wallet_withdraw_delegate_pay seems still generate a fork.

Code: [Select]

delegate (unlocked) >>> blockchain_list_forks
[
  5624,
  11312,
  11338,
  21322,
  21325,
  21340,
  21449
]
delegate (unlocked) >>> info
{
  "blockchain_head_block_num": 21589,
  "blockchain_head_block_time": "20140619T021600",
  "blockchain_head_block_time_rel": "10 seconds old",
  "blockchain_confirmation_requirement": 1,
  "blockchain_average_delegate_participation": 73.596358118361152,
  "network_num_connections": 1,
  "ntp_time": "20140619T021610.662404",
  "ntp_error_seconds": -0.0084840000000000002,
  "wallet_unlocked_seconds_remaining": 99999960,
  "wallet_next_block_production_time": "20140619T021615",
  "wallet_seconds_until_next_block_production": 5,
  "wallet_local_time": "20140619T021610",
  "blockchain_random_seed": "2c8b569da33e1990d77d46dfdfcfc43a17d8106f",
  "blockchain_shares": 10001009030968,
  "network_num_connections_max": 999,
  "network_protocol_version": 101,
  "wallet_open": true,
  "wallet_unlocked_until": "20170819T120210",
  "wallet_version": 100
}
delegate (unlocked) >>> wallet_withdraw_delegate_pay init-delegate-17 delegate-alt 23 "withdraw"
10 assert_exception: Assert Exception
delegate_account_record->delegate_info->pay_balance >= (amount_to_withdraw + required_fees.amount):
    {"delegate_account_record":{"id":17,"name":"init-delegate-17","public_data":null,"owner_key":"XTS57VJ3pc85WWJWCwNzPBcwNHEqHstavbhgFfHgc8nTmCchXGJAM","active_key_his
tory":[["20140618T234015","XTS57VJ3pc85WWJWCwNzPBcwNHEqHstavbhgFfHgc8nTmCchXGJAM"]],"registration_date":"20140601T000000","last_update":"20140601T000000","delegate_info
":{"votes_for":87931672469,"votes_against":0,"blocks_produced":335,"blocks_missed":24,"pay_balance":971565,"next_secret_hash":"ffed3e1abe7f8aa03abb6a8c67de1b3eae31433d"
,"last_block_num_produced":21408},"meta_data":null}}
    th_a  wallet.cpp:1364 withdraw_delegate_pay

    {"delegate_name":"init-delegate-17","amount_to_withdraw":23}
    th_a  wallet.cpp:1405 withdraw_delegate_pay

    {}
    th_a  common_api_client.cpp:652 wallet_withdraw_delegate_pay

    {"command":"wallet_withdraw_delegate_pay"}
    th_a  cli.cpp:580 execute_command
delegate (unlocked) >>> blockchain_list_forks                                                                                                                           
[
  5624,
  11312,
  11338,
  21322,
  21325,
  21340,
  21449,
  21589
]
client will choose to the main chain automatic.
another problem is the balance is add 23 XTS,  and this block will list in the history with blk is 0.0

Code: [Select]

delegate (unlocked) >>> wallet_account_balance                                                                                                                         
delegate-alt:
...
    25.774298 XTS
delegate (unlocked) >>> wallet_account_transaction_history     
...
  21385.0    2014-06-19T01:07:00 dorian              delegate-alt        ...                                  9,923.000000 DRINK        0.000000 XTS        038cc1cb
  21386.0    2014-06-19T01:07:15 dorian              delegate-alt        ...                                      20.000000 LOVE        0.000000 XTS        2b7c117a
      0.0    2014-06-19T02:16:15 init-delegate-17    delegate-alt        withdraw                             23.000000 XTS        0.000000 XTS        44a7d36c


I've done the following and I see no issues (except one pending transaction):
emski (unlocked) >>> wallet_account_transaction_history
    BLK.TRX  TIMESTAMP           FROM                TO                  MEMO                                             AMOUNT             FEE              ID
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  22245.0    2014-06-19T06:11:15 init-delegate-4     emski               payday                                     1.000000 XTS        0.010000 XTS        74a7399a
  22251.0    2014-06-19T06:14:30 init-delegate-1     emski               payday                                     0.100000 XTS        0.010000 XTS        25058cfd
   pending   2014-06-19T06:14:42 init-delegate-1     emski               payday                                     0.500000 XTS        0.010000 XTS        923bb6ee
  22252.0    2014-06-19T06:14:45 init-delegate-1     emski               payday                                     0.500000 XTS        0.010000 XTS        e1e666c8
  22257.0    2014-06-19T06:17:45 init-delegate-1     emski               payday                                     0.040000 XTS        0.010000 XTS        ccd77580
  22259.0    2014-06-19T06:18:45 init-delegate-2     emski               payday                                    22.000000 XTS        0.010000 XTS        5aa7bbba
  22262.1    2014-06-19T06:20:00 init-delegate-3     emski               payday                                    21.000000 XTS        0.010000 XTS        1dcd873f
  22262.0    2014-06-19T06:20:00 init-delegate-2     emski               payday                                     0.011000 XTS        0.010000 XTS        09e69e5b
  22263.0    2014-06-19T06:20:45 init-delegate-4     emski               payday                                    21.000000 XTS        0.010000 XTS        6b59416f
  22263.1    2014-06-19T06:20:45 init-delegate-25    emski               payday                                    22.000000 XTS        0.010000 XTS        ccba5442
  22276.0    2014-06-19T06:27:45 emski               emski               register emski                             0.000000 XTS        0.010001 XTS        99f63e17
  22279.1    2014-06-19T06:30:00 emski               emski               update emski                               0.000000 XTS        0.010002 XTS        7aaa97e4
  22279.0    2014-06-19T06:30:00 emski               emski               update emski as a delegate                 0.000000 XTS       10.495714 XTS        9988b6dd
emski (unlocked) >>> wallet_account_balance
emski:
    77.135283 XTS
emski (unlocked) >>> blockchain_list_forks
[
  5624,
  11312,
  11338,
  20506,
  21322,
  21325,
  21340,
  21449,
  21788,
  21934,
  22011,
  22139,
  22160,
  22171,
  22236
]
--- there are now 23 active connections to the p2p network
--- in sync with p2p network
emski (unlocked) >>> get_info
{
  "blockchain_head_block_num": 22296,
  "blockchain_head_block_time": "20140619T063945",
  "blockchain_head_block_time_rel": "14 seconds old",
  "blockchain_confirmation_requirement": 254,
  "blockchain_average_delegate_participation": 68.648266100495405,
  "network_num_connections": 23,
  "ntp_time": "20140619T063959.374775",
  "ntp_error_seconds": -0.002032,
  "wallet_unlocked_seconds_remaining": 99959227,
  "wallet_next_block_production_time": "20140619T064345",
  "wallet_seconds_until_next_block_production": 226,
  "wallet_local_time": "20140619T063959",
  "blockchain_random_seed": "1773c2f0abffa39c3cf82c296076c6270a4d9126",
  "blockchain_shares": 10001026424724,
  "network_num_connections_max": 60,
  "network_protocol_version": 101,
  "wallet_open": true,
  "wallet_unlocked_until": "20170819T050706",
  "wallet_version": 100
}
emski (unlocked) >>> about
{
  "bitshares_toolkit_revision": "c21fdf60ab39798102662080ff896da73443d6f2",
  "bitshares_toolkit_revision_age": "13 hours ago",
  "fc_revision": "9002b024693a8ac749a4d5f0b64821b2a1e8eab9",
  "fc_revision_age": "35 hours ago",
  "compile_date": "compiled on Jun 18 2014 at 22:17:43"
}


We will probably say something like "unelected-yourusername-xx"

Well that is what i didnt like in the first place.
What is the reasoning in this?
Why not leave the names as is? They have low votes and the stake decides what should happen?
You have enough stake to do whatever you want anyway.... at least in the beginning.

We are going to initialize all initial delegates with 'negative votes' which will still result in them producing blocks until votes are allocated by shareholders to a share-holder approved vote.

That sounds good but what about the names? Will they be "untrusted-delegate-XX"?

XTS6TMMu8B5MBEgj2kg9pGF8dzrWBtj5CpKHHQxM3x4EsvD4mJMUK  should be named "init-delegate-1" (is currently init-delegate-1).
XTS7diW1nWPWrxkwuqXkwmxFN4qrQ7jyVNcRhqGqrriVvK2udynhD  should be named "Angel" (is currently init-delegate-2).
XTS7bUdQ41J4vhNVBkmbqDKGiftrmQNrL1vCx881Fg4R2hE5r6P2Z  should be named "Investor" (is currently init-delegate-3).
XTS6XtS7F5Fy3dUVSUKHJHN1dC66VaruRFkKmo8um6QB24Xsf2mzF  should be named "Democratic" (is currently init-delegate-4).
XTS8ZhbpwEgwgV1gjCNrYfMDxsB6diofNtsg1m4yN62Zii1EwpK7B  should be named "Gamble" (is currently init-delegate-25).

I'd be really happy to see some comments on this:

Here is a proposal that sounds right to me:

1 Give all of the initial delegates the names they want
2 Assign the total trust to ALL initial delegates to no more than 0.01% of all shares
3 Assign ONE special untrusted-delegate with 99.99% of the votes and never enable it. (throw its private key into the deepest river you can find)
4 Let the people rule

Is there something wrong with the above ?

PS: I know how hard it is to organize everything. You are doing great job. Keep going.

PPS: If point 3 is difficult due to the max 2% per delegate you can use 50 special untrusted-delegates and destroy all their keys.

But seriously it makes no difference, for the real thing we will call everyone "untrusted-delegate-do-not-vote-XX".

Why should you do that?
The delegates participating in the test runs are the best you/we have (at the moment in the universe?).
Anyone is free to register new delegate.
The initial delegates could start with insignificant amount of votes so that they can be voted out if they arent "good" enough.
What is the reasoning in naming them untrusted-delegate?

Quote from: bytemaster on June 17, 2014, 04:14:26 pm

I edited the post to reflect that with the new protocol it does not require a 2-step process and thus the transfer is not reversible.

One more question: From my understanding we have instant confirmation (or maybe 30 sec) here .. is this true .. No real need to wait for 6 confirmations .. a single one must be sufficient?!?

It shouldnt be sufficient because forks are still real possibility. But lets someone with more knowledge elaborate.

Do not produce any block for 12 min or I am on the forked chain

Code: [Select]

info
{
  "blockchain_head_block_num": 13112,
  "blockchain_head_block_time": "20140617T034415",
  "blockchain_head_block_time_rel": "12 minutes old",
  "blockchain_confirmation_requirement": 291,
  "blockchain_average_delegate_participation": 50.259067357512954,
  "network_num_connections": 7,
  "ntp_time": "20140617T035550.088785",
  "ntp_error_seconds": -0.010285000000000001,
  "wallet_unlocked_seconds_remaining": 9988922,
  "wallet_next_block_production_time": "20140617T040100",
  "wallet_seconds_until_next_block_production": 310,
  "wallet_local_time": "20140617T035550",
  "blockchain_random_seed": "7e1a30ee30277f7cd7c090f8487b584bf5624f52",
  "blockchain_shares": 10000458377029,
  "network_num_connections_max": 12,
  "network_protocol_version": 101,
  "wallet_open": true,
  "wallet_unlocked_until": "20141010T183752",
  "wallet_version": 100
}

Here is mine:
emski (unlocked) >>> get_info
{
  "blockchain_head_block_num": 13543,
  "blockchain_head_block_time": "20140617T035900",
  "blockchain_head_block_time_rel": "10 seconds old",
  "blockchain_confirmation_requirement": 7,
  "blockchain_average_delegate_participation": 73.262839879154072,
  "network_num_connections": 27,
  "ntp_time": "20140617T035910.362611",
  "ntp_error_seconds": 3.6413069999999998,
  "wallet_unlocked_seconds_remaining": 2891989745,
  "wallet_next_block_production_time": "20140617T040000",
  "wallet_seconds_until_next_block_production": 50,
  "wallet_local_time": "20140617T035910",
  "blockchain_random_seed": "b3dc1e136fdabc070a7d8a141b0c6b6202c70c86",
  "blockchain_shares": 10000487430311,
  "network_num_connections_max": 60,
  "network_protocol_version": 101,
  "wallet_open": true,
  "wallet_unlocked_until": "19691231T235959",
  "wallet_version": 100
}
--- there are now 27 active connections to the p2p network