|
|
verycoinsuchlist
Member
 Offline
Activity: 89
Merit: 10
|
 |
December 03, 2015, 08:08:50 PM |
|
dunnno... but I suspect something has to be seriously fucked with the network... just to be on the save side I let 3 wallets (none of them staking or mining or however involved into block generating themself) just go along and see if they only keep on updating their blockchain... ...and guess what, all 3 went offline (banned) and end up with no connection. yes, config with all three no upnp, no listen, connected ONLY to mooo.com nodes... now, how could THAT happen??  |
Believe In Crypto Currency? Try To Actually Use It
|
|
|
|
AmberCoinDev (OP)
|
|
December 03, 2015, 08:15:09 PM |
|
dunnno... but I suspect something has to be seriously fucked with the network... just to be on the save side I let 3 wallets (none of them staking or mining or however involved into block generating themself) just go along and see if they only keep on updating their blockchain... ...and guess what, all 3 went offline (banned) and end up with no connection. yes, config with all three no upnp, no listen, connected ONLY to mooo.com nodes... now, how could THAT happen?? ambercoin02.mooo.com is down now. 01 and 03 are up and running. Both blockexplorers are working fine. |
|
|
|
|
Slydrule
|
|
December 03, 2015, 08:21:49 PM |
|
just to followup on my last post. I reloaded the database and restarted my wallet. This time I left ambercoin03.mooo.com off my config file. I have no connections so I am assuming amber01 and 02 banned me.
Can someone confirm in ambercoin03.mooo.com is on the right fork? When I close my wallet after the fork I was still connected to 03 so I assume I am not banned from that one. But if it has forked then there is nopoint in connecting to it.
|
|
|
|
|
verycoinsuchlist
Member
Offline
Activity: 89
Merit: 10
|
|
December 03, 2015, 08:24:30 PM |
|
dunnno... but I suspect something has to be seriously fucked with the network... just to be on the save side I let 3 wallets (none of them staking or mining or however involved into block generating themself) just go along and see if they only keep on updating their blockchain... ...and guess what, all 3 went offline (banned) and end up with no connection. yes, config with all three no upnp, no listen, connected ONLY to mooo.com nodes... now, how could THAT happen?? ambercoin02.mooo.com is down now. 01 and 03 are up and running. Both blockexplorers are working fine. well... ok, but that's not the question... how come, my wallets have been only connected to those nodes for at least the last 3 days now, yet became banned... all three... WITHOUT generating a single block, neither by staking nor mininging... should... COULD technically not happen to hop on another fork IF NOT however in anyway provided/accepted by one of those nodes... EDIT: and after almost a week of walking through sheer forking adventures I'm starting to become a wee bit grumpy as that should really stop some time in future... don't plan to bootstrap the wallets over and over again and to be uncertain if or if not on the right chain and I'm certainly not alone here... so, might sound like an hammer-vs-anvil solution, but what about changing the whole underlying coins structure to something that has proven to work stable and performing a coin swap? there's a lot examples that this worked out just fine (a.o. see. Amsterdamcoin) |
Believe In Crypto Currency? Try To Actually Use It
|
|
|
|
AmberCoinDev (OP)
|
|
December 03, 2015, 08:27:07 PM |
|
just to followup on my last post. I reloaded the database and restarted my wallet. This time I left ambercoin03.mooo.com off my config file. I have no connections so I am assuming amber01 and 02 banned me.
Can someone confirm in ambercoin03.mooo.com is on the right fork? When I close my wallet after the fork I was still connected to 03 so I assume I am not banned from that one. But if it has forked then there is nopoint in connecting to it.
Yes. ambercoin03.mooo.com is on the right chain. |
|
|
|
|
AmberCoinDev (OP)
|
|
December 03, 2015, 08:28:12 PM |
|
dunnno... but I suspect something has to be seriously fucked with the network... just to be on the save side I let 3 wallets (none of them staking or mining or however involved into block generating themself) just go along and see if they only keep on updating their blockchain... ...and guess what, all 3 went offline (banned) and end up with no connection. yes, config with all three no upnp, no listen, connected ONLY to mooo.com nodes... now, how could THAT happen?? ambercoin02.mooo.com is down now. 01 and 03 are up and running. Both blockexplorers are working fine. well... ok, but that's not the question... how come, my wallets have been only connected to those nodes for at least the last 3 days now, yet became banned... all three... WITHOUT generating a single block, neither by staking nor mininging... should... COULD technically not happen to hop on another fork IF NOT however in anyway provided/accepted by one of those nodes... LOG could be helpful to understand. |
|
|
|
|
Slydrule
|
|
December 03, 2015, 08:39:17 PM |
|
just to followup on my last post. I reloaded the database and restarted my wallet. This time I left ambercoin03.mooo.com off my config file. I have no connections so I am assuming amber01 and 02 banned me.
Can someone confirm in ambercoin03.mooo.com is on the right fork? When I close my wallet after the fork I was still connected to 03 so I assume I am not banned from that one. But if it has forked then there is nopoint in connecting to it.
Yes. ambercoin03.mooo.com is on the right chain. So now I cannot connect to any of the mooos. I guess I am banned. So the question remains unanswered. I we are connecting only yo these nodes then how do we wind up on the wrong fork and how do we wind up getting banned? If ambercoin02.mooo.com is down we should seriously consider changing the bantime to an hour when its restarted. 24 hours is too long when we are having this problem. |
|
|
|
|
verycoinsuchlist
Member
Offline
Activity: 89
Merit: 10
|
|
December 03, 2015, 08:40:52 PM |
|
LOG could be helpful to understand.
I need to actually switch on timestamping, but anyhow this is the log segment of one wallet after the last few blocks it received: received block c5382b6c1f40f9e5accd
SetBestChain: new best=c5382b6c1f40f9e5accd height=608789 trust=23642058705891938 blocktrust=777978559 date=12/03/15 19:41:16
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
Flushing wallet.dat
Flushed wallet.dat 35ms
trying connection ambercoin03.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connected ambercoin03.mooo.com
send version message: version 90001, blocks=608789, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=45.32.69.218:31982, peer=45.32.69.218:31982
socket closed
disconnecting node ambercoin03.mooo.com
trying connection ambercoin01.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connected ambercoin01.mooo.com
send version message: version 90001, blocks=608789, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=108.61.173.201:31982, peer=108.61.173.201:31982
socket closed
disconnecting node ambercoin01.mooo.com
received block 00000001356639aae487
SetBestChain: new best=00000001356639aae487 height=608790 trust=23642061769231729 blocktrust=3063339791 date=12/03/15 19:41:24
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
Flushing wallet.dat
Flushed wallet.dat 54ms
ResendWalletTransactions()
trying connection ambercoin03.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connected ambercoin03.mooo.com
send version message: version 90001, blocks=608790, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=45.32.69.218:31982, peer=45.32.69.218:31982
socket closed
disconnecting node ambercoin03.mooo.com
trying connection ambercoin01.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connected ambercoin01.mooo.com
send version message: version 90001, blocks=608790, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=108.61.173.201:31982, peer=108.61.173.201:31982
socket closed
disconnecting node ambercoin01.mooo.com
trying connection ambercoin03.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
Flushed 0 addresses to peers.dat 12ms
connected ambercoin03.mooo.com
send version message: version 90001, blocks=608790, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=45.32.69.218:31982, peer=45.32.69.218:31982
socket closed
disconnecting node ambercoin03.mooo.com
received block 0000000054665ef32835
SetBestChain: new best=0000000054665ef32835 height=608791 trust=23642065652341482 blocktrust=3883109753 date=12/03/15 19:41:32
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
Flushing wallet.dat
Flushed wallet.dat 30ms
trying connection ambercoin01.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connected ambercoin01.mooo.com
send version message: version 90001, blocks=608791, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=108.61.173.201:31982, peer=108.61.173.201:31982
socket closed
disconnecting node ambercoin01.mooo.com
trying connection ambercoin03.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connected ambercoin03.mooo.com
send version message: version 90001, blocks=608791, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=45.32.69.218:31982, peer=45.32.69.218:31982
socket closed
disconnecting node ambercoin03.mooo.com
trying connection ambercoin01.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connected ambercoin01.mooo.com
send version message: version 90001, blocks=608791, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=108.61.173.201:31982, peer=108.61.173.201:31982
socket closed
disconnecting node ambercoin01.mooo.com
received block c7d8467e74d8dd54058c
SetBestChain: new best=c7d8467e74d8dd54058c height=608792 trust=23642066754988762 blocktrust=1102647280 date=12/03/15 19:42:23
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
trying connection ambercoin03.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connected ambercoin03.mooo.com
send version message: version 90001, blocks=608792, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=45.32.69.218:31982, peer=45.32.69.218:31982
socket closed
disconnecting node ambercoin03.mooo.com
Flushing wallet.dat
Flushed wallet.dat 41ms
received block 00000000b7a3ad84f972
SetBestChain: new best=00000000b7a3ad84f972 height=608793 trust=23642072215644811 blocktrust=5460656049 date=12/03/15 19:42:30
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
trying connection ambercoin01.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connected ambercoin01.mooo.com
send version message: version 90001, blocks=608793, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=108.61.173.201:31982, peer=108.61.173.201:31982
socket closed
disconnecting node ambercoin01.mooo.com
Flushing wallet.dat
Flushed wallet.dat 27ms
trying connection ambercoin03.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connected ambercoin03.mooo.com
send version message: version 90001, blocks=608793, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=45.32.69.218:31982, peer=45.32.69.218:31982
socket closed
disconnecting node ambercoin03.mooo.com
trying connection ambercoin01.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connected ambercoin01.mooo.com
send version message: version 90001, blocks=608793, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=108.61.173.201:31982, peer=108.61.173.201:31982
socket closed
disconnecting node ambercoin01.mooo.com
trying connection ambercoin03.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connected ambercoin03.mooo.com
send version message: version 90001, blocks=608793, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=45.32.69.218:31982, peer=45.32.69.218:31982
socket closed
disconnecting node ambercoin03.mooo.com
socket closed
disconnecting node ambercoin02.mooo.com
trying connection ambercoin01.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connected ambercoin01.mooo.com
send version message: version 90001, blocks=608793, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=108.61.173.201:31982, peer=108.61.173.201:31982
socket closed
disconnecting node ambercoin01.mooo.com
trying connection ambercoin02.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connection timeout
trying connection ambercoin03.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connected ambercoin03.mooo.com
send version message: version 90001, blocks=608793, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=45.32.69.218:31982, peer=45.32.69.218:31982
socket closed
disconnecting node ambercoin03.mooo.com
trying connection ambercoin01.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connected ambercoin01.mooo.com
send version message: version 90001, blocks=608793, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=108.61.173.201:31982, peer=108.61.173.201:31982
socket closed
disconnecting node ambercoin01.mooo.com
trying connection ambercoin02.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connection timeout
trying connection ambercoin03.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connected ambercoin03.mooo.com
send version message: version 90001, blocks=608793, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=45.32.69.218:31982, peer=45.32.69.218:31982
socket closed
disconnecting node ambercoin03.mooo.com
trying connection ambercoin01.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connected ambercoin01.mooo.com
send version message: version 90001, blocks=608793, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=108.61.173.201:31982, peer=108.61.173.201:31982
socket recv error 10054
disconnecting node ambercoin01.mooo.com
trying connection ambercoin02.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connection timeout
trying connection ambercoin03.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs
connected ambercoin03.mooo.com
send version message: version 90001, blocks=608793, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=45.32.69.218:31982, peer=45.32.69.218:31982
socket closed
|
Believe In Crypto Currency? Try To Actually Use It
|
|
|
|
antho281
|
|
December 03, 2015, 08:45:34 PM |
|
just to followup on my last post. I reloaded the database and restarted my wallet. This time I left ambercoin03.mooo.com off my config file. I have no connections so I am assuming amber01 and 02 banned me.
Can someone confirm in ambercoin03.mooo.com is on the right fork? When I close my wallet after the fork I was still connected to 03 so I assume I am not banned from that one. But if it has forked then there is nopoint in connecting to it.
Yes. ambercoin03.mooo.com is on the right chain. So now I cannot connect to any of the mooos. I guess I am banned. So the question remains unanswered. I we are connecting only yo these nodes then how do we wind up on the wrong fork and how do we wind up getting banned? If ambercoin02.mooo.com is down we should seriously consider changing the bantime to an hour when its restarted. 24 hours is too long when we are having this problem. According to what I know about cryptos, the decentralisation part means every single wallet can fork, even nodes, even mooo. The only way to be sure you won't fork is to generate all the block from the same wallet. As an exemple, my wallet generate about 35% of all the blocks in the last 2 days, I didn't forked. But, if I check my other wallet, they all forked at least once... Yesterday, we got a hype and reach about 1 GH and over 700 MH on my new pool, I solved a lot of block in a short time and a mooo's node forked. At that moment, I send many blocks informations to the others mooo. |
|
|
|
|
|
AmberCoinDev (OP)
|
|
December 03, 2015, 09:00:58 PM |
|
just to followup on my last post. I reloaded the database and restarted my wallet. This time I left ambercoin03.mooo.com off my config file. I have no connections so I am assuming amber01 and 02 banned me.
Can someone confirm in ambercoin03.mooo.com is on the right fork? When I close my wallet after the fork I was still connected to 03 so I assume I am not banned from that one. But if it has forked then there is nopoint in connecting to it.
Yes. ambercoin03.mooo.com is on the right chain. So now I cannot connect to any of the mooos. I guess I am banned. So the question remains unanswered. I we are connecting only yo these nodes then how do we wind up on the wrong fork and how do we wind up getting banned? If ambercoin02.mooo.com is down we should seriously consider changing the bantime to an hour when its restarted. 24 hours is too long when we are having this problem. We will consider reducing bantime to 3600 sec (1 hour) through .conf "bantime=3600" on node02 and node03. |
|
|
|
verycoinsuchlist
Member
Offline
Activity: 89
Merit: 10
|
|
December 03, 2015, 09:29:26 PM |
|
According to what I know about cryptos, the decentralisation part means every single wallet can fork, even nodes, even mooo.
The only way to be sure you won't fork is to generate all the block from the same wallet. As an exemple, my wallet generate about 35% of all the blocks in the last 2 days, I didn't forked.
But, if I check my other wallet, they all forked at least once...
Yesterday, we got a hype and reach about 1 GH and over 700 MH on my new pool, I solved a lot of block in a short time and a mooo's node forked.
At that moment, I send many blocks informations to the others mooo.
forking as far as I know is the process of having different parts of the network cretate and maintain their own branch of a network while not accepting the other. this could imho only happen if two (or more) separate network branches have the ability to accept and confirm some blocks in a row that creates that separate branch in the first place, thus leading to two (or more) chins having enough confirmations to be consistent by themself, yet banning the other branch as beeing not valid from those clients perspective. this should be avoided by clients downvoting blocks generated by the 'loser'-network/client and telling the other network to 'let go and rejoin'. the major question here is: what is happening so this mechanism fails in such great amount repeatedly, or to rephrase it: what needs to be changed to avoid this behaviour. just my common sense tells me, that this is not the behaviour I have or had to deal with with any other coin I remember... so, I assume this is not just soething that happens along the way anyway... but I'm sure there's a way to eventually get rid of this issues, as well  |
Believe In Crypto Currency? Try To Actually Use It
|
|
|
|
antho281
|
|
December 03, 2015, 09:47:00 PM |
|
According to what I know about cryptos, the decentralisation part means every single wallet can fork, even nodes, even mooo.
The only way to be sure you won't fork is to generate all the block from the same wallet. As an exemple, my wallet generate about 35% of all the blocks in the last 2 days, I didn't forked.
But, if I check my other wallet, they all forked at least once...
Yesterday, we got a hype and reach about 1 GH and over 700 MH on my new pool, I solved a lot of block in a short time and a mooo's node forked.
At that moment, I send many blocks informations to the others mooo.
forking as far as I know is the process of having different parts of the network cretate and maintain their own branch of a network while not accepting the other. this could imho only happen if two (or more) separate network branches have the ability to accept and confirm some blocks in a row that creates that separate branch in the first place, thus leading to two (or more) chins having enough confirmations to be consistent by themself, yet banning the other branch as beeing not valid from those clients perspective. this should be avoided by clients downvoting blocks generated by the 'loser'-network/client and telling the other network to 'let go and rejoin'. You are exact. But I'll give you an example : I'm getting banned from 01,02,03. So I'm getting banned from them for 24h. In the mean time, I can connect to any other peers. There is a possibility that these peers are on a fork too.. and this fork may be stronger than the "main" one. When it happen, it may cause serious problem on the main chain. the major question here is: what is happening so this mechanism fails in such great amount repeatedly, or to rephrase it: what needs to be changed to avoid this behaviour. just my common sense tells me, that this is not the behaviour I have or had to deal with with any other coin I remember... so, I assume this is not just soething that happens along the way anyway... but I'm sure there's a way to eventually get rid of this issues, as well I think that the best solution would be to generate all the coins from the same node/wallet/pool. This way, the propogation will always come from the same place, so no fork available... But this is impossible... The only "real" solution would be to concentrate as much hash power as we can on the same nodes/wallet/pool. So we'll need to choose. Do we all mine from a mooo in solomining or do we use a pool... |
|
|
|
|
|
Slydrule
|
|
December 03, 2015, 10:12:43 PM |
|
According to what I know about cryptos, the decentralisation part means every single wallet can fork, even nodes, even mooo.
The only way to be sure you won't fork is to generate all the block from the same wallet. As an exemple, my wallet generate about 35% of all the blocks in the last 2 days, I didn't forked.
But, if I check my other wallet, they all forked at least once...
Yesterday, we got a hype and reach about 1 GH and over 700 MH on my new pool, I solved a lot of block in a short time and a mooo's node forked.
At that moment, I send many blocks informations to the others mooo.
forking as far as I know is the process of having different parts of the network cretate and maintain their own branch of a network while not accepting the other. this could imho only happen if two (or more) separate network branches have the ability to accept and confirm some blocks in a row that creates that separate branch in the first place, thus leading to two (or more) chins having enough confirmations to be consistent by themself, yet banning the other branch as beeing not valid from those clients perspective. this should be avoided by clients downvoting blocks generated by the 'loser'-network/client and telling the other network to 'let go and rejoin'. the major question here is: what is happening so this mechanism fails in such great amount repeatedly, or to rephrase it: what needs to be changed to avoid this behaviour. just my common sense tells me, that this is not the behaviour I have or had to deal with with any other coin I remember... so, I assume this is not just soething that happens along the way anyway... but I'm sure there's a way to eventually get rid of this issues, as well I went through this with another coin I will not mention. But in that case, ever wallet put in a bantime of 600 seconds to avoid negotiating with nodes on a bad fork. They also posted a correct database and everyone had to reload the DB and connect to a SINGLE node. A new wallet version was released and anyone not on that wallet version would be banned immediately. My recollection is vague here but I think the new wallet fixed some code that was causing the fork or at least creating an environment for a fork to occur. My understanding is that fork occurs when a two acceptable hashed are found for the same block and both are accepted by a part of the network. If the bad hash is accepted by a large enough part of the network the fork occurs. First we need to understand what is causing the forks. Then we need to devise a solution to prevent them. The bad forks will die out over time if there is a trustworthy node and everyone connects to that node and only that node. But based on the posts I have read, I think people are still connecting to more than the 3 main nodes. I admit I an guessing about a lot of this but the fact is we are forking with regularity and that means we have not addressed the root issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
antho281
|
|
December 03, 2015, 10:16:25 PM |
|
According to what I know about cryptos, the decentralisation part means every single wallet can fork, even nodes, even mooo.
The only way to be sure you won't fork is to generate all the block from the same wallet. As an exemple, my wallet generate about 35% of all the blocks in the last 2 days, I didn't forked.
But, if I check my other wallet, they all forked at least once...
Yesterday, we got a hype and reach about 1 GH and over 700 MH on my new pool, I solved a lot of block in a short time and a mooo's node forked.
At that moment, I send many blocks informations to the others mooo.
forking as far as I know is the process of having different parts of the network cretate and maintain their own branch of a network while not accepting the other. this could imho only happen if two (or more) separate network branches have the ability to accept and confirm some blocks in a row that creates that separate branch in the first place, thus leading to two (or more) chins having enough confirmations to be consistent by themself, yet banning the other branch as beeing not valid from those clients perspective. this should be avoided by clients downvoting blocks generated by the 'loser'-network/client and telling the other network to 'let go and rejoin'. the major question here is: what is happening so this mechanism fails in such great amount repeatedly, or to rephrase it: what needs to be changed to avoid this behaviour. just my common sense tells me, that this is not the behaviour I have or had to deal with with any other coin I remember... so, I assume this is not just soething that happens along the way anyway... but I'm sure there's a way to eventually get rid of this issues, as well I went through this with another coin I will not mention. But in that case, ever wallet put in a bantime of 600 seconds to avoid negotiating with nodes on a bad fork. They also posted a correct database and everyone had to reload the DB and connect to a SINGLE node. A new wallet version was released and anyone not on that wallet version would be banned immediately. My recollection is vague here but I think the new wallet fixed some code that was causing the fork or at least creating an environment for a fork to occur. My understanding is that fork occurs when a two acceptable hashed are found for the same block and both are accepted by a part of the network. If the bad hash is accepted by a large enough part of the network the fork occurs. First we need to understand what is causing the forks. Then we need to devise a solution to prevent them. The bad forks will die out over time if there is a trustworthy node and everyone connects to that node and only that node. But based on the posts I have read, I think people are still connecting to more than the 3 main nodes. I admit I an guessing about a lot of this but the fact is we are forking with regularity and that means we have not addressed the root issue. Your solution makes a lot of sens! I think it could work now if the ban time was not that long because the 24h banned time makes it easier to fork |
|
|
|
|
|
crzybilly
|
|
December 03, 2015, 10:21:11 PM |
|
We will consider reducing bantime to 3600 sec (1 hour) through .conf "bantime=3600" on node02 and node03.
Hello Dev, While I've been a great help to getting people back on the right chain, I think I've tracked something down that might be causing the banning. I've been banned from nodes 1 & 2 with the same exact message. ProcessSyncCheckpoint: sync-checkpoint at 000000002d7c36aa403c9691b9085406cdb6f1d428c6fee9f0de17bfdfa318f1 connection timeout trying connection ambercoin01.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs connected ambercoin01.mooo.com send version message: version 90001, blocks=608793, us=myipaddress:31982, them=108.61.173.201:31982, peer=108.61.173.201:31982 socket closed disconnecting node ambercoin01.mooo.com received block 000000011e8e70953894 Misbehaving: 108.61.173.201:31982 (0 -> 100) DISCONNECTING ERROR: ProcessBlock() : block with too little proof-of-work trying connection ambercoin2.mooo.com lastseen=0.0hrs connection timeout |
|
|
|
|
|
binmon
|
|
December 03, 2015, 10:34:25 PM |
|
I see one thing, one simple thing, over and over............
that is, NONE of this forking was happening until the last wallet "upgrade". Hint hint somewhere here???
|
|
|
|
|
antho281
|
|
December 03, 2015, 10:38:41 PM |
|
I see one thing, one simple thing, over and over............
that is, NONE of this forking was happening until the last wallet "upgrade". Hint hint somewhere here???
Hint : The new wallet... hahaha That's the risk everytime you upgrade the wallet  Thinking about that, what if I was setting my pool's wallet locked on mooo and getting the biggest hashrate possible for 24h, may help to stop the last forks and bring the Amber's chain back on track! |
|
|
|
|
verycoinsuchlist
Member
Offline
Activity: 89
Merit: 10
|
|
December 03, 2015, 11:02:42 PM |
|
I see one thing, one simple thing, over and over............
that is, NONE of this forking was happening until the last wallet "upgrade". Hint hint somewhere here???
Hint : The new wallet... hahaha That's the risk everytime you upgrade the wallet Thinking about that, what if I was setting my pool's wallet locked on mooo and getting the biggest hashrate possible for 24h, may help to stop the last forks and bring the Amber's chain back on track! i suspect this notbeing a final solution as the clients themself need to be in the position to rule out that behaviour in the first place... read: create orphans instead of confirming silently while creating a fork. every part of the network can be a 'winner' while having some more 'winners' not being connected at that time simultaneously, but after reconnecting, a vote should have been fallen and the network with the most participants ought to be the winning one eventually, rendering the other 'winners' orphans at the same time... this is how I experience the mechanics with any other coin as by now... so concentrating traffic to one wallet would be a mere crutch, it also is all contrary to the decentralised idea, as already the clinging to some 'reference' nodes implies (which showed to don't work consolidating the network as well). tl; dr: there's a reason that allows the forking (maintaining a forked chain insted of orphaning) to happen in the first place and this is the problem to focus upon. atm, I'd bet a fortune that at the very moment all clients would open up to the network with no restrictions, thus connecting to arbitrary nodes again, this will start over again. |
Believe In Crypto Currency? Try To Actually Use It
|
|
|
|
Slydrule
|
|
December 03, 2015, 11:45:58 PM |
|
I have a question. Is there a way to command the main nodes to unban clients that have been banned? If we give our IP addresses can DEV unban us? Sitting this out for the next 24 hours sucks. Its the second time for me in the last 4 days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
