0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: bytemaster on December 15, 2014, 12:17:35 pmI think the problem has been fixed for everyone. We will release an official update later today after a little bit more review of our patch. In the mean time as long as a few delegates are running the patch in master it shouldn't happen again.i syned the latest code, but seems i am still on the fork chain, and unable to download the blocks signed by other delegates.
I think the problem has been fixed for everyone. We will release an official update later today after a little bit more review of our patch. In the mean time as long as a few delegates are running the patch in master it shouldn't happen again.
"blockchain_head_block_num": 1268180, "blockchain_head_block_age": "6 seconds old", "blockchain_head_block_timestamp": "2014-12-15T12:23:20", "blockchain_average_delegate_participation": "87.83 %", "blockchain_confirmation_requirement": 230,
which branch should i syn? master branch?
Quote from: xeroc on December 15, 2014, 12:05:02 pmi recompiled with the patch and started signing again ..I see blocks!
i recompiled with the patch and started signing again ..
blockchain_list_pending_transactions TXN ID SIZE OPERATION COUNT SIGNATURE COUNT---------------------------------------------------------------------- 508c4b08 416 5 1 14c3b1e9 216 2 2 3269c196 1659 20 1 5130293b 1661 20 1 5299508f 1639 20 1 655e7d12 1639 20 1 68812c7b 436 4 3 ab7252ea 451 6 1 f8ee1d05 449 6 1
default (unlocked) >>> blockchain_list_pending_transactions TXN ID SIZE OPERATION COUNT SIGNATURE COUNT---------------------------------------------------------------------- 610e12b1 1741 20 2 162b5967 1639 20 1 3b90ea72 1640 20 1 41c26cf8 1639 20 1 48a6ef6c 1640 20 1 4fe0cf80 157 2 1 523d6f84 240 2 2 5b741af1 1640 20 1 6666aaff 157 2 1 6698b2f4 1639 20 1 8343bcd9 1639 20 1 a6c1b7fe 1656 20 1 a9013eb1 1656 20 1 ac60133e 238 2 2 b17832eb 1639 20 1 b2e0fb13 1635 20 1 b81ebab2 1639 20 1 c140b581 1656 20 1 d116ca79 1656 20 1 e03da130 1656 20 1 e2bb40c1 1635 20 1 e95300bf 155 2 1
> blockchain_list_pending_transactions TXN ID SIZE OPERATION COUNT SIGNATURE COUNT---------------------------------------------------------------------- 610e12b1 1741 20 2 4fe0cf80 157 2 1 523d6f84 240 2 2 6666aaff 157 2 1 a6c1b7fe 1656 20 1 a9013eb1 1656 20 1 ac60133e 238 2 2 b2e0fb13 1635 20 1 c140b581 1656 20 1 d116ca79 1656 20 1 e03da130 1656 20 1 e2bb40c1 1635 20 1 e95300bf 155 2 1
Quote from: davidpbrown on December 15, 2014, 11:34:50 amBegs the question whether such forking can trigger some alarm that does have the network freeze itself.. or would that be too much a liability in itself?We perhaps need to be aware of what bad events can occur when the network does this and look to prevent any future damage. Right now, I wouldn't know what to expect of transactions put to a fork.. how would I know I'm on a fork? I guess those transactions on forks get rebroadcast once its back as one.. but is it possible to undo transactions that haven't taken yet or can that only be done by reverting to an old wallet??.. or do transactions not rebroadcast with manual intervention???Are there forks or did the network just freeze. It looks like the network is frozen with 0 forks.
Begs the question whether such forking can trigger some alarm that does have the network freeze itself.. or would that be too much a liability in itself?We perhaps need to be aware of what bad events can occur when the network does this and look to prevent any future damage. Right now, I wouldn't know what to expect of transactions put to a fork.. how would I know I'm on a fork? I guess those transactions on forks get rebroadcast once its back as one.. but is it possible to undo transactions that haven't taken yet or can that only be done by reverting to an old wallet??.. or do transactions not rebroadcast with manual intervention???
new commit in github master
TXN ID SIZE OPERATION COUNT SIGNATURE COUNT---------------------------------------------------------------------- 610e12b1 1741 20 2 dd3dd79a 1638 20 1 4fe0cf80 157 2 1 523d6f84 240 2 2 6666aaff 157 2 1 a6c1b7fe 1656 20 1 a9013eb1 1656 20 1 ac60133e 238 2 2 b2e0fb13 1635 20 1 d116ca79 1656 20 1 e03da130 1656 20 1 e2bb40c1 1635 20 1 e95300bf 155 2 1
I'm am up and working on the issue.
Quote from: emski on December 15, 2014, 11:19:14 amIt looks like BM is informed about this.any thing new ?
It looks like BM is informed about this.
Would be sweet if we had 3 teams of core developers for the 3 major time zones Americas, europe/Africa and Asia. It will probably happen eventually, it's just a matter of hiring enough talented people as delegates that's the issue.
Quote from: monsterer on December 15, 2014, 11:01:00 amQuote from: delulo on December 15, 2014, 10:56:52 amI sent a SMS to Virkam. Not sure if that helps. If possible we need shifts...Really, you want a core team member in a different timezone, that would do the trick.If one of them decides to shift base to Mumbai, I can let him bunk for free Or better still get one locally, supposedly coders are cheaper over here.
Quote from: delulo on December 15, 2014, 10:56:52 amI sent a SMS to Virkam. Not sure if that helps. If possible we need shifts...Really, you want a core team member in a different timezone, that would do the trick.
I sent a SMS to Virkam. Not sure if that helps. If possible we need shifts...
Quote from: testz on December 15, 2014, 10:42:16 amBut this is only one way to update if you wan't to keep/add other fields like managedby for example:Here it works just fine .. all other attributes are kept after publish_version ..
But this is only one way to update if you wan't to keep/add other fields like managedby for example:
Quote from: jabbajabba on December 15, 2014, 10:52:03 amCould a blockchain rescan do something to the network.It may sound weird.But just a minute before the crash i opened my wallet since weeks (v0.4.24.1) and rescaned 50k blocks.Could that have a effect on the network?AFAIK it's a local operation so i doubt it...just want to be sure .na .. you cannot write anything into blocks ... only delegates can ... and it seems one of the obsolete 0.4.24 delegates screwed it up ..
Could a blockchain rescan do something to the network.It may sound weird.But just a minute before the crash i opened my wallet since weeks (v0.4.24.1) and rescaned 50k blocks.Could that have a effect on the network?AFAIK it's a local operation so i doubt it...just want to be sure .
Quote from: svk on December 15, 2014, 10:31:25 amQuote from: testz on December 15, 2014, 10:28:58 amQuote from: monsterer on December 15, 2014, 10:24:30 amQuote from: wackou on December 15, 2014, 10:22:29 amQuote from: monsterer on December 15, 2014, 10:01:24 amIf all delegates were on the same fork, it would be 100% participation - obviously some delegates are on a different fork(s).I don't think it's a fork, it looks like it's much worse than that, my (wild, uninformed) guess is that the network is completely stalled because someone published a transaction which is now invalid according to the new rules, and no delegate is able to include it in a block and sign it (as all of them are on 0.4.26).Two are on v0.4.25, three are on a mysteriously named 0.4.26 (with missing v) and the other 96 are on v0.4.260.4.26 without v it's fine - they update version field manually.They shouldn't do that though, it means we can't tell if they've compiled the incorrect version for example.But this is only one way to update if you wan't to keep/add other fields like managedby for example:Quote>> blockchain_get_account delegate.adarinName: delegate.adarinRegistered: 2014-10-06T21:15:50Last Updated: 63 hours agoOwner Key: BTS6N9quM9WvjqmkkQ46h8dVVk6Utwbvcb4v2KdDRAPL6oR4s1Bz5Active Key History:- BTS6N9quM9WvjqmkkQ46h8dVVk6Utwbvcb4v2KdDRAPL6oR4s1Bz5, last used 70 days agoID NAME (* next in line) APPROVAL PRODUCED MISSED RELIABILITY PAY RATE PAY BALANCE LAST BLOCK VERSION ==========================================================================================================================================29313 delegate.adarin 0.25874637 % 0 0 N/A 3 % 0.00000 BTS NONE v0.4.26 Block Signing Key: BTS6N9quM9WvjqmkkQ46h8dVVk6Utwbvcb4v2KdDRAPL6oR4s1Bz5Public Data:{ "version": "v0.4.26", "managedby": "testz"}
Quote from: testz on December 15, 2014, 10:28:58 amQuote from: monsterer on December 15, 2014, 10:24:30 amQuote from: wackou on December 15, 2014, 10:22:29 amQuote from: monsterer on December 15, 2014, 10:01:24 amIf all delegates were on the same fork, it would be 100% participation - obviously some delegates are on a different fork(s).I don't think it's a fork, it looks like it's much worse than that, my (wild, uninformed) guess is that the network is completely stalled because someone published a transaction which is now invalid according to the new rules, and no delegate is able to include it in a block and sign it (as all of them are on 0.4.26).Two are on v0.4.25, three are on a mysteriously named 0.4.26 (with missing v) and the other 96 are on v0.4.260.4.26 without v it's fine - they update version field manually.They shouldn't do that though, it means we can't tell if they've compiled the incorrect version for example.
Quote from: monsterer on December 15, 2014, 10:24:30 amQuote from: wackou on December 15, 2014, 10:22:29 amQuote from: monsterer on December 15, 2014, 10:01:24 amIf all delegates were on the same fork, it would be 100% participation - obviously some delegates are on a different fork(s).I don't think it's a fork, it looks like it's much worse than that, my (wild, uninformed) guess is that the network is completely stalled because someone published a transaction which is now invalid according to the new rules, and no delegate is able to include it in a block and sign it (as all of them are on 0.4.26).Two are on v0.4.25, three are on a mysteriously named 0.4.26 (with missing v) and the other 96 are on v0.4.260.4.26 without v it's fine - they update version field manually.
Quote from: wackou on December 15, 2014, 10:22:29 amQuote from: monsterer on December 15, 2014, 10:01:24 amIf all delegates were on the same fork, it would be 100% participation - obviously some delegates are on a different fork(s).I don't think it's a fork, it looks like it's much worse than that, my (wild, uninformed) guess is that the network is completely stalled because someone published a transaction which is now invalid according to the new rules, and no delegate is able to include it in a block and sign it (as all of them are on 0.4.26).Two are on v0.4.25, three are on a mysteriously named 0.4.26 (with missing v) and the other 96 are on v0.4.26
Quote from: monsterer on December 15, 2014, 10:01:24 amIf all delegates were on the same fork, it would be 100% participation - obviously some delegates are on a different fork(s).I don't think it's a fork, it looks like it's much worse than that, my (wild, uninformed) guess is that the network is completely stalled because someone published a transaction which is now invalid according to the new rules, and no delegate is able to include it in a block and sign it (as all of them are on 0.4.26).
If all delegates were on the same fork, it would be 100% participation - obviously some delegates are on a different fork(s).
>> blockchain_get_account delegate.adarinName: delegate.adarinRegistered: 2014-10-06T21:15:50Last Updated: 63 hours agoOwner Key: BTS6N9quM9WvjqmkkQ46h8dVVk6Utwbvcb4v2KdDRAPL6oR4s1Bz5Active Key History:- BTS6N9quM9WvjqmkkQ46h8dVVk6Utwbvcb4v2KdDRAPL6oR4s1Bz5, last used 70 days agoID NAME (* next in line) APPROVAL PRODUCED MISSED RELIABILITY PAY RATE PAY BALANCE LAST BLOCK VERSION ==========================================================================================================================================29313 delegate.adarin 0.25874637 % 0 0 N/A 3 % 0.00000 BTS NONE v0.4.26 Block Signing Key: BTS6N9quM9WvjqmkkQ46h8dVVk6Utwbvcb4v2KdDRAPL6oR4s1Bz5Public Data:{ "version": "v0.4.26", "managedby": "testz"}
Does somebody know whether bter/btc38/... are reading these forums? Or if someone knows how to contact them? Because I believe that they should either: - make sure they are on 0.4.26 as all the delegates (on a frozen network, granted) - freeze deposits/withdrawals if they are still on 0.4.25 as people could do a double-spend thenReverting back to 0.4.25 for delegates on friday was the best solution as most, if not all users, were still on 0.4.25, but 0.4.26 has now been published on bitshares.org so it's hard to estimate which fork it's better to move on to...
Quote from: cube on December 15, 2014, 10:34:02 amQuote from: wackou on December 15, 2014, 10:25:57 am even though the superhero voice inside my head tells me that downgrading to v0.4.25-RC2 might solve the issue (for now, with the potential security issue open again), the reasonable voice inside my head (which usually ends up being right) says to not do anything until we have bytemaster or vikram pitch on the issue...The delegates are certainly waiting for their superheroes to appear. BM, Vikram - Help! Help!Surely, somebody has their number?If not can BM give me his number for future? I will ring him up.
Quote from: wackou on December 15, 2014, 10:25:57 am even though the superhero voice inside my head tells me that downgrading to v0.4.25-RC2 might solve the issue (for now, with the potential security issue open again), the reasonable voice inside my head (which usually ends up being right) says to not do anything until we have bytemaster or vikram pitch on the issue...The delegates are certainly waiting for their superheroes to appear. BM, Vikram - Help! Help!
even though the superhero voice inside my head tells me that downgrading to v0.4.25-RC2 might solve the issue (for now, with the potential security issue open again), the reasonable voice inside my head (which usually ends up being right) says to not do anything until we have bytemaster or vikram pitch on the issue...
Quote from: svk on December 15, 2014, 10:31:25 amQuote from: testz on December 15, 2014, 10:28:58 amQuote from: monsterer on December 15, 2014, 10:24:30 amQuote from: wackou on December 15, 2014, 10:22:29 amQuote from: monsterer on December 15, 2014, 10:01:24 amIf all delegates were on the same fork, it would be 100% participation - obviously some delegates are on a different fork(s).I don't think it's a fork, it looks like it's much worse than that, my (wild, uninformed) guess is that the network is completely stalled because someone published a transaction which is now invalid according to the new rules, and no delegate is able to include it in a block and sign it (as all of them are on 0.4.26).Two are on v0.4.25, three are on a mysteriously named 0.4.26 (with missing v) and the other 96 are on v0.4.260.4.26 without v it's fine - they update version field manually.They shouldn't do that though, it means we can't tell if they've compiled the incorrect version for example. It shouldn't be allowed to publish version manually...
hree are on a mysteriously named 0.4.26 (with missing v)
Quote from: chsln on December 15, 2014, 10:16:47 amwhat about downgrading to v 0.4.25-RC2 again?I strongly recommend no one take any action until we have official word on the matter.edit: you might make it worse by downgrading
what about downgrading to v 0.4.25-RC2 again?
Quote from: liondani on December 15, 2014, 10:11:35 amI suppose we can do anything about it until a patch release update comes from the devs?At least another 3 hours before BM can wake up ....
I suppose we can do anything about it until a patch release update comes from the devs?
I suppose exchanges have stop deposits and withdrawals , can somebody confirm?
Quote from: monsterer on December 15, 2014, 09:58:55 amQuote from: chsln on December 15, 2014, 09:56:05 am Looks like my delegate is on a fork:"blockchain_average_delegate_participation": "27.67 %",all delegates are I suppose !!!Can somebody reach bytemaster or vikram?NOW?
Quote from: chsln on December 15, 2014, 09:56:05 am Looks like my delegate is on a fork:"blockchain_average_delegate_participation": "27.67 %",
Quote from: liondani on December 15, 2014, 10:00:04 amQuote from: monsterer on December 15, 2014, 09:58:55 amQuote from: chsln on December 15, 2014, 09:56:05 am Looks like my delegate is on a fork:"blockchain_average_delegate_participation": "27.67 %",all delegates are I suppose !!!Can somebody reach bytemaster or vikram?NOW?If all delegates were on the same fork, it would be 100% participation - obviously some delegates are on a different fork(s).
{"trx_num":10} th_a chain_database.cpp:735 apply_transactionsff564df8aa75aae05fe653e9da994463ed3de037: 30007 duplicate_transaction: duplicate transaction {"trx_id":"26e39dec4da5cbf259f6f0fbbb1ec6b851ed3fc0"} th_a transaction_evaluation_state.cpp:208 evaluate {"trx":{"expiration":"2014-12-13T05:59:30","delegate_slate_id":null,"operations":[{"type":"update_feed_op_type","data":{"feed":{"feed_id":18,"delegate_id":10879},"value":{"ratio":"0.002063053930077422","quote_asset_id":18,"base_asset_id":0}}},{"type":"update_feed_op_type","data":{"feed":{"feed_id":4,"delegate_id":10879},"value":{"ratio":"0.048633818654512256","quote_asset_id":4,"base_asset_id":0}}},{"type":"update_feed_op_type","data":{"feed":{"feed_id":16,"delegate_id":10879},"value":{"ratio":"0.001970295508210492","quote_asset_id":16,"base_asset_id":0}}},{"type":"update_feed_op_type","data":{"feed":{"feed_id":17,"delegate_id":10879},"value":{"ratio":"0.001639794128077247","quote_asset_id":17,"base_asset_id":0}}},{"type":"update_feed_op_type","data":{"feed":{"feed_id":14,"delegate_id":10879},"value":{"ratio":"0.010521575043394854","quote_asset_id":14,"base_asset_id":0}}},{"type":"update_feed_op_type","data":{"feed":{"feed_id":21,"delegate_id":10879},"value":{"ratio":"0.001365108666025929","quote_asset_id":21,"base_asset_id":0}}},{"type":"update_feed_op_type","data":{"feed":{"feed_id":19,"delegate_id":10879},"value":{"ratio":"0.001082522253551607","quote_asset_id":19,"base_asset_id":0}}},{"type":"update_feed_op_type","data":{"feed":{"feed_id":7,"delegate_id":10879},"value":{"ratio":"0.000139219808619081","quote_asset_id":7,"base_asset_id":0}}},{"type":"update_feed_op_type","data":{"feed":{"feed_id":10,"delegate_id":10879},"value":{"ratio":"0.013188236454493424","quote_asset_id":10,"base_asset_id":0}}},{"type":"update_feed_op_type","data":{"feed":{"feed_id":20,"delegate_id":10879},"value":{"ratio":"0.002019496169557553","quote_asset_id":20,"base_asset_id":0}}},{"type":"update_feed_op_type","data":{"feed":{"feed_id":3,"delegate_id":10879},"value":{"ratio":"1.878852686320509312","quote_asset_id":3,"base_asset_id":0}}},{"type":"update_feed_op_type","data":{"feed":{"feed_id":15,"delegate_id":10879},"value":{"ratio":"0.025117152168524356","quote_asset_id":15,"base_asset_id":0}}},{"type":"update_feed_op_type","data":{"feed":{"feed_id":13,"delegate_id":10879},"value":{"ratio":"0.002187847007422356","quote_asset_id":13,"base_asset_id":0}}},{"type":"update_feed_op_type","data":{"feed":{"feed_id":11,"delegate_id":10879},"value":{"ratio":"0.09898000981556776","quote_asset_id":11,"base_asset_id":0}}},{"type":"update_feed_op_type","data":{"feed":{"feed_id":12,"delegate_id":10879},"value":{"ratio":"0.012843719535394108","quote_asset_id":12,"base_asset_id":0}}},{"type":"update_feed_op_type","data":{"feed":{"feed_id":9,"delegate_id":10879},"value":{"ratio":"0.002235493783919358","quote_asset_id":9,"base_asset_id":0}}},{"type":"update_feed_op_type","data":{"feed":{"feed_id":6,"delegate_id":10879},"value":{"ratio":"0.000099970973263619","quote_asset_id":6,"base_asset_id":0}}},{"type":"update_feed_op_type","data":{"feed":{"feed_id":8,"delegate_id":10879},"value":{"ratio":"0.003910639302506914","quote_asset_id":8,"base_asset_id":0}}},{"type":"update_feed_op_type","data":{"feed":{"feed_id":22,"delegate_id":10879},"value":{"ratio":"0.001701391478694531","quote_asset_id":22,"base_asset_id":0}}},{"type":"withdraw_pay_op_type","data":{"amount":50000,"account_id":10879}}],"signatures":["1f2394fdd8a80f093e5d10864a3cc38e0db3fbdfb6bfdd782e872655b8714ee2ef7f188dd3933393c62108f9fed258841b1cdeb7c9d8731b97f8c9218f5bef9f19"]}} th_a transaction_evaluation_state.cpp:239 evaluate {"trx_num":0} th_a chain_database.cpp:735 apply_transactions