Topic: [TEK] TEKcoin Hi-PoS hybrid pos/pow no premine/ipo/ico - page 220. (Read 446111 times)
me too! connect=74.196.63.95
Of course it's a failed fork. Let's unfuck this fork.
so, i'have stop the download and delete again all data, of course not the wallet.dat
please give me a correct host, with the correct blockcain.
my server is up to date to original https://github.com/maxxine/TEK
please give me a correct host, with the correct blockcain.
my server is up to date to original https://github.com/maxxine/TEK
i only connect to 1 host now
{
"addr" : "74.196.63.95",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1409154993,
"lastrecv" : 1409154996,
"conntime" : 1409154868,
"version" : 60007,
"subver" : "/tekcoin:2.0.0/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 506608,
"banscore" : 0
}
so, i'have stop the download and delete again all data, of course not the wallet.dat
please give me a correct host, with the correct blockcain.
my server is up to date to original https://github.com/maxxine/TEK
please give me a correct host, with the correct blockcain.
my server is up to date to original https://github.com/maxxine/TEK
Thats because I turned the client on last night, after the changes were pushed to the repo. Today people are updating, which means all the people who didnt update last night kept mining work blocks.
Which is why their chain is longer, but their chain doesnt calculate stake like mine does which is why mine isnt accepting their blocks and why they arnt accepting my blocks and why im at 506608 and they are at a higher block count.
We could disregard my chain and sync to the current work chain but as soon as one person stakes, the first person to stake will be a fork from the people who havnt upgraded yet. And the argument starts alllllllll over again.
"do we orphan the workers who havnt updated, or do we delete our staked chain and sync to their longer chain"
and then the loop happens again! and again and again and again until someone finally says "this is the chain we are using"
The workers are going to want to keep their easily mined work blocks, the stakers are trying to say, enough is enough lets get stake working again, and everyone else is confused. I vote we paper rock scissors the answer.
Which is why their chain is longer, but their chain doesnt calculate stake like mine does which is why mine isnt accepting their blocks and why they arnt accepting my blocks and why im at 506608 and they are at a higher block count.
We could disregard my chain and sync to the current work chain but as soon as one person stakes, the first person to stake will be a fork from the people who havnt upgraded yet. And the argument starts alllllllll over again.
"do we orphan the workers who havnt updated, or do we delete our staked chain and sync to their longer chain"
and then the loop happens again! and again and again and again until someone finally says "this is the chain we are using"
The workers are going to want to keep their easily mined work blocks, the stakers are trying to say, enough is enough lets get stake working again, and everyone else is confused. I vote we paper rock scissors the answer.
Unless you orphan those who have not upgraded or are on any other than legit longest blockchain (the most work done) than it is failed hard-fork.
Block height 507116
Time 17:47:37 (+1 GMT)
"proof-of-work" : 250768.75421742,
"proof-of-stake" : 0.00006103,
Staking or mining within this swarm does not cause IP ban
So how come few 1.1 nodes are working properly and others are all over the place? Also, how it is possible nodes on 2.0 are accepting work from this swarm but still refuse to
sync up to our block height?
17:56:08

getpeerinfo
17:56:08

[
{
"addr" : "70.181.40.178:8514",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1409154792,
"lastrecv" : 1409154855,
"conntime" : 1409150731,
"version" : 60006,
"subver" : "/tekcoin:1.1.0/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 507110,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "110.174.169.110:8514", <--- still syncing, unaware of any issues
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1409154811,
"lastrecv" : 1409154811,
"conntime" : 1409150894,
"version" : 60006,
"subver" : "/tekcoin:1.1.0/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 245698,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "74.196.63.95:8514",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1409154855,
"lastrecv" : 1409154792,
"conntime" : 1409151212,
"version" : 60007,
"subver" : "/tekcoin:2.0.0/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 506608,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "62.116.254.204:8514", <--- still syncing, unaware of any issues
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1409154792,
"lastrecv" : 1409154528,
"conntime" : 1409154527,
"version" : 60007,
"subver" : "/tekcoin:2.0.0/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 47724,
"banscore" : 0
}
]
Thats because I turned the client on last night, after the changes were pushed to the repo. Today people are updating, which means all the people who didnt update last night kept mining work blocks.
Which is why their chain is longer, but their chain doesnt calculate stake like mine does which is why mine isnt accepting their blocks and why they arnt accepting my blocks and why im at 506608 and they are at a higher block count.
We could disregard my chain and sync to the current work chain but as soon as one person stakes, the first person to stake will be a fork from the people who havnt upgraded yet. And the argument starts alllllllll over again.
"do we orphan the workers who havnt updated, or do we delete our staked chain and sync to their longer chain"
and then the loop happens again! and again and again and again until someone finally says "this is the chain we are using"
The workers are going to want to keep their easily mined work blocks, the stakers are trying to say, enough is enough lets get stake working again, and everyone else is confused. I vote we paper rock scissors the answer.
Which is why their chain is longer, but their chain doesnt calculate stake like mine does which is why mine isnt accepting their blocks and why they arnt accepting my blocks and why im at 506608 and they are at a higher block count.
We could disregard my chain and sync to the current work chain but as soon as one person stakes, the first person to stake will be a fork from the people who havnt upgraded yet. And the argument starts alllllllll over again.
"do we orphan the workers who havnt updated, or do we delete our staked chain and sync to their longer chain"
and then the loop happens again! and again and again and again until someone finally says "this is the chain we are using"
The workers are going to want to keep their easily mined work blocks, the stakers are trying to say, enough is enough lets get stake working again, and everyone else is confused. I vote we paper rock scissors the answer.
i think we should stick to your chain 506608 and continue from there. since you can confirm everything is working. i'll connect to your IP and open up my ports once it's sync'd. sounds like a deal?
Why don't we just get the checkpoint working... A little bit of PoW lost doesn't really compare to the loss of the primary reason why people get this coin... PoS...
We need 2.0.0.
We need 2.0.0.
Thats because I turned the client on last night, after the changes were pushed to the repo. Today people are updating, which means all the people who didnt update last night kept mining work blocks.
Which is why their chain is longer, but their chain doesnt calculate stake like mine does which is why mine isnt accepting their blocks and why they arnt accepting my blocks and why im at 506608 and they are at a higher block count.
We could disregard my chain and sync to the current work chain but as soon as one person stakes, the first person to stake will be a fork from the people who havnt upgraded yet. And the argument starts alllllllll over again.
"do we orphan the workers who havnt updated, or do we delete our staked chain and sync to their longer chain"
and then the loop happens again! and again and again and again until someone finally says "this is the chain we are using"
The workers are going to want to keep their easily mined work blocks, the stakers are trying to say, enough is enough lets get stake working again, and everyone else is confused. I vote we paper rock scissors the answer.
Which is why their chain is longer, but their chain doesnt calculate stake like mine does which is why mine isnt accepting their blocks and why they arnt accepting my blocks and why im at 506608 and they are at a higher block count.
We could disregard my chain and sync to the current work chain but as soon as one person stakes, the first person to stake will be a fork from the people who havnt upgraded yet. And the argument starts alllllllll over again.
"do we orphan the workers who havnt updated, or do we delete our staked chain and sync to their longer chain"
and then the loop happens again! and again and again and again until someone finally says "this is the chain we are using"
The workers are going to want to keep their easily mined work blocks, the stakers are trying to say, enough is enough lets get stake working again, and everyone else is confused. I vote we paper rock scissors the answer.
really not overly concerned about losing a days mining, just want to be back on track and mining again without hopefully many future issues 
I say we start over from yesterday, before the losse compile even more. Rip the bandaid off
I say we start over from yesterday, before the losse compile even more. Rip the bandaid off Before anyone does anything else, just stop ^_^
Update your client to the latest update. When you do "getinfo" it will look similar to this
This protocol makes it so PoS and PoW difficulties are calculated correctly which was over looked during the original update and the reason why as soon as anyone staked they created their own fork.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/b7cooz2yewxk2ns/tekcoin-bootstrap.zip
Update your client to the latest update. When you do "getinfo" it will look similar to this
Code:
{
"version" : "v2.0.1.0-gf96a5a-TEK",
"protocolversion" : 60007,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 1704.28190100,
"newmint" : 0.00000000,
"stake" : 2568.20805900,
"blocks" : 506608,
"moneysupply" : 1868796.74635500,
"connections" : 43,
"proxy" : "",
"ip" : "74.196.63.95",
"difficulty" : 34026.30075343,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1399997248,
"keypoolsize" : 102,
"paytxfee" : 0.00010000,
"errors" : ""
}
"version" : "v2.0.1.0-gf96a5a-TEK",
"protocolversion" : 60007,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 1704.28190100,
"newmint" : 0.00000000,
"stake" : 2568.20805900,
"blocks" : 506608,
"moneysupply" : 1868796.74635500,
"connections" : 43,
"proxy" : "",
"ip" : "74.196.63.95",
"difficulty" : 34026.30075343,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1399997248,
"keypoolsize" : 102,
"paytxfee" : 0.00010000,
"errors" : ""
}
This protocol makes it so PoS and PoW difficulties are calculated correctly which was over looked during the original update and the reason why as soon as anyone staked they created their own fork.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/b7cooz2yewxk2ns/tekcoin-bootstrap.zip
Code:
addnode=74.196.63.95
addnode=64.188.164.77
addnode=94.220.6.66
addnode=64.188.164.77
addnode=94.220.6.66
bump
the addnode you have posted doesn't add up to the current block height on what was stated
{
"addr" : "74.196.63.95",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1409153496,
"lastrecv" : 1409153503,
"conntime" : 1409153496,
"version" : 60007,
"subver" : "/tekcoin:2.0.0/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 506608,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "64.188.164.77",
"services" : "00000000",
"lastsend" : 1409153496,
"lastrecv" : 0,
"conntime" : 1409153496,
"version" : 0,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : -1,
"banscore" : 0
},
{
"addr" : "94.220.6.66",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1409153520,
"lastrecv" : 1409153498,
"conntime" : 1409153496,
"version" : 60007,
"subver" : "/tekcoin:2.0.0/",
"inbound" : false,
"releasetime" : 0,
"startingheight" : 47724,
"banscore" : 0
}
well the client i made IS the standard client on the main tekcoin repo, so it seems someone has already decided.
Now we have to decide WHERE do we want to start staking blocks at? From last night when i originally turned on the fix to test if it worked? Or do we want to start now so some folks can keep their PoW blocks.
I dont know the answer. :/
Now we have to decide WHERE do we want to start staking blocks at? From last night when i originally turned on the fix to test if it worked? Or do we want to start now so some folks can keep their PoW blocks.
I dont know the answer. :/
OK, so what is the concensus here?? Do we stay where we are at? update or roll back before the last fork??
Do you have an active node using sync checkpoints? I see the key was changed in the update. We should be using the chain that the node is on.
No thanks, there must exist a valid 1.1 version of blockchain, just in case your wallet causes major issues else you will have to rollback everyone back to hard-fork point.
hey you two, I appreciate your hard work, and just hope as do all of us that everything gets resolved amicably...
in the moment is see only:
ERROR: CheckProofOfStake() : INFO: read txPrev failed
WARNING: ProcessBlock(): check proof-of-stake failed for block 0faec6bdc8495d445f7641d4146e263391860e9e85c690badd39e92aecec59e4
received block 00000000000081a58f11
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=0faec6bdc8495d445f76
received block fb830c69ae12a55a19eb
ERROR: CheckProofOfStake() : INFO: read txPrev failed
WARNING: ProcessBlock(): check proof-of-stake failed for block fb830c69ae12a55a19ebf32976ea3a82b8e469a3fe93ca656b1c2f693dbe2ca9
received block 0000000000013568a58d
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=fb830c69ae12a55a19eb
received block 000000000000c3b272e4
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=0000000000013568a58d
received block 000000000000fe9f653e
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=000000000000c3b272e4
received block bdd7c035bb9943dbb1e4
ERROR: CheckProofOfStake() : INFO: read txPrev failed
WARNING: ProcessBlock(): check proof-of-stake failed for block bdd7c035bb9943dbb1e4fc0fa2ea31485f4a399e74c4deceadf93d24571d0097
ERROR: CheckProofOfStake() : INFO: read txPrev failed
WARNING: ProcessBlock(): check proof-of-stake failed for block 0faec6bdc8495d445f7641d4146e263391860e9e85c690badd39e92aecec59e4
received block 00000000000081a58f11
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=0faec6bdc8495d445f76
received block fb830c69ae12a55a19eb
ERROR: CheckProofOfStake() : INFO: read txPrev failed
WARNING: ProcessBlock(): check proof-of-stake failed for block fb830c69ae12a55a19ebf32976ea3a82b8e469a3fe93ca656b1c2f693dbe2ca9
received block 0000000000013568a58d
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=fb830c69ae12a55a19eb
received block 000000000000c3b272e4
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=0000000000013568a58d
received block 000000000000fe9f653e
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=000000000000c3b272e4
received block bdd7c035bb9943dbb1e4
ERROR: CheckProofOfStake() : INFO: read txPrev failed
WARNING: ProcessBlock(): check proof-of-stake failed for block bdd7c035bb9943dbb1e4fc0fa2ea31485f4a399e74c4deceadf93d24571d0097
version 1.9 will create forks everytime someone stakes due to an overlook in the code. same thing used to happen with bottlecaps.
Versions 1.2 and 1.9.1 are abandoned wallets which were supposed to end up on their own fork. Version v1.1 is wallet that is supposed to continue working after hard-fork but it
seems it is accepting PoW from all wallet versions so there are at least 3 versions of v1.1 blockchains:
1. One where PoW from 1.2 and 1.9.1 miners was erroneously accepted, PoS blocks by 1.1 will cause 1.1 node to end up banned.
2. One where PoW from 1.2 and 1.9.1 miners was not accepted but PoS blocks will be rejected anyway because nodes are on very different block heights (based on number of PoS
blocks each of them staked for themselves).
3. One where everything is perfectly fine, wallet version 1.1 PoW mining works and PoS staking does not cause forking - even nodes you mentioned are not complaining on submitted
work which means it is compatible with your version of blockchain but here is the kicker = your blockchain is shorter (less work done) so please upgrade to our version. Yet another
version of partially tested wallet in a situation where half of network didn't even switched to 1.1 is horrible idea.
Say I take your suggestion, delete my chain, restart my client sync to yours and mint a couple stake blocks. We will STILL be in the exact same situation we are now, because my client and anyone on my client will go off on their own fork and the pow pools will STILL be mining on their chain. At some point in time blocks are going to be orphaned because the proof of workers wont stop working. Either update and sync with the people staking or continue the work chain, sooner or later everyone will have to choose one and what im not doing is all this work over again. The great thing about consensus is the choice is ultimately yours.
Yes, I can opt for not using one more potentialy horrible version of wallet and I will do so. Once a week passes without your version having issues I will switch - not before.
You could of done the update
version 1.9 will create forks everytime someone stakes due to an overlook in the code. same thing used to happen with bottlecaps.
Versions 1.2 and 1.9.1 are abandoned wallets which were supposed to end up on their own fork. Version v1.1 is wallet that is supposed to continue working after hard-fork but it
seems it is accepting PoW from all wallet versions so there are at least 3 versions of v1.1 blockchains:
1. One where PoW from 1.2 and 1.9.1 miners was erroneously accepted, PoS blocks by 1.1 will cause 1.1 node to end up banned.
2. One where PoW from 1.2 and 1.9.1 miners was not accepted but PoS blocks will be rejected anyway because nodes are on very different block heights (based on number of PoS
blocks each of them staked for themselves).
3. One where everything is perfectly fine, wallet version 1.1 PoW mining works and PoS staking does not cause forking - even nodes you mentioned are not complaining on submitted
work which means it is compatible with your version of blockchain but here is the kicker = your blockchain is shorter (less work done) so please upgrade to our version. Yet another
version of partially tested wallet in a situation where half of network didn't even switched to 1.1 is horrible idea.
Say I take your suggestion, delete my chain, restart my client sync to yours and mint a couple stake blocks. We will STILL be in the exact same situation we are now, because my client and anyone on my client will go off on their own fork and the pow pools will STILL be mining on their chain. At some point in time blocks are going to be orphaned because the proof of workers wont stop working. Either update and sync with the people staking or continue the work chain, sooner or later everyone will have to choose one and what im not doing is all this work over again. The great thing about consensus is the choice is ultimately yours.
Yes, I can opt for not using one more potentialy horrible version of wallet and I will do so. Once a week passes without your version having issues I will switch - not before.
i'm really interests witch balance stay later in the wallet here ... i'hope all members of our pool will not lost so mutch or in the best case nothing, lost.
Well any blocks mined after block 506608 would be lost by updating to my client and chain. BUT you will be able to stake fine with out an forks.
You could keep the original client and eventually stake will pop, but so far everyone has been waiting for a month, which is why this update was even proposed.
The update that first got released allowed staking but the difficulty was being calculated sort of randomly which caused everyone to fork their own chain. Proof of work however still worked, because it was never broken.
This update, you can do it two ways, you can just accept that some blocks are orphaned, or you can completely ignore anything ive done and continue the work chain and hope everyone connects to yours in the end.
i'm really interests witch balance stay later in the wallet here ... i'hope all members of our pool will not lost so mutch or in the best case nothing, lost.
Jump to: