Topic: [ANN] NDL - The coin for Pastafarians - Flying Spaghetti Monster Cryptocurrency! - page 13. (Read 125323 times)
November 13, 2018, 08:59:33 PM
November 13, 2018, 10:18:10 PM
I have also given people time to verify this themselves or bring up any concerns.
time? too funny ...less than a week.
November 13, 2018, 09:47:14 PM
Hey tim, I can't find any information about this project, can you help me to provide the correct website link, because I can not open the site link of the website which are listed in the initial thread.
November 13, 2018, 09:42:08 PM
I don't know whether my concerns are well founded.
I don't find your concerns to be well founded.
The difference is that my approach has a builtin fail safe and is done in accordance with the upstream best practices.
November 13, 2018, 09:33:34 PM
If you don't have the height then how would any wallet know when to apply the new rules?
We already covered this. I posted the code for the IsSuperMajority() function so you could read it and understand.
Yes, we did. I did understand. This was something you said in that same post:
I don't know whether my concerns are well founded.
I don't find your concerns to be well founded. I've already tested your concerns and found no issues. I've asked for you and others to test my setup to see if I am wrong. No one has informed me of such concerns in actual practice, not you, nor anyone else.
November 13, 2018, 09:26:00 PM
If you don't have the height then how would any wallet know when to apply the new rules?
We already covered this. I posted the code for the IsSuperMajority() function so you could read it and understand.
November 13, 2018, 09:23:27 PM
Quote
Code newer than 0.13.0 uses feeler connections and won't talk to more than one node on the old protocol.
That just means everyone will have to be using the newer setup. Problem solved.
Quote
Code newer than 0.13.0 assumes BIP66, BIP65, CSV and SegWit have already been activated.
I think your characterization is off but either way, what problem does this present? I had no problems when testing.
Quote
This is why it is asking in chainparams.cpp for the height and hash where activation occurs.
You don't have to provide the "hash", that's more of a subsequent note. But it does need to know which height so that it knows at which block to begin accounting for the new rules. If you don't have the height then how would any wallet know when to apply the new rules?
November 07, 2018, 02:04:59 PM
Okay, just figured out my dilemma for offering my exe file on github. It is now there.
November 13, 2018, 09:12:32 PM
What issues?
Code newer than 0.13.0 uses feeler connections and won't talk to more than one node on the old protocol.
Code newer than 0.13.0 assumes BIP66, BIP65, CSV and SegWit have already been activated.
This is why it is asking in chainparams.cpp for the height and hash where activation occurs.
November 06, 2018, 10:47:26 PM
Turns out, importing an address from the paperwallet generator into the new wallet works. The wallet tracks it. Yet, the wallet still doesn't track any addresses created by itself. Just additional info for anyone considering the existing dilemma.
November 13, 2018, 09:10:05 PM
What is so intriguing about v 0.13.0 vs v 0.15.1?
The v0.13.0 code elegantly introduces the features to upgrade the network right up to the point before SegWit.
The v0.15.1 code comes with the assumption SegWit and the earlier Super Majority soft-forks have already activated.
Basically, the protocol changed way too much between 0.8 and 0.15.
We can do 0.8 to 0.13 without much disruption, but anything newer than 0.13.0 will lead to issues.
What issues? I already ran a test network where the forks occurred and there were no discernible issues. I have also given people time to verify this themselves or bring up any concerns.
November 06, 2018, 12:21:16 AM
So with the goal in mind of getting a fully working wallet; I still need assistance. I have addressed some aspects of the address problem.
This is the updated situation:
The foundational issue I get is the new wallet will not track any new addresses it creates. I have yet to confirm it, but it seems to be associated with old wallet.dat files. I don't know if it is different with a completely new wallet.dat file. Any address it creates (as confirmed by the receiving address screen and walletdump command), it does not follow the transactions of. It knows it has the privkey and address as confirmed by the dumpwallet command. Even re-importing the private key via importprivkey command does not change its behaviour.
This is the updated situation:
The foundational issue I get is the new wallet will not track any new addresses it creates. I have yet to confirm it, but it seems to be associated with old wallet.dat files. I don't know if it is different with a completely new wallet.dat file. Any address it creates (as confirmed by the receiving address screen and walletdump command), it does not follow the transactions of. It knows it has the privkey and address as confirmed by the dumpwallet command. Even re-importing the private key via importprivkey command does not change its behaviour.
November 13, 2018, 09:05:46 PM
What is so intriguing about v 0.13.0 vs v 0.15.1?
The v0.13.0 code elegantly introduces the features to upgrade the network right up to the point before SegWit.
The v0.15.1 code comes with the assumption SegWit and the earlier Super Majority soft-forks have already activated.
Basically, the protocol changed way too much between 0.8 and 0.15.
We can do 0.8 to 0.13 without much disruption, but anything newer than 0.13.0 will lead to issues.
November 13, 2018, 08:53:19 PM
Does anyone object to moving to my new wallet?
I am glad you have been working on a wallet upgrade. I'm sure in time we will be ready to abandon the 0.8 branch code we inherited from His Holy Noodliness. Right now, I can't endorse your repository for production use, sorry.
If you want to work together on a repository based on v0.13.0, then I'll set things up for us to start building it.
What is so intriguing about v 0.13.0 vs v 0.15.1?
November 13, 2018, 08:51:32 PM
Does anyone object to moving to my new wallet?
I am glad you have been working on a wallet upgrade. I'm sure in time we will be ready to abandon the 0.8 branch code we inherited from His Holy Noodliness. Right now, I can't endorse your repository for production use, sorry.
If you want to work together on a repository based on v0.13.0, then I'll set things up for us to start building it.
November 13, 2018, 08:34:26 PM
Have you been periodically bridging your fork with the explorer to keep it in sync?
Hi number435398,
As reported on October 16th in this thread:
This client is a clean break from the v0.8.6.1 network.
There was approximately a 12 hour difference between the snapshot at height 1314626 and this public release.
If I picked the wrong fork of the chain, let me know and we can do this experiment again with another chain.
I selected this chain because it is the one which His Holy Noodliness's code identifies with in the peer swarm.
There was approximately a 12 hour difference between the snapshot at height 1314626 and this public release.
If I picked the wrong fork of the chain, let me know and we can do this experiment again with another chain.
I selected this chain because it is the one which His Holy Noodliness's code identifies with in the peer swarm.
There have been no reports of being on a wrong fork of the chain and the hash at block 1314626 for the snapshot matched the explorer.
The Linux binary is here.
The Windows binary is here.
The bootstrap.dat is here.
addnode=23.253.205.134
addnode=[2001:4801:7825:102:be76:4eff:fe10:3d29]
Best Regards,
-Chicago
I mean since then. If you take the blockchain folder for your fork and open another wallet that is on the main network (explorer), then they would sync up. Then if the explorer's chain was stronger than yours, you'd just close that (explorer) wallet and open your wallet, and then it'd sync your fork with the explorer.
I'm ready, if I get everyone's consent, to declare my new v15.1 w the new pchmessage of NDLY, the new official wallet. Your fork should be synced with the explorer to minimize confusion. My wallet will hardfork the network as the new blocks created will be confusing to old wallets. When necessary I've been relying on the explorer as the indicator of the "main" network.
Does anyone object to moving to my new wallet? Does anyone still want to test it further? I'm trying to avoid any issues and get everyone's consent but no one's telling me yes or no.
November 13, 2018, 08:21:49 PM
Have you been periodically bridging your fork with the explorer to keep it in sync?
Hi number435398,
As reported on October 16th in this thread:
This client is a clean break from the v0.8.6.1 network.
There was approximately a 12 hour difference between the snapshot at height 1314626 and this public release.
If I picked the wrong fork of the chain, let me know and we can do this experiment again with another chain.
I selected this chain because it is the one which His Holy Noodliness's code identifies with in the peer swarm.
There was approximately a 12 hour difference between the snapshot at height 1314626 and this public release.
If I picked the wrong fork of the chain, let me know and we can do this experiment again with another chain.
I selected this chain because it is the one which His Holy Noodliness's code identifies with in the peer swarm.
There have been no reports of being on a wrong fork of the chain and the hash at block 1314626 for the snapshot matched the explorer.
The Linux binary is here.
The Windows binary is here.
The bootstrap.dat is here.
addnode=23.253.205.134
addnode=[2001:4801:7825:102:be76:4eff:fe10:3d29]
Best Regards,
-Chicago
November 13, 2018, 08:12:14 PM
Hi you all!
Chain and blockexplorer stopped. No connection anymore to network.
Are you all fine?
Greez!
n.
Chain and blockexplorer stopped. No connection anymore to network.
Are you all fine?
Greez!
n.
Hi nxtraordinary,
I'm seeing 5 connections here using the v0.8.6.2 software discussed in the last few pages.
Best Regards,
-Chicago
Have you been periodically bridging your fork with the explorer to keep it in sync?
November 13, 2018, 08:04:30 PM
Hi you all!
Chain and blockexplorer stopped. No connection anymore to network.
Are you all fine?
Greez!
n.
Chain and blockexplorer stopped. No connection anymore to network.
Are you all fine?
Greez!
n.
Hi nxtraordinary,
I'm seeing 5 connections here using the v0.8.6.2 software discussed in the last few pages.
Best Regards,
-Chicago
November 13, 2018, 03:25:57 PM
Hi you all!
Chain and blockexplorer stopped. No connection anymore to network.
Are you all fine?
Greez!
n.
Chain and blockexplorer stopped. No connection anymore to network.
Are you all fine?
Greez!
n.
Jump to: