BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: CoinHoarder on September 25, 2014, 01:40:25 am
-
Is it just me or is the update version command a little buggy? I was having issues with it the update before last update and somehow updated my pay rate to 1% on accident using the old command...
I didn't know there was a newer and simpler command for it, and that might of been my fault as I didn't realize until a day or two later, but now I'm again having issues with it after today's update to 0.4.17
After today's update I have used all commands as follows multiple times, but with no luck getting it to update on bitsharesblocks.com although it seems like the command executes fine with no errors.
wallet_account_update_registration delegate.coinhoarder delegate.coinhoarder { "version":"0.4.17" } 1
wallet_account_update_registration delegate.coinhoarder delegate.coinhoarder { "version":"v0.4.17" } 1
wallet_publish_version delegate.coinhoarder
The info command shows I am running 0.4.17 yet Bitsharesblocks shows I am running 0.4.16
{
"blockchain_head_block_num": 573432,
"blockchain_head_block_age": "5 seconds old",
"blockchain_head_block_timestamp": "2014-09-25T01:25:20",
"blockchain_average_delegate_participation": "100.00 %",
"blockchain_confirmation_requirement": 1,
"blockchain_delegate_pay_rate": "1.89499 BTSX",
"blockchain_share_supply": "1,999,993,879.65244 BTSX",
"blockchain_blocks_left_in_round": 46,
"blockchain_next_round_time": "at least 8 minutes in the future",
"blockchain_next_round_timestamp": "2014-09-25T01:33:00",
"blockchain_random_seed": "a121959bba394da36293733659e5ab45390069c8",
"client_data_dir": "/root/.BitSharesX",
"client_version": "v0.4.17",
"network_num_connections": 30,
"network_num_connections_max": 200,
"ntp_time": "2014-09-25T01:25:25",
"ntp_time_error": -0.050817000000000001,
"wallet_open": true,
"wallet_unlocked": true,
"wallet_unlocked_until": "12 days in the future",
"wallet_unlocked_until_timestamp": "2014-10-06T14:26:15",
"wallet_last_scanned_block_timestamp": "2014-09-14T11:23:10",
"wallet_scan_progress": "? %",
"wallet_block_production_enabled": true,
"wallet_next_block_production_time": "at least 8 minutes in the future",
��"wallet_next_block_production_timestamp": "2014-09-25T01:36:50"
}
I didn't have any issues until the update before last, and I have about 475 BTSX in my delegate account so it is not an insufficient funds problem. Is there anything glaring I'm doing wrong regarding the syntax of the commands? What is the command to pull the version from the block chain so I can see if maybe it is an issue with bitsharesblocks?
-
Oops I just noticed this..
It seems Bitsharesxblocks may be on a fork, which would probably explain the issue: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9297.0
-
It's not your fault, even before the fork for some reason the explorer shows wrong infos about client versions, % of votes etc... I managed to solve it (the last days) with refreshing the page several times... Had something to do with the cash memory I think... Right now both explorers don't show accurate infos... participation in reality is near 97 % ;)
-
It's not your fault, even before the fork for some reason the explorer shows wrong infos about client versions, % of votes etc... I managed to solve it (the last days) with refreshing the page several times... Had something to do with the cash memory I think... Right now both explorers don't show accurate infos... participation in reality is near 97 % ;)
Ok thanks. It seems the issue is with the back explorer.. I didn't notice they were on a fork until after I posted this and saw the thread in general discussion.
-
I update version using command:
>>> wallet_publish_version bitcoiners
Works well.
-
bitsharesblocks.com is on a fork
-
I update version using command:
>>> wallet_publish_version bitcoiners
Works well.
Yes I didn't know about that command until a couple days ago. We need to update the delegate wiki with the newer commands such as price feeds and version publish.
bitsharesblocks.com is on a fork
Yea.. I guess that was it.
-
you can ... and SHOULD .. use "wallet_publish_version" !!!!
-
you can ... and SHOULD .. use "wallet_publish_version" !!!!
Yes otherwise you may accidentally lower your pay rate to 1% haha. :)
-
Hmm I've been using it with my name twice after the command ("wallet_publish_version alecmenconi alecmenconi"), guess it works the same either way, no problems for me yet with it though. Looking at help I assume the variables in brackets are optional and if left blank in this case default to the first variable entered?
Thanks for the warning about accidentally changing the pay rate though Coinhoarder. Definitely something to avoid as it's permanent.
-
It's not your fault, even before the fork for some reason the explorer shows wrong infos about client versions, % of votes etc... I managed to solve it (the last days) with refreshing the page several times... Had something to do with the cash memory I think... Right now both explorers don't show accurate infos... participation in reality is near 97 % ;)
I knew about the version bug, though it wasn't really wrong info, just flagging new versions as old, got that fixed yesterday. The votes % and "etc." Being wrong is new to me, care to elaborate so I can get it fixed?
-
Hmm I've been using it with my name twice after the command ("wallet_publish_version alecmenconi alecmenconi"), guess it works the same either way, no problems for me yet with it though. Looking at help I assume the variables in brackets are optional and if left blank in this case default to the first variable entered?
Thanks for the warning about accidentally changing the pay rate though Coinhoarder. Definitely something to avoid as it's permanent.
the first parameter is the account that gets updates .. so should be the delegate ... the second name is the account that pays for the transaction fees .. if you have btsx in your delegate you can neglect the second parameter