Author Topic: DACSUnlimited should you advice downvoting a delegate?  (Read 2374 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
are those forks due to latency?
That particular above is a fork that resulted from 1 delegates producing two DIFFERENT blocks at the same time .. seems like they ran it on two machines and skews sth. up
ok. makes sense.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
are those forks due to latency?
That particular above is a fork that resulted from 1 delegates producing two DIFFERENT blocks at the same time .. seems like they ran it on two machines and skews sth. up

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
does make sense to spreach invalid fork blocks, does it?

This is open for debate...

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
blockchain_list_forks
However it had to be issued on the seed node as some other clients didn't have that information.
One of the delegates had it also.
Newly synchronized clients do not have this.
I guess identified forks are not broadcasted to the network when syncing .. you can only see forks if you catch them live :-)

does make sense to spread invalid fork blocks, does it?

//edit: typo fixed
« Last Edit: September 02, 2014, 10:47:19 am by xeroc »

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Code: [Select]
368403
     1d57020bf8042649d56d0f91ca08f451b13b1888                        init53              0       166 2014-09-01T02:24:10         0     YES                 YES
     7481ca8e6954140421a8c2a0d51e620d2db2510b                        init53              0       166 2014-09-01T02:24:10         0     N/A                  NO

Would you please tell me how did you find this information? Thanks!

blockchain_list_forks
However it had to be issued on the seed node as some other clients didn't have that information.
One of the delegates had it also.
Newly synchronized clients do not have this.

Offline ripplexiaoshan

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: jademont
Code: [Select]
368403
     1d57020bf8042649d56d0f91ca08f451b13b1888                        init53              0       166 2014-09-01T02:24:10         0     YES                 YES
     7481ca8e6954140421a8c2a0d51e620d2db2510b                        init53              0       166 2014-09-01T02:24:10         0     N/A                  NO

Would you please tell me how did you find this information? Thanks!
BTS committee member:jademont

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
I think allowing delegates to double produce blocks with impunity makes the blockchain less secure, and makes it harder for us to argue that nothing at stake doesn't apply to DPOS.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Well it shouldn't be that strict as it was only once (my opinion ). However there are other delegates consistently mining signing blocks on 2 chains.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2014, 10:33:32 pm by emski »

Offline HackFisher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
    • View Profile
The bug of double producing causing falling into a fork seems be resolved?

Yes it is! However they were pretty strict about that rule and I couldn't stop myself of posting this. Of course there were others that I messaged privately about similar issues.

Actually it was better to just PM DACSunlimited...
Sorry if I've offended someone.

I would take the same attitude as you, init53 should be vote out, no matter what's the story behind it.
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
The bug of double producing causing falling into a fork seems be resolved?

Yes it is! However they were pretty strict about that rule and I couldn't stop myself of posting this. Of course there were others that I messaged privately about similar issues.

Actually it was better to just PM DACSunlimited...
Sorry if I've offended someone.

Offline HackFisher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
    • View Profile
The bug of double producing causing falling into a fork seems be resolved?
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Code: [Select]
368403
     1d57020bf8042649d56d0f91ca08f451b13b1888                        init53              0       166 2014-09-01T02:24:10         0     YES                 YES
     7481ca8e6954140421a8c2a0d51e620d2db2510b                        init53              0       166 2014-09-01T02:24:10         0     N/A                  NO