◈◈Bitcredit ◈◈ Migrating to UniQredit◈◈ - page 152.

thelonecrouton

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bitcreditscc on May 07, 2015, 12:31:53 PM

As far as i am concerned , i would completely deactivate it. Darksend in my opinion is a gimmick.Enough anonymity is already assured by not using the same address for anything other than Bank Tx. And even then i have figure a way that allows users to use different addresses while still maintaining trust rating.

I only made it active after soe users indicated they wanted it. but even on DRK chain, it is barely used.

I would also vote to shelve Darksend, at least for the time being.

Use of DS by itself does not remotely guard your privacy from TPTB or any competent sleuth, there are just too may other weak links in the chain, although I suppose it might let you slip a purchase for your mistress past your wife.

Even then, I have been asking for over a year now, to no avail, for DRK to implement optional password protection before the wallet will display your balance or transaction history. Sending funds 'anonymously' to your supplier is useless if anyone can come along, glance at your wallet and read "$xxxx.xx to chocolate-covered-nuns.com, 21 Jan 2015"

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

Code:

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
WalletModel::getOptionsModel (this=0x0) at qt/walletmodel.cpp:413
413	    return optionsModel;

this headache

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

Quote from: Mario241077 on May 07, 2015, 10:13:00 AM

Quote from: thelonecrouton on May 07, 2015, 04:19:50 AM

Quote from: Mario241077 on May 07, 2015, 12:53:49 AM

Quote from: bitcreditscc on May 05, 2015, 06:23:29 PM

Quote from: Bagdar13 on May 05, 2015, 05:45:14 PM

Quote from: thelonecrouton on May 05, 2015, 05:22:09 PM

bitcreditscc, any ideas why block 107254 has so far taken 1hr42mins? I tried to setgenerate true to hurry it on a bit but got a core dump. Undecided

The pools have like 4-5 kh/s. at diff 3k, that should be solved in like 30 seconds ...i think its not on a high diff block so something else is up, as time proceeds i am sure it will illuminate itself. Also, it seems that the new wallet has fixed the syncing issue of yesterday so that's one down.

can you post your getblocktemplate?

Unfortunately, I still can not send! Any ideas?

07:52:55

getblocktemplate

07:52:55

CreateNewBlock() : TestBlockValidity failed (code -1)

Have you unchecked the Darksend box in the Send screen?

yes, unchecked

Status: conflicted, has not been successfully broadcast yet
Date: 07.05.2015 07:37
To: 6ELnLCQbGTw1E3oxqm36CKU3E1o2EcVivR
Debit: -100.00000000 BCR
Net amount: -49.20700906 BCR
Transaction ID: 1862ecf5e44e0c7e25ba7e4a07082c03d003dc0ab6f49a5d9dbece1dd195da9a-000

Activation of darksend has brought it's own problems, i am looking into this. As far as i am concerned , i would completely deactivate it. Darksend in my opinion is a gimmick.Enough anonymity is already assured by not using the same address for anything other than Bank Tx. And even then i have figure a way that allows users to use different addresses while still maintaining trust rating.

I only made it active after soe users indicated they wanted it. but even on DRK chain, it is barely used.

dragos_bdi

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: siameze on May 07, 2015, 09:09:20 AM

Quote from: dragos_bdi on May 07, 2015, 08:14:37 AM

Quote from: siameze on May 07, 2015, 07:45:32 AM

Anyone here that has experience building this on Debian 7/8 ? I have tried at random times over the past few weeks to build and still run into dependency issues, despite building against the latest boost. I am obviously missing something but this is my first go at building this type of wallet with added features, etc.

EDIT: This is a 64 bit system, which carries it's own headaches. Configure fails at this point:

checking whether the linker accepts -Wl,--exclude-libs,ALL... yes
configure: error: No working boost sleep implementation found.

I am sure with Wheezy, it is still reading the system boost headers. If I build latest boost and define the path during configure, it will still fail on the same note.

what boost version ?
did you compiled from source ?
are you sure you've compiled all libraries ?

Boost is 1.58.0 all libs compiled from source. I have also attempted build using qmake (for simplicity sake) and get the error:

/root/crypto/bicreditsnew/bitcredit-qt.pro:540: Parse Error ('src/qt/res/themes/qdarkstyle/style.qrc')
Error processing project file: /root/crypto/bicreditsnew/bitcredit-qt.pro

I don't tryed to compile using the qmake, so I can't tell you nothing.
Could you tell me the "./b2" line used ?

Mario241077

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1000

ORB has a good chance to grow.

Quote from: thelonecrouton on May 07, 2015, 04:19:50 AM

Quote from: Mario241077 on May 07, 2015, 12:53:49 AM

Quote from: bitcreditscc on May 05, 2015, 06:23:29 PM

Quote from: Bagdar13 on May 05, 2015, 05:45:14 PM

Quote from: thelonecrouton on May 05, 2015, 05:22:09 PM

bitcreditscc, any ideas why block 107254 has so far taken 1hr42mins? I tried to setgenerate true to hurry it on a bit but got a core dump. Undecided

The pools have like 4-5 kh/s. at diff 3k, that should be solved in like 30 seconds ...i think its not on a high diff block so something else is up, as time proceeds i am sure it will illuminate itself. Also, it seems that the new wallet has fixed the syncing issue of yesterday so that's one down.

can you post your getblocktemplate?

Unfortunately, I still can not send! Any ideas?

07:52:55

getblocktemplate

07:52:55

CreateNewBlock() : TestBlockValidity failed (code -1)

Have you unchecked the Darksend box in the Send screen?

yes, unchecked

Status: conflicted, has not been successfully broadcast yet
Date: 07.05.2015 07:37
To: 6ELnLCQbGTw1E3oxqm36CKU3E1o2EcVivR
Debit: -100.00000000 BCR
Net amount: -49.20700906 BCR
Transaction ID: 1862ecf5e44e0c7e25ba7e4a07082c03d003dc0ab6f49a5d9dbece1dd195da9a-000

siameze

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1000

Quote from: dragos_bdi on May 07, 2015, 08:14:37 AM

Quote from: siameze on May 07, 2015, 07:45:32 AM

Anyone here that has experience building this on Debian 7/8 ? I have tried at random times over the past few weeks to build and still run into dependency issues, despite building against the latest boost. I am obviously missing something but this is my first go at building this type of wallet with added features, etc.

EDIT: This is a 64 bit system, which carries it's own headaches. Configure fails at this point:

checking whether the linker accepts -Wl,--exclude-libs,ALL... yes
configure: error: No working boost sleep implementation found.

I am sure with Wheezy, it is still reading the system boost headers. If I build latest boost and define the path during configure, it will still fail on the same note.

what boost version ?
did you compiled from source ?
are you sure you've compiled all libraries ?

Boost is 1.58.0 all libs compiled from source. I have also attempted build using qmake (for simplicity sake) and get the error:

/root/crypto/bicreditsnew/bitcredit-qt.pro:540: Parse Error ('src/qt/res/themes/qdarkstyle/style.qrc')
Error processing project file: /root/crypto/bicreditsnew/bitcredit-qt.pro

dragos_bdi

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: siameze on May 07, 2015, 07:45:32 AM

Anyone here that has experience building this on Debian 7/8 ? I have tried at random times over the past few weeks to build and still run into dependency issues, despite building against the latest boost. I am obviously missing something but this is my first go at building this type of wallet with added features, etc.

EDIT: This is a 64 bit system, which carries it's own headaches. Configure fails at this point:

checking whether the linker accepts -Wl,--exclude-libs,ALL... yes
configure: error: No working boost sleep implementation found.

I am sure with Wheezy, it is still reading the system boost headers. If I build latest boost and define the path during configure, it will still fail on the same note.

what boost version ?
did you compiled from source ?
are you sure you've compiled all libraries ?

siameze

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1000

Anyone here that has experience building this on Debian 7/8 ? I have tried at random times over the past few weeks to build and still run into dependency issues, despite building against the latest boost. I am obviously missing something but this is my first go at building this type of wallet with added features, etc.

EDIT: This is a 64 bit system, which carries it's own headaches. Configure fails at this point:

checking whether the linker accepts -Wl,--exclude-libs,ALL... yes
configure: error: No working boost sleep implementation found.

I am sure with Wheezy, it is still reading the system boost headers. If I build latest boost and define the path during configure, it will still fail on the same note.

thelonecrouton

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Mario241077 on May 07, 2015, 12:53:49 AM

Quote from: bitcreditscc on May 05, 2015, 06:23:29 PM

Quote from: Bagdar13 on May 05, 2015, 05:45:14 PM

Quote from: thelonecrouton on May 05, 2015, 05:22:09 PM

bitcreditscc, any ideas why block 107254 has so far taken 1hr42mins? I tried to setgenerate true to hurry it on a bit but got a core dump. Undecided

The pools have like 4-5 kh/s. at diff 3k, that should be solved in like 30 seconds ...i think its not on a high diff block so something else is up, as time proceeds i am sure it will illuminate itself. Also, it seems that the new wallet has fixed the syncing issue of yesterday so that's one down.

can you post your getblocktemplate?

Unfortunately, I still can not send! Any ideas?

07:52:55

getblocktemplate

07:52:55

CreateNewBlock() : TestBlockValidity failed (code -1)

Have you unchecked the Darksend box in the Send screen?

thelonecrouton

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bitcreditscc on May 06, 2015, 06:53:15 PM

Does anyone have problems with the BN payments schedule?

Code:

int64_t GetBanknodePayment(int nHeight, int64_t blockValue)
{
    int64_t ret = blockValue/5; //20%

  
    if(nHeight > 85000)               ret += blockValue / 20; //  25.0% 
    if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 1)) ret += blockValue / 20; //  30.0% 
    if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 2)) ret += blockValue / 20; //  35.0% 
    if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 3)) ret += blockValue / 40; //  37.5% 
    if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 4)) ret += blockValue / 40; //  40.0% 
    if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 5)) ret += blockValue / 40; //  42.5% 
    if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 6)) ret += blockValue / 40; //  45.0% 
    if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 7)) ret += blockValue / 40; //  47.5% 
    if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 8)) ret += blockValue / 40; //  50.0% 
    if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 9)) ret += blockValue / 40; //  52.5% 
    if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)*10)) ret += blockValue / 40; //  55.0% 
    if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)*11)) ret += blockValue / 40; //  57.5% 
    if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)*12)) ret += blockValue / 40; //  60.0% 
    
    
    return ret;
}

Nope, looks fine, if anything I would ramp it forward - lower the 1440 to 800 to better reflect the avg. blocks per day and keep it more or less monthly, and keep the increments at 5%.

I never understood why Evan/DRK wanted to stretch the process out for 18 months - MNs and BNs are the core of both currencies, the value added by having them far outweighs any 'loss' to the miners.

edit: just read your google spreadsheet, yeah BN reward should increase over time, not decrease! I had been working off just the code above, hadn't taken into account the block reduction... kind of drastically changes the picture for a BN investor...

More money held in BNs means greater price stability too.

Mario241077

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1000

ORB has a good chance to grow.

Quote from: bitcreditscc on May 05, 2015, 06:23:29 PM

Quote from: Bagdar13 on May 05, 2015, 05:45:14 PM

Quote from: thelonecrouton on May 05, 2015, 05:22:09 PM

bitcreditscc, any ideas why block 107254 has so far taken 1hr42mins? I tried to setgenerate true to hurry it on a bit but got a core dump. Undecided

The pools have like 4-5 kh/s. at diff 3k, that should be solved in like 30 seconds ...i think its not on a high diff block so something else is up, as time proceeds i am sure it will illuminate itself. Also, it seems that the new wallet has fixed the syncing issue of yesterday so that's one down.

can you post your getblocktemplate?

Unfortunately, I still can not send! Any ideas?

07:52:55

getblocktemplate

07:52:55

CreateNewBlock() : TestBlockValidity failed (code -1)

Department of

member

Activity: 102

Merit: 10

Quote from: bitcreditscc on May 06, 2015, 08:31:19 PM

Quote from: Bagdar13 on May 06, 2015, 07:21:49 PM

So likely there are people who cannot translate that directly into time (me being one of them), based on current solving could you list (maybe a graph how that changes over time months/years etc)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_wC7z9eKTMtbtyEfsd20PfH8SdUs9wKMX3JqYTJZxpQ/edit?usp=sharing

Personally i thought this is very fair, but some people have raised concerns. I am actually concerned that 22.5% is too low and wanted to raise it to 40% to incentivize BN owners.

Yeah, I feel like it at least needs to be on a scheduled increase, not remain a constant. And 40% would definitely be a lot more incentive...

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

Quote from: Bagdar13 on May 06, 2015, 07:21:49 PM

So likely there are people who cannot translate that directly into time (me being one of them), based on current solving could you list (maybe a graph how that changes over time months/years etc)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_wC7z9eKTMtbtyEfsd20PfH8SdUs9wKMX3JqYTJZxpQ/edit?usp=sharing

Personally i thought this is very fair, but some people have raised concerns. I am actually concerned that 22.5% is too low and wanted to raise it to 40% to incentivize BN owners.

Bagdar13

member

Activity: 115

Merit: 10

Quote from: bitcreditscc on May 06, 2015, 06:53:15 PM

Does anyone have problems with the BN payments schedule?

Code:

int64_t GetBanknodePayment(int nHeight, int64_t blockValue)
{
int64_t ret = blockValue/5; //20%

if(nHeight > 85000) ret += blockValue / 20; // 25.0%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 1)) ret += blockValue / 20; // 30.0%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 2)) ret += blockValue / 20; // 35.0%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 3)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 37.5%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 4)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 40.0%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 5)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 42.5%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 6)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 45.0%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 7)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 47.5%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 8)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 50.0%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 9)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 52.5%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)*10)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 55.0%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)*11)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 57.5%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)*12)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 60.0%

return ret;
}

So likely there are people who cannot translate that directly into time (me being one of them), based on current solving could you list (maybe a graph how that changes over time months/years etc)

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

Does anyone have problems with the BN payments schedule?

Code:

int64_t GetBanknodePayment(int nHeight, int64_t blockValue)
{
int64_t ret = blockValue/5; //20%

if(nHeight > 85000) ret += blockValue / 20; // 25.0%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 1)) ret += blockValue / 20; // 30.0%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 2)) ret += blockValue / 20; // 35.0%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 3)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 37.5%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 4)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 40.0%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 5)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 42.5%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 6)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 45.0%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 7)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 47.5%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 8)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 50.0%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)* 9)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 52.5%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)*10)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 55.0%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)*11)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 57.5%
if(nHeight > 85000+((1440*30)*12)) ret += blockValue / 40; // 60.0%

return ret;
}

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

Quote from: thelonecrouton on May 06, 2015, 02:43:32 PM

Block 107290 has arrived, after 17hrs59mins! Cheesy

apparently solved by p2pool after numerous restarts. i'm scouring both the wallet code and p2pool rooting out any issues i can find, but it's slow work.

thats almost a whole day with no blocks and that is unacceptable.

thelonecrouton

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Block 107290 has arrived, after 17hrs59mins! Cheesy

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

my analysis is complete and my initial views are correct. Here's the quickie-

Problem
Our p2pool software seems to have trouble handling blocks that contain transactions. As a result it fails to solve those blocks, further, with the absolute enforcement of BN payments, I cut out those who were dodging the payments by using NAN's outdated miner.

Resolution
Everyone capable of solo mining, please help out. Also I a working on resolving the "litemode" issue and will return with a report in a few hours.
As i do not know python, i am asking someone else to look into why our pools fail to handle transactions.

doesntmatter

newbie

Activity: 39

Merit: 0

litemode disables all banknode activity! so with qt on litemode it can't mine... i can mine... someone with wallet that says up to date, and can be mined on send me ip, user and pass.... i will mine next block to get myself back up to date.... so i can keep the network up!!!

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

it's either the miners or the pool, this is the output i am getting form the pool:-

Code:

2015-05-06 11:54:11.680281 Worker 5v9JksHMsEdhHAaHDtUxoNhB3juiXs6ucU submitted share with hash > target:
2015-05-06 11:54:11.680453 Hash: ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffeee1
2015-05-06 11:54:11.680549 Target: 1b2bba5ff26a23000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
2015-05-06 11:54:11.683432 Worker 5v9JksHMsEdhHAaHDtUxoNhB3juiXs6ucU submitted share with hash > target:
2015-05-06 11:54:11.683543 Hash: ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffeee1
2015-05-06 11:54:11.683685 Target: 1b2bba5ff26a23000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
2015-05-06 11:54:12.075911 GOT SHARE! 5tEMroG8umWezhg9AZD3zRQR344aPiujPS 27e96a39 prev 18481c8a age 9.55s
2015-05-06 11:54:12.088496 New work for worker! Difficulty: 0.000000 Share difficulty: 0.000001 Total block value: 50.000002 BCR including 1 transactions
2015-05-06 11:54:12.114716 GOT SHARE! 5vvturZwfcR77vnETZURvXwLtQEWGmtCAH cac5bafa prev 18481c8a age 9.60s DEAD ON ARRIVAL
2015-05-06 11:54:12.473464 GOT SHARE! 5ysLXT3jmb66p7qytMFgbBQekX2192FjYK bb77ace7 prev d53ae93a age 0.38s
2015-05-06 11:54:13.290494 P2Pool: 4 shares in chain (88 verified/88 total) Peers: 1 (0 incoming)
2015-05-06 11:54:13.290625 Local: 1627H/s in last 1.3 minutes Local dead on arrival: ~31.3% (24-40%) Expected time to share: 0.9 seconds
2015-05-06 11:54:13.290693 Shares: 87 (53 orphan, 30 dead) Stale rate: ~95.4% (88-99%) Efficiency: ~8.0% (3-20%) Current payout: (0.0000)=0.0000 BCR
2015-05-06 11:54:13.290759 Pool: 44H/s Stale rate: 42.9% Expected time to block: 15.0 hours
2015-05-06 11:54:13.783478 Worker 5v9JksHMsEdhHAaHDtUxoNhB3juiXs6ucU submitted share with hash > target:
2015-05-06 11:54:13.783630 Hash: ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffeee1
2015-05-06 11:54:13.783695 Target: 1df75680feb65f000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
2015-05-06 11:54:13.791153 Worker 5v9JksHMsEdhHAaHDtUxoNhB3juiXs6ucU submitted share with hash > target:
2015-05-06 11:54:13.791297 Hash: ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffeee1
2015-05-06 11:54:13.791382 Target: 1df75680feb65f000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
2015-05-06 11:54:15.099984 Worker 5v9JksHMsEdhHAaHDtUxoNhB3juiXs6ucU submitted share with hash > target:
2015-05-06 11:54:15.100145 Hash: ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffeee1
2015-05-06 11:54:15.100240 Target: 1df75680feb65f000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
2015-05-06 11:54:15.100836 Worker 5v9JksHMsEdhHAaHDtUxoNhB3juiXs6ucU submitted share with hash > target:
2015-05-06 11:54:15.100935 Hash: ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffeee1
2015-05-06 11:54:15.101029 Target: 1df75680feb65f000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
2015-05-06 11:54:15.640068 GOT SHARE! 5tEMroG8umWezhg9AZD3zRQR344aPiujPS 57bb75c9 prev 6173e7bf age 3.14s
2015-05-06 11:54:16.292202 P2Pool: 5 shares in chain (89 verified/89 total) Peers: 1 (0 incoming)
2015-05-06 11:54:16.292337 Local: 1648H/s in last 1.3 minutes Local dead on arrival: ~31.4% (24-40%) Expected time to share: 0.9 seconds
2015-05-06 11:54:16.292391 Shares: 88 (49 orphan, 34 dead) Stale rate: ~94.3% (87-98%) Efficiency: ~10.2% (4-23%) Current payout: (0.0000)=0.0000 BCR
2015-05-06 11:54:16.292466 Pool: 614H/s Stale rate: 44.4% Expected time to block: 1.1 hours
2015-05-06 11:54:16.341480 Worker 5v9JksHMsEdhHAaHDtUxoNhB3juiXs6ucU submitted share with hash > target:
2015-05-06 11:54:16.341663 Hash: ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffeee1
2015-05-06 11:54:16.341755 Target: 1ef4fee96309cc000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
2015-05-06 11:54:16.347113 Worker 5v9JksHMsEdhHAaHDtUxoNhB3juiXs6ucU submitted share with hash > target:
2015-05-06 11:54:16.347283 Hash: ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffeee1
2015-05-06 11:54:16.347384 Target: 1ef4fee96309cc000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
2015-05-06 11:54:18.112740 Worker 6E4ggFg78uEJoHdwE4N9PH2CNhNZE4JWVu submitted share with hash > target:
2015-05-06 11:54:18.112915 Hash: ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffeee4
2015-05-06 11:54:18.112981 Target: 1ef4fee96309cc000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
2015-05-06 11:54:18.114155 Worker 5v9JksHMsEdhHAaHDtUxoNhB3juiXs6ucU submitted share with hash > target:
2015-05-06 11:54:18.114268 Hash: ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffeee1
2015-05-06 11:54:18.114377 Target: 1ef4fee96309cc000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
2015-05-06 11:54:18.115295 Worker 5v9JksHMsEdhHAaHDtUxoNhB3juiXs6ucU submitted share with hash > target:
2015-05-06 11:54:18.115386 Hash: ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffeee1
2015-05-06 11:54:18.115448 Target: 1ef4fee96309cc000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
2015-05-06 11:54:18.209076 GOT SHARE! 5tST3vaooyoxY3KjtVrGTzfdNS8CV4GmXq bbbe05ff prev 57f97f79 age 2.53s
2015-05-06 11:54:18.221494 New work for worker! Difficulty: 0.000001 Share difficulty: 0.000001 Total block value: 50.000002 BCR including 1 transactions
2015-05-06 11:54:19.294014 P2Pool: 7 shares in chain (91 verified/91 total) Peers: 1 (0 incoming)
2015-05-06 11:54:19.294154 Local: 1666H/s in last 1.4 minutes Local dead on arrival: ~30.7% (23-39%) Expected time to share: 1.0 seconds
2015-05-06 11:54:19.294206 Shares: 89 (49 orphan, 34 dead) Stale rate: ~93.3% (86-97%) Efficiency: ~12.5% (5-26%) Current payout: (0.0000)=0.0000 BCR
2015-05-06 11:54:19.294289 Pool: 194H/s Stale rate: 46.2% Expected time to block: 3.5 hours
2015-05-06 11:54:19.752108 GOT SHARE! 68UhXgDodiPco7geua2GpW9SuQKMe7J29f c5475e7a prev 68ac1fe6 age 0.35s
2015-05-06 11:54:19.998840 Worker 5v9JksHMsEdhHAaHDtUxoNhB3juiXs6ucU submitted share with hash > target:
2015-05-06 11:54:19.998983 Hash: ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffeee1
2015-05-06 11:54:19.999043 Target: 1d3b25ae3e929d000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
2015-05-06 11:54:19.999567 Worker 5v9JksHMsEdhHAaHDtUxoNhB3juiXs6ucU submitted share with hash > target:
2015-05-06 11:54:19.999637 Hash: ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffeee1
2015-05-06 11:54:19.999698 Target: 1d3b25ae3e929d000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
2015-05-06 11:54:20.244204 GOT SHARE! 5qN3ZasN345N5UoEVg2iZ4DtwA8YjyjJic 12f71308 prev c5475e7a age 0.48s
2015-05-06 11:54:20.314292 GOT SHARE! 6Bf2ZzjdK8h98YRjB5FGiyB9DCuFGZxnxN f7834adb prev c5475e7a age 0.53s DEAD ON ARRIVAL

debug:-

Code:

2015-05-06 11:58:52 CActiveBanknode::Dseep() - SendDarkSendElectionEntryPing vin = CTxIn(COutPoint(4beccdfc1e, 1), scriptSig=)
2015-05-06 11:58:56 peer=2792 using obsolete version 70007; disconnecting
2015-05-06 11:58:56 ProcessMessage(version, 104 bytes) FAILED peer=2792
2015-05-06 11:59:03 peer=2793 using obsolete version 70007; disconnecting
2015-05-06 11:59:03 ProcessMessage(version, 104 bytes) FAILED peer=2793
2015-05-06 11:59:12 peer=2794 using obsolete version 70007; disconnecting
2015-05-06 11:59:12 ProcessMessage(version, 104 bytes) FAILED peer=2794
2015-05-06 11:59:31 peer=2795 using obsolete version 70007; disconnecting
2015-05-06 11:59:31 ProcessMessage(version, 104 bytes) FAILED peer=2795
2015-05-06 11:59:52 CActiveBanknode::Dseep() - SendDarkSendElectionEntryPing vin = CTxIn(COutPoint(4beccdfc1e, 1), scriptSig=)
2015-05-06 11:59:59 peer=2796 using obsolete version 70007; disconnecting
2015-05-06 11:59:59 ProcessMessage(version, 104 bytes) FAILED peer=2796
2015-05-06 12:00:08 connect() to 198.52.200.60:8877 failed after select(): Connection refused (111)
2015-05-06 12:00:20 CDarkSendPool::UpdateState() == 3 | 3
2015-05-06 12:00:20 peer=2797 using obsolete version 70007; disconnecting
2015-05-06 12:00:20 ProcessMessage(version, 104 bytes) FAILED peer=2797

seems there are still stragglers on the old code. but their clients are rejected immediately.

Topic: ◈◈Bitcredit ◈◈ Migrating to UniQredit◈◈ - page 152. (Read 284545 times)