[ANN] [XMG] MAGI | CPU mining | mPoW | mPoS | [MagiPay] - page 464.

malafaya

sr. member

Activity: 490

Merit: 256

Quote from: xinwao on August 18, 2017, 09:29:37 AM

Quote from: versprichnix on August 18, 2017, 09:17:37 AM

Quote from: malafaya on August 18, 2017, 09:10:54 AM

Quote from: xinwao on August 16, 2017, 06:07:55 PM

So the first chain (m-core 1.3.1, 98 clients, 61.6% network share) it the one.

That Network Share number is just the percentage of peers using given wallet version, not relative hashing power. Ideally, it would be 100% using latest (v1.4.1 as of now).

Makes the sentence of xinwao any sense then?

If there is a too large hashing power, identy it, and seggregate it. To use a more than 50% hashing power is an attack for itself. (nobody is error free, do not make yourself a god)

Yes, it could be like you said.
But nobody is error free, do not make yourself a god. For sure people from m-core:1.3.1 are not on our new official chain.

God? I'm just explaining.

For sure people from m-core:1.3.1 are on several chains, like we were a few days ago.

xinwao

full member

Activity: 171

Merit: 100

Quote from: versprichnix on August 18, 2017, 09:17:37 AM

Quote from: malafaya on August 18, 2017, 09:10:54 AM

Quote from: xinwao on August 16, 2017, 06:07:55 PM

So the first chain (m-core 1.3.1, 98 clients, 61.6% network share) it the one.

That Network Share number is just the percentage of peers using given wallet version, not relative hashing power. Ideally, it would be 100% using latest (v1.4.1 as of now).

Makes the sentence of xinwao any sense then?

If there is a too large hashing power, identy it, and seggregate it. To use a more than 50% hashing power is an attack for itself. (nobody is error free, do not make yourself a god)

Yes, it could be like you said.
But nobody is error free, do not make yourself a god. For sure people from m-core:1.3.1 are not on our new official chain.

versprichnix

sr. member

Activity: 876

Merit: 291

Quote from: malafaya on August 18, 2017, 09:10:54 AM

Quote from: xinwao on August 16, 2017, 06:07:55 PM

So the first chain (m-core 1.3.1, 98 clients, 61.6% network share) it the one.

That Network Share number is just the percentage of peers using given wallet version, not relative hashing power. Ideally, it would be 100% using latest (v1.4.1 as of now).

Makes the sentence of xinwao any sense then?

If there is a too large hashing power, identy it, and seggregate it. To use a more than 50% hashing power is an attack for itself. (nobody is error free, do not make yourself a god)

malafaya

sr. member

Activity: 490

Merit: 256

Quote from: versprichnix on August 18, 2017, 09:02:53 AM

Quote from: xinwao on August 16, 2017, 06:07:55 PM

How did you chose which chain is valid/correct?
Shouldnt it be the one with largest mining power and largest amount of clients connected? Not the one we think should be selected but this which was (still is?) most strong and healthy?

Here https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xmg/#!network I see that we have:

Sub-version   Protocol   Count    Network Share
/m-core:1.3.1/   71051   98   61.6 %
/m-core:1.4.0/   71051   49   30.8 %
/m-core:1.4.0.1/   71061   8   5.0 %
/Magi:1.2.3.1/   71041   3   1.9 %
/Coin Magi:1.3.0/   71051   1   0.6 %

So the first chain (m-core 1.3.1, 98 clients, 61.6% network share) it the one.

One mining instance shall NEVER have over 50% of hashing power, better much less!

This, if taking the largest instance as the main chain, you have to be ABSOLUTELY sure, this is not the agressor!

If you cannot be sure about this, take the second and third largest hashing instances for choosing the main chain, and monitor them.

That Network Share number is just the percentage of peers using given wallet version, not relative hashing power. Ideally, it would be 100% using latest (v1.4.1 as of now).

malafaya

sr. member

Activity: 490

Merit: 256

Quote from: xinwao on August 18, 2017, 08:01:16 AM

Quote from: xinwao on August 16, 2017, 06:07:55 PM

How did you chose which chain is valid/correct?
Shouldnt it be the one with largest mining power and largest amount of clients connected? Not the one we think should be selected but this which was (still is?) most strong and healthy?

Here https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xmg/#!network I see that we have:

Sub-version   Protocol   Count    Network Share
/m-core:1.3.1/   71051   98   61.6 %
/m-core:1.4.0/   71051   49   30.8 %
/m-core:1.4.0.1/   71061   8   5.0 %
/Magi:1.2.3.1/   71041   3   1.9 %
/Coin Magi:1.3.0/   71051   1   0.6 %

So the first chain (m-core 1.3.1, 98 clients, 61.6% network share) it the one.

Looking at the connection problems I'm still not sure if correct blockchain have been choosen.

A wallet version is not necessarily a chain. You may have wallets with the same version on different chains (wasn't it what happened in the first place?) and also different versions on same chain (also expected when everything is fine as long as protocols are compatible).

versprichnix

sr. member

Activity: 876

Merit: 291

Quote from: xinwao on August 16, 2017, 06:07:55 PM

How did you chose which chain is valid/correct?
Shouldnt it be the one with largest mining power and largest amount of clients connected? Not the one we think should be selected but this which was (still is?) most strong and healthy?

Here https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xmg/#!network I see that we have:

Sub-version   Protocol   Count    Network Share
/m-core:1.3.1/   71051   98   61.6 %
/m-core:1.4.0/   71051   49   30.8 %
/m-core:1.4.0.1/   71061   8   5.0 %
/Magi:1.2.3.1/   71041   3   1.9 %
/Coin Magi:1.3.0/   71051   1   0.6 %

So the first chain (m-core 1.3.1, 98 clients, 61.6% network share) it the one.

One mining instance shall NEVER have over 50% of hashing power, better much less!

This, if taking the largest instance as the main chain, you have to be ABSOLUTELY sure, this is not the agressor!

If you cannot be sure about this, take the second and third largest hashing instances for choosing the main chain, and monitor them.

111magic

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1005

Quote from: ryan7269 on August 18, 2017, 08:34:46 AM

lost all connections once wallet got to 1446771

Try restart the wallet.
Might be good if a pool could update the new wallet & start mining. Finding blocks might help keep the chain rolling again.

lhedwin

member

Activity: 114

Merit: 10

life is simple!

Quote from: joelao95 on August 18, 2017, 03:20:08 AM

Updated the source:

https://github.com/magi-project/magi

Block data:

http://coinmagi.org/bin/block-chain/

Wallet downloads:

http://coinmagi.org/bin/m-wallet-1.4.1/

Changes:

* Update block version to 5 and reject any other versions

* Minimum coin age raise to 8 hours

* Coin maturity to be increased to 500 blocks

* Staking will be default to be disabled unless given "posii=1" in magi.conf

* Updated checkpoints

Just have to replace the m-wallet.exe in C:\Program Files\m-wallet?
an the magid.exe in C:\Program Files\m-wallet\daemon?

but there is two files in C:\Program Files\m-wallet\daemon (magid.exe and magid-x64.exe), i have a 64bits systems.

ryan7269

newbie

Activity: 41

Merit: 0

lost all connections once wallet got to 1446771

ex33s

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: xinwao on August 18, 2017, 08:01:16 AM

Quote from: xinwao on August 16, 2017, 06:07:55 PM

How did you chose which chain is valid/correct?
Shouldnt it be the one with largest mining power and largest amount of clients connected? Not the one we think should be selected but this which was (still is?) most strong and healthy?

Here https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xmg/#!network I see that we have:

Sub-version   Protocol   Count    Network Share
/m-core:1.3.1/   71051   98   61.6 %
/m-core:1.4.0/   71051   49   30.8 %
/m-core:1.4.0.1/   71061   8   5.0 %
/Magi:1.2.3.1/   71041   3   1.9 %
/Coin Magi:1.3.0/   71051   1   0.6 %

So the first chain (m-core 1.3.1, 98 clients, 61.6% network share) it the one.

Looking at the connection problems I'm still not sure if correct blockchain have been choosen.

They are on the wrong chain.

Here's a list of connected versions and how many using that version (Got it from poolinfo)

Code:

Magi:1.2.1.1   : 1
Magi:1.2.3     : 1
Magi:1.2.3.1   : 1
m-core:1.3.1   : 46
m-core:1.4.0   : 18
m-core:1.4.0.1 : 7
m-core:1.4.1   : 21

xinwao

full member

Activity: 171

Merit: 100

Quote from: xinwao on August 16, 2017, 06:07:55 PM

How did you chose which chain is valid/correct?
Shouldnt it be the one with largest mining power and largest amount of clients connected? Not the one we think should be selected but this which was (still is?) most strong and healthy?

Here https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xmg/#!network I see that we have:

Sub-version   Protocol   Count    Network Share
/m-core:1.3.1/   71051   98   61.6 %
/m-core:1.4.0/   71051   49   30.8 %
/m-core:1.4.0.1/   71061   8   5.0 %
/Magi:1.2.3.1/   71041   3   1.9 %
/Coin Magi:1.3.0/   71051   1   0.6 %

So the first chain (m-core 1.3.1, 98 clients, 61.6% network share) it the one.

Looking at the connection problems I'm still not sure if correct blockchain have been choosen.

starmman

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1029

Quote from: ex33s on August 18, 2017, 07:03:18 AM

Quote from: starmman on August 18, 2017, 06:07:46 AM

Quote from: dqy007 on August 18, 2017, 04:55:10 AM

wallet always show "out of sync",but already 1446791,why?

I'm also stuck at the same block - maybe there are only a couple of nodes past that point, hopefully the chain will start moving soon.

Is anybody on a moving chain?

Both poolinfo and my personal wallet is stuck @ 1446791

On the brightside, at least it seems that we are all on the same chain now =)

I'll leave my wallet running - hopefully the live nodes will propagate through soon

ex33s

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: starmman on August 18, 2017, 06:07:46 AM

Quote from: dqy007 on August 18, 2017, 04:55:10 AM

wallet always show "out of sync",but already 1446791,why?

I'm also stuck at the same block - maybe there are only a couple of nodes past that point, hopefully the chain will start moving soon.

Is anybody on a moving chain?

Both poolinfo and my personal wallet is stuck @ 1446791

xinwao

full member

Activity: 171

Merit: 100

New blockchain/client is stuck. Please add some working nodes. Thx.

111magic

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1005

All give the chain some time to become more stable.
If you like to mine don't use big hashrate.

starmman

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1029

Quote from: K1lo on August 18, 2017, 06:07:20 AM

Quote from: 8count on August 17, 2017, 08:16:38 PM

Really hoping the issues can be fix soon and have everything back to normal. It's my favorite coin to CPU mine.
I can see Joe is working hard for a fix and I thank him for his time.
Love this coin but I just want it back to running smoothly again Cry

Likewise

Great post - Magi is awesome =) Thanks for all your hard work Joe

starmman

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1029

Quote from: dqy007 on August 18, 2017, 04:55:10 AM

wallet always show "out of sync",but already 1446791,why?

I'm also stuck at the same block - maybe there are only a couple of nodes past that point, hopefully the chain will start moving soon.

Is anybody on a moving chain?

K1lo

full member

Activity: 151

Merit: 100

Moar mining!!! .. oh wait, that's too much

Quote from: 8count on August 17, 2017, 08:16:38 PM

Really hoping the issues can be fix soon and have everything back to normal. It's my favorite coin to CPU mine.
I can see Joe is working hard for a fix and I thank him for his time.
Love this coin but I just want it back to running smoothly again Cry

Likewise

Myth888

full member

Activity: 343

Merit: 102

guys wait for more instructions the new wallet still does not sync properly. hopefully will be done soon.

dante85

newbie

Activity: 6

Merit: 0

Quote from: dqy007 on August 18, 2017, 04:55:10 AM

wallet always show "out of sync",but already 1446791,why?

I have the same after new update

https://ibb.co/enGgEv

Topic: [ANN] [XMG] MAGI | CPU mining | mPoW | mPoS | [MagiPay] - page 464. (Read 2375638 times)