Windozxpert
|
|
August 23, 2017, 01:26:40 AM |
|
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.
|
There's no I in team, but there is a "Me" if you jumble it up. ~ House, M.D.
|
|
|
nsummy
|
|
August 23, 2017, 03:59:53 AM |
|
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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 59
Merit: 0
|
|
August 23, 2017, 06:14:32 AM |
|
please give estimate date we can resume
please think the risk of delisting too as no volume in trading
|
|
|
|
111magic
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1005
|
|
August 23, 2017, 06:20:37 AM |
|
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.
|
bitcoin: bc1qyadvvyv29z08ln2ta7g3uqwzkscr7wq4p09wuz
|
|
|
kadok29
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 37
Merit: 1
|
|
August 23, 2017, 07:02:22 AM |
|
Where can i download the most actual blockchain?
|
|
|
|
|
kadok29
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 37
Merit: 1
|
|
August 23, 2017, 07:14:13 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
drgauravxmg
Member
Offline
Activity: 96
Merit: 10
|
|
August 23, 2017, 08:17:46 AM |
|
I was so impressed with this video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EkAbPacS7cBut...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
|
|
August 23, 2017, 08:18:30 AM |
|
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) 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) 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 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 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 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1009
Coin of the Magi!
|
|
August 23, 2017, 08:30:46 AM |
|
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
|
|
August 23, 2017, 08:32:05 AM |
|
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) 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) 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 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 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
|
|
August 23, 2017, 08:35:34 AM |
|
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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 1
Merit: 0
|
|
August 23, 2017, 08:38:02 AM |
|
If any collaboration or test is needed, just indicate what to do. fight
|
|
|
|
Apprentice
|
|
August 23, 2017, 08:53:10 AM |
|
any updates from the dev?
|
|
|
|
111magic
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1005
|
|
August 23, 2017, 08:54:42 AM |
|
any updates from the dev?
Look few posts up on this page!
|
bitcoin: bc1qyadvvyv29z08ln2ta7g3uqwzkscr7wq4p09wuz
|
|
|
malafaya
|
|
August 23, 2017, 08:56:32 AM |
|
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
|
|
August 23, 2017, 09:01:58 AM |
|
your pools offline, you went scamming with the coins? more than 120 blocks generated with you.
|
oVPN.to Anonymous Services
|
|
|
ex33s
|
|
August 23, 2017, 09:05:16 AM |
|
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
|
|
August 23, 2017, 09:05:43 AM |
|
@devs
if you rollback after weeks, your coin is dead!
|
oVPN.to Anonymous Services
|
|
|
111magic
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1005
|
|
August 23, 2017, 09:10:35 AM |
|
@devs
if you rollback after weeks, your coin is dead!
Understand what you mean! Thanks
|
bitcoin: bc1qyadvvyv29z08ln2ta7g3uqwzkscr7wq4p09wuz
|
|
|
|