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

[Windozxpert]

Shame one of the only CPU coins worth more than $.10 is having such problems. I made over $130 in two days, but only got about $60 of it, rest is stuck in Minerclaim. Easy come, easy go, I guess. Although, I made a boatload the first few days of skunk.

[1713549795]

1713549795

[nsummy]

Shame one of the only CPU coins worth more than $.10 is having such problems. I made over $130 in two days, but only got about $60 of it, rest is stuck in Minerclaim. Easy come, easy go, I guess. Although, I made a boatload the first few days of skunk.

The only reason you made so much though was because of the fork.

[kamarul.jutawan]

please give estimate date we can resume

please think the risk of delisting too as no volume in trading

[111magic]

please give estimate date we can resume

please think the risk of delisting too as no volume in trading

Magi team understand the risk of delisting. Still the volume on Bittrex is ok. Magi team will post more info about the improvements & date we can resume.
Magi learned from last time. Very quick solution is not always good enough.
Personal our almost 3 years old strong community understands that a good improvement & prevent forks in the future will take little more time.
Magi team will keep you informed here & on other social media.
Thanks for understanding.

[kadok29]

Where can i download the most actual blockchain?

[coolestcool]

Where can i download the most actual blockchain?

en este link / in this link

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

[kadok29]

Where can i download the most actual blockchain?

en este link / in this link

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

gracias!

[drgauravxmg]

I was so impressed with this video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EkAbPacS7c

But...

Are we getting any better? None of the pools have any workers mining XMG, anymore. Have been following it each hour, since the past incident.

Hoping it gets back in action.

[ex33s]

Alright after going over my logs in extreme detail, this is my findings.

Poolinfo went on forks twice yesterday and I was able to find out a little why

I got this block  (Block on fork)

Code:

received: block (265 bytes)
received block 000000087c4167eb542e
CBlock(hash=000000087c4167eb542e07968c44e62e068b805c26bde8102fba690d183daa7a, ver=5, hashPrevBlock=d1a892e6d6ed5233589e474950f8bbc34961e6887d573663e7059dd84182b132, hashMerkleRoot=90ce79972cbda34750d9d7094a3d6505974620f1efc398b4d92f490783c79297, nTime=1503401831, nBits=1d0882e7, nNonce=2863360803, vtx=1, vchBlockSig=304502206c818406dcaf76e4c5ddf1766cacb05918c64b86328382bbf8c95b0fdd549798022100bc0a7588471070444c1a23cca1713e69b0bc3d903920803e6a6b2e7653ae4512)
  Coinbase(hash=90ce79972c, nTime=1503401715, ver=1, vin.size=1, vout.size=1, nLockTime=0)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(0000000000, 4294967295), coinbase 037921160174062f503253482f)
    CTxOut(nValue=13.33016327, scriptPubKey=022bd540c7e6ba8a7522ce5cdf6e3fcafc85d79c42b2cd92a80647fde524825593 OP_CHECKSIG)
  vMerkleTree: 
ComputeNextStakeModifier: prev modifier=0xa377d57fadc587cd time=2017-08-22 11:31:35 UTC
@@PoWII-V2 (nHeight, rDiff, rSubsidy) = (1450356, -0.231851, 13.330163)
trying connection 216.189.144.211 lastseen=0.0hrs
connected 216.189.144.211
send version message: version 71061, blocks=1450360, us=213.32.21.37:8233, them=216.189.144.211:8233, peer=216.189.144.211:8233
sending: version (107 bytes)
socket closed
disconnecting node 216.189.144.211
SetBestChain: new best=000000087c4167eb542e07968c44e62e068b805c26bde8102fba690d183daa7a  height=1450361  money supply=7955827  trust=66007579680572  date=08/22/17 11:37:11

and then a couple of seconds got this (Block on the proper chain)

Code:

received block 0000000246981327761b
CBlock(hash=0000000246981327761bf9bbff24c8420f4998e1ae3a4b2b24f24ca4b8f60cec, ver=5, hashPrevBlock=d1a892e6d6ed5233589e474950f8bbc34961e6887d573663e7059dd84182b132, hashMerkleRoot=efc38da3cdbac1cda1dbe6d29acbed1315d62e1190a5ccb7b83b1dd923d37fe3, nTime=1503401828, nBits=1d0882e7, nNonce=1431662122, vtx=1, vchBlockSig=304402206dbc0c70aadb8aadef6a5ae3028a069244b59988867914e720a817140d0e7eaf02204a64a8ac08fc68ab955cbf71a58ebc00ce20fb41c13a3f33f42e6a13b21d74ac)
  Coinbase(hash=efc38da3cd, nTime=1503401717, ver=1, vin.size=1, vout.size=1, nLockTime=0)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(0000000000, 4294967295), coinbase 0379211602fa00062f503253482f)
    CTxOut(nValue=13.33016327, scriptPubKey=02b6a8b835d671c026250c024ba5d145ded4599ccde38adecdf769a70e7464066a OP_CHECKSIG)
  vMerkleTree: 
Misbehaving: 104.128.225.240:8233 (0 -> 100) DISCONNECTING
disconnecting node 104.128.225.240
ERROR: ProcessBlock() : block with too little proof-of-work

At this point I was looking at how many times i got peers disconnected due to ERROR: ProcessBlock() : block with too little proof-of-work.
The proper chain told poolinfo that this is the block 10 times and actually disconnected and banned all 10 peers telling poolinfo about the proper block.

So to test my theory out, I increased banscore in magi.conf to 500 with

Code:

banscore=500

The debug log dropped from ~620MB to ~62MB in size (about the same running time +- a few hrs) + was able to recover from when poolinfo got invalid blocks.
I've seen in poolinfo logs block that was accepted but later on ORPHAN because the right chain was presented to poolinfo and thus got back on the right track.

So if you like to test this too, add this to
magi.conf

Code:

banscore=500

You might need to resync the chain if you are on a fork.

To test this properly, we are going to need to mine it. Anyone willing to try this out?

[joelao95]

To ALL,

The fork takes place from one pool to another, and that I believe something fundamental needs a clarification as we haven't seen this before. This has messed around the mining. I suggest stop mining at this time until we firstly 1) get a keep-it-going solution, and 2) root cause finding and a solution to the fork. The mining just going on, unfortunately, doesn't make sense to me, and I would propose a rollover back to a fair point. Let me know if rollover sounds good to you, and where you want to startover.

Taking into account the response to the post, following plan:

1) Release a fix to the current issue and test it on the current chain that is running. As there are quite a few different forks out there, we will simply maintain the chain that the node 104.128.225.215 is running so that we keep an untouched chain there, and recommend all the tests done on this chain too. Following that, I suggest people, when interested to run the wallet or test, make sync to this node.

Unfortunately, we cannot provide ETA of the fix, but will update ASAP.  

2) Once the fix is fully tested without issues, say continuously running through a week / weeks, we make the official release, and a rollback back to a certain block #. We will take the blockchain data from 104.128.225.215 to make a copy up to the #.

Since we will carry out some tests, it is quite reasonable that the testing period should be excluded that comes rollback. In terms of the suggestions previously, I propose the rollback point to block #1450090, that is, GMT: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 6:04:25 AM, when I made the post and suggestion of "stopping mining". Earlier yesterday, I requested Bittrex to put wallet in maintenance mode; so all sending to & withdraw from Bittrex wallet shall be earlier than the above proposed rollback block #.

Please suggest.

Let me know if I missed something.

p.s., If you're getting loss and resource on the mining, we might deal with that somehow.  

[malafaya]

Alright after going over my logs in extreme detail, this is my findings.

Poolinfo went on forks twice yesterday and I was able to find out a little why

I got this block  (Block on fork)

Code:

received: block (265 bytes)
received block 000000087c4167eb542e
CBlock(hash=000000087c4167eb542e07968c44e62e068b805c26bde8102fba690d183daa7a, ver=5, hashPrevBlock=d1a892e6d6ed5233589e474950f8bbc34961e6887d573663e7059dd84182b132, hashMerkleRoot=90ce79972cbda34750d9d7094a3d6505974620f1efc398b4d92f490783c79297, nTime=1503401831, nBits=1d0882e7, nNonce=2863360803, vtx=1, vchBlockSig=304502206c818406dcaf76e4c5ddf1766cacb05918c64b86328382bbf8c95b0fdd549798022100bc0a7588471070444c1a23cca1713e69b0bc3d903920803e6a6b2e7653ae4512)
  Coinbase(hash=90ce79972c, nTime=1503401715, ver=1, vin.size=1, vout.size=1, nLockTime=0)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(0000000000, 4294967295), coinbase 037921160174062f503253482f)
    CTxOut(nValue=13.33016327, scriptPubKey=022bd540c7e6ba8a7522ce5cdf6e3fcafc85d79c42b2cd92a80647fde524825593 OP_CHECKSIG)
  vMerkleTree: 
ComputeNextStakeModifier: prev modifier=0xa377d57fadc587cd time=2017-08-22 11:31:35 UTC
@@PoWII-V2 (nHeight, rDiff, rSubsidy) = (1450356, -0.231851, 13.330163)
trying connection 216.189.144.211 lastseen=0.0hrs
connected 216.189.144.211
send version message: version 71061, blocks=1450360, us=213.32.21.37:8233, them=216.189.144.211:8233, peer=216.189.144.211:8233
sending: version (107 bytes)
socket closed
disconnecting node 216.189.144.211
SetBestChain: new best=000000087c4167eb542e07968c44e62e068b805c26bde8102fba690d183daa7a  height=1450361  money supply=7955827  trust=66007579680572  date=08/22/17 11:37:11

and then a couple of seconds got this (Block on the proper chain)

Code:

received block 0000000246981327761b
CBlock(hash=0000000246981327761bf9bbff24c8420f4998e1ae3a4b2b24f24ca4b8f60cec, ver=5, hashPrevBlock=d1a892e6d6ed5233589e474950f8bbc34961e6887d573663e7059dd84182b132, hashMerkleRoot=efc38da3cdbac1cda1dbe6d29acbed1315d62e1190a5ccb7b83b1dd923d37fe3, nTime=1503401828, nBits=1d0882e7, nNonce=1431662122, vtx=1, vchBlockSig=304402206dbc0c70aadb8aadef6a5ae3028a069244b59988867914e720a817140d0e7eaf02204a64a8ac08fc68ab955cbf71a58ebc00ce20fb41c13a3f33f42e6a13b21d74ac)
  Coinbase(hash=efc38da3cd, nTime=1503401717, ver=1, vin.size=1, vout.size=1, nLockTime=0)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(0000000000, 4294967295), coinbase 0379211602fa00062f503253482f)
    CTxOut(nValue=13.33016327, scriptPubKey=02b6a8b835d671c026250c024ba5d145ded4599ccde38adecdf769a70e7464066a OP_CHECKSIG)
  vMerkleTree: 
Misbehaving: 104.128.225.240:8233 (0 -> 100) DISCONNECTING
disconnecting node 104.128.225.240
ERROR: ProcessBlock() : block with too little proof-of-work

At this point I was looking at how many times i got peers disconnected due to ERROR: ProcessBlock() : block with too little proof-of-work.
The proper chain told poolinfo that this is the block 10 times and actually disconnected and banned all 10 peers telling poolinfo about the proper block.

So to test my theory out, I increased banscore in magi.conf to 500 with

Code:

banscore=500

The debug log dropped from ~620MB to ~62MB in size (about the same running time +- a few hrs) + was able to recover from when poolinfo got invalid blocks.
I've seen in poolinfo logs block that was accepted but later on ORPHAN because the right chain was presented to poolinfo and thus got back on the right track.

So if you like to test this too, add this to
magi.conf

Code:

banscore=500

You might need to resync the chain if you are on a fork.

To test this properly, we are going to need to mine it. Anyone willing to try this out?

Same as my findings as well (except the banscore which I didn't play with), already reported to devs.

[ex33s]

Long post

Same as my findings as well (except the banscore which I didn't play with), already reported to devs.

Alright, increasing banscore isn't really a fix but a way to test this out to narrow down the real problem and then fix it.

[curufin]

If any collaboration or test is needed, just indicate what to do.
fight

[Apprentice]

any updates from the dev?

[111magic]

any updates from the dev?

Look few posts up on this page!

[malafaya]

Long post

Same as my findings as well (except the banscore which I didn't play with), already reported to devs.

Alright, increasing banscore isn't really a fix but a way to test this out to narrow down the real problem and then fix it.

I increased the banscore to 500 just to give it a try. Trying to re-synch starting with last official blockchain.
I now get the "trusted" peer (104......) to send me an invalid block (prevHash seems unknown to the chain, too little proof of work) on exactly every 500 blocks. Only by restarting the wallet it gets back on track receiving the right block from the same peer.
Curiously enough, this 501st block which is invalid seems to follow a parallel chain because it seems to link to the invalid block of the previous wallet restart (its prevHash corresponds to the hash of the invalid block received in the previous run)... very intriguing. Theses hashes are not found at CryptoID explorer.

[oVPN]

That is the reason why I've send all my miners to my own wallet and created my own small pool to just keep mining. Don't care if it's going to be roll back or not. My wallets are on same chain as https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xmg/ and https://poolinfo.systms.org/ and I can see found blocks confirmed and created.

Will see what will happen.
Either way, feel free to use mine as long as it will keep running...
http://h2701744.stratoserver.net:85/

your pools offline, you went scamming with the coins? more than 120 blocks generated with you.

[ex33s]

Long post

Same as my findings as well (except the banscore which I didn't play with), already reported to devs.

Alright, increasing banscore isn't really a fix but a way to test this out to narrow down the real problem and then fix it.

I increased the banscore to 500 just to give it a try. Trying to re-synch starting with last official blockchain.
I now get the "trusted" peer (104......) to send me an invalid block (prevHash seems unknown to the chain, too little proof of work) on exactly every 500 blocks. Only by restarting the wallet it gets back on track receiving the right block from the same peer.
Curiously enough, this 501st block which is invalid seems to follow a parallel chain because it seems to link to the invalid block of the previous wallet restart (its prevHash corresponds to the hash of the invalid block received in the previous run)... very intriguing. Theses hashes are not found at CryptoID explorer.

Intresting, did the same as you on my personal wallet and with banscore set to 500 and no issue what so ever on that. Only thing i saw was some peers sending invalid blocks but those where discarded properly.

[oVPN]

@devs

if you rollback after weeks, your coin is dead!

[111magic]

@devs

if you rollback after weeks, your coin is dead!

Understand what you mean! Thanks