Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
when the active connections drop we get an output on the cli client that informs us...There is a warning in the client if the delegate participation drops below a reasonable threshold. It's even color coded for different "levels" as I recall. Oh, sorry, just saw the cli part of that... Sounds like a good idea.
can we get something identical for the participation rate? For example when it drops to 90%,80%,70%etc we should have an output...
so on occasions like this, we could check easily if our client also lost significant participation rate as mentioned on this thread ... I can't know for sure if that was the case with mine... (or can I check it somehow?)
Could the confusion here be that one contains positive votes and the other is mainly a negative vote? So some of the votes that were previously cast for someone have just been removed, perhaps...bitshares millionaires are people with 1m bitshares. We definitely don't have 70 $1m positions..
Although apparently at the beginning of this year we had one person with a position worth more than $1m. Is that the remaining BTS funds from AGS that are held by bytemaster or is that someone else?
Also, I'm a little confused by these stats. I'm looking at http://bitsharesblocks.com/blocks/block?id=1645217 and http://bitsharesblocks.com/blocks/block?id=1645222. Transaction #1645217.1 is voting with 62m BTS and transaction #1645222.5 is voting with 75m BTS. The second transaction is reported in toast's stats as the one slate with stake worth between 74,333,503 BTS and 81,766,853 BTS. But there doesn't seem to be any other slate between 61,432,647 BTS and 67,575,911 BTS in the stats. Furthermore, if you compare the delegates those two transactions are voting for you can see that they are identical. So shouldn't their sum, approximately 137m BTS, be reported as a single slate in the stats somewhere?
Big transaction in block #1645217: slate id = 10982962704604936192.000000
Big transaction in block #1645222: slate id = 10982962704604936192.000000
They are indeed the same.
That's my understanding, yes. I don't know how Toast's script works, so can't comment on that.Furthermore, if you compare the delegates those two transactions are voting for you can see that they are identical. So shouldn't their sum, approximately 137m BTS, be reported as a single slate in the stats somewhere?IIRC, I had discussion on this issue with Vikram a while back about the slates, and we don't have uniqueness checking for slates currently.
Does that mean if two transactions are voting for the exact same set of delegates they could end up with different slate IDs?
Furthermore, if you compare the delegates those two transactions are voting for you can see that they are identical. So shouldn't their sum, approximately 137m BTS, be reported as a single slate in the stats somewhere?IIRC, I had discussion on this issue with Vikram a while back about the slates, and we don't have uniqueness checking for slates currently.
There are about 6300 distinct balances that have account registrations associated with themHi Toast, could you comment a little more on how the stats you collected lead to your possible interpretations above (e.g. what math are you doing to get these numbers)? Also, is a bitshares millionaire someone with a million bitshares? or the equivalent in USD :-) And what did you mean by 50% approval might not need more than a few million BTS? AFAIK, it would take more than a few million BTS votes to elect a delegate....
Here is a list of how many slates have more than a given amount of BTS for a range of values. This is a decent approximation of unique voters with more than 1000 voting BTS.Code: [Select]742 slates have more than 1067 (BTS)
736 slates have more than 1173
726 slates have more than 1291
718 slates have more than 1420
710 slates have more than 1562
708 slates have more than 1718
706 slates have more than 1890
691 slates have more than 2079
687 slates have more than 2287
681 slates have more than 2516
675 slates have more than 2768
653 slates have more than 3044
651 slates have more than 3349
648 slates have more than 3684
641 slates have more than 4052
634 slates have more than 4457
629 slates have more than 4903
612 slates have more than 5394
608 slates have more than 5933
599 slates have more than 6526
595 slates have more than 7179
590 slates have more than 7897
583 slates have more than 8687
577 slates have more than 9555
558 slates have more than 10511
554 slates have more than 11562
549 slates have more than 12718
541 slates have more than 13990
532 slates have more than 15389
524 slates have more than 16928
511 slates have more than 18621
487 slates have more than 20483
475 slates have more than 22532
461 slates have more than 24785
452 slates have more than 27264
446 slates have more than 29990
435 slates have more than 32989
429 slates have more than 36288
403 slates have more than 39917
387 slates have more than 43909
377 slates have more than 48300
354 slates have more than 53130
344 slates have more than 58443
333 slates have more than 64287
325 slates have more than 70716
311 slates have more than 77787
301 slates have more than 85566
289 slates have more than 94123
258 slates have more than 103535
247 slates have more than 113889
241 slates have more than 125277
232 slates have more than 137805
222 slates have more than 151586
219 slates have more than 166744
212 slates have more than 183419
190 slates have more than 201761
177 slates have more than 221937
172 slates have more than 244131
164 slates have more than 268544
158 slates have more than 295398
151 slates have more than 324938
143 slates have more than 357432
137 slates have more than 393175
129 slates have more than 432493
123 slates have more than 475742
110 slates have more than 523317
100 slates have more than 575648
97 slates have more than 633213
95 slates have more than 696535
88 slates have more than 766188
84 slates have more than 842807
77 slates have more than 927088
70 slates have more than 1019797
66 slates have more than 1121776
62 slates have more than 1233954
57 slates have more than 1357349
55 slates have more than 1493084
54 slates have more than 1642393
53 slates have more than 1806632
45 slates have more than 1987296
40 slates have more than 2186025
39 slates have more than 2404628
35 slates have more than 2645091
30 slates have more than 2909600
23 slates have more than 3200560
23 slates have more than 3520616
22 slates have more than 3872677
18 slates have more than 4259945
17 slates have more than 4685940
16 slates have more than 5154534
16 slates have more than 5669987
14 slates have more than 6236986
13 slates have more than 6860684
11 slates have more than 7546753
9 slates have more than 8301428
7 slates have more than 9131571
7 slates have more than 10044728
5 slates have more than 11049201
5 slates have more than 12154121
5 slates have more than 13369533
5 slates have more than 14706487
4 slates have more than 16177136
4 slates have more than 17794849
4 slates have more than 19574334
4 slates have more than 21531768
4 slates have more than 23684944
4 slates have more than 26053439
3 slates have more than 28658783
2 slates have more than 31524661
2 slates have more than 34677127
2 slates have more than 38144840
1 slates have more than 41959324
1 slates have more than 46155257
1 slates have more than 50770782
1 slates have more than 55847861
1 slates have more than 61432647
1 slates have more than 67575911
1 slates have more than 74333503
0 slates have more than 81766853
Possible interpretations:
About 750 people have more than 1000 BTS voting. There are around 70 bitshares millionaires voting. About 500 have more than $100 worth. The top shareholder has as much BTS as the next 3 or 4. All these put together have about as much as the next 20-50? Those in turn might be in a minority counting all voters with over a few hundred dollars's worth. 50% approval might not need anyone with more than a few million BTS.
I have a git pull from Saturday so I'm assuming I have a newer version than my peer.The most likely reason I can think of for this error is that there is a disagreement between your system and that peer about the time. Your client is trying to tell him about blocks it knows, and his system thinks that many blocks can't have been produced yet (your system thinks the time is later than his does). The clients try to automatically adjust for these type of clock differences by making ntp queries occassionally, but this doesn't always succeed.
About messages... now I get:Code: [Select]Peer 180.168.198.173:60086 disconnected us: You offered me a list of more sync blocks than could possibly exist
[/cod]
I guess this falls into the same category of version discrepancy. Sadly I assume network_get_peer_info wont show him since it has been disconnected. Is there a way to see "older"(disconnected) peers?
Hi I'm getting aIt means that the peer you connected to is using different rules to validate blocks than your client is. This can happen because of version differences in clients that require a "hard fork".Code: [Select]Peer 178.143.67.69:29235 disconnected us: You offered us a block that we reject as invalid
Peer 178.143.67.69:10585 disconnected us: You offered us a block that we reject as invalid
Peer 178.143.67.69:11637 disconnected us: You offered us a block that we reject as invalid
Peer 178.143.67.69:12823 disconnected us: You offered us a block that we reject as invalid
Any idea what could this be?
Thanks,
Nico Cesar
Voted. Thanks for your workYes, we'll be releasing GUI Linux versions as well.We've been operating a private jenkins build server that builds Linux, Mac, and Windows versions of the software...
Do you have GUI Linux version? If yes, can you start posting Linux release versions to Github?
Trusted pre-compiled version will help Linux users a lot.
I've been trying to figure out how to display slates on bitsharesblocks but as of right now it's a bit of a pain, the only way to find the info on a slate is to parse the transaction where it was defined, but those transactions can be quite messy, see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12270.msg171153#msg171153 for some examples.I've added an issue to github for this, I think it should be supported as a feature in the client itself, given its importance: https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/issues/1216
great timing - very concise..The slate_id points to a "slate record" in the blockchain that contains the list of recommended accounts. There's currently no good way to display a delegate slate in either the command-line client or the GUI, this needs addressing in the near future I think.
suggestion: add "or disapprove" here: Approve or disapprove all trusted delegates using either the CLI command approve...
And, what is the best way to list the delegates in someone's slate? For example, all I see is a 64bit slate_id in zeroc account's public data
We were just discussing in our weekly meeting today that we need to get an updated full client out ASAP, hopefully within a week or so.I'm using it to test bitshares-js which is more of the web wallet. As I see things I will try to fix them and let everyone use it on devshares. It will take a while, I have to craft up all these transactions in JavaScript first (as the priority) then I get to use them in the web_wallet as part of the testing. At that time I have a chance to make it better and ultimately put that back into the desktop. This is just me, others may have there own plan too.
Thanks for the answer jcalfee1, that's what I was looking for, just some info. It feels like it is being completely ignored, from a user's perspective (several months and still buggy).
