wallet always show  "out of sync",but already 1446791,why?

I'm also stuck at the same block - maybe there are only a couple of nodes past that point, hopefully the chain will start moving soon.

Is anybody on a moving chain?

Both poolinfo and my personal wallet is stuck @ 1446791

[starmman]

wallet always show  "out of sync",but already 1446791,why?

I'm also stuck at the same block - maybe there are only a couple of nodes past that point, hopefully the chain will start moving soon.

Is anybody on a moving chain?

Both poolinfo and my personal wallet is stuck @ 1446791

On the brightside, at least it seems that we are all on the same chain now =)

I'll leave my wallet running - hopefully the live nodes will propagate through soon

[xinwao]

How did you chose which chain is valid/correct?
Shouldnt it be the one with largest mining power and largest amount of clients connected? Not the one we think should be selected but this which was (still is?) most strong and healthy?

Here https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xmg/#!network I see that we have:

Sub-version   Protocol   Count    Network Share
/m-core:1.3.1/   71051   98   61.6 %   
/m-core:1.4.0/   71051   49   30.8 %   
/m-core:1.4.0.1/   71061   8   5.0 %
/Magi:1.2.3.1/   71041   3   1.9 %
/Coin Magi:1.3.0/   71051   1   0.6 %

So the first chain (m-core 1.3.1, 98 clients, 61.6% network share) it the one.

Looking at the connection problems I'm still not sure if correct blockchain have been choosen.

[ex33s]

How did you chose which chain is valid/correct?
Shouldnt it be the one with largest mining power and largest amount of clients connected? Not the one we think should be selected but this which was (still is?) most strong and healthy?

Here https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xmg/#!network I see that we have:

Sub-version   Protocol   Count    Network Share
/m-core:1.3.1/   71051   98   61.6 %   
/m-core:1.4.0/   71051   49   30.8 %   
/m-core:1.4.0.1/   71061   8   5.0 %
/Magi:1.2.3.1/   71041   3   1.9 %
/Coin Magi:1.3.0/   71051   1   0.6 %

So the first chain (m-core 1.3.1, 98 clients, 61.6% network share) it the one.

Looking at the connection problems I'm still not sure if correct blockchain have been choosen.

They are on the wrong chain.

Here's a list of connected versions and how many using that version (Got it from poolinfo)

Code:

Magi:1.2.1.1   : 1
Magi:1.2.3     : 1
Magi:1.2.3.1   : 1
m-core:1.3.1   : 46
m-core:1.4.0   : 18
m-core:1.4.0.1 : 7
m-core:1.4.1   : 21

[ryan7269]

lost all connections once wallet got to 1446771

[lhedwin]

Updated the source:

https://github.com/magi-project/magi

Block data:

http://coinmagi.org/bin/block-chain/

Wallet downloads:

http://coinmagi.org/bin/m-wallet-1.4.1/

Changes:

* Update block version to 5 and reject any other versions

* Minimum coin age raise to 8 hours

* Coin maturity to be increased to 500 blocks

* Staking will be default to be disabled unless given "posii=1" in magi.conf

* Updated checkpoints

Just have to replace the m-wallet.exe in C:\Program Files\m-wallet?
an the magid.exe in C:\Program Files\m-wallet\daemon?

but there is two files in C:\Program Files\m-wallet\daemon (magid.exe and magid-x64.exe), i have a 64bits systems.

[111magic]

lost all connections once wallet got to 1446771

Try restart the wallet.
Might be good if a pool could update the new wallet & start mining. Finding blocks might help keep the chain rolling again.

[versprichnix]

How did you chose which chain is valid/correct?
Shouldnt it be the one with largest mining power and largest amount of clients connected? Not the one we think should be selected but this which was (still is?) most strong and healthy?

Here https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xmg/#!network I see that we have:

Sub-version   Protocol   Count    Network Share
/m-core:1.3.1/   71051   98   61.6 %   
/m-core:1.4.0/   71051   49   30.8 %   
/m-core:1.4.0.1/   71061   8   5.0 %
/Magi:1.2.3.1/   71041   3   1.9 %
/Coin Magi:1.3.0/   71051   1   0.6 %

So the first chain (m-core 1.3.1, 98 clients, 61.6% network share) it the one.

One mining instance shall NEVER have over 50% of hashing power, better much less!

This, if taking the largest instance as the main chain, you have to be ABSOLUTELY sure, this is not the agressor!

If you cannot be sure about this, take the second and third largest hashing instances for choosing the main chain, and monitor them.

[malafaya]

How did you chose which chain is valid/correct?
Shouldnt it be the one with largest mining power and largest amount of clients connected? Not the one we think should be selected but this which was (still is?) most strong and healthy?

Here https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xmg/#!network I see that we have:

Sub-version   Protocol   Count    Network Share
/m-core:1.3.1/   71051   98   61.6 %   
/m-core:1.4.0/   71051   49   30.8 %   
/m-core:1.4.0.1/   71061   8   5.0 %
/Magi:1.2.3.1/   71041   3   1.9 %
/Coin Magi:1.3.0/   71051   1   0.6 %

So the first chain (m-core 1.3.1, 98 clients, 61.6% network share) it the one.

Looking at the connection problems I'm still not sure if correct blockchain have been choosen.

A wallet version is not necessarily a chain. You may have wallets with the same version on different chains (wasn't it what happened in the first place?) and also different versions on same chain (also expected when everything is fine as long as protocols are compatible).

[malafaya]

How did you chose which chain is valid/correct?
Shouldnt it be the one with largest mining power and largest amount of clients connected? Not the one we think should be selected but this which was (still is?) most strong and healthy?

Here https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xmg/#!network I see that we have:

Sub-version   Protocol   Count    Network Share
/m-core:1.3.1/   71051   98   61.6 %   
/m-core:1.4.0/   71051   49   30.8 %   
/m-core:1.4.0.1/   71061   8   5.0 %
/Magi:1.2.3.1/   71041   3   1.9 %
/Coin Magi:1.3.0/   71051   1   0.6 %

So the first chain (m-core 1.3.1, 98 clients, 61.6% network share) it the one.

One mining instance shall NEVER have over 50% of hashing power, better much less!

This, if taking the largest instance as the main chain, you have to be ABSOLUTELY sure, this is not the agressor!

If you cannot be sure about this, take the second and third largest hashing instances for choosing the main chain, and monitor them.

That Network Share number is just the percentage of peers using given wallet version, not relative hashing power. Ideally, it would be 100% using latest (v1.4.1 as of now).

[versprichnix]

So the first chain (m-core 1.3.1, 98 clients, 61.6% network share) it the one.

That Network Share number is just the percentage of peers using given wallet version, not relative hashing power. Ideally, it would be 100% using latest (v1.4.1 as of now).

Makes the sentence of xinwao any sense then?

If there is a too large hashing power, identy it, and seggregate it. To use a more than 50% hashing power is an attack for itself. (nobody is error free, do not make yourself a god)

[xinwao]

So the first chain (m-core 1.3.1, 98 clients, 61.6% network share) it the one.

That Network Share number is just the percentage of peers using given wallet version, not relative hashing power. Ideally, it would be 100% using latest (v1.4.1 as of now).

Makes the sentence of xinwao any sense then?

If there is a too large hashing power, identy it, and seggregate it. To use a more than 50% hashing power is an attack for itself. (nobody is error free, do not make yourself a god)

Yes, it could be like you said.
But nobody is error free, do not make yourself a god. For sure people from m-core:1.3.1 are not on our new official chain.

[malafaya]

So the first chain (m-core 1.3.1, 98 clients, 61.6% network share) it the one.

That Network Share number is just the percentage of peers using given wallet version, not relative hashing power. Ideally, it would be 100% using latest (v1.4.1 as of now).

Makes the sentence of xinwao any sense then?

If there is a too large hashing power, identy it, and seggregate it. To use a more than 50% hashing power is an attack for itself. (nobody is error free, do not make yourself a god)

Yes, it could be like you said.
But nobody is error free, do not make yourself a god. For sure people from m-core:1.3.1 are not on our new official chain.

God? I'm just explaining.

For sure people from m-core:1.3.1 are on several chains, like we were a few days ago.

[malafaya]

Does this help in figuring anything?

Code:

SetBestChain: new best=0000000053ec72e4ae08a7be6f67e101df04870965dfb068443b4bb1bf764b01  height=1446524  money supply=7908679  trust=65988060172142  date=08/16/17 09:43:59
Stake checkpoint: 8ebe4b50
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
getblocks 1446305 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
getblocks 1446305 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
received block 00000001f62058f520db
Misbehaving: 104.128.225.240:8233 (0 -> 100) DISCONNECTING
disconnecting node 104.128.225.240
disconnecting node 104.128.225.240

ERROR: ProcessBlock() : block with too little proof-of-work

getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500

That peer 104.128.225.240 is using v1.4.1, same as me.

[xinwao]

So the first chain (m-core 1.3.1, 98 clients, 61.6% network share) it the one.

That Network Share number is just the percentage of peers using given wallet version, not relative hashing power. Ideally, it would be 100% using latest (v1.4.1 as of now).

Makes the sentence of xinwao any sense then?

If there is a too large hashing power, identy it, and seggregate it. To use a more than 50% hashing power is an attack for itself. (nobody is error free, do not make yourself a god)

Yes, it could be like you said.
But nobody is error free, do not make yourself a god. For sure people from m-core:1.3.1 are not on our new official chain.

God? I'm just explaining.

Me too.

[versprichnix]

... For sure people from m-core:1.3.1 are not on our new official chain.

Was there an announcement of a Hardfork or Softfork, that I missed?

What rules makes a new chain an official chain?

If the largest instance with over 50% mining power is on version 1.3.1, without any malicious intentions, this is the "official chain", isn't it?