Topic: [PoS+PoW] eXocoin [EXO]-gen 2.0- dev. from scratch! Give-Away | Open Beta - page 120. (Read 415636 times)
June 16, 2014, 11:40:53 PM
Launched?
June 16, 2014, 09:26:51 PM
A curiosity, "exocoin.db" is encrypted? I tried to open to see.
No it is not. However, as I tried now for my self I cannot access it with an external program as well. But the program can read and write to it without problems. Seems to be the file format. It states "CSqlite format 3" rather than "Sqlite format 3" (did not know that there is a different format if created by c++ ??). But I do not know if that is really the problem. You can view the content as raw file with notepad to get a general idea at least. Maybe someone else can enlight this a bit more. June 16, 2014, 09:10:37 PM
A curiosity, "exocoin.db" is encrypted? I tried to open to see.
No it is not. However, as I tried now for my self I cannot access it with an external program as well. But the program can read and write to it without problems. Seems to be the file format. It states "CSqlite format 3" rather than "Sqlite format 3" (did not know that there is a different format if created by c++ ??). But I do not know if that is really the problem. You can view the content as raw file with notepad to get a general idea at least. Maybe someone else can enlight this a bit more.quote
It states "CSqlite format 3" rather than "Sqlite format 3"
June 16, 2014, 07:35:13 PM
A curiosity, "exocoin.db" is encrypted? I tried to open to see.
No it is not. However, as I tried now for my self I cannot access it with an external program as well. But the program can read and write to it without problems. Seems to be the file format. It states "CSqlite format 3" rather than "Sqlite format 3" (did not know that there is a different format if created by c++ ??). But I do not know if that is really the problem. You can view the content as raw file with notepad to get a general idea at least. Maybe someone else can enlight this a bit more. June 16, 2014, 02:04:23 PM
Clones were staring at it, dev Please note an important part of the code. 
+1
dont release the core code before everything is ready ...
+2
+ Eleventybillion
June 16, 2014, 11:38:28 AM
Clones were staring at it, dev Please note an important part of the code.
+1
dont release the core code before everything is ready ...
+2
June 16, 2014, 11:26:39 AM
Clones were staring at it, dev Please note an important part of the code.
+1
dont release the core code before everything is ready ...
June 16, 2014, 11:20:28 AM
Clones were staring at it, dev Please note an important part of the code.
+1
dont release the core code before everything is ready ...
+1
and that innovative mining should be publicized more, no more pools fair mining a lot less power used...
Bitcoin should adopt that kind of mining to avoid 51%
June 16, 2014, 10:41:30 AM
Clones were staring at it, dev Please note an important part of the code.
+1
dont release the core code before everything is ready ...
June 16, 2014, 10:21:33 AM
Clones were staring at it, dev Please note an important part of the code.
+1
June 16, 2014, 09:47:45 AM
Clones were staring at it, dev Please note an important part of the code.
June 16, 2014, 07:01:04 AM
Hope blockchain crash problem to solve ASAP. 
Working and get some rest,dev.
+1 Working and get some rest,dev.
June 16, 2014, 06:57:35 AM
there are about 21 bug, most of them belong to the feature category, if we fix the blockchain, these problems can be fixed later.
June 16, 2014, 06:38:42 AM
Hope blockchain crash problem to solve ASAP.
Working and get some rest,dev.
Working and get some rest,dev.
June 15, 2014, 09:06:53 PM
the bug system is wonderful , can anyone has the right to report bug into it ?
#edit :
Ticket creations can only be done by admin as for now.
We currently fetch up all your (bug) reports and will add them soon.
June 15, 2014, 08:58:44 PM
take you time , just make everything fine .
June 15, 2014, 08:55:53 PM
A curiosity, "exocoin.db" is encrypted? I tried to open to see.
No it is not. However, as I tried now for my self I cannot access it with an external program as well. But the program can read and write to it without problems. Seems to be the file format. It states "CSqlite format 3" rather than "Sqlite format 3" (did not know that there is a different format if created by c++ ??). But I do not know if that is really the problem. You can view the content as raw file with notepad to get a general idea at least. Maybe someone else can enlight this a bit more. June 15, 2014, 07:36:58 PM
Yes, as promised, we will release huge parts of the code prior to the launch. Since that will be ~12,000 lines (I would need to check that first to be sure but that's close to reality I guess) the community surely will need some time to check.
Had a similar thing with
1.001 1.1
1.01 1.1
found the cause. Thanks again for reporting and investigation! Fixed (but needs testing).
Although all peers will be added to that list regarding of version information the client will only finish the handshake with peers of allowed versions. At the moment that is only 0.6 (at a later time it may be ok to accept older versions).
Once the major chain async bug is fixed we will release a 0.60.1 version.
We just started an issue tracking project here: https://sourceforge.net/p/exocoin/tickets/
That way we can more clearly communicate what we are working on, what already has been reported, what the current state of specific issues is and it helps to identify the issues if it is a longterm problem (like the chain async problem. We can now easier refer to a ticket id and everyone knows about what we are talking etc).
That idea came from a forum member (I dont want to name him if he would not want it - you never know) - thank you!
That clearly helps a lot in communication between community<->exocoin team
We got many improvement suggestions and bug reports (thanks!!). Some of them already are in the new ticket system and some are not (yet). Please wait some more days to fetch up with everything.
Also, we did not get that much votes yet on our logo thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/exo-official-exocoin-logo-thread-574490
please check out if not already done. Also note, that there is a 2nd independend vote on our website where you can vote as well if you already have an exocoin.org account.
More about the current status, especially regarding the chain async issue soon.
best regards
eXocoin
When I go to the Settings tab and click Save in the "Change local addresses states", 0.1 EXO always gets deducted from my wallet balance. Is there a fee for changing states?
Yes, an address change will initiate a special transaction. It will be treated like a "real" transaction and therefore will cause a fee to be applied (it will appear in the transaction history in the block explorer as well). In 0.60.1 you will get a notification before a fee will be charged anywhere in the program.Also in the Settings tab, if the wallet in not in the decrypted state and I click the Save button, it will ask for the passphrase. If I leave the field blank and submit it, a message box pops up with "An internal error has occurred: unknown cause" instead of the "Your passphrase is not valid." message.
Thanks for reporting! Fixed.tried to send 999.99 but the client sends 1000.88
888.998 889.88
888.889 888.7
111.991 112.81
11.9 11.9 ---- this is ok
11.199 11.199 --- this is ok
11.99 12.8
88.98 89.78
11.91 12
11.92 12.1
11.93 12.2
11.933 12.23
11.934 12.234
Confirmed, the first few give the same result here888.998 889.88
111.991 112.81
11.9 11.9 ---- this is ok
11.199 11.199 --- this is ok
11.99 12.8
88.98 89.78
11.91 12
11.92 12.1
11.93 12.2
11.933 12.23
11.934 12.234
Had a similar thing with
1.001 1.1
1.01 1.1
found the cause. Thanks again for reporting and investigation! Fixed (but needs testing).
Hi dev.
Check peerlist, says:
>>try to connect to 192.3.134.164:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.3.52.31:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.227.237.33:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.210.213.51:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.3.52.43:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.227.176.87:60702:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:60702:0
>>try to connect to 118.92.250.2:60702:0
>>try to connect to 116.225.74.44:60702:0
>>try to connect to 129.187.45.145:60701:0
>>try to connect to 178.124.205.127:32960:0
>>try to connect to 24.63.197.238:60702:0
>>try to connect to 186.88.165.76:60702:0
>>try to connect to 83.128.194.221:54648:0
>>try to connect to 58.8.233.168:60702:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2786:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2791:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2810:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2812:0
>>try to connect to 78.62.219.252:60702:0
I saw that has several different ports. Does not have old clients in that list?
Theoretically would add anyone by add peer command.
Is there a validation between them to see if they are the correct version?
Different ports are normal. If you are behind a NAT router, proxy, whatelse you most likely have a different port to the extranet than within the intranet. That is no problem.Check peerlist, says:
>>try to connect to 192.3.134.164:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.3.52.31:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.227.237.33:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.210.213.51:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.3.52.43:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.227.176.87:60702:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:60702:0
>>try to connect to 118.92.250.2:60702:0
>>try to connect to 116.225.74.44:60702:0
>>try to connect to 129.187.45.145:60701:0
>>try to connect to 178.124.205.127:32960:0
>>try to connect to 24.63.197.238:60702:0
>>try to connect to 186.88.165.76:60702:0
>>try to connect to 83.128.194.221:54648:0
>>try to connect to 58.8.233.168:60702:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2786:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2791:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2810:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2812:0
>>try to connect to 78.62.219.252:60702:0
I saw that has several different ports. Does not have old clients in that list?
Theoretically would add anyone by add peer command.
Is there a validation between them to see if they are the correct version?
Although all peers will be added to that list regarding of version information the client will only finish the handshake with peers of allowed versions. At the moment that is only 0.6 (at a later time it may be ok to accept older versions).
I have the same problem getting stuck on block 57 and/or 88
Deleting the blocks and restarting doesn't really help.
Then I noticed this on the debug console :
I tried blocking some peers with the command disable peer IP:PORT but that doesn't seem to work.
Since many of you have issues with syncing up larger blocks we will adjust the sendReliable parameters to try harder to get the parts of the blocks before giving up. "theoretically fixed".Deleting the blocks and restarting doesn't really help.
Then I noticed this on the debug console :
Code:
>get version
current version (locally): V0.60.0
latest version (network): V0.59.1
I tried blocking some peers with the command disable peer IP:PORT but that doesn't seem to work.
I do not know if it helps. I left my client running since yesterday in the amazon server and seemed fine. Arrived at block 87.
Now i deleted the blocks, rebooted dai gave the problem mentioned.
My log:
https://mega.co.nz/#!W4JX3TAT!7jwiBJYdwH3EN-vbJZdLjYiBD7Zh57p-d9U3YA9Umg4
Checked your log file, thanks for uploading. That log looks good. In line 98,957 it states "new block started with id=98" therafter you initiated successfully a transaction and closed the program properly.Now i deleted the blocks, rebooted dai gave the problem mentioned.
My log:
https://mega.co.nz/#!W4JX3TAT!7jwiBJYdwH3EN-vbJZdLjYiBD7Zh57p-d9U3YA9Umg4
Once the major chain async bug is fixed we will release a 0.60.1 version.
We just started an issue tracking project here: https://sourceforge.net/p/exocoin/tickets/
That way we can more clearly communicate what we are working on, what already has been reported, what the current state of specific issues is and it helps to identify the issues if it is a longterm problem (like the chain async problem. We can now easier refer to a ticket id and everyone knows about what we are talking etc).
That idea came from a forum member (I dont want to name him if he would not want it - you never know) - thank you!
That clearly helps a lot in communication between community<->exocoin team
We got many improvement suggestions and bug reports (thanks!!). Some of them already are in the new ticket system and some are not (yet). Please wait some more days to fetch up with everything.
Also, we did not get that much votes yet on our logo thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/exo-official-exocoin-logo-thread-574490
please check out if not already done. Also note, that there is a 2nd independend vote on our website where you can vote as well if you already have an exocoin.org account.
More about the current status, especially regarding the chain async issue soon.
best regards
eXocoin
OK, thanks for the information.
Tickets on sourceforge, will help track and contain anxiety.
We can follow the progress there.
A curiosity, "exocoin.db" is encrypted? I tried to open to see.
June 15, 2014, 07:32:42 PM
Yes, as promised, we will release huge parts of the code prior to the launch. Since that will be ~12,000 lines (I would need to check that first to be sure but that's close to reality I guess) the community surely will need some time to check.
Had a similar thing with
1.001 1.1
1.01 1.1
found the cause. Thanks again for reporting and investigation! Fixed (but needs testing).
Although all peers will be added to that list regarding of version information the client will only finish the handshake with peers of allowed versions. At the moment that is only 0.6 (at a later time it may be ok to accept older versions).
Once the major chain async bug is fixed we will release a 0.60.1 version.
We just started an issue tracking project here: https://sourceforge.net/p/exocoin/tickets/
That way we can more clearly communicate what we are working on, what already has been reported, what the current state of specific issues is and it helps to identify the issues if it is a longterm problem (like the chain async problem. We can now easier refer to a ticket id and everyone knows about what we are talking etc).
That idea came from a forum member (I dont want to name him if he would not want it - you never know) - thank you!
That clearly helps a lot in communication between community<->exocoin team
We got many improvement suggestions and bug reports (thanks!!). Some of them already are in the new ticket system and some are not (yet). Please wait some more days to fetch up with everything.
Also, we did not get that much votes yet on our logo thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/exo-official-exocoin-logo-thread-574490
please check out if not already done. Also note, that there is a 2nd independend vote on our website where you can vote as well if you already have an exocoin.org account.
More about the current status, especially regarding the chain async issue soon.
best regards
eXocoin
great job,thanks dev. When I go to the Settings tab and click Save in the "Change local addresses states", 0.1 EXO always gets deducted from my wallet balance. Is there a fee for changing states?
Yes, an address change will initiate a special transaction. It will be treated like a "real" transaction and therefore will cause a fee to be applied (it will appear in the transaction history in the block explorer as well). In 0.60.1 you will get a notification before a fee will be charged anywhere in the program.Also in the Settings tab, if the wallet in not in the decrypted state and I click the Save button, it will ask for the passphrase. If I leave the field blank and submit it, a message box pops up with "An internal error has occurred: unknown cause" instead of the "Your passphrase is not valid." message.
Thanks for reporting! Fixed.tried to send 999.99 but the client sends 1000.88
888.998 889.88
888.889 888.7
111.991 112.81
11.9 11.9 ---- this is ok
11.199 11.199 --- this is ok
11.99 12.8
88.98 89.78
11.91 12
11.92 12.1
11.93 12.2
11.933 12.23
11.934 12.234
Confirmed, the first few give the same result here888.998 889.88
111.991 112.81
11.9 11.9 ---- this is ok
11.199 11.199 --- this is ok
11.99 12.8
88.98 89.78
11.91 12
11.92 12.1
11.93 12.2
11.933 12.23
11.934 12.234
Had a similar thing with
1.001 1.1
1.01 1.1
found the cause. Thanks again for reporting and investigation! Fixed (but needs testing).
Hi dev.
Check peerlist, says:
>>try to connect to 192.3.134.164:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.3.52.31:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.227.237.33:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.210.213.51:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.3.52.43:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.227.176.87:60702:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:60702:0
>>try to connect to 118.92.250.2:60702:0
>>try to connect to 116.225.74.44:60702:0
>>try to connect to 129.187.45.145:60701:0
>>try to connect to 178.124.205.127:32960:0
>>try to connect to 24.63.197.238:60702:0
>>try to connect to 186.88.165.76:60702:0
>>try to connect to 83.128.194.221:54648:0
>>try to connect to 58.8.233.168:60702:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2786:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2791:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2810:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2812:0
>>try to connect to 78.62.219.252:60702:0
I saw that has several different ports. Does not have old clients in that list?
Theoretically would add anyone by add peer command.
Is there a validation between them to see if they are the correct version?
Different ports are normal. If you are behind a NAT router, proxy, whatelse you most likely have a different port to the extranet than within the intranet. That is no problem.Check peerlist, says:
>>try to connect to 192.3.134.164:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.3.52.31:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.227.237.33:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.210.213.51:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.3.52.43:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.227.176.87:60702:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:60702:0
>>try to connect to 118.92.250.2:60702:0
>>try to connect to 116.225.74.44:60702:0
>>try to connect to 129.187.45.145:60701:0
>>try to connect to 178.124.205.127:32960:0
>>try to connect to 24.63.197.238:60702:0
>>try to connect to 186.88.165.76:60702:0
>>try to connect to 83.128.194.221:54648:0
>>try to connect to 58.8.233.168:60702:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2786:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2791:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2810:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2812:0
>>try to connect to 78.62.219.252:60702:0
I saw that has several different ports. Does not have old clients in that list?
Theoretically would add anyone by add peer command.
Is there a validation between them to see if they are the correct version?
Although all peers will be added to that list regarding of version information the client will only finish the handshake with peers of allowed versions. At the moment that is only 0.6 (at a later time it may be ok to accept older versions).
I have the same problem getting stuck on block 57 and/or 88
Deleting the blocks and restarting doesn't really help.
Then I noticed this on the debug console :
I tried blocking some peers with the command disable peer IP:PORT but that doesn't seem to work.
Since many of you have issues with syncing up larger blocks we will adjust the sendReliable parameters to try harder to get the parts of the blocks before giving up. "theoretically fixed".Deleting the blocks and restarting doesn't really help.
Then I noticed this on the debug console :
Code:
>get version
current version (locally): V0.60.0
latest version (network): V0.59.1
I tried blocking some peers with the command disable peer IP:PORT but that doesn't seem to work.
I do not know if it helps. I left my client running since yesterday in the amazon server and seemed fine. Arrived at block 87.
Now i deleted the blocks, rebooted dai gave the problem mentioned.
My log:
https://mega.co.nz/#!W4JX3TAT!7jwiBJYdwH3EN-vbJZdLjYiBD7Zh57p-d9U3YA9Umg4
Checked your log file, thanks for uploading. That log looks good. In line 98,957 it states "new block started with id=98" therafter you initiated successfully a transaction and closed the program properly.Now i deleted the blocks, rebooted dai gave the problem mentioned.
My log:
https://mega.co.nz/#!W4JX3TAT!7jwiBJYdwH3EN-vbJZdLjYiBD7Zh57p-d9U3YA9Umg4
Once the major chain async bug is fixed we will release a 0.60.1 version.
We just started an issue tracking project here: https://sourceforge.net/p/exocoin/tickets/
That way we can more clearly communicate what we are working on, what already has been reported, what the current state of specific issues is and it helps to identify the issues if it is a longterm problem (like the chain async problem. We can now easier refer to a ticket id and everyone knows about what we are talking etc).
That idea came from a forum member (I dont want to name him if he would not want it - you never know) - thank you!
That clearly helps a lot in communication between community<->exocoin team
We got many improvement suggestions and bug reports (thanks!!). Some of them already are in the new ticket system and some are not (yet). Please wait some more days to fetch up with everything.
Also, we did not get that much votes yet on our logo thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/exo-official-exocoin-logo-thread-574490
please check out if not already done. Also note, that there is a 2nd independend vote on our website where you can vote as well if you already have an exocoin.org account.
More about the current status, especially regarding the chain async issue soon.
best regards
eXocoin
June 15, 2014, 07:16:21 PM
Yes, as promised, we will release huge parts of the code prior to the launch. Since that will be ~12,000 lines (I would need to check that first to be sure but that's close to reality I guess) the community surely will need some time to check.
Had a similar thing with
1.001 1.1
1.01 1.1
found the cause. Thanks again for reporting and investigation! Fixed (but needs testing).
Although all peers will be added to that list regarding of version information the client will only finish the handshake with peers of allowed versions. At the moment that is only 0.6 (at a later time it may be ok to accept older versions).
Once the major chain async bug is fixed we will release a 0.60.1 version.
We just started an issue tracking project here: https://sourceforge.net/p/exocoin/tickets/
That way we can more clearly communicate what we are working on, what already has been reported, what the current state of specific issues is and it helps to identify the issues if it is a longterm problem (like the chain async problem. We can now easier refer to a ticket id and everyone knows about what we are talking etc).
That idea came from a forum member (I dont want to name him if he would not want it - you never know) - thank you!
That clearly helps a lot in communication between community<->exocoin team
We got many improvement suggestions and bug reports (thanks!!). Some of them already are in the new ticket system and some are not (yet). Please wait some more days to fetch up with everything.
Also, we did not get that much votes yet on our logo thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/exo-official-exocoin-logo-thread-574490
please check out if not already done. Also note, that there is a 2nd independend vote on our website where you can vote as well if you already have an exocoin.org account.
More about the current status, especially regarding the chain async issue soon.
best regards
eXocoin
When I go to the Settings tab and click Save in the "Change local addresses states", 0.1 EXO always gets deducted from my wallet balance. Is there a fee for changing states?
Yes, an address change will initiate a special transaction. It will be treated like a "real" transaction and therefore will cause a fee to be applied (it will appear in the transaction history in the block explorer as well). In 0.60.1 you will get a notification before a fee will be charged anywhere in the program.Also in the Settings tab, if the wallet in not in the decrypted state and I click the Save button, it will ask for the passphrase. If I leave the field blank and submit it, a message box pops up with "An internal error has occurred: unknown cause" instead of the "Your passphrase is not valid." message.
Thanks for reporting! Fixed.tried to send 999.99 but the client sends 1000.88
888.998 889.88
888.889 888.7
111.991 112.81
11.9 11.9 ---- this is ok
11.199 11.199 --- this is ok
11.99 12.8
88.98 89.78
11.91 12
11.92 12.1
11.93 12.2
11.933 12.23
11.934 12.234
Confirmed, the first few give the same result here888.998 889.88
111.991 112.81
11.9 11.9 ---- this is ok
11.199 11.199 --- this is ok
11.99 12.8
88.98 89.78
11.91 12
11.92 12.1
11.93 12.2
11.933 12.23
11.934 12.234
Had a similar thing with
1.001 1.1
1.01 1.1
found the cause. Thanks again for reporting and investigation! Fixed (but needs testing).
Hi dev.
Check peerlist, says:
>>try to connect to 192.3.134.164:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.3.52.31:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.227.237.33:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.210.213.51:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.3.52.43:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.227.176.87:60702:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:60702:0
>>try to connect to 118.92.250.2:60702:0
>>try to connect to 116.225.74.44:60702:0
>>try to connect to 129.187.45.145:60701:0
>>try to connect to 178.124.205.127:32960:0
>>try to connect to 24.63.197.238:60702:0
>>try to connect to 186.88.165.76:60702:0
>>try to connect to 83.128.194.221:54648:0
>>try to connect to 58.8.233.168:60702:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2786:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2791:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2810:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2812:0
>>try to connect to 78.62.219.252:60702:0
I saw that has several different ports. Does not have old clients in that list?
Theoretically would add anyone by add peer command.
Is there a validation between them to see if they are the correct version?
Different ports are normal. If you are behind a NAT router, proxy, whatelse you most likely have a different port to the extranet than within the intranet. That is no problem.Check peerlist, says:
>>try to connect to 192.3.134.164:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.3.52.31:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.227.237.33:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.210.213.51:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.3.52.43:60702:0
>>try to connect to 192.227.176.87:60702:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:60702:0
>>try to connect to 118.92.250.2:60702:0
>>try to connect to 116.225.74.44:60702:0
>>try to connect to 129.187.45.145:60701:0
>>try to connect to 178.124.205.127:32960:0
>>try to connect to 24.63.197.238:60702:0
>>try to connect to 186.88.165.76:60702:0
>>try to connect to 83.128.194.221:54648:0
>>try to connect to 58.8.233.168:60702:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2786:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2791:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2810:0
>>try to connect to 27.11.15.214:2812:0
>>try to connect to 78.62.219.252:60702:0
I saw that has several different ports. Does not have old clients in that list?
Theoretically would add anyone by add peer command.
Is there a validation between them to see if they are the correct version?
Although all peers will be added to that list regarding of version information the client will only finish the handshake with peers of allowed versions. At the moment that is only 0.6 (at a later time it may be ok to accept older versions).
I have the same problem getting stuck on block 57 and/or 88
Deleting the blocks and restarting doesn't really help.
Then I noticed this on the debug console :
I tried blocking some peers with the command disable peer IP:PORT but that doesn't seem to work.
Since many of you have issues with syncing up larger blocks we will adjust the sendReliable parameters to try harder to get the parts of the blocks before giving up. "theoretically fixed".Deleting the blocks and restarting doesn't really help.
Then I noticed this on the debug console :
Code:
>get version
current version (locally): V0.60.0
latest version (network): V0.59.1
I tried blocking some peers with the command disable peer IP:PORT but that doesn't seem to work.
I do not know if it helps. I left my client running since yesterday in the amazon server and seemed fine. Arrived at block 87.
Now i deleted the blocks, rebooted dai gave the problem mentioned.
My log:
https://mega.co.nz/#!W4JX3TAT!7jwiBJYdwH3EN-vbJZdLjYiBD7Zh57p-d9U3YA9Umg4
Checked your log file, thanks for uploading. That log looks good. In line 98,957 it states "new block started with id=98" therafter you initiated successfully a transaction and closed the program properly.Now i deleted the blocks, rebooted dai gave the problem mentioned.
My log:
https://mega.co.nz/#!W4JX3TAT!7jwiBJYdwH3EN-vbJZdLjYiBD7Zh57p-d9U3YA9Umg4
Once the major chain async bug is fixed we will release a 0.60.1 version.
We just started an issue tracking project here: https://sourceforge.net/p/exocoin/tickets/
That way we can more clearly communicate what we are working on, what already has been reported, what the current state of specific issues is and it helps to identify the issues if it is a longterm problem (like the chain async problem. We can now easier refer to a ticket id and everyone knows about what we are talking etc).
That idea came from a forum member (I dont want to name him if he would not want it - you never know) - thank you!
That clearly helps a lot in communication between community<->exocoin team
We got many improvement suggestions and bug reports (thanks!!). Some of them already are in the new ticket system and some are not (yet). Please wait some more days to fetch up with everything.
Also, we did not get that much votes yet on our logo thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/exo-official-exocoin-logo-thread-574490
please check out if not already done. Also note, that there is a 2nd independend vote on our website where you can vote as well if you already have an exocoin.org account.
More about the current status, especially regarding the chain async issue soon.
best regards
eXocoin
Jump to: