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 - wackou

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 33
106
General Discussion / Re: Looking for BTS 2.0 Seed Node Operators
« on: October 13, 2015, 07:44:54 am »
I will maintain the following seed nodes:

seed01.bitsharesnodes.com:1776
seed02.bitsharesnodes.com:1776
seed03.bitsharesnodes.com:1776

107
General Discussion / Re: October 5 Test Network
« on: October 09, 2015, 09:20:34 am »
When I try to connect the cli_wallet to my local witness node it crashes with the following segfault:
Code: [Select]

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to Thread 0x7ffff4f86700 (LWP 7101)]
0x0000000000ed7d98 in websocketpp::processor::hybi13<fc::http::detail::asio_with_stub_log>::consume(unsigned char*, unsigned long, std::error_code&) ()
(gdb) backtrace
#0  0x0000000000ed7d98 in websocketpp::processor::hybi13<fc::http::detail::asio_with_stub_log>::consume(unsigned char*, unsigned long, std::error_code&) ()
#1  0x0000000000eb92a9 in websocketpp::connection<fc::http::detail::asio_with_stub_log>::handle_read_frame(std::error_code const&, unsigned long) ()
#2  0x0000000000e8af24 in websocketpp::transport::asio::connection<fc::http::detail::asio_with_stub_log::transport_config>::handle_async_read(boost::system::error_code const&, unsigned long) ()
#3  0x0000000000ea1825 in boost::asio::detail::completion_handler<boost::asio::detail::binder2<std::_Bind<std::_Mem_fn<void (websocketpp::transport::asio::connection<fc::http::detail::asio_with_stub_log::transport_config>::*)(boost::system::error_code const&, unsigned long)> (std::shared_ptr<websocketpp::transport::asio::connection<fc::http::detail::asio_with_stub_log::transport_config> >, std::_Placeholder<1>, std::_Placeholder<2>)>, boost::system::error_code, unsigned long> >::do_complete(boost::asio::detail::task_io_service*, boost::asio::detail::task_io_service_operation*, boost::system::error_code const&, unsigned long) ()
#4  0x0000000000ea1a96 in void boost::asio::detail::strand_service::dispatch<boost::asio::detail::binder2<std::_Bind<std::_Mem_fn<void (websocketpp::transport::asio::connection<fc::http::detail::asio_with_stub_log::transport_config>::*)(boost::system::error_code const&, unsigned long)> (std::shared_ptr<websocketpp::transport::asio::connection<fc::http::detail::asio_with_stub_log::transport_config> >, std::_Placeholder<1>, std::_Placeholder<2>)>, boost::system::error_code, unsigned long> >(boost::asio::detail::strand_service::strand_impl*&, boost::asio::detail::binder2<std::_Bind<std::_Mem_fn<void (websocketpp::transport::asio::connection<fc::http::detail::asio_with_stub_log::transport_config>::*)(boost::system::error_code const&, unsigned long)> (std::shared_ptr<websocketpp::transport::asio::connection<fc::http::detail::asio_with_stub_log::transport_config> >, std::_Placeholder<1>, std::_Placeholder<2>)>, boost::system::error_code, unsigned long>&) ()
#5  0x0000000000ea1bc1 in std::_Function_handler<void (boost::system::error_code const&, unsigned long), boost::asio::detail::wrapped_handler<boost::asio::io_service::strand, std::_Bind<std::_Mem_fn<void (websocketpp::transport::asio::connection<fc::http::detail::asio_with_stub_log::transport_config>::*)(boost::system::error_code const&, unsigned long)> (std::shared_ptr<websocketpp::transport::asio::connection<fc::http::detail::asio_with_stub_log::transport_config> >, std::_Placeholder<1>, std::_Placeholder<2>)>, boost::asio::detail::is_continuation_if_running> >::_M_invoke(std::_Any_data const&, boost::system::error_code const&, unsigned long&&) ()
#6  0x0000000000ea2e8d in boost::asio::detail::read_op<boost::asio::basic_stream_socket<boost::asio::ip::tcp, boost::asio::stream_socket_service<boost::asio::ip::tcp> >, boost::asio::mutable_buffers_1, boost::asio::detail::transfer_at_least_t, websocketpp::transport::asio::custom_alloc_handler<std::function<void (boost::system::error_code const&, unsigned long)> > >::operator()(boost::system::error_code const&, unsigned long, int) ()
#7  0x0000000000ea344d in boost::asio::detail::reactive_socket_recv_op<boost::asio::mutable_buffers_1, boost::asio::detail::read_op<boost::asio::basic_stream_socket<boost::asio::ip::tcp, boost::asio::stream_socket_service<boost::asio::ip::tcp> >, boost::asio::mutable_buffers_1, boost::asio::detail::transfer_at_least_t, websocketpp::transport::asio::custom_alloc_handler<std::function<void (boost::system::error_code const&, unsigned long)> > > >::do_complete(boost::asio::detail::task_io_service*, boost::asio::detail::task_io_service_operation*, boost::system::error_code const&, unsigned long) ()
#8  0x0000000000e2d475 in boost::asio::detail::epoll_reactor::descriptor_state::do_complete(boost::asio::detail::task_io_service*, boost::asio::detail::task_io_service_operation*, boost::system::error_code const&, unsigned long) ()
#9  0x0000000000ee72f6 in fc::asio::default_io_service_scope::default_io_service_scope()::{lambda()#1}::operator()() const ()
#10 0x000000000102fa35 in thread_proxy ()
#11 0x00007ffff774a4a4 in start_thread () from /usr/lib/libpthread.so.0
#12 0x00007ffff5e4912d in clone () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6

All it needs for me is run
Code: [Select]
  ./programs/cli_wallet/cli_wallet -s ws://127.0.0.1:8090  (which gets stuck after wdata.ws_user:  wdata.ws_password:)

Did you find a solution to that problem? It started happening to me last night, and now it won't connect at all (fails with the exact same error, same stack trace every single time).

108
General Discussion / Re: October 5 Test Network
« on: October 07, 2015, 02:55:53 pm »
wackou updated to latest master

109
Please note that I do want to have it released as soon as possible, and I know the devs are doing everything humanly possible in order to achieve that. But I'd rather be on the "too cautious" side of things rather than "too optimistic".

Also, I think that my opinions (amongst others) have been clearly stated here, so I will stop posting in this thread, in the end it's Cryptonomex's decision and responsibility when to release and endlessly arguing will not change their mind. I do already have my fingers crossed, though, so that everything goes fine next week, and would be praying too if I believed it could make a difference...

110
It's already released, it's called testnet. Beta is far different than alpha.
Can we please distinguish the UI from the Backend (blockchain)

The reason that the GUI doesn't fit everyone's needs is not good enough to not release the backend in time ..

I want to agree with you, but I can't. End users will not (and should not) care what is the root cause of the crashes that they will see. They will only care that it crashed, and that BitShares sucks... (note that I'm not talking about missing features but about stability here) And nobody is going to run the CLI client, everyone will be on the GUI client.

And even if we care only about the backend, then judging by the latest testnet thread and the github issues there are still some fundamental issues to be fixed. Just an example:

bitshares-argentina  can you please let me know if you have changed your software in any way because it appears your node is consistently producing blocks even though you are not in the set of active witnesses.

That doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that it will be industrial-strength in less than a week...


We could run the blockchain .. let exchanges integrate with it and tag the UI "experimental" .. and we can do this by next week ..

that's ok for a first release, not so much for a 2.0 release....

that's more than people around ethereum have running!

We should stop comparing ourselves to ethereum but rather to our former selves (BitShares 0.9.x). What if BitShares 2.0 is released and it's better than Ethereum, but worse than BitShares 0.9. Will this be a success or a failure?

111
as bytemaster said:  If we wait to release it when no "bugs" are present, we will never release it!
Time will not stop at 13 October, we will make more updates after this date, nothing wrong with that!

There is a HUGE gap between 'perfect' and 'alpha' quality - right now we have an 'alpha' quality product, which may not be fit for purpose.

can't agree more. If there are some bugs (crashes, UI problems, etc...) we, the already existing BitShares community, won't mind that much (I know I won't), but people from the outside, to whom we've told that 2.0 is going to be better in all aspects than 0.9.x, more stable, better UI, etc. will probably think that we're a bunch of incompetent, under-delivering guys when they see that their wallet crashes not even 1 day after installing it. As discussed at length in other threads, it's all about perception, and I'm really worried that 1 week is not enough to fix everything left that's required to give you that "wow!" effect that we promised.

There are a *lot* of people watching for the 2.0 release, and I think "better safe than sorry" should be a guiding principle as to when to do the release. And we should talk about it now, because if current delegates have to downgrade to 0.9.2 (or upgrade to 0.9.4 that removes the hard-fork with stopped block production after the deadline), then we should be preparing for that already.

112
I urge you to reconsider your launch date.

I really have to side with Monsterer here.

I don't doubt that you (bytemaster) feel confident, and I usually trust your judgement, but in this very particular case (BTS 2.0 launch with a *lot* of people watching us) I really believe that we need a fully-featured testnet running flawlessly for at least 2 weeks before even trying to attempt a release. I know that you guys got a lot of flak in the past for missed deadlines, but this time you promised really strong stability of the network and you should aim for that rather than the promised deadline.

Maybe a meager 2 additional weeks would be more than enough, depending on how the current testnet goes, but there are still very problematic issues to be solved and they keep popping up. Frequency and severity keeps dropping, of course (which indeed means we're getting closer to a stable release by the day), but when you still have a hard-fork-requiring issue popping up less than a week from final release, this seems overly optimistic (https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/355, nothing in particular against this issue, it's just an example)

113
General Discussion / Re: October 5 Test Network
« on: October 05, 2015, 10:55:30 pm »
...and the storm is over!

It seems though that cpu usage is consistently higher than before the test although there are no transactions happening in the network.



114
General Discussion / Re: October 5 Test Network
« on: October 05, 2015, 10:40:47 pm »
2-core 4GB vultr instance holding good, although I did miss 11 blocks... (about half)


115
General Discussion / Re: October 5 Test Network
« on: October 05, 2015, 09:46:11 pm »
Would someone mind sending delegate-1.lafona 5000 CORE, thanks.

Sent you some

116
General Discussion / Re: October 5 Test Network
« on: October 05, 2015, 09:39:33 pm »
100 TPS / 30 min stress test will begin in 45 min (22:10 UTC). If you can donate some CORE, please send them to 'clayop'

sent you 250K. How much spamming time does that buy? :)

117
General Discussion / Re: October 5 Test Network
« on: October 05, 2015, 09:03:13 pm »
Please vote for wackou, running on a 2-core 4GB vultr instance
Code: [Select]
get_witness wackou
{
  "id": "1.6.30",
  "witness_account": "1.2.83710",
  "last_aslot": 0,
  "signing_key": "GPH8C1Cz3LDu732VT74bYvNE2G25NLghV96zcMnFwLd4Z6aXWup9i",
  "vote_id": "1:41",
  "total_votes": 0,
  "url": "http://digitalgaia.io",
  "total_missed": 0,
  "last_confirmed_block_num": 0
}

118
General Discussion / Re: October 2nd Test Network
« on: October 02, 2015, 10:47:22 pm »
wackou updated to latest master, still waiting for some votes to start producing blocks, thanks!

wackou up and running, proxy set to dan

Code: [Select]
get_witness wackou
{
  "id": "1.6.17",
  "witness_account": "1.2.83349",
  "last_aslot": 0,
  "signing_key": "GPH8C1Cz3LDu732VT74bYvNE2G25NLghV96zcMnFwLd4Z6aXWup9i",
  "vote_id": "1:37",
  "total_votes": 0,
  "url": "http://digitalgaia.io",
  "total_missed": 0
}

119
General Discussion / Re: October 2nd Test Network
« on: October 02, 2015, 02:15:11 pm »
wackou up and running, proxy set to dan

Code: [Select]
get_witness wackou
{
  "id": "1.6.17",
  "witness_account": "1.2.83349",
  "last_aslot": 0,
  "signing_key": "GPH8C1Cz3LDu732VT74bYvNE2G25NLghV96zcMnFwLd4Z6aXWup9i",
  "vote_id": "1:37",
  "total_votes": 0,
  "url": "http://digitalgaia.io",
  "total_missed": 0
}

120
General Discussion / Re: October 1st Testnet for Advanced Users
« on: October 02, 2015, 09:12:13 am »
I think the main chain is stuck on #14541. Each of us can start its own fork but the main chain stays on #14541. I seem to recall that bytemaster said the main chain needs 2/3 of witnesses to keep on going (or sth like that, not sure anymore).

I guess we're going to have to wait for the next testnet or until bytemaster works his magic somehow to resurrect this one...

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 33