get_witness jtm1
{
  "id": "1.6.14",
  "witness_account": "1.2.91956",


up ,running and signing blocks with zero votes now

Quote from: clayop on October 02, 2015, 04:30:05 am

104.155.223.175 and did not specify port I think. Maybe 1776? or 1984?

Trying both with --resync-blockchain now from two nodes...

I do not think you are on that ports. Can you try lsof -p PID_OF_YOUR_WITNESS and
see the listen ports ?

Quote from: jtme on September 26, 2015, 06:41:26 pm

Quote from: Thom on September 26, 2015, 03:23:40 pm

Once boost is built from source and "b2 install" is run on the target VPS can the boost/boost_1_57_0 folder hierarchy be removed?

Does the witness_node and cli_wallet binaries require anything from the boost tree or only from the shared libraries (/usr/local/lib/libboost*.so.1.57.0)? What about the gui out of curiosity?

ldd witness_node              shows

Code: [Select]

linux-vdso.so.1 =>  (0x00007ffe627f7000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (0x00007f00b79ad000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x00007f00b77a8000)
librt.so.1 => /lib64/librt.so.1 (0x00007f00b75a0000)
libstdc++.so.6 => /lib64/libstdc++.so.6 (0x00007f00b7291000)
libm.so.6 => /lib64/libm.so.6 (0x00007f00b6f88000)
libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00007f00b6d71000)
libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007f00b69b4000)
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x000055d7ecbf4000)

that witness_node is statically linked. Shared boost libs are not needed on the production host.
I would asume for the build it would be only needed to have the cpp headers and static *.a
boost libs from install dir to bulid a witness.

Thanks for the reply jtme, I'm a bit rusty with my unix dev skills. Is that list definitive in terms of the boost libs required by graphene, and what tool did you use to get that list?

From what I can see boost is so big almost nobody uses it all so it gets chopped up and pulled apart to make use of various elements, if they want a static build. Static builds are great for removing external dependencies, which really makes sense for building blockchain apps & tools, but it can make for some mighty big executable images.

One last but important question, this may only be known by cryptonomex devs: can boost 1.57.0 libs be installed on a host running the 0.9.x code without any collisions? If 0.9.x was also built with static linking I presume the answer to that is yes, they can coexist without an issue. I'd like a solid confirmation tho before I run my graphene VPS setup script on my production delegate VPS.

ldd is the unix cmd that will show which shared libs the binarry needs to be linked with at runtime.
As for your last q. I would think there should be no problem. Your 1.57.0 boost shared libs should
have different versions if their api or behaviour changed, so your 0.9 client wont link with them.
Plus you can install boost into some other dir like /usr/grapheneboost , then 0.9 clients
cannot link them for sure unles you will point them to the dir using LD_LIBRARY_PATH
env. variable

jtm1 is also updated and needs some votes to get back.

jtm1 updated to the latest master

BTS has always been at the mercy of the core devs; especially BM. I don't see how that's changed with them banding together under one company so they make some money. The other alternative would be for them to all get jobs elsewhere and let bts wither on the vine while the community either sells or tries to find new core devs willing to work for next to nothing.

I say when a new chain uses the Graphene toolkit they sharedrop on Cryptonomex. This lifetime entitlement mentality needs to stop.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

It has nothing to do with lifetime entitelment. They were paid from AGS/PTS,
are paid as delegates and will be paid as workers in the future.

If Cryptonomex can claim that every single line of Graphene code was not funded
by AGS or BTS delegate income, then well they have the moral right to
get it all sharedroped on Cryptonomex, but can they ?

If Graphene was partialy developed using BTS delagete funding,
BTS should have a stake in owning the code too or no ?

Lets take this two scenarios:

100% sharedrop on CN  , 0% sharedrop on BTS

 Potential BTS investors are in doubt or scared of Cryptonomex owning all the rights and profits,
 BTS marktetcap stagnates, large institutions will develop or adapt other protocols, BTS dies, Graphene dies
 no one profits

50% sharedrop on CN , 50% sharedrop on BTS

  BTS investors are confident in the technology and that they will profit from other potential chains
  and not eventualy betrayed or sold out by Cryptonomex.
  BTS marketcap surges. Graphene is adopted by other institutions. Everyone profits.