nevertheless, whats the expected timeline? i expect another 2 weeks minimum until probs are sorted out...
2 weeks seems too long to me. Can't push milestones back so much with every (small) problem.Days, not weeks.
Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 5117. (Read 9723733 times)
June 20, 2014, 05:35:46 PM
Days, not weeks.
June 20, 2014, 05:35:19 PM
Ok, I draw the line on anime (no pun intended) 
June 20, 2014, 05:34:37 PM
nevertheless, whats the expected timeline? i expect another 2 weeks minimum until probs are sorted out...
2 weeks seems too long to me. Can't push milestones back so much with every (small) problem. June 20, 2014, 05:31:27 PM
when will this forking end?
Hi all, I have been been following todays events closely and I have few (maybe controversial) remarks:
First, the hardfork implemetation went perfectly as far as I can tell. The network never became forked at any point. Immediately following the hardfork a couple of the pools were 1-5 minutes behind the highest block, but at no point did any of the pools ever fork - despite repeated claims to the contrary by people that should know better ::cough cough::. I believe Evan mistakenly interpreted this 1-5 minutes of lag on certain pools and masernodes as a fork, when in fact it was not (probably due to the differences in blockheight reported by the pools and those reported to him by masternode owners). As others have suggested, the reason for this lag is probably because the solved blocks were just taking longer than usual to propagate through the network because there were a lot of old clients on the network, something not entirely unexpected.
This minor issue solved itself approximately 15-20 minutes after the hardfork took effect, and the network hummed along perfectly fine for another 30 minutes before the reversion was released on github. During this time masternode payments were also working perfectly. In retrospect, the decision to revert the code was probably a mistake, but I understand the decision as Evan was acting out of an abundance of caution and that bit of lag spooked him.
If anyone has any evidence to suggest that the network was "forked" at any point, please share - I have reviewed IRC transcripts and have read every post, and was monitoring the pools throughout the hardfork implementation and there was never any evidence that I am aware of to suggest that the network had actually forked. Hopefully Evan will re-release the same code and we can try to fork RC3 in a couple days.
First, the hardfork implemetation went perfectly as far as I can tell. The network never became forked at any point. Immediately following the hardfork a couple of the pools were 1-5 minutes behind the highest block, but at no point did any of the pools ever fork - despite repeated claims to the contrary by people that should know better ::cough cough::. I believe Evan mistakenly interpreted this 1-5 minutes of lag on certain pools and masernodes as a fork, when in fact it was not (probably due to the differences in blockheight reported by the pools and those reported to him by masternode owners). As others have suggested, the reason for this lag is probably because the solved blocks were just taking longer than usual to propagate through the network because there were a lot of old clients on the network, something not entirely unexpected.
This minor issue solved itself approximately 15-20 minutes after the hardfork took effect, and the network hummed along perfectly fine for another 30 minutes before the reversion was released on github. During this time masternode payments were also working perfectly. In retrospect, the decision to revert the code was probably a mistake, but I understand the decision as Evan was acting out of an abundance of caution and that bit of lag spooked him.
If anyone has any evidence to suggest that the network was "forked" at any point, please share - I have reviewed IRC transcripts and have read every post, and was monitoring the pools throughout the hardfork implementation and there was never any evidence that I am aware of to suggest that the network had actually forked. Hopefully Evan will re-release the same code and we can try to fork RC3 in a couple days.
+1
I think you're right, the network seemed to be sorting itself out, but maybe Evan spotted something we didn't? I've noticed a minute or two of lag both locally and on my masternodes before, they all always catch up, no forks, no problems.
Also, in case anyone hasn't figured out how to update and restart their masternodes with the newfangled cold/remote setup, here is what worked for me:
On remote:
darkcoind stop
mv darkcoind darkcoind-old-version-number
wget http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/rc/darkcoind
chmod 755 darkcoind
darkcoind
...wait for it to sync up if needed
On local:
Stop local client if running
Edit your darkcoin.conf and put back in:
masternode=1
masternodeprivkey=your-priv-key-for-that-masternode
masternodeaddr=x.x.x.x:9999
Rename your copy wallet for that masternode back to wallet.dat and fire up the local client or daemon
Wait for it to sync up if needed, then
masternode start 'your-wallet-passphrase'
- you should get 'masternode started sucessfully' and you can now take the local wallet offline again, your masternode should appear at http://drk.poolhash.org/masternode.html within a minute or two.
June 20, 2014, 05:31:20 PM
when will this forking end?
When the issue has been resolved. June 20, 2014, 05:28:57 PM
when will this forking end?
June 20, 2014, 05:27:44 PM
If anyone has any evidence to suggest that the network was "forked" at any point, please share - I have reviewed IRC transcripts and have read every post, and was monitoring the pools throughout the hardfork implementation and there was never any evidence that I am aware of to suggest that the network had actually forked. Hopefully Evan will re-release the same code and we can try to fork RC3 in a couple days.
I was going through the two block explorers and I think it was a ...97 block which I saw on chainz and the official block explorer. They had different values for the same block.
I was refreshing the block explorers periodically, I did notice chainz was behind at one point (chainz often lags for no apparent reason so I wouldn't read much into that), but I didn't see any evidence of a fork, just some lagging. When the revert went up both explorers (and all pools) were on the correct chain.
several forks where found on the network, that is why reversal was the only logical choice
correct choice
nevertheless, whats the expected timeline? i expect another 2 weeks minimum until probs are sorted out...
June 20, 2014, 05:23:27 PM
You see, a little light DRK intermission while normal service resumes is no bad thing. Helps people to skip over all that fud.
June 20, 2014, 05:19:16 PM
If anyone has any evidence to suggest that the network was "forked" at any point, please share - I have reviewed IRC transcripts and have read every post, and was monitoring the pools throughout the hardfork implementation and there was never any evidence that I am aware of to suggest that the network had actually forked. Hopefully Evan will re-release the same code and we can try to fork RC3 in a couple days.
I was going through the two block explorers and I think it was a ...97 block which I saw on chainz and the official block explorer. They had different values for the same block.
I was refreshing the block explorers periodically, I did notice chainz was behind at one point (chainz often lags for no apparent reason so I wouldn't read much into that), but I didn't see any evidence of a fork, just some lagging. When the revert went up both explorers (and all pools) were on the correct chain.
several forks where found on the network, that is why reversal was the only logical choice
June 20, 2014, 05:15:48 PM
If anyone has any evidence to suggest that the network was "forked" at any point, please share - I have reviewed IRC transcripts and have read every post, and was monitoring the pools throughout the hardfork implementation and there was never any evidence that I am aware of to suggest that the network had actually forked. Hopefully Evan will re-release the same code and we can try to fork RC3 in a couple days.
I was going through the two block explorers and I think it was a ...97 block which I saw on chainz and the official block explorer. They had different values for the same block.
I was refreshing the block explorers periodically, I did notice chainz was behind at one point (chainz often lags for no apparent reason so I wouldn't read much into that), but I didn't see any evidence of a fork, just some lagging. When the revert went up both explorers (and all pools) were on the correct chain.
June 20, 2014, 05:15:43 PM
[01:03] curious: new issue that doesn't seem to be as serious, but still no official word
[01:07] GNULinuxGuy, working on it
[01:07] GNULinuxGuy, doing research atm
[01:07]
[01:07]
Thanks Alex for the feedbacks
I do hope they will find an issue to justify the reversal
June 20, 2014, 05:13:51 PM
coins101: Your last was very informative. Plz post moar!!!111
maybe we need some new material. I'll go ask auntie google. brb
Ah, yes; a Miss DRK competition
We need more ladies of the DRK. OK. brb
Subtly racist
June 20, 2014, 05:11:02 PM
coins101: Your last was very informative. Plz post moar!!!111
maybe we need some new material. I'll go ask auntie google. brb
Ah, yes; a Miss DRK competition
We need more ladies of the DRK. OK. brb
June 20, 2014, 05:10:33 PM
[01:03] curious: new issue that doesn't seem to be as serious, but still no official word
[01:07] GNULinuxGuy, working on it
[01:07] GNULinuxGuy, doing research atm
[01:07]
[01:07]
June 20, 2014, 05:08:54 PM
Why we dont see this forks as sidechains.
We would be making history.
We would be making history.
June 20, 2014, 05:08:34 PM
coins101: Your last was very informative. Plz post moar!!!111
maybe we need some new material. I'll go ask auntie google. brb
June 20, 2014, 05:08:25 PM
Simcom: BTW, I def. saw some strong evidence of sideforking last night. My biz partner sent me 250DRK last night to top out our fifth community owned node and it just never arrived (he was using .9x I was using .10x). I'm assuming this transaction was orphaned since it never arrived (and I *think* it never left his wallet).
Anything that happened before the hardfork is irrelevant. Likely a run-of-the-mill orphaned block.
June 20, 2014, 05:06:52 PM
However, now I'm confirmed DRK will be the next #2.
There is no way it can't - you see how many people show up to FUD when something doesn't go right.
There isn't a single other coin that isn't threatened by what DRK is doing.
There is no way it can't - you see how many people show up to FUD when something doesn't go right.
There isn't a single other coin that isn't threatened by what DRK is doing.
June 20, 2014, 05:05:42 PM
I still don't get how evan could make this revert-decision based on a non-stabilized environment with massive entropy, just one hour after a hard fork. I mean, you devs did expect orphans and concurrent blocks after a hard fork, dint't you?
I'm a bit concerned. This is why.I'm binge-watching The Walking Dead until the dust settles.
Agreed. Doesn't make sense. I get that it took "too long" - however, the case that 25% of the network didn't update and thus were creating forks - isn't this okay ....isn't that an edge case that won't happen often?
June 20, 2014, 05:05:05 PM
coins101: Your last was very informative. Plz post moar!!!111
maybe we need some new material. I'll go ask auntie google. brb
Jump to: