Main Menu

Dry Run 2: The Real Deal

Started by toast, June 12, 2014, 11:24:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

crazybit

Quote from: BTSdac on June 15, 2014, 10:06:11 AM
Loading blockchain from "/root/.BitSharesXTS/chain"
Starting JSON RPC server on port 57466 (localhost only)
Starting HTTP JSON RPC server on port 9989 (localhost only)
------------ error --------------
8 out_of_range_exception: Out of Range
read datastream of length 23 over by 1
    {"method":"read","len":23,"over":1}
    th_a  datastream.cpp:6 throw_datastream_range_error
error unpacking uint8_t
    {"type":"uint8_t"}
    th_a  raw.hpp:440 unpack
optional<fc::exception>
    {"type":"fc::exception"}
    th_a  raw.hpp:164 unpack
Error unpacking field last_error
    {"field":"last_error"}
    th_a  raw.hpp:222 operator()
error unpacking bts::net::potential_peer_record
    {"type":"bts::net::potential_peer_record"}
    th_a  raw.hpp:440 unpack

what is wrong

unpack data failed, looks like your blockchain data structure does not syn with the code.

BTSdac

Loading blockchain from "/root/.BitSharesXTS/chain"
Starting JSON RPC server on port 57466 (localhost only)
Starting HTTP JSON RPC server on port 9989 (localhost only)
------------ error --------------
8 out_of_range_exception: Out of Range
read datastream of length 23 over by 1
    {"method":"read","len":23,"over":1}
    th_a  datastream.cpp:6 throw_datastream_range_error
error unpacking uint8_t
    {"type":"uint8_t"}
    th_a  raw.hpp:440 unpack
optional<fc::exception>
    {"type":"fc::exception"}
    th_a  raw.hpp:164 unpack
Error unpacking field last_error
    {"field":"last_error"}
    th_a  raw.hpp:222 operator()
error unpacking bts::net::potential_peer_record
    {"type":"bts::net::potential_peer_record"}
    th_a  raw.hpp:440 unpack

what is wrong
[url="//github.com"]github.com[/url] :pureland
BTS2.0 API :[url="ws://139.196.37.179:8091"]ws://139.196.37.179:8091[/url]
BTS2.0 API 数据源ws:[url="//139.196.37.179:8091"]//139.196.37.179:8091[/url]

alexxy

I'm running test node with large allowed number of connections
can someone try to add me as peer?

79.173.81.171:8764
Vote for my delegates! alexxy | lexx
PTS: PmraxfZ852y9oEKrYMLX1ee3e4qRWPUTFC
BTS: alexxy

welk1n

Looks Good!

welk1n (unlocked) >>> info
{
  "blockchain_head_block_num": 6097,
  "blockchain_head_block_time": "20140615T095400",
  "blockchain_head_block_time_rel": "61 seconds ago",
  "blockchain_confirmation_requirement": 291,
  "blockchain_average_delegate_participation": 39.786710418375719,
  "network_num_connections": 8,
  "wallet_unlocked_seconds_remaining": 9972700,
  "wallet_next_block_production_time": "20140615T095945",
  "wallet_seconds_until_next_block_production": 284,
  "wallet_local_time": "20140615T095501",
  "blockchain_random_seed": "5ed94b17a1f657851194360dd760251c35c065af",
  "blockchain_shares": 10000100611524,
  "network_num_connections_max": 12,
  "network_protocol_version": 101,
  "wallet_open": true,
  "wallet_unlocked_until": "20141008T200641",
  "wallet_version": 100
}

spartako

Solved connection issue on ubuntu, I have now 6 active connections and my delegates ( init-delegate-21, init-delegate-22, init-delegate-23, init-delegate-24) are working.
wallet_account_set_approval spartako

puppies

On my end whatever you did has solved connection issues on all three nodes I'm running.
[url="https://metaexchange.info"]https://metaexchange.info[/url] | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

tonyk

#242
Quote from: toast on June 15, 2014, 05:20:40 AM

Did I misunderstand your joke?

Yes you did..
Sam, Tom, Me and... 1 Indian tester....


...If you still do not get it - it is more of beginning of a racy joke then presentation of your core team (But as I said it is probably funny/sad to me only)
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

myhometalk

download the latest code from github and fresh run but still only getting one connection



myhometalk (locked) >>> info
{
  "blockchain_head_block_num": 5995,
  "blockchain_head_block_time": "20140615T054400",
  "blockchain_head_block_time_rel": "8 seconds ago",
  "blockchain_confirmation_requirement": 291,
  "blockchain_average_delegate_participation": 60.7008760951189,
  "network_num_connections": 1,
  "wallet_unlocked_seconds_remaining": 0,
  "wallet_next_block_production_time": null,
  "wallet_seconds_until_next_block_production": null,
  "wallet_local_time": "20140615T054408",
  "blockchain_random_seed": "d79467e267d6234b43a043c9037a2998fe58e95b",
  "blockchain_shares": 10000093896268,
  "network_num_connections_max": 12,
  "network_protocol_version": 101,
  "wallet_open": true,
  "wallet_unlocked_until": "",
  "wallet_version": 100
}

emski

#240
Just an update:
emski (unlocked) >>> get_info
{
  "blockchain_head_block_num": 6002,
  "blockchain_head_block_time": "20140615T054600",
  "blockchain_confirmation_requirement": 286,
  "blockchain_average_delegate_participation": 60.89139987445072,
  "network_num_connections": 26,
  "wallet_unlocked_seconds_remaining": 99913328,
  "wallet_next_block_production_time": "20140615T054700",
  "wallet_seconds_until_next_block_production": 61,
  "wallet_local_time": "20140615T054559",
  "blockchain_random_seed": "c1286419a26cc7b0402fb40d3537f30a53c0837d",
  "blockchain_shares": 10000094357869,
  "network_num_connections_max": 50,
  "network_protocol_version": 101,
  "wallet_open": true,
  "wallet_unlocked_until": "20170814T152807",
  "wallet_version": 100
}
--- there are now 27 active connections to the p2p network
--- in sync with p2p network


I've increased network_num_connections_max and desired_number_of_connections just to see what happens.
[url="https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,9857.0.html"]https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,9857.0.html[/url]

puppies

#239
Quote from: Xeldal on June 15, 2014, 03:22:51 AM

QuoteWipe your old data-dir

Ubuntu: rm -r ~/.BitShares\ XTS

This command has never done anything for me.  I feel I'm missing some implied instruction.  Anyone care to clue me in.

I've just been either completely rebuilding the server from scratch or using the following
rm -r bitshares*

and then cloneing etc.

Does this have the same effect?
I notice i still have my wallet and imported keys, where as, when building from scratch I have to re create wallet and import keys again.

# about
tells me im on the latest revision but was i supposed to remove something that "# rm -r bits*"   misses?

~/.BitShares\ XTS may be referring to an old data directory (I have noticed that the different versions I have downloaded and compiled have had slightly different data directories.  The current data dir is ~/.BitSharesXTS so the command would be


rm -r ~/.BitSharesXTS


This will wipe your wallet though.  You will need to either re-import keys or copy your wallet over to the new directory.  How I've done it is

cp -r ~/.BitSharesXTS/wallets ~
rm -r ~/.BitSharesXTS
mkdir ~/.BitSharesXTS
cp -r ~/wallets ~/.BitSharesXTS

there may be a better way of doing this.

I also currently just wipe out the bitshares_toolkit directory and git clone another one.  that is what your rm -r ~/bitshares* command was doing.  I am sure there is a better way than that to resync to git, but I don't know it.
[url="https://metaexchange.info"]https://metaexchange.info[/url] | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

bitcoinerS

Quote from: toast on June 15, 2014, 05:21:19 AM

It looks like you got voted out, probably when BM moved his votes to get someone else in since he is the only one voting ATM

>:(

Please vote me back in!
>>> approve bitcoiners

toast

Quote from: bitcoinerS on June 15, 2014, 05:18:14 AM
Ok. With latest build my connection count is up to 8. Still delegate is not producing any blocks..

>>> blockchain_get_account_record bitcoiners
{
  "id": 299,
  "name": "bitcoiners",
  "public_data": null,
  "owner_key": "XTS8eoFWByxKtGYzBrNF4diAhv1zjY7jGNTUv6PSqVGbQs8yi7nqk",
  "active_key_history": [[
      "20140613T030845",
      "XTS8eoFWByxKtGYzBrNF4diAhv1zjY7jGNTUv6PSqVGbQs8yi7nqk"
    ]
  ],
  "delegate_info": {
    "votes_for": 2109074296,
    "votes_against": 0,
    "blocks_produced": 0,
    "blocks_missed": 63,
    "pay_balance": 0,


get_info
{
  "blockchain_head_block_num": 5928,
  "blockchain_head_block_time": "20140615T051545",
  "blockchain_head_block_time_rel": "55 seconds ago",
  "blockchain_confirmation_requirement": 291,
  "blockchain_average_delegate_participation": 61.12161310649023,
  "network_num_connections": 8,



>>> blockchain_list_delegates
..
** Inactive:
..         299               bitcoiners          2109074296                   0         0.0210906 %               0              63


It looks like you got voted out, probably when BM moved his votes to get someone else in since he is the only one voting ATM
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

toast

Quote(from Feb till now)

Me & hackfisher & nikita started full-time in May. Vikram and Nathan still haven't officially started. Eric started in March. So I believe your "since february" applies to the two Dans and the polish team who have been on keyhotee this whole time. The rest are still part-time.

https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit/graphs/contributors

Did I misunderstand your joke?
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

bitcoinerS

Ok. With latest build my connection count is up to 8. Still delegate is not producing any blocks..

>>> blockchain_get_account_record bitcoiners
{
  "id": 299,
  "name": "bitcoiners",
  "public_data": null,
  "owner_key": "XTS8eoFWByxKtGYzBrNF4diAhv1zjY7jGNTUv6PSqVGbQs8yi7nqk",
  "active_key_history": [[
      "20140613T030845",
      "XTS8eoFWByxKtGYzBrNF4diAhv1zjY7jGNTUv6PSqVGbQs8yi7nqk"
    ]
  ],
  "delegate_info": {
    "votes_for": 2109074296,
    "votes_against": 0,
    "blocks_produced": 0,
    "blocks_missed": 63,
    "pay_balance": 0,


get_info
{
  "blockchain_head_block_num": 5928,
  "blockchain_head_block_time": "20140615T051545",
  "blockchain_head_block_time_rel": "55 seconds ago",
  "blockchain_confirmation_requirement": 291,
  "blockchain_average_delegate_participation": 61.12161310649023,
  "network_num_connections": 8,



>>> blockchain_list_delegates
..
** Inactive:
..         299               bitcoiners          2109074296                   0         0.0210906 %               0              63
>>> approve bitcoiners

tonyk

Sorry but I could not resist posting a joke... fully understanding that I will be the only one to lough at it.

----
TK: "Dan, we all know that connecting with people and knowing the people you work with is very important to you. Can you describe your team?"
BM:"Yes, I really know all of them well, even though most of them started working effectively only this month. They are all pretty good, you know...[just needed a little bit of time worming up (from Feb till now)]. We are – Eric, Toast , Nikita, HackFisher, Dan N....
3 polish devs and 1 Indian tester"
----

PS
To vote me out, you just need to issue the follow command before you perform postinthisforum
tonyk_go_fuck_youself  = [true]
'
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.