Im going to uncomment allow free code looks like it
uncovered a bug. I will leave it like it is.. The mintxfee is
set to 5*COIN.. This is what it was in devcoin src..
Now the min fee ends up being 5*coin plus dust filter 0.5*coin.. give me few
hrs I will update it back to what it was.
Topic: [DVC]DevCoin - Official Thread - Moderated - page 293. (Read 1059181 times)
The payment fees seem to have changed?
A payment apparently no longer requires only 0.5 DVC but between 5.5 to 6 DVC as a minimum? See screenshots below.
Weisoq, I have hold off from sending back for now until this is clear. Happy to fill it up to 10 again if - indeed - I need to burn 6 DVC to get 4 DVC back to you (once I reach my cold storage wallet).
A payment apparently no longer requires only 0.5 DVC but between 5.5 to 6 DVC as a minimum? See screenshots below.
Weisoq, I have hold off from sending back for now until this is clear. Happy to fill it up to 10 again if - indeed - I need to burn 6 DVC to get 4 DVC back to you (once I reach my cold storage wallet).
I run Windows as regular user. Apparently, the java installer indeed has trouble passing the standard security measures.
Installed in Desktop folder instead and moved everything to the regular program files folder. It workes fine and found my exiting wallet.
For the record: windows 8.1 pro 64 bit, client v0.8.5.1-g25a7d46-beta.
If someone wants to test payments again: 18GCTJhxrWfXjnLwwjJKsSYBpyEV16pRs (please mention return address in this thread).
Please note that payments will eat 0.5 DVC so I wont be able to return 100% of the amount received.
Done (you missed a 'B' off the end). Same again. Installed in Desktop folder instead and moved everything to the regular program files folder. It workes fine and found my exiting wallet.
For the record: windows 8.1 pro 64 bit, client v0.8.5.1-g25a7d46-beta.
If someone wants to test payments again: 18GCTJhxrWfXjnLwwjJKsSYBpyEV16pRs (please mention return address in this thread).
Please note that payments will eat 0.5 DVC so I wont be able to return 100% of the amount received.
Wouldn't it be simpler, and more supportable going forward, to simply use bitcoin's fee code with the numbers such as how many satoshis consititutes dust all multiplied by 1000 ? Isn't that what we did originally? Or did we put in anti dust before bitcoin did?
(Even if we did though, using bitcoin's code might be easier to keep up with new bitcoin code versions going forward?)
-MarkM-
(Even if we did though, using bitcoin's code might be easier to keep up with new bitcoin code versions going forward?)
-MarkM-
I agree but I think fee changed in latest.. Also going fwd they doing something with more dynamic fee structure?? not sure if its worth it for us right now.
Wouldn't it be simpler, and more supportable going forward, to simply use bitcoin's fee code with the numbers such as how many satoshis consititutes dust all multiplied by 1000 ? Isn't that what we did originally? Or did we put in anti dust before bitcoin did?
(Even if we did though, using bitcoin's code might be easier to keep up with new bitcoin code versions going forward?)
-MarkM-
(Even if we did though, using bitcoin's code might be easier to keep up with new bitcoin code versions going forward?)
-MarkM-
..
Well what was happening was For transactions under 27k coins it would fall into allowfree since its always true and set fee to 0.. however there is am involuntary dust fee added which adds a small fee regardles of allowfree basefee \ 10 where basefee is 5 coins.. so 0.5 dvc.
So now fees for under 27k coins should be a little higher.The rest are same.
Even on the old code there was always a fee so no free tx got in even
before. I see the sync complete to the latest block index from block explorer.
Well what was happening was For transactions under 27k coins it would fall into allowfree since its always true and set fee to 0.. however there is am involuntary dust fee added which adds a small fee regardles of allowfree basefee \ 10 where basefee is 5 coins.. so 0.5 dvc.
So now fees for under 27k coins should be a little higher.The rest are same.
Even on the old code there was always a fee so no free tx got in even
before. I see the sync complete to the latest block index from block explorer.
That's good news. Also, bitcoin 0.8.x now also stops dust:
CTxOut::IsDust()
I still want to keep the devcoin dust stopping code, because bitcoin has different fees.
Yea looks like it checks before send and adds dust to fee.
..
Well what was happening was For transactions under 27k coins it would fall into allowfree since its always true and set fee to 0.. however there is am involuntary dust fee added which adds a small fee regardles of allowfree basefee \ 10 where basefee is 5 coins.. so 0.5 dvc.
So now fees for under 27k coins should be a little higher.The rest are same.
Even on the old code there was always a fee so no free tx got in even
before. I see the sync complete to the latest block index from block explorer.
Well what was happening was For transactions under 27k coins it would fall into allowfree since its always true and set fee to 0.. however there is am involuntary dust fee added which adds a small fee regardles of allowfree basefee \ 10 where basefee is 5 coins.. so 0.5 dvc.
So now fees for under 27k coins should be a little higher.The rest are same.
Even on the old code there was always a fee so no free tx got in even
before. I see the sync complete to the latest block index from block explorer.
That's good news. Also, bitcoin 0.8.x now also stops dust:
CTxOut::IsDust()
I still want to keep the devcoin dust stopping code, because bitcoin has different fees.
I managed to install Github on Windows and get the .jar file. Upon install, I get an error, even if I make the 'Devcoin' folder manually.
[...]
[...]
Are you running as admin looks like it doesnt have priviledge? Try to install to say c:/mydvcwallet or something.
I run Windows as regular user. Apparently, the java installer indeed has trouble passing the standard security measures.
Installed in Desktop folder instead and moved everything to the regular program files folder. It workes fine and found my exiting wallet.
For the record: windows 8.1 pro 64 bit, client v0.8.5.1-g25a7d46-beta.
If someone wants to test payments again: 18GCTJhxrWfXjnLwwjJKsSYBpyEV16pRs (please mention return address in this thread).
Please note that payments will eat 0.5 DVC so I wont be able to return 100% of the amount received.
When bitcoin changed its fees way back when, was that a "when a certain block is reached, these new different free go into effect" change?
Or is it actually okay to arbitrarily change the fee calculations without having such a spot on the chain at which the change comes into effect?
-MarkM-
Or is it actually okay to arbitrarily change the fee calculations without having such a spot on the chain at which the change comes into effect?
-MarkM-
And is that how bitcoin checks that same thing?
I understood that the new I0COin, on which this is based, was in turn based on new bitcoin?
-MarkM-
I understood that the new I0COin, on which this is based, was in turn based on new bitcoin?
-MarkM-
I coulsnt find many examples going from a pub script to a hash160.. I had to look up where hash160() was used to see what i had available... The keyid converts script address to hash160 by doing the strip.. I dont think the reciever stuff would have worked if it gave wrong address in the txout
..
GetMinFee is updated I assume we dont want to allow free transactions so its similar to the link but different than the old source.
GetMinFee is updated I assume we dont want to allow free transactions so its similar to the link but different than the old source.
Indeed free transactions must be blocked to stop dust spam. Does your client load up to the latest block even though the old source might of allowed some free transactions into the block chain?
Quote
Getworkaux (merge mining) wasnt changed but i couldnt test it my merge mine proxy wouldnt connect to a cpu miner so i mined locally on my daemon using setgenerate true instead and it wokred.. merge minimg will have to be tested.
I'll add a 12 share bounty for the first person to merge mine a block with your code, then 6 shares bounty for the second person.
Well what was happening was For transactions under 27k coins it would fall into allowfree since its always true and set fee to 0.. however there is am involuntary dust fee added which adds a small fee regardles of allowfree basefee \ 10 where basefee is 5 coins.. so 0.5 dvc.
So now fees for under 27k coins should be a little higher.The rest are same.
Even on the old code there was always a fee so no free tx got in even
before. I see the sync complete to the latest block index from block explorer.
And is that how bitcoin checks that same thing?
I understood that the new I0COin, on which this is based, was in turn based on new bitcoin?
-MarkM-
I understood that the new I0COin, on which this is based, was in turn based on new bitcoin?
-MarkM-
The createblock had to change because the AddressTo160 doesnt exist in the new bitcoin src. But I suspect blocks wouldnt download if I didnt port it correctly.
What does bitcoin use instead? Presumably bitcoin still needs to validate its old blocks that did use 160 bit whatzits?
-MarkM-
So here https://github.com/sidhujag/devcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp
In connectblock it was checking address validity by seeing if hash160
was non zero but there were two new classes I used to check validity and get the address to store in the coinlist structure. CxDestination allow you to extract address destination using ExtractDestination passing in the script public key.. Then i pass the destination into
a new CBitcoinAddress which has a isvalid and then a tostring()...
In createnewblock (near end) Im doing an additional validity check and then using CKeyID to
call GetID() on the CBitcoinAddress which returns the hash160 of the public address. So its just using these other functions to do same thing
..
GetMinFee is updated I assume we dont want to allow free transactions so its similar to the link but different than the old source.
GetMinFee is updated I assume we dont want to allow free transactions so its similar to the link but different than the old source.
Indeed free transactions must be blocked to stop dust spam. Does your client load up to the latest block even though the old source might of allowed some free transactions into the block chain?
Quote
Getworkaux (merge mining) wasnt changed but i couldnt test it my merge mine proxy wouldnt connect to a cpu miner so i mined locally on my daemon using setgenerate true instead and it wokred.. merge minimg will have to be tested.
I'll add a 12 share bounty for the first person to merge mine a block with your code, then 6 shares bounty for the second person.
The createblock had to change because the AddressTo160 doesnt exist in the new bitcoin src. But I suspect blocks wouldnt download if I didnt port it correctly.
What does bitcoin use instead? Presumably bitcoin still needs to validate its old blocks that did use 160 bit whatzits?
-MarkM-
I managed to install Github on Windows and get the .jar file. Upon install, I get an error, even if I make the 'Devcoin' folder manually.
Are you running as admin looks like it doesnt have priviledge? Try to install to say c:/mydvcwallet or something.
Sidhujag get 48 shares provisionally, on the condition that a code report shows that the changes are the same as that of the most recent source from Twobits:
https://gitorious.org/devcoin/devcoin
The changes must be identical or else there could be a network fork. Since we now need a quick code report, the bounty for that has been boosted to 12 shares for the first report and 6 shares for the second report.
http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=devcoin#technical is a good place to start with this.https://gitorious.org/devcoin/devcoin
The changes must be identical or else there could be a network fork. Since we now need a quick code report, the bounty for that has been boosted to 12 shares for the first report and 6 shares for the second report.
The createblock had to change because the AddressTo160 doesnt exist in the new bitcoin src. But I suspect blocks wouldnt download if I didnt port it correctly.
I added some extra testnet stuff including checkpoints.
GetNextWorkRequired is pretty much same minor difference.
GetMinFee is updated I assume we dont want to allow free transactions so its similar to the link but different than the old source.
ConnectBlock was pretty much same too but the address validation changed again in new bitcoin source so I assume this port works.
Getworkaux (merge mining) wasnt changed but i couldnt test it my merge mine proxy wouldnt connect to a cpu miner so i mined locally on my daemon using setgenerate true instead and it wokred.. merge minimg will have to be tested.
I managed to install Github on Windows and get the .jar file. Upon install, I get an error, even if I make the 'Devcoin' folder manually.
Sidhujag get 48 shares provisionally, on the condition that a code report shows that the changes are the same as that of the most recent source from Twobits:
https://gitorious.org/devcoin/devcoin
The changes must be identical or else there could be a network fork. Since we now need a quick code report, the bounty for that has been boosted to 12 shares for the first report and 6 shares for the second report.
https://gitorious.org/devcoin/devcoin
The changes must be identical or else there could be a network fork. Since we now need a quick code report, the bounty for that has been boosted to 12 shares for the first report and 6 shares for the second report.
Because Moneychanger only runs in the systray:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4048771
it does not get the Open Transactions client for Grandma award. Also the bounty for people to test it is suspended until it runs like a standard application. The original bounty post was edited so that no one wastes effort testing it in its current form:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4020144
If I get a message that Moneychanger works like a standard application, the testing bounty will be back on.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4048771
it does not get the Open Transactions client for Grandma award. Also the bounty for people to test it is suspended until it runs like a standard application. The original bounty post was edited so that no one wastes effort testing it in its current form:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4020144
If I get a message that Moneychanger works like a standard application, the testing bounty will be back on.
Jump to: