[ANN] ¤ DMD Diamond 3.0 | Scarce ¤ Valuable ¤ Secure | PoS 3.0 | Masternodes 65% - page 797.

polanskiman

full member

Activity: 266

Merit: 100

Quote from: danbi on June 18, 2014, 03:02:39 AM

Quote from: polanskiman on June 18, 2014, 02:55:27 AM

Quote from: danbi on June 18, 2014, 12:59:21 AM

First, I apologize for confusing you with someone else. This was not intended and of course my comments about your code were misdirected. I have no idea what code you used, as it is not published. Maybe, you improved things in the code that I didn't see yet.

The changes of bitcoin code to compile on OS X is well documented and public knowledge. Diamond is using the same code base + few modifications and therefore "suffers" from the same fixes. It is also using an "obsolete" code base, although this is not a problem in most areas -- because newer code is not always better -- and because we do not seek the same functionality. But that is irrelevant to porting Diamond to different platforms.

Apologies accepted.

Anything I can do to help any further?

Maybe, publish what you changed in the code to make it compile under OS X so that it is not wasted effort and gets incorporated in the official Diamond code.

Ok. I will fork the official Diamond code and make the changes from there so you can see. It should be available today for you (I assume you are in the USA). I am in Thailand.

danbi

sr. member

Activity: 393

Merit: 250

Quote from: polanskiman on June 18, 2014, 02:55:27 AM

Quote from: danbi on June 18, 2014, 12:59:21 AM

First, I apologize for confusing you with someone else. This was not intended and of course my comments about your code were misdirected. I have no idea what code you used, as it is not published. Maybe, you improved things in the code that I didn't see yet.

The changes of bitcoin code to compile on OS X is well documented and public knowledge. Diamond is using the same code base + few modifications and therefore "suffers" from the same fixes. It is also using an "obsolete" code base, although this is not a problem in most areas -- because newer code is not always better -- and because we do not seek the same functionality. But that is irrelevant to porting Diamond to different platforms.

Apologies accepted.

Anything I can do to help any further?

Maybe, publish what you changed in the code to make it compile under OS X so that it is not wasted effort and gets incorporated in the official Diamond code.

danbi

sr. member

Activity: 393

Merit: 250

Quick and dirty block crawler has been implemented for Diamond, at http://dmdpool.digsys.bg/bc/. It is based on the Block Crawler code by CallMeJake at https://github.com/CallMeJake/BlockCrawler (if anyone wants their own copy). This is sufficient for viewing the blockchain without resorting to "manual" RPC commands.
A proper block chain explorer is in the works.

PS: I am aware it does not display network hash rate properly. This is being worked on as well.

polanskiman

full member

Activity: 266

Merit: 100

Quote from: danbi on June 18, 2014, 12:59:21 AM

First, I apologize for confusing you with someone else. This was not intended and of course my comments about your code were misdirected. I have no idea what code you used, as it is not published. Maybe, you improved things in the code that I didn't see yet.

The changes of bitcoin code to compile on OS X is well documented and public knowledge. Diamond is using the same code base + few modifications and therefore "suffers" from the same fixes. It is also using an "obsolete" code base, although this is not a problem in most areas -- because newer code is not always better -- and because we do not seek the same functionality. But that is irrelevant to porting Diamond to different platforms.

Apologies accepted.

Anything I can do to help any further?

pallas

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 1094

Black Belt Developer

Quote from: danbi on June 17, 2014, 03:14:48 PM

This is a known corruption of the block index database, for which we have not yet found a solution. The easiest way to fix it is to load the blocks from the block chain you already have, effectively rebuilding the index. You can do this by removing blkindex.dat first and then running

diamondd -loadblock=blk0001.dat

This will go like downloading the block chain from the network, only much faster and will result in clean block index.

For some reason, on my qnap, using this method is slower than redownloading the blockchain from scratch: after a night of indexing, it is still at block 95000.
Now I'll restart with the blockchain from the OP and reconpile with the suggested flags, and report back.

danbi

sr. member

Activity: 393

Merit: 250

Quote from: polanskiman on June 17, 2014, 06:32:53 PM

Quote from: danbi on June 17, 2014, 03:11:21 PM

Quote from: polanskiman on June 17, 2014, 10:19:10 AM

Quote from: danbi on June 17, 2014, 08:22:17 AM

Quote from: polanskiman on June 17, 2014, 05:09:58 AM

Since admins don't seem very interested in the MAC wallet I compiled, I am posting it here for those who wish to test it. It is working for me on 10.9.2. Should normally work on 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8.

It seems to be synchronizing fine with me.

https://mega.co.nz/#!XAQ3yR4R!PQPUC8ryHXZOHaePjIRFSNb97OpXp8eSgUPAAr71WV4

If you have any pbs, shoot me a PM.

Your contribution has not been ignored. I spent the last few days modifying the Diamond code to build and run properly on OS X Mavericks. Some of your changes were superfluous (which is understandable, if you are not using an IDE and multi-stage "distillation" of code for publication -- we often leave cruft from experiments that "does not hurt"). With your changes however, Diamond does not build on a clean Maverick + Qt + MacPorts setup. Which is our goal, as the future builders better not carry baggage from past development environments). All this requires a lot more time, but will eventually pay off in better code quality over time.

I have built an OS X Mavericks binary, using such an clean environment and the code fixes are pushed to https://github.com/danbi/Diamond. Once we are happy with it, the official repository will be updated.

Since my binary is built using the "official" methods (of Apple, Qt), I am interested in testers to see if it would run on operating systems pre-Mavericks.
The binary is available at http://ftp://diamond.danbo.bg/pub/diamond-qt-test2.0.2.1.dmg

That means that the Diamond source code on github is not up to date then?

I simply built the MAC wallet because there was no updated MAC client available yet and since 2.0.2.1 was said to be a compulsory update (if I read well somewhere) I didn't wait for things to happen. I also had a quiet weekend and nothing much to do. I had no pretension of making an art piece. I simply took the official Diamond source code from githug and compiled it while fixing a few warnings during compilation. I posted here saying I had compiled a MAC wallet but had no answer, thus I posted what I had done today.

I will pull down the app as obviously it's not up to standards.

The Diamond source code on github is obviously up to date. It is the only official source.

I have no idea if your build has any problems -- most likely it does not. My comment was on the github pull request you submitted -- for example, there are two additional files you created, that are not used anywhere.

Anyway, your compiled application is likely to work on older OS X versions as well. Mine might not run at all on older OS X -- we will know this when it's tested.

Because both are based on the same source, they should both work the same way.

The github pull request I submited? Files that I created? Are you sure you are talking to the right person here? I did not submit anything anywhere... However most of the code update you posted a few hours ago (just after I posted the MAC client) in your fork of Diamond are actually those I had to implement myself in order to compile properly Diamond on Mavericks... I am now understanding your previous comment and the fact that you are confused. In fact I believe that none of the changes I did to the code by myself are in fact "superfluous". I spend nearly 3 days every evening going through Diamond partially deprecated code some of which (the common parts) has been updated by many other coins long ago. Now, I wish I had forked the project on github earlier in order to the get proper recognition!

I am reactivating the link I posted earlier of the MAC client I posted just in case anyone is interested to test it: https://mega.co.nz/#!XAQ3yR4R!PQPUC8ryHXZOHaePjIRFSNb97OpXp8eSgUPAAr71WV4

First, I apologize for confusing you with someone else. This was not intended and of course my comments about your code were misdirected. I have no idea what code you used, as it is not published. Maybe, you improved things in the code that I didn't see yet.

The changes of bitcoin code to compile on OS X is well documented and public knowledge. Diamond is using the same code base + few modifications and therefore "suffers" from the same fixes. It is also using an "obsolete" code base, although this is not a problem in most areas -- because newer code is not always better -- and because we do not seek the same functionality. But that is irrelevant to porting Diamond to different platforms.

polanskiman

full member

Activity: 266

Merit: 100

Quote from: danbi on June 17, 2014, 03:11:21 PM

Quote from: polanskiman on June 17, 2014, 10:19:10 AM

Quote from: danbi on June 17, 2014, 08:22:17 AM

Quote from: polanskiman on June 17, 2014, 05:09:58 AM

Since admins don't seem very interested in the MAC wallet I compiled, I am posting it here for those who wish to test it. It is working for me on 10.9.2. Should normally work on 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8.

It seems to be synchronizing fine with me.

https://mega.co.nz/#!XAQ3yR4R!PQPUC8ryHXZOHaePjIRFSNb97OpXp8eSgUPAAr71WV4

If you have any pbs, shoot me a PM.

Your contribution has not been ignored. I spent the last few days modifying the Diamond code to build and run properly on OS X Mavericks. Some of your changes were superfluous (which is understandable, if you are not using an IDE and multi-stage "distillation" of code for publication -- we often leave cruft from experiments that "does not hurt"). With your changes however, Diamond does not build on a clean Maverick + Qt + MacPorts setup. Which is our goal, as the future builders better not carry baggage from past development environments). All this requires a lot more time, but will eventually pay off in better code quality over time.

I have built an OS X Mavericks binary, using such an clean environment and the code fixes are pushed to https://github.com/danbi/Diamond. Once we are happy with it, the official repository will be updated.

Since my binary is built using the "official" methods (of Apple, Qt), I am interested in testers to see if it would run on operating systems pre-Mavericks.
The binary is available at http://ftp://diamond.danbo.bg/pub/diamond-qt-test2.0.2.1.dmg

That means that the Diamond source code on github is not up to date then?

I simply built the MAC wallet because there was no updated MAC client available yet and since 2.0.2.1 was said to be a compulsory update (if I read well somewhere) I didn't wait for things to happen. I also had a quiet weekend and nothing much to do. I had no pretension of making an art piece. I simply took the official Diamond source code from githug and compiled it while fixing a few warnings during compilation. I posted here saying I had compiled a MAC wallet but had no answer, thus I posted what I had done today.

I will pull down the app as obviously it's not up to standards.

The Diamond source code on github is obviously up to date. It is the only official source.

I have no idea if your build has any problems -- most likely it does not. My comment was on the github pull request you submitted -- for example, there are two additional files you created, that are not used anywhere.

Anyway, your compiled application is likely to work on older OS X versions as well. Mine might not run at all on older OS X -- we will know this when it's tested.

Because both are based on the same source, they should both work the same way.

The github pull request I submited? Files that I created? Are you sure you are talking to the right person here? I did not submit anything anywhere... However most of the code update you posted a few hours ago (just after I posted the MAC client) in your fork of Diamond are actually those I had to implement myself in order to compile properly Diamond on Mavericks... I am now understanding your previous comment and the fact that you are confused. In fact I believe that none of the changes I did to the code by myself are in fact "superfluous". I spend nearly 3 days every evening going through Diamond partially deprecated code some of which (the common parts) has been updated by many other coins long ago. Now, I wish I had forked the project on github earlier in order to the get proper recognition!

I am reactivating the link I posted earlier of the MAC client I posted just in case anyone is interested to test it: https://mega.co.nz/#!XAQ3yR4R!PQPUC8ryHXZOHaePjIRFSNb97OpXp8eSgUPAAr71WV4

pokeytex

legendary

Activity: 1504

Merit: 1002

Quote from: cryptonit on June 17, 2014, 05:57:10 AM

Quote from: pokeytex on June 17, 2014, 05:32:01 AM

Ok - I switched to the stratum server and all seems to be working fine on ccminer 1.2 - I will let you know if anything goes on there but so far so good. Thank you kindly.

what hashrate u get?
most of all im interested in any gtx750ti groestl algo ratings with newest ccminer

maybe i exchange my 6x amd280 against 6x gtx750ti

to get some spare PSU wattage powering my asics (to be my own multipool with dmd payout

)

Prior to this latest ccminer 1.1 update I was only getting 2mh per card. Now I am getting 7mh per card. What an amazing increase. I use approximately 70-80 watts total per card.

pallas

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 1094

Black Belt Developer

Quote from: danbi on June 17, 2014, 03:37:26 PM

Quote from: pallas on June 17, 2014, 03:07:33 PM

The full error message:

diamondd: kernel.cpp:412: unsigned int GetStakeModifierChecksum(const CBlockIndex*): Assertion `pindex->pprev || pindex->GetBlockHash() == (!fTestNet ? hashGenesisBlock : hashGenesisBlockTestNet)' failed.

Happened again today when I stopped and restarted the wallet daemon.

One idea how to fix it: since it happens more frequently with your installation (perhaps because it's slower to stop), could you please try adding this to CFLAGS:

-fsanitize=thread -pie -fPIC

This, after recreating blkindex.dat (and saving a copy of the whole dir just in case)

My theory here is that threads are destroyed asynchronously and the locking thread exits before the block index writer actually exists. A dirty fix, but might work.

Note, might not work on older gcc versions. Hope, we will know more from this tool.

I will try this tomorrow, thanks.
"restart too early" can't be the cause in my case, because the wallet has been stopped for about one hour.
Meanwhile it's slowly syncing, it will probably need at least the whole night. Developing on such a slow device can be painful :-)

danbi

sr. member

Activity: 393

Merit: 250

Quote from: pallas on June 17, 2014, 03:07:33 PM

The full error message:

diamondd: kernel.cpp:412: unsigned int GetStakeModifierChecksum(const CBlockIndex*): Assertion `pindex->pprev || pindex->GetBlockHash() == (!fTestNet ? hashGenesisBlock : hashGenesisBlockTestNet)' failed.

Happened again today when I stopped and restarted the wallet daemon.

One idea how to fix it: since it happens more frequently with your installation (perhaps because it's slower to stop), could you please try adding this to CFLAGS:

-fsanitize=thread -pie -fPIC

This, after recreating blkindex.dat (and saving a copy of the whole dir just in case)

My theory here is that threads are destroyed asynchronously and the locking thread exits before the block index writer actually exists. A dirty fix, but might work.

Note, might not work on older gcc versions. Hope, we will know more from this tool.

cryptonit

legendary

Activity: 3052

Merit: 1053

bit.diamonds | uNiq.diamonds

Quote from: utahjohn on June 17, 2014, 03:24:16 PM

Quote from: cryptonit on June 17, 2014, 03:16:20 PM

Quote from: utahjohn on June 17, 2014, 02:45:59 PM

If a block rewards 1.05 DMD and 0.05 goes to devs, how can there be less than # Blocks DMD in circulation

1.05 * 450877 = 473420.85 DMD Huh

A difference of 36050.129636 DMD Huh

Where is it? LOL

a mix of low ammount pos reward blocks and broken pos rewards (0dmd reward) from stone age of coin

long before we took over development

moneysupply is all existing coins

and ur math is wrong in another way too beside forgetting POS blocks in the past
the 0.05 for foundation only in effect from start of groestl mining

how can there be less than # Blocks DMD in circulation

read my answer a second and a third time......

POS blocks which only contain small pos rewards and in a timer frame in the past POS was so bugged that it created only 0 DMD rewards
(there is a reason why diamond pos was turned off so long because it was broken and our new team finally not only repaired but also improved it)

how can 5x1 be less than 5
i cant

but 1+1+0.0023+0+1 is 5 blocks with with one low pos rewards block and one broken pos reward block
and such 5 blocks together contain less than 5 dmd

cryptonit

legendary

Activity: 3052

Merit: 1053

bit.diamonds | uNiq.diamonds

Quote from: danbi on June 17, 2014, 03:14:48 PM

Quote from: pallas on June 17, 2014, 03:07:33 PM

The full error message:

diamondd: kernel.cpp:412: unsigned int GetStakeModifierChecksum(const CBlockIndex*): Assertion `pindex->pprev || pindex->GetBlockHash() == (!fTestNet ? hashGenesisBlock : hashGenesisBlockTestNet)' failed.

Happened again today when I stopped and restarted the wallet daemon.

This is a known corruption of the block index database, for which we have not yet found a solution. The easiest way to fix it is to load the blocks from the block chain you already have, effectively rebuilding the index. You can do this by removing blkindex.dat first and then running

diamondd -loadblock=blk0001.dat

This will go like downloading the block chain from the network, only much faster and will result in clean block index.
One way to avoid this situation happening is to wait a bit more when stopping the wallet, before starting it again. Unfortunately, there is no indication when it actually stops running.

we need gather stuff like that on a FAQ page
i will add on second post in thread

utahjohn

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Quote from: cryptonit on June 17, 2014, 03:16:20 PM

Quote from: utahjohn on June 17, 2014, 02:45:59 PM

If a block rewards 1.05 DMD and 0.05 goes to devs, how can there be less than # Blocks DMD in circulation

1.05 * 450877 = 473420.85 DMD Huh

A difference of 36050.129636 DMD Huh

Where is it? LOL

a mix of low ammount pos reward blocks and broken pos rewards (0dmd reward) from stone age of coin

long before we took over development

moneysupply is all existing coins

and ur math is wrong in another way too beside forgetting POS blocks in the past
the 0.05 for foundation only in effect from start of groestl mining

how can there be less than # Blocks DMD in circulation I don't see how POS even if broken could make total DMD less than total blocks.

cryptonit

legendary

Activity: 3052

Merit: 1053

bit.diamonds | uNiq.diamonds

Quote from: utahjohn on June 17, 2014, 02:45:59 PM

If a block rewards 1.05 DMD and 0.05 goes to devs, how can there be less than # Blocks DMD in circulation Huh

1.05 * 450877 = 473420.85 DMD Huh

A difference of 36050.129636 DMD Huh

Where is it? LOL

a mix of low ammount pos reward blocks and broken pos rewards (0dmd reward) from stone age of coin

long before we took over development

moneysupply is all existing coins

and ur math is wrong in another way too beside forgetting POS blocks in the past
the 0.05 for foundation only in effect from start of groestl mining

danbi

sr. member

Activity: 393

Merit: 250

Quote from: pallas on June 17, 2014, 03:07:33 PM

The full error message:

diamondd: kernel.cpp:412: unsigned int GetStakeModifierChecksum(const CBlockIndex*): Assertion `pindex->pprev || pindex->GetBlockHash() == (!fTestNet ? hashGenesisBlock : hashGenesisBlockTestNet)' failed.

Happened again today when I stopped and restarted the wallet daemon.

This is a known corruption of the block index database, for which we have not yet found a solution. The easiest way to fix it is to load the blocks from the block chain you already have, effectively rebuilding the index. You can do this by removing blkindex.dat first and then running

diamondd -loadblock=blk0001.dat

This will go like downloading the block chain from the network, only much faster and will result in clean block index.
One way to avoid this situation happening is to wait a bit more when stopping the wallet, before starting it again. Unfortunately, there is no indication when it actually stops running.

danbi

sr. member

Activity: 393

Merit: 250

Quote from: polanskiman on June 17, 2014, 10:19:10 AM

Quote from: danbi on June 17, 2014, 08:22:17 AM

Quote from: polanskiman on June 17, 2014, 05:09:58 AM

Since admins don't seem very interested in the MAC wallet I compiled, I am posting it here for those who wish to test it. It is working for me on 10.9.2. Should normally work on 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8.

It seems to be synchronizing fine with me.

https://mega.co.nz/#!XAQ3yR4R!PQPUC8ryHXZOHaePjIRFSNb97OpXp8eSgUPAAr71WV4

If you have any pbs, shoot me a PM.

Your contribution has not been ignored. I spent the last few days modifying the Diamond code to build and run properly on OS X Mavericks. Some of your changes were superfluous (which is understandable, if you are not using an IDE and multi-stage "distillation" of code for publication -- we often leave cruft from experiments that "does not hurt"). With your changes however, Diamond does not build on a clean Maverick + Qt + MacPorts setup. Which is our goal, as the future builders better not carry baggage from past development environments). All this requires a lot more time, but will eventually pay off in better code quality over time.

I have built an OS X Mavericks binary, using such an clean environment and the code fixes are pushed to https://github.com/danbi/Diamond. Once we are happy with it, the official repository will be updated.

Since my binary is built using the "official" methods (of Apple, Qt), I am interested in testers to see if it would run on operating systems pre-Mavericks.
The binary is available at http://ftp://diamond.danbo.bg/pub/diamond-qt-test2.0.2.1.dmg

That means that the Diamond source code on github is not up to date then?

I simply built the MAC wallet because there was no updated MAC client available yet and since 2.0.2.1 was said to be a compulsory update (if I read well somewhere) I didn't wait for things to happen. I also had a quiet weekend and nothing much to do. I had no pretension of making an art piece. I simply took the official Diamond source code from githug and compiled it while fixing a few warnings during compilation. I posted here saying I had compiled a MAC wallet but had no answer, thus I posted what I had done today.

I will pull down the app as obviously it's not up to standards.

The Diamond source code on github is obviously up to date. It is the only official source.

I have no idea if your build has any problems -- most likely it does not. My comment was on the github pull request you submitted -- for example, there are two additional files you created, that are not used anywhere.

Anyway, your compiled application is likely to work on older OS X versions as well. Mine might not run at all on older OS X -- we will know this when it's tested.

Because both are based on the same source, they should both work the same way.

pallas

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 1094

Black Belt Developer

The full error message:

diamondd: kernel.cpp:412: unsigned int GetStakeModifierChecksum(const CBlockIndex*): Assertion `pindex->pprev || pindex->GetBlockHash() == (!fTestNet ? hashGenesisBlock : hashGenesisBlockTestNet)' failed.

Happened again today when I stopped and restarted the wallet daemon.

utahjohn

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

If a block rewards 1.05 DMD and 0.05 goes to devs, how can there be less than # Blocks DMD in circulation Huh

1.05 * 450877 = 473420.85 DMD Huh

A difference of 36050.129636 DMD Huh

Where is it? LOL

cryptonit

legendary

Activity: 3052

Merit: 1053

bit.diamonds | uNiq.diamonds

Quote from: shveicar on June 17, 2014, 01:57:10 PM

I am also interested to know. Number of blocks transferred more than 450,000. Pos already activated?

help
debug window
console

getinfo

read
moneysupply

when that value reach 450000 POS will be activated

Quote

21:36:05

getinfo

21:36:05

{
"version" : "v2.0.2.1",,
"stake" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 450877,
"moneysupply" : 437370.72036400,

there is a reason why we didnt release wallt and instant start POS
once POS started all user/pool/exchange which didnt upgrade will be in wrong fork

please use the time to update and make sure ur favorite pool updated too and ur favorite exchange....

shveicar

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1013

DMD info: https://diamond-info.github.io/

I am also interested to know. Number of blocks transferred more than 450,000. Pos already activated?

Topic: [ANN] ¤ DMD Diamond 3.0 | Scarce ¤ Valuable ¤ Secure | PoS 3.0 | Masternodes 65% - page 797. (Read 1260636 times)