BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: sparkles on November 28, 2014, 08:14:52 pm
-
I have started a test network and will honor all blocks produced in the genesis of the real network.
https://github.com/sparkle5/Sparkle/releases/tag/alpha.1
Download the client... to enable mining go to console and type"
"wallet_enable_mining account_to_mine_with true"
Once you have enough connections your computer will start mining.
As Bytemaster suggested I will honor all mined blocks from the test network in the real network genesis block.
-
I am looking for someone to maintain the windows binary. It will be a paid position once the network launches.
Anyone game?
-
Can someone please translate this into Chinese?
-
(gdb) r
Starting program: /root/sparkle/programs/client/sparkle_client
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1".
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::bad_alloc'
what(): std::bad_alloc
Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
0x00007ffff65f5bb9 in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:56
56 ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c: No such file or directory.
(gdb) bt
#0 0x00007ffff65f5bb9 in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:56
#1 0x00007ffff65f8fc8 in __GI_abort () at abort.c:89
#2 0x00007ffff6f016b5 in __gnu_cxx::__verbose_terminate_handler() () from /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6
#3 0x00007ffff6eff836 in ?? () from /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6
#4 0x00007ffff6eff863 in std::terminate() () from /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6
#5 0x00007ffff6effaf6 in __cxa_rethrow () from /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6
#6 0x0000000000859262 in std::__shared_count<(__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)2>::__shared_count<bts::client::client, std::allocator<bts::client::client>, char const (&) [15]> (this=<optimized out>, __a=...) at /usr/include/c++/4.8/bits/shared_ptr_base.h:509
#7 0x00000000008592b6 in std::__shared_ptr<bts::client::client, (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)2>::__shared_ptr<std::allocator<bts::client::client>, char const (&) [15]> (this=this@entry=0x7fffffffe110, __tag=__tag@entry=..., __a=...)
at /usr/include/c++/4.8/bits/shared_ptr_base.h:957
#8 0x0000000000856070 in shared_ptr<std::allocator<bts::client::client>, char const (&) [15]> (__a=..., __tag=..., this=0x7fffffffe110) at /usr/include/c++/4.8/bits/shared_ptr.h:316
#9 allocate_shared<bts::client::client, std::allocator<bts::client::client>, char const (&) [15]> (__a=...) at /usr/include/c++/4.8/bits/shared_ptr.h:598
#10 make_shared<bts::client::client, char const (&) [15]> () at /usr/include/c++/4.8/bits/shared_ptr.h:614
#11 main (argc=1, argv=0x7fffffffe288) at /root/sparkle/programs/client/main.cpp:31
(gdb)
:(
-
(gdb) r
Starting program: /root/sparkle/programs/client/sparkle_client
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1".
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::bad_alloc'
what(): std::bad_alloc
Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
0x00007ffff65f5bb9 in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:56
56 ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c: No such file or directory.
(gdb) bt
#0 0x00007ffff65f5bb9 in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:56
#1 0x00007ffff65f8fc8 in __GI_abort () at abort.c:89
#2 0x00007ffff6f016b5 in __gnu_cxx::__verbose_terminate_handler() () from /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6
#3 0x00007ffff6eff836 in ?? () from /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6
#4 0x00007ffff6eff863 in std::terminate() () from /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6
#5 0x00007ffff6effaf6 in __cxa_rethrow () from /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6
#6 0x0000000000859262 in std::__shared_count<(__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)2>::__shared_count<bts::client::client, std::allocator<bts::client::client>, char const (&) [15]> (this=<optimized out>, __a=...) at /usr/include/c++/4.8/bits/shared_ptr_base.h:509
#7 0x00000000008592b6 in std::__shared_ptr<bts::client::client, (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)2>::__shared_ptr<std::allocator<bts::client::client>, char const (&) [15]> (this=this@entry=0x7fffffffe110, __tag=__tag@entry=..., __a=...)
at /usr/include/c++/4.8/bits/shared_ptr_base.h:957
#8 0x0000000000856070 in shared_ptr<std::allocator<bts::client::client>, char const (&) [15]> (__a=..., __tag=..., this=0x7fffffffe110) at /usr/include/c++/4.8/bits/shared_ptr.h:316
#9 allocate_shared<bts::client::client, std::allocator<bts::client::client>, char const (&) [15]> (__a=...) at /usr/include/c++/4.8/bits/shared_ptr.h:598
#10 make_shared<bts::client::client, char const (&) [15]> () at /usr/include/c++/4.8/bits/shared_ptr.h:614
#11 main (argc=1, argv=0x7fffffffe288) at /root/sparkle/programs/client/main.cpp:31
(gdb)
:(
Fixed..
-
Sweet. Might want to update the tag.
miner 49.99995 SPK
-
HEIGHT TIMESTAMP SIGNING DELEGATE # TXS SIZE LATENCY PROCESSING TIME
===================================================================================================
162 2014-11-28T21:36:47 SPK9wuGT1w3JUKZNCmwwUyFgh8B9... 0 92 0 0.003318
161 2014-11-28T21:36:05 SPK7rYgHnMKDYHxuXnN129yVceGY... 0 92 0 0.004409
160 2014-11-28T21:34:00 SPK7rYgHnMKDYHxuXnN129yVceGY... 0 92 0 0.000366
159 2014-11-28T21:33:47 SPK9wuGT1w3JUKZNCmwwUyFgh8B9... 0 92 0 0.000386
158 2014-11-28T21:33:35 SPK9wuGT1w3JUKZNCmwwUyFgh8B9... 0 92 0 0.000445
Are you SPK7rYgHnMKDYHxuXnN129yVceGY?
-
Nope.
-
I fixed a bug in difficulty adjustment that will cause a hard fork. There are only about 4 clients connected so the fork is effective immediately. It is backward compatible with all existing blocks, the difficulty should adjust better going forward.
-
Are there any nodes yet, that we can manually add?
EDIT: Okay it already found connections by itself.
-
Are there any nodes yet, that we can manually add?
EDIT: Okay it already found connections by itself.
Could you list some peers please?
-
162.243.160.72:52620
104.131.0.131:1765
98.240.161.119:59647
104.236.44.210:41655
162.213.195.203:1765
-
162.243.160.72:52620
104.131.0.131:1765
98.240.161.119:59647
104.236.44.210:41655
162.213.195.203:1765
Thank you 8)
-
https://github.com/sparkle5/Sparkle/releases
New client out with 4x faster mining and hard fork at block 10,000.
-
Now I don't have to run multiple clients =D
-
could this work on windows?
just build like bitshares?
-
could this work on windows?
just build like bitshares?
Yes. It should work on windows if you build like BTS. If you can build a windows release that would be very helpful.
-
cgafeng (unlocked) >>> getinfo
{
"blockchain_head_block_num": 1123,
"blockchain_head_block_age": "53 seconds old",
"blockchain_head_block_timestamp": "2014-11-29T02:35:55",
"blockchain_difficulty": 2809,
"blockchain_confirmation_requirement": 6,
"blockchain_share_supply": "2,000,056,149.79457 SPK",
"blockchain_random_seed": "d7ad990009893245b4272208edf05bf761a442a4",
"client_data_dir": "E:/code/Sparkle/vs2013/programs/client/data",
"client_version": "alpha.4-testnet-65",
"network_num_connections": 3,
"network_num_connections_max": 200,
"network_chain_downloader_running": false,
"network_chain_downloader_blocks_remaining": null,
"ntp_time": "2014-11-29T02:36:48",
"ntp_time_error": 0.775424,
"wallet_open": true,
"wallet_unlocked": true,
"wallet_unlocked_until": "12 days in the future",
"wallet_unlocked_until_timestamp": "2014-12-10T16:17:33",
"wallet_last_scanned_block_timestamp": "2014-11-29T02:35:55",
"wallet_scan_progress": "100.00 %",
"wallet_block_production_enabled": true,
"blockchain_average_delegate_participation": null,
"blockchain_next_round_timestamp": null,
"wallet_next_block_production_timestamp": null
}
looks like work, any information that it is mining or not?
and how much connect need to mine?
-
I'm mining but when I restart the client it all goes away. I'm on Alpha.4, is there a newer one now?
-
I'm mining but when I restart the client it all goes away. I'm on Alpha.4, is there a newer one now?
Alpha.4 is the latest, you mean your balance goes away? As though you're mining on minority forks? How many connections are you getting?
Does this look like the chain you're on?
HEIGHT TIMESTAMP SIGNING DELEGATE # TXS SIZE LATENCY PROCESSING TIME
===================================================================================================
1159 2014-11-29T03:01:48 SPKBaYaxrhTTEuj3nWhBnW6CwjQZ... 0 92 0 0.000998
1158 2014-11-29T03:01:23 SPKL6JFtCBGX8uuxuTUxkWD5xbTH... 0 92 0 0.001158
1157 2014-11-29T03:00:41 SPKAFpNart3RcJLei55W3B3QmrSW... 0 92 0 0.001541
1156 2014-11-29T03:00:28 SPKLRYV4dq6taqtm8XMjqUFnSbMT... 0 92 0 0.000998
1155 2014-11-29T03:00:04 SPKBJWn8uiGFL8XXGLGphm4Pufht... 0 92 0 0.001018
1154 2014-11-29T02:59:31 SPK7Zyv3DeS2uqsDZ6Wc5X8hFrtT... 0 92 0 0.001014
1153 2014-11-29T02:59:20 SPKAFpNart3RcJLei55W3B3QmrSW... 0 92 0 0.000999
1152 2014-11-29T02:58:27 SPKGkJ3Z7VpHrWzHwsh67YU9fKyV... 0 92 0 0.001103
1151 2014-11-29T02:58:07 SPK7Zyv3DeS2uqsDZ6Wc5X8hFrtT... 0 92 0 0.000898
1150 2014-11-29T02:57:49 SPKKNtcwD1EWzPgzxE9xb2JML7wv... 0 92 0 0.001085
1149 2014-11-29T02:57:12 SPKAFpNart3RcJLei55W3B3QmrSW... 0 92 0 0.000993
1148 2014-11-29T02:57:00 SPKAFpNart3RcJLei55W3B3QmrSW... 0 92 0 0.00088
1147 2014-11-29T02:54:59 SPKBaYaxrhTTEuj3nWhBnW6CwjQZ... 0 92 0 0.00104
1146 2014-11-29T02:53:57 SPKDi5ZQkS315VXDNSceNjQyZ5U2... 0 92 0 0.001047
1145 2014-11-29T02:53:42 SPKDi5ZQkS315VXDNSceNjQyZ5U2... 0 92 0 0.001011
1144 2014-11-29T02:53:38 SPKDi5ZQkS315VXDNSceNjQyZ5U2... 0 92 0 0.001256
1143 2014-11-29T02:51:44 SPKGkJ3Z7VpHrWzHwsh67YU9fKyV... 0 92 10 0.000725
1142 2014-11-29T02:49:18 SPKKNtcwD1EWzPgzxE9xb2JML7wv... 0 92 156 0.000757
1141 2014-11-29T02:49:05 SPKGkJ3Z7VpHrWzHwsh67YU9fKyV... 0 92 169 0.000699
1140 2014-11-29T02:48:26 SPKL6JFtCBGX8uuxuTUxkWD5xbTH... 0 92 208 0.000714
-
Ya, I'm on the wrong chain I guess. I deleted everything (except my wallet) and built Alpha.4. I'll try again. Thanks :) .
checked out the wrong version. Rookie mistake. ::)
-
This is the first coin I've ever mined.. 8)
-
I share a windows release on dropbox.
this can't work on other compute, erase.
-
HEIGHT TIMESTAMP SIGNING DELEGATE # TXS SIZE LATENCY PROCESSING TIME
===================================================================================================
1159 2014-11-29T03:01:48 SPKBaYaxrhTTEuj3nWhBnW6CwjQZ... 0 92 0 0.000998
1158 2014-11-29T03:01:23 SPKL6JFtCBGX8uuxuTUxkWD5xbTH... 0 92 0 0.001158
1157 2014-11-29T03:00:41 SPKAFpNart3RcJLei55W3B3QmrSW... 0 92 0 0.001541
1156 2014-11-29T03:00:28 SPKLRYV4dq6taqtm8XMjqUFnSbMT... 0 92 0 0.000998
1155 2014-11-29T03:00:04 SPKBJWn8uiGFL8XXGLGphm4Pufht... 0 92 0 0.001018
1154 2014-11-29T02:59:31 SPK7Zyv3DeS2uqsDZ6Wc5X8hFrtT... 0 92 0 0.001014
1153 2014-11-29T02:59:20 SPKAFpNart3RcJLei55W3B3QmrSW... 0 92 0 0.000999
1152 2014-11-29T02:58:27 SPKGkJ3Z7VpHrWzHwsh67YU9fKyV... 0 92 0 0.001103
1151 2014-11-29T02:58:07 SPK7Zyv3DeS2uqsDZ6Wc5X8hFrtT... 0 92 0 0.000898
1150 2014-11-29T02:57:49 SPKKNtcwD1EWzPgzxE9xb2JML7wv... 0 92 0 0.001085
1149 2014-11-29T02:57:12 SPKAFpNart3RcJLei55W3B3QmrSW... 0 92 0 0.000993
1148 2014-11-29T02:57:00 SPKAFpNart3RcJLei55W3B3QmrSW... 0 92 0 0.00088
1147 2014-11-29T02:54:59 SPKBaYaxrhTTEuj3nWhBnW6CwjQZ... 0 92 0 0.00104
1146 2014-11-29T02:53:57 SPKDi5ZQkS315VXDNSceNjQyZ5U2... 0 92 0 0.001047
1145 2014-11-29T02:53:42 SPKDi5ZQkS315VXDNSceNjQyZ5U2... 0 92 0 0.001011
1144 2014-11-29T02:53:38 SPKDi5ZQkS315VXDNSceNjQyZ5U2... 0 92 0 0.001256
1143 2014-11-29T02:51:44 SPKGkJ3Z7VpHrWzHwsh67YU9fKyV... 0 92 10 0.000725
1142 2014-11-29T02:49:18 SPKKNtcwD1EWzPgzxE9xb2JML7wv... 0 92 156 0.000757
1141 2014-11-29T02:49:05 SPKGkJ3Z7VpHrWzHwsh67YU9fKyV... 0 92 169 0.000699
1140 2014-11-29T02:48:26 SPKL6JFtCBGX8uuxuTUxkWD5xbTH... 0 92 208 0.000714
What is the command to produce this ^^? Thanks.
-
HEIGHT TIMESTAMP SIGNING DELEGATE # TXS SIZE LATENCY PROCESSING TIME
===================================================================================================
1159 2014-11-29T03:01:48 SPKBaYaxrhTTEuj3nWhBnW6CwjQZ... 0 92 0 0.000998
1158 2014-11-29T03:01:23 SPKL6JFtCBGX8uuxuTUxkWD5xbTH... 0 92 0 0.001158
1157 2014-11-29T03:00:41 SPKAFpNart3RcJLei55W3B3QmrSW... 0 92 0 0.001541
1156 2014-11-29T03:00:28 SPKLRYV4dq6taqtm8XMjqUFnSbMT... 0 92 0 0.000998
1155 2014-11-29T03:00:04 SPKBJWn8uiGFL8XXGLGphm4Pufht... 0 92 0 0.001018
1154 2014-11-29T02:59:31 SPK7Zyv3DeS2uqsDZ6Wc5X8hFrtT... 0 92 0 0.001014
1153 2014-11-29T02:59:20 SPKAFpNart3RcJLei55W3B3QmrSW... 0 92 0 0.000999
1152 2014-11-29T02:58:27 SPKGkJ3Z7VpHrWzHwsh67YU9fKyV... 0 92 0 0.001103
1151 2014-11-29T02:58:07 SPK7Zyv3DeS2uqsDZ6Wc5X8hFrtT... 0 92 0 0.000898
1150 2014-11-29T02:57:49 SPKKNtcwD1EWzPgzxE9xb2JML7wv... 0 92 0 0.001085
1149 2014-11-29T02:57:12 SPKAFpNart3RcJLei55W3B3QmrSW... 0 92 0 0.000993
1148 2014-11-29T02:57:00 SPKAFpNart3RcJLei55W3B3QmrSW... 0 92 0 0.00088
1147 2014-11-29T02:54:59 SPKBaYaxrhTTEuj3nWhBnW6CwjQZ... 0 92 0 0.00104
1146 2014-11-29T02:53:57 SPKDi5ZQkS315VXDNSceNjQyZ5U2... 0 92 0 0.001047
1145 2014-11-29T02:53:42 SPKDi5ZQkS315VXDNSceNjQyZ5U2... 0 92 0 0.001011
1144 2014-11-29T02:53:38 SPKDi5ZQkS315VXDNSceNjQyZ5U2... 0 92 0 0.001256
1143 2014-11-29T02:51:44 SPKGkJ3Z7VpHrWzHwsh67YU9fKyV... 0 92 10 0.000725
1142 2014-11-29T02:49:18 SPKKNtcwD1EWzPgzxE9xb2JML7wv... 0 92 156 0.000757
1141 2014-11-29T02:49:05 SPKGkJ3Z7VpHrWzHwsh67YU9fKyV... 0 92 169 0.000699
1140 2014-11-29T02:48:26 SPKL6JFtCBGX8uuxuTUxkWD5xbTH... 0 92 208 0.000714
What is the command to produce this ^^? Thanks.
I think is blockchain_list_blocks
-
HEIGHT TIMESTAMP SIGNING DELEGATE # TXS SIZE LATENCY PROCESSING TIME
===================================================================================================
1159 2014-11-29T03:01:48 SPKBaYaxrhTTEuj3nWhBnW6CwjQZ... 0 92 0 0.000998
1158 2014-11-29T03:01:23 SPKL6JFtCBGX8uuxuTUxkWD5xbTH... 0 92 0 0.001158
1157 2014-11-29T03:00:41 SPKAFpNart3RcJLei55W3B3QmrSW... 0 92 0 0.001541
1156 2014-11-29T03:00:28 SPKLRYV4dq6taqtm8XMjqUFnSbMT... 0 92 0 0.000998
1155 2014-11-29T03:00:04 SPKBJWn8uiGFL8XXGLGphm4Pufht... 0 92 0 0.001018
1154 2014-11-29T02:59:31 SPK7Zyv3DeS2uqsDZ6Wc5X8hFrtT... 0 92 0 0.001014
1153 2014-11-29T02:59:20 SPKAFpNart3RcJLei55W3B3QmrSW... 0 92 0 0.000999
1152 2014-11-29T02:58:27 SPKGkJ3Z7VpHrWzHwsh67YU9fKyV... 0 92 0 0.001103
1151 2014-11-29T02:58:07 SPK7Zyv3DeS2uqsDZ6Wc5X8hFrtT... 0 92 0 0.000898
1150 2014-11-29T02:57:49 SPKKNtcwD1EWzPgzxE9xb2JML7wv... 0 92 0 0.001085
1149 2014-11-29T02:57:12 SPKAFpNart3RcJLei55W3B3QmrSW... 0 92 0 0.000993
1148 2014-11-29T02:57:00 SPKAFpNart3RcJLei55W3B3QmrSW... 0 92 0 0.00088
1147 2014-11-29T02:54:59 SPKBaYaxrhTTEuj3nWhBnW6CwjQZ... 0 92 0 0.00104
1146 2014-11-29T02:53:57 SPKDi5ZQkS315VXDNSceNjQyZ5U2... 0 92 0 0.001047
1145 2014-11-29T02:53:42 SPKDi5ZQkS315VXDNSceNjQyZ5U2... 0 92 0 0.001011
1144 2014-11-29T02:53:38 SPKDi5ZQkS315VXDNSceNjQyZ5U2... 0 92 0 0.001256
1143 2014-11-29T02:51:44 SPKGkJ3Z7VpHrWzHwsh67YU9fKyV... 0 92 10 0.000725
1142 2014-11-29T02:49:18 SPKKNtcwD1EWzPgzxE9xb2JML7wv... 0 92 156 0.000757
1141 2014-11-29T02:49:05 SPKGkJ3Z7VpHrWzHwsh67YU9fKyV... 0 92 169 0.000699
1140 2014-11-29T02:48:26 SPKL6JFtCBGX8uuxuTUxkWD5xbTH... 0 92 208 0.000714
What is the command to produce this ^^? Thanks.
I think is blockchain_list_blocks
That is correct.
-
So with POW mining can we have two of the same wallets running clients on different machines mining? This obviously causes issues with DPOS but not sure about POW.
My thinking is it should be fine.
-
So with POW mining can we have two of the same wallets running clients on different machines mining? This obviously causes issues with DPOS but not sure about POW.
My thinking is it should be fine.
Yeah, there's no scheduling, so the fork resolution should work the same even if the conflicting blocks are from the same key.
-
I share a windows release on dropbox.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2bqmi1i4c65fz8c/sparkle_client_alpha.4.exe?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/2bqmi1i4c65fz8c/sparkle_client_alpha.4.exe?dl=0)
I have this error
"System error. The program can't start because MSVCP120.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix this problem."
-
this?
If it work, i will put it together.
Doesn't work, another error. Win 7 64bit
-
this?
If it work, i will put it together.
Doesn't work, another error. Win 7 64bit
What's the second error?
-
this?
If it work, i will put it together.
Doesn't work, another error. Win 7 64bit
What's the second error?
The error says it cannot start program properly (0xc000007b)
-
Sparkle Alpha 4 QT win32 binary
github/upgradeadvice/upgradeadvice.github.io/releases/tag/0.0.4
The images are kinda borked, but it works and you can mine. I'll work on it more later if there's any interest.
-
Sparkle Alpha 4 QT win32 binary
github/upgradeadvice/upgradeadvice.github.io/releases/tag/0.0.4
The images are kinda borked, but it works and you can mine. I'll work on it more later if there's any interest.
It doesn't work for me as well... :(
-
Sparkle Alpha 4 QT win32 binary
github/upgradeadvice/upgradeadvice.github.io/releases/tag/0.0.4
The images are kinda borked, but it works and you can mine. I'll work on it more later if there's any interest.
It doesn't work for me as well... :(
Try Visual C++ Redistributable Packages for Visual Studio 2013
-
Sparkle Alpha 4 QT win32 binary
github/upgradeadvice/upgradeadvice.github.io/releases/tag/0.0.4
The images are kinda borked, but it works and you can mine. I'll work on it more later if there's any interest.
It doesn't work for me as well... :(
Try Visual C++ Redistributable Packages for Visual Studio 2013
Tried with Packages but doesn't work for me either.
-
So.. how many connections are you getting?
I'm on 4, one of them is the node from the list on page 1.
Blockchain height is 2741 and difficulty is 4194.
Does that sound like the main chain?
edit:
Suddenly 8 connections, a couple hundred blocks missed, difficulty back to 100...
Very strange.
Seems to have worked itself out.
-
While mining, it made a transaction I've never requested. Is it expected or is there a security hole and someone got access to my account? Also, it has some garbage in memo.
>> history
TIMESTAMP BLOCK FROM TO AMOUNT MEMO BALANCE FEE ID
==============================================================================================================================================================================================
2014-11-29T13:31:21 3062 cliqueman SPK5cexJ7ufRFZdR... 749.00000 SPK ����@lt��kJoEt�E��� -0.50000 SPK 0.50000 SPK 27ecc681
>> blockchain_get_transaction 27ecc681
{
"trx": {
"expiration": "2014-11-29T14:26:08",
"delegate_slate_id": null,
"operations": [{
"type": "deposit_op_type",
"data": {
"amount": 74900000,
"condition": {
"asset_id": 0,
"delegate_slate_id": 0,
"type": "withdraw_signature_type",
"data": {
"owner": "SPKLZQ3D1qUasXkW7ygVM3T9Fw849cDCZaFm",
"memo": {
"one_time_key": "SPK5BBQ7PDHdN8WGX6JgjjKDox2QLhLAK7ySFrepMSJvf1t4BxY6p",
"encrypted_memo_data": "a5782f8bcdf4f908a04a48178962d60be1149f199a64e4184ec9bc46a8b632a66e5aead6bb7128e3b18d4ce271976f0e5260bbfb6d9a7d0a7720c7265f1a15ad"
}
}
}
}
},{
"type": "withdraw_op_type",
"data": {
"balance_id": "SPK7ihS7SRLPfpBKbFXDkSvkaAp1SHcoMgRf",
"amount": 74950000,
"claim_input_data": ""
}
}
],
"reserved": "",
"signatures": [
"20496e12bdf08904145609e208782f9e08d07dc5de2369f4d57744c23420381f26c451374f548415b58924fc8321ac9a5206f557e4f0ddac204595c38d8dab3e80"
]
},
"signed_keys": [
"SPK4qm73LfwLtWrUKjAgHzFZA9fmSLhLPFWg",
"SPKDhRigcD1uZ9PdgDM6tV8AC8RBTfvvHjeh",
"SPK9inLtF25gyJ5VxF2rQo2ozebxEnZVGY8T",
"SPKHuvkJ6w6XhoM8k84SfBcYKH8DnzQJV4a7",
"SPKDbaFgEULahd7xtowwxXSgydCUxbX3QsFt"
],
"validation_error": null,
"required_deposits": [],
"provided_deposits": [[
"SPK6MnwMmwhUBPEzY9PTNbmFL92zsUjjipXc",{
"amount": 74900000,
"asset_id": 0
}
]
],
"deposits": [[
0,{
"amount": 74900000,
"asset_id": 0
}
]
],
"withdraws": [[
0,{
"amount": 74950000,
"asset_id": 0
}
]
],
"yield": [],
"deltas": [[
0,{
"amount": 74900000,
"asset_id": 0
}
],[
1,{
"amount": -74950000,
"asset_id": 0
}
]
],
"required_fees": {
"amount": 0,
"asset_id": 0
},
"alt_fees_paid": {
"amount": 0,
"asset_id": 0
},
"balance": [[
0,
50000
]
],
"net_delegate_votes": [],
"chain_location": {
"block_num": 3062,
"trx_num": 0
}
}
-
While mining, it made a transaction I've never requested. Is it expected or is there a security hole and someone got access to my account? Also, it has some garbage in memo.
...
Did you build it yourself, or were you using someone's binaries?
-
I get "Qt5quick.dll is missing" error.
-
While mining, it made a transaction I've never requested. Is it expected or is there a security hole and someone got access to my account? Also, it has some garbage in memo.
...
Did you build it yourself, or were you using someone's binaries?
Built myself on Ubuntu.
-
The mining difficulty is not correct. The current situation is that the block times are getting larger.
>>> blockchain_list_blocks
HEIGHT TIMESTAMP SIGNING DELEGATE # TXS SIZE LATENCY PROCESSING TIME
===================================================================================================
3224 2014-11-29T16:06:59 SPKKMx5vptvYe7WNRLHnJb7cr4pi... 0 92 0 0.002701
3223 2014-11-29T15:47:48 SPKFQS6yDC1TgNxooLDjLCLswBou... 0 92 0 0.002129
3222 2014-11-29T15:23:42 SPKFQS6yDC1TgNxooLDjLCLswBou... 0 92 0 0.002542
3221 2014-11-29T15:17:37 SPKFrj9Lc4hhCRpkaiMBckWG5gkG... 0 92 0 0.002543
3220 2014-11-29T15:13:13 SPK7Zyv3DeS2uqsDZ6Wc5X8hFrtT... 0 92 0 0.002715
3219 2014-11-29T15:10:33 SPKDUSDbriW3tWA92ANGLFWDihvk... 0 92 0 0.002455
3218 2014-11-29T15:07:40 SPKKMx5vptvYe7WNRLHnJb7cr4pi... 0 92 0 0.001791
3217 2014-11-29T14:58:01 SPKKNtcwD1EWzPgzxE9xb2JML7wv... 0 92 0 0.001842
3216 2014-11-29T14:55:36 SPKPjt9uYppQzbzp6NRTXnfiyJsW... 0 92 0 0.002943
3215 2014-11-29T14:49:13 SPKJCdV2pV4EjoxCkyUkfqKj4drf... 1 274 0 0.005777
3214 2014-11-29T14:38:17 SPKKbKY6iwQpUFeLrprr364qE8iW... 0 92 0 0.002019
3213 2014-11-29T14:32:32 SPKEX97Xaptf9vvmsaojRWuNUc9s... 0 92 0 0.00207
3212 2014-11-29T14:25:35 SPKL6JFtCBGX8uuxuTUxkWD5xbTH... 0 92 0 0.001951
3211 2014-11-29T14:25:20 SPK3PpAz2iGJS6jJVhKqs1vX8sSe... 0 92 0 0.002021
3210 2014-11-29T14:24:47 SPKBJWn8uiGFL8XXGLGphm4Pufht... 0 92 0 0.001921
3209 2014-11-29T14:24:25 SPKBcbLKHChWSX59M2VNZHhKfNcj... 0 92 0 0.001918
3208 2014-11-29T14:24:22 SPKDUSDbriW3tWA92ANGLFWDihvk... 0 92 0 0.001821
3207 2014-11-29T14:22:07 SPKG2snxzBpyWT7T8SLDjzt75SrF... 0 92 0 0.001829
3206 2014-11-29T14:21:49 SPKGxpPrb1bajvsno6uNVJ5Kr6gf... 0 92 0 0.001933
3205 2014-11-29T14:21:11 SPK6bigeXk1FvCWv8VVR865GU2Hi... 0 92 0 0.001932
But the difficulty is increasing (currently at 94529)
>>> info
{
"blockchain_head_block_num": 3224,
"blockchain_head_block_age": "2 minutes old",
"blockchain_head_block_timestamp": "2014-11-29T16:06:59",
"blockchain_difficulty": 94529,
"blockchain_confirmation_requirement": 6,
"blockchain_share_supply": "2,000,161,198.33637 SPK",
"blockchain_random_seed": "30594b9f35866ac67a679e6e94da78471279cd30",
...
The the new_difficulty calculation should be something like this:
$ git diff
diff --git a/libraries/blockchain/chain_database.cpp b/libraries/blockchain/chain_database.cpp
index 8d0b17e..c94519c 100644
--- a/libraries/blockchain/chain_database.cpp
+++ b/libraries/blockchain/chain_database.cpp
@@ -724,7 +724,7 @@ namespace bts { namespace blockchain {
const auto difficulty = pending_state->get_property( current_difficulty ).as_uint64();
- int64_t new_difficulty = ((difficulty * expected_time) / delta_time);
+ int64_t new_difficulty = ((difficulty * BTS_BLOCKCHAIN_BLOCK_INTERVAL_SEC) / delta_time);
//ulog( "${d} => ${n}", ( "d", difficulty ) ("n",new_difficulty) );
/*
Note if the delta_time between blocks is larger than the BTS_BLOCKCHAIN_BLOCK_INTERVAL_SEC time then the difficulty is adjusted lower and if the delta_time is smaller than the desired block time then the difficulty is adjusted higher.
-
Is the target still high or am I on a fork?
I'm connected to 8+ peers who all share my block height..
-
Looks like difficulty adjusted down. I'm currently on block height 3505.
-
I'm forked as hell.. what's a good node to be connected to?
also, I just saw one node with current_head_block_number": 3685, so I'm guessing you're on a fork too.
Network completely borked :(
another edit:
Now I'm on this head : blockchain_head_block_num": 3829,
-
Yeah me too. With so low block times there are constantly forks.
When I think that I'm on the wrong fork I just delete the downloaded chain. It usually finds the longest chain then.
Not exactly elegant though :)
-
I think someone is just burst mining it since the difficulty adjusts so fast. That hard fork to fix that is still a long ways away...
EDIT: Difficulty is also adjusted every block, but based on the average time of the last 1000 blocks, so someone dumping AWS instances on it could mine quite a few blocks before the difficulty adjustment caught up with them in each burst.
-
I think someone is just burst mining it since the difficulty adjusts so fast. That hard fork to fix that is still a long ways away...
EDIT: Difficulty is also adjusted every block, but based on the average time of the last 1000 blocks, so someone dumping AWS instances on it could mine quite a few blocks before the difficulty adjustment caught up with them in each burst.
Good thing this is being tested.
-
Am I stuck in?
mywallet (unlocked) >>> get_info
{
"blockchain_head_block_num": 4072,
"blockchain_head_block_age": "13 minutes old",
"blockchain_head_block_timestamp": "2014-11-29T18:42:18",
"blockchain_difficulty": 88620,
"blockchain_confirmation_requirement": 6,
"blockchain_share_supply": "2,000,203,597.35134 SPK",
"blockchain_random_seed": "17cb835d8a756bc15ed8f554c36ed8f4f0f5b268",
"client_data_dir": "/root/.Sparkle-Test65",
"client_version": "alpha.4-testnet-65",
"network_num_connections": 30,
"network_num_connections_max": 200,
"network_chain_downloader_running": false,
"network_chain_downloader_blocks_remaining": null,
"ntp_time": "2014-11-29T18:55:34",
"ntp_time_error": 0.0019599999999999999,
"wallet_open": true,
"wallet_unlocked": true,
"wallet_unlocked_until": "17 weeks in the future",
"wallet_unlocked_until_timestamp": "2015-03-25T10:08:40",
"wallet_last_scanned_block_timestamp": "2014-11-29T18:42:18",
"wallet_scan_progress": "100.00 %",
"wallet_block_production_enabled": true,
"blockchain_average_delegate_participation": null,
"blockchain_next_round_timestamp": null,
"wallet_next_block_production_timestamp": null
}
-
I think someone is just burst mining it since the difficulty adjusts so fast. That hard fork to fix that is still a long ways away...
EDIT: Difficulty is also adjusted every block, but based on the average time of the last 1000 blocks, so someone dumping AWS instances on it could mine quite a few blocks before the difficulty adjustment caught up with them in each burst.
Good thing this is being tested.
Indeed. Mining a new coin brings back memories...
-
Good thing this is being tested.
Indeed.
bytemaster, do you remember problems like we have now when PTS was first introduced? I was mining PTS since day 0 and I don't relly remember the network forking like we have now.
Can you provide any input?
Thanks.
-
network difficulty has increased to 338,170!
-
sparkle (unlocked) >>> getinfo
{
"blockchain_head_block_num": 6275,
"blockchain_head_block_age": "6 minutes old",
"blockchain_head_block_timestamp": "2014-11-30T12:48:28",
"blockchain_difficulty": 4664032,
"blockchain_confirmation_requirement": 6,
"blockchain_share_supply": "2,000,313,743.72665 SPK",
"blockchain_random_seed": "0a25b4445933f5e4518af2bdd555c81f0b6fc78f",
"client_data_dir": "/home/ubuntu/.Sparkle-Test65",
"client_version": "alpha.4-testnet-65",
"network_num_connections": 9,
"network_num_connections_max": 200,
"network_chain_downloader_running": false,
"network_chain_downloader_blocks_remaining": null,
"ntp_time": "2014-11-30T12:54:49",
"ntp_time_error": 0.025753000000000002,
ok installed guess it works yet…
-
"blockchain_head_block_num": 6275,
"blockchain_head_block_age": "54 minutes old",
"blockchain_head_block_timestamp": "2014-11-30T12:48:28",
"blockchain_difficulty": 4664032,
Good thing this is being tested.
-
stuck on block 6275 too... I imagine that's due to the fact that difficulty skyrocketed, right?
-
Yeah, I have one miner on block 6275, and one on 6282, with my longer chain apparently on a minority fork with lower difficulty.
-
It is quite clear that my difficulty adjustment was naive and that I will have to do something about that. Based upon the current difficulty the network appears hung.
I am looking at a new approach to mining that will make Sparkle very resistant to mining pool centralization by requiring the private key of the account that will receive the mining rewards to be part of the mining process. I will replace the "miner address" field with a "signature" field and remove the nonce. To mine you must produce a signature of the block header such the the hash of the header + signature is less than some threshold. The only option is to sign over and over again because if you change anything in the block then the signature will not match the proper key.
The benefit of a mining pool resistant proof of work is that if and when ASICs are produced they will be performing ECC operations for signing transactions.
New proposed mining algorithm:
SignedHeader = MinerPrivateKey.sign( SHA256( header ) )
HashSignedHeader = SHA256( SignedHeader )
PublicKeyCheck = ECC_RECOVER_PUBLIC_KEY( SignedHeader.Signature, HashSignedHeader )
HASH = SHA256( PublicKeyCheck )
What are the properties of this set of operations?
1) To produce a block you must have access to the MinerPrivateKey. This eliminates mining.
2) To produce a block you must perform a ECC Signature
3) To produce a block you must perform a ECC Key Recovery which is the CPU bottleneck on transaction processing.
Given these steps it should result in ECC Key Recovery ASICs being produced which if done properly will help accelerate transaction processing and validation. Assuming this is implemented on a GPU it will help all crypto's to validate transactions faster.
The impact of not having mining pools means miners must handle the variability in finding blocks. This will change the incentive structure significantly. Having faster block times will help increase the number of winners.
-
stuck on block 6275 too
-
6276 ... looks like it is not completely stuck (just too high diff for the current hashing power)
"blockchain_difficulty": 14827633,
"blockchain_head_block_num": 6276,
-
Hello
No windows binary available ?
-
Wouldn't people just set up multiple deposit privkeys? You don't need to reinvent the wheel on PoW in order to make this coin a success.
I would think that any kind of PoW algorithm would eventually tend towards centralization; the only thing that you can really do is pick a more obscure algorithm so that the current farms can't use their ASICs to mine it, then maybe introduce changes to the algorithm via consensus to stay 1 step ahead of newly developed ASICs.
-
New proposed mining algorithm:
SignedHeader = MinerPrivateKey.sign( SHA256( header ) )
HashSignedHeader = SHA256( SignedHeader )
PublicKeyCheck = ECC_RECOVER_PUBLIC_KEY( SignedHeader.Signature, HashSignedHeader )
HASH = SHA256( PublicKeyCheck )
EDIT: Got it, I missed this "To mine you must produce a signature of the block header such the the hash of the header + signature is less than some threshold."
Interesting. Couldn’t that lead to miners/pools avoiding to include transactions at all?
Therefore they wouldn't have to deal with the changing hashMerkleRoot in the header.
So they could do the first three lines once for each new block and and offload the rest to the pool workers.
I might be wrong as I am not familiar with the bitshares header structure.
But I like the idea though.
-
Intuitively, it hurts my brain that this is a message signature...
I don't know why yet, but it sounds like something is a bit off..
Can (in principal) ECC_RECOVER_PUBLIC_KEY have multiple correct answers?
edit:
What I mean is, pKey recovery should (in principal) be checked against a directory or some authority for a match.
Bitcoin's message signing ripemd160's the pubkey against a public address (afaik) so a dirctory or authority is not needed in that case. Bitcoin's signmessage includes the number of pKey to recover from that message, as there can be up to 4, but mostly just 2 public keys that can be 'recovered' from the message [1]. Can the function be made to hash the pubkey against the signer's public address here as well, or use bitcoin's method somehow?
[1] #bitcoin-dev
-
How many connections are needed for mining? I got 11 to 12 connection. But seems nothing happen. I probably miss something.
-
How many connections are needed for mining? I got 11 to 12 connection. But seems nothing happen. I probably miss something.
Difficulty is too high now, the last block was 7 hours ago.
-
Haven't you considered SHA2 merged mine? That may thrive adoption a little, without Proof of Wasting.
Is there not any pool yet? Hehe.
-
Hello
No windows binary available ?
any news ?
-
Hello
My mining account is empty? My bad used vote_all with my stash. Hopefully the next block will sort it out.
Has the test net stopped or is it slow blocks?
-
Hello
My mining account is empty? My bad used vote_all with my stash. Hopefully the next block will sort it out.
Has the test net stopped or is it slow blocks?
I'm still mining, and I think more people are, but the difficulty is so high right now that even if a block will be found it'll still be a long time until we find another.
-
is this correct?
"blockchain_head_block_num": 6277,
"blockchain_head_block_age": "24 hours old",
"blockchain_head_block_timestamp": "2014-11-30T18:35:45",
-
is this correct?
"blockchain_head_block_num": 6277,
"blockchain_head_block_age": "24 hours old",
"blockchain_head_block_timestamp": "2014-11-30T18:35:45",
I think so.
-
Looking forward to being able to try this out myself once the difficulty bug is fixed - please can you provide windows binaries, though?
-
please can you provide windows binaries, though?
+5%
-
The dampen difficult adjustment hack is probably not what you want to solve the difficult problem. (commit 7c649ebdbaf6fa378a9c25023d531986e1745484 @ github)
There is a reason bitcoin adjusts after a number of blocks, the time between two single blocks is not a very reliable indicator of network strength.
There should be one block every minute and hours went by again without one. Right now, the network will never compensate for that. There could always be an unlucky sequence of two blocks being very close after each other (just some miliseconds) and difficulty would shoot to the moon. Damping it 10x is still a very naive way of solving this improbable but very much possible outcome and eventually the blockchain will still get stuck like it has now.
Do it as bitcoin does it, adjust after a number of blocks. Have some kind of moving average over the last n blocks, as all alt-coins do it that adjust every block. Don't just base the difficulty equation on the difference of two single blocks alone, that is just asking for trouble.
-
The dampen difficult adjustment hack is probably not what you want to solve the difficult problem. (commit 7c649ebdbaf6fa378a9c25023d531986e1745484 @ github)
There is a reason bitcoin adjusts after a number of blocks, the time between two single blocks is not a very reliable indicator of network strength.
There should be one block every minute and hours went by again without one. Right now, the network will never compensate for that. There could always be an unlucky sequence of two blocks being very close after each other (just some miliseconds) and difficulty would shoot to the moon. Damping it 10x is still a very naive way of solving this improbable but very much possible outcome and eventually the blockchain will still get stuck like it has now.
Do it as bitcoin does it, adjust after a number of blocks. Have some kind of moving average over the last n blocks, as all alt-coins do it that adjust every block. Don't just base the difficulty equation on the difference of two single blocks alone, that is just asking for trouble.
The code doesn't adjust after 2 blocks, it uses the average of the last 1000 blocks.
-
I am starting a new test network with a new mining algorithm based on ECC signature.
Your wallet must be unlocked to mine with the private key. This is designed to maximize decentralization and eliminate mining pools.
All blocks from the prior chain will be honored as well as the new chain.
Difficulty adjusts every 20 blocks and is rate limited to +/- 2%
-
I am starting a new test network with a new mining algorithm based on ECC signature.
Your wallet must be unlocked to mine with the private key. This is designed to maximize decentralization and eliminate mining pools.
All blocks from the prior chain will be honored as well as the new chain.
Difficulty adjusts every 20 blocks and is rate limited to +/- 2%
Excellent. Will it still be at https://github.com/sparkle5/Sparkle (https://github.com/sparkle5/Sparkle)?
-
Tried to compile the latest
n file included from /home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_tests.cpp:3:0:
/home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_fixture.hpp: In instantiation of ‘void chain_fixture::produce_block(T) [with T = std::shared_ptr<bts::client::client>]’:
/home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_tests.cpp:55:25: required from here
/home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_fixture.hpp:231:59: error: ‘struct bts::blockchain::full_block’ has no member named ‘nonce’
while( b.difficulty() < SPK_MIN_DIFFICULTY ) b.nonce++;
^
make[2]: *** [tests/CMakeFiles/dev_tests.dir/dev_tests.cpp.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [tests/CMakeFiles/dev_tests.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2
-
I am starting a new test network with a new mining algorithm based on ECC signature.
Your wallet must be unlocked to mine with the private key. This is designed to maximize decentralization and eliminate mining pools.
All blocks from the prior chain will be honored as well as the new chain.
Difficulty adjusts every 20 blocks and is rate limited to +/- 2%
Excellent. Will it still be at https://github.com/sparkle5/Sparkle (https://github.com/sparkle5/Sparkle)?
This
-
Confirmed alpha.5 is working for me.
-
Tried to compile the latest
n file included from /home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_tests.cpp:3:0:
/home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_fixture.hpp: In instantiation of ‘void chain_fixture::produce_block(T) [with T = std::shared_ptr<bts::client::client>]’:
/home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_tests.cpp:55:25: required from here
/home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_fixture.hpp:231:59: error: ‘struct bts::blockchain::full_block’ has no member named ‘nonce’
while( b.difficulty() < SPK_MIN_DIFFICULTY ) b.nonce++;
^
make[2]: *** [tests/CMakeFiles/dev_tests.dir/dev_tests.cpp.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [tests/CMakeFiles/dev_tests.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2
Same here. Anybody know a fix?
-
Tried to compile the latest
n file included from /home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_tests.cpp:3:0:
/home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_fixture.hpp: In instantiation of ‘void chain_fixture::produce_block(T) [with T = std::shared_ptr<bts::client::client>]’:
/home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_tests.cpp:55:25: required from here
/home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_fixture.hpp:231:59: error: ‘struct bts::blockchain::full_block’ has no member named ‘nonce’
while( b.difficulty() < SPK_MIN_DIFFICULTY ) b.nonce++;
^
make[2]: *** [tests/CMakeFiles/dev_tests.dir/dev_tests.cpp.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [tests/CMakeFiles/dev_tests.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2
Same here. Anybody know a fix?
Same problem to one of my server.
-
Tried to compile the latest
n file included from /home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_tests.cpp:3:0:
/home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_fixture.hpp: In instantiation of ‘void chain_fixture::produce_block(T) [with T = std::shared_ptr<bts::client::client>]’:
/home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_tests.cpp:55:25: required from here
/home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_fixture.hpp:231:59: error: ‘struct bts::blockchain::full_block’ has no member named ‘nonce’
while( b.difficulty() < SPK_MIN_DIFFICULTY ) b.nonce++;
^
make[2]: *** [tests/CMakeFiles/dev_tests.dir/dev_tests.cpp.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [tests/CMakeFiles/dev_tests.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2
Same here. Anybody know a fix?
For now I'd ignore that. It's an error in the tests, not in the actual client.
Looks like just an orphaned test that didn't get removed or updated.
-
Tried to compile the latest
n file included from /home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_tests.cpp:3:0:
/home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_fixture.hpp: In instantiation of ‘void chain_fixture::produce_block(T) [with T = std::shared_ptr<bts::client::client>]’:
/home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_tests.cpp:55:25: required from here
/home/delegate/Sparkle/tests/dev_fixture.hpp:231:59: error: ‘struct bts::blockchain::full_block’ has no member named ‘nonce’
while( b.difficulty() < SPK_MIN_DIFFICULTY ) b.nonce++;
^
make[2]: *** [tests/CMakeFiles/dev_tests.dir/dev_tests.cpp.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [tests/CMakeFiles/dev_tests.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2
Same here. Anybody know a fix?
For now I'd ignore that. It's an error in the tests, not in the actual client.
Looks like just an orphaned test that didn't get removed or updated.
Thanks. It's working, though the blocks seem to be coming mighty quickly (currently at 2251)
-
Mining is working fine on my dedicated server. But I am having an error message constantly
I am disconnecting peer x.x.x.x.:x for reason: You offered me a list of more sync blocks than could possibly exist
-
If there is a windows binary, it would be great.
-
If there is a windows binary, it would be great.
+5% +5%
-
...
All blocks from the prior chain will be honored as well as the new chain.
...
Can't see my balance from the previous blockchain...
Mining is working fine on my dedicated server. But I am having an error message constantly
I am disconnecting peer x.x.x.x.:x for reason: You offered me a list of more sync blocks than could possibly exist
Me too
-
Mining is working fine on my dedicated server. But I am having an error message constantly
I am disconnecting peer x.x.x.x.:x for reason: You offered me a list of more sync blocks than could possibly exist
Same here - I think it should work itself out when everyone updates
-
...
All blocks from the prior chain will be honored as well as the new chain.
...
Can't see my balance from the previous blockchain...
I think he didn't honor the blocks in the testnet genesis. It will just be honored in the final version.
-
...
All blocks from the prior chain will be honored as well as the new chain.
...
Can't see my balance from the previous blockchain...
I think he didn't honor the blocks in the testnet genesis. It will just be honored in the final version.
Oh well, good enough.
Thanks.
-
I think he will honor it by address, so it's better to save the private key.
-
I think he will honor it by address, so it's better to save the private key.
Never delete private keys.
Ever.
Also, one backup is zero backups.
-
Yes I will honor it in the final chain.
-
There are 40 connections to the test network.
The difficulty adjustments appear to be much better now as we are averaging 3 per minute.
There is about a 5% orphan rate.
-
Yes I will honor it in the final chain.
Then testnet 65 will be ignored?
-
Can you update build_Ubuntu.MD?
-
Yes I will honor it in the final chain.
Then testnet 65 will be ignored?
or (I hope) all testnets will be honoured in the final chain.
-
Someone posted this in bitcointalk:
source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=874406.msg9687816#msg9687816
Sparkle Alpha 4 QT win32 binary (https://github.com/upgradeadvice/upgradeadvice.github.io/releases/tag/0.0.4)
The images are kinda borked, but it works and you can mine. I'll work on it more later if there's any interest.
Test it out:
username: upgradeadvice
pubkey: SPK7jfvFME4M82n1Sef3vXs28YtpzAnFz4rcXvaFZrAzG8RbLC6iB
-
How is the network forking behavior? I am curious if it is finding bugs in our fork management code for BTS.
-
Someone posted this in bitcointalk:
source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=874406.msg9687816#msg9687816
Sparkle Alpha 4 QT win32 binary (https://github.com/upgradeadvice/upgradeadvice.github.io/releases/tag/0.0.4)
The images are kinda borked, but it works and you can mine. I'll work on it more later if there's any interest.
Test it out:
username: upgradeadvice
pubkey: SPK7jfvFME4M82n1Sef3vXs28YtpzAnFz4rcXvaFZrAzG8RbLC6iB
It is based on alpha 4 and still does not work in my environment.
-
Something very weird is happening with the network.
Either someone has invested in a LOT of mining power, found a way to run the algorithm on a GPU, or has found some weakness.
Blocks are coming in FAST. Less than a second apart and always from the same public key.
# TXS SIZE LATENCY PROCESSING TIME
│=================================================================================================== ├
│16959 2014-12-07T13:23:39 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001725 │
│16958 2014-12-07T13:23:38 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.00194 │
│16957 2014-12-07T13:23:37 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001846 │
│16956 2014-12-07T13:23:36 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001804 │
│16955 2014-12-07T13:23:35 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001714 │
│16954 2014-12-07T13:23:34 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.00177 │
│16953 2014-12-07T13:23:33 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.00201 │
│16952 2014-12-07T13:23:32 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001762 │
│16951 2014-12-07T13:23:31 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001679 │
│16950 2014-12-07T13:23:30 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001772 │
│16949 2014-12-07T13:23:29 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001755 │
│16948 2014-12-07T13:23:28 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001986 │
│16947 2014-12-07T13:23:27 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001779 │
│16946 2014-12-07T13:23:26 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.00181 │
│16945 2014-12-07T13:23:25 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001693 │
│16944 2014-12-07T13:23:24 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001738 │
│16943 2014-12-07T13:23:23 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001883 │
│16942 2014-12-07T13:23:22 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001773 │
│16941 2014-12-07T13:23:21 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001807 │
│16940 2014-12-07T13:23:17 SPKFEDZ7g7JPwmrTyiJcGBSzxsSn... 0 139 4 0.002266
It's still going on.
edit:
It's even weirder than it looks.
The fast blocks caused the difficulty to rise (all good so far), but their hashes are nothing like what the difficulty would suggest:
blockchain_get_block 17001
"previous": "0000008b60e210fd45bfa6678f701f5fcfcc15b4",
Block 17000 was mined by a "regular" miner : SPKFEDZ7g7JPwmrTyiJcGBSzxsSnFtaQpsiz
blockchain_get_block 17002
"previous": "dd9e35cd8ab6e4e23f82af69c2fdd52d1b2800af",
Block 17001 was mined by our "attacking" miner : SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmLCj4K5mMs
Does this even make sense?
-
Indeed. That doesn't look right at all.
-
Is this person pulse mining as trogladactyl suggested earlier. Looking at where the system pauses(~3 min) from the difficulty rise, the first block after the pause comes from someone else, then this powerful miner fires back up again. Just a theory.
HEIGHT TIMESTAMP SIGNING DELEGATE # TXS SIZE LATENCY PROCESSING TIME
===================================================================================================
18111 2014-12-07T14:39:29 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001527
18110 2014-12-07T14:39:28 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001673
18109 2014-12-07T14:39:27 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.0024
18108 2014-12-07T14:39:26 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001876
18107 2014-12-07T14:39:25 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001334
18106 2014-12-07T14:39:24 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001924
18105 2014-12-07T14:39:23 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.003515
18104 2014-12-07T14:39:22 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.002047
18103 2014-12-07T14:39:21 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001336
18102 2014-12-07T14:39:20 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001762
18101 2014-12-07T14:39:19 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001603
18100 2014-12-07T14:39:18 SPK6ab1TgR2Tjx2YChhfSVeQTgMW... 0 129 0 0.002193
18099 2014-12-07T14:36:51 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001918
18098 2014-12-07T14:36:50 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.00192
18097 2014-12-07T14:36:49 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001337
18096 2014-12-07T14:36:48 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001953
18095 2014-12-07T14:36:47 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.002086
18094 2014-12-07T14:36:46 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001381
18093 2014-12-07T14:36:45 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001846
18092 2014-12-07T14:36:44 SPKJm8qLn5hfgXxVg6QBx9B1XHmL... 0 129 0 0.001372
-
Found the problem and it has nothing to do with their hash power. It has to do with some greedy miner who doesn't care to help fix the code but only to attack the code by exploiting it.
When I updated the code to only adjust the difficulty every 20 blocks, it started only CHECKING the difficulty every 20 blocks.
I am preparing a new release that should fix that issue, it will simply hard fork off of this chain.
The fix has been checked in for everyone compiling from source. The mac binaries are coming soon.
-
https://github.com/sparkle5/Sparkle/releases/tag/alpha.6
-
Ok, that explains why the attackter had to wait every 20 blocks for a real block to show up...
Since the difficulty is sky high now, once we're at 20000 for the hard fork, it will take nearly forever to revert back to lower diff, wouldn't it? What is the max diff reduction now, 3%?
Could make sense to either start with a new blockchain then and honor all blocks up to whatever block it was were the truoble started, or allow for a faster diff correction downwards.
-
The difficulty should have adjusted up 6.666 minutes per block so that means the difficulty will fall by 2% every 2.2 hours.
-
Diff was at ~100000 before it started and is now over 1mill. Hard to say what it will be when we hit 20000 blocks, but reverting back from 1mill to 100000 will take us:
wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1000000+*+0.98^x+%3D+100000
114 diff adjustments, which come every 20 blocks. Means it will take 2280 blocks.
I'd ball park the avg block time to be 5x higher over these 2280 blocks, so it will take us 100 seconds * 2280, to get there, i.e. ~
3 days. Not too bad actually, but your call on how to proceed.
-
Issue might be that miners turn their miners off, because they don't earn the same amount anymore with their hash power and would wait until this issue is over... it'll probably take a lot longer than 3 days until we have regular 20s blocks. I'm turning my miners off until this is over.
-
+5% for fast fix.
Will all blocks be honored? It makes sense as it is incentive to find exploits but then again it is probably a pretty high pay :-\
Regarding the high difficulty it would probably be the best to start a new chain.
-
Yep, you're right Frodo +5% for the fast reaction.
I'm also for starting a new chain. Since we have to wait every 20 blocks until we can proceed and diff stands at 1317968 now, it will probably take longer than Dec 14 to sort this out. And that waiting time would make the shares of this attacker even more valuable.
Might also make sense to slightly raise the difficulty amount that can be changed downwards every 20 blocks, e.g. from 2% to 5% or 10%, so that we can adjust quicker downwards than upwards.
-
Thanks for your fast reaction. I also think that starting a new chain would help to quickly get back to a properly functioning chain.
-
The fix has been checked in for everyone compiling from source. The mac binaries are coming soon.
Windoze plz :)
-
I've noticed that the new commit doesn't even check the difficulty every 20 blocks for blocks < 20000 anymore. I was thinking, I might as well take us to block no. 20000 on my own and do something good with all those blocks instead of giving them to some idiot. So, either we don't honor these blocks at all, or we do it: In that case, I don't want them and I would use them for project bounties (starting services, building exchanges, etc.).
For the record: It wasn't me who exploited it in first place. But I got tired of waiting until we hit 20000 or restart.
Btw, difficulty is at 3342778 and we havn't found a single block after number 20000.
-
I've noticed that the new commit doesn't even check the difficulty every 20 blocks for blocks < 20000 anymore. I was thinking, I might as well take us to block no. 20000 on my own and do something good with all those blocks instead of giving them to some idiot. So, either we don't honor these blocks at all, or we do it: In that case, I don't want them and I would use them for project bounties (starting services, building exchanges, etc.).
For the record: It wasn't me who exploited it in first place. But I got tired of waiting until we hit 20000 or restart.
Btw, difficulty is at 3342778 and we havn't found a single block after number 20000.
yeah seems stalled out, been over 30 mins now with no block 20001, with increasing diff to 3409633. I'm starting to think the new chain may be needed.
-
I've noticed that the new commit doesn't even check the difficulty every 20 blocks for blocks < 20000 anymore. I was thinking, I might as well take us to block no. 20000 on my own and do something good with all those blocks instead of giving them to some idiot. So, either we don't honor these blocks at all, or we do it: In that case, I don't want them and I would use them for project bounties (starting services, building exchanges, etc.).
For the record: It wasn't me who exploited it in first place. But I got tired of waiting until we hit 20000 or restart.
Btw, difficulty is at 3342778 and we havn't found a single block after number 20000.
yeah seems stalled out, been over 30 mins now with no block 20001, with increasing diff to 3409633. I'm starting to think the new chain may be needed.
Thats what I wanted to show by taking us to 20000 quicker ;)
Starting the new chain today would be nice, as most people would have the chance and time to recompile and restart it on a sunday instead of a work day.
-
I've noticed that the new commit doesn't even check the difficulty every 20 blocks for blocks < 20000 anymore. I was thinking, I might as well take us to block no. 20000 on my own and do something good with all those blocks instead of giving them to some idiot. So, either we don't honor these blocks at all, or we do it: In that case, I don't want them and I would use them for project bounties (starting services, building exchanges, etc.).
For the record: It wasn't me who exploited it in first place. But I got tired of waiting until we hit 20000 or restart.
Btw, difficulty is at 3342778 and we havn't found a single block after number 20000.
yeah seems stalled out, been over 30 mins now with no block 20001, with increasing diff to 3409633. I'm starting to think the new chain may be needed.
Thats what I wanted to show by taking us to 20000 quicker ;)
Starting the new chain today would be nice, as most people would have the chance and time to recompile and restart it on a sunday instead of a work day.
The problem is, you've created a fork that isn't valid for all the clients still on alpha.5 so they ignore your branch.
I think there needs to be a change in alpha.7 to put back the 20th block difficulty check for blocks under 20000 (and of course keep the difficulty check on every block as in alpha.6)
-
I've noticed that the new commit doesn't even check the difficulty every 20 blocks for blocks < 20000 anymore. I was thinking, I might as well take us to block no. 20000 on my own and do something good with all those blocks instead of giving them to some idiot. So, either we don't honor these blocks at all, or we do it: In that case, I don't want them and I would use them for project bounties (starting services, building exchanges, etc.).
For the record: It wasn't me who exploited it in first place. But I got tired of waiting until we hit 20000 or restart.
Btw, difficulty is at 3342778 and we havn't found a single block after number 20000.
yeah seems stalled out, been over 30 mins now with no block 20001, with increasing diff to 3409633. I'm starting to think the new chain may be needed.
Thats what I wanted to show by taking us to 20000 quicker ;)
Starting the new chain today would be nice, as most people would have the chance and time to recompile and restart it on a sunday instead of a work day.
The problem is, you've created a fork that isn't valid for all the clients still on alpha.5 so they ignore your branch.
I think there needs to be a change in alpha.7 to put back the 20th block difficulty check for blocks under 20000 (and of course keep the difficulty check on every block as in alpha.6)
Hard fork has been made and I was just using the new rules. Forking again the way you described it would not help at all, it would just give the original attacker those last 500-600 blocks I've mined. Either way, we're stuck at some irrationaly high difficulty and block 20000, it is probably wiser to just start a new chain, like the last time we got stuck with a high difficulty.
-
So the blocks are coming in really slow right now. What about doing another hard fork to allow the difficulty to normalize again?
To achieve that, it would be sufficient to put the logic that sets the max rate of difficulty changes in an if block:
if( block_data.block_num != 20080 ) {
// set max rate of change
...
}
https://github.com/sparkle5/Sparkle/blob/f03b4e3d5ec6d2d18c28ed353de5fb5965c5e461/libraries/blockchain/chain_database.cpp#L732-L736
-
can mine on windows?
-
can mine on windows?
AFAIK there are no windows binaries available yet. So you have to compile for yourself.
-
under current difficulty , it is very hard to find a block . :( :(
-
under current difficulty , it is very hard to find a block . :( :(
It seems the difficulty has adjusted properly on its own. This was a good test.
-
under current difficulty , it is very hard to find a block . :( :(
It seems the difficulty has adjusted properly on its own. This was a good test.
Is the Sparkle experiment going to continue? It's caught my eye, at least.
-
under current difficulty , it is very hard to find a block . :( :(
It seems the difficulty has adjusted properly on its own. This was a good test.
Is the Sparkle experiment going to continue? It's caught my eye, at least.
Yes it will continue. Snapshot in 2 days and then public launch once BTS has a stable version. Hard forking Sparkle will be much harder than what we saw with BitShares today.
I am about to release another update with the latest BitShares updates merged in so we can continue to test it.
-
under current difficulty , it is very hard to find a block . :( :(
It seems the difficulty has adjusted properly on its own. This was a good test.
Is the Sparkle experiment going to continue? It's caught my eye, at least.
Yes it will continue. Snapshot in 2 days and then public launch once BTS has a stable version. Hard forking Sparkle will be much harder than what we saw with BitShares today.
I am about to release another update with the latest BitShares updates merged in so we can continue to test it.
I noticed protoshares price moving around the other day. Did that have anything to do with Sparkles?
-
https://github.com/sparkle5/Sparkle/releases
Alpha 7 has been released with the latest merged from BitShares
-
will there be a win wallet soon?
-
Can anyone link me up with a node?
I'm already 17 hours behind
-
162.243.160.72:52620
104.131.0.131:1765
98.240.161.119:59647
104.236.44.210:41655
162.213.195.203:1765
-
162.243.160.72:52620
104.131.0.131:1765
98.240.161.119:59647
104.236.44.210:41655
162.213.195.203:1765
I'm not an idiot.
Does anyone have any live nodes that I can connect to?
-
If sparkles integrated the changes in Alpha 7 I bet the test network has forked all to hell.
-
network_get_peer_info returns these for me:
66.172.27.88:1766
85.214.126.216:1766
104.131.0.131:36666
66.172.27.128:1766
192.99.246.148:1766
66.172.11.125:1766
I'm on block 55987 (2014-12-19T00:29:22)
Hope that helps!
-
Seed Node: 104.131.0.131:36666
-
Thanks guys.
If anyone was running a client and hasn't --resync-blockchain (like I did), we could have a look at the network's forks.
-
Doesn't seem to be bad.
38853
000000a58eb2be7d3bce0a462c05db01e67d4bad Unknown Delegate 0 137 2014-12-14T21:55:14 1 N/A NO
000000561d336a2d59ae9b55bf9b05550a1c56c6 Unknown Delegate 0 137 2014-12-14T21:55:31 0 YES YES
55581
0000002b43eddc9a80b07fa2a9d1b444504d49e5 Unknown Delegate 0 137 2014-12-18T22:06:00 2 YES YES
0000001711c961d69b741e9e2eabc118f3a3958e Unknown Delegate 0 137 2014-12-18T22:06:01 1 N/A NO
55597
000000305ebba802c4f0baa169691b96483364a1 Unknown Delegate 0 137 2014-12-18T22:11:32 1 YES YES
0000004e22b1ef19bc7d2b0c068cef72e691525e Unknown Delegate 0 137 2014-12-18T22:11:32 1 N/A NO
Currently I'm on 57626.
-
Heh, so a miner had 55581 orphaned for being one second too late while still having the lower hash?
Looks like the Sparkle network is very well meshed :)