Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 534. (Read 9723787 times)

With so many positive news that are showing up everyday i think that level of $1000 is closer than you even think

I believe that the price will come close to the level of 1000 after DashPay Evolution Wallet Livenet Release

Bank of America has begun charging a $60 annual fee for maintaining a savings account, making saving in Dash an even more attractive option.

As announced by Reddit user RicoCat, a new $5 monthly fee has been added to Bank of America savings accounts. The user called the bank to confirm, and the service associate did confirm that a $60 annual fee for maintaining a savings accounts was indeed a new policy. She also confirmed that many customers had similarly been upset by the change.

Hahahahahahahaha!  Right...you do realize that this is the DASH forum, right?  Are you getting nervous holding high priced BTC at the moment with solutions like DASH starting to get recognition?   

From the initial release date at: 11PM EST, 18th January 2014 are there things that the Dash community should be proud of?  Dash has not yet overtaken the first mover advantage of Bitcoin, it doesn’t have the cool “program the world” factor of Ethereum and its not the bankers friend like Ripple but I think there is a great story to tell.

Where would you go to learn more about the impact Dash has had on the cryptocurrency universe?  I didn’t really find a good succinct “story of Dash” on dash.org or dashforcenews.com. There are a number of YouTube videos out there that discuss the strengths of Dash and big announcements – maybe someone has a “playlist” of Dash’s significant moments but I don’t know where that is.

Hello! thank you I agree with you completely!

Hello, friends.
We accept DASH.
You are welcome!

Thank you man, I have been looking for that for a while

You can pick one at https://github.com/udjinm6/dash-bootstrap

Is there a bootstrap file? Could somebody post the latest bootstrap or blockchain dat file thanx .its 3 years behind .

Yep, I see. The fix is self-explanatory itself actually but thanks for additional info about steps to reproduce.

re PR: oops, I already created one https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/1730, please review. In general, if you see anything that can be fixed/improved (especially in Dash-specific code, and doesn't conflict with bitcoin PRs) - please feel free to submit a fix, PRs are highly welcome
Note: there is also a part for "mnv" invs/messages which is missing in your fix, and a TODO for payment blocks inv which I'd like to fix later changing the way its hash is represented first (in some another PR). These two are not that critical but probably worth fixing too to make code a bit more consistent.

re Dash network code is overly complex: agree, that's a legacy thing and one of our major goals now is to incrementally refactor all this stuff to make code easier to read/review but this takes time.

Thank you for your reply, i'm indeed not a coder and i overlooked at first the code part that actually contained your mentioned bug and your implemented fix.
My apologies for my post, i overreacted and the use of the // SYSCOIN tags makes much more sense now. Also thank you for describing the two bugs in more detail.

Edit : looks like your discovered bugs gets addressed here :



FYI

Sorry doesn't seem you are a coder. Look I never inteded to brag dont know where you got that from. Regarding the commits comments // SYSCOIN I am very glad you asked that since not many coders in alt land actually use that idea. It is a way for me to know which parts have changed so I can easily rebase from scratch by looking for all // SYSCOIN tags and updating code without costly merge conflicts. This way I can ensure I start from a good base (dash or btc) and then add my specific stuff on top. Hope that makes sense, its something Ive been using and creates very efficient reports from base without sacrificing security and wished more developers would do the same, after all we are dealing with peoples money.

So the two bugs I reproduced by creating a simple testnet and noticing that lists wont sync deterministically, there is a codepath that sometimes syncs up MNs but the normal path of execution skips over it. Maybe having more masternodes helps fix the problem but a problem is a problem to me, with 1 MN or with more, so I think its a valid bug. I had to fix the setAskFor issue first then the increase the timeout which finally got me to sync properly in a stable manor. Anyways I will work with the developers who wrote the code, I prefer Dash makes the changes IFF they see it is a valid issue or can respond with appropriate comments.

steps to reproduce, start a testnet with one masternode and notice in logs that you will get invalid message during mnw and also that setAskFor bug, it wont resync the list during mnsync but instead only try at the very beginning when headers are syncing, for some reason it skips asking for inv ther ebecause i think its still in waiting mode before list mode starts. I hope tha tmakes sense, do you want me to create a PR?

Nice, thanks!

I'm a little confused, all i see in the mentioned commits for syscoin is either the adding of the SYSCOIN name (which is definetely not something to brag about) and giving the sync more time with the *2
in the line if(GetTime() - nTimeLastBumped > MASTERNODE_SYNC_TIMEOUT_SECONDS*2) {  (which i'm not sure is even needed for Dash)

That is literally all you did with the Dash code. So where are exactly the bugs you found and why are we not noticing the effects of your discovered bugs on Dash mainnet ?
Current code v0.12.2.1 is running pretty stable and masternodes are kept in good synchronisation, so far i can tell from the number of active masternodes and from my own masternodes.

Edit 1 : okay, i think i found the piece of code you are referring to :



I will give someone from the Dash core-team the chance to confirm if you found a valid bug or not.

Edit 2 : seeing UdjinM6 reply it looks like you were correct and found a valid bug, my apologies and my thanks.


 

Thanks I gotta give credit to evan for having the vision. Now I take that vision and build upon it with my own. I feel like evolution will be big if and only if they design it so masternodes are onchain and rid of all this p2p mess. It will help with many things and make consensus code so much easier and safer. Either way thr pow+bonded validator system is probably the ideal nakamoto consensus design. Lets enjoy it because going fwd money will be in our corners.

I had hoped he was at the dash booth at money2020 but he wasnt there. Maybe some other time.

This is a repost of this weeks edition of the Dash Force News Weekly Recap video from our YouTube channel. This show is dedicated to keeping you up to date with Dash news highlights from the past week.

Press That Like Button! Smash For DASH!
Thanks For Watching Please Hit Subscribe & Share Video!

Lol. I know there's a lot of trolls here so there's maybe some reason to be so short, but I still love to see someone getting a pin stuck in their arrogance bubble. Also Syscoin is awesome, great work Sidhujag.

Sure. Syscoin used dashes 0.12.2 code as v1 masternodes. In v2 im going to redo masternode design more like what evolution is about but better. Im finding the p2p design of dash is overly complex for what it needs to do and theres a better way to solve the same problem and scale across new services.

https://github.com/syscoin/syscoin2/commit/f248473f50490367563af85eb116e346ee8dcacd

Im finding mnsync list doesnt give enough time before mnw starts being requested causing incorrect sig errors for votes coming in.

https://github.com/syscoin/syscoin2/commit/90216592da0afcf1429aec60cc077fb328f27272

Here setAskFor is not cleared on initial requests before mn list is requested. Therefor on subsequent requests during mn list sync state the invs on those mns are not requested because setAskFor already has the objects.

Ok your turn.