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 - cube

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... 94
211
General Discussion / Re: Things I don't like about the committee
« on: February 06, 2016, 11:11:13 am »
Quote from: jakub on February 06, 2016, 09:48:36 am

OK, this looks a fine plan.
So would you refer me to the forum thread which inspired the committee to work on rebranding the referral program?

(By "rebranding the referral program" ...)


Is there a brand to begin with?  AFAIK, as BM took pain to explain, bts2 began as an experiment. Its self-governing structure with committee and proxies only started to function recently.  I did not see any attempt in branding bts2, let alone RP.  Or am I missing something?  If there is no brand to begin with, there is certainly no rebranding.

ps: A good brand is good to have and it is essential for us to succeed against our competitors.  It takes a lot more thoughts and planning before it can happen.


Quote from: jakub on February 06, 2016, 09:56:31 am
Why Telegram and not this forum?
Just for your convenience?
Well, if that's the case IMO transparency should take precedence over your convenience.

Telegram should be used only for technical stuff and to facilitate coordination.
Or we should all move to Telegram.

I am not xeroc and I cannot know his intent.  But in general, each individual has a preference for a communication channel to achieve a specific purpose.  It could be different channels for different purposes.  Whether it is for a real-time discussion, co-ordination or organisation, I think we should let the individual decide what is most suitable for their own needs.

212
General Discussion / Re: Things I don't like about the committee
« on: February 06, 2016, 09:45:15 am »
Quote from: jakub on February 06, 2016, 09:38:56 am
Quote from: xeroc on February 05, 2016, 07:07:42 pm
Even though I can't yet reveal the whole fee schedule to you, I hope it makes sense to you.

Why is that?
Keeping things secret in this context makes sense only in one case: if you are negotiating something between yourselves.
All this stuff should be in the public domain since the very beginning.

I think this is a misunderstanding.  Perhaps he is still formulating/enhancing his fee schedule idea. xeroc has not kept any of his idea secret. In fact, he has shared his fee schedule idea in the general bitshares telegram channel.

213
General Discussion / Re: Things I don't like about the committee
« on: February 06, 2016, 09:33:29 am »
AFAIK, the committee is working like this:

1) A user starts a certain topic on the forum which may need the attention of the committee

2) Feedback are gathered from the forum as more users participate in it

3) Committee members may choose to participate in the on-going discussion

4) Committee members may clarify the concerns or ideas raised in the forum posts and discuss ideas among them with proxies' active participation (in telegram)

5) After a period of time, a level of understanding is established between the users who contributed to the posts, the result usually ends with some gives-and-takes and new ideas

6) The committee attempts to make a proposal which absorbs the essence of (5) and it will be presented to the forum for discussion among the users (especially key players affected by the proposed change). 

7) Feedbacks on the proposal are gathered. 

8.) Fine-tuning/modification to the proposal may be needed. Committee discusses them in telegram,  again with active participation of proxies

9) A fine-tuned proposal (if needed) is made by the committee

10) A process of (7) to (9) is repeated until a final proposal can be made.

11) Committee votes on the final proposal.  At this point, the committee has a deep and clear understanding of the issues at hand and it can vote with confidence.

214
Technical Support / Re: is the witness thing running under win?
« on: February 02, 2016, 05:57:44 pm »
Quote from: tonyk on February 02, 2016, 05:25:29 pm

well, mine is indeed stuck...the head block number stays the same and matches the one from the pic above "head_block_num": 2821722,

info
{
  "head_block_num": 2821722,
  "head_block_id": "002b0e5a206413b5f17ee209705b51b3cb90fa4c",
  "head_block_age": "13 days old",
  "next_maintenance_time": "13 days ago",
  "chain_id": "4018d7844c78f6a6c41c6a552b898022310fc5dec06da467ee7905a8dad512c8"
,
  "participation": "100.00000000000000000",
  "active_witnesses": [

Well we are coming close to an answer now.  You did manage to sync up to a certain point - "head_block_num": 2821722,

Now a few things to do:

1) What is your Internet bandwidth?
2) Is your system clock up to date/time?
3) Compress C:\Program Files\BitShares 2\bin\witness_node_data_dir\logs\p2p\p2p.log and share the compressed file out. PM me the link.  We would need to send the relevant info to the dev via github issue report.

215
General Discussion / Re: Committee: Fee Pool Usage Policy? (community discussion)
« on: February 02, 2016, 05:10:12 pm »
Do you mean the bitassets earned from tx fees?

216
Technical Support / Re: is the witness thing running under win?
« on: February 02, 2016, 10:49:42 am »
I downloaded the latest official binary and tried the witness_node, as if I am a layman.  Surprisingly, I got the same result as you - ie the witness_node.exe seemed to be stuck.  The witness node output information seems to be changed.  It becomes quiet, possibly to be less spamy.

Here is what you can do:

1) Follow what xeldal advised:  make a shortcut with "C:\Program Files\BitShares 2\bin\witness_node.exe" --rpc-endpoint "127.0.0.1:8090" as the target.
Run this shortcut as Administrator

2) make a shortcut with "C:\Program Files\BitShares 2\bin\cli_wallet.exe" -H 127.0.0.1:8092 -s ws://127.0.0.1:8090 as the target.
Run this shortcut as Administrator

3) When the wallet runs, enter 'info' at the 'new' prompt.  You will get to see a number of stuff.  Look out for 'head_block_num'.  This number will be increasing even though the witness_node seems to be stuck with no new output from it.  But it is not stuck.  It is working quietly.

217
Technical Support / Re: is the witness thing running under win?
« on: February 02, 2016, 03:30:16 am »
The screenshot shows your node was able to perform an initial network communication with seeds but died off soon after (0 network IO).  So the question is why? Did it die off because it was blocked or did it encounter some logic errors?  Was it a network timeout because of too congested pipe/too small bandwidth?

To know that:

1) Did you disable Firewall?   Disable it.  At least enable local port 1777

2) Do a 'netstat -a' to show the network socket state with seed nodes

3) Show the last 20 to 30 lines of p2p.log.  This gives an idea what the node was doing. Eg was it killing off some socket connections? And why?

218
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: February 01, 2016, 10:47:17 am »
Quote from: jakub on February 01, 2016, 10:01:18 am
@yvv , this is only illustrates that your flat rental example is quite inadequate to our situation.
We do not have any significant cost (the equivalent of mortgage) to pay for unoccupied space on the blockchain. 


Well. That is not really true.  bts witnesses still need to keep their nodes up and running, and pay running cost, whether there is transaction to be signed or not.  These expenses are being financed by the network.

219
Technical Support / Re: is the witness thing running under win?
« on: February 01, 2016, 04:36:53 am »
Quote from: tonyk on January 31, 2016, 06:01:43 pm
Quote from: xeroc on January 31, 2016, 09:39:58 am
Stupid question maybe, but do you have enough disk space left?

193 G under win, 183 G under Linux

Update.... weird enough, stuck at exactly the same point under Ubuntu. [only difference it stuck a few blocks earlier 2821705..i.e 05 instead of 22

Granted I just ran it, then ran it with --replay-blockchain

At least this is the more supported OS so probably more people can help.

Well, you have not provided the netstats info for seed communication and the p2p log.  We cannot rule out a firewall or a network communication problem.

220
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: February 01, 2016, 04:22:42 am »
Quote from: jakub on January 31, 2016, 12:31:57 pm
I'm not a committee member, so I don't have access to this "fee schedule proposal".

You have access to the Committee telegram channel.  All known proxies were invited.  You were there once but you probably forgotten about it.  Please come into the channel. There are discussions going on and we need your input.

Quote from: xeroc on January 31, 2016, 12:43:19 pm
Also, name one bitcoin processor that profits from a) referrals or b) transaction fees.
Whatevery we pay them, it is already an extra profit for them.

You are right. Most payment processors are a 'commodity product' these days and they cannot command any more than a few small percentage of transfer fees.  If our competitors are charging a much lower fees,  what do we have that can differentiate from our competitors?

Quote from: Akado on January 31, 2016, 02:18:39 pm

This. Which makes it compltely illogical to change atm, imo. This is the most rational option so why come up with stuff that will destabilize the network? I just don't get it.

Atm the status of the network is A
Someone wants B because they don't agree with A
There is no evidence A is harmful
There is [no] evidence that changing the status of the network (ie, B) is harmful.

What's even there left to discuss?

There is no concrete evidence shown in either A or B.  I do not see changing to X tx fee will bring in so much Y revenue/profit/number of new users.  Neither do I see a business plan that says with the current referral program, I can expect to see so much Z revenue/profit/number of new users by certain time frame.   Neither A nor B have given any business plan and this is giving rise to the current great discussion.

Quote from: jakub on January 31, 2016, 01:17:57 pm
But this idea weakens the purpose of buying LTM in the first place.
The smaller the difference between non-LTM and LTM, the harder it is to sell to anybody.

We do need to give the referrers some bullets to use when talking to their potential customers while ensuring that our other businesses eg trading biz can function properly.  This is a delicate balancing act we need to make.

Quote from: jakub on January 31, 2016, 05:57:38 pm

Moreover, I think you can return 16k BTS to the user immediately after s/he upgrades, as you'll be sure to be compensated in 90 days by the vesting process.
This way you loan 16k to the customer but this loan is absolutely NOT safe.
It all makes sense if you have other ways to make profit on this customer.

Corrected.

The vesting period of 90days means a fluctuation of bts price.  From a business perspective, you need to keep accounting of the price fluctuation at the point of sales and the potential of losses if bts price dropped by end of the vesting period.  Some may not be interested to offer a non-profit faucet because of that.

221
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: February 01, 2016, 04:02:46 am »
Quote from: lovejoy on January 31, 2016, 07:19:28 am
I would very much like to see fewer rash and hateful words here.
I'm extremely disappointed with certain members of this community based on the tone of their posts in this thread.
While others are standing out for their clear and genuine efforts at reaching some understanding.

I understand a certain degree of skepticism and mistrust here, but we mustn't let it get the best of us.  We can solve this issue, like so many before it.

I for one stand to benefit greatly from the referral program, yet I wish for a solution to the great fee debate which gives the Chinese members of our community the tools they need to succeed, and therefore the tools we need for all of us to succeed.  Others have already pointed out the obvious, and I will reiterate, we are a global blockchain, a global community.  We need to look after the interests of as many members of our community as we can manage.  We will be as strong as our diversity, and we haven't yet begun to exhaust options for devising a plan which can accommodate the many communities of which we are comprised.  Let's not let haste, or greed, for our little piece of the pie, distract us from the greater purpose here.

I'm generally in the don't change things until we've had a chance to see what's really happening as a result of current parameters camp, but we are faced with a situation in which a significant portion of our community is expressing a strong desire for another way of doing business, and we would do well to listen.  Try to understand where bitcrab is coming from, and respond accordingly... don't just react.  @merivercap and @abit, among others,  are really keeping it real on this front.  Respect.

We must have real dialogue between all interested parties, not just throwing stones. There must be a way to resolve this issue to the benefit of everyone involved.  May reason and goodwill prevail.

C'mon, we're only on page 19 of this thread.. I think we'll have it around page 34.  Someone start a prediction market for the fee debate already.  ;)

The whole world is counting on us... no pressure.  8)
@bytemaster alluded to some thoughts on the matter in the last mumble... I'm curious when he will weigh in... page 20?

Page 20 is up and BM has not weighed in.  This is a positive development for bitshares.  BM is letting the self-governing merchanism of bitshares to function.  Let the community, and its proxies and committee to discuss and sort things out.

 +5% for your much-needed sensible post.  There are numerous emotionally charged responses before your post - some resorting to name calling, personal attacks and using expletives.  It is regretable that part of the bitshares community has lost the better part of themselves.  I urge all parties to remain calm.  Please voice your concerns and offer ideas and counter proposals instead. 

I firmly believe that we the bitshares community is well capable of civil discussions even in the face of sensitive topics.




222
Technical Support / Re: is the witness thing running under win?
« on: January 30, 2016, 07:45:41 am »
Quote from: tonyk on January 29, 2016, 09:23:43 pm
Quote from: abit on January 29, 2016, 09:11:16 pm
Quote from: tonyk on January 29, 2016, 01:00:02 am
[update]
sorry for being somewhat slow with this...

ran the cube's exe.

same result. stuck at the same point - [blochchain ID and block#]

given up more or less on getting this thing working
When you're posting there is another hard fork. No exe file has been released so far. Perhaps you can try to compile by yourself. This guide: https://github.com/neura-sx/neura-sx.github.io/blob/master/BUILD_WIN64.md

yeeh... but thanks.
As I posted moments ago I did listen to today's mumble's recording.
 So... I do  think my internet cannot handle the 'requirements'*  to run a witness node...  :(

*700 empty blocks... to say nothing if an asshole or two overloads the blockchain with a transaction or 2 every 10,000 blocks...

What is your Internet bandwidth?

I faced similar issue recently during the hard fork - ie blockchain download stuck.   But when I added a working seed node. It started downloading. So all is well.
The recent hard fork caused the binary to be invalid.  I will upload a new binary if the devs have not done so by then.

Edit: Latest Win tools binary is uploaded here - https://github.com/btscube/bitshares-2/releases/tag/20160129
Add a valid seed to the command line arguments eg -s 185.25.22.21:1776

223
Technical Support / Re: is the witness thing running under win?
« on: January 27, 2016, 01:52:14 pm »
Quote from: tonyk on January 26, 2016, 08:13:16 pm

104.236.144.84:1777,   -> 104.236.144.84:1777 last seen 2016-01-26T18:37:49

This is puppies's seed. It would b e interesting to see what it sent you in the p2p log.

Quote from: tonyk on January 26, 2016, 08:13:16 pm
This one 84.200.17.129 from above is a  seed node. The communication went something like...

Code: [Select]
active: 84.200.17.129:1779 with 97ea3e6a4056decd6d44868e43cb444d883f875cebedfd00a48159a23a95c0b67f   [outbound]

eer 84.200.17.129:1779 because they didn't respond to my request for sync item ids after ["002b0e5966422ef475e20ef2c96acdaec7d51127","002b21e06bbd170a778f9cbc8891fa73f51764b1...

nnection.cpp:202
2016-01-26T19:00:36 p2p:message read_loop on_connection_closed ] Remote peer 84.200.17.129:1779 closed their connection to us

node.cpp:985
2016-01-26T19:00:36 p2p:message read_loop schedule_peer_for_de ] scheduling peer for deletion: 84.200.17.129:1779 (this will not block)

handshaking: 84.200.17.129:1779 with 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  [unknown]

handshaking: 84.200.17.129:1779 with 97ea3e6a4056decd6d44868e43cb444d883f875cebedfd00a48159a23a95c0b67f  [outbound]
84.200.17.129:1779 last seen 2016-01-26T19:00:50

You may like to find out why seed 84.200.17.129 is not responding to your node. Is it blocked?

What about other seeds' communication? Do you have the info?



Quote from: tonyk on January 26, 2016, 08:13:16 pm
some active communications with some non-seed nodes
from p2p.log2016012T1800000

Code: [Select]
node.cpp:2522
2016-01-26T18:37:51 p2p:message read_loop fetch_next_batch_of_ ] sync: sending a request for the next items after 002b2d966b7cf344032b787762760e770e22c90d to peer 159.203.101.247:54765, (full request is ["002b0e5966422ef475e2...

node.cpp:2424
2016-01-26T18:37:51 p2p:message read_loop           on_message ] handling message blockchain_item_ids_inventory_message_type 57179945df4926db3b90931eafa6834ba1213ce8 size 40010 from peer 159.203.101.247:5
node.cpp:1754
2016-01-26T18:37:51 p2p:message read_loop on_blockchain_item_i ] sync: received a list of 2000 available items from 159.203.101.247:54765
node.cpp:1754
2016-01-26T18:37:51 p2p:message read_loop on_blockchain_item_i ] sync: received a list of 2000 available items from 159.203.101.247:54765

Since you can retrieve the p2p log, the most recent 20 to 30 lines of debug information (before and just after it got stuck) should give some clues. Post them here.

Quote from: tonyk on January 26, 2016, 08:13:16 pm
PS
and the witness node spit a new line (for the first time) after 2h or so later:
Code: [Select]
2095358ms ntp        ntp.cpp:177                   read_loop            ] ntp_de
lta_time updated to 950002 us

You can ignore them. They are updating the internal clock.

I doubt the devs tagged the release wrongly and provided an 'old' binary.  However you can try my compiled binary just to test it out. Remember to remove the blockchain and object folders.

https://github.com/btscube/bitshares-2/releases

224
Technical Support / Re: is the witness thing running under win?
« on: January 26, 2016, 10:05:11 am »
Quote from: tonyk on January 25, 2016, 06:07:47 pm
Thanks everyone.
1) I am running this
BitShares-2.0.160103b-x64-cli-tools.exe

It is the latest for win that I see up there. Is there newer version somewhere?

2)Specifically allowed the witness_node.exe through the firewall. (and turning it off completely - with same results)...
 
Code: [Select]
TCP    0.0.0.0:52122          Inspiron_i5:0          LISTENING


This is allowing port 52122. What about other ports? Are they opened? Do turn off firewall completely to eradicate this as a possible issue.

Quote from: tonyk on January 25, 2016, 06:07:47 pm
3) I believe I have a connection to this seed node:

 
Code: [Select]
TCP    xxx.156.1.146:52122    188.166.188.206:1779   ESTABLISHED
edit: I thought it was visible from the pic above but it seems not. anyway 188.166.188.206:1779   is one of the seed nodes witness_node.exe is trying to connect to.

What to try next? I believe I was running the witness node during the last hard fork time if this changes anything somehow.

Do you see other seed nodes established?   Once we know seeds and peers are communicating with your node, the next thing is to find out if they are indeed sending out information to it.

225
Technical Support / Re: is the witness thing running under win?
« on: January 25, 2016, 10:00:09 am »
Quote from: tonyk on January 25, 2016, 05:40:14 am
well, I run it as administrator as it is (I suppose using a link to do so will not change much), the problem is it just hangs ..after finding the longest chain to hook up to (something like 2.8 mil blocks as of Jan something)...it just hangs somewhere shortly after.


[edit]



A few things to check:

1) You are running the latest witness_node (what is the version release?)
2) Your firewall is not blocking witness_node (disable firewall temporary to check)
3) You are connected to at least one seed node and not blocked  (show result of command 'netstat -a' here).

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... 94

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 23 queries.