BitcoinFX was kind enough to offer his nodes, once your are done syncing from the main seed node, you could add his nodes also.
addnode=107.181.250.216
addnode=107.181.250.217
Topic: [ANN] Slimcoin : Proof of Burn NEW BLOCK GEN, Mineable by low power computer! - page 31. (Read 284975 times)
August 17, 2014, 10:58:37 PM
August 17, 2014, 10:56:01 PM
Quote
What will you do in the present to prevent future forks?
The reason for this fork was purely because of a small network. When the seed node went offline, all nodes simply went onto two different forks.
Once we sync the seed node, do we still need a conf file with addnodes or just let the wallet sync? If we mined coin at a pool, will we get the coins once that pool gets on the proper fork?
August 17, 2014, 06:08:36 PM
Of course it's high risk.
But "altcoin" shouldn't automatically mean that the devs don't give a shit or are just plain incompetent. There are quite a few altcoins out there that, not counting premine or other bs, work quite well from a purely technical standpoint.
I got interested in SLM because of PoB and the ability to mine without physical equipment. (except running the pc 24/7) Considering the rising difficulty this might have been stupid (as is all mining essentially), but I'd wanted to have a look and at least break even.
The rising difficulty problem exists for PoB and PoW though so at least that shouldn't make a difference. PoW doesn't give me any coins at all though (<1 a day iirc).
Edit: Thanks for explaining the diff though @d5000
But "altcoin" shouldn't automatically mean that the devs don't give a shit or are just plain incompetent. There are quite a few altcoins out there that, not counting premine or other bs, work quite well from a purely technical standpoint.
I got interested in SLM because of PoB and the ability to mine without physical equipment. (except running the pc 24/7) Considering the rising difficulty this might have been stupid (as is all mining essentially), but I'd wanted to have a look and at least break even.
The rising difficulty problem exists for PoB and PoW though so at least that shouldn't make a difference. PoW doesn't give me any coins at all though (<1 a day iirc).
Edit: Thanks for explaining the diff though @d5000
August 17, 2014, 05:50:51 PM
Also at the argument regarding burning coins: I can burn as many god damn coins as I want, this is an investment in an altcoin and not fucking charity. Although Slimcoin certainly has burnt my coins..
Yes, you can do what you want, but the math of PoB doesn't allow "burning any amount" to be profitable. If too many coins are burnt, difficulty will be very high, and the PoB rewards are relatively steady (if I understand it right they are tied to PoW difficulty in SLM). So some people will not make profit until "burn difficulty" gets lower again (=less coins are burnt).
Now if the forks are the reason of not getting coins, I understand you are upset but an altcoin with an entirely new technology should be regarded as experimental and so as a high-risk asset. There are many altcoins with much less innovation that are doing much worse than SLM. And not all is lost, if you burnt a good amount of coins, your "burn power" should be high enough to get some blocks after the problems are solved, if "burn difficulty" is not too high.
August 17, 2014, 05:10:44 PM
resynced... seems it's all going good until now
00:10:01
{
"blocks" : 71087,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.16328193,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"networkghps" : 0.00722980,
"pooledtx" : 1,
"testnet" : false
}
00:10:01
{
"blocks" : 71087,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"difficulty" : 0.16328193,
"errors" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"networkghps" : 0.00722980,
"pooledtx" : 1,
"testnet" : false
}
August 17, 2014, 04:23:15 PM
As for the bad alloc exception, I looked around and found an explanation that is probably the solution:
From https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/2353
How much memory does your system have?
I could implement the second option, but will look into how bitcoin fixed this issue.
Also, if you have any other exceptions, please post them.
From https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/2353
Quote
This is how bitcoin runs out of memory (virtual address space) while downloading blocks:
Whenever a node receives a block that it cannot link to the chain, it stores it in memory in mapOrphanBlocks. There is no limit to the size of that data. When a node is downloading blocks, it may download and keep in memory many blocks that it can't currently link to the chain. In particular, if your node connects to another node which is also downloading blocks and which is further along in the download, the other node will spam your node with an "inv" message for every new block that it downloads (no, the logic in CBlock::AcceptBlock does not prevent it), and your node will download and store those blocks in mapOrphanBlocks. This can occur with multiple connected nodes simultaneously which are at different points in the download.
I encountered this problem several times with 0.8.0rc1. With the current size of the blockchain, it is not hard to exhaust the virtual address space (at most 4GiB) in 32-bit builds, which includes all Windows builds.
The fix could proceed in one of two directions: (1) store orphan blocks on disk instead of in memory, or (2) don't keep an unbounded set of orphan blocks. For (2), the ideal would be to prevent downloading of too many orphans rather than discarding orphans that have already been downloaded, which is wasteful. The goal would be to download blocks roughly in order. One idea is to make use of "getheaders" during block download. Headers would be downloaded and linked together, and blocks would only be downloaded if we already know based on headers that they are not too far away from the chain of blocks that we already have.
Whenever a node receives a block that it cannot link to the chain, it stores it in memory in mapOrphanBlocks. There is no limit to the size of that data. When a node is downloading blocks, it may download and keep in memory many blocks that it can't currently link to the chain. In particular, if your node connects to another node which is also downloading blocks and which is further along in the download, the other node will spam your node with an "inv" message for every new block that it downloads (no, the logic in CBlock::AcceptBlock does not prevent it), and your node will download and store those blocks in mapOrphanBlocks. This can occur with multiple connected nodes simultaneously which are at different points in the download.
I encountered this problem several times with 0.8.0rc1. With the current size of the blockchain, it is not hard to exhaust the virtual address space (at most 4GiB) in 32-bit builds, which includes all Windows builds.
The fix could proceed in one of two directions: (1) store orphan blocks on disk instead of in memory, or (2) don't keep an unbounded set of orphan blocks. For (2), the ideal would be to prevent downloading of too many orphans rather than discarding orphans that have already been downloaded, which is wasteful. The goal would be to download blocks roughly in order. One idea is to make use of "getheaders" during block download. Headers would be downloaded and linked together, and blocks would only be downloaded if we already know based on headers that they are not too far away from the chain of blocks that we already have.
How much memory does your system have?
I could implement the second option, but will look into how bitcoin fixed this issue.
Also, if you have any other exceptions, please post them.
the exception is still being thrown, my system has 1.9 GB in use out of 8 GB.. 64 bit
i just deleted my blockchain and took a backup from 8 august, it's syncing again and i will see if this will still happen or not. Perhaps it was just because i had too many orphans indeed..
August 17, 2014, 03:45:23 PM
I would like to remind all of you that Slimcoin is released under the GPL licence found at: https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
As quoted in Section 15:
As quoted in Section 15:
Quote
EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ...
HAHAHA , crazy bulgarian
August 17, 2014, 03:34:45 PM
...
Also with -maxconnections=1 -connect=76.127.202.17 it says "0 active connections". If I start without it I don't get any balance and it crashes.
Also with -maxconnections=1 -connect=76.127.202.17 it says "0 active connections". If I start without it I don't get any balance and it crashes.
I've not long finished re-syncing 2 x US hosted vps nodes. You are welcome to try connecting with those;
connect=107.181.250.216
connect=107.181.250.217
...
I'll try to capture a random debug crash, slimcoin - I've experienced a few, although things might be more stable now.
August 17, 2014, 03:25:29 PM
My system has 16 gigs of RAM so that is definitely not the cause unless your wallet eats 10GB+.
Also with -maxconnections=1 -connect=76.127.202.17 it says "0 active connections". If I start without it I don't get any balance and it crashes.
Also with -maxconnections=1 -connect=76.127.202.17 it says "0 active connections". If I start without it I don't get any balance and it crashes.
Try without the maxconnections to try to connect.
As for the crashing, could you start the wallet with the -debug flag, let it crash and then send me the debug.log file found in the ~/.slimcoin/ directory so I can diagnose the bug. Thanks.
August 17, 2014, 03:22:24 PM
My system has 16 gigs of RAM so that is definitely not the cause unless your wallet eats 10GB+.
Also with -maxconnections=1 -connect=76.127.202.17 it says "0 active connections". If I start without it I don't get any balance and it crashes.
Also with -maxconnections=1 -connect=76.127.202.17 it says "0 active connections". If I start without it I don't get any balance and it crashes.
August 17, 2014, 02:41:35 PM
As for the bad alloc exception, I looked around and found an explanation that is probably the solution:
From https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/2353
How much memory does your system have?
I could implement the second option, but will look into how bitcoin fixed this issue.
Also, if you have any other exceptions, please post them.
From https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/2353
Quote
This is how bitcoin runs out of memory (virtual address space) while downloading blocks:
Whenever a node receives a block that it cannot link to the chain, it stores it in memory in mapOrphanBlocks. There is no limit to the size of that data. When a node is downloading blocks, it may download and keep in memory many blocks that it can't currently link to the chain. In particular, if your node connects to another node which is also downloading blocks and which is further along in the download, the other node will spam your node with an "inv" message for every new block that it downloads (no, the logic in CBlock::AcceptBlock does not prevent it), and your node will download and store those blocks in mapOrphanBlocks. This can occur with multiple connected nodes simultaneously which are at different points in the download.
I encountered this problem several times with 0.8.0rc1. With the current size of the blockchain, it is not hard to exhaust the virtual address space (at most 4GiB) in 32-bit builds, which includes all Windows builds.
The fix could proceed in one of two directions: (1) store orphan blocks on disk instead of in memory, or (2) don't keep an unbounded set of orphan blocks. For (2), the ideal would be to prevent downloading of too many orphans rather than discarding orphans that have already been downloaded, which is wasteful. The goal would be to download blocks roughly in order. One idea is to make use of "getheaders" during block download. Headers would be downloaded and linked together, and blocks would only be downloaded if we already know based on headers that they are not too far away from the chain of blocks that we already have.
Whenever a node receives a block that it cannot link to the chain, it stores it in memory in mapOrphanBlocks. There is no limit to the size of that data. When a node is downloading blocks, it may download and keep in memory many blocks that it can't currently link to the chain. In particular, if your node connects to another node which is also downloading blocks and which is further along in the download, the other node will spam your node with an "inv" message for every new block that it downloads (no, the logic in CBlock::AcceptBlock does not prevent it), and your node will download and store those blocks in mapOrphanBlocks. This can occur with multiple connected nodes simultaneously which are at different points in the download.
I encountered this problem several times with 0.8.0rc1. With the current size of the blockchain, it is not hard to exhaust the virtual address space (at most 4GiB) in 32-bit builds, which includes all Windows builds.
The fix could proceed in one of two directions: (1) store orphan blocks on disk instead of in memory, or (2) don't keep an unbounded set of orphan blocks. For (2), the ideal would be to prevent downloading of too many orphans rather than discarding orphans that have already been downloaded, which is wasteful. The goal would be to download blocks roughly in order. One idea is to make use of "getheaders" during block download. Headers would be downloaded and linked together, and blocks would only be downloaded if we already know based on headers that they are not too far away from the chain of blocks that we already have.
How much memory does your system have?
I could implement the second option, but will look into how bitcoin fixed this issue.
Also, if you have any other exceptions, please post them.
August 17, 2014, 02:29:14 PM
I would like to remind all of you that Slimcoin is released under the GPL licence found at: https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
As quoted in Section 15:
As quoted in Section 15:
Quote
EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ...
August 17, 2014, 02:28:59 PM
I will notify you when BTER is back on the correct fork.
The main issues seem to be these exceptions. I will have a look into them. The reason they are more difficult to test is that it is harder to find such bugs as, as of now, I do not know how to reproduce the error.
The main issues seem to be these exceptions. I will have a look into them. The reason they are more difficult to test is that it is harder to find such bugs as, as of now, I do not know how to reproduce the error.
August 17, 2014, 01:58:50 PM
Well BTER doesn't give a fuck. See their NXT wallet security for comparison.. With the ever crashing wallet there is nothing I can do anyway.
Also at the argument regarding burning coins: I can burn as many god damn coins as I want, this is an investment in an altcoin and not fucking charity. Although Slimcoin certainly has burnt my coins..
Also at the argument regarding burning coins: I can burn as many god damn coins as I want, this is an investment in an altcoin and not fucking charity. Although Slimcoin certainly has burnt my coins..
August 17, 2014, 12:31:12 PM
I have contacted all pools, explorers, exchanges, etc related to Slimcoin regarding the fork.
The only question is: will you reimburse investors who lost due to the forks?
I have bought SLM during the fuck up and lost quite a lot.....
My wallet crashes since today too btw.... And is still missing all my coins.
I would suggest you to wait until BTER is on the right fork (user slimcoin should be able to confirm that) and then contact their support. When coins are sent in "the wrong fork" in the right fork they should not have changed owner (that's like every blockchain should work). So BTER does still have the coins, and if they're not scammers they should pay them to you.
If you still have the address from where BTER send the coins to you, you can prove it yourself with blockchain explorer.
August 17, 2014, 12:18:33 PM
The only question is: will you reimburse investors who lost due to the forks?
Sure he is, in Bulgarian Lev. (which is worthless just like slimcoin)
August 17, 2014, 11:50:04 AM
I have contacted all pools, explorers, exchanges, etc related to Slimcoin regarding the fork.
The only question is: will you reimburse investors who lost due to the forks?
I have bought SLM during the fuck up and lost quite a lot.....
My wallet crashes since today too btw.... And is still missing all my coins.
August 17, 2014, 10:58:53 AM
August 17, 2014, 10:47:14 AM
Unfortunately I get this exception too. It seems related to the old bitcoin/peercoin code Slimcoin is using (0.6x if I'm right?), if you google you will find some postings from 2012 or so in the Bitcoin forum. Have done a cron job to restart slimcoin daemon everytime it gets stalled.
August 17, 2014, 08:33:26 AM
As of today i'm getting exceptions
************************
EXCEPTION: St9bad_alloc
std::bad_alloc
C:\Mining\Wallets\Slimcoin\slimcoin-qt.exe in ProcessMessages()
ProcessMessage(getblocks, 901 bytes) FAILED
getblocks 1 to 00000000c7308887f8db limit 66045
************************
EXCEPTION: St9bad_alloc
std::bad_alloc
C:\Mining\Wallets\Slimcoin\slimcoin-qt.exe in ProcessMessages()
ProcessMessage(getblocks, 901 bytes) FAILED
getblocks 1 to 00000000df862a743db5 limit 66045
It works for a bit after restarting the client, but the exception is thrown again on a later time then
Perhaps i do need to delete my blockchain and resync ? Never had this before....
************************
EXCEPTION: St9bad_alloc
std::bad_alloc
C:\Mining\Wallets\Slimcoin\slimcoin-qt.exe in ProcessMessages()
ProcessMessage(getblocks, 901 bytes) FAILED
getblocks 1 to 00000000c7308887f8db limit 66045
************************
EXCEPTION: St9bad_alloc
std::bad_alloc
C:\Mining\Wallets\Slimcoin\slimcoin-qt.exe in ProcessMessages()
ProcessMessage(getblocks, 901 bytes) FAILED
getblocks 1 to 00000000df862a743db5 limit 66045
It works for a bit after restarting the client, but the exception is thrown again on a later time then
Perhaps i do need to delete my blockchain and resync ? Never had this before....
Jump to: