Quote from: Empirical1.2 on October 23, 2015, 08:34:27 PM
Why are BitRex sending their funds to Poloniex?

https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/account/bittrex-deposit/overview

bittrex-deposit sent 648,313.52294 BTS to poloniexwallet

Cause someone withdrew it to polo? :)

BTW, we hit an edge cause on deposits that we are fixing right now... should be back online shortly...

Quote from: xeroc on October 23, 2015, 02:01:49 PM

Quote from: liondani on October 23, 2015, 01:53:20 PM

Quote from: xeroc on October 22, 2015, 09:25:32 AM
I am in contact with Riggie and they are working as quickly as possible to integrate withdrawal and deposits for bts2 ..

Have you any news?
It is very important they continue operation's vs bts2.0 so users have confidence again...

They are currently working around the API .. they expected a different interface which makes integrating BTS2 a little more difficult ..
anyway BM is aware of the problems they are facing and spends time to make it easier for them

Ok, we're back up and running.  Please cut us a ticket immediately if you see any issues.

Thanks,
Richie

Quote from: bytemaster on October 22, 2015, 02:27:11 PM

Quote from: monsterer on October 22, 2015, 02:14:17 PM
Thanks bytemaster! We need to be able to look up a transaction by TXID as well , is that possible?

Also, can you make sure the TXID gets serialised everywhere the transaction is serialized, i.e. inside blocks, etc?

It is not trivial to add the transaction id to every place the transaction appears.   It is data that can be calculated entirely from the JSON you already have.

We do not maintain a database that maps all transaction ids their transaction (it would get too big).   We only maintain a database of transaction_id to transaction for non-expired transactions in order to prevent them from being processed twice.

I have added a new method to the witness_api for get_recent_transaction_by_id( TRX_ID )

Is there a way to get it from the cli_wallet?  Seems like we should be able to get it all from the same endpoint?

I completely agree.  I am finishing up our implementation right now and if transfer does not give us a unique identifier to present to the end user, there is no way for us to reference the withdrawal.  I've already tried polling for the txid, but that has many edge cases as well.  Is there a more elegant solution here?

thanks,
richie@bittrex

Hey folks,

First off, let me apologize for our wallet/market being down and the confusion this has caused.  Understand that we run 400+ wallets and 99.9% of the devs work with us for critical wallet updates, especially one that causes a hard fork like this.  We were told to monitor https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/releases which we did, but never got any notice that the 2.0 snapshot date was finalized. We were still working and verifying tickets via http://bitsharesblocks.com which is still currently up and running.   

That said, what has happened, has happened. We obviously could have been more diligent ourselves.  Here's where we are currently:

* All funds pre-fork are perfectly safe.  There was some confusion on when the snapshot block was but we've got that sorted out. 
* We have our implementation ready to go but we need some help from the devs.  I've emailed what contacts I could but haven't heard back.  If anyone on the dev team could please contact us via our IRC or support channels, it'd be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
richie@bittrex

Quote from: vikram on February 28, 2015, 08:57:46 PM

Quote from: richiela on February 28, 2015, 07:30:56 PM
Hmmm I was under the impression that I could unlock the wallet, get transcations, and then lock the wallet again? ie our code looks something like this:

            BitShareX.WalletUnlock();
            var transactions = BitShareX.GetPayments(currency.BaseAddress, blockHeight);
            BitShareX.WalletLock();

My understanding is that doing an unlock will scan everything up to X block... are you saying that if the wallet is locked when the block comes in, it will not scan that block?

I don't like the idea of leaving the wallet unlocked when it doesn't' have to be, but that's what i'm hearing?

Shortly after unlocking, it will begin to scan any unscanned blocks asynchronously in the background.

It seems like you need to wait until wallet_get_info["last_scanned_block_num"] is up to date before you can check for transactions.

Thanks this info is super useful... Last question... if last_scanned_block_num is up to date, does that mean all previous transactions have been scanned?  For example, if i can't find a transaction, and the last_scanned_block_num is up to date, something else bad is going on?

Other info as requested...

bittrex-deposit (locked) >>> blockchain_get_block_count
1909774
bittrex-deposit (locked) >>> get_info
{
  "blockchain_head_block_num": 1909763,
  "blockchain_head_block_age": "4 seconds old",
  "blockchain_head_block_timestamp": "2015-02-28T19:39:10",
  "blockchain_average_delegate_participation": "100.00 %",
  "blockchain_confirmation_requirement": 1,
  "blockchain_share_supply": "2,502,367,398.89601 BTS",
  "blockchain_blocks_left_in_round": 46,
  "blockchain_next_round_time": "at least 8 minutes in the future",
  "blockchain_next_round_timestamp": "2015-02-28T19:46:50",
  "client_data_dir": "/wallets/bitshares",
  "client_version": "0.6.1",
  "network_num_connections": 20,
  "network_num_connections_max": 200,
  "network_chain_downloader_running": false,
  "network_chain_downloader_blocks_remaining": null,
  "ntp_time": "2015-02-28T19:39:13",
  "ntp_time_error": -7.2327349999999999,
  "wallet_open": true,
  "wallet_unlocked": false,
  "wallet_unlocked_until": null,
  "wallet_unlocked_until_timestamp": null,
  "wallet_last_scanned_block_timestamp": null,
  "wallet_scan_progress": null,
  "wallet_block_production_enabled": null,
  "wallet_next_block_production_time": null,
  "wallet_next_block_production_timestamp": null
}
bittrex-deposit (locked) >>> wallet_get_info
{
  "data_dir": "/wallets/bitshares/wallets",
  "num_scanning_threads": 4,
  "open": true,
  "name": "bittrex-deposit",
  "automatic_backups": true,
  "transaction_scanning_enabled": true,
  "last_scanned_block_num": 1909719,
  "last_scanned_block_timestamp": "2015-02-28T19:31:50",
  "transaction_fee": "0.50000 BTS",
  "transaction_expiration_secs": 4040,
  "unlocked": false,
  "unlocked_until": null,
  "unlocked_until_timestamp": null,
  "scan_progress": null,
  "version": 109
}

Hmmm I was under the impression that I could unlock the wallet, get transcations, and then lock the wallet again? ie our code looks something like this:

            BitShareX.WalletUnlock();
            var transactions = BitShareX.GetPayments(currency.BaseAddress, blockHeight);
            BitShareX.WalletLock();

My understanding is that doing an unlock will scan everything up to X block... are you saying that if the wallet is locked when the block comes in, it will not scan that block?

I don't like the idea of leaving the wallet unlocked when it doesn't' have to be, but that's what i'm hearing?

I'm not sure if we're doing something wrong but our wallet keeps missing transactions that exist until we scan them manually.   Anyone have any pointers?

bittrex-deposit (locked) >>> blockchain_is_synced
true
bittrex-deposit (locked) >>> wallet_get_transaction cf3a6044
20022 transaction_not_found: transaction not found
Transaction not found!
    {"transaction_id_prefix":"cf3a6044"}
    th_a  transaction_ledger.cpp:1779 get_transaction

    {"transaction_id":"cf3a6044"}
    th_a  wallet_api.cpp:1229 wallet_get_transaction

    {}
    th_a  common_api_client.cpp:4465 wallet_get_transaction

    {"command":"wallet_get_transaction"}
    th_a  cli.cpp:626 execute_command
bittrex-deposit (locked) >>> wallet_scan_transaction cf3a6044
passphrase:
OK
TIMESTAMP           BLOCK     FROM                TO                  AMOUNT                  MEMO                                        FEE                 ID
======================================================================================================================================================================
2015-02-28T15:56:40 1908429   syntaks             bittrex-deposit     873.10000 BTS           ac69ee99ce0f4b8ebcd                         0.50000 BTS         cf3a6044
bittrex-deposit (unlocked) >>>  wallet_scan_transaction cf3a6044 true
passphrase:
OK

nevermind figured it out... looks like cmake isn't including right linker options... -lz fixes it ...

Hmm this same config was building .24 just fine... any pointers on what openssl version we need to switch to?

Linking CXX executable ecc_test
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypto.a(c_zlib.o): In function `zlib_stateful_expand_block':
(.text+0x59): undefined reference to `inflate'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypto.a(c_zlib.o): In function `zlib_stateful_compress_block':
(.text+0xea): undefined reference to `deflate'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypto.a(c_zlib.o): In function `bio_zlib_free':
(.text+0x13d): undefined reference to `inflateEnd'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypto.a(c_zlib.o): In function `bio_zlib_free':
(.text+0x15b): undefined reference to `deflateEnd'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypto.a(c_zlib.o): In function `zlib_stateful_finish':
(.text+0x1d0): undefined reference to `inflateEnd'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypto.a(c_zlib.o): In function `zlib_stateful_finish':
(.text+0x1d9): undefined reference to `deflateEnd'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypto.a(c_zlib.o): In function `zlib_stateful_init':
(.text+0x268): undefined reference to `inflateInit_'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypto.a(c_zlib.o): In function `zlib_stateful_init':
(.text+0x2d9): undefined reference to `deflateInit_'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypto.a(c_zlib.o): In function `bio_zlib_ctrl':
(.text+0x54c): undefined reference to `deflate'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypto.a(c_zlib.o): In function `bio_zlib_ctrl':
(.text+0x5f0): undefined reference to `zError'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypto.a(c_zlib.o): In function `bio_zlib_write':
(.text+0x809): undefined reference to `deflate'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypto.a(c_zlib.o): In function `bio_zlib_write':
(.text+0x89a): undefined reference to `zError'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypto.a(c_zlib.o): In function `bio_zlib_write':
(.text+0x933): undefined reference to `deflateInit_'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypto.a(c_zlib.o): In function `bio_zlib_read':
(.text+0xa13): undefined reference to `inflate'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypto.a(c_zlib.o): In function `bio_zlib_read':
(.text+0xa8d): undefined reference to `zError'
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/libcrypto.a(c_zlib.o): In function `bio_zlib_read':
(.text+0xafc): undefined reference to `inflateInit_'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make[2]: *** [libraries/fc/ecc_test] Error 1
make[1]: *** [libraries/fc/CMakeFiles/ecc_test.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2

line 1: 23253 Segmentation fault      (core dumped)

Started happening last night;  we've tried deleting exceptions/logs/mailclient/peers etc but keeps happening.

20141124T193017 th_a:http_server handle_connection           scan_chain ] WALLET SCANNING CHAIN!                        wallet.cpp:1507
20141124T193019 th_a:http_server handle_connection store_pending_transa ] storing new local transaction with id a4ebdd28e068daca928a95ca6fa466bf158aa9c8                        chain_database.cpp:1828
20141124T193019 th_a:http_server handle_connection get_mail_server_name ] Error while getting mail servers for btercom: 7 bad_cast_exception: Bad Cast
Invalid cast from type 'null_type' to Object
    {"type":"null_type"}
    th_a  variant.cpp:568 get_object                    client.cpp:282


Error log of what looks like is causing the problem.  Any help appreciated.

Thanks,
richie@bittrex 

Just pulled from git and rebuilt; seems that wallet_get_balance is broken now. 

>>> wallet_account_balance
10 assert_exception: Assert Exception
v.size() <= sizeof( fc::ripemd160 ) + 4: all addresses are less than 24 bytes

This has busted our workflow.  Is there a new call we should be making?