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.


Messages - bitder

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
1
General Discussion / Re: Announcing Brownie Points (BROWNIE.PTS)
« on: August 15, 2015, 02:46:28 pm »
Mmmm brownies...

Contributions
  • Started mining PTS back in 2013-12 (a bit late and wasn't very fruitful)
  • injected money into the bitshares ecosystem by buying PTS and contributing to AGS
  • involved in early btsx testing
  • helped identify the root cause of an account/key indexing problem during early refactoring. (I was already thanked with some PTS -- which I contributed back to AGS)
  • helped people with linux build issues
  • helped test bitshares DNS - ran active delegates for a while
  • ran an active BTSX delegate delegate.bitder for a long time until being bumped off when the 100% delegates were voted in
  • mined Sparkle for a while
  • contributed code to compute the genesis rich list
  • lurking on this forum every day
  • most importantly still buying BTS

Account: bitder

2
IDentabit / Re: Important Criticism
« on: August 15, 2015, 02:20:56 pm »
Underwun,

It's obvious that a lot of thought and energy has gone into this venture. Good job!
You've identified an unmet business need/opportunity and have set out to address it with IDentabit. This already sets it apart from 99% of the other crypto projects. (Your business savy and experience is showing through...)

I did notice a couple of typos on the identabit.com website
  • In the Efficiency section: "Comparable block confirmation 600 > seconds" should be > 600 seconds
  • In the Issuance Efficiency section: "Block confirmation 600+ mins seconds rigid" should be 600+ seconds

Excited to see this project drive mass adoption.

3
General Discussion / Re: Brownie Distribution Update
« on: August 01, 2015, 09:57:01 pm »
| bitder | - | bitder |

4
Technical Support / Re: 0.5.1 and 0.5.3 are unusable for me
« on: January 24, 2015, 11:17:48 am »
I'm running a delegate node and the 0.5.3 upgrade seems to have networking issues.
Looks like it's connecting to itself as a peer and there are race conditions in the code that gets confused about the state of the  sync blocks and disconnects (from itself).
Code: [Select]
Peer <my-own-public-ip>:47595 disconnected us: You offered me a list of more sync blocks than could possibly exist
Peer <my-own-public-ip>:36004 disconnected us: You offered me a list of more sync blocks than could possibly exist
--- there are now 30 active connections to the p2p network
--- there are now 26 active connections to the p2p network
--- there are now 23 active connections to the p2p network
--- there are now 4 active connections to the p2p network
--- there are now 3 active connections to the p2p network
--- there are now 4 active connections to the p2p network
--- in sync with p2p network
--- there are now 19 active connections to the p2p network
--- there are now 18 active connections to the p2p network
--- there are now 4 active connections to the p2p network
--- there are now 3 active connections to the p2p network
--- there are now 2 active connections to the p2p network
--- there are now 1 active connections to the p2p network
--- there are now 0 active connections to the p2p network
--- there are now 2 active connections to the p2p network
--- there are now 4 active connections to the p2p network
--- there are now 17 active connections to the p2p network

Also, on initial start up of 0.5.3 I'm seeing the connection count climb to over 130.
(And I'm about to be bumped off of the top 101...)

5
hi all
today i found on bter balance bts_s2
i guess its a new snapshot but i cant find infos about it
does anyone know what it is (a new project like play?)and do i have to take action

I believe that's the BTER snapshot of bts for the Sparkle DAC.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?board=80.0

6
...

I am unable to transfer to my wallet.  I have sent them from my exchange account and have not received them for over two days now.  Not sure what is going on...

Am I alone here?

I have a wallet with my delegate account (not set to produce blocks) and a regular account (in the same wallet) and transfers to my regular account from BTER doesn't show up for me either.
wallet_rescan_blockchain doesn't help.
I had to manually do wallet_verify_titan_deposit <transaction_id_prefix> for the balance to show up.

7
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)


8
Technical Support / Re: Bter
« on: November 29, 2014, 07:23:08 pm »
Have you tried the following on the transaction id?

Code: [Select]
wallet_verify_titan_deposit <transaction_id_prefix> 

9
The mining difficulty is not correct. The current situation is that the block times are getting larger.

Code: [Select]
>>> 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)
Code: [Select]
>>> 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:
Code: [Select]
$ 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.

10
General Discussion / Re: Sparkle - Because real money sparkles!
« on: November 29, 2014, 12:46:20 am »
I'm stuck at 263 on both machines that are mining

Did you upgrade and reindex after the latest update?

I am on block 820

Looks like an invalid block at 263

Code: [Select]
>>> blockchain_list_forks
   FORKED BLOCK              FORKING BLOCK ID              SIGNING DELEGATE      TXN COUNT      SIZE           TIMESTAMP   LATENCY   VALID    IN CURRENT CHAIN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            262
     00000239fd6da1f1bd74e03aa2e72772d3542064              Unknown Delegate              0        92 2014-11-28T22:29:12      7585     YES                 YES
     0000145d9341af5f197986ac150fde2ab6fa59d4              Unknown Delegate              0        92 2014-11-28T22:28:33      7624      NO                  NO
REASONS FOR INVALID BLOCKS
0000145d9341af5f197986ac150fde2ab6fa59d4: 10 assert_exception: Assert Exception
block_data.difficulty() > difficulty:
    {}
    th_a  chain_database.cpp:734 verify_header

    {"block_data":{"previous":"0000011cd7c99672c63fbc835b3d1f5652b53a5a","version":0,"block_num":263,"timestamp":"2014-11-28T22:28:33","transaction_digest":"c8cf12fe3180ed901a58a0697a522f1217de72d04529bd255627a4ad6164f0f0","nonce":6092,"miner":"SPK7rYgHnMKDYHxuXnN129yVceGYxGgY6yu7","reserved":"","user_transactions":[]}}
    th_a  chain_database.cpp:742 verify_header


11
General Discussion / Re: Invictus Innovations to Return PTS Donations
« on: November 13, 2014, 04:19:26 pm »
I'm not a US citizen, not an accountant, not a lawyer...
By returning the "gift", would that be treated as a NOP by the IRS and therefore no tax liability?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_tax_in_the_United_States

12
KeyID / Re: KeyID v0.0.4 HOTFIX - init delegates voted back in
« on: October 14, 2014, 09:46:11 am »
Upgraded to 0.0.4

bitder-dns-delegate-0pr    0%
bitder-dns-delegate-1pr    1%

13
KeyID / Re: [DNS] v0.0.2 - Trade the snapshot and fight for delegate pay
« on: October 03, 2014, 05:03:42 am »
Code: [Select]
make[2]: *** [libraries/fc/CMakeFiles/fc.dir/git_revision.cpp.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [libraries/fc/CMakeFiles/fc.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2

did you do the following?
Code: [Select]
$ git submodule update --init
$ cmake .
$ make
also have same problem
Code: [Select]
/root/keyid/libraries/fc/git_revision.cpp:9:46: note: in expansion of macro ‘FC_GIT_REVISION_UNIX_TIMESTAMP’
 const uint32_t git_revision_unix_timestamp = FC_GIT_REVISION_UNIX_TIMESTAMP;
                                              ^
/root/keyid/libraries/fc/git_revision.cpp:4:45: error: ‘HASH’ was not declared in this scope
 #define FC_GIT_REVISION_UNIX_TIMESTAMP HEAD-HASH-NOTFOUND
                                             ^
/root/keyid/libraries/fc/git_revision.cpp:9:46: note: in expansion of macro ‘FC_GIT_REVISION_UNIX_TIMESTAMP’
 const uint32_t git_revision_unix_timestamp = FC_GIT_REVISION_UNIX_TIMESTAMP;
                                              ^
/root/keyid/libraries/fc/git_revision.cpp:4:50: error: ‘NOTFOUND’ was not declared in this scope
 #define FC_GIT_REVISION_UNIX_TIMESTAMP HEAD-HASH-NOTFOUND
                                                  ^
/root/keyid/libraries/fc/git_revision.cpp:9:46: note: in expansion of macro ‘FC_GIT_REVISION_UNIX_TIMESTAMP’
 const uint32_t git_revision_unix_timestamp = FC_GIT_REVISION_UNIX_TIMESTAMP;
                                              ^
make[2]: *** [libraries/fc/CMakeFiles/fc.dir/git_revision.cpp.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [libraries/fc/CMakeFiles/fc.dir/all] Error 2

You probably don't have the latest code checked out.

Code: [Select]
$ git fetch
$ git checkout master
$ git rebase
$ git submodule update --init
$ cmake .
$ make

After that, you can update for future builds by doing:
Code: [Select]
$ git fetch
$ git rebase
$ git submodule update --init
$ make

14
KeyID / Re: [DNS] v0.0.2 - Trade the snapshot and fight for delegate pay
« on: October 03, 2014, 04:15:52 am »
I've registered and enabled block production for 2 delegates. Please feel free to vote for either or both (for delegate diversification). I'm running this on the same box as my btsx delegate so that's covering costs already. (located in Canada)

bitder-dns-delegate-0pr    ( 0% pay rate)
bitder-dns-delegate-1pr    ( 1% pay rate)

15
KeyID / Re: [DNS] v0.0.2 - Trade the snapshot and fight for delegate pay
« on: October 03, 2014, 02:05:54 am »
Code: [Select]
make[2]: *** [libraries/fc/CMakeFiles/fc.dir/git_revision.cpp.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [libraries/fc/CMakeFiles/fc.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2

did you do the following?
Code: [Select]
$ git submodule update --init
$ cmake .
$ make

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5