Author Topic: [OVER] New Public XTS Test for Developers and Savvy Users  (Read 52315 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


clout

  • Guest
will it allow for delegate voting?

Offline bytemaster

why have delegates missed so many blocks?

Because I have taken them off line.   We are preparing a new test chain that will address some issues:

1) We will be updating the P2P network communication layer to provide better forward compatibility
2) We are updating the founder accounts registered in the initial condition
3) We are adding a few tweaks to accelerate blockchain download 

Hold off testing on this on the current public chain.   We are preparing instructions for the new chain.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

clout

  • Guest
why have delegates missed so many blocks?

Offline NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
Is any trading happening yet? Has anyone delved into the bit assets portion of the exchange or are you guys still working on simply sending transactions?

A non techie status report for the simpletons would be cool.

So far we don't have trading, only creating/issuing assets. We are putting that off in favor of everything needed for XT launch.
We have had a functioning BitAsset market in previous versions though - it's not really the hard part.

Thank you toast!

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Is any trading happening yet? Has anyone delved into the bit assets portion of the exchange or are you guys still working on simply sending transactions?

A non techie status report for the simpletons would be cool.

So far we don't have trading, only creating/issuing assets. We are putting that off in favor of everything needed for XT launch.
We have had a functioning BitAsset market in previous versions though - it's not really the hard part.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline NewMine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
Is any trading happening yet? Has anyone delved into the bit assets portion of the exchange or are you guys still working on simply sending transactions?

A non techie status report for the simpletons would be cool.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc

Offline bytemaster

https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit/commits/master
not updated today
all bug is fixed?
they commit to other branch
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit/commits/titan
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares_toolkit/commits/json_code_generation

We have successfully migrated the wallet to be based upon TITAN (Transfer Invisibly to Any Name) without having to hard-fork the blockchain.  To enhance maintainability and facilitate development of 3rd party APIs we have also switched to using code generation for a large part of the RPC API.   We can now use this JSON description of our API to auto-generate JavaScript wrappers for the API and help keep everything in sync as things change in the future.

The TITAN updates significantly enhance usability of the wallet as well as the privacy of the users.   The 97 character long addresses that you are swapping around today with every individual are now gone and instead you can publish a single ~40 character address once  (for everyone).  Then you can register this address (account) with the blockchain.

Users no longer deal with 100's of addresses or manually creating a new address for everyone they deal with.  You wallet is no longer a hodge-podge of 'pseudo-accounts' and instead you have real accounts each with their own balance and all transfers are 'from' one account 'to' another account.   Whether that other account is yours or someone elses. 

As a result the web interface will become very familiar to anyone who had used online banking + billpay.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.


Offline sudo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: ags

Offline mauritso

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
Once every half hour it updates the UPnP connection status.  That is working.

Alright, also, how much RAM do you need to run the client? The RAM use grew to 1.86GB after running the client for a day (Mac OS X 10.9 16GB RAM), is that necessary or does it use more RAM because there is more RAM available? (I get that this is not really the point of this test, just curious)
BTS: maurits

Offline bytemaster

Probably nothing, running the client for more than a day now.

The output when doing nothing (for a while) is:

Code: [Select]
UPnP Port Mapping successful.
UPnP Port Mapping successful.
UPnP Port Mapping successful.
UPnP Port Mapping successful.
UPnP Port Mapping successful.
UPnP Port Mapping successful.
UPnP Port Mapping successful.
UPnP Port Mapping successful.
UPnP Port Mapping successful.
UPnP Port Mapping successful.
UPnP Port Mapping successful.
UPnP Port Mapping successful.
UPnP Port Mapping successful.
UPnP Port Mapping successful.
UPnP Port Mapping successful.
UPnP Port Mapping successful.
UPnP Port Mapping successful.

Etc.

Is that expected behaviour or is there something wrong with UPnP on my end?

Once every half hour it updates the UPnP connection status.  That is working.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Amazon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 830
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares Forum
Is this going well?  I can't tell from the posts lol.

tl;dr better than I expected

We haven't had to reset even once! Plenty of bugs but most stuff is at the level of the client (usability). Managed to make several very big updates without having to hard fork. Dan thinks we won't even need to reset for TITAN+architecture changes. Good chance this is our last testnet if that's true.

DPOS looks solid so far, what a relief. Big props to Eric for his huge network test suite. Really want to get delegate voting up so we can let people try to really misbehave and split the network.
As a non-delegate, any time I've made a bad change I just got disconnected and the rest of the network chugged along unaffected.

Worst bug so far is that the ECC library is totally broken for 32 bit machines... that's like half the windows users. Also some users experiencing mysterious connection issues. Minor issues w.r.t the network as a whole, but terrible if you're the one experiencing them =P.

This is encouraging progress. Thanks,
Forum Donation: PforumPLfVQXTi4QpQqKwoChXHkoHcxGuA

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi
you can see fc/src/network/tcp_socket.cpp, line 92 and line 96
The different is don't call this
Code: [Select]
    my->_sock.bind(boost::asio::ip::tcp::endpoint(boost::asio::ip::address_v4(local_endpoint.get_address()),
                                                                              local_endpoint.port()));
before
Code: [Select]
    fc::asio::tcp::connect(my->_sock, fc::asio::tcp::endpoint(boost::asio::ip::address_v4(remote_endpoint.get_address()), remote_endpoint.port()));
I am not  family with this code, but I think the problem is the node  can't connect to your port 5678 without upnp support or pub IP.

libraries/net/node.cpp, line 455, remove 3 lines:
Code: [Select]
//        if (local_endpoint.valid())
//          _message_connection.connect_to(remote_endpoint, *local_endpoint);
//        else

compile and try again.

that fixed it for me, both on the machine with public ip and the one in the virtualbox.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2014, 12:44:12 pm by alt »