Bible Pay

Read 96242 times

There are a lot of things in certain niche businesses, such as Crypto, that differ from industry standard and run of the mill development.  This is called "domain knowledge".  If Im the leader of the group and hire 5 devs to work with me, and want to hold daily scrum meetings, and I tell you what a certain term means for our business, then its your responsibility to use it - so we can communicate in a more efficient way.  Its not your job to argue with the head of development about things, thats non productive and is a net negative - it also wastes everyones elses time, and is embarassing.

Next, I know its true that certain soft rules - such as a protocol version - when implemented in a way where another node will hang up and refuse to comunicate based on that version, is not a hard rule, and it can be circumvented by a hacker.  But apparently what you have a hard time grasping, is there are also hard rules in the client, that have been programmed by both Dash and Me in both of my communities, that do enforce soft rules.  For example, we have a piece of code in our biblepay version right now that adds up what percent of blocks were solved by prior versions in the last 100 in the chain, and it does take into account the protocol version.  I could have easily enabled that feature and allowed the chain to fork if *any* blocks were solved by a version below the greatest in the chain.  I didnt, because I felt at the time we would have a smoother transition to the cutover block by letting everyone play.  You need to understand every algorithm in the code before making misleading statements to our community.    I am still maintaining that anyone who deliberately compiles a fraudulent version and detracts from the prod experience is a dangerous and semi-untrustworthy individual, when we are all here trying to get past the block number without forks and as much integrity as possible.

1)  I'm not working for you. I'm the one who told about botnets and the potential issues that they were/are causing to cpu coins so I'm even the one who first brought up that term. The first example I brought was Vertcoin. If you go and use a term that has an agreed definition by everyone, especially in IT, CS, etc., and slap on it something that has a totally different meaning at your convenience, then no wonder there are communication issues. I think you're wrong on that point.

2) I don't think you seem to understand that the wold is not there to please you and be honest. I also don't think you understand what has been talked before with implementation of a specific protocol being different from the protocol itself. And no..making another implementation is not "fraudulent". There are tons of implementation of bitcoin, ethereum, doge.., etc and this is to be expected when a coin starts to gain some attention.

We are talking about a financial ledger. There is money involved in this. Of course people will try to "hack" it, find exploits, gain any advantage.
We are in the business of security, that's why there is big money involved in blockchain...not just "making it work" and hoping for the best. I do that with my hair in the morning, not financial systems.

I stand my ground on saying that a version number cannot be enforced the way you want and therefore you shouldn't rely on it as you're literally just checking for a number that anyone can advertise/change without changing anything else.

if I had a different miner implementation...I would just have to change that number to match to w/e it is that you're looking for. Same with protocol version, etc. Can be done in 5 seconds and you will never know about it unless it's a version number you're not expecting (Ex: If I was suddenly advertising that my blocks were mined with version 0.4 right now when obviously it doesn't look correct).

@everyone
My BX is on the chain with the most work for now (has the most hashpower). This is the chain you will sync to if you sync any new wallet right now as this is how it chooses the active chain unless you try to do some tricky things (ban peers with the higher chain, only connecting to peer with the lowest chain, putting checkpoints, etc.). I will adjust it if this changes. For now I guess it lets you look and monitor both chains.

« Last Edit: March 07, 2018, 05:15:03 pm by Rob A. »


  • znffal
  • Full Member

    • 135


    • 7
    • October 02, 2017, 04:01:47 pm
    more
Welcome back Luke!

1. So it looks like things should change when we reach block 33440? I see Alex's explorer is past that but Togo's not yet. Do we know which one will change to PoDC?

->  Were still ensuring this PODC chain has integrity,  we should know within 25 more blocks or so that it appears solid.  Then we can ask Togo if hes on the same chain as us.


2. I see there is a leisure upgrade available. What are the changes? Should I be updating to this for controller wallet, Sanctuary wallet, PoDC wallet?
->  Actually this leisure is just a couple small items to show more info in exec podcupdate, dont worry about it now, because Im going to be adding another option now for exec podcupdate....  Sancs do not need to upgrade.


3. Should I be doing -zapwallettxes  (now or later) for controller wallet, Sanctuary wallet, PoDC wallet?
-> Only if you have orphaned transactions in your wallet.


4. Anything else I should be doing now?
-> Just check exec getboincinfo to ensure you have full weight on both.

Awesome thanks Rob.

getblockhash 33445
Code: [Select]
201ce2c68c5d520873037429fa644ca1180569a059f052621030e7152f4c5fd3
So I seem to be on the correct chain

exec stakebalance
Code: [Select]
"Command": "stakebalance",
  "StakeBalance": 110009

So I have plenty of stake

exec getboincinfo
Code: [Select]
"Command": "getboincinfo",
  "CPID": "8f273b30f8e0a298ed26e242762df701",
  "Address": "BLLmyTDgsCtD2gC4dxpSXnFHnpVVewkEiq",
  "CPIDS": "8f273b30f8e0a298ed26e242762df701;",
  "CPID-Age (hours)": 422350,
  "NextSuperblockHeight": 33620,
  "NextSuperblockBudget": 2660579,
  "8f273b30f8e0a298ed26e242762df701_ADDRESS": "BLLmyTDgsCtD2gC4dxpSXnFHnpVVewkEiq",
  "8f273b30f8e0a298ed26e242762df701_RAC": 40580.95,
  "8f273b30f8e0a298ed26e242762df701_TEAM": 15044,
  "8f273b30f8e0a298ed26e242762df701_TaskWeight": 100,
  "8f273b30f8e0a298ed26e242762df701_UTXOWeight": 25,
  "Total_RAC": 40580.95,


TaskWeight is good!
But still confused as to why UTXOWeight is not 100.

Thanks!


  • togoshigekata
  • Sr. Member

    • 439


    • 25
    • September 01, 2017, 10:21:10 am
    • USA
    more
I took down the backup block explorer temporarily to upgrade it to latest version 1.1.0.3


  • Rob Andrews
  • Administrator

    • 2045


    • 27
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
I took down the backup block explorer temporarily to upgrade it to latest version 1.1.0.3
Wow you have 64 processor machines!?  Arent those $100 a day?

I think youll be #1 in the world!

Thanks for updating the BX.  Ive had half of my sancs crash today, and ironically what allowed me to bring them back is deleting peers.dat.  I have no idea why the peers.dat is 289 megs.    Unfortunately, the sanc on my large 8192 RAM node has not died yet; if it does ill run valgrind on it. 



  • znffal
  • Full Member

    • 135


    • 7
    • October 02, 2017, 04:01:47 pm
    more
Hi Rob, since my UTXO is stuck at 25, should I try downloading the new version and  "exec podcupdate force"?
 :D


  • Rob Andrews
  • Administrator

    • 2045


    • 27
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
Hi Rob, since my UTXO is stuck at 25, should I try downloading the new version and  "exec podcupdate force"?
 :D

Yes, please try 'exec stakebalance' first, then set polpercentage to the correct percent, then grab the latest version, then after it starts and wallet is unlocked, try :

exec podcupdate true

The true = force, then double click on the sent Tx, and see if its high enough to make UTXO =100 (50K).

Good luck.


Edit: windows is compiling but almost finished.





  • orbis
  • Full Member

    • 189


    • 6
    • February 08, 2018, 04:37:14 pm
    more
We'll figure this out together, even if I have to add another argument to podcupdate.
First though could you please restart with -zapwallettxes, and check your stakebalance and resend you podcupdate again?
Lets see if that fixes it- also it takes 6 confirms for the wallet to memorize the utxoweight.
This fix my problem. Thanks.


  • znffal
  • Full Member

    • 135


    • 7
    • October 02, 2017, 04:01:47 pm
    more
Yes, please try 'exec stakebalance' first, then set polpercentage to the correct percent, then grab the latest version, then after it starts and wallet is unlocked, try :

exec podcupdate true

The true = force, then double click on the sent Tx, and see if its high enough to make UTXO =100 (50K).

Good luck.


Edit: windows is compiling but almost finished.

Awesome
Code: [Select]
"Command": "stakebalance",
  "StakeBalance": 110009

Config file
Code: [Select]
addnode=node.biblepay.org:40000
addnode=biblepay.inspect.network 
gen=1
genproclimit=1
polpercentage=100

I'll update now.
Thanks :)


  • togoshigekata
  • Sr. Member

    • 439


    • 25
    • September 01, 2017, 10:21:10 am
    • USA
    more
Wow you have 64 processor machines!?  Arent those $100 a day?
I think youll be #1 in the world!

Its a risky strategy, Im using spot instances,
all of them got terminated unexpectedly last night too, LOL poof gone,

Most of the motivation was that Slovakia reached #1 in our leaderboard
and I couldnt stand for that, I had to beat him LOL


  • Rob Andrews
  • Administrator

    • 2045


    • 27
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
This fix my problem. Thanks.

Great, but let me take this opportunity for a sanity check, is your CPID in my UTXO list now with correct weight?

Code: [Select]


17:49:12

exec datalist utxoweight


17:49:12

{
  "DataList": "UTXOWEIGHT",
  "04FBA56D89A5EB38B1B82F8A6240132C (03-07-2018 22:34:41)": "100",
  "1414175AC4EA3DFBB9FB7CAF13540319 (03-07-2018 22:51:04)": "25",
  "4004B7FEC94751F61FE9135977BAC553 (03-07-2018 22:34:41)": "75",
  "6785DED1F65063EF8F01F42DEB31CF1D (03-07-2018 21:47:25)": "75",
  "6BCD1F25DC07679DB5AD812A012DF1A4 (03-07-2018 20:37:28)": "0",
  "7C9264559FEF3C1C689EE9FC3FF42494 (03-07-2018 20:53:25)": "60",
  "84D803E4D82D3BDCDF8E2AB601E93E20 (03-07-2018 20:37:28)": "100",
  "8735CFE64D964416DBA6015EB414CF7E (03-07-2018 20:01:05)": "60",
  "8F273B30F8E0A298ED26E242762DF701 (03-07-2018 20:37:28)": "25",
  "93138F032BDD027FA3246B48BB715A77 (03-07-2018 22:51:04)": "100",
  "940552F602F67A3CF57A452438F36EE9 (03-07-2018 20:37:28)": "25",
  "962B0D76DFB35F07B73F81A67FFC28B1 (03-07-2018 23:06:25)": "0",
  "96892EC0FC8A2710FA84F26C9C84CD3E (03-07-2018 20:01:05)": "60",
  "982538340112287ED60723499ADFEB4B (03-07-2018 22:34:41)": "60",
  "A64253121D79782C27CFAA3429412A64 (03-07-2018 22:18:49)": "0",
  "A9420A038E44750C69CA4497FE08C2A9 (03-07-2018 20:01:05)": "60",
  "B1AFC0756AB888F55D90AB39396EA8B9 (03-07-2018 22:34:41)": "25",
  "CA895B47AACFFBDBF906201821AF2F9F (03-07-2018 20:37:28)": "50",
  "D4E56169934BF307F145C75BCB2896A2 (03-07-2018 20:01:05)": "25",
  "D9B22FCCFAE5582D4EE7838883AAA3CF (03-07-2018 20:37:28)": "100",
  "E1B188FAAD0052F0BE11B5DC0827AAA4 (03-07-2018 22:51:04)": "75",
  "E6CE50042187D4B285568D86EF458F32 (03-07-2018 20:01:05)": "75",
  "E7AE6ABD6284B05F3FD5F7C780E60BC7 (03-07-2018 20:37:28)": "100",
  "E94C1704C75F731F8BFDE303F08408EE (03-07-2018 20:37:28)": "60"
}



Thanks!



  • Rob Andrews
  • Administrator

    • 2045


    • 27
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
Its a risky strategy, Im using spot instances,
all of them got terminated unexpectedly last night too, LOL poof gone,

Most of the motivation was that Slovakia reached #1 in our leaderboard
and I couldnt stand for that, I had to beat him LOL
LOL, Country of Texas against Slovakia, my my, LOL.  Maybe you can pay a mechanical turk .50 cents an hour to keep those running.  JK.

Ill have to check those out.  It would be wild to rent one once a day if you had to analyze the global equities market - all historical black scholes - or something with very deep analysis and then let it get terminated.



  • T-Mike
  • Administrator

    • 398


    • 2
    • February 06, 2018, 06:12:58 pm
    more
When I run podcupdate, it says true but i don't see any transactions and nothing is being logged in the debug file. I did find this:

Code: [Select]
2018-03-07 23:35:50 CInstantSend::CreateTxLockCandidate -- new, txid=dd6eaee3390c57c2c94299bfe81dbb9a3bb2924719b18ca25b6c7d72136aac5a
2018-03-07 23:35:50 CInstantSend::ProcessTxLockRequest -- accepted, txid=dd6eaee3390c57c2c94299bfe81dbb9a3bb2924719b18ca25b6c7d72136aac5a
2018-03-07 23:35:50  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 0.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 0.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:35:50  CInstantSend::ProcessTxLockRequest successful
2018-03-07 23:35:50 TXLOCKREQUEST -- Transaction Lock Request accepted, txid=dd6eaee3390c57c2c94299bfe81dbb9a3bb2924719b18ca25b6c7d72136aac5a, peer=5
2018-03-07 23:35:51 CInstantSend::CreateTxLockCandidate -- creating birth, txid=dd6eaee3390c57c2c94299bfe81dbb9a3bb2924719b18ca25b6c7d72136aac5a
2018-03-07 23:35:51 CInstantSend::CreateTxLockCandidate -- update empty, txid=dd6eaee3390c57c2c94299bfe81dbb9a3bb2924719b18ca25b6c7d72136aac5a
2018-03-07 23:35:51 CInstantSend::ProcessTxLockRequest -- accepted, txid=dd6eaee3390c57c2c94299bfe81dbb9a3bb2924719b18ca25b6c7d72136aac5a
2018-03-07 23:35:51  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 0.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 0.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:35:51  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 0.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 0.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:35:51  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 0.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 0.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:35:51  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 0.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 0.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:35:51  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 0.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 0.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:35:51  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 1.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 0.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:35:51  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 1.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 1.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:35:51  CInstantSend::ProcessTxLockRequest successful
2018-03-07 23:35:51  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 1.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 1.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:35:51  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 1.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 1.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:36:34  End To End CPID Verification Failed, Address does not match advertised public key for CPID 962b0d76dfb35f07b73f81a67ffc28b1, Advertised Addr B9hCrvkS6ZAt3KftgLyiSg33kygao9PZDw, Addr BCD2eNowB8Hw9WNFYACD3U3diGzP9tfniR UpdateTip: new best=01a9e26d99304c6f9fc8738323ab2a8d0f145496100adcef3baf44ab9a24f570  height=33455  log2_work=58.86502  tx=124107  date=2018-03-07 23:36:59 progress=1.000002  cache=0.1MiB(225tx)
2018-03-07 23:36:34 ProcessNewBlock : ACCEPTED

Do I need to re-associate?


  • orbis
  • Full Member

    • 189


    • 6
    • February 08, 2018, 04:37:14 pm
    more
Great, but let me take this opportunity for a sanity check, is your CPID in my UTXO list now with correct weight?
Thanks!
Yes. I'm the first one :)


  • Rob Andrews
  • Administrator

    • 2045


    • 27
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
When I run podcupdate, it says true but i don't see any transactions and nothing is being logged in the debug file. I did find this:

Code: [Select]
2018-03-07 23:35:50 CInstantSend::CreateTxLockCandidate -- new, txid=dd6eaee3390c57c2c94299bfe81dbb9a3bb2924719b18ca25b6c7d72136aac5a
2018-03-07 23:35:50 CInstantSend::ProcessTxLockRequest -- accepted, txid=dd6eaee3390c57c2c94299bfe81dbb9a3bb2924719b18ca25b6c7d72136aac5a
2018-03-07 23:35:50  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 0.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 0.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:35:50  CInstantSend::ProcessTxLockRequest successful
2018-03-07 23:35:50 TXLOCKREQUEST -- Transaction Lock Request accepted, txid=dd6eaee3390c57c2c94299bfe81dbb9a3bb2924719b18ca25b6c7d72136aac5a, peer=5
2018-03-07 23:35:51 CInstantSend::CreateTxLockCandidate -- creating birth, txid=dd6eaee3390c57c2c94299bfe81dbb9a3bb2924719b18ca25b6c7d72136aac5a
2018-03-07 23:35:51 CInstantSend::CreateTxLockCandidate -- update empty, txid=dd6eaee3390c57c2c94299bfe81dbb9a3bb2924719b18ca25b6c7d72136aac5a
2018-03-07 23:35:51 CInstantSend::ProcessTxLockRequest -- accepted, txid=dd6eaee3390c57c2c94299bfe81dbb9a3bb2924719b18ca25b6c7d72136aac5a
2018-03-07 23:35:51  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 0.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 0.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:35:51  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 0.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 0.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:35:51  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 0.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 0.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:35:51  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 0.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 0.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:35:51  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 0.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 0.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:35:51  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 1.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 0.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:35:51  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 1.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 1.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:35:51  CInstantSend::ProcessTxLockRequest successful
2018-03-07 23:35:51  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 1.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 1.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:35:51  InstantSend : AllOutPointReady 1.000000, IsLockedInstantSendTransaction 1.000000, bool 1.000000
2018-03-07 23:36:34  End To End CPID Verification Failed, Address does not match advertised public key for CPID 962b0d76dfb35f07b73f81a67ffc28b1, Advertised Addr B9hCrvkS6ZAt3KftgLyiSg33kygao9PZDw, Addr BCD2eNowB8Hw9WNFYACD3U3diGzP9tfniR UpdateTip: new best=01a9e26d99304c6f9fc8738323ab2a8d0f145496100adcef3baf44ab9a24f570  height=33455  log2_work=58.86502  tx=124107  date=2018-03-07 23:36:59 progress=1.000002  cache=0.1MiB(225tx)
2018-03-07 23:36:34 ProcessNewBlock : ACCEPTED

Do I need to re-associate?
Thats kind of wild, I think that error is someone is trying to forge the wrong cpid on block 33455, and it failed.

Anyway, I would just do the 'exec getboincinfo' and check that the address that shows up for the cpid, is one you own in your wallet- if it matches you dont have to reassociate.
But then I would grab the latest version and do the 'exec podcupdate true', that way the UTXO is forced in.



  • znffal
  • Full Member

    • 135


    • 7
    • October 02, 2017, 04:01:47 pm
    more
Ok so updated!
I am on linux qt, unlocked wallet

exec podcupdate true
Code: [Select]
{
  "Command": "podcupdate",
  "PODCUpdate": "Insufficient funds."
}

exec stakebalance
Code: [Select]
{
  "Command": "stakebalance",
  "StakeBalance": 110009
}


exec getboincinfo
Code: [Select]
"8f273b30f8e0a298ed26e242762df701_RAC": 41174.76,
  "8f273b30f8e0a298ed26e242762df701_TEAM": 15044,
  "8f273b30f8e0a298ed26e242762df701_TaskWeight": 100,
  "8f273b30f8e0a298ed26e242762df701_UTXOWeight": 25,
  "Total_RAC": 41174.76,


Hmmm, not sure what is going on. Should i try sending my coins from the wallet and then back in again?

Thanks