Topic: FAIRBRIX - Announcement - CPU friendly - GPU hostile - Tiny premine - page 3. (Read 8058 times)
October 03, 2011, 10:50:22 AM
It looks ok all of a sudden, I open my Fairbrix client and found 50 coins
October 02, 2011, 02:23:50 PM
R
I P 
October 02, 2011, 02:17:22 PM
I'm sure I'm still on the chain I had before I shut down, now with 3 peers. If there was a fork it was before 1720.
think they said block 57
October 02, 2011, 02:05:35 PM
I'm sure I'm still on the chain I had before I shut down, now with 3 peers. If there was a fork it was before 1720.
October 02, 2011, 01:25:42 PM
Ah, someone just said on irc that is looks like someone also forked the original fairbrix chain, that may explain what we are seeing... they fixed that issue then forked it.
October 02, 2011, 01:20:36 PM
Would be interesting ... but not enough
Yes it would & yes, not enough!When I re-downloaded the chain, all the zero blocks up to 1720 were validated by my client with "custom_inflation" removed, then my generated's from 1720 up to 1886 were confirmed, plus the immature ones waiting for the block count to increase.
Does this mean that, if people had just made that config change everything would have continued as planned?
Ironic that the relaunched chain suffered the bigger fork! As ArtForz pointed out in anther thread, it doesn't take much of a botnet to eat a cpu mined chain.
While I was typing this, the count has gone up to 2070, and my balance has increased accordingly.
The clients should all have to agree on how many coins are in a block to validate them. This is what prevents someone from mining 5000 coins a block for themselves. Either the validation code in fairbrix is bugged or zero coins is treated differently. It should not be working like you are seeing, but since it is doing that either due to a bug or a some special logic it should have worked then. Now what happens if you mine 250 coins a block? That would see if the bug is only for zero coins.
October 02, 2011, 12:59:38 PM
Would be interesting ... but not enough
Yes it would & yes, not enough!When I re-downloaded the chain, all the zero blocks up to 1720 were validated by my client with "custom_inflation" removed, then my generated's from 1720 up to 1886 were confirmed, plus the immature ones waiting for the block count to increase.
Does this mean that, if people had just made that config change everything would have continued as planned?
Ironic that the relaunched chain suffered the bigger fork! As ArtForz pointed out in anther thread, it doesn't take much of a botnet to eat a cpu mined chain.
While I was typing this, the count has gone up to 2070, and my balance has increased accordingly.
October 02, 2011, 12:37:18 PM
It got to 1886 (four were mine!), and sat there for ages. Then ticked over to 1887. So I guess there's still someone mining.
and before you said you were at over 2000? Would be interesting to see just what the blockchain looks like now.. but not not enough so for me to want to try and set up abe for the chain. I think with the issues with the relaunch I am sticking with tenebrix for cpu mining for now.
October 02, 2011, 12:26:23 PM
It got to 1886 (four were mine!), and sat there for ages. Then ticked over to 1887. So I guess there's still someone mining.
October 02, 2011, 12:18:13 PM
Connected to 2 peers, downloading chain. 4 blocks have gone to "generate".
Can't know, of course, whether these 2 peers made the "remove custom_inflation" change or not.
Can't know, of course, whether these 2 peers made the "remove custom_inflation" change or not.
Yeah, getting to be too many variables with fairbrix already. How many blocks of the chain did you download?
October 02, 2011, 12:10:03 PM
Connected to 2 peers, downloading chain. 4 blocks have gone to "generate".
Can't know, of course, whether these 2 peers made the "remove custom_inflation" change or not.
Can't know, of course, whether these 2 peers made the "remove custom_inflation" change or not.
October 02, 2011, 11:46:42 AM
Or did you just make that change and keep your already downloaded blocks data file.
Fair point. Didn't revalidate blocks.
As relaunched fairbrix has just orphaned the last 1200 blocks, I'll resurrect original fairbrix & check! Assuming there's at least one other ofb peer out there.
October 02, 2011, 11:07:20 AM
Since that would then make the 0 coin blocks invalid blocks, it is a block forking change, so a relaunch is needed.
That's not what I observed. Coined blocks built on top of the existing chain.
I haven't mined every block, and have mined several orphans. I can't say for definite, but I guess that some blocks have coins & some don't. The only problem would be someone trying to spend the 0 coins - or it would be a problem if the unexpected outcome was some coins but not 25 per block.
We are now at 2000 blocks, so 25% of the chain is after I started finding coins again. Won't be long before it's the majority. Why not just go with it?
I'm not precious about this, it just seems that one "#" is way less problematic than a re-write, no?
Did you observe that though? Or did you just make that change and keep your already downloaded blocks data file. Delete your blocks file and try again, remember they are not re-validated every time you restart the client. So unless you deleted your already existing block files you did not observe what you thought you did as far as what a fresh client or a re validation of the whole chain would see.
October 02, 2011, 08:25:24 AM
Trying my hands at fishing some of the Fairbrix coins, hopefully this will be a good night.
October 02, 2011, 07:41:25 AM
October 02, 2011, 07:31:53 AM
Coblee fixed the client, made some improvements and it is available soon.
Forget the chain form first launch attempt. I was mining it all night but what can I say, shitt happens and now I am back to 0.
Get the new client etc and start your mining.
Forget the chain form first launch attempt. I was mining it all night but what can I say, shitt happens and now I am back to 0.
Get the new client etc and start your mining.
October 02, 2011, 07:24:24 AM
Since that would then make the 0 coin blocks invalid blocks, it is a block forking change, so a relaunch is needed.
That's not what I observed. Coined blocks built on top of the existing chain.
I haven't mined every block, and have mined several orphans. I can't say for definite, but I guess that some blocks have coins & some don't. The only problem would be someone trying to spend the 0 coins - or it would be a problem if the unexpected outcome was some coins but not 25 per block.
We are now at 2000 blocks, so 25% of the chain is after I started finding coins again. Won't be long before it's the majority. Why not just go with it?
I'm not precious about this, it just seems that one "#" is way less problematic than a re-write, no?
October 02, 2011, 06:58:55 AM
Unfortunately this launch was a false start. There was a problem in the config causing all blocks mined after the 100th blocks to contain 0 coins. The fix would unfortunately require a restart of the coin.
michaelmclees has asked me over IRC to take over for him. I will try to do my best. I will set up a new github.com repository with the source so people can do diffs. And generate a new genesis block. I will premine a few to make sure things work ok. Apparently, that was really needed. When everything is looking good, I will post the client and the source.
In the meantime, please stop your clients and miners and switch back to tenebrix.
michaelmclees has asked me over IRC to take over for him. I will try to do my best. I will set up a new github.com repository with the source so people can do diffs. And generate a new genesis block. I will premine a few to make sure things work ok. Apparently, that was really needed. When everything is looking good, I will post the client and the source.
In the meantime, please stop your clients and miners and switch back to tenebrix.
What happened ?
I made sure that the custom inflation (aka make magkal blocks with arbitrary coinage) is off in the config (custom_inflation=0) and set subsidy to "allways 25" (Subsidy=25), wtf did go wrong ?
The code checks for the flag custom_inflation, so setting it to 0 still triggers custom inflation. Since post_Subsidy is not set, after 100 blocks, the subsidy becomes 0. doh!
mmm crap.
But why does inflation_trigger default to 100 ? Also, dudes, we can theoretcially fix it without restart, just with a config update.
custom_inflation=1
infaltion_trigger=(current block nucmber)+ 5 blocks
post_Subsidly=25
The code was changed from the multicoin defaults by someone, in the orginal multicoin the default block when not set is MAX_INT, someone made it 100 in this fork. Why I have not idea, they should have put it in the config file probably instead of putting it in the code.
You still need a relaunch, or you need to use the multi step innflation trigger code that is in multicoin to add rules to keep the 0 coin blocks valid. For some reasons this code also removed that though.
Anyway, give the skill sets and the fact only 100 blocks matter with coins in them anyway, a relaunch is really the best idea here.
October 02, 2011, 06:58:18 AM
Simply removing the
line in the config is enough to restore expected behaviour.
No need for a re-launch.
Code:
custom_inflation=0
No need for a re-launch.
Since that would then make the 0 coin blocks invalid blocks, it is a block forking change, so a relaunch is needed.
Yup, and that's why I worked all night on getting this done right.
I doing final testing right now. The chain is only on block 78.
Will release the source soon.
October 02, 2011, 06:53:25 AM
Simply removing the
line in the config is enough to restore expected behaviour.
No need for a re-launch.
Code:
custom_inflation=0
No need for a re-launch.
Since that would then make the 0 coin blocks invalid blocks, it is a block forking change, so a relaunch is needed.
Jump to: