[ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin" - page 330.

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: dooglus on July 14, 2015, 12:24:51 PM

Quote from: chilly2k on July 14, 2015, 12:15:09 PM

Would the orphans % be number of orphans / total stakes (valid + orphans)

Yes.

Quote from: chilly2k on July 14, 2015, 12:15:09 PM

for the last week.

date Starting balance Stakes Percentage orphans. orphan %

7/13 2546 5 .1963
7/12 2540 6 .2362
7/11 2537 3 .1182 1 25%
7/10 2532 5 .1975 1 17%
7/09 2531 1 .0395 1 50%
7/08 2531 0 0
7/07 2527 4 .1583 1 20%
7/06 2519 8 .3176

I guess 2500 is too small a number to quickly get an idea of the orphan rate, but that looks like 4 orphans out of 36 stakes, or 11% so far. The variance is huge, with your daily orphan rate ranging from 0% to 50%...

So when extrapolating the results how does he perform compared to just-dice wallet?

Could he lower the chance of getting orphaned when he makes sure that he sends his block to just-dice first? Can the clam client be sat up that way? I would try to contact the biggest wallets first to lower the time i get >50%. Though in fact, at the moment, one would need to ONLY propagate to just-dice. Not healthy for sure.

chilly2k

legendary

Activity: 1007

Merit: 1000

Quote from: dooglus on July 14, 2015, 12:24:51 PM

Quote from: chilly2k on July 14, 2015, 12:15:09 PM

Would the orphans % be number of orphans / total stakes (valid + orphans)

Yes.

Quote from: chilly2k on July 14, 2015, 12:15:09 PM

for the last week.

date Starting balance Stakes Percentage orphans. orphan %

7/13 2546 5 .1963
7/12 2540 6 .2362
7/11 2537 3 .1182 1 25%
7/10 2532 5 .1975 1 17%
7/09 2531 1 .0395 1 50%
7/08 2531 0 0
7/07 2527 4 .1583 1 20%
7/06 2519 8 .3176

I guess 2500 is too small a number to quickly get an idea of the orphan rate, but that looks like 4 orphans out of 36 stakes, or 11% so far. The variance is huge, with your daily orphan rate ranging from 0% to 50%...

Went back and looked at Mar/Apr and May. I didn't have the patience to calculate how many Clams I had on each dates, so I just looked at the total stakes Vs orphans.

March 131 stakes 5 orphans. 3.7%
April 124 stakes 8 orphans 6%
May 141 stakes 0 orphans

April was interesting. There were 5 orphans between the 5th and 7th. I don't remember anything going on, on my end at that time...

Then just for giggles I went back to Oct. This would be before JD came online

Oct 61 stakes 3 orphans. 4.7%

So I don't think the 15% orphan theory is really holding up. I'm guessing I end up averaging about 4-6% orphans. And that hasn't really changed since JD started.

I was going to look at Nov, but the 11th was he hard fork, and I ended up on the wrong chain for a little while. 24 orphans in 3 hours... not good for the statistics.

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: chilly2k on July 14, 2015, 12:15:09 PM

Would the orphans % be number of orphans / total stakes (valid + orphans)

Yes.

Quote from: chilly2k on July 14, 2015, 12:15:09 PM

for the last week.

date Starting balance Stakes Percentage orphans. orphan %

7/13 2546 5 .1963
7/12 2540 6 .2362
7/11 2537 3 .1182 1 25%
7/10 2532 5 .1975 1 17%
7/09 2531 1 .0395 1 50%
7/08 2531 0 0
7/07 2527 4 .1583 1 20%
7/06 2519 8 .3176

I guess 2500 is too small a number to quickly get an idea of the orphan rate, but that looks like 4 orphans out of 36 stakes, or 11% so far. The variance is huge, with your daily orphan rate ranging from 0% to 50%...

chilly2k

legendary

Activity: 1007

Merit: 1000

Quote from: dooglus on July 14, 2015, 10:46:18 AM

Quote from: chilly2k on July 14, 2015, 08:31:13 AM

This is one of the risks self staking carries...

Indeed, although of course there are risks with pooled staking too.

Quote from: chilly2k on July 14, 2015, 08:31:13 AM

Dates Start Balance Stakes Avg/Day Percentage Orphans

6/22- 6/28 (7 days) 2456 37.0027 5.2861 2.15% 2
6/29 -7/5 2493 26.0005 3.7144 1.49% 2
7/6 - 7/12 2519 27.0009 3.8571 1.53% 4 - I think 2 of these were due to my own network issue.

The percentage would be better as a per-day number, and it would be interesting to see orphans as a % too. Did you stake 31 times most recently but only 27 survived? Or 27 times and only 23 survived? Either way, that's about a 15% orphan rate isn't it?

The stake number is actual stakes, not including orphans. Would the orphans % be number of orphans / total stakes (valid + orphans)

for the last week.

date Starting balance Stakes Percentage orphans. orphan %

7/13 2546 5 .1963
7/12 2540 6 .2362
7/11 2537 3 .1182 1 25%
7/10 2532 5 .1975 1 17%
7/09 2531 1 .0395 1 50%
7/08 2531 0 0
7/07 2527 4 .1583 1 20%
7/06 2519 8 .3176

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: chilly2k on July 14, 2015, 08:31:13 AM

This is one of the risks self staking carries...

Indeed, although of course there are risks with pooled staking too.

Quote from: chilly2k on July 14, 2015, 08:31:13 AM

Dates Start Balance Stakes Avg/Day Percentage Orphans

6/22- 6/28 (7 days) 2456 37.0027 5.2861 2.15% 2
6/29 -7/5 2493 26.0005 3.7144 1.49% 2
7/6 - 7/12 2519 27.0009 3.8571 1.53% 4 - I think 2 of these were due to my own network issue.

The percentage would be better as a per-day number, and it would be interesting to see orphans as a % too. Did you stake 31 times most recently but only 27 survived? Or 27 times and only 23 survived? Either way, that's about a 15% orphan rate isn't it?

Quote from: RENDERING on July 14, 2015, 08:38:06 AM

Anyone know how to get my clams back from the dice site? I had some in there and cannot figure out what my login was.

Like tsp says, there are contact details at the end of the FAQ tab on Just-Dice. Please include details of your deposits, withdrawals, balance, investments - whatever you can remember to identify your account and confirm that it is yours.

tspacepilot

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1081

I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.

Quote from: RENDERING on July 14, 2015, 08:38:06 AM

Anyone know how to get my clams back from the dice site? I had some in there and cannot figure out what my login was.

Assuming you're talking about just-dice, you should email dooglus. His email is listed on the site as:

Quote

If you need to contact us, please do so via email: [email protected] (if you want to encrypt your message, my GPG key is 4BE6A010492A358E).

RENDERING

sr. member

Activity: 353

Merit: 250

Anyone know how to get my clams back from the dice site? I had some in there and cannot figure out what my login was.

chilly2k

legendary

Activity: 1007

Merit: 1000

Quote from: chilly2k on July 07, 2015, 08:18:08 AM

Quote from: chilly2k on June 30, 2015, 07:05:15 AM

Quote from: BayAreaCoins on June 29, 2015, 05:04:17 PM

Quote from: Bitcoiner2015 on June 29, 2015, 04:13:51 PM

So to effectively stake I should invest my CLAMs at Just-Dice? Is there any real downside to that?
I had thought they would constantly stake, but I only have my computer on for a few hours a day, so guess it isn't going to be worth it in the clam wallet.

I updated to the new wallet and now it says I should stake in 1 day! A big difference!

If you invest at Just-dice you will make more money, but you will be contributing to CLAM being centralized.

I had to see how this played out.

from 6/22 - 6/29 I staked 41.0029 clams the starting size was about 2450

So 7 day at an average of 5.8576 per day. Would give .00239 %

I always see .002% just staking on JD. which would be 4.9 clams per day.

So in my case staking alone is much better an extra 6.7 clams in 7 days. or 350 clams a year.

This was a small sample and your mileage may vary. But it does show that staking solo can be done and can compete with JD.

There were 2 orphans in the sample. And I believe one was when I was staking a new block of 250 clams and splitting the output into blocks of 5.

I think that took 2 tries.

Try this again.

Dates Start Balance Stakes Avg/Day Percentage Orphans

6/22- 6/28 (7 days) 2456 37.0027 5.2861 2.15% 2
6/29 -7/5 2493 26.0005 3.7144 1.49% 2

I'll try to keep this up for another 2 weeks, to see how variability comes into play. My stakes have been all over the board from a low of 2 per day to 8 per day. So over times we should see how it levels out.

This week I lost almost 48 hours of staking due to a self inflicted power problem / internal network issue.

This is one of the risks self staking carries...

Dates Start Balance Stakes Avg/Day Percentage Orphans

6/22- 6/28 (7 days) 2456 37.0027 5.2861 2.15% 2
6/29 -7/5 2493 26.0005 3.7144 1.49% 2
7/6 - 7/12 2519 27.0009 3.8571 1.53% 4 - I think 2 of these were due to my own network issue.

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: BayAreaCoins on July 13, 2015, 08:45:23 PM

Quote from: yudhistira on July 13, 2015, 08:38:57 PM

just dice seems down and cannot accessed

ERROR 522

Doog took it off line for a minute.

Coinbase goes down... BTC drops over 15%. Coinbase makes a small fraction of BTC.

Just-dice goes down... CLAM increases. JD is 90% of clam.

Can anyone argue that those Coinbase fucks arn't manipulating the markets.

Trouble with a DDoS and cleaning up the aftermath. Back now.

BayAreaCoins

legendary

Activity: 4004

Merit: 1250

Owner at AltQuick.com

Quote from: yudhistira on July 13, 2015, 08:38:57 PM

just dice seems down and cannot accessed

ERROR 522

Doog took it off line for a minute.

Coinbase goes down... BTC drops over 15%. Coinbase makes a small fraction of BTC.

Just-dice goes down... CLAM increases. JD is 90% of clam.

Can anyone argue that those Coinbase fucks arn't manipulating the markets.

yudhistira

full member

Activity: 347

Merit: 100

just dice seems down and cannot accessed

ERROR 522

almightyruler

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 1092

Quote from: dooglus on July 12, 2015, 08:19:57 PM

Quote from: almightyruler on July 11, 2015, 07:27:35 PM

Quote from: dooglus on July 11, 2015, 06:16:52 PM

Thanks again. I'm running it on a couple of servers and haven't seen it trigger at all yet. I'll keep watching.

I think it's a case of, no news is good news.

My CLAM client hasn't logged any backward leaps for about 36 hours.

I got one:

Quote

2015-07-12 11:11:49 receive version message: version 60014, blocks=549117, us=, them=0.0.0.0:31174, peer=36.75.220.2:54944
2015-07-12 11:13:45 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549812 to current 275001. penalty=1/100
2015-07-12 11:13:45 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549812 to current 276001. penalty=2/100
2015-07-12 11:13:48 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549812 to current 277001. penalty=3/100
2015-07-12 11:14:02 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549812 to current 278001. penalty=4/100
2015-07-12 11:14:07 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549812 to current 279001. penalty=5/100
2015-07-12 11:14:11 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549813 to current 280001. penalty=6/100
2015-07-12 11:14:13 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549818 to current 281001. penalty=7/100
2015-07-12 11:14:15 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549823 to current 282001. penalty=8/100
2015-07-12 11:14:20 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549833 to current 283001. penalty=9/100
2015-07-12 11:14:22 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549839 to current 284001. penalty=10/100
2015-07-12 11:14:35 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 550015 to current 285001. penalty=11/100
2015-07-12 11:15:03 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 550407 to current 286001. penalty=12/100
2015-07-12 11:16:11 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 550576 to current 287001. penalty=13/100
2015-07-12 11:18:12 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 550582 to current 288001. penalty=14/100
2015-07-12 11:18:13 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 551047 to current 289001. penalty=15/100

There's no other mention of that peer in the log, so I don't know what happened to it, but that was a while ago now.

Do we have any understanding of why this happens, or ideas about how to prevent the next release from being similarly misbehaved when it is an old version some time in the future?

There's a fundamental problem with the base *coin code which makes a forked client request the same set of blocks, in a continuous loop. There seems to be no code for either the asking or answering end to back off when a duplicate request is detected, so it can cause a lot of problems when a large number of clients fork (client hard fork, network problem, etc). I've seen this behaviour happen with many coins (including CLAM), but I'm not sure if it has ever been addressed before. My fix is fairly simple; it would probably be better to be a bit more sophisticated, and keep a running list of blocks that have recently been requested by that peer, sending back a soft "I don't have these blocks" response (or similar) if a peer requests the same set too many times, possibly banning the peer if they continue.

Anyway - at first glance this seems to be a mostly synced peer that is extending its chain to the current network tip, but for some reason it is still scrounging around for blocks that are 7 months behind... which doesn't make sense. I'm not really sure why it would be doing that.

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: almightyruler on July 11, 2015, 07:27:35 PM

Quote from: dooglus on July 11, 2015, 06:16:52 PM

Thanks again. I'm running it on a couple of servers and haven't seen it trigger at all yet. I'll keep watching.

I think it's a case of, no news is good news.

My CLAM client hasn't logged any backward leaps for about 36 hours.

I got one:

Quote

2015-07-12 11:11:49 receive version message: version 60014, blocks=549117, us=, them=0.0.0.0:31174, peer=36.75.220.2:54944
2015-07-12 11:13:45 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549812 to current 275001. penalty=1/100
2015-07-12 11:13:45 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549812 to current 276001. penalty=2/100
2015-07-12 11:13:48 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549812 to current 277001. penalty=3/100
2015-07-12 11:14:02 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549812 to current 278001. penalty=4/100
2015-07-12 11:14:07 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549812 to current 279001. penalty=5/100
2015-07-12 11:14:11 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549813 to current 280001. penalty=6/100
2015-07-12 11:14:13 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549818 to current 281001. penalty=7/100
2015-07-12 11:14:15 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549823 to current 282001. penalty=8/100
2015-07-12 11:14:20 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549833 to current 283001. penalty=9/100
2015-07-12 11:14:22 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 549839 to current 284001. penalty=10/100
2015-07-12 11:14:35 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 550015 to current 285001. penalty=11/100
2015-07-12 11:15:03 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 550407 to current 286001. penalty=12/100
2015-07-12 11:16:11 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 550576 to current 287001. penalty=13/100
2015-07-12 11:18:12 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 550582 to current 288001. penalty=14/100
2015-07-12 11:18:13 peer 36.75.220.2:54944: leap backwards in height request, from max 551047 to current 289001. penalty=15/100

There's no other mention of that peer in the log, so I don't know what happened to it, but that was a while ago now.

Do we have any understanding of why this happens, or ideas about how to prevent the next release from being similarly misbehaved when it is an old version some time in the future?

almightyruler

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 1092

Quote from: dooglus on July 11, 2015, 06:16:52 PM

Quote from: dooglus on July 11, 2015, 01:24:57 PM

Quote from: almightyruler on July 11, 2015, 03:00:40 AM

I've been working on some code to detect forked peers - [...]

That looks useful. I will merge it into the CLAM client tree.

Thanks.

I merged it here:

https://github.com/nochowderforyou/clams/commit/c351f7

Thanks again. I'm running it on a couple of servers and haven't seen it trigger at all yet. I'll keep watching.

I think it's a case of, no news is good news.

My CLAM client hasn't logged any backward leaps for about 36 hours.

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: dooglus on July 11, 2015, 01:24:57 PM

Quote from: almightyruler on July 11, 2015, 03:00:40 AM

I've been working on some code to detect forked peers - [...]

That looks useful. I will merge it into the CLAM client tree.

Thanks.

I merged it here:

https://github.com/nochowderforyou/clams/commit/c351f7

Thanks again. I'm running it on a couple of servers and haven't seen it trigger at all yet. I'll keep watching.

ryanb

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1000

Quote from: dooglus on July 11, 2015, 01:23:23 PM

Quote from: ryanb on July 11, 2015, 08:34:55 AM

Is there a new bootstap?

Yes. See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9772191

thank you

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: almightyruler on July 11, 2015, 03:00:40 AM

I've been working on some code to detect forked peers - the kind who keep asking for the same blocks, over and over, in an endless loop. It's for another coin, where there are a couple of peers who have been doing this for literally months, but apart from changing printf("... to LogPrint("net", "... it's a straight copy & paste into the CLAM source:

https://github.com/almightyruler/cloudcoin/commit/fdecc06a54600c4de0be6b683fdaa90dc194da79

Basically it detects when the peer sends a getblocks request that is lower than its previous maximum. This will allow a peer to ride up the getblocks height as it syncs (with a bit of leeway for dupe requests), but it will be penalised if it goes backwards. If this happens enough times, the peer is banned.

I've been testing this for a few days. Here's an example of one peer which had getblocks requests all over the place:

2015-07-09 17:04:52 receive version message: version 60014, blocks=538391, us=, them=24.84.188.5:31174, peer=24.84.188.5:31174 2015-07-09 17:10:23 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 539176 to current 275001. penalty=1/100 2015-07-09 17:10:28 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 539178 to current 538562. penalty=2/100 2015-07-09 17:11:11 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 539327 to current 276001. penalty=3/100 2015-07-09 17:12:44 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 539537 to current 277001. penalty=4/100 2015-07-09 17:15:29 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 540236 to current 278001. penalty=5/100 2015-07-09 17:16:11 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 540270 to current 279000. penalty=6/100 ... 2015-07-09 18:06:20 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 547158 to current 295001. penalty=79/100 2015-07-09 18:07:36 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 547161 to current 435001. penalty=80/100 2015-07-09 18:07:43 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 547161 to current 296001. penalty=81/100 2015-07-09 18:07:59 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 547160 to current 436001. penalty=82/100 2015-07-09 18:08:00 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 547162 to current 297001. penalty=83/100 2015-07-09 18:08:59 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 437001 to current 298001. penalty=84/100 2015-07-09 18:09:01 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 438001 to current 299001. penalty=85/100 2015-07-09 18:09:06 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 439001 to current 300001. penalty=86/100 2015-07-09 18:09:10 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 440001 to current 301001. penalty=87/100 2015-07-09 18:09:13 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 441001 to current 302001. penalty=88/100 ... 2015-07-09 18:09:39 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 449001 to current 310001. penalty=96/100 2015-07-09 18:09:41 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 450001 to current 311001. penalty=97/100 2015-07-09 18:09:44 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 451001 to current 312001. penalty=98/100 2015-07-09 18:09:48 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 452001 to current 313001. penalty=99/100 2015-07-09 18:09:50 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 453001 to current 314001. penalty=100/100 2015-07-09 18:09:50 ERROR: peer 24.84.188.5:31174: sync repeatedly leaping backwards to lower height

This peer initially seems to be syncing upwards (start height 538391), but then it jumps back down to requesting blocks around 450k and then 300k. Eventually it gets banned.

Since I added this code the client has connected with 94 different peers; out of those it has banned 2.

Just thought the devs may be interested.

That looks useful. I will merge it into the CLAM client tree.

Thanks.

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: ryanb on July 11, 2015, 08:34:55 AM

Is there a new bootstap?

Yes. See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9772191

ryanb

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1000

Is there a new bootstap?

almightyruler

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 1092

I've been working on some code to detect forked peers - the kind who keep asking for the same blocks, over and over, in an endless loop. It's for another coin, where there are a couple of peers who have been doing this for literally months, but apart from changing printf("... to LogPrint("net", "... it's a straight copy & paste into the CLAM source:

https://github.com/almightyruler/cloudcoin/commit/fdecc06a54600c4de0be6b683fdaa90dc194da79

Basically it detects when the peer sends a getblocks request that is lower than its previous maximum. This will allow a peer to ride up the getblocks height as it syncs (with a bit of leeway for dupe requests), but it will be penalised if it goes backwards. If this happens enough times, the peer is banned.

I've been testing this for a few days. Here's an example of one peer which had getblocks requests all over the place:

2015-07-09 17:04:52 receive version message: version 60014, blocks=538391, us=, them=24.84.188.5:31174, peer=24.84.188.5:31174 2015-07-09 17:10:23 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 539176 to current 275001. penalty=1/100 2015-07-09 17:10:28 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 539178 to current 538562. penalty=2/100 2015-07-09 17:11:11 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 539327 to current 276001. penalty=3/100 2015-07-09 17:12:44 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 539537 to current 277001. penalty=4/100 2015-07-09 17:15:29 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 540236 to current 278001. penalty=5/100 2015-07-09 17:16:11 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 540270 to current 279000. penalty=6/100 ... 2015-07-09 18:06:20 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 547158 to current 295001. penalty=79/100 2015-07-09 18:07:36 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 547161 to current 435001. penalty=80/100 2015-07-09 18:07:43 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 547161 to current 296001. penalty=81/100 2015-07-09 18:07:59 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 547160 to current 436001. penalty=82/100 2015-07-09 18:08:00 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 547162 to current 297001. penalty=83/100 2015-07-09 18:08:59 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 437001 to current 298001. penalty=84/100 2015-07-09 18:09:01 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 438001 to current 299001. penalty=85/100 2015-07-09 18:09:06 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 439001 to current 300001. penalty=86/100 2015-07-09 18:09:10 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 440001 to current 301001. penalty=87/100 2015-07-09 18:09:13 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 441001 to current 302001. penalty=88/100 ... 2015-07-09 18:09:39 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 449001 to current 310001. penalty=96/100 2015-07-09 18:09:41 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 450001 to current 311001. penalty=97/100 2015-07-09 18:09:44 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 451001 to current 312001. penalty=98/100 2015-07-09 18:09:48 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 452001 to current 313001. penalty=99/100 2015-07-09 18:09:50 peer 24.84.188.5:31174: leap backwards in height request, from max 453001 to current 314001. penalty=100/100 2015-07-09 18:09:50 ERROR: peer 24.84.188.5:31174: sync repeatedly leaping backwards to lower height

This peer initially seems to be syncing upwards (start height 538391), but then it jumps back down to requesting blocks around 450k and then 300k. Eventually it gets banned.

Since I added this code the client has connected with 94 different peers; out of those it has banned 2.

Just thought the devs may be interested.

Topic: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin" - page 330. (Read 1151252 times)