Topic: [DVC]DevCoin - Official Thread - Moderated - page 102. (Read 1059157 times)

This depends on how quickly blocks are found on the network.  I've changed it to two blocks, but I believe the chain has been moving pretty slowly recently.

I was able to create a new wallet address and send 2000 DVC to Coingather today. Let's see how long Coingather takes to acknowledge my deposit. It was made about 10 minutes ago.

Everyone should follow this post.  I was able to get our wallet to sync by manually pulling files 69 and 70 down.

We are trying to sync our wallet manually to just 82.200.205.39:52333 for the moment.

We have not delisted DVC.  We are trying to get our wallet back online.  I am working on it as we speak.

Regarding an exchange, getting listed on Bitsquare should be easy enough & would avoid all the inherent problems that most centralised exchanges seem to ne having lately.

hey

i came here due to the same thing. my mirror surely isnt down, i just had to manually download it :S

Anyone who does take over and attempt to make something of Devcoin would need to have a realistic view of the current competition. There have been a lot of innovations in coins and block chain technology since Devcoin was launched. The way it looks to me now, any cryptocoin that is *just* a coin is not going to last long (unless it already has name recognition). Look at Steemit, NEM, and VIVA, not to mention Ripple and Ethereum. Those aren't just coins. They are entire ecosystems that have other things built on top of them. Devcoin (or any coin) would have to rise to that level in order to compete. On a technical level, I suppose Devcoin could get there, but it would probably take more than one hard fork.

It wasn't your doing or fault HB; cheers for the efforts.
As jackjack said the waste of a good idea is appaling, but there you go.

receiver_0 through receiver_ 68 auto-downloaded successfully and got added to .devcoin/receiver. The specific error that devcoin-qt output was along the lines of 'error in receiver.h: refused to write receiver_69.csv because it was blank'. Blockchain syncing stalled at that point. Manually fetching receiver_69 and receiver_70 from Github allowed the blockchain sync to finish, after restarting the wallet.

That's never happened before. Normally the receiver files get added to the right folder automatically.

Any news on if CoinGather got its wallet fixed?

There is definitely some wonkiness with some of the mirrored copies of the receiver_xx.csv files. receiver_69.csv seems to be blank from at least one mirror. I originally created a new .devcoin directory and put all 71 files from Github in .devcoin/receiver

for ((i=0; i <= 70; i++)); do wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Unthinkingbit/charity/master/receiver_${i}.csv; done


Sync kept getting stuck around block 192900. However, deleting everything except wallet.dat and devcoin.conf (with UPnP enabled in the QT client) results in the sync completing up to April 2017. Stopping the wallet, manually fetching receiver_69.csv and receiver_70.csv from Github, then restarting the wallet, results in the sync completing. I finally have a wallet balance!

They are manually mirrored (I run one of them). As to why they're not downloading, though, I'm unsure. The mirrors are all up as far as I can tell, and this is something that never happened prior to Receiver_69

Maybe I'm missing some key detail on how Devcoin's wallet and blockchain function vs Bitcoin and other currencies, but why does having these receiver_XX files missing cause block sync to stall/fail? Aren't the files supposed to download and mirror automatically?

That is great news! I just finally got my own wallet working again after three or four attempts to delete and then redownload the block chain. What finally did it was manually adding receiver files 69 and 70 to the receiver folder. The wallet seemed to get hung up in at least one spot, but I let it run and after being out for a few hours the wallet was completely synced when I returned.

If they follow sawa's advice, it'll fix their problem (did mine).

Devcoin wasn't delisted on CoinGather. Here is an update from the chatbox.


Looks like they'll put the wallet back online once the network gets fixed.

I have create a pull request. I hope that the right devs see it
https://github.com/coinzen/devcoin/pull/33

Unsure if this is the right place to bring out code problems, but I am getting this failure when compiling from devcoin master:

$ cd src; make -f makefile.unix
/bin/sh ../share/genbuild.sh obj/build.h
g++ -c -O2 -pthread -Wall -Wextra -Wformat -Wformat-security -Wno-unused-parameter -g -DBOOST_SPIRIT_THREADSAFE  -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -I/home/aatheus/git/devcoin/src -I/home/aatheus/git/devcoin/src/obj -DUSE_IPV6=1 -I/home/aatheus/git/devcoin/src/leveldb/include -I/home/aatheus/git/devcoin/src/leveldb/helpers -I/home/aatheus/git/devcoin/src/curl/include -DHAVE_BUILD_INFO -fno-stack-protector -fstack-protector-all -Wstack-protector -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2  -MMD -MF obj/rpcrawtransaction.d -o obj/rpcrawtransaction.o rpcrawtransaction.cpp
In file included from bitcoinrpc.h:17:0,
                 from rpcrawtransaction.cpp:9:
json/json_spirit_writer_template.h: In function ‘String_type json_spirit::non_printable_to_string(unsigned int)’:
json/json_spirit_writer_template.h:31:50: warning: typedef ‘Char_type’ locally defined but not used [-Wunused-local-typedefs]
         typedef typename String_type::value_type Char_type;
                                                  ^
In file included from /usr/include/boost/iterator/iterator_categories.hpp:22:0,
                 from /usr/include/boost/iterator/iterator_facade.hpp:14,
                 from /usr/include/boost/range/iterator_range_core.hpp:27,
                 from /usr/include/boost/range/iterator_range.hpp:13,
                 from /usr/include/boost/assign/list_of.hpp:20,
                 from rpcrawtransaction.cpp:6:
/usr/include/boost/variant/get.hpp: In instantiation of ‘typename boost::add_reference::type boost::strict_get(boost::variant&) [with U = const CScriptID&; T0 = CNoDestination; T1 = CKeyID; T2 = CScriptID; T3 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T4 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T5 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T6 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T7 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T8 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T9 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T10 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T11 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T12 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T13 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T14 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T15 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T16 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T17 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T18 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T19 = boost::detail::variant::void_; typename boost::add_reference::type = const CScriptID&]’:
/usr/include/boost/variant/get.hpp:284:25:   required from ‘typename boost::add_reference::type boost::get(boost::variant&) [with U = const CScriptID&; T0 = CNoDestination; T1 = CKeyID; T2 = CScriptID; T3 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T4 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T5 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T6 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T7 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T8 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T9 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T10 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T11 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T12 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T13 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T14 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T15 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T16 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T17 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T18 = boost::detail::variant::void_; T19 = boost::detail::variant::void_; typename boost::add_reference::type = const CScriptID&]’
rpcrawtransaction.cpp:241:77:   required from here
/usr/include/boost/variant/get.hpp:178:5: error: invalid application of ‘sizeof’ to incomplete type ‘boost::STATIC_ASSERTION_FAILURE’
     BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT_MSG(
     ^
makefile.unix:182: recipe for target 'obj/rpcrawtransaction.o' failed
make: *** [obj/rpcrawtransaction.o] Error 1


Apparently this is a know issue with Ubuntu 16.04. Per https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/6113#issuecomment-298234393 - I made the change, and the code is compiling fine now.

Anyone who is a dev who can get this into the code base? It seems like a trivial change.

Updating to say this WORKED! Already got it fully synced. Thanks!