SpreadcoinTalk

Spreadcoin => Main Development => Topic started by: Mr. Spread on February 08, 2015, 05:15:52 pm

Title: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 08, 2015, 05:15:52 pm
Download
Windows-32: http://spreadcoin.net/mn2/SpreadTest2Coin32.7z
Windows-64: http://spreadcoin.net/mn2/SpreadTest2Coin64.7z
Linux-32: http://spreadcoin.net/mn2/spreadtest2coin32.tar.xz
Linux-64: http://spreadcoin.net/mn2/spreadtest2coin64.tar.xz
OS X: In process
Source: https://github.com/spreadcoin-project/spreadcoin/tree/mn-test (be sure to build from the mn-test branch)

You can safely launch it together with mainline SpreadCoin wallet, it works like a different coin. Default datadir for this modified coin is spreadtest2coin.

Read phase 1 testing OP for info about what masternodes are: http://spreadcointalk.org/index.php?topic=37

Changes

Testing
Masternodes were already tested during phase 1, one major thing we didn't test is how limit on maximum number of masternodes will work. With higher reward we should reach this limit faster and will be able to test it.

I'm still working on instant transactions, they will be introduced as a wallet update for testnet (without relaunch).

Faucet for free testcoins: http://104.36.83.126/faucet/
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 08, 2015, 05:23:10 pm
We need new test coins, correct?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Nthused on February 08, 2015, 05:23:17 pm
Download
Windows-32: http://spreadcoin.net/mn2/SpreadTest2Coin32.7z
Windows-64: http://spreadcoin.net/mn2/SpreadTest2Coin64.7z
Linux-32: http://spreadcoin.net/mn2/spreadtest2coin32.tar.xz
Linux-64: http://spreadcoin.net/mn2/spreadtest2coin64.tar.xz
OS X: In process
Source: https://github.com/spreadcoin-project/spreadcoin/tree/mn-test (be sure to build from the mn-test branch)

You can safely launch it together with mainline SpreadCoin wallet and phase 1 test wallet, it works like a different coin. Default datadir for this modified coin is spreadtest2coin.

Read phase 1 testing OP for info about what masternodes are: http://spreadcointalk.org/index.php?topic=37

Changes
  • Sorting masternodes by column.
  • RPC command mnlist to get list of masternodes.
  • RPC command mnmy to get list of your masternodes.
  • Votes were moved from block header to the block itself, this is necessary for lightweight wallets.
  • Coins locked in your masternodes are displayed separately from your balance on overview page.
  • getinfo command now returns new lockedbalance value.
  • Number of elected masternodes is shown on masternodes page.
  • Maximum number of masternodes is now 1440. This is what it will be on mainnet.
  • Reward on testnet is now 10x higher.
  • Number of mastenode confirmations for instant transactions is now updated immediately
  • Several bug fixes

Testing
Masternodes were already tested during phase 1, one major thing we didn't test is how limit on maximum number of masternodes will work. With higher reward we should reach this limit faster and will be able to test it.

I'm still working on instant transactions, they will be introduced as a wallet update for testnet (without relaunch).

Great Job Mr.Spread !

Any Testnet2 Coins to be given away yet ?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 05:25:30 pm
Nice job Mr. Spread.

Has anyone synced with the network yet?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Nthused on February 08, 2015, 05:27:20 pm
Nice job Mr. Spread.

Has anyone synced with the network yet?

No not yet but I am currently at 716 Blocks of 1195.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 08, 2015, 05:28:11 pm
Nice job Mr. Spread.

Has anyone synced with the network yet?

I have been stuck at 0 hours behind and out of sync with 4 active connections

Syncing is just slow.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 05:30:19 pm
Both of my computers are stuck at block 1210 of 18547.

*edit* now block 1213.  Very slow.  Heh.

Can we bootstrap this?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: LiteMine on February 08, 2015, 05:31:25 pm
Nice job Mr. Spread.

Has anyone synced with the network yet?

No not yet but I am currently at 716 Blocks of 1195.

1212 blocks and mining
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Nthused on February 08, 2015, 05:31:39 pm
Nice job Mr. Spread.

Has anyone synced with the network yet?


I am connected and synced up now.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 08, 2015, 05:33:41 pm
I think this is because old wallets broadcast number of blocks on previous testnet - 18547
The actual number of blocks is 1225
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 08, 2015, 05:35:04 pm
Awesome, and mining is so easy.

Has synced immediately and waiting for a few coins to mature.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: GilAlexander on February 08, 2015, 05:35:21 pm
Code: [Select]
./spreadcoind getinfo
{
    "version" : 91504,
    "protocolversion" : 70019,
    "walletversion" : 60000,
    "balance" : 0.00000000,
    "lockedbalance" : 0.00000000,
    "blocks" : 1234,
    "timeoffset" : 0,
    "connections" : 7,
    "proxy" : "",
    "difficulty" : 0.00048032,
    "networkhashps" : 56994,
    "moneysupply" : 148253.24468262,
    "testnet" : true,
    "keypoololdest" : 1423416683,
    "keypoolsize" : 101,
    "paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
    "mininput" : 0.00001000,
    "errors" : ""
}
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Nthused on February 08, 2015, 05:35:34 pm
Remember to set the number of threads on the internal miner to 1 so the Difficulty doesn't get rampt up.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 08, 2015, 05:35:43 pm
I must also be picking up the old test net blocks but I am finding blocks now.

66.646 Coins per block.

EDIT: 1270 of 18552 blocks
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 05:44:03 pm
Just sent my first 100 coins to a masternode.  COME ON 50 CONFIRMS!  :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 08, 2015, 05:46:25 pm
Nice job Mr. Spread.

Has anyone synced with the network yet?

I have been stuck at 0 hours behind and out of sync with 4 active connections

Syncing is just slow.

First it was synching fine, but now it is stuck at 0 hours too... Block 1322... I guess it will disappear in a few minutes.
I have 9 active connections...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 08, 2015, 05:49:09 pm
Nice job Mr. Spread.

Has anyone synced with the network yet?

I have been stuck at 0 hours behind and out of sync with 4 active connections

Syncing is just slow.

First it was synching fine, but now it is stuck at 0 hours too... Block 1322... I guess it will disappear in a few minutes.
I have 9 active connections...
Just ignore it, this is a bug because we had similar testnet which now has higher number of blocks.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 08, 2015, 05:50:12 pm
trying out mnlist ... it shows:

Code: [Select]
[
]

Too soon, I guess...  ;D
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 08, 2015, 05:50:37 pm
Nice job Mr. Spread.

Has anyone synced with the network yet?

I have been stuck at 0 hours behind and out of sync with 4 active connections

Syncing is just slow.

First it was synching fine, but now it is stuck at 0 hours too... Block 1322... I guess it will disappear in a few minutes.
I have 9 active connections...

My wallet just finally synced and the blocks went from the 18550 now at 1350 so it just a little time.

Starting MN now.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 08, 2015, 05:51:14 pm
Elbandi has a faucet for testnet, when he will update it to the new tesnet I will send coins to it (I have 145319).
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: GilAlexander on February 08, 2015, 05:51:41 pm
Nice job Mr. Spread.

Has anyone synced with the network yet?

I have been stuck at 0 hours behind and out of sync with 4 active connections

Syncing is just slow.

First it was synching fine, but now it is stuck at 0 hours too... Block 1322... I guess it will disappear in a few minutes.
I have 9 active connections...

Maybe hashrate growing isn't compensated by difficulty and time lag between blocks is smaller - more orphans.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 05:53:29 pm
56 confirms on my first masternode.  Not showing in my list yet.  Anyone else see it?

Should be 100.111
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 08, 2015, 05:53:50 pm
no windows daemon?
I had planned to create a script and download mnlist every minute to create a timelapse video of how mns change during testnet round 2.

Can you compile a daemon for win32/64 please, Mr. Spread?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 08, 2015, 05:54:30 pm
56 confirms on my first masternode.  Not showing in my list yet.  Anyone else see it?

Should be 100.111

I'm synched and I don't see any MN
Neither in menu, nor with mnlist
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 05:56:31 pm
56 confirms on my first masternode.  Not showing in my list yet.  Anyone else see it?

Should be 100.111

I'm synched and I don't see any MN
Neither in menu, nor with mnlist
77 confirms and nothing yet.

*edit* 87
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 08, 2015, 05:58:42 pm
Something is wrong...

I understand that I can mine 10x more coins now in this special version...
But most of my coins have already 130 or more confirmations, although I mined them just 10 minutes ago???

 ???
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 06:00:06 pm
Something is wrong...

I understand that I can mine 10x more coins now in this special version...
But most of my coins have already 130 or more confirmations, although I mined them just 10 minutes ago???

 ???

Hash rate jumped big time.  Maybe someone brought a botnet hahah.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 06:00:56 pm
Two masternodes with more than 50 confirms not showing in the list yet.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 08, 2015, 06:01:00 pm
Something is wrong...

I understand that I can mine 10x more coins now in this special version...
But most of my coins have already 130 or more confirmations, although I mined them just 10 minutes ago???

 ???

Hash rate jumped big time.  Maybe someone brought a botnet hahah.

No, that's not what I mean.
Shouldn't we still see on average 1 confirmation per minute?

So why do I see 10 x that?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 08, 2015, 06:02:32 pm
I watched my earliest coins, they first showed 160 confirmations, then 2 min later they show 190 confirmations?

Something is wrong.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: GilAlexander on February 08, 2015, 06:03:30 pm
no windows daemon?
I had planned to create a script and download mnlist every minute to create a timelapse video of how mns change during testnet round 2.

Can you compile a daemon for win32/64 please, Mr. Spread?

One may run bash script on vps:
Code: [Select]
while true; do

date "+%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S" >> mnlog.log
./spreadcoind mnlist >> mnlog.log
sleep 60

done
Just make sure to run it as service.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 06:04:55 pm
I watched my earliest coins, they first showed 160 confirmations, then 2 min later they show 190 confirmations?

Something is wrong.
What I'm saying is I think a lot of hash was brought against the coin and lots of blocks were mined before difficulty was able to adjust.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: GilAlexander on February 08, 2015, 06:05:07 pm
I watched my earliest coins, they first showed 160 confirmations, then 2 min later they show 190 confirmations?

Something is wrong.
Quote
hashrate growing isn't compensated by difficulty and time lag between blocks is smaller
Please take a look at difficulty graph - it's perfect - so the increasing algoritm is at the limit.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 08, 2015, 06:07:09 pm
Something is wrong...

I understand that I can mine 10x more coins now in this special version...
But most of my coins have already 130 or more confirmations, although I mined them just 10 minutes ago???

 ???
Difficulty retarget is not able to keep up with fast hashrate increase, it's ok. After some time we'll have 1 block per minute.

56 confirms on my first masternode.  Not showing in my list yet.  Anyone else see it?

Should be 100.111
Can you give me transaction hash?
Until you start it no one else will see it.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 08, 2015, 06:07:44 pm
I watched my earliest coins, they first showed 160 confirmations, then 2 min later they show 190 confirmations?

Something is wrong.
Quote
hashrate growing isn't compensated by difficulty and time lag between blocks is smaller
Please take a look at difficulty graph - it's perfect - so the increasing algoritm is at the limit.

You are right, you are right.
I looked at the blockexplorer and have seen that we have blocks coming in every few seconds, so it makes sense.
 ;D
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 08, 2015, 06:08:24 pm
no windows daemon?
I had planned to create a script and download mnlist every minute to create a timelapse video of how mns change during testnet round 2.

Can you compile a daemon for win32/64 please, Mr. Spread?
There is a daemon with 32-bit version.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 06:09:38 pm
Something is wrong...

I understand that I can mine 10x more coins now in this special version...
But most of my coins have already 130 or more confirmations, although I mined them just 10 minutes ago???

 ???
Difficulty retarget is not able to keep up with fast hashrate increase, it's ok. After some time we'll have 1 block per minute.

56 confirms on my first masternode.  Not showing in my list yet.  Anyone else see it?

Should be 100.111
Can you give me transaction hash?
Until you start it no one else will see it.

Win64

Status: 136 confirmations, broadcast through 8 nodes
Date: 2/8/2015 12:43
Debit: -100.111 SPR
Credit: 100.111 SPR
Transaction fee: -1.00 SPR
Net amount: -1.00 SPR
Transaction ID: dc3f447a468a5dd10de5226b0a7b40b6c96956bab85c689d01dd8d1d9e8bf2ca

and

Status: 88 confirmations, broadcast through 9 nodes
Date: 2/8/2015 12:51
Debit: -101.111 SPR
Credit: 101.111 SPR
Transaction fee: -1.00 SPR
Net amount: -1.00 SPR
Transaction ID: 51a64b460e8015aa30b34f14a64259b625bca04025f40c3411b4836031f4355c
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 08, 2015, 06:10:58 pm
I set up different address' to send coins but this is what it shows

(http://s3.postimg.org/atrho2b7n/image.png)

None of them are showing as MN confirmations as the amount is 0 in each one even though I sent 100 coins to each address.

What am I doing wrong?
Everything is correct, because you are sending coins to yourself you didn't gain anything and didn't lose anything, hence zero. After 50 confirmations you should see them in masternodes page.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 08, 2015, 06:14:09 pm
no windows daemon?
I had planned to create a script and download mnlist every minute to create a timelapse video of how mns change during testnet round 2.

Can you compile a daemon for win32/64 please, Mr. Spread?
There is a daemon with 32-bit version.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 08, 2015, 06:14:18 pm
Something is wrong...

I understand that I can mine 10x more coins now in this special version...
But most of my coins have already 130 or more confirmations, although I mined them just 10 minutes ago???

 ???
Difficulty retarget is not able to keep up with fast hashrate increase, it's ok. After some time we'll have 1 block per minute.

56 confirms on my first masternode.  Not showing in my list yet.  Anyone else see it?

Should be 100.111
Can you give me transaction hash?
Until you start it no one else will see it.

Win64

Status: 136 confirmations, broadcast through 8 nodes
Date: 2/8/2015 12:43
Debit: -100.111 SPR
Credit: 100.111 SPR
Transaction fee: -1.00 SPR
Net amount: -1.00 SPR
Transaction ID: dc3f447a468a5dd10de5226b0a7b40b6c96956bab85c689d01dd8d1d9e8bf2ca

and

Status: 88 confirmations, broadcast through 9 nodes
Date: 2/8/2015 12:51
Debit: -101.111 SPR
Credit: 101.111 SPR
Transaction fee: -1.00 SPR
Net amount: -1.00 SPR
Transaction ID: 51a64b460e8015aa30b34f14a64259b625bca04025f40c3411b4836031f4355c
You have spent these outputs in subsequent transactions.
To avoid doing this:
Options -> Display -> Display coin control features (should be checked).
When sending coins to yourself click "inputs" button and select other inputs and not your 100 coins.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 06:15:03 pm
Mr. Spread.  The issue I am having is with the Win64 build.  I just changed over to Win32 with one computer that wasn't displaying masternodes and they are now.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 06:15:47 pm
Something is wrong...

I understand that I can mine 10x more coins now in this special version...
But most of my coins have already 130 or more confirmations, although I mined them just 10 minutes ago???

 ???
Difficulty retarget is not able to keep up with fast hashrate increase, it's ok. After some time we'll have 1 block per minute.

56 confirms on my first masternode.  Not showing in my list yet.  Anyone else see it?

Should be 100.111
Can you give me transaction hash?
Until you start it no one else will see it.

Win64

Status: 136 confirmations, broadcast through 8 nodes
Date: 2/8/2015 12:43
Debit: -100.111 SPR
Credit: 100.111 SPR
Transaction fee: -1.00 SPR
Net amount: -1.00 SPR
Transaction ID: dc3f447a468a5dd10de5226b0a7b40b6c96956bab85c689d01dd8d1d9e8bf2ca

and

Status: 88 confirmations, broadcast through 9 nodes
Date: 2/8/2015 12:51
Debit: -101.111 SPR
Credit: 101.111 SPR
Transaction fee: -1.00 SPR
Net amount: -1.00 SPR
Transaction ID: 51a64b460e8015aa30b34f14a64259b625bca04025f40c3411b4836031f4355c
You have spent these outputs in subsequent transactions.
To avoid doing this:
Options -> Display -> Display coin control features (should be checked).
When sending coins to yourself click "inputs" button and select other inputs and not your 100 coins.

FUCK.  Hahahah.

I'm going to go hide in a corner now.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 06:17:28 pm
Three masternodes just started on one computer.

New display on, "Overview" is working beautifully!
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 08, 2015, 06:19:56 pm
What's the spreadcoin testnet port again?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 08, 2015, 06:22:41 pm
What's the spreadcoin testnet port again?
51678
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 06:22:55 pm
Anyone seeing my three started masternodes?  106, 105, 104.222
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 08, 2015, 06:23:23 pm
What's the spreadcoin testnet port again?
51678

Thanks, I just found out myself by using "getpeerinfo"
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: GilAlexander on February 08, 2015, 06:26:03 pm
Anyone seeing my three started masternodes?  106, 105, 104.222
No.
I have one with tx "8f6499dd84abbd844cbf7d5705b2eb61b5c737436487a5cf081cc8fcfd9c2aaa" and ~150 tspr, 183 confirms now.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 08, 2015, 06:28:18 pm
Anyone seeing my three started masternodes?  106, 105, 104.222

Not seeing yours but I have 5 started right now.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 06:29:04 pm
Anyone seeing my three started masternodes?  106, 105, 104.222
No.
I have one with tx "8f6499dd84abbd844cbf7d5705b2eb61b5c737436487a5cf081cc8fcfd9c2aaa" and ~150 tspr, 183 confirms now.
Both of my computers (one win32 one win64) are only showing their own masternodes, not other people's.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 08, 2015, 06:29:07 pm
Anyone seeing my three started masternodes?  106, 105, 104.222
No.
I have one with tx "8f6499dd84abbd844cbf7d5705b2eb61b5c737436487a5cf081cc8fcfd9c2aaa" and ~150 tspr, 183 confirms now.

I don't see any MN yet, and I am only looking with daemon over mnlist.

Still

Code: [Select]
[
]
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 06:30:30 pm
Yeah, I think there's a bug with displaying others' masternodes.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 06:32:50 pm
We're definitely going to need the faucet or a giveaway thread as I am 15 minutes between blocks at this point.

Mr. Spread, if you send me a boatload of coins, I'll help disseminate them.

n3AqT2ugzLdQtZGo5t8wfnqb5mrSbE97yk
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Nthused on February 08, 2015, 06:33:56 pm
Anyone seeing my three started masternodes?  106, 105, 104.222
No.
I have one with tx "8f6499dd84abbd844cbf7d5705b2eb61b5c737436487a5cf081cc8fcfd9c2aaa" and ~150 tspr, 183 confirms now.
Both of my computers (one win32 one win64) are only showing their own masternodes, not other people's.

I've tried both 64-bit and 32-bit versions and I can only see my own MasterNodes & no one elses.... Bug ?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Nthused on February 08, 2015, 06:35:56 pm
Here's my SPR testnet2 address: mr9zgZc5nHSTvrZgj2VQ2ffLrqDUYURxha
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: njs811 on February 08, 2015, 06:37:31 pm
And my address as well.
n1s86ByRNooKpFYaWM5v35vtTkGXxcq4Kn
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: pokeytex on February 08, 2015, 06:40:22 pm
I am up and running and finding blocks like crazy.  Still no masternodes to be seen.  I have not started any.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 08, 2015, 06:40:38 pm
After starting the masternode you will need to wait some time before it will be visible to other people. Each masternode confirms its existence every 100 blocks and this only starts after block 1600.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 08, 2015, 06:42:11 pm
I didn't want to have to modify the GPU miner on the fly, so I worked on the CPU miner in between testing rounds 1 and 2. 540kh/s on my CPU! :D
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 08, 2015, 06:43:05 pm
I didn't want to have to modify the GPU miner on the fly, so I worked on the CPU miner in between testing rounds 1 and 2. 540kh/s on my CPU! :D
Is this for testnet or for mainnet?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 06:45:10 pm
I got tSPR from Mr. Spread.  I created a giveaway thread here: http://spreadcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94

Post there if you need coins or if you want to help giveaway.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 06:46:13 pm
I didn't want to have to modify the GPU miner on the fly, so I worked on the CPU miner in between testing rounds 1 and 2. 540kh/s on my CPU! :D

That explains the sudden jump in hash.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 08, 2015, 06:46:50 pm
I didn't want to have to modify the GPU miner on the fly, so I worked on the CPU miner in between testing rounds 1 and 2. 540kh/s on my CPU! :D
Is this for testnet or for mainnet?

Both. I just modified the CPU hashing code so that your changes would work with it - the in-wallet miner is what I modified.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: GilAlexander on February 08, 2015, 06:49:10 pm
and this only starts after block 1600.
That's it.

I see 2*125 and 2*100 approx. now.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 08, 2015, 06:53:32 pm
Other people's MN are showing up now for me.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 06:54:03 pm
I'm starting to see other people's masternodes now.  WOOT!
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: mrcashking on February 08, 2015, 06:54:15 pm
Im starting to see a few of other peoples masternodes.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: pokeytex on February 08, 2015, 06:54:42 pm
Masternodes now showing up. Block 1604  ;D
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 08, 2015, 06:55:44 pm
mnlist showing results.  8)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: pokeytex on February 08, 2015, 06:55:50 pm
Buy some more SPR people - while it's cheap!
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MemoryShock on February 08, 2015, 06:59:44 pm
Just woke up, downloaded the tSPR wallet and read the thread to see if there was anything that I needed to know.  Will start setting up MN's...: )
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: GilAlexander on February 08, 2015, 07:01:53 pm
mnlist showing results.  8)

I changed my script:
Code: [Select]
while true; do

date "+%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S"
./spreadcoind mnlist | grep "amount"
sleep 60

done
there are too much output.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: pokeytex on February 08, 2015, 07:08:12 pm
LOL - I keep thinking about the math on this.  There are 1.8 million SPR in the wild.  There will be 1440 masternodes on the mainnet.  With 1000 SPR in each masternode that leaves 400,000 SPR in the wild.  LOL i can't believe they are selling for this cheap.  Am I insane in thinking that this will be a 10 timer minimum?

Sorry for off topic - I won't say anymore - I am just giddy.  ;D
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: GilAlexander on February 08, 2015, 07:10:38 pm
I have already need "mnsecret tx" command instead of "mnsecret tx:n" (for all n at the time).  8)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: pokeytex on February 08, 2015, 07:14:39 pm
Ooooo I like the sort feature in mn tab and the locked stat on the main screen of the wallet.  You are awesome Mr. Spread.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: pokeytex on February 08, 2015, 07:16:09 pm
10 MN's up and running - will start more when my mined coin confirms later.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 07:26:35 pm
10 MN's up and running - will start more when my mined coin confirms later.

We have a tSPR giveaway thread.  Come get more: http://spreadcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: kiindje on February 08, 2015, 07:29:39 pm
stupid question maybe:

i've send 3 different amounts of coins to 3 addresses that i named mn01,mn02 and mn03

do i just have to wait for 50 confirmations and are they then automatically masternodes? or is there something else i should do?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 07:35:59 pm
stupid question maybe:

i've send 3 different amounts of coins to 3 addresses that i named mn01,mn02 and mn03

do i just have to wait for 50 confirmations and are they then automatically masternodes? or is there something else i should do?
After 50 confirms, go to the masternode tab.  You will see your masternodes listed.  If no, click the, "Update" button.  Next to your masternodes will be a checkbox.  Check that to start them and that's it!
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 07:37:12 pm
Mr. Spread, on the masternodes tab next to the update button it says, "Masternodes (0)".

What is that?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: mrcashking on February 08, 2015, 07:38:43 pm
Use coin control feature it makes your life 10 times better.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: mrcashking on February 08, 2015, 07:39:20 pm
Mr. Spread, on the masternodes tab next to the update button it says, "Masternodes (0)".

What is that?

Assuming that will be to show the count of how many elected masternodes are on the network.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: GilAlexander on February 08, 2015, 07:40:00 pm
Mr. Spread, on the masternodes tab next to the update button it says, "Masternodes (0)".

What is that?
Elected mns.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 07:50:27 pm
Mr. Spread, between sending coins to others and creating my own masternodes, I am down to 12,000 tSPR.  Can you replenish me to make sure I have plenty to give away?

n3AqT2ugzLdQtZGo5t8wfnqb5mrSbE97yk

*edit* Got it, thanks!
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: elbandi on February 08, 2015, 08:04:30 pm
Hi,

I'm on my way, but i setup the faucet, is this status good?

Block count: 1717
Difficulty: 0.01895162

This is the faucet address: n3H6vFXHbbQDBuqBM97UR557n9UmyPevNc

Elbandi
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 08:04:42 pm
I need to leave in about 30-60 minutes for a couple hours.  If anyone can help in the giveaway thread at that time, let me know and I'll send you some coins.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MemoryShock on February 08, 2015, 08:17:21 pm
I'm on all day...

I can send them as needed...

Edit to Add - mwkLLeGx5aF1hrFTqrrSEeyDWA1wpk5rLF
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 08, 2015, 08:21:51 pm
Maybe I am missing something but why are people creating MN with 200, 500 coins in the MN?

Isn't the idea this round to get the 1,440 MN up and running? Shouldn't we just be creating MN with 100 in each since we can't get kicked during testing?

Or maybe I am missing something.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MemoryShock on February 08, 2015, 08:26:59 pm
Maybe I am missing something but why are people creating MN with 200, 500 coins in the MN?

Isn't the idea this round to get the 1,440 MN up and running? Shouldn't we just be creating MN with 100 in each since we can't get kicked during testing?

Or maybe I am missing something.

I was assuming that maybe they were set up like that so people could find their addresses easier?  Coins are definitely more available at this stage than they were during the first round so hopefully there should be no issue with having enough coins...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 08:28:22 pm
Maybe I am missing something but why are people creating MN with 200, 500 coins in the MN?

Isn't the idea this round to get the 1,440 MN up and running? Shouldn't we just be creating MN with 100 in each since we can't get kicked during testing?

Or maybe I am missing something.
We want to get more than 1440 masternodes running so we can test booting the weak ones.  As such, we want to have many with more than 100.  Nothing stupid high like 3000 but if everyone just has 100, it could cause some headache I think.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 08, 2015, 08:33:44 pm
Maybe I am missing something but why are people creating MN with 200, 500 coins in the MN?

Isn't the idea this round to get the 1,440 MN up and running? Shouldn't we just be creating MN with 100 in each since we can't get kicked during testing?

Or maybe I am missing something.
We want to get more than 1440 masternodes running so we can test booting the weak ones.  As such, we want to have many with more than 100.  Nothing stupid high like 3000 but if everyone just has 100, it could cause some headache I think.

Thanks for that.

Wasn't aware the kicking was happening.

I am going to have to adjust some of my Nodes later. They are still being confirmed.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: minerpage on February 08, 2015, 08:34:40 pm
I'm mining but takes long time to confirm...

Send plenty of tSPR to n4UoG7HaEmkF1xLqjhCTEYsqARn5kcbRWo for some test nodes 8)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 08:35:04 pm
What would really be best to make sure we don't run out of coins is have people setup masternodes with:

100
100.000001
100.000002
100.000003
----
101.0004

Basically small numbers but in a manner where we can see who is getting booted next easily.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: minerpage on February 08, 2015, 08:46:38 pm
I'm mining but takes long time to confirm...

Send plenty of tSPR to n4UoG7HaEmkF1xLqjhCTEYsqARn5kcbRWo for some test nodes 8)

20 MN's added with 101,102,103,104 tSPR, etc...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: GilAlexander on February 08, 2015, 09:05:58 pm
Bug. I've started a bunch of masternodes from spreadcoin.conf on vps, and then:
Code: [Select]
./spreadcoind getinfo
error: {"code":-1,"message":"map::at"}
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 08, 2015, 09:15:52 pm
when I do the mnlist command it seems like it's limited to max 100 mns.

How do I list all mns, and not just 100?

Is there an extra parameter?

hm, wait, now it seems to work.... there are parameters you can add:

known, elected, running
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: jjjordan on February 08, 2015, 09:18:33 pm
I am currently mining to a single tSPR address, but using different computers.
I am also running a bunch of MNs from the same wallet. So they are listed on all my PCes.
So far it works great. Will this be eventually a problem?
(having the same nodes running on different computers)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 09:21:30 pm
Hey guys, feel free to respond here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=949871 with how easy it is to setup masternodes or whatever. 
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 08, 2015, 09:23:29 pm
Okay, I should be able to sustain 4.5Ghz - 4.625Ghz kept locking up while mining tSPR. I'll mine a bunch and then give them out, and make some MNs, of course.

Screenshot (modified spreadcoin-qt, NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/miner/spreadcoinwalletminer.png

Also, is anyone else getting the wallet whacked by the OOM killer while mining using it?

EDIT: Scratch that, forgot to free some stuff in my SIMD code. Come to think of it, I should just put that on the stack...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 08, 2015, 10:00:36 pm
Bug. I've started a bunch of masternodes from spreadcoin.conf on vps, and then:
Code: [Select]
./spreadcoind getinfo
error: {"code":-1,"message":"map::at"}
Same here.

'./spreadcoind mnlist' shows me all my masternodes

'./spreadcoind mnmy' gives me an empty list, but maybe they need to be elected first?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 08, 2015, 10:04:58 pm
Bug. I've started a bunch of masternodes from spreadcoin.conf on vps, and then:
Code: [Select]
./spreadcoind getinfo
error: {"code":-1,"message":"map::at"}
Same here.

'./spreadcoind mnlist' shows me all my masternodes but 'running: "false"'

'./spreadcoind mnmy' gives me an empty list, but maybe they need to be elected first?

Yes, there is no elected masternode yet, although we have >300 mns in the list.
If you start your wallet/deamon it might take a few minutes before the mnlist is uptodate
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 08, 2015, 10:07:17 pm
Hi,

I'm on my way, but i setup the faucet, is this status good?

Block count: 1717
Difficulty: 0.01895162

This is the faucet address: n3H6vFXHbbQDBuqBM97UR557n9UmyPevNc

Elbandi
Yes, it is good. I sent you 30k. What is faucet url?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 10:30:35 pm
At what point should we be seeing elected masternodes?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: mrcashking on February 08, 2015, 10:40:04 pm
At what point should we be seeing elected masternodes?


Took about 3 to 3.5 hrs or so to get elected. last test. Hopefully its the same this time around.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 10:42:59 pm
At what point should we be seeing elected masternodes?


Took about 3 to 3.5 hrs or so to get elected. last test. Hopefully its the same this time around.
The first masternode went live about 4 hours and 20 minutes ago by my calculation.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: zdminer on February 08, 2015, 10:45:31 pm
mtaKBs2hZCBMyj3kf4sn1pq5pDLYNTysdm

please send me 1000tSPR i'll create 10MN, thanks!
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: mrcashking on February 08, 2015, 10:47:07 pm
At what point should we be seeing elected masternodes?


Took about 3 to 3.5 hrs or so to get elected. last test. Hopefully its the same this time around.
The first masternode went live about 4 hours and 20 minutes ago by my calculation.

wow hasn't feel like it's been that long haha.  Hopefully We'll start to see them soon.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 08, 2015, 10:52:48 pm
At what point should we be seeing elected masternodes?


Took about 3 to 3.5 hrs or so to get elected. last test. Hopefully its the same this time around.
The first masternode went live about 4 hours and 20 minutes ago by my calculation.

wow hasn't feel like it's been that long haha.  Hopefully We'll start to see them soon.

Didn't it take 3-4 hrs after we had 300 MNs last time?

The 30 on my VPS all show 'running: "true"' - just a matter of time. :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: elbandi on February 08, 2015, 10:55:00 pm
Yes, it is good. I sent you 30k. What is faucet url?
Thx.

http://104.36.83.126/faucet/

i set the payout to 130 tspr, if someone want to test the 100 limit, he can split his coin.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: LeongTap on February 08, 2015, 11:12:17 pm
Windows x64 test wallet, i tried mining and i found 53999.57395247 in like 10 seconds or less... This normal ?


i have 0 connection after starting the wallet for 30 minutes. who has nodes for me to add.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 08, 2015, 11:13:57 pm
Windows x64 test wallet, i tried mining and i found 53999.57395247 in like 10 seconds or less... This normal ?


i have 0 connection after starting the wallet for 30 minutes. who has nodes for me to add.

You're not synced - you're mining on your own chain. I'm not getting near that much with 500kh/s+.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 08, 2015, 11:32:34 pm
At what point should we be seeing elected masternodes?


Took about 3 to 3.5 hrs or so to get elected. last test. Hopefully its the same this time around.
The first masternode went live about 4 hours and 20 minutes ago by my calculation.

wow hasn't feel like it's been that long haha.  Hopefully We'll start to see them soon.

Didn't it take 3-4 hrs after we had 300 MNs last time?

The 30 on my VPS all show 'running: "true"' - just a matter of time. :)

MN's need a low score if they only have 100SPR, otherwise its not electable.

As the scores lower to below 1, election should start.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 08, 2015, 11:36:18 pm
MN's need a low score if they only have 100SPR, otherwise its not electable.

As the scores lower to below 1, election should start.

Lowest score I see right now is ~125. My 100 tSPR wonders  are all 250+ heh.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 08, 2015, 11:47:06 pm
MN's need a low score if they only have 100SPR, otherwise its not electable.

As the scores lower to below 1, election should start.

Lowest score I see right now is ~125. My 100 tSPR wonders  are all 250+ heh.

I see 51 MN's bellow 1 score.

So another 249 MN's bellow one to go! Should only take a few hours.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 08, 2015, 11:56:29 pm
Elections started last time well before 300 masternodes.  It was after we had 300 elected masternodes that payments started.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 09, 2015, 12:07:40 am
Elections started last time well before 300 masternodes.  It was after we had 300 elected masternodes that payments started.

Yep, you're right.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: devlin on February 09, 2015, 12:09:56 am

I think "votes" need to be 50%

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 09, 2015, 12:11:42 am
My screen shows about 500 masternodes.  So we're a little over 33% where we need to be.

Keep adding masternodes folks!
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 09, 2015, 12:27:49 am

I think "votes" need to be 50%

Yep, you're right.  I see a some 25%ers so it's on its way.  We're adding so many masternodes so fast it may just take awhile to cycle through.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 09, 2015, 12:43:06 am
Okay, I should be able to sustain 4.5Ghz - 4.625Ghz kept locking up while mining tSPR. I'll mine a bunch and then give them out, and make some MNs, of course.

Screenshot (modified spreadcoin-qt, NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/miner/spreadcoinwalletminer.png

Also, is anyone else getting the wallet whacked by the OOM killer while mining using it?

EDIT: Scratch that, forgot to free some stuff in my SIMD code. Come to think of it, I should just put that on the stack...

That's 10X better than the i5@2.6GH/s in my laptop.  :P

What do you get with the stock miner on the same machine?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: devlin on February 09, 2015, 12:51:57 am
elected started
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 09, 2015, 12:52:28 am
elected started

Finally, I see one elected MN.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 09, 2015, 12:54:31 am
The QT wallet still takes a very long time to 'catch up' with the total masternode list if it's shut down and restarted.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 09, 2015, 12:54:56 am
Okay, I should be able to sustain 4.5Ghz - 4.625Ghz kept locking up while mining tSPR. I'll mine a bunch and then give them out, and make some MNs, of course.

Screenshot (modified spreadcoin-qt, NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/miner/spreadcoinwalletminer.png

Also, is anyone else getting the wallet whacked by the OOM killer while mining using it?

EDIT: Scratch that, forgot to free some stuff in my SIMD code. Come to think of it, I should just put that on the stack...

That's 10X better than the i5@2.6GH/s in my laptop.  :P

What do you get with the stock miner on the same machine?

220kh/s - 230kh/s. It's just a rough hack job on the code, swapping out the terrible SPH code for something better. I haven't really spent much time on it, to fine-tune it, or even replace all the algos in SpreadX11.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MemoryShock on February 09, 2015, 12:57:14 am
The QT wallet still takes a very long time to 'catch up' with the total masternode list if it's shut down and restarted.

I tried the same thing...can confirm. 
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 09, 2015, 12:59:46 am
I see 545 MNs with "mnlist known"
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 09, 2015, 01:00:22 am
Okay, I should be able to sustain 4.5Ghz - 4.625Ghz kept locking up while mining tSPR. I'll mine a bunch and then give them out, and make some MNs, of course.

Screenshot (modified spreadcoin-qt, NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/miner/spreadcoinwalletminer.png

Also, is anyone else getting the wallet whacked by the OOM killer while mining using it?

EDIT: Scratch that, forgot to free some stuff in my SIMD code. Come to think of it, I should just put that on the stack...

That's 10X better than the i5@2.6GH/s in my laptop.  :P

What do you get with the stock miner on the same machine?

220kh/s - 230kh/s. It's just a rough hack job on the code, swapping out the terrible SPH code for something better. I haven't really spent much time on it, to fine-tune it, or even replace all the algos in SpreadX11.

Well I hope you or someone as good as you at this stuff releases a better CPU in-wallet miner then, that would provide a meaningful jump in nethash and decentralisation for Spread.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 09, 2015, 01:04:56 am
Okay, I should be able to sustain 4.5Ghz - 4.625Ghz kept locking up while mining tSPR. I'll mine a bunch and then give them out, and make some MNs, of course.

Screenshot (modified spreadcoin-qt, NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/miner/spreadcoinwalletminer.png

Also, is anyone else getting the wallet whacked by the OOM killer while mining using it?

EDIT: Scratch that, forgot to free some stuff in my SIMD code. Come to think of it, I should just put that on the stack...

That's 10X better than the i5@2.6GH/s in my laptop.  :P

What do you get with the stock miner on the same machine?

220kh/s - 230kh/s. It's just a rough hack job on the code, swapping out the terrible SPH code for something better. I haven't really spent much time on it, to fine-tune it, or even replace all the algos in SpreadX11.

Well I hope you or someone as good as you at this stuff releases a better CPU in-wallet miner then, that would provide a meaningful jump in nethash and decentralisation for Spread.

Depending on the CPU's capabilities, it can probably get more than 3x or even 4x better. I'm just lazy.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 09, 2015, 01:10:58 am
Okay, I should be able to sustain 4.5Ghz - 4.625Ghz kept locking up while mining tSPR. I'll mine a bunch and then give them out, and make some MNs, of course.

Screenshot (modified spreadcoin-qt, NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/miner/spreadcoinwalletminer.png

Also, is anyone else getting the wallet whacked by the OOM killer while mining using it?

EDIT: Scratch that, forgot to free some stuff in my SIMD code. Come to think of it, I should just put that on the stack...

That's 10X better than the i5@2.6GH/s in my laptop.  :P

What do you get with the stock miner on the same machine?

220kh/s - 230kh/s. It's just a rough hack job on the code, swapping out the terrible SPH code for something better. I haven't really spent much time on it, to fine-tune it, or even replace all the algos in SpreadX11.

Well I hope you or someone as good as you at this stuff releases a better CPU in-wallet miner then, that would provide a meaningful jump in nethash and decentralisation for Spread.

Depending on the CPU's capabilities, it can probably get more than 3x or even 4x better. I'm just lazy.

How much would it cost to unlazy you and to release it to the public?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 09, 2015, 01:20:14 am
The QT wallet still takes a very long time to 'catch up' with the total masternode list if it's shut down and restarted.

I tried the same thing...can confirm.

I haven't tried it.  What kind of times are you guys seeing?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MemoryShock on February 09, 2015, 01:25:05 am
The QT wallet still takes a very long time to 'catch up' with the total masternode list if it's shut down and restarted.

I tried the same thing...can confirm.

I haven't tried it.  What kind of times are you guys seeing?

I'm at 306 now in about ten minutes.  It seems like it is similar to a wallet sync - it takes time for the MN list to update.  I'm not sure that it has any effect on function...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 09, 2015, 01:26:49 am
Okay, I should be able to sustain 4.5Ghz - 4.625Ghz kept locking up while mining tSPR. I'll mine a bunch and then give them out, and make some MNs, of course.

Screenshot (modified spreadcoin-qt, NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/miner/spreadcoinwalletminer.png

Also, is anyone else getting the wallet whacked by the OOM killer while mining using it?

EDIT: Scratch that, forgot to free some stuff in my SIMD code. Come to think of it, I should just put that on the stack...

That's 10X better than the i5@2.6GH/s in my laptop.  :P

What do you get with the stock miner on the same machine?

220kh/s - 230kh/s. It's just a rough hack job on the code, swapping out the terrible SPH code for something better. I haven't really spent much time on it, to fine-tune it, or even replace all the algos in SpreadX11.

Well I hope you or someone as good as you at this stuff releases a better CPU in-wallet miner then, that would provide a meaningful jump in nethash and decentralisation for Spread.

Depending on the CPU's capabilities, it can probably get more than 3x or even 4x better. I'm just lazy.

How much would it cost to unlazy you and to release it to the public?

idk, you offering?

Also, finally finished setting up my MNs in such a way as to test the masternode limit. I mined every coin :D

(NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/tmp/spreadmntest.png

I went from 100 to 200, in increments of 5 - each MN should be kicked in turn.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 09, 2015, 01:27:02 am
So what happens if I accidentally send some coins to an address that is already up and running as a MN?

Does it kick it out, make it start over in the MN process?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 09, 2015, 01:32:41 am
So what happens if I accidentally send some coins to an address that is already up and running as a MN?

Does it kick it out, make it start over in the MN process?

Shouldn't have any effect - MN's get paid, adding to their balance - but it wont increase what the system sees as the MN collateral, as that's tied to a specific input (or technically an unspent output?), the one displayed in the MN tab. To increase the MN collateral you'll have to generate another lump sum and wait for 50 confirms etc.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 09, 2015, 01:33:28 am
Okay, I should be able to sustain 4.5Ghz - 4.625Ghz kept locking up while mining tSPR. I'll mine a bunch and then give them out, and make some MNs, of course.

Screenshot (modified spreadcoin-qt, NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/miner/spreadcoinwalletminer.png

Also, is anyone else getting the wallet whacked by the OOM killer while mining using it?

EDIT: Scratch that, forgot to free some stuff in my SIMD code. Come to think of it, I should just put that on the stack...

That's 10X better than the i5@2.6GH/s in my laptop.  :P

What do you get with the stock miner on the same machine?

220kh/s - 230kh/s. It's just a rough hack job on the code, swapping out the terrible SPH code for something better. I haven't really spent much time on it, to fine-tune it, or even replace all the algos in SpreadX11.

Well I hope you or someone as good as you at this stuff releases a better CPU in-wallet miner then, that would provide a meaningful jump in nethash and decentralisation for Spread.

Depending on the CPU's capabilities, it can probably get more than 3x or even 4x better. I'm just lazy.

How much would it cost to unlazy you and to release it to the public?

idk, you offering?

Also, finally finished setting up my MNs in such a way as to test the masternode limit. I mined every coin :D

(NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/tmp/spreadmntest.png

I went from 100 to 200, in increments of 5 - each MN should be kicked in turn.

I honestly don't know a fair rate for such a thing.

I suspect at this point you have a lot of SPR and that it would be in your best interest for such code to be released to the general public.

How much would make it worth your while?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 09, 2015, 01:47:02 am
My local wallet is now showing 595 MNs, 7 elected so far. :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 09, 2015, 01:48:45 am
Okay, I should be able to sustain 4.5Ghz - 4.625Ghz kept locking up while mining tSPR. I'll mine a bunch and then give them out, and make some MNs, of course.

Screenshot (modified spreadcoin-qt, NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/miner/spreadcoinwalletminer.png

Also, is anyone else getting the wallet whacked by the OOM killer while mining using it?

EDIT: Scratch that, forgot to free some stuff in my SIMD code. Come to think of it, I should just put that on the stack...

That's 10X better than the i5@2.6GH/s in my laptop.  :P

What do you get with the stock miner on the same machine?

220kh/s - 230kh/s. It's just a rough hack job on the code, swapping out the terrible SPH code for something better. I haven't really spent much time on it, to fine-tune it, or even replace all the algos in SpreadX11.

Well I hope you or someone as good as you at this stuff releases a better CPU in-wallet miner then, that would provide a meaningful jump in nethash and decentralisation for Spread.

Depending on the CPU's capabilities, it can probably get more than 3x or even 4x better. I'm just lazy.

How much would it cost to unlazy you and to release it to the public?

idk, you offering?

Also, finally finished setting up my MNs in such a way as to test the masternode limit. I mined every coin :D

(NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/tmp/spreadmntest.png

I went from 100 to 200, in increments of 5 - each MN should be kicked in turn.

I honestly don't know a fair rate for such a thing.

I suspect at this point you have a lot of SPR and that it would be in your best interest for such code to be released to the general public.

How much would make it worth your while?

I might do it if I have time for 1.25 BTC or so (meaning you'd pay me if/when I complete it), but it wouldn't be a priority.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 09, 2015, 01:50:20 am
My local wallet is now showing 595 MNs, 7 elected so far. :)

daemon> mnlist known

shows me 612, 7 elected

And a few of my MNs finally start to get some votes.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 09, 2015, 01:51:03 am
Okay, I should be able to sustain 4.5Ghz - 4.625Ghz kept locking up while mining tSPR. I'll mine a bunch and then give them out, and make some MNs, of course.

Screenshot (modified spreadcoin-qt, NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/miner/spreadcoinwalletminer.png

Also, is anyone else getting the wallet whacked by the OOM killer while mining using it?

EDIT: Scratch that, forgot to free some stuff in my SIMD code. Come to think of it, I should just put that on the stack...

That's 10X better than the i5@2.6GH/s in my laptop.  :P

What do you get with the stock miner on the same machine?

220kh/s - 230kh/s. It's just a rough hack job on the code, swapping out the terrible SPH code for something better. I haven't really spent much time on it, to fine-tune it, or even replace all the algos in SpreadX11.

Well I hope you or someone as good as you at this stuff releases a better CPU in-wallet miner then, that would provide a meaningful jump in nethash and decentralisation for Spread.

Depending on the CPU's capabilities, it can probably get more than 3x or even 4x better. I'm just lazy.

How much would it cost to unlazy you and to release it to the public?

idk, you offering?

Also, finally finished setting up my MNs in such a way as to test the masternode limit. I mined every coin :D

(NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/tmp/spreadmntest.png

I went from 100 to 200, in increments of 5 - each MN should be kicked in turn.

I honestly don't know a fair rate for such a thing.

I suspect at this point you have a lot of SPR and that it would be in your best interest for such code to be released to the general public.

How much would make it worth your while?

I might do it if I have time for 1.25 BTC or so (meaning you'd pay me if/when I complete it), but it wouldn't be a priority.

What kind of improvements would you guarantee for 1.25 btc?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 09, 2015, 01:51:57 am
Okay, I should be able to sustain 4.5Ghz - 4.625Ghz kept locking up while mining tSPR. I'll mine a bunch and then give them out, and make some MNs, of course.

Screenshot (modified spreadcoin-qt, NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/miner/spreadcoinwalletminer.png

Also, is anyone else getting the wallet whacked by the OOM killer while mining using it?

EDIT: Scratch that, forgot to free some stuff in my SIMD code. Come to think of it, I should just put that on the stack...

That's 10X better than the i5@2.6GH/s in my laptop.  :P

What do you get with the stock miner on the same machine?

220kh/s - 230kh/s. It's just a rough hack job on the code, swapping out the terrible SPH code for something better. I haven't really spent much time on it, to fine-tune it, or even replace all the algos in SpreadX11.

Well I hope you or someone as good as you at this stuff releases a better CPU in-wallet miner then, that would provide a meaningful jump in nethash and decentralisation for Spread.

Depending on the CPU's capabilities, it can probably get more than 3x or even 4x better. I'm just lazy.

How much would it cost to unlazy you and to release it to the public?

idk, you offering?

Also, finally finished setting up my MNs in such a way as to test the masternode limit. I mined every coin :D

(NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/tmp/spreadmntest.png

I went from 100 to 200, in increments of 5 - each MN should be kicked in turn.

I honestly don't know a fair rate for such a thing.

I suspect at this point you have a lot of SPR and that it would be in your best interest for such code to be released to the general public.

How much would make it worth your while?

I might do it if I have time for 1.25 BTC or so (meaning you'd pay me if/when I complete it), but it wouldn't be a priority.

What kind of improvements would you guarantee for 1.25 btc?

Hard to gauge with CPU unless you define a platform.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 09, 2015, 01:53:32 am
Okay, I should be able to sustain 4.5Ghz - 4.625Ghz kept locking up while mining tSPR. I'll mine a bunch and then give them out, and make some MNs, of course.

Screenshot (modified spreadcoin-qt, NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/miner/spreadcoinwalletminer.png

Also, is anyone else getting the wallet whacked by the OOM killer while mining using it?

EDIT: Scratch that, forgot to free some stuff in my SIMD code. Come to think of it, I should just put that on the stack...

That's 10X better than the i5@2.6GH/s in my laptop.  :P

What do you get with the stock miner on the same machine?

220kh/s - 230kh/s. It's just a rough hack job on the code, swapping out the terrible SPH code for something better. I haven't really spent much time on it, to fine-tune it, or even replace all the algos in SpreadX11.

Well I hope you or someone as good as you at this stuff releases a better CPU in-wallet miner then, that would provide a meaningful jump in nethash and decentralisation for Spread.

Depending on the CPU's capabilities, it can probably get more than 3x or even 4x better. I'm just lazy.

How much would it cost to unlazy you and to release it to the public?

idk, you offering?

Also, finally finished setting up my MNs in such a way as to test the masternode limit. I mined every coin :D

(NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/tmp/spreadmntest.png

I went from 100 to 200, in increments of 5 - each MN should be kicked in turn.

I honestly don't know a fair rate for such a thing.

I suspect at this point you have a lot of SPR and that it would be in your best interest for such code to be released to the general public.

How much would make it worth your while?

I might do it if I have time for 1.25 BTC or so (meaning you'd pay me if/when I complete it), but it wouldn't be a priority.

What kind of improvements would you guarantee for 1.25 btc?

Hard to gauge with CPU unless you define a platform.

For the 1.25 btc, would you go through and optimize each of the SpreadX11 algorithms?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 09, 2015, 01:54:29 am
Those of you that are miners (I am not) would having wolf0's optimized CPU miner make any real difference in the overall network hashrate?  Would it even be worth using or would you be expecting a block once a month kind of thing?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 09, 2015, 02:07:13 am
Okay, I should be able to sustain 4.5Ghz - 4.625Ghz kept locking up while mining tSPR. I'll mine a bunch and then give them out, and make some MNs, of course.

Screenshot (modified spreadcoin-qt, NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/miner/spreadcoinwalletminer.png

Also, is anyone else getting the wallet whacked by the OOM killer while mining using it?

EDIT: Scratch that, forgot to free some stuff in my SIMD code. Come to think of it, I should just put that on the stack...

That's 10X better than the i5@2.6GH/s in my laptop.  :P

What do you get with the stock miner on the same machine?

220kh/s - 230kh/s. It's just a rough hack job on the code, swapping out the terrible SPH code for something better. I haven't really spent much time on it, to fine-tune it, or even replace all the algos in SpreadX11.

Well I hope you or someone as good as you at this stuff releases a better CPU in-wallet miner then, that would provide a meaningful jump in nethash and decentralisation for Spread.

Depending on the CPU's capabilities, it can probably get more than 3x or even 4x better. I'm just lazy.

How much would it cost to unlazy you and to release it to the public?

idk, you offering?

Also, finally finished setting up my MNs in such a way as to test the masternode limit. I mined every coin :D

(NSFW): https://ottrbutt.com/tmp/spreadmntest.png

I went from 100 to 200, in increments of 5 - each MN should be kicked in turn.

I honestly don't know a fair rate for such a thing.

I suspect at this point you have a lot of SPR and that it would be in your best interest for such code to be released to the general public.

How much would make it worth your while?

I might do it if I have time for 1.25 BTC or so (meaning you'd pay me if/when I complete it), but it wouldn't be a priority.

What kind of improvements would you guarantee for 1.25 btc?

Hard to gauge with CPU unless you define a platform.

For the 1.25 btc, would you go through and optimize each of the SpreadX11 algorithms?

Myself? No - there are already implementations out there; the hard part is understanding them - you have to get it to modify them for SpreadX11.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 09, 2015, 03:04:18 am
Those of you that are miners (I am not) would having wolf0's optimized CPU miner make any real difference in the overall network hashrate?  Would it even be worth using or would you be expecting a block once a month kind of thing?

Depends on the number of CPU miners, and their CPUs. The IRC bot tells me my CPU, with this current, half done miner, would mine ~1.22 SPR/day.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: jjjordan on February 09, 2015, 03:10:58 am
I've found couple of blocks that are above 70-71-72 SPR. Is that normal?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 09, 2015, 03:16:40 am
Mr. Spread or anyone for that matter (wolf0?) if you can spare large quantities of tSPR, send them my way please:

n3AqT2ugzLdQtZGo5t8wfnqb5mrSbE97yk
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 09, 2015, 03:24:14 am
Mr. Spread or anyone for that matter (wolf0?) if you can spare large quantities of tSPR, send them my way please:

n3AqT2ugzLdQtZGo5t8wfnqb5mrSbE97yk

I don't have large quantities, but I'll send you ~1.45k, and more as I get it.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MemoryShock on February 09, 2015, 03:28:38 am
Mr. Spread or anyone for that matter (wolf0?) if you can spare large quantities of tSPR, send them my way please:

n3AqT2ugzLdQtZGo5t8wfnqb5mrSbE97yk

Sent you what I have left out side of 13 MN's...(since what I have is mostly what you sent me).
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 09, 2015, 03:44:21 am
Guys, everyone here should have 50+ masternodes.  They really have very little overhead at this point and we need to get to 1440.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 09, 2015, 03:45:08 am
Guys, everyone here should have 50+ masternodes.  They really have very little overhead at this point and we need to get to 1440.

But... you just asked for our tSPR...  :P
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 09, 2015, 03:48:56 am
Hahah.  Well, I didn't want ALL of it  ;D

If you need some back to setup more, I'm happy to send it your way.

At this point my main computer has well over 130 masternodes and it could care less.  Everyone should be running a boatload of these things.

As Mr. Spread adds more functionality in the future that won't work, but for now it sure does.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 09, 2015, 03:50:46 am
Hahah.  Well, I didn't want ALL of it  ;D

If you need some back to setup more, I'm happy to send it your way.

At this point my main computer has well over 130 masternodes and it could care less.  Everyone should be running a boatload of these things.

As Mr. Spread adds more functionality in the future that won't work, but for now it sure does.

No worries, I'll mine some more.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 09, 2015, 04:02:39 am
What would help is for the ones running MN over 200 to break them up into smaller ones. Especially the ones running in the thousands in a MN.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: minerpage on February 09, 2015, 04:20:53 am
What would help is for the ones running MN over 200 to break them up into smaller ones. Especially the ones running in the thousands in a MN.

I've been having a (little bit of a) hard time with the big amounts received being automatically used for a MN... I define smaller ones but the big number still stays (even when I don;t activate the MN, it's still in there)... I guess it takes a while for it to be voted out...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 09, 2015, 04:42:06 am
What would help is for the ones running MN over 200 to break them up into smaller ones. Especially the ones running in the thousands in a MN.

I've been having a (little bit of a) hard time with the big amounts received being automatically used for a MN... I define smaller ones but the big number still stays (even when I don;t activate the MN, it's still in there)... I guess it takes a while for it to be voted out...

You can go in the coin control section of the wallet and seperate it there.

(http://s2.postimg.org/k23908d0p/Capture.png)

You can see here how I have my 1,000 coin MN checked to assign it into different values. It used to be at 2,000

I had to do that when I had a large amount sent to me.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MemoryShock on February 09, 2015, 04:47:06 am
Guys, everyone here should have 50+ masternodes.  They really have very little overhead at this point and we need to get to 1440.

I think that having a wider range of people might aid in the testing (not sure if that is a valid point).

I think we will get there...half way already. 

We should also be encouraging the use of the faucet site for testing purposes...it's an MN a minute if one uses a different address every time.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 09, 2015, 04:49:18 am
While I agree the more testers the merrier, sometimes it's a small group of people that have to step up and be the early adopters and make shit happen :)

In time, I'm sure we'll have lots of testers.  But right now, there's not that many of us.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MemoryShock on February 09, 2015, 04:56:19 am
While I agree the more testers the merrier, sometimes it's a small group of people that have to step up and be the early adopters and make shit happen :)

In time, I'm sure we'll have lots of testers.  But right now, there's not that many of us.

Fair enough...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: minerpage on February 09, 2015, 04:56:23 am
What would help is for the ones running MN over 200 to break them up into smaller ones. Especially the ones running in the thousands in a MN.

I've been having a (little bit of a) hard time with the big amounts received being automatically used for a MN... I define smaller ones but the big number still stays (even when I don;t activate the MN, it's still in there)... I guess it takes a while for it to be voted out...

You can go in the coin control section of the wallet and seperate it there.

(http://s2.postimg.org/k23908d0p/Capture.png)

You can see here how I have my 1,000 coin MN checked to assign it into different values. It used to be at 2,000

I had to do that when I had a large amount sent to me.

Ah... ok... that worked...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 09, 2015, 05:33:16 am
I have 187 masternodes on one computer and 50 on another.

So yeah, start adding to your masternode count, folks :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: xojex on February 09, 2015, 05:35:20 am
I have 187 masternodes on one computer and 50 on another.

So yeah, start adding to your masternode count, folks :)

If we receive tSPR from the faucet, do we still need to send them to ourself again?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MemoryShock on February 09, 2015, 06:02:48 am
I have 187 masternodes on one computer and 50 on another.

So yeah, start adding to your masternode count, folks :)

If we receive tSPR from the faucet, do we still need to send them to ourself again?

Nope. 

Just create a new address and resubmit to the faucet until the limit is reached.  All received transactions equal to or in excess of 100 will eventually confirm into a Masternode.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: jjjordan on February 09, 2015, 06:06:40 am
I just fucked up all my masternodes... more than a 100 of them
Single transaction.

Details:
The wallet they were running on held the "escrow".
5 addresses (adr1 - 5)
But the same wallet was on another PC, both PCes mining.
Not on a single address though. I was creating MNs on PC1 only.
On PC2 I transfered everything available to adr1 and then all MNs were sacked.

I guess this is not a normal behavior, but it's good to know...


EDIT: btw, the miningprivkey=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx doesn't work in spreadcoin.conf.
Not on my PCes anyway... I might be missing something...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 09, 2015, 08:16:05 am
Well the election process seems to be taking longer than last time. Due to more MNs or something Mr Spread changed I don't know, but if it's like this on mainnet it's going to make picking your MN collateral 'price' interesting - get it too low and you could have wasted a day or two...  :-X
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MemoryShock on February 09, 2015, 08:23:50 am
Well the election process seems to be taking longer than last time. Due to more MNs or something Mr Spread changed I don't know, but if it's like this on mainnet it's going to make picking your MN collateral 'price' interesting - get it too low and you could have wasted a day or two...  :-X

We have 800 MN's in less than 24 hours.  It took longer than 24 hours for 300 MN's to be established last time...if I am not mistaken...

Not sure how this applies to mainnet but I think we do have our stress test. 

I hate to say it because I appreciate elbandi's work but the faucet might have actually slowed down the test process.  We have definite stress interest and what seems to be a slow and steady stream of tSPR (or is that relevant?)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 09, 2015, 08:31:15 am
Well the election process seems to be taking longer than last time. Due to more MNs or something Mr Spread changed I don't know, but if it's like this on mainnet it's going to make picking your MN collateral 'price' interesting - get it too low and you could have wasted a day or two...  :-X

We have 800 MN's in less than 24 hours.  It took longer than 24 hours for 300 MN's to be established last time...if I am not mistaken...

Not sure how this applies to mainnet but I think we do have our stress test. 

I hate to say it because I appreciate elbandi's work but the faucet might have actually slowed down the test process.  We have definite stress interest and what seems to be a slow and steady stream of tSPR (or is that relevant?)

Yeah I wasn't complaining, just an observation. And I agree, if elbandi could remove (or increase) the faucet limits it would help speed things up a bit.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: zmija on February 09, 2015, 09:04:34 am
Hi, maybe a noob question but i still don't know how can i start masternode? I've mined around 1300 SPR and what do i do with this coins to start masternode? Thx :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: duboisi on February 09, 2015, 10:16:33 am
Just send at least 100 tSPR to your own wallet address, after 50 confirmation, yr wallet address will show up in MN list, then just check the box in "Control" column. Wait for it to be elected (about 3+hr after you check the "Control").
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: SatoshisLiver on February 09, 2015, 10:41:18 am
in round 2 it seems to take forever for my MN's to get elected.
started some MN 9 hours ago and they still not online.
in round 1 it needed 3-4hours here.

...as far as I can see - the higher SPR amount MN's are preferd to elected first - right?

edit. btw. theres a 41.000 tSPR MN at the moment...  :o ???
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: elbandi on February 09, 2015, 11:21:01 am
Yeah I wasn't complaining, just an observation. And I agree, if elbandi could remove (or increase) the faucet limits it would help speed things up a bit.
What is the current mn limit? max mn, minimum coin for one mn, etc?

I set the limit, because there are bad guys (bct trolls), who may empty the faucet...

But i can increase or disable the limits, if you want.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: zmija on February 09, 2015, 11:59:08 am
Just send at least 100 tSPR to your own wallet address, after 50 confirmation, yr wallet address will show up in MN list, then just check the box in "Control" column. Wait for it to be elected (about 3+hr after you check the "Control").
Thx and it's working now thx again :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 09, 2015, 12:04:07 pm
Nice, I see 872 MNs with 87 elected ones, not bad for just the few hours we have been testing.
Good job everyone

I am saving the getinfo and mnlist every 30 sec to explore change over time.

One thing I observed is that in the mnlist no mn ever shows running=true, even when elected=true, they never say running=true.

So what exactly does "running" mean?

Also, all my mns with 160 SPR or a little higher have been elected, but all my mns with close to 100 SPR (about half of my MNs) are still not elected (they have been running more than 12 hours)...

This is a good thing, I suppose...  :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 09, 2015, 01:20:42 pm
Also, all my mns with 160 SPR or a little higher have been elected, but all my mns with close to 100 SPR (about half of my MNs) are still not elected (they have been running more than 12 hours)...

This is a good thing, I suppose...  :)
Same, my MN with 151 tSPR or higher have been elected.  I have a ton below that which have not.  Whether that is good or not, I don't know as they've been running for more than 10 hours now.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 09, 2015, 01:25:28 pm
41,319 tSPR in one MN.

Come on all. Separate some out or send some to those willing to to start more. We need to get this thing up to 1,440 MN so the real test can begin.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 09, 2015, 01:48:12 pm
41,319 tSPR in one MN.

Come on all. Separate some out or send some to those willing to to start more. We need to get this thing up to 1,440 MN so the real test can begin.

Indeed, but then again... we have 100k new coins every day ... so tSPR supply shouldn't be a problem.
And it looks like the very cheap mns (lower than 150 tSPR) take a long long time to be elected.

I suggest that people refrain from installing 100er mns and instead install atleast 151er mns.
See MyFarms and my previous post.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 09, 2015, 01:59:08 pm
Also, all my mns with 160 SPR or a little higher have been elected, but all my mns with close to 100 SPR (about half of my MNs) are still not elected (they have been running more than 12 hours)...

This is a good thing, I suppose...  :)
Same, my MN with 151 tSPR or higher have been elected.  I have a ton below that which have not.  Whether that is good or not, I don't know as they've been running for more than 10 hours now.

If I sort by the "elected nodes" not a single one has <= 150 tSPR...

strange.. I hope it just takes longer for them to be elected (which would be a good thing) and that this is not a bug!
It is kinda strange that it looks like a hard limit at 150 tSPR. Why exactly 150? Why not something more random?

Mr. Spread?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 09, 2015, 02:17:16 pm
woohoo, we have lost about 100 mns in the last few minutes... I guess someone got rid of his 100er mns, and wants to turn them into 151er mns.  ;D
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 09, 2015, 02:24:24 pm
Nice, I see 872 MNs with 87 elected ones, not bad for just the few hours we have been testing.
Good job everyone

I am saving the getinfo and mnlist every 30 sec to explore change over time.

One thing I observed is that in the mnlist no mn ever shows running=true, even when elected=true, they never say running=true.

So what exactly does "running" mean?

Also, all my mns with 160 SPR or a little higher have been elected, but all my mns with close to 100 SPR (about half of my MNs) are still not elected (they have been running more than 12 hours)...

This is a good thing, I suppose...  :)

My own say "running" : true, all others, false.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 09, 2015, 02:26:35 pm
Nice, I see 872 MNs with 87 elected ones, not bad for just the few hours we have been testing.
Good job everyone

I am saving the getinfo and mnlist every 30 sec to explore change over time.

One thing I observed is that in the mnlist no mn ever shows running=true, even when elected=true, they never say running=true.

So what exactly does "running" mean?

Also, all my mns with 160 SPR or a little higher have been elected, but all my mns with close to 100 SPR (about half of my MNs) are still not elected (they have been running more than 12 hours)...

This is a good thing, I suppose...  :)

My own say "running" : true, all others, false.

Ah, I see...

I have a wallet and a daemon running side by side using different ports and datadir, and the daemon does't have any mns running, only the wallet.
I use the daemon to run the mnlist script, that's why I didn't see that the mns running in my wallet have running=true too!

You are right, they have!
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 09, 2015, 02:32:41 pm
Nice, I see 872 MNs with 87 elected ones, not bad for just the few hours we have been testing.
Good job everyone

I am saving the getinfo and mnlist every 30 sec to explore change over time.

One thing I observed is that in the mnlist no mn ever shows running=true, even when elected=true, they never say running=true.

So what exactly does "running" mean?

Also, all my mns with 160 SPR or a little higher have been elected, but all my mns with close to 100 SPR (about half of my MNs) are still not elected (they have been running more than 12 hours)...

This is a good thing, I suppose...  :)

My own say "running" : true, all others, false.

So they say running=true even before they are elected=true, right?

I wonder how fast they changed to running=true after I checked the box.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: jjjordan on February 09, 2015, 03:18:33 pm
I just fucked up all my masternodes... more than a 100 of them
Single transaction.

Details:
The wallet they were running on held the "escrow".
5 addresses (adr1 - 5)
But the same wallet was on another PC, both PCes mining.
Not on a single address though. I was creating MNs on PC1 only.
On PC2 I transfered everything available to adr1 and then all MNs were sacked.

I guess this is not a normal behavior, but it's good to know...


EDIT: btw, the miningprivkey=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx doesn't work in spreadcoin.conf.
Not on my PCes anyway... I might be missing something...

Nobody has answered yet...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: GilAlexander on February 09, 2015, 03:52:03 pm
Also, all my mns with 160 SPR or a little higher have been elected, but all my mns with close to 100 SPR (about half of my MNs) are still not elected (they have been running more than 12 hours)...

This is a good thing, I suppose...  :)
Same, my MN with 151 tSPR or higher have been elected.  I have a ton below that which have not.  Whether that is good or not, I don't know as they've been running for more than 10 hours now.

If I sort by the "elected nodes" not a single one has <= 150 tSPR...

strange.. I hope it just takes longer for them to be elected (which would be a good thing) and that this is not a bug!
It is kinda strange that it looks like a hard limit at 150 tSPR. Why exactly 150? Why not something more random?

Mr. Spread?

My masternodes are 150.13370xx (cause I'm script-kiddie), looks that masternodes are elected gradually from the strongest to weakest - there are lots of 0% votes on upper and lower masternodes and my masternodes have some % now. If so, they are gonna be elected soon.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: frater.ud on February 09, 2015, 04:01:33 pm
Hello everyone.

Just started mining on testnet.   Only have 4 cores going but should be going solid.

If anyone wants to send some test spread to setup more masternodes, im here to help out.  ;)

mypqm7fsfhYsVxhAX6cbSVKa12bZMwBHgf
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 09, 2015, 04:40:35 pm
So what exactly does "running" mean?
Running in this client (from which you are requesting mnlist). It is equivalent of the checkbox in masternodes page.

Also, all my mns with 160 SPR or a little higher have been elected, but all my mns with close to 100 SPR (about half of my MNs) are still not elected (they have been running more than 12 hours)...

This is a good thing, I suppose...  :)
Same, my MN with 151 tSPR or higher have been elected.  I have a ton below that which have not.  Whether that is good or not, I don't know as they've been running for more than 10 hours now.

If I sort by the "elected nodes" not a single one has <= 150 tSPR...

strange.. I hope it just takes longer for them to be elected (which would be a good thing) and that this is not a bug!
It is kinda strange that it looks like a hard limit at 150 tSPR. Why exactly 150? Why not something more random?

Mr. Spread?
I guess that's because someone launched a lot of masternodes with a bit more than 150 tSPR. Masternodes with more amount are elected first.

I just fucked up all my masternodes... more than a 100 of them
Single transaction.

Details:
The wallet they were running on held the "escrow".
5 addresses (adr1 - 5)
But the same wallet was on another PC, both PCes mining.
Not on a single address though. I was creating MNs on PC1 only.
On PC2 I transfered everything available to adr1 and then all MNs were sacked.

I guess this is not a normal behavior, but it's good to know...


EDIT: btw, the miningprivkey=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx doesn't work in spreadcoin.conf.
Not on my PCes anyway... I might be missing something...
It is generally not normal to have several instances of the same wallet. You can turn on coin control features (Settings -> Options -> Display), then go to Send -> Inputs, right click on your inputs and select "Lock unspent", this way you will not accidentally spend them. On the computer where you are running your masternodes these inputs are automatically locked.

I will test miningprivkey, it should work.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 09, 2015, 04:44:50 pm
So they say running=true even before they are elected=true, right?

I wonder how fast they changed to running=true after I checked the box.

Yes, when I fired them all up on my VPS with the 'mnstart=....' lines in the conf they were all "running" straight away.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 09, 2015, 04:45:13 pm
Net hashrate went up on testnet, so I fiddled with the CPU miner some more to compensate - 650kh/s now!  ;D
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: jjjordan on February 09, 2015, 04:50:59 pm
Is it better to have my wallet on multiple computers with a 100 MNs,
or is it better to have two different wallets with 50 each?

By better I mean for the network in general. It's way easier to multiply a wallet,
rather than creating multiple sets of wallets/MNs...

EDIT:
Mr. Spread, I might continue with duplicate wallets for testnet, but will create multiple for mainnet.
(when MNs are available)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 09, 2015, 05:05:10 pm
121 / 901 MNs  8)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 09, 2015, 05:13:33 pm
Also, all my mns with 160 SPR or a little higher have been elected, but all my mns with close to 100 SPR (about half of my MNs) are still not elected (they have been running more than 12 hours)...

This is a good thing, I suppose...  :)
Same, my MN with 151 tSPR or higher have been elected.  I have a ton below that which have not.  Whether that is good or not, I don't know as they've been running for more than 10 hours now.

If I sort by the "elected nodes" not a single one has <= 150 tSPR...

strange.. I hope it just takes longer for them to be elected (which would be a good thing) and that this is not a bug!
It is kinda strange that it looks like a hard limit at 150 tSPR. Why exactly 150? Why not something more random?

Mr. Spread?

I guess that's because someone launched a lot of masternodes with a bit more than 150 tSPR. Masternodes with more amount are elected first.


Not sure about that.
We have about 650 MNs with <= 150,
and only about 250 MNs with > 150...

500 MNs are even <=125...

It's just strange that not a single 100er MN has been elected yet, not even the ones running for nearly 24 hours now...

hmmm... can we assume that all higher MNs will have to be elected first BEFORE the lower MNs are even CONSIDERED for election? Is that how it works?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 09, 2015, 05:31:25 pm
If anyone has large quantities of SPR for me to give to others, please send it to: n3AqT2ugzLdQtZGo5t8wfnqb5mrSbE97yk
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: GilAlexander on February 09, 2015, 06:14:22 pm
If anyone want me to support his masternodes 24/7 from vps, pm me your mnsecrets.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: kiindje on February 09, 2015, 06:38:26 pm
If anyone want me to support their masternodes 24/7 from vps, pm me your mnsecrets.

i have about 20mn's total

but can't run em 24/7

how do i make mnsecret?

i'd be very interested in using your service for this
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 09, 2015, 06:38:49 pm
If anyone want me to support their masternodes 24/7 from vps, pm me your mnsecrets.
Does giving someone your mnsecret create a security issue?  Or is possible to setup a VPS hosting service for mainnet for masternodes where people just have to give you the mnsecret?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 09, 2015, 06:39:36 pm
Mr. Spread, how hard would it be to release a new build with 666 or 6666 tSPR per block?  It's infuriating not being able to do much for lack of tSPR.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: GilAlexander on February 09, 2015, 06:43:14 pm
Does giving someone your mnsecret create a security issue?
No. Only if there is vulnerability.

Or is possible to setup a VPS hosting service for mainnet for masternodes where people just have to give you the mnsecret?
Yes. There are some for darkcoin masternodes.

The next question is how this affects on centralization - you may run any count of masternodes from one vps...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 09, 2015, 06:51:12 pm
The next question is how this affects on centralization - you may run any count of masternodes from one vps...

This is a valid concern, however I would question whether it makes any real difference if you are running 10 MNs on one VPS or 1 MN each on 10 VPS's with the same provider - it's quite likely that they are all running on the same physical box anyway, the latter way just costs you 10 times more.

With Spread not requiring a static IP, a lot of people are going to be running tham from home, which purely from a decentralisation perspective might well be far better than Darkcoin's current situation of 90% of Masternodes being on the same 3 providers.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 09, 2015, 06:56:48 pm
Mr. Spread, see the masternode addresses here:

(http://i.imgur.com/yijy22q.png)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 09, 2015, 07:13:02 pm
138 / 1011
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: GilAlexander on February 09, 2015, 07:14:40 pm
With Spread not requiring a static IP, a lot of people are going to be running tham from home
That's good, but.. how many people will run them 24\7 from home? And it takes too long to be elected.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 09, 2015, 07:21:48 pm
With Spread not requiring a static IP, a lot of people are going to be running tham from home
That's good, but.. how many people will run them 24\7 from home? And it takes too long to be elected.

I will. I have a fast enough line at home...
But I will also run a few remote servers in datacenters.

I love the decentralization aspect of running a homeserver.

Also, at the moment It looks like a server also takes too long to be elected IF it has too little SPR in it. Has not really much to do with how fast your connection is.
I don't see ANY mn with <=150 spr being elected yet. Not a single one.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 09, 2015, 07:26:48 pm
138 / 1011
I think that count is high.  See my screenshot above.  Something is weird as it looks like multiple masternodes have the same address.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: GilAlexander on February 09, 2015, 07:27:46 pm
I don't see ANY mn with <=150 spr being elected yet. Not a single one.
That's because my mns bribed the whole electorate.  8)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 09, 2015, 07:30:15 pm
138 / 1011
I think that count is high.  See my screenshot above.  Something is weird as it looks like multiple masternodes have the same address.

This is allowed and poses no problem.

Look for the address mgCE3B.... there are two elected mns with the same address.
So no problem there I think.

I guess it really is the case that the small money MNs will have to wait their turn until the high money MNs have finished first.  8)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 09, 2015, 07:56:52 pm
138 / 1011
I think that count is high.  See my screenshot above.  Something is weird as it looks like multiple masternodes have the same address.

Those are some of mine, I haven't given each one its own address this time.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 10, 2015, 01:26:28 am
Someone just sent me 12000 tSPR.  If you need coins, let me know the specific amount you want!
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 10, 2015, 01:31:15 am
Someone just sent me 12000 tSPR.  If you need coins, let me know the specific amount you want!

I can set up as many MNs as you can spare the tSPR for on one of my servers in very short order...

edit: mtbY7eFf9yGQ8xYYPDfwoF3XceUVznfbcf

edit2: thanks! Expect another 50 odd @ 152 tSPR each in 50ish blocks from now :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 10, 2015, 01:33:06 am
Someone just sent me 12000 tSPR.  If you need coins, let me know the specific amount you want!

I can set up as many MNs as you can spare the tSPR for on one of my servers in very short order...

edit: mtbY7eFf9yGQ8xYYPDfwoF3XceUVznfbcf
Sent
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: pokeytex on February 10, 2015, 01:42:43 am
Someone just sent me 12000 tSPR.  If you need coins, let me know the specific amount you want!

I can set up as many MNs as you can spare the tSPR for on one of my servers in very short order...

edit: mtbY7eFf9yGQ8xYYPDfwoF3XceUVznfbcf
Sent

Send me 2500 tSPR if you can - I can set up more

moE1YXn5dkDmM8rC37iN4cB3ANxyihRQ9Z
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 10, 2015, 01:49:21 am
Someone just sent me 12000 tSPR.  If you need coins, let me know the specific amount you want!

I can set up as many MNs as you can spare the tSPR for on one of my servers in very short order...

edit: mtbY7eFf9yGQ8xYYPDfwoF3XceUVznfbcf
Sent

Send me 2500 tSPR if you can - I can set up more

moE1YXn5dkDmM8rC37iN4cB3ANxyihRQ9Z
Sent
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: pokeytex on February 10, 2015, 01:53:00 am
Someone just sent me 12000 tSPR.  If you need coins, let me know the specific amount you want!

I can set up as many MNs as you can spare the tSPR for on one of my servers in very short order...

edit: mtbY7eFf9yGQ8xYYPDfwoF3XceUVznfbcf
Sent

Send me 2500 tSPR if you can - I can set up more

moE1YXn5dkDmM8rC37iN4cB3ANxyihRQ9Z
Sent

ty
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: mrcashking on February 10, 2015, 03:22:33 am
someone send 2000 if you have some extra. Im going to setup 20 more. 

mjFZejLNeTDtmneFrMRBRPfjNKSciE4SqD
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 10, 2015, 03:32:58 am
I only had 400 left which I sent.  Hopefully someone else can top you off.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 10, 2015, 03:41:51 am
Mr. Spread, how hard would it be to release a new build with 666 or 6666 tSPR per block?  It's infuriating not being able to do much for lack of tSPR.
It just takes some time for masternode to become elected because of the long queue. There are already 1263 masternodes and 220 elected ones.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 10, 2015, 03:46:55 am
someone send 2000 if you have some extra. Im going to setup 20 more. 

mjFZejLNeTDtmneFrMRBRPfjNKSciE4SqD

Sent you 1600: efd57b1f63bea93ee89aa220d2acaecb8e4151399d42f2404a6af49263748f7f

Anyone else need some?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: girino on February 10, 2015, 03:47:03 am
Found some strange issue on this test version, maybe a bug, when using "getinfo":

Code: [Select]
girino@vps1:~/git/spreadcoin/src$ ./spreadcoind getinfo
error: {"code":-1,"message":"map::at"}

other commands seem to work correctly.

(using linux, ubuntu 14.04, compiled with GCC 4.8.2)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 10, 2015, 03:53:12 am
Found some strange issue on this test version, maybe a bug, when using "getinfo":

Code: [Select]
girino@vps1:~/git/spreadcoin/src$ ./spreadcoind getinfo
error: {"code":-1,"message":"map::at"}

other commands seem to work correctly.

(using linux, ubuntu 14.04, compiled with GCC 4.8.2)

Same here, I think GilAlexander reported it too.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 10, 2015, 03:59:11 am
I think we should aim for 1600+ masternodes to account for any that fall off of home connections.

Keep adding folks :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 10, 2015, 04:17:16 am
Mr. Spread, how hard would it be to release a new build with 666 or 6666 tSPR per block?  It's infuriating not being able to do much for lack of tSPR.
It just takes some time for masternode to become elected because of the long queue. There are already 1263 masternodes and 220 elected ones.
I guess this is the tradeoff for having a reliable blockchain based voting / payment system. Just takes time to accumulate those votes.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 10, 2015, 04:50:46 am
Mr. Spread, how hard would it be to release a new build with 666 or 6666 tSPR per block?  It's infuriating not being able to do much for lack of tSPR.
It just takes some time for masternode to become elected because of the long queue. There are already 1263 masternodes and 220 elected ones.
I guess this is the tradeoff for having a reliable blockchain based voting / payment system. Just takes time to accumulate those votes.
Are you having to recode your MN Warbots?  :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mikolo on February 10, 2015, 09:41:35 am
What does "Score" mean?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: frater.ud on February 10, 2015, 10:40:26 am
Thank you for the 1000 tspread. Have setup multiple MNs and will await confirmations.

I see masternode payments are now scheduled and many elected.  Will be interesting to see how the drop offs work.
Am I correct that the top 1000 nodes will recieve payments and the lower valued nodes will drop off?

Will this be all tested on testnet first with our meager cpu mining hash lol if so sounds like fun.

Here's a new address if you guys would like me to set up some more masternodes.
mn2sqUEmDPzkCwfq9FvG4WjnY2i7z7bzkM

Very good work Mr. Spread. Wallet runs exceptional and clean. No bugs I can find yet, on Win7 ultimate 64 bit.


Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: duboisi on February 10, 2015, 01:44:51 pm
What does "Score" mean?
"How masternodes are elected?
Each node monitor the network and assign scores to each masternode. This scores depend on how well masternodes provide their services, for instant transactions this will be time delay between transaction and its confimation by masternode. Since there may be no transactions and only elected masternodes will confirm transactions there is an empty service - each masternode will broadcast messages signining certain blocks to prove that it is running. Miners will include votes in their blocks. Votes can either be positive (elect not yet elected masternode) or negative (deelect already elected masternode). If masternode has more than 30 positive votes in the last 60 blocks then it is added to the list of elected masternodes. If masternode has more then 30 negative votes in the last 60 blocks then it is removed from the list of elected masternodes. Note that it is possible to determine which masternodes were elected at each particular block."
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 10, 2015, 01:46:43 pm
Cool, mn payments have started...
and they are also 10x the amount, so it should make it easy for all of us to finish the job.

we are at 339 / 1476

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 10, 2015, 01:54:09 pm
What does "Score" mean?
"How masternodes are elected?
Each node monitor the network and assign scores to each masternode. This scores depend on how well masternodes provide their services, for instant transactions this will be time delay between transaction and its confimation by masternode. Since there may be no transactions and only elected masternodes will confirm transactions there is an empty service - each masternode will broadcast messages signining certain blocks to prove that it is running. Miners will include votes in their blocks. Votes can either be positive (elect not yet elected masternode) or negative (deelect already elected masternode). If masternode has more than 30 positive votes in the last 60 blocks then it is added to the list of elected masternodes. If masternode has more then 30 negative votes in the last 60 blocks then it is removed from the list of elected masternodes. Note that it is possible to determine which masternodes were elected at each particular block."

So the next question is: how many votes can fit in a block?
What will happen if we change that to...

Quote
If masternode has more than 60 positive votes in the last 120 blocks...

I am just trying to find out if this is a possible bottleneck or not...
Because we still haven't got any <=150er mns elected, although there have been about 750 such mns waiting for a long time....
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 10, 2015, 01:54:23 pm
Mr. Spread, how hard would it be to release a new build with 666 or 6666 tSPR per block?  It's infuriating not being able to do much for lack of tSPR.
It just takes some time for masternode to become elected because of the long queue. There are already 1263 masternodes and 220 elected ones.
I guess this is the tradeoff for having a reliable blockchain based voting / payment system. Just takes time to accumulate those votes.
Are you having to recode your MN Warbots?  :)

Yep.  :D

My initial model was based on a much quicker MN activation assumption. The most profitable strategy seemed to be to launch as many low collateral MNs as possible and roll them into fewer, higher collateral MNs as the minimum price increased. However with it taking days for MNs to acquire enough votes to get elected and start receiving payments, it would seem to make more sense to launch fewer high value MNs to start with and keep a percentage of available SPR purely for torpedoing the competition.

People running MNs from home on a dynamic IP are going to have a hard time if it takes 3 days to start earning and their ISP effectively resets their votes by assigning them a new IP twice a week...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 10, 2015, 02:11:07 pm
Is it possible that the "high powered" mns keep voting each other (good and bad votes) and filling up all available votes per block, so that all lower mns will not have the slightest change of EVER placing a vote in a block?

If an mn is already elected, does it keep receiving good votes in the blocks, or only possibly negative ones if ever.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 10, 2015, 02:59:47 pm
Is it possible that the "high powered" mns keep voting each other (good and bad votes) and filling up all available votes per block, so that all lower mns will not have the slightest change of EVER placing a vote in a block?

If an mn is already elected, does it keep receiving good votes in the blocks, or only possibly negative ones if ever.

If someone who groks c++ could look at the code and draw a diagram for idiots like me of exactly how it works that would be great.  ;D

InstantX seems to be back in action, I'm getting Masternode confirmations straight away again, albeit not quite so many as last time.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 10, 2015, 03:11:44 pm
Is it possible that the "high powered" mns keep voting each other (good and bad votes) and filling up all available votes per block, so that all lower mns will not have the slightest change of EVER placing a vote in a block?

If an mn is already elected, does it keep receiving good votes in the blocks, or only possibly negative ones if ever.

If someone who groks c++ could look at the code and draw a diagram for idiots like me of exactly how it works that would be great.  ;D

InstantX seems to be back in action, I'm getting Masternode confirmations straight away again, albeit not quite so many as last time.

Maybe start with a blockchain byte chart... Dissecting the blockchain byte by byte....
I don't know much about C++, but I like to fire up my trusty HEX Editor once in a while...

I will start a new thread....
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 10, 2015, 04:12:44 pm
I was laying in bed last night and a concern arose.

At present, we are seeing around 150 masternodes be elected per day.  For testing, this means we're looking at another 7-8 days before they are elected and competition begins.  However, once someone puts up a higher value masternode, will it take 10 days for it to become unelected and drop off and get paid the whole time?  And are we looking at 18 days just to test this?

I understand the need for a slower election process, but I worry this is too slow for mainnet as well.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 10, 2015, 04:17:08 pm
I was laying in bed last night and a concern arose.

At present, we are seeing around 150 masternodes be elected per day.  For testing, this means we're looking at another 7-8 days before they are elected and competition begins.  However, once someone puts up a higher value masternode, will it take 10 days for it to become unelected and drop off and get paid the whole time?  And are we looking at 18 days just to test this?

I understand the need for a slower election process, but I worry this is too slow for mainnet as well.

I think the goal of this test Round 2 is to find out what could be made better next time.
I agree that the way the voting happens at the moment gives me the impression that we have some kind of bottleneck problem, that even threatens to sabotage the whole competitive game we were supposed to have with the masternodes. What good is competition when mns with more SPR get treated much better than the rest?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 10, 2015, 04:33:55 pm
I was laying in bed last night and a concern arose.

At present, we are seeing around 150 masternodes be elected per day.  For testing, this means we're looking at another 7-8 days before they are elected and competition begins.  However, once someone puts up a higher value masternode, will it take 10 days for it to become unelected and drop off and get paid the whole time?  And are we looking at 18 days just to test this?

I understand the need for a slower election process, but I worry this is too slow for mainnet as well.

I think the goal of this test Round 2 is to find out what could be made better next time.
I agree that the way the voting happens at the moment gives me the impression that we have some kind of bottleneck problem, that even threatens to sabotage the whole competitive game we were supposed to have with the masternodes. What good is competition when mns with more SPR get treated much better than the rest?

I don't mind them getting treated a little better such as getting elected first like they are now, but they shouldn't get THIS big of a headstart.  A 7+ day payment headstart over lower masternodes is way too much.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 10, 2015, 05:26:10 pm
EDIT: btw, the miningprivkey=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx doesn't work in spreadcoin.conf.
Not on my PCes anyway... I might be missing something...
Are you sure you set up everything correctly? datadir is SpreadTest2Coin and config name is spreadcoin.conf.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 10, 2015, 05:30:17 pm
I was laying in bed last night and a concern arose.

At present, we are seeing around 150 masternodes be elected per day.  For testing, this means we're looking at another 7-8 days before they are elected and competition begins.  However, once someone puts up a higher value masternode, will it take 10 days for it to become unelected and drop off and get paid the whole time?  And are we looking at 18 days just to test this?

I understand the need for a slower election process, but I worry this is too slow for mainnet as well.
Electing from zero to 1440 is slow because there is a long queue of masternodes to be elected. When there will be around elected 1440 masternodes election/deelection will happen faster.

once someone puts up a higher value masternode, will it take 10 days for it to become unelected
What made you think it will take 10 days? It will happen in 1-2 hours.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 10, 2015, 06:14:21 pm
I was laying in bed last night and a concern arose.

At present, we are seeing around 150 masternodes be elected per day.

Electing from zero to 1440 is slow because there is a long queue of masternodes to be elected. When there will be around elected 1440 masternodes election/deelection will happen faster.

Does that mean 150 masternodes coin join/leave the network per day?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 10, 2015, 06:17:38 pm

Does that mean 150 masternodes coin join/leave the network per day?

Yes, I ask myself the same question.

What is the maximum possible votes we can have per day and per block?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: jjjordan on February 10, 2015, 06:59:58 pm
EDIT: btw, the miningprivkey=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx doesn't work in spreadcoin.conf.
Not on my PCes anyway... I might be missing something...
Are you sure you set up everything correctly? datadir is SpreadTest2Coin and config name is spreadcoin.conf.
Thanks, that worked. I thought spreadcoin.conf should go where wallet.dat goes in SpreadTest2Coin/testnet3/
But obviously it has to be all alone by himself (blockchain, wallet etc are in the ../testnet3/)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 10, 2015, 07:02:46 pm
EDIT: btw, the miningprivkey=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx doesn't work in spreadcoin.conf.
Not on my PCes anyway... I might be missing something...
Are you sure you set up everything correctly? datadir is SpreadTest2Coin and config name is spreadcoin.conf.
Thanks, that worked. I thought spreadcoin.conf should go where wallet.dat goes in SpreadTest2Coin/testnet3/
But obviously it has to be all alone by himself (blockchain, wallet etc are in the ../testnet3/)

You are right, the conf file has to be in the folder above, not the folder with the wallet.dat
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 10, 2015, 07:18:03 pm
Found some strange issue on this test version, maybe a bug, when using "getinfo":

Code: [Select]
girino@vps1:~/git/spreadcoin/src$ ./spreadcoind getinfo
error: {"code":-1,"message":"map::at"}

other commands seem to work correctly.

(using linux, ubuntu 14.04, compiled with GCC 4.8.2)

Same here, I think GilAlexander reported it too.
I wasn't able to reproduce it but it should be fixed in latest master.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 10, 2015, 09:17:34 pm
1600+ testnet masternodes.

Congratulations to Mr. Spread and the Spreadcoin community.  Truly amazing work!
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 10, 2015, 11:17:42 pm
395 / 1665

I am slowly starting to get rid of my 151er mns and turning them into 300er mns.

All my <=151 mns have yet to be elected, ...

so I guess I will wait some more, but will slowly start to fuse them together one by one...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 11, 2015, 03:46:02 am
I'm just wondering if there would be some value to capping the max number of masternodes visible on the masternodes tab.  It's pretty slow to load for me and, while I doubt it would happen, I could see some jerk with 50,000 SPR create 500 masternodes with a script which may cause havoc not just with tab load times but election times.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: chrysophylax on February 11, 2015, 03:58:56 am
hi guys - only just got back to the office ...

can i get as many coins as possible in the minimum transactions ( so i can setup as many masternodes as possible ) please? ...

i have no issue about how many - i will setup every one of them as i have unlimited space and internet ...

n4QHFpRyDQr9zkp6PTRpivMenktspFsoCW

tanx ...

#crysx
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 11, 2015, 04:01:11 am
chrysophylax, no coins here right now but I'll send you everything I have in the morning as I'm getting a lot of masternode payments.

Hopefully others will send you a ton too.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: chrysophylax on February 11, 2015, 04:29:16 am
chrysophylax, no coins here right now but I'll send you everything I have in the morning as I'm getting a lot of masternode payments.

Hopefully others will send you a ton too.

tanx ...

i can setup hundreds of masternodes if need be - so if the minimum is 100spr - please send me all you can in separate 100spr transactions ...

its very much appreciated ...

#crysx
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 11, 2015, 04:43:23 am
chrysophylax, no coins here right now but I'll send you everything I have in the morning as I'm getting a lot of masternode payments.

Hopefully others will send you a ton too.

tanx ...

i can setup hundreds of masternodes if need be - so if the minimum is 100spr - please send me all you can in separate 100spr transactions ...

its very much appreciated ...

#crysx

Maybe don't try to create a lot of 100er MNs, crysx... better create a lot of MNs with 200 or 300 SPR!

we have yet to see a 100er MN be elected in this test-session... but mns with higher amounts of SPR, like 200 or 300 SPR are pretty much all elected much faster...

There is something in the way MNs are put in a queue and have to wait until they are elected... and low amount MNs have to wait a looooooooooooooooooooong time for election, since higher amount MNs will always be treated with preference.

I have 10 x 151 MNs that have yet to be elected... they have been running for 36 hours now!  :(
But all my 200 and 300 SPR MNs have all been elected within 3-5 hours...  :)

But please check for yourself.... if you look at the masternode list, you will see that we have no mn elected with <=150 SPR....... yet
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 11, 2015, 05:08:54 am
chrysophylax, no coins here right now but I'll send you everything I have in the morning as I'm getting a lot of masternode payments.

Hopefully others will send you a ton too.

tanx ...

i can setup hundreds of masternodes if need be - so if the minimum is 100spr - please send me all you can in separate 100spr transactions ...

its very much appreciated ...

#crysx

Maybe don't try to create a lot of 100er MNs, crysx... better create a lot of MNs with 200 or 300 SPR!

we have yet to see a 100er MN be elected in this test-session... but mns with higher amounts of SPR, like 200 or 300 SPR are pretty much all elected much faster...

There is something in the way MNs are put in a queue and have to wait until they are elected... and low amount MNs have to wait a looooooooooooooooooooong time for election, since higher amount MNs will always be treated with preference.

I have 10 x 151 MNs that have yet to be elected... they have been running for 36 hours now!  :(
But all my 200 and 300 SPR MNs have all been elected within 3-5 hours...  :)

But please check for yourself.... if you look at the masternode list, you will see that we have no mn elected with <=150 SPR....... yet

There has been a steady stream of MN's above 150 SPR coming online, putting my 100/150 spr MN's at the back of the line.

It's quite amazing how the scoring works.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: duboisi on February 11, 2015, 06:56:06 am
I have a 160 tSPR MN which is still not Elected after 36hr plus.
The Score is 0.008...  , but I only have 11 Network Connections to my Wallet.
Is the Number of Network Connections part of the decision to queue MN to be Elected?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 11, 2015, 07:06:50 am
I have a 160 tSPR MN which is still not Elected after 36hr plus.
The Score is 0.008...  , but I only have 11 Network Connections to my Wallet.
Is the Number of Network Connections part of the decision to queue MN to be Elected?
On the masternodes tab of your wallet, hit the, "Elected" column to sort by elected masternodes.  Scroll to the end of the elected nodes and look at the SPR totals of currently unelected masternodes.  Those with more than 160 will get elected before you even if they were created after you.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: chrysophylax on February 11, 2015, 10:04:26 am
I have a 160 tSPR MN which is still not Elected after 36hr plus.
The Score is 0.008...  , but I only have 11 Network Connections to my Wallet.
Is the Number of Network Connections part of the decision to queue MN to be Elected?
On the masternodes tab of your wallet, hit the, "Elected" column to sort by elected masternodes.  Scroll to the end of the elected nodes and look at the SPR totals of currently unelected masternodes.  Those with more than 160 will get elected before you even if they were created after you.

so any amount larger than 150 will be elected quicker ...

ok - so 151spr for each transaction will be a masternode on the wallet - if im not mistaken ...

if anyone wants to send as many lots of 151spr - im more than happy to set them all up ...

at the moment - i have none :| ...

#crysx
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: duboisi on February 11, 2015, 11:08:26 am
I have a 160 tSPR MN which is still not Elected after 36hr plus.
The Score is 0.008...  , but I only have 11 Network Connections to my Wallet.
Is the Number of Network Connections part of the decision to queue MN to be Elected?
On the masternodes tab of your wallet, hit the, "Elected" column to sort by elected masternodes.  Scroll to the end of the elected nodes and look at the SPR totals of currently unelected masternodes.  Those with more than 160 will get elected before you even if they were created after you.

so any amount larger than 150 will be elected quicker ...

ok - so 151spr for each transaction will be a masternode on the wallet - if im not mistaken ...

if anyone wants to send as many lots of 151spr - im more than happy to set them all up ...

at the moment - i have none :| ...

#crysx
Last check 473 MN Elected (block height 5500), my 160 tSPR MN is queuing at 780. Even those with 200tSPR is queued at 533. If you want to get yr MN Elected within 24 hr, I estimate you need 250-275 tSPR.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: elbandi on February 11, 2015, 01:23:46 pm
Could someone test this patch?
https://github.com/spreadcoin-project/spreadcoin/pull/16

Elbandi
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: gjhiggins on February 11, 2015, 06:38:46 pm
Could someone test this patch?
https://github.com/spreadcoin-project/spreadcoin/pull/16

Doing so atm, what should I expect to see?

Cheers

Graham
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 11, 2015, 06:55:38 pm
Could someone test this patch?
https://github.com/spreadcoin-project/spreadcoin/pull/16

Elbandi
I tested it on Linux, works fine, although updating list of masternodes on Linux never was slow for me while on Windows it takes several seconds. I will test it on Wnidows to see how much faster it will be.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 11, 2015, 08:07:41 pm
Could someone test this patch?
https://github.com/spreadcoin-project/spreadcoin/pull/16

Elbandi
I tested it on Linux, works fine, although updating list of masternodes on Linux never was slow for me while on Windows it takes several seconds. I will test it on Wnidows to see how much faster it will be.
Indeed it is much faster on Windows, I will update builds soon.

Thanks to elbandi for fixing this.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 11, 2015, 08:24:27 pm
Windows version was updated, updating/sorting masternodes is now much faster:

Download
Windows-32: http://spreadcoin.net/mn2/SpreadTest2Coin32.7z
Windows-64: http://spreadcoin.net/mn2/SpreadTest2Coin64.7z
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 11, 2015, 09:46:30 pm
Windows version was updated, updating/sorting masternodes is now much faster:

Download
Windows-32: http://spreadcoin.net/mn2/SpreadTest2Coin32.7z
Windows-64: http://spreadcoin.net/mn2/SpreadTest2Coin64.7z

Is it mandatory?

Just don't want to go in holding again.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 11, 2015, 09:56:22 pm
Hurrah, I finally got a MN elected, took about 5 hrs and cost 900ish tSPR. :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: chrysophylax on February 11, 2015, 09:59:09 pm
Windows version was updated, updating/sorting masternodes is now much faster:

Download
Windows-32: http://spreadcoin.net/mn2/SpreadTest2Coin32.7z
Windows-64: http://spreadcoin.net/mn2/SpreadTest2Coin64.7z

Is it mandatory?

Just don't want to go in holding again.

if its just mn sorting in the tab thats fixed - I would highly doubt its manditory ...

#crysx
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: devlin on February 11, 2015, 10:15:03 pm
Windows version was updated, updating/sorting masternodes is now much faster:

Download
Windows-32: http://spreadcoin.net/mn2/SpreadTest2Coin32.7z
Windows-64: http://spreadcoin.net/mn2/SpreadTest2Coin64.7z

Is it mandatory?

Just don't want to go in holding again.

I downloaded new wallet and my MN remains elected (is need to select MNs again).

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 11, 2015, 10:27:44 pm
WOW!  Great job elbandi.  The masternode tab loads much faster and smoother now.

Please post your SPR address so we can tip you.

Thank you Mr. Spread for testing and releasing it so quickly.

*edit*  The sorting system and update button is much faster too.  NICE!
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 11, 2015, 10:56:42 pm
This update is not mandatory.

WOW!  Great job elbandi.  The masternode tab loads much faster and smoother now.

Please post your SPR address so we can tip you.

Thank you Mr. Spread for testing and releasing it so quickly.

*edit*  The sorting system and update button is much faster too.  NICE!
It is updated on each load and sorting, so it all the same speedup.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 11, 2015, 10:58:49 pm
Soon all my 300er MNs will be elected, votes are looking good.

I am glad I switched all my 150er MNs to 300er MNs...
Or else I would have probably waited for eternity for them to be elected.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 11, 2015, 11:06:41 pm
Mr. Spread, you're working on a new build with InstantX right now, correct?  So we shouldn't be testing the current build of InstantX?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 11, 2015, 11:28:21 pm
Mr. Spread, you're working on a new build with InstantX right now, correct?  So we shouldn't be testing the current build of InstantX?
1. Yes, I'm working on instatx.
2. You can test instantx in its current state.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: mrcashking on February 11, 2015, 11:28:32 pm
Yeah that update makes sorting and updating masternodes display super fast. haha Thanks elbandi and Mr.spread
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 11, 2015, 11:31:13 pm
This is so random.

All my 200 MN was elected before my 225 and 250 MN and the 225 and 250 still are waiting.

I have been making 5 MN of each with 25 tSPR increments.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 11, 2015, 11:45:40 pm
Don't forget to recontrol your masternodes after you update.  They get deselected.

Mr. Spread, it would be nice if the wallet remembered your last selection on those.  I forgot to recontrol mine after I restarted the wallet to upgrade.  No big deal on testnet but would be frustrating on mainnet.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 11, 2015, 11:53:42 pm

Does that mean 150 masternodes coin join/leave the network per day?

Yes, I ask myself the same question.

What is the maximum possible votes we can have per day and per block?

While proof-reading some of the posts of Mr. Spread (dissecting word by word) I found out the answer to my own question I asked two days ago:

Every block can only have a maximum of 10 votes in it.

So per day, we can on average process 14400 votes.

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 12, 2015, 12:01:26 am
If that's the case I would suggest it be changed. Getting MNs elected just takes too long. If the system is intended to be dynamic it needs to be a bit more dynamic than continental drift IMO.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 12, 2015, 12:03:20 am
Is it me or does it feel like masternode elections are starting to speed up?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 12, 2015, 12:07:07 am
If that's the case I would suggest it be changed. Getting MNs elected just takes too long. If the system is intended to be dynamic it needs to be a bit more dynamic than continental drift IMO.

Absolutely.
If we can't spread the votes fast enough then the whole competition process is in danger.

I wouldn't have any problem with it being 100 votes per block.
That would probably suffice.

LOL @ continental drift, that's EXACTLY what it feels like.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 12, 2015, 12:10:30 am
Is it me or does it feel like masternode elections are starting to speed up?

Not really. Still... not a single <150er MN has been elected yet.

It may look like we get more elections now, because people are getting fed up with all the waiting time, and are starting to fuse their masternodes into bigger maternodes.

I did that today, switched all my 150er mns to 300er mns. Now I have only half the mns I should have had, but atleast all of them are elected.  8)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 12, 2015, 12:14:38 am
If that's the case I would suggest it be changed. Getting MNs elected just takes too long. If the system is intended to be dynamic it needs to be a bit more dynamic than continental drift IMO.

Absolutely.
If we can't spread the votes fast enough then the whole competition process is in danger.

I wouldn't have any problem with it being 100 votes per block.
That would probably suffice.

Could this even be turned into an attack vector?

What if someone with a lot of SPR , say 40k, sets up maybe 40 x 1000er MNs and has them in a constant activation/deactivation loop?
So his masternodes would get activated and after they are elected he deactivates them, then he activates them again, waiting for the elections and so on and so on....over and over again.
This way he could continually steal voting power away from the system.... so that all the lower MNs wont ever get into the voting cycle?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 12, 2015, 02:38:24 am
I can run some more MN if anyone has spare tSPR.

n1Yuw3N8Zkh288eiyiBPyGFcUtVjmiKufD

Thanks.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 12, 2015, 05:54:07 am
One of my two computers was restarted today and I notice it takes a LONG time for the masternode list to become full again.  Like 8 hours later, one computer says 1500 masternodes and the other says 1621.

But then I got to thinking.  Is it that the real number is 1500 and restarting my wallet allowed the list to update faster or is the real number 1621 and the restarted wallet is just VERY SLOW to list all the available masternodes?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: duboisi on February 12, 2015, 05:59:49 am
Same observation. Half an hour after restarting the "new wallet", it only shows a list of just over 800 MNs. Before shutting down the "old wallet", it has list of about 1600 MNs. Everytime I press "Update", a new MN is added to the list.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MemoryShock on February 12, 2015, 07:07:56 am
I thought elbandi addressed that issue with Mr.Spread saying it will be included in the next update (for testnet)?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 12, 2015, 05:52:15 pm
Could this even be turned into an attack vector?

What if someone with a lot of SPR , say 40k, sets up maybe 40 x 1000er MNs and has them in a constant activation/deactivation loop?
So his masternodes would get activated and after they are elected he deactivates them, then he activates them again, waiting for the elections and so on and so on....over and over again.
This way he could continually steal voting power away from the system.... so that all the lower MNs wont ever get into the voting cycle?
Seems like a valid concern. Currently 50 confirmations are required to start a masternode, this number can be increased to make this attack harder. Required number of votes can be decreased (currently 30 votes in last 60 blocks are required) and maximum number of votes can be increased.

I agree that speed of elections is too slow, it is possible to safely make this system several times faster, I just used too conservative parameters.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 12, 2015, 05:54:57 pm
Could this even be turned into an attack vector?

What if someone with a lot of SPR , say 40k, sets up maybe 40 x 1000er MNs and has them in a constant activation/deactivation loop?
So his masternodes would get activated and after they are elected he deactivates them, then he activates them again, waiting for the elections and so on and so on....over and over again.
This way he could continually steal voting power away from the system.... so that all the lower MNs wont ever get into the voting cycle?
Seems like a valid concern. Currently 50 confirmations are required to start a masternode, this number can be increased to make this attack harder. Required number of votes can be decreased (currently 30 votes in last 60 blocks are required) and maximum number of votes can be increased.

I agree that speed of elections is too slow, it is possible to safely make this system several times faster, I just used too conservative parameters.

Very good.... hey I am ready to make a dozen additional testing rounds.
Let's make this perfect!  8)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 12, 2015, 05:56:02 pm
Same observation. Half an hour after restarting the "new wallet", it only shows a list of just over 800 MNs. Before shutting down the "old wallet", it has list of about 1600 MNs. Everytime I press "Update", a new MN is added to the list.
Only elected and your masternodes are updated immediately.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 12, 2015, 05:56:59 pm
728 elected, 1744 mns running. We have reached 50% of our goal.  ;D

(http://i.imgur.com/O4k0kzH.png?1)

I have 32 elected, three more ready later today.

If someone has 10k tSPR at hand, please send them to me:

mmxkaSWKrdyoVry7qFRNCVSo1szCzcS8a8

thanks.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 12, 2015, 05:59:41 pm
Could this even be turned into an attack vector?

What if someone with a lot of SPR , say 40k, sets up maybe 40 x 1000er MNs and has them in a constant activation/deactivation loop?
So his masternodes would get activated and after they are elected he deactivates them, then he activates them again, waiting for the elections and so on and so on....over and over again.
This way he could continually steal voting power away from the system.... so that all the lower MNs wont ever get into the voting cycle?
Seems like a valid concern. Currently 50 confirmations are required to start a masternode, this number can be increased to make this attack harder. Required number of votes can be decreased (currently 30 votes in last 60 blocks are required) and maximum number of votes can be increased.

I agree that speed of elections is too slow, it is possible to safely make this system several times faster, I just used too conservative parameters.

Very good.... hey I am ready to make a dozen additional testing rounds.
Let's make this perfect!  8)
I don't think we'll need many more rounds here, I'm pretty confident that reasonably changing parameters will not break anything.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 12, 2015, 06:07:22 pm
I don't think we'll need many more rounds here, I'm pretty confident that reasonably changing parameters will not break anything.

Oh we will, good sir.
We will.  8)

but we might probably have our first main net version ready soon, right?
That would be awesome.
But after that the testing rounds will go on... hopefully forever.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 12, 2015, 06:15:37 pm
I don't think we'll need many more rounds here, I'm pretty confident that reasonably changing parameters will not break anything.

Mr. Spread can you start another thread similar to this one: http://spreadcointalk.org/index.php?topic=41.0

(I renamed it to say round 2 at the end)

Maybe you can call the new thread: Features for the next version (round 3)

and let the people give you feedback about what they liked about round 2 and what they would like to see in round 3.

We could continue this theme for all following rounds.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: pokeytex on February 13, 2015, 12:31:55 am
@Mr. Spread - If I may add - I think it was stated earlier - after downloading the new wallet I noticed that all of my masternodes were no longer selected and I had to go through manually to select them all.  Is there a way to auto connect to the masternodes when the machine reboots or powers up?  Similar to the command that auto launches the wallet in Windows.  I was thinking if it can't be automatic can there be a button I could hit that would activate all of my masternodes at once?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 13, 2015, 01:27:45 am
@Mr. Spread - If I may add - I think it was stated earlier - after downloading the new wallet I noticed that all of my masternodes were no longer selected and I had to go through manually to select them all.  Is there a way to auto connect to the masternodes when the machine reboots or powers up?  Similar to the command that auto launches the wallet in Windows.  I was thinking if it can't be automatic can there be a button I could hit that would activate all of my masternodes at once?

You could run 'mnsecret <output>' for all your MNs and place the <result>s in your spreadcoin.conf, one 'mnstart=<result>' line for each MN.

An Activate all MNs' button would be good, though on mainnet people are less likely to have hundreds of boxes to check. :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: pokeytex on February 13, 2015, 01:35:15 am
That's true - ok I will try mnsecret - ty
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 13, 2015, 02:00:56 am
Anyone with spare tSPR I could use some.

n1Yuw3N8Zkh288eiyiBPyGFcUtVjmiKufD
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: girino on February 13, 2015, 03:19:08 am
Question to Mr. Spread:

I have my home wallet where the coins are, and a VPS where the MasterNode will run. From my home machine, is there a way to know if the masternodes are running on the vps? (if they are elected i can see them as elected, but before they get elected, how do i make sure they are running?)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 13, 2015, 03:33:20 am
Mr. Spread, I realize you completely re-coded masternodes, but just in case the same attack vector can be brought against Spreadcoin masternodes I wanted to bring this to your attention: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg10441301#msg10441301
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 13, 2015, 03:55:07 am
Anyone feel like elections are even slower now for some reason?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: duboisi on February 13, 2015, 04:45:08 am
I think one of the reason is people setting up large number of MNs with one Wallet. If the Wallet is offline for whatever reason, then large number of MNs were de-elected.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: SJRulez83 on February 13, 2015, 10:08:43 am
Does the drop in hash rate affect the MN's ie not enough transactions to actually process
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 02:37:23 pm
I think I found a bug.

Overnight I shut down my pc that runs all the masternodes.

When I restarted it, it still showed all the mns as elected.
So what I did is I immediately checked them all so that they are running.

So now they look like elected + running MNs.

But wait... shouldn't they have been deelected by now? After all, my pc has been down for atleast 8 hours.

Or what, is the deelection process ALSO very slow?
Would make sense.... of course.

My mns still show "elected" now 1 hour after I restarted.

Hm, this makes me think: is there even a process that immediately deelects a masternode that isn't running anymore?
Or what exactly happens in the next minutes after a masternode has been shutdown (for whatever reason) ?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 02:46:16 pm
Does the drop in hash rate affect the MN's ie not enough transactions to actually process

No, we still have the blocks being generated once every minute (on average).
(check the in-wallet blockexplorer)
It would only affect the MNs if the block generation would slow down for whatever reason.
But that isn't happening.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 03:03:25 pm
It's strange, regarding the bug I previously described...
if I let my qt-wallet run, and start another daemon, and do an mnlist scan to look up one of my mns from the qt-wallet, I get the following:

Code: [Select]
{
  "amount":300,
  "elected":true,
  "running":false,
  "address":"mkAbKKLa2b3KyJM5DLW1Qk9SfBb1yN955P",
  "next_payment":614,
  "votes_neg":2,
  "votes_pos":0,
  "outpoint":{"hash":"88372eb14ce1bc95ee6957d75bd73554747f5f233e476184d8c3fd1a0aed8a9a","n":0}
}

WTF, it is elected = true but running = false?

So this is really possible to still stay elected while your mn has gone down?
Shouldn't there be a mechanism that deelects crashed mns right away?

What is there to vote?  ;D

In other words: shouldn't the voting process only include running mns?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 13, 2015, 03:54:25 pm
George, in addition to the election process, there is an unelection process:

Quote
How masternodes are elected?
Each node monitor the network and assign scores to each masternode. This scores depend on how well masternodes provide their services, for instant transactions this will be time delay between transaction and its confimation by masternode. Since there may be no transactions and only elected masternodes will confirm transactions there is an empty service - each masternode will broadcast messages signining certain blocks to prove that it is running. Miners will include votes in their blocks. Votes can either be positive (elect not yet elected masternode) or negative (deelect already elected masternode). If masternode has more than 30 positive votes in the last 60 blocks then it is added to the list of elected masternodes. If masternode has more then 30 negative votes in the last 60 blocks then it is removed from the list of elected masternodes. Note that it is possible to determine which masternodes were elected at each particular block.

So yes, your masternode can be stopped but still elected for awhile.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 03:59:40 pm
George, in addition to the election process, there is an unelection process:

Quote
How masternodes are elected?
Each node monitor the network and assign scores to each masternode. This scores depend on how well masternodes provide their services, for instant transactions this will be time delay between transaction and its confimation by masternode. Since there may be no transactions and only elected masternodes will confirm transactions there is an empty service - each masternode will broadcast messages signining certain blocks to prove that it is running. Miners will include votes in their blocks. Votes can either be positive (elect not yet elected masternode) or negative (deelect already elected masternode). If masternode has more than 30 positive votes in the last 60 blocks then it is added to the list of elected masternodes. If masternode has more then 30 negative votes in the last 60 blocks then it is removed from the list of elected masternodes. Note that it is possible to determine which masternodes were elected at each particular block.

So yes, your masternode can be stopped but still elected for awhile.

The gravity of this problem is starting to show:

My elected but not running mn's are still receiving payments.  ???

(http://i.imgur.com/EyAtwdD.png?1)

I have 22 mns on the address mkAbKK... and they are visible on the network as elected = true but running = false

(http://i.imgur.com/NyQUwwD.png?1)

But those mn's are starting to receive payments!  :-[
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 13, 2015, 04:05:03 pm
I like that they're not instantly unelected but it's too slow of a process.  I suspect when Mr. Spread speeds up the election process the unelection process will speed up as well.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 04:07:05 pm
I like that they're not instantly unelected but it's too slow of a process.  I suspect when Mr. Spread speeds up the election process the unelection process will speed up as well.

The problem I have with this, is that not running mn's should immediately lose their election status, or else this will allow for all kinds of abuses and attack vectors.

Don't you see? My mn's have been shut down for atleast 8 hours (I think it's a total of 10 hours off time) and they are still being rewarded for that!

Also, they are blocking the election seats that should go to all the newcomers whose mns are NOT shut down... how about that?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 04:10:39 pm
And even more payments for "not running but elected" mns just coming in:

(http://i.imgur.com/blVSx93.png?1)

And the most recent mnlist seen by this other daemon (NOT the qt-wallet with the mns):

(http://i.imgur.com/l7ub8vV.png?1)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 04:50:23 pm
Wow... the problem is even graver than I thought...

All my mns received payments DURING the time they were offline.

The transaction history shows that:

(http://i.imgur.com/qPI2RON.png?1)

and earlier:

(http://i.imgur.com/htW1pX7.png?1)

My PC was shut down around 06:00 in the morning.

As you see, the payments were still coming in afterwards... although I didn't restart my PC until around 14:00 in the afternoon.

PS: don't look at all the payments with 10 SPR... I don't know who sent me that, lol.... who was that?  ;D

BTW "Erarbeitet" is german for "Mined" and "Empfangen über" means "Received"
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: minerpage on February 13, 2015, 04:59:10 pm
you're lucky... when mine was shut down I received no payments... are you running Linux version of the wallet?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 05:02:22 pm
you're lucky... when mine was shut down I received no payments... are you running Linux version of the wallet?

I don't think this has anything to do with luck.

I am running a windows qt-wallet and a windows daemon side-by-side on separate datadirs and ports. It's a windows 7 machine 8-core CPU with 16 GB Ram....

I use the daemon in combination with a php script (localhost) to save the mnlist and getinfo every 30 seconds, so that I can observe how the qt-wallet is being seen in the network.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: minerpage on February 13, 2015, 05:04:25 pm
you're lucky... when mine was shut down I received no payments... are you running Linux version of the wallet?

I don't think this has anything to do with luck.

I am running a windows qt-wallet and a windows daemon side-by-side on separate datadirs and ports. It's a windows 7 machine 8-core CPU with 16 GB Ram....

I use the daemon to save the mnlist and getinfo every 30 seconds, so that I can observe how the qt-wallet is being seen in the network.

I'm also running windows, wallet-qt only... I'll turn it off again today and double check...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 05:06:17 pm
you're lucky... when mine was shut down I received no payments... are you running Linux version of the wallet?

I don't think this has anything to do with luck.

I am running a windows qt-wallet and a windows daemon side-by-side on separate datadirs and ports. It's a windows 7 machine 8-core CPU with 16 GB Ram....

I use the daemon to save the mnlist and getinfo every 30 seconds, so that I can observe how the qt-wallet is being seen in the network.

I'm also running windows, wallet-qt only... I'll turn it off again today and double check...

Cool, please give me the address of an elected mn of yours, and I'll observe what happens to it and how it is being seen in the network.
Please tell me the exact moment you shut your wallet down.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: minerpage on February 13, 2015, 05:10:23 pm
you're lucky... when mine was shut down I received no payments... are you running Linux version of the wallet?

I don't think this has anything to do with luck.

I am running a windows qt-wallet and a windows daemon side-by-side on separate datadirs and ports. It's a windows 7 machine 8-core CPU with 16 GB Ram....

I use the daemon to save the mnlist and getinfo every 30 seconds, so that I can observe how the qt-wallet is being seen in the network.

I'm also running windows, wallet-qt only... I'll turn it off again today and double check...

Cool, please give me the address of an elected mn of yours, and I'll observe what happens to it and how it is being seen in the network.
Please tell me the exact moment you shut your wallet down.

mtX6j4uqXMTBQ8eLmvdVv1XyvMbmAq3vSG is one of them elected and scheduled for next payment in 161 mins from this posting timestamp... same time I shut down the wallet...

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 13, 2015, 05:10:42 pm
"running" means running from that wallet. ie. it only shows "running" for MNs in the wallet from which the mnlist command is issued.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 05:13:29 pm
"running" means running from that wallet. ie. it only shows "running" for MNs in the wallet from which the mnlist command is issued.

Ah ok, yes you are right. I forgot about that... again.

This keeps confusing me because I make the wrong assumption...

Fact is:
mnlist can't tell what state all the other mn's are in, except if they are elected or not.

But still, my offline qt-wallet received payments during the time it was offline (8-9 hours) because the system kept saying it's elected (it wasn't de-electing it fast enough).

The system should be adjusted so that this can't happen, or else I fear that a well financed mn could abuse the system by just staying alive for 12 hours, get elected easily and then shut down for the rest of the day and receive the same amount like a similar mn that was running for 24 hours.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 05:26:16 pm
@ Mr. Spread (and crew)

Another thing I wonder is.... the number of maximum votes per block... (at the moment it is 10)...
Are those 10 "slots" reserved 50% for electing votes and 50% for de-electing votes?

If not, shouldn't it be this way? Or else the election and de-election process might not be handled with the same priority, right?

Regarding the problem I described earlier, wouldn't it even make sense to reserve a larger part of those votes for the de-election process... ?
Because you can't have competition without having a severe punishment system (*) in place.

So maybe 40% for election and 60% for de-election?

* The warbots are sending you their best regards.  ;)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 13, 2015, 05:37:01 pm
"running" means running from that wallet. ie. it only shows "running" for MNs in the wallet from which the mnlist command is issued.

Ah ok, yes you are right. I forgot about that... again.

This keeps confusing me because I make the wrong assumption...

Fact is:
mnlist can't tell what state all the other mn's are in, except if they are elected or not.

But still, my offline qt-wallet received payments during the time it was offline (8-9 hours) because the system kept saying it's elected (or wasn't de-electing it fast enough).

The system should be adjusted so that this can't happen, or else I fear that a well financed mn could abuse the system by just staying alive for 12 hours, get elected easily and then shut down for the rest of the day and receive the same amount like a similar mn that was running for 24 hours.

If it takes the same number of votes to get either elected or de-elected, this won't work as a strategy because on average it'll take your 'new' MN just as long to get elected and start earning as the 'old' one takes to get de-elected and stop receiving payments. There's no net benefit, although voting variance might swing one way or the other in any given case.

What's needed is either more votes per block or a lower election/de-election threshold, to speed the whole process up, but the split should still be 50/50.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 05:39:47 pm
If it takes the same number of votes to get either elected or de-elected, this won't work as a strategy because on average it'll take your 'new' MN just as long to get elected and start earning as the 'old' one takes to get de-elected and stop receiving payments.

Yes, I see your point. This is because payments will always lag behind your election anyway. And this will probably always be the case, even if we improve the election/deelection process and make it faster.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 05:45:14 pm
What's needed is either more voted per block or a lower election/de-election threshold, to speed the whole process up, but the split should still be 50/50.

I think it's out of the question that we need more votes per block.
I meant to say:
I think there is no question that we need more votes per block.
Currently the 10 "vote slots" per block would probably work well if we only had 144 max mns, but not 1440.

Rather then lowering the election/de-election threshold (30 votes in 60 blocks), we should increase "the memory" the network has available every minute to correctly deduce in what state the incoming and outgoing mns are.

When I say "memory" I mean those vote slots available per block.
It makes sense to look at those "vote slots" per block as some kind of short-term memory buffer, right?

Since those "vote slots" are vital to make a judgment regarding the election-process, we should absolutely increase them.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 13, 2015, 06:09:57 pm
What's needed is either more voted per block or a lower election/de-election threshold, to speed the whole process up, but the split should still be 50/50.

I think it's out of the question that we need more votes per block.
Currently the 10 "vote slots" per block would probably work well if we only had 144 max mns, but not 1440.

Rather then lowering the election/de-election threshold (30 votes in 60 blocks), we should increase "the memory" the network has available every minute to correctly deduce in what state the incoming and outgoing mns are.

When I say "memory" I mean those vote slots available per block.
It makes sense to look at those "vote slots" per block as some kind of short-term memory buffer, right?

Since those "vote slots" are vital to make a judgment regarding the election-process, we should absolutely increase them.

Evan Duffield has been struggling with off-chain voting for 6+ months - it's still not reliable enough and needs a centralised node to ensure even payment distribution. I think Mr Spread's on-chain solution is better.

Why is increasing the votes per block 'out of the question?' Blockchain bloat is currently a non issue, and we could shave 40% off the blockchain size instantly by compressing it anyway.  More votes per block with the same election/de-election threashold would speed the process up and provide provably increased consensus.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 06:12:53 pm
Why is increasing the votes per block 'out of the question?' Blockchain bloat is currently a non issue, and we could shave 40% off the blockchain size instantly by compressing it anyway.

Oops, language barrier I guess. I meant to say "there is no question", not "it is out of the question"... lol
But if you read the rest of my post you should understand how I meant it.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 06:21:45 pm
Evan Duffield has been struggling with off-chain voting for 6+ months - it's still not reliable enough and needs a centralised node to ensure even payment distribution. I think Mr Spread's on-chain solution is better.

I like to phantasize about the blockchain being like a living machine, and that it has this on-chain short-time-memory that let's it remember the state of the current election/de-election process...

I think it's generally best practice for cryptocurrencies to involve the blockchain as much as possible, since it can be considered "the incorruptible brain" of the network.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 06:48:44 pm
We have 1823 in the list.
903 are elected.

It's funny that not only has no <150er mn ever been elected...
now we don't even see any <200er mn ever being able to get elected.

It's like this barrier is being increased slowly over time.

So I guess whoever reads this and has mn with lower than 400 SPR in them, please stop them, and merge them to 400er MNs...

This way we will get to our goal of 1440 mns much faster.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 13, 2015, 07:16:55 pm
We have 1823 in the list.
903 are elected.

It's funny that not only has no <150er mn ever been elected...
now we don't even see any <200er mn ever being able to get elected.

It's like this barrier is being increased slowly over time.

So I guess whoever reads this and has mn with lower than 400 SPR in them, please stop them, and merge them to 400er MNs...

This way we will get to our goal of 1440 mns much faster.
There's no need to stop lower SPR MN's.  Adding higher SPR MN's one get us to our goal faster.  At present, all the higher SPR MN's will be elected first THEN it will move to the lower priced MN's and elect them until we have 1440.  THEN we start adding (and removing) higher SPR MN's to testing the competition system.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 07:22:43 pm
We have 1823 in the list.
903 are elected.

It's funny that not only has no <150er mn ever been elected...
now we don't even see any <200er mn ever being able to get elected.

It's like this barrier is being increased slowly over time.

So I guess whoever reads this and has mn with lower than 400 SPR in them, please stop them, and merge them to 400er MNs...

This way we will get to our goal of 1440 mns much faster.
There's no need to stop lower SPR MN's.  Adding higher SPR MN's one get us to our goal faster.  At present, all the higher SPR MN's will be elected first THEN it will move to the lower priced MN's and elect them until we have 1440.  THEN we start adding (and removing) higher SPR MN's to testing the competition system.

I fear that that's exactly what's not going to happen.

The bottle-neck of 10 votes per block is completely and constantly used up not only by the higher mns getting elected, but primarily by the higher mns constantly getting votes for their de-election.

I think the way the system is designed now causes small mns to be completely outmaneuvered.

Just look at the list, pretty much all higher mns ARE elected. How many of them are not elected? maybe 10%?
So how come all the <=200 have yet to get a single election? (with the exception of the small mns that were active in the very beginning of this test round and were able to get elected when the barrier was low).
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 13, 2015, 07:36:27 pm
Just look at the list, pretty much all higher mns ARE elected. How many of them are not elected? maybe 10%?
So how come all the <=200 have yet to get a single election? (with the exception of the small mns that were active in the very beginning of this test round and were able to get elected when the barrier was low).
They won't get an election until the higher SPR MN's are all elected.  Let's let the higher ones get elected and then allow the lower ones to get elected.  IF they don't, then that's a bug Mr. Spread needs to fix.  But I suspect once all the higher SPR MN's are elected, the system will move to the lower ones.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 13, 2015, 07:40:22 pm
We have 1823 in the list.
903 are elected.

It's funny that not only has no <150er mn ever been elected...
now we don't even see any <200er mn ever being able to get elected.

It's like this barrier is being increased slowly over time.

So I guess whoever reads this and has mn with lower than 400 SPR in them, please stop them, and merge them to 400er MNs...

This way we will get to our goal of 1440 mns much faster.
There's no need to stop lower SPR MN's.  Adding higher SPR MN's one get us to our goal faster.  At present, all the higher SPR MN's will be elected first THEN it will move to the lower priced MN's and elect them until we have 1440.  THEN we start adding (and removing) higher SPR MN's to testing the competition system.

I fear that that's exactly what's not going to happen.

The bottle-neck of 10 votes per block is completely and constantly used up not only by the higher mns getting elected, but primarily by the higher mns constantly getting votes for their de-election.

I think the way the system is designed now causes small mns to be completely outmaneuvered.

Just look at the list, pretty much all higher mns ARE elected. How many of them are not elected? maybe 10%?
So how come all the <=200 have yet to get a single election? (with the exception of the small mns that were active in the very beginning of this test round and were able to get elected when the barrier was low).

You are getting exactly what you wanted, although the process is slower than anticipated. I told you, there are never going to be any 100 SPR MNs on mainnet. There are very quickly going to be 1440 @ at least 1000 SPR each.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 13, 2015, 07:40:42 pm
We have 1823 in the list.
903 are elected.

It's funny that not only has no <150er mn ever been elected...
now we don't even see any <200er mn ever being able to get elected.

It's like this barrier is being increased slowly over time.

So I guess whoever reads this and has mn with lower than 400 SPR in them, please stop them, and merge them to 400er MNs...

This way we will get to our goal of 1440 mns much faster.
There's no need to stop lower SPR MN's.  Adding higher SPR MN's one get us to our goal faster.  At present, all the higher SPR MN's will be elected first THEN it will move to the lower priced MN's and elect them until we have 1440.  THEN we start adding (and removing) higher SPR MN's to testing the competition system.

I fear that that's exactly what's not going to happen.

The bottle-neck of 10 votes per block is completely and constantly used up not only by the higher mns getting elected, but primarily by the higher mns constantly getting votes for their de-election.

I think the way the system is designed now causes small mns to be completely outmaneuvered.

Just look at the list, pretty much all higher mns ARE elected. How many of them are not elected? maybe 10%?
So how come all the <=200 have yet to get a single election? (with the exception of the small mns that were active in the very beginning of this test round and were able to get elected when the barrier was low).

I ended some 100spr MN's and turned them into 800spr MN's, just to get elected quick.

So as my 800spr MN's came back online they took priority over 10 other lower priced MN's.

100,000 tspr are mined everyday, and people are constantly adding high value spr MN's, cutting out the lower ones from election.

The supply on testnet is ridicules now... Must be around 500,000 now? And mostly to tspr testers.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 13, 2015, 07:46:12 pm
You are getting exactly what you wanted, although the process is slower than anticipated. I told you, there are never going to be any 100 SPR MNs on mainnet. There are very quickly going to be 1440 @ at least 1000 SPR each.

What makes you think we'll have 1440 at 1k each?  That takes up much of the coin supply.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 13, 2015, 07:50:59 pm
You are getting exactly what you wanted, although the process is slower than anticipated. I told you, there are never going to be any 100 SPR MNs on mainnet. There are very quickly going to be 1440 @ at least 1000 SPR each.

What makes you think we'll have 1440 at 1k each?  That takes up much of the coin supply.

Current coin supply, yes. Three months or six months from now with ~260000 new SPR minted each month... not so much. Forget about MNs @ under 1000 SPR.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 13, 2015, 07:54:07 pm
You are getting exactly what you wanted, although the process is slower than anticipated. I told you, there are never going to be any 100 SPR MNs on mainnet. There are very quickly going to be 1440 @ at least 1000 SPR each.

What makes you think we'll have 1440 at 1k each?  That takes up much of the coin supply.

Current coin supply, yes. Three months or six months from now with ~260000 new SPR minted each month... not so much. Forget about MNs @ under 1000 SPR.

Ah, ok.  Your, "quickly" and my, "quickly" were different durations :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 07:56:35 pm
You are getting exactly what you wanted, although the process is slower than anticipated. I told you, there are never going to be any 100 SPR MNs on mainnet. There are very quickly going to be 1440 @ at least 1000 SPR each.

Bullfrog.

I didn't want high amount MNs to be preferred by the system when it comes to the ability of giving and taking votes.
I don't even know why Mr. Spread decided to use a formula that treats them better than the rest.

WTF?

Why isn't this completely random?

Let's look at how masternodes are elected:

How masternodes are elected?
Each node monitor the network and assign scores to each masternode. This scores depend on how well masternodes provide their services, for instant transactions this will be time delay between transaction and its confimation by masternode. Since there may be no transactions and only elected masternodes will confirm transactions there is an empty service - each masternode will broadcast messages signining certain blocks to prove that it is running. Miners will include votes in their blocks. Votes can either be positive (elect not yet elected masternode) or negative (deelect already elected masternode). If masternode has more than 30 positive votes in the last 60 blocks then it is added to the list of elected masternodes. If masternode has more then 30 negative votes in the last 60 blocks then it is removed from the list of elected masternodes. Note that it is possible to determine which masternodes were elected at each particular block.

Ofcourse the vote that is cast should be based on the principle described here, but at the moment high amount MNs get to give their vote  BEFORE the small amount MNs.

That's the problem right there. And THIS IS what has to go.

The problem isn't even so much the maximum 10 votes per block. We could probably live with that, although it should be increased to make everything more dynamic.
But aslong as the high amount MNs get to vote while the rest has to wait, the elections are a farce!

We are not going to have competition this way.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 13, 2015, 08:00:35 pm
You are getting exactly what you wanted, although the process is slower than anticipated. I told you, there are never going to be any 100 SPR MNs on mainnet. There are very quickly going to be 1440 @ at least 1000 SPR each.

What makes you think we'll have 1440 at 1k each?  That takes up much of the coin supply.

Current coin supply, yes. Three months or six months from now with ~260000 new SPR minted each month... not so much. Forget about MNs @ under 1000 SPR.

Ah, ok.  Your, "quickly" and my, "quickly" were different durations :)

Regardless of whether it's 3 weeks or 3 months, I still think the whole exercise is a waste of time. :) 

IMO Mr Spread should just call it 1000 SPR collateral required and spend his time more profitably on I2P integration, improved UI, secure comms, and other MN services, not some daft and inevitably short-lived notion of 'Anyone can run a Spread Masternode for 5 bucks.'
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 13, 2015, 08:01:45 pm
You are getting exactly what you wanted, although the process is slower than anticipated. I told you, there are never going to be any 100 SPR MNs on mainnet. There are very quickly going to be 1440 @ at least 1000 SPR each.

Bullfrog.

I didn't want high amount MNs to be preferred by the system when it comes to the ability of giving and taking votes.
I don't even know why Mr. Spread decided to use a formula that treats them better than the rest.

WTF?

We are not going to have competition this way.

They are better than the rest. A high collateral makes it economically much harder to attack the network.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 08:06:35 pm
You are getting exactly what you wanted, although the process is slower than anticipated. I told you, there are never going to be any 100 SPR MNs on mainnet. There are very quickly going to be 1440 @ at least 1000 SPR each.

Bullfrog.

I didn't want high amount MNs to be preferred by the system when it comes to the ability of giving and taking votes.
I don't even know why Mr. Spread decided to use a formula that treats them better than the rest.

WTF?

We are not going to have competition this way.

They are better than the rest. A high collateral makes it economically much harder to attack the network.

That's completely false and upside down!

The higher amount inside your MN doesn't make it "better". It just makes it safer from being kicked out of the list.
What makes your MN "better" should be based on the votes it receives.

LOL!

 8)

How come we planned to create a system that enables competition but ended up with a system that disables competition?

We need to go back to the drawing board, Mr. Spread.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 08:13:52 pm
Let me give some examples:

It should be possible to install an MN on a mega high powered server with just 100 SPR in it, and have it receive brilliant votes by the network. But it will still be kicked out when it becomes the weakest link...

It's also possible to install an MN on a slow home computer and put 10k SPR there. Now this masternode will constantly receive bad votes, and be probably even kicked out of the system if its performance is totally terrible. But it will be kicked out because it gets de-elected... not because it became the weakest link.

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 13, 2015, 08:15:47 pm
You are getting exactly what you wanted, although the process is slower than anticipated. I told you, there are never going to be any 100 SPR MNs on mainnet. There are very quickly going to be 1440 @ at least 1000 SPR each.

Bullfrog.

I didn't want high amount MNs to be preferred by the system when it comes to the ability of giving and taking votes.
I don't even know why Mr. Spread decided to use a formula that treats them better than the rest.

WTF?

We are not going to have competition this way.

They are better than the rest. A high collateral makes it economically much harder to attack the network.

That's completely false and upside down!

The higher amount inside your MN doesn't make it "better". It just makes it saver from being kicked out of the list.
What makes your MN "better" should be based on the votes it receives.

LOL!

 8)

How come we planned to create a system that enables competition but ended up with a system that disables competition?

As I stated repeatedly on BCT, the only competition here is who has the most SPR. Which from the POV of economic security is just fine until it inevitably leads to all the MNs being in the hands of the richest few.

What else are MNs going to 'compete' on? It's impossible to reliably quantify a node's reliability/uptime/bandwidth/CPU or other resources, or the panache of it's operator in realtime or close enough to realtime to be useful.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 08:19:48 pm
As I stated repeatedly on BCT, the only competition here is who has the most SPR. Which from the POV of economic security is just fine until it inevitably leads to all the MNs being in the hands of the richest few.

What else are MNs going to 'compete' on? It's impossible to reliably quantify a node's reliability/uptime/bandwidth/CPU or other resources, or the panache of it's operator in realtime or close enough to realtime to be useful.

Then you completely misunderstood what spreadcoin has planned, and how the competitive MN race was supposed to work.

The competition isn't simply driving the prices up. (because people will want to secure their seat)
It also drives the prices down, because the more MNs you get to succesfully operate and elect, the more profit you are going to make.

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 13, 2015, 08:23:41 pm
As I stated repeatedly on BCT, the only competition here is who has the most SPR. Which from the POV of economic security is just fine until it inevitably leads to all the MNs being in the hands of the richest few.

What else are MNs going to 'compete' on? It's impossible to reliably quantify a node's reliability/uptime/bandwidth/CPU or other resources, or the panache of it's operator in realtime or close enough to realtime to be useful.

Then you completely misunderstood what spreadcoin has planned, and how the competitive MN race was supposed to work.

It is working exactly as planned. I just think it's a daft plan and testnet has proved my models right.

Having a fixed 1000 SPR collateral and no arbitrary and pointless 1440 MN limit makes more sense on all levels, and ensures someone richer than you can't come along and kick you out of your paycheck.

Free market competition is alive and well - those smart enough to acquire 1000 SPR will do so, and benefit.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 08:28:06 pm
As I stated repeatedly on BCT, the only competition here is who has the most SPR. Which from the POV of economic security is just fine until it inevitably leads to all the MNs being in the hands of the richest few.

What else are MNs going to 'compete' on? It's impossible to reliably quantify a node's reliability/uptime/bandwidth/CPU or other resources, or the panache of it's operator in realtime or close enough to realtime to be useful.

Then you completely misunderstood what spreadcoin has planned, and how the competitive MN race was supposed to work.

It is working exactly as planned. I just think it's a daft plan and testnet has proved my models right.

Having a fixed 1000 SPR collateral and no arbitrary and pointless 1440 MN limit makes more sense on all levels, and ensures someone richer than you can't come along and kick you out of your paycheck.

Free market competition is alive and well - those smart enough to acquire 1000 SPR will do so, and benefit.

I suspected something like that.  8)
That some people are just here to see this project fail and say: see how daft all that is?  ::)

The only reason it looks daft now, is because the parameters and the implemention is wrong. Mr. Spread has said so himself. This is simply test round 2, and already it gives us so many suggestions how we can improve it and correct its flaws.

So don't worry, this can and will be fixed.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 13, 2015, 08:28:20 pm
Also, to make my position clear on the 1440 MN limit: it is utterly stupid. Darkcoin works fine on 2000+ Masternodes - why, with cleaner code and less overhead, are we limiting ourselves to 1440 MNs?

It's ridiculous, it has no rational basis.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 13, 2015, 08:28:55 pm
As I stated repeatedly on BCT, the only competition here is who has the most SPR. Which from the POV of economic security is just fine until it inevitably leads to all the MNs being in the hands of the richest few.

What else are MNs going to 'compete' on? It's impossible to reliably quantify a node's reliability/uptime/bandwidth/CPU or other resources, or the panache of it's operator in realtime or close enough to realtime to be useful.

Then you completely misunderstood what spreadcoin has planned, and how the competitive MN race was supposed to work.

It is working exactly as planned. I just think it's a daft plan and testnet has proved my models right.

Having a fixed 1000 SPR collateral and no arbitrary and pointless 1440 MN limit makes more sense on all levels, and ensures someone richer than you can't come along and kick you out of your paycheck.

Free market competition is alive and well - those smart enough to acquire 1000 SPR will do so, and benefit.

He's talking sense.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 08:31:52 pm
Also, to make my position clear on the 1440 MN limit: it is utterly stupid. Darkcoin works fine on 2000+ Masternodes - why, with cleaner code and less overhead, are we limiting ourselves to 1440 MNs?

It's ridiculous, it has no rational basis.

This is also something that could be loosened up over time.

I have advocated since the beginning that I would love to see a dynamic increase of the max amount of MNs.

My formula is based on max amount of mns = (Available coins) / 1000
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 13, 2015, 08:35:46 pm
Also, to make my position clear on the 1440 MN limit: it is utterly stupid. Darkcoin works fine on 2000+ Masternodes - why, with cleaner code and less overhead, are we limiting ourselves to 1440 MNs?

It's ridiculous, it has no rational basis.

This is also something that could be loosened up over time.

I have advocated since the beginning that I would love to see a dynamic increase of the max amount of MNs.

My formula is based on max amount of mns = (Available coins) / 1000

Why impose an arbitrary limit at all? Any limit should be based on hard technical limitations. For someone who goes on about freedoms you sure seem to like pointless rules.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 08:40:29 pm
Also, to make my position clear on the 1440 MN limit: it is utterly stupid. Darkcoin works fine on 2000+ Masternodes - why, with cleaner code and less overhead, are we limiting ourselves to 1440 MNs?

It's ridiculous, it has no rational basis.

This is also something that could be loosened up over time.

I have advocated since the beginning that I would love to see a dynamic increase of the max amount of MNs.

My formula is based on max amount of mns = (Available coins) / 1000

Why impose an arbitrary limit at all? Any limit should be based on hard technical limitations. For someone who goes on about freedoms you sure seem to like pointless rules.

What you just said sounded like:
"Why does bitcoin have an arbitrary limit of 21 million coins, hm? Care to explain that?
For bitcoin that goes on and on about freedoms all the time, this seems like a pointless rule, right?"

  ::)

LOL.

Scarcity enables competition.

I love freedom, but I am not a socialist (socialists have a problem with scarcity, they want everything to be free, without realizing the cost it has on society. I know that there is no free lunch.)
I understand that scarcity enables competition.

We will make it work.

I suspect you don't know anything about free markets, competition and how decentralization works.
But that's ok, because you can have darkcoin.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 08:46:47 pm
Also, to make my position clear on the 1440 MN limit: it is utterly stupid. Darkcoin works fine on 2000+ Masternodes - why, with cleaner code and less overhead, are we limiting ourselves to 1440 MNs?

It's ridiculous, it has no rational basis.

This is also something that could be loosened up over time.

I have advocated since the beginning that I would love to see a dynamic increase of the max amount of MNs.

My formula is based on max amount of mns = (Available coins) / 1000

We need artificial scarcity.
But we don't know if 1440 is the best number.

I think it would be best, if we let this number slowly increase over the years.
But it will still be limited. If it is based on (Total coins)/1000 then it will never be higher than 21k max nodes, and it will take us 100 years to get there.

Sounds reasonable...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 09:01:32 pm
It is working exactly as planned. I just think it's a daft plan and testnet has proved my models right.

Only if your plan was to see spreadcoin fail!

At any rate, I think this test round 2 has been extremely revealing so far.

Not only what concerns the inner workings of spreadcoin (and how it can be improved), but also the inner workings of our community.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 13, 2015, 09:11:58 pm
It is working exactly as planned. I just think it's a daft plan and testnet has proved my models right.

Only if your plan was to see spreadcoin fail!

At any rate, I think this test round 2 has been extremely revealing so far.

Not only what concerns the inner workings of spreadcoin (and how it can be improved), but also the inner workings of our community.

Strumpet has been a huge supporter of SPR for a long time.  His plan is not to see it fail.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 09:13:02 pm
It is working exactly as planned. I just think it's a daft plan and testnet has proved my models right.

Only if your plan was to see spreadcoin fail!

At any rate, I think this test round 2 has been extremely revealing so far.

Not only what concerns the inner workings of spreadcoin (and how it can be improved), but also the inner workings of our community.

Strumpet has been a huge supporter of SPR for a long time.  His plan is not to see it fail.

I think he can speak for himself?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 13, 2015, 09:19:59 pm
It is working exactly as planned. I just think it's a daft plan and testnet has proved my models right.

Only if your plan was to see spreadcoin fail!

At any rate, I think this test round 2 has been extremely revealing so far.

Not only what concerns the inner workings of spreadcoin (and how it can be improved), but also the inner workings of our community.

Strumpet has been a huge supporter of SPR for a long time.  His plan is not to see it fail.

I think he can speak for himself?

I think you're getting way too aggressive.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 09:22:48 pm
It is working exactly as planned. I just think it's a daft plan and testnet has proved my models right.

Only if your plan was to see spreadcoin fail!

At any rate, I think this test round 2 has been extremely revealing so far.

Not only what concerns the inner workings of spreadcoin (and how it can be improved), but also the inner workings of our community.

Strumpet has been a huge supporter of SPR for a long time.  His plan is not to see it fail.

I think he can speak for himself?

I think you're getting way too aggressive.

You are reading that wrong.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 13, 2015, 09:28:33 pm
It is working exactly as planned. I just think it's a daft plan and testnet has proved my models right.

Only if your plan was to see spreadcoin fail!

At any rate, I think this test round 2 has been extremely revealing so far.

Not only what concerns the inner workings of spreadcoin (and how it can be improved), but also the inner workings of our community.

Strumpet has been a huge supporter of SPR for a long time.  His plan is not to see it fail.

I think he can speak for himself?

I think you're getting way too aggressive.

You are reading that wrong.

"Only if your plan was to see Spreadcoin fail!" -- I think we want to see it succeed, and simply have some differences of opinion.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: minerpage on February 13, 2015, 09:32:31 pm
you're lucky... when mine was shut down I received no payments... are you running Linux version of the wallet?

I don't think this has anything to do with luck.

I am running a windows qt-wallet and a windows daemon side-by-side on separate datadirs and ports. It's a windows 7 machine 8-core CPU with 16 GB Ram....

I use the daemon to save the mnlist and getinfo every 30 seconds, so that I can observe how the qt-wallet is being seen in the network.

I'm also running windows, wallet-qt only... I'll turn it off again today and double check...

Cool, please give me the address of an elected mn of yours, and I'll observe what happens to it and how it is being seen in the network.
Please tell me the exact moment you shut your wallet down.

mtX6j4uqXMTBQ8eLmvdVv1XyvMbmAq3vSG is one of them elected and scheduled for next payment in 161 mins from this posting timestamp... same time I shut down the wallet...

Interesting... I indeed received payment on this address while the wallet was shut down...
(http://s14.postimg.org/gaerp6uxt/Untitled.jpg)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 09:37:53 pm
"Only if your plan was to see Spreadcoin fail!" -- I think we want to see it succeed, and simply have some differences of opinion.

I agree. Nothing wrong with different opinions.

It is working exactly as planned. I just think it's a daft plan and testnet has proved my models right.

I don't agree with that.

It never crossed my mind that the experiments we are doing here are "daft plans"...
Maybe not fully developed plans, maybe flawed plans, yes.... but "daft"?

Anyway.

I am extremely happy that we can talk in a clear language about those things.

Spreadcoin the way it's built now can't work and must be adjusted.

And Mr. Spread knows that.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 09:39:21 pm
Interesting... I indeed received payment on this address while the wallet was shut down...
(http://s14.postimg.org/gaerp6uxt/Untitled.jpg)

Excellent. Thanks for testing this.

Yes, we have some quirks and bugs that need to be adjusted or eliminated.

Can't wait for Mr. Spread to give us his opinion and tell us how we should best proceed from here.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: minerpage on February 13, 2015, 09:44:48 pm
Quote
(http://s14.postimg.org/gaerp6uxt/Untitled.jpg)
Excellent. Thanks for testing this.
Just to be clear: this payment was scheduled in the "Next Payment" column before I shut the wallet down... so perhaps it is a valid payment... perhaps in the 4 hrs that it was down, no new payment got scheduled for that address... not sure how it works...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 09:50:44 pm
Quote
(http://s14.postimg.org/gaerp6uxt/Untitled.jpg)
Excellent. Thanks for testing this.
Just to be clear: this payment was scheduled in the "Next Payment" column before I shut the wallet down... so perhaps it is a valid payment... perhaps in the 4 hrs that it was down, no new payment got scheduled for that address... not sure how it works...

Well, the payments always lag a little behind. And your MN stays elected for some time even if not running anymore.
This needs to be improved.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 10:23:53 pm
Regardless of whether it's 3 weeks or 3 months, I still think the whole exercise is a waste of time. :) 

IMO Mr Spread should just call it 1000 SPR collateral required and spend his time more profitably on I2P integration, improved UI, secure comms, and other MN services, not some daft and inevitably short-lived notion of 'Anyone can run a Spread Masternode for 5 bucks.'

I think Mr. Spread is a principled man and that he has put a lot of brainpower into this coin.
I feel that he'll do everything he can to keep the one promise he ever made:

To make this coin truely decentralized.

What you just recommended to him is to just give all that up and become like darkcoin. LMAO...  8)

Not gonna happen.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 13, 2015, 11:37:26 pm
Regardless of whether it's 3 weeks or 3 months, I still think the whole exercise is a waste of time. :) 

IMO Mr Spread should just call it 1000 SPR collateral required and spend his time more profitably on I2P integration, improved UI, secure comms, and other MN services, not some daft and inevitably short-lived notion of 'Anyone can run a Spread Masternode for 5 bucks.'

I think Mr. Spread is a principled man and that he has put a lot of brainpower into this coin.
I feel that he'll do everything he can to keep the one promise he ever made:

To make this coin truely decentralized.

What you just recommended to him is to just give all that up and become like darkcoin. LMAO...  8)

Not gonna happen.

Heh, it was me that pissed off most of the Darkcoin community by repeatedly pointing out the horrible centralisation of hash they have.  :P

...Which is why I the last person on Earth that 'wants to see Spread fail.'

My belief that a fixed collateral cost is a better approach doesn't in any way compromise decentralisation, quite the opposite - it's about economic reality, and opening up MN collateral costs to a bidding war IMO will inevitably lead to centralisation of MNs in the hands of the rich few. I don't see how it cannot.

I very much want Spread to succeed and to that end I'm going to advocate what I believe is a better way towards that.

So answer me this: what advantages to the network, or even to Spread MN operators, does variable pricing impart?

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 11:41:31 pm
Regardless of whether it's 3 weeks or 3 months, I still think the whole exercise is a waste of time. :) 

IMO Mr Spread should just call it 1000 SPR collateral required and spend his time more profitably on I2P integration, improved UI, secure comms, and other MN services, not some daft and inevitably short-lived notion of 'Anyone can run a Spread Masternode for 5 bucks.'

I think Mr. Spread is a principled man and that he has put a lot of brainpower into this coin.
I feel that he'll do everything he can to keep the one promise he ever made:

To make this coin truely decentralized.

What you just recommended to him is to just give all that up and become like darkcoin. LMAO...  8)

Not gonna happen.

Heh, it was me that pissed off most of the Darkcoin community by repeatedly pointing out the horrible centralisation of hash they have.  :P

...Which is why I the last person on Earth that 'wants to see Spread fail.'

My belief that a fixed collateral cost is a better approach doesn't in any way compromise decentralisation, quite the opposite - it's about economic reality, and opening up MN collateral costs to a bidding war IMO will inevitably lead to centralisation of MNs in the hands of the rich few. I don't see how it cannot.

I very much want Spread to succeed and to that end I'm going to advocate what I believe is a better way towards that.

So answer me this: what advantages to the network, or even to Spread MN operators, does variable pricing impart?

First let me say that I didn't want to imply that you want to see spreadcoin fail.
I said that in the heat of the moment and take it back.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 11:49:35 pm
@ Mr. Spread:

You made this post nearly a month ago:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715435.msg10193497#msg10193497

...where you said the following thing:

Initial masternode implementation will not require you to have a static IP. Instant transactions simply don't require this: someone broadcasts transaction, masternode receive this transactions, sign it and broadcasts this signature, there is no need for anyone to directly connect to masternodes. Nodes will monitor time delays between receiving transactions and confirmations from masternodes and will assign scores for each masternode according to these delays. This score and deposit amount will affect which masternodes will receive payments.

If I understood you correctly here, that it is really the case that the deposit amount of a masternode does affect which masternodes will receive votes (and therefor payments), then this is the reason for all the problems we are seeing at the moment in the testnet version.

If the deposit amount is allowed to affect which masternodes receive votes, then this kills the competition before it has even started.

The deposit amount must not have anything to do with who receives votes, or else the system is broken.

Let only the score affect which masternodes receive votes (and therefor payments), AND NOTHING ELSE!

Then the competition will really work as intended.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 13, 2015, 11:51:36 pm
I disagree with you George.  I see nothing wrong with the number of SPR affecting election.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 13, 2015, 11:54:15 pm
If I understood you correctly here, that it is really the case that the deposit amount of a masternode does affect what masternodes will receive payments, then this is the reason for all the problems we are seeing.

If the deposit amount is allowed to affect which masternodes receive payments,then this kills the competition before it has even started.

The deposit amount must not have anything to do with who receives payments, or else the system is broken.

Let only the score affect which masternodes receive payments, AND NOTHING ELSE!

Then the competition will really work as intended.

How? As I said:

What else are MNs going to 'compete' on? It's impossible to reliably quantify a node's reliability/uptime/bandwidth/CPU or other resources, or the panache of it's operator in realtime or close enough to realtime to be useful.

Also, higher cost MNs are essential for network security.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 11:54:26 pm
I disagree with you George.  I see nothing wrong with the number of SPR affecting election.

The deposit amount is only here to decide if your MN is allowed to stay in the game or be kicked out because it is the weakest link.

It must not influence your chance of getting a vote (and therefor a payment) or else the system is broken.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 13, 2015, 11:57:04 pm
What else are MNs going to 'compete' on? It's impossible to reliably quantify a node's reliability/uptime/bandwidth/CPU or other resources, or the panache of it's operator in realtime or close enough to realtime to be useful.

Also, higher cost MNs are essential for network security.

Not for spreadcoin. What you describe is how darkcoin defines its MN network security requirement.

Spreadcoin doesn't work this way. Spreadcoin gets its MN network security thru competition and price discovery.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 13, 2015, 11:59:21 pm
I disagree with you George.  I see nothing wrong with the number of SPR affecting election.

The deposit amount is only here to decide if your MN is allowed to stay in the game or be kicked out because it is the weakest link.

It must not influence your chance of getting a payment or else the system is broken.
I don't think you understand how the system works.

The deposit amount, as you say, determines if you are the weakest link or not.  If you have enough SPR then you get in line to get paid.  You don't get paid more often than someone with less SPR as long as they have enough SPR to be elected.  If you have 100,000 SPR in a masternode and someone else has 110 SPR in a masternode, you will both be paid just as often and the exact same amount as long as you are both elected.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 14, 2015, 12:04:05 am
The deposit amount, as you say, determines if you are the weakest link or not.  If you have enough SPR then you get in line to get paid.  You don't get paid more often than someone with less SPR as long as they have enough SPR to be elected. If you have 100,000 SPR in a masternode and someone else has 110 SPR in a masternode, you will both be paid just as often and the exact same amount as long as you are both elected.

Once you are elected you don't get paid more often, that's right.

But the current implementation makes MNs with a higher amount of SPR get votes sooner than the MNs with a lower amount.
That's what breaks the system.

I hope I am mistaken, and am waiting for Mr. Spread to make a statement.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 14, 2015, 12:11:04 am
Isn't this all glaringly obvious?

I believe it was on day 2 of this test round, that we have seen like 70% of all MNs (all the low amount MNs) not receiving a single election, while only the top 30% of the MNs were even considered for election.

Ask yourself why was this the case?

Weren't the lower amount MN's in the majority?

Yes they were, and they were disregarded by the system because of a flawed implementation that let's high amount MNs be the first ones to eat at the table. (get all the votes)

... while the rest has to wait with a hungry stomach.... (they get no votes at all, because the high amount MNs keep eating and eating.... like the pigs they are  ;D )
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 14, 2015, 12:11:10 am
Why does that break the system?  Seems fine to me.

*edit* In regards to your above post, I don't see why that is flawed. 

It's a competition.  Highest funded masternodes get elected and paid first.  Good for them.  It's not a flaw.  It's the rules of the game.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 14, 2015, 12:16:05 am
What else are MNs going to 'compete' on? It's impossible to reliably quantify a node's reliability/uptime/bandwidth/CPU or other resources, or the panache of it's operator in realtime or close enough to realtime to be useful.

Also, higher cost MNs are essential for network security.

Not for spreadcoin. What you describe is how darkcoin defines its MN network security requirement.

Spreadcoin doesn't work this way. Spreadcoin gets its MN network security thru competition and price discovery.

I don't care if coins A, B, C, D... etc use the same mechanism, unless we have a better mechanism we should use it too. Doing something less secure for the sake of being different makes no sense.

The system as it stands now is fine apart from needing some tweaks to speed to election/de-election process up. Higher collateral MNs should be elected first, it makes the network costlier to attack.

Do you want a Spread MN network of 1440 X 100 SPR nodes that can be completely owned with 40 BTC?

Fix the collateral price so the network is expensive to attack yet anyone with eg. 1000 SPR can be a part of it without being vulnerable to someone richer taking their lunch, get rid of the arbitrary 1440 MN limit, and all will be well. :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 14, 2015, 12:18:48 am
Do you want a Spread MN network of 1440 X 100 SPR nodes that can be completely owned with 6 BTC?

You make the wrong assumption that everybody who owns SPR is going to sell to you immediately and at current prices.

You sure understand what moves market price, right?  ;D

You wanna buy my SPR?

Sure, my offer is 1 SPR = 0.1 BTC

I will move it upwards the more weeks and months pass...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 14, 2015, 12:19:03 am
I'd love to see:

1.  Minimum 1000SPR for a masternode because of the reasons Strumpet outlines
2.  No cap on masternodes
3.  Top 1440 masternodes get paid twice as often as the rest of the masternodes or some other benefit where people want to still use the very cool competition system Mr. Spread has created.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 14, 2015, 12:22:57 am
Man, you two ... MyFarm and Strumpet are madly in love with darkcoin, and just want spreadcoin to become like it....

LMFAO!

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 14, 2015, 12:29:59 am
I do like Darkcoin and I like what Mr. Spread has created.  I'm all for trying what Mr. Spread has created but I do wonder if Strumpet is correct that masternodes will be dominated by the rich.  Frankly, that benefits me but I think it would benefit me more if they weren't dominated by the rich.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 14, 2015, 12:30:34 am
Do you want a Spread MN network of 1440 X 100 SPR nodes that can be completely owned with 6 BTC?

You make the wrong assumption that everybody who owns SPR is going to sell to you immediately and at current prices.

You sure understand what moves market price, right?  ;D

You wanna buy my SPR?

Sure, my offer is 1 SPR = 0.1 BTC

I will move it upwards the more weeks and months pass...

I don't need to buy your 100 SPR. With collateral prices that low there's plenty of SPR left on the open market I can buy.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 14, 2015, 12:38:46 am
Man, you two ... MyFarm and Strumpet are madly in love with darkcoin, and just want spreadcoin to become like it....

LMFAO!

 ;D ;D ;D

I can only speak for myself - yes I think Evan has done a lot of things right. Spread however does some things better, firstly the solo mining aspect. A currency like Darkcoin that is dominated by 2 or 3 pools is utterly worthless to serious investors and doesn't deserve to call itself decentralised.

(If you pop into the BCT DRK thread you'll see that some of their beloved and trustworthy pools are currently screwing them over and fucking the DRK network up royally. I have manfully resisted the temptation to wade in with 'I told you so.'  ;D)

Secondly, Spead MNs don't need a static IP, which aids MN decentralisation.

Thirdly, Spread MNs are far easier to administrate.

Forthly, on-chain voting.

Fifthly... well you get the gist.

Neither system is perfect, each has important things it could and should learn from the approach of the other. :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 14, 2015, 12:42:37 am
Man, you two ... MyFarm and Strumpet are madly in love with darkcoin, and just want spreadcoin to become like it....

LMFAO!

 ;D ;D ;D

I can only speak for myself - yes I think Evan has done a lot of things right. Spread however does some things better, firstly the solo mining aspect. A currency like Darkcoin that is dominated by 2 or 3 pools is utterly worthless to serious investors and doesn't deserve to call itself decentralised.

(If you pop into the BCT DRK thread you'll see that some of their beloved and trustworthy pools are currently screwing them over and fucking the DRK network up royally. I have manfully resisted the temptation to wade in with 'I told you so.'  ;D)

Secondly, Spead MNs don't need a static IP, which aids MN decentralisation.

Thirdly, Spread MNs are far easier to administrate.

Fourthly... well you get the gist.

Neither system is perfect, each has important things it could and should learn from the approach of the other. :)

I agree with all of that wholeheartedly.

I will just have to make you understand what free market competition really means, and what it does not mean.

(Exactly the reason why I planned a subforum called "Decentralization" ...)

Most people don't understand neither the economics nor the philosophy behind decentralization.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 14, 2015, 01:10:28 am
I'm all for trying what Mr. Spread has created but I do wonder if Strumpet is correct that masternodes will be dominated by the rich.  Frankly, that benefits me but I think it would benefit me more if they weren't dominated by the rich.

I we treat the rich better than we treat the poor then - and only then - will we be dominated by the rich.

That's where I see the flaw in the current implementation... The rich (the high amount MNs) get treated like they are different from the rest.

WTF! That's not decentralization, that's the beginning of a very horrible centralization.

Solution? Get rid of their special treatment.

Don't give them a higher chance of getting votes. That's horrible!

Let them secure their MN with a high amount of SPR, if they want so. But don't increase their chances of making a profit, or else this will lead to them growing like a cancer.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: chrysophylax on February 14, 2015, 02:35:58 am
I'm all for trying what Mr. Spread has created but I do wonder if Strumpet is correct that masternodes will be dominated by the rich.  Frankly, that benefits me but I think it would benefit me more if they weren't dominated by the rich.

I we treat the rich better than we treat the poor then - and only then - will we be dominated by the rich.

That's where I see the flaw in the current implementation... The rich (the high amount MNs) get treated like they are different from the rest.

WTF! That's not decentralization, that's the beginning of a very horrible centralization.

Solution? Get rid of their special treatment.

Don't give them a higher chance of getting votes. That's horrible!

Let them secure their MN with a high amount of SPR, if they want so. But don't increase their chances of making a profit, or else this will lead to them growing like a cancer.

ok ... so let me get this straight then ...

For people like me who have invested HUGE amounts of money and time and effort and expertise to establish a farm or network capable of doing far more than the average home computer can do - we are to setup a system like that at our own expense ( yes - I mean complete expense not just financial ) only to be dulled down in reward? ...

how does that make sense? ... How is that any different to the social economic system at the moment where the rich pay less tax? ...

If you want a true decentralized system - then the system would perform exactly the same as it would whether you have 7 masternodes or 700 masternodes ... This means that the 700 masternode system will be rewarded exactly the same as the 7 masternode system - except that by having 700 masternodes - the reward is by far greater in monetary value but NOT percentage ...

THAT is fair ... THAT is decentralized ... via percentage and NOT by a sliding scale of reward ...

#crysx
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 14, 2015, 02:41:50 am
ok ... so let me get this straight then ...

For people like me who have invested HUGE amounts of money and time and effort and expertise to establish a farm or network capable of doing far more than the average home computer can do - we are to setup a system like that at our own expense ( yes - I mean complete expense not just financial ) only to be dulled down in reward? ...

how does that make sense? ... How is that any different to the social economic system at the moment where the rich pay less tax? ...

If you want a true decentralized system - then the system would perform exactly the same as it would whether you have 7 masternodes or 700 masternodes ... This means that the 700 Maywood system will be rewarded exactly the same as the 7 masternode system - except that by having 700 masternodes - the reward is by far greater in monetary value but NOT percentage ...

THAT is fair ... THAT is decentralized ... via percentage and NOT by a sliding scale of reward ...

#crysx

Ok, so you say that you have a super server farm at your disposal.

Excellent.

Good, this means that you get to install many many masternodes on those machines, right?

The more masternodes you can install, the more profit you will make.

You are already in a better position than most of us because you have a super server or even a whole server farm. Good for you!
That's what we want! People like you.

So where exactly do you see the problem?

Your server will receive a better score because for example it will be able to offer a better instantx service than a home computer:

Nodes will monitor time delays between receiving transactions and confirmations from masternodes and will assign scores for each masternode according to these delays.

Do you have a problem that a home computer is allowed to compete with you?
Seriously? Is that what worries you?

Oh, and BTW, just because you invested a lot of money in server hardware doesn't mean that Spreadcoin owes you a profit. Ok?  ???

You will have to compete with everyone else, but relax, you are in a a very good position, since...

1) your hardware will receive a better score for the services it will provide
2) it can hold more masternodes (especially masternodes that will perform demanding services, unlike the "empty" masternodes we use now. (those are just temporary) )
3) you are one of the lucky guys who can buy SPR at a price of 0.068 $, so setting up a lot of masternodes should be easy for you.

But remember that there are other players out there, like me, and I will also want to make a profit.  8)

And that's where the beautiful free market competition kicks in.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: chrysophylax on February 14, 2015, 03:02:57 am
ok ... so let me get this straight then ...

For people like me who have invested HUGE amounts of money and time and effort and expertise to establish a farm or network capable of doing far more than the average home computer can do - we are to setup a system like that at our own expense ( yes - I mean complete expense not just financial ) only to be dulled down in reward? ...

how does that make sense? ... How is that any different to the social economic system at the moment where the rich pay less tax? ...

If you want a true decentralized system - then the system would perform exactly the same as it would whether you have 7 masternodes or 700 masternodes ... This means that the 700 Maywood system will be rewarded exactly the same as the 7 masternode system - except that by having 700 masternodes - the reward is by far greater in monetary value but NOT percentage ...

THAT is fair ... THAT is decentralized ... via percentage and NOT by a sliding scale of reward ...

#crysx

Ok, so you say that you have a super server at your disposal.

Excellent.

Good, this means that you get to install many many masternodes on that machine, right?

The more masternodes you can install, the more profit you will make.

You are already in a better position than most of us because you have a super server or even a whole server farm. Good for you!
That's what we want! People like you.

So where exactly do you see the problem?

Your server will receive a better score because for example it will be able to offer a better instantx service than a home computer:

Nodes will monitor time delays between receiving transactions and confirmations from masternodes and will assign scores for each masternode according to these delays.

Do you have a problem that a home computer is allowed to compete with you?
Seriously? Is that what worries you?

Oh, and BTW, just because you invested a lot of money in server hardware doesn't mean that Spreadcoin owes you a profit. Ok?  ???

You will have to compete with everyone else, but relax, you are in a a very good position, since...

1) your hardware will receive a better score for the services it will provide
2) it can hold more masternodes
3) you are one of the lucky guys who can buy SPR at a price of 0.068 $, so setting up a lot of masternodes should be easy for you.

But remember that there are other players out there, like me, and I will also want to make a profit.  8)

And that's where the beautiful free market competition kicks in.

you got me wrong georgem ...

What I'm saying is that WE should ALL have an EQUAL chance of making a profit by setting the rewards up on a PERCENTAGE system rather than a sliding scale reward system ...

this way even the smallest machine will reward from the input that it has ... much like gst or vat or whatever it is in other countries ...

ONE percentage for ALL ...

this way - if you do setup a farm or supercomputer or one little home machine - then we are ALL on a single playing field ...

i agree with you on the rich NOT to be rewarded any MORE than the poor systems ... That's why I'm saying DON'T 'punish' ( as you said in an earlier post ) the rich systems - just let them perform on the same playing field as ALL other systems ...

#crysx
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 14, 2015, 03:06:54 am
i agree with you on the rich NOT to be rewarded any MORE than the poor systems ... That's why I'm saying DON'T 'punish' ( as you said in an earlier post ) the rich systems - just let them perform on the same playing field as ALL other systems ...

#crysx

Yes, I totally agree.
What I meant with punishment, is that even a high amount Masternode (a rich masternode) will be punished with a low score if it is installed on a "gameboy".

Ok? Not even the high amount masternodes are safe from being punished.

When I say "punished" I mean receiving de-election votes.

What else is de-election but a punishment?  :D

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 14, 2015, 03:12:39 am
you got me wrong georgem ...

What I'm saying is that WE should ALL have an EQUAL chance of making a profit by setting the rewards up on a PERCENTAGE system rather than a sliding scale reward system ...

this way even the smallest machine will reward from the input that it has ... much like gst or vat or whatever it is in other countries ...

ONE percentage for ALL ...

this way - if you do setup a farm or supercomputer or one little home machine - then we are ALL on a single playing field ...

i agree with you on the rich NOT to be rewarded any MORE than the poor systems ... That's why I'm saying DON'T 'punish' ( as you said in an earlier post ) the rich systems - just let them perform on the same playing field as ALL other systems ...

#crysx

Let me make it clear to you that the implementation we are using now is giving the high amount masternodes a special treatment.

They get to sooner receive votes than the rest.

That's why we see them taking away all the available votes, so that all the low amount masternodes don't get any votes (or only a very miniscule amount, like the breadcrumbs the rich people let fall off the table.)

That's what I was saying in the last dozen posts I made here.

Do you understand my viewpoint now, and why it kills competition instead of enabling it?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 14, 2015, 03:17:55 am
Let me phrase it differently.

Why should the top masternodes receive subsidies from the government ... erm.. I mean voting system?

Why not treat everyone equally?

You can earn your place and profit by offering a valuable service in the form of high powered servers.
The system will reward you more based on how much better your service performance is...
AND NOT BASED ON HOW MUCH SPR YOU HAVE.

 8)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: chrysophylax on February 14, 2015, 03:18:22 am
i agree with you on the rich NOT to be rewarded any MORE than the poor systems ... That's why I'm saying DON'T 'punish' ( as you said in an earlier post ) the rich systems - just let them perform on the same playing field as ALL other systems ...

#crysx

Yes, I totally agree.
What I meant with punishment, is that even a high amount Masternode (a rich masternode) will be punished with a low score if it is installed on a "gameboy".

Ok? Not even the high amount masternodes are safe from being punished.

When I say "punished" I mean receiving de-election votes.

What else is de-election but a punishment?  :D

true ...

I guess if it is to be fair and equitable then the process should be standardized on all systems - gameboy included :) ...

so totally agree there ...

what I'm confused about ( evidently ) is HOW this process will be setup and HOW well it be done in a fair and equitable way? ...

there are those that have hardware and those that have data storage and those that have huge amounts of processing power and those that have money ...

how is all this going to be utilized and act as a decentralized system if it is not treated under the same reward / cost system ...

#crysx
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: chrysophylax on February 14, 2015, 03:22:52 am
Let me phrase it differently.

Why should the top masternodes receive subsidies from the government ... erm.. I mean voting system?

Why not treat everyone equally?

You can earn your place and profit by offering a valuable service in the form of high powered servers.
The system will reward you more based on how much better your service performance is...
AND NOT BASED ON HOW MUCH SPR YOU HAVE.

 8)

bloody hell ... that answered it ...

I'm so not going to be using these tab and phone systems any more to respond ...

what a pain :) ... take too long to type and the stupidity that the predictive text system has is beyond me ...

I'll wait to get back my office computer ;) ...

tanx for clarifying ...

#crysx
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 14, 2015, 03:25:19 am
true ...

I guess if it is to be fair and equitable then the process should be standardized on all systems - gameboy included :) ...

so totally agree there ...

what I'm confused about ( evidently ) is HOW this process will be setup and HOW well it be done in a fair and equitable way? ...

there are those that have hardware and those that have data storage and those that have huge amounts of processing power and those that have money ...

how is all this going to be utilized and act as a decentralized system if it is not treated under the same reward / cost system ...

#crysx

It depends on what future services will run on a masternode.

Mr. Spread has currently only made an example regarding masternodes that will offer an instantX service:

Nodes will monitor time delays between receiving transactions and confirmations from masternodes and will assign scores for each masternode according to these delays.

What this means is the network will monitor how fast your server reacts (time delay) and will give you a score depending on that result.

So you and your serverfarm will obviously receive a much much higher score than a "gameboy".

Now, I don't know yet how Mr. Spread is going to calculate a score for all the future services that masternodes will provide...
But let's wait for it to happen first. I don't even know what those services will be yet, ....  ;D

All in good time.

Has this answer helped you?

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 14, 2015, 05:32:42 am
I am not sure, I am still struggling to read the sourcode of spreadcoin, and understand at least the most basic things... lol ...
but I assume this is the function within masternodes.cpp where the amount of SPR within the masternodes is additionally applied to the score when comparing the masternodes scores:

https://github.com/spreadcoin-project/spreadcoin/blob/mn-test/src/masternodes.cpp#L454-L461

Code: [Select]
static bool compareMasternodesByScore(const CMasterNode* pLeft, const CMasterNode* pRight)
{
    double ls = pLeft ->GetScore();
    double rs = pRight->GetScore();
    double a = pLeft ->amount*1.0/COIN - ls*ls;
    double b = pRight->amount*1.0/COIN - rs*rs;
    return a > b;
}

In my opinion this kills competition.

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 14, 2015, 08:42:59 am
I am not sure, I am still struggling to read the sourcode of spreadcoin, and understand at least the most basic things... lol ...
but I assume this is the function within masternodes.cpp where the amount of SPR within the masternodes is additionally applied to the score when comparing the masternodes scores:

https://github.com/spreadcoin-project/spreadcoin/blob/mn-test/src/masternodes.cpp#L454-L461

Code: [Select]
static bool compareMasternodesByScore(const CMasterNode* pLeft, const CMasterNode* pRight)
{
    double ls = pLeft ->GetScore();
    double rs = pRight->GetScore();
    double a = pLeft ->amount*1.0/COIN - ls*ls;
    double b = pRight->amount*1.0/COIN - rs*rs;
    return a > b;
}

In my opinion this kills competition.

Georgem, do masternodes act as collateral when using instentx?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 14, 2015, 11:00:36 am
Finally, I made an OS X build: http://spreadcoin.net/mn2/SpreadTest2Coin-Qt.dmg
Use with caution, I think it will try to replace your original SpreadCoin client if it is installed. I don't have a Mac to test it.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 14, 2015, 11:08:43 am
Let me phrase it differently.

Why should the top masternodes receive subsidies from the government ... erm.. I mean voting system?

Why not treat everyone equally?

You can earn your place and profit by offering a valuable service in the form of high powered servers.
The system will reward you more based on how much better your service performance is...
AND NOT BASED ON HOW MUCH SPR YOU HAVE.

 8)
Why is order in which masternodes are elected is so important for you? It is mostly relevant while there are less than 1440 masternodes, once there are 1440 masternodes there will be much less options for whom to vote.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 14, 2015, 11:21:47 am
I am not sure, I am still struggling to read the sourcode of spreadcoin, and understand at least the most basic things... lol ...
but I assume this is the function within masternodes.cpp where the amount of SPR within the masternodes is additionally applied to the score when comparing the masternodes scores:

https://github.com/spreadcoin-project/spreadcoin/blob/mn-test/src/masternodes.cpp#L454-L461

Code: [Select]
static bool compareMasternodesByScore(const CMasterNode* pLeft, const CMasterNode* pRight)
{
    double ls = pLeft ->GetScore();
    double rs = pRight->GetScore();
    double a = pLeft ->amount*1.0/COIN - ls*ls;
    double b = pRight->amount*1.0/COIN - rs*rs;
    return a > b;
}

In my opinion this kills competition.
Can you clarify what is wrong with this?
Don't you want score to be added there and thus disable taking into account masternodes response times (I guess this is not what you want)?
Or do you want not to add the masternode amount and thus select 1440 masternodes only based on their response times and don't care about their amounts at all, i.e. there will some required amount to run a masternode like in DarkCoin but unlike in DarkCoin there will be also a limit on number of masternodes and only masternodes with the best response times will receive payments?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 14, 2015, 11:29:39 am
I'm all for trying what Mr. Spread has created but I do wonder if Strumpet is correct that masternodes will be dominated by the rich.  Frankly, that benefits me but I think it would benefit me more if they weren't dominated by the rich.

I we treat the rich better than we treat the poor then - and only then - will we be dominated by the rich.

That's where I see the flaw in the current implementation... The rich (the high amount MNs) get treated like they are different from the rest.

WTF! That's not decentralization, that's the beginning of a very horrible centralization.

Solution? Get rid of their special treatment.

Don't give them a higher chance of getting votes. That's horrible!

Let them secure their MN with a high amount of SPR, if they want so. But don't increase their chances of making a profit, or else this will lead to them growing like a cancer.
You are making contradictions to yourself.

Let them secure their MN with a high amount of SPR, if they want so
How can they secure their MNs with more amount of SPR? If we don't take into account the amount of SPR they hold why would anyone put more than a required minimum?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: chrysophylax on February 14, 2015, 11:35:21 am
I'm all for trying what Mr. Spread has created but I do wonder if Strumpet is correct that masternodes will be dominated by the rich.  Frankly, that benefits me but I think it would benefit me more if they weren't dominated by the rich.

I we treat the rich better than we treat the poor then - and only then - will we be dominated by the rich.

That's where I see the flaw in the current implementation... The rich (the high amount MNs) get treated like they are different from the rest.

WTF! That's not decentralization, that's the beginning of a very horrible centralization.

Solution? Get rid of their special treatment.

Don't give them a higher chance of getting votes. That's horrible!

Let them secure their MN with a high amount of SPR, if they want so. But don't increase their chances of making a profit, or else this will lead to them growing like a cancer.
You are making contradictions to yourself.

Let them secure their MN with a high amount of SPR, if they want so
How can they secure their MNs with more amount of SPR? If we don't take into account the amount of SPR they hold why would anyone put more than a required minimum?

so what is the required minimum? ...

#crysx
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 14, 2015, 11:46:37 am
so what is the required minimum? ...
100 SPR on testnet
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: chrysophylax on February 14, 2015, 12:56:46 pm
so what is the required minimum? ...
100 SPR on testnet

tanx ...

how can I split the 1000spr that was deposited to make multiple masternodes in the same wallet? ...

#crysx
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 14, 2015, 01:27:11 pm
so what is the required minimum? ...
100 SPR on testnet

tanx ...

how can I split the 1000spr that was deposited to make multiple masternodes in the same wallet? ...

#crysx

Hope this works for you, but go to coin control in wallet. Make sure the MN is deselected: http://spreadcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93.msg1556#msg1556
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 14, 2015, 01:32:21 pm
Are we all done with testing? I have some tSPR to hand out.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 14, 2015, 01:34:48 pm
Are we all done with testing? I have some tSPR to hand out.

Wolf0,

I could use whatever you can spare.

n1Yuw3N8Zkh288eiyiBPyGFcUtVjmiKufD

Thanks.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 14, 2015, 01:43:21 pm
Are we all done with testing? I have some tSPR to hand out.

Wolf0,

I could use whatever you can spare.

n1Yuw3N8Zkh288eiyiBPyGFcUtVjmiKufD

Thanks.

Sent 5k - 2a1dfac370f8185afed39f3d6ae9847c5c6718e53ec819bb60dc0c681d5cce50
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 14, 2015, 01:58:20 pm
I am not sure, I am still struggling to read the sourcode of spreadcoin, and understand at least the most basic things... lol ...
but I assume this is the function within masternodes.cpp where the amount of SPR within the masternodes is additionally applied to the score when comparing the masternodes scores:

https://github.com/spreadcoin-project/spreadcoin/blob/mn-test/src/masternodes.cpp#L454-L461

Code: [Select]
static bool compareMasternodesByScore(const CMasterNode* pLeft, const CMasterNode* pRight)
{
    double ls = pLeft ->GetScore();
    double rs = pRight->GetScore();
    double a = pLeft ->amount*1.0/COIN - ls*ls;
    double b = pRight->amount*1.0/COIN - rs*rs;
    return a > b;
}

In my opinion this kills competition.
Can you clarify what is wrong with this?
Don't you want score to be added there and thus disable taking into account masternodes response times (I guess this is not what you want)?
Or do you want not to add the masternode amount and thus select 1440 masternodes only based on their response times and don't care about their amounts at all, i.e. there will some required amount to run a masternode like in DarkCoin but unlike in DarkCoin there will be also a limit on number of masternodes and only masternodes with the best response times will receive payments?

In my opinion, if the function's name is compareMasternodesByScore then that's what it should do.

And not also take the amount of SPR into consideration, so instead of...

Code: [Select]
static bool compareMasternodesByScore(const CMasterNode* pLeft, const CMasterNode* pRight)
{
    double ls = pLeft ->GetScore();
    double rs = pRight->GetScore();
    double a = pLeft ->amount*1.0/COIN - ls*ls;
    double b = pRight->amount*1.0/COIN - rs*rs;
    return a > b;
}

...it should read:

Code: [Select]
static bool compareMasternodesByScore(const CMasterNode* pLeft, const CMasterNode* pRight)
{
    double ls = pLeft ->GetScore();
    double rs = pRight->GetScore();
    return ls > rs;
}

This way you are really comparing the scores, and nothing else.
This way you are really using the scores to decide how to sort the masternodes that should get votes (and therefor a chance of being elected).

You are using this compare-function in the sort-functions of the function MN_CastVotes.
So to do the Vote-Casting process you include the amount of SPR in a masternode, so that the higher amount SPR get sorted to the front, so that they can vote sooner (and receive votes sooner) than everybody else, isn't this the case?

Why did you decide to include the amount of SPR in a compare-function that concerns the vote-casting?
That's what I don't understand.

---

Ofcourse, sorting by the amount of SPR within all elected nodes is how we derive the rank list, and decide what MN becomes the weakest link.
But shouldn't this be a different function someplace else? Something like compareMasternodesByAmount?
You don't need to involve the amount of SPR in a function like compareMasternodesByScore... because they aren't needed there, right?

Let everyone be able to vote and get votes EQUALLY, aslong as they fulfill the minimum deposit requirement.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 14, 2015, 02:08:13 pm
Let me phrase it differently.

Why should the top masternodes receive subsidies from the government ... erm.. I mean voting system?

Why not treat everyone equally?

You can earn your place and profit by offering a valuable service in the form of high powered servers.
The system will reward you more based on how much better your service performance is...
AND NOT BASED ON HOW MUCH SPR YOU HAVE.

 8)
Why is order in which masternodes are elected is so important for you? It is mostly relevant while there are less than 1440 masternodes, once there are 1440 masternodes there will be much less options for whom to vote.

...if the order of election were irrelevant, then we would see more MNs get elected faster.
We have now about 2000 mns in the list. We had 1440 ready mns in the list 2 days ago. If smaller MNs would have been allowed to receive votes everything would be faster, and we would already be testing the kicking.

Why disadvantage the low amount MNs when it comes to receiving votes?

Isn't the process that simply kicks the 1441st MN out enough to handle the weakest link?

What you do now is use the deposit amount of an MN earlier then you should, ...
You use it already in the voting / election process...

But I think the deposit amount should only be taken into consideration once we have >1440 elected mns.

(with the exception of the minimum amount requirement of 100 SPR ofcourse)

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 14, 2015, 02:17:59 pm
I'm all for trying what Mr. Spread has created but I do wonder if Strumpet is correct that masternodes will be dominated by the rich.  Frankly, that benefits me but I think it would benefit me more if they weren't dominated by the rich.

I we treat the rich better than we treat the poor then - and only then - will we be dominated by the rich.

That's where I see the flaw in the current implementation... The rich (the high amount MNs) get treated like they are different from the rest.

WTF! That's not decentralization, that's the beginning of a very horrible centralization.

Solution? Get rid of their special treatment.

Don't give them a higher chance of getting votes. That's horrible!

Let them secure their MN with a high amount of SPR, if they want so. But don't increase their chances of making a profit, or else this will lead to them growing like a cancer.
You are making contradictions to yourself.


No, I am not.  8)

Quote
Solution? Get rid of their special treatment.

concerns how MNs get their votes. High amount MNs are treated with more "preference" (more "respect" if you will) that's why you see only them getting votes now.

And

Quote
Let them secure their MN with a high amount of SPR, if they want so.

concerns only how far away your MN is from the 1441st rank, the so called weakest-link. (It has nothing to do with the voting process, it's a separate issue.)
If you want to move yourself away as far as possible from the weakest-link-rank, you only need to secure your MN with a higher amount of SPR.

You decide how far away you want to move yourself from the lowest rank, simply with the amount of SPR you are willing to set.

This alone suffices to save your MN!
So why do you also involve the voting process, by letting the high amount MNs be treated with preference?  :o

It is absolutely not necessary to give an MN that desires a better rank ALSO a special treatment when it comes to how it receives votes.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 14, 2015, 02:28:52 pm
Let them secure their MN with a high amount of SPR, if they want so

How can they secure their MNs with more amount of SPR? If we don't take into account the amount of SPR they hold why would anyone put more than a required minimum?

By simply moving away as far as possible from the 1440st rank of all elected MNs.

Because once the 1440st rank becomes the 1441st rank, it's the one that will be kicked.

But what you have done is you created something like an "aid program" for the rich people in the compareMasternodesByScore - Funktion.
Instead of letting them all be inflicted by the competitive turnover, you thought it necessary to also help them during the voting process.

Why, why give them special treatment?  8)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 14, 2015, 03:02:22 pm
Finally, I made an OS X build: http://spreadcoin.net/mn2/SpreadTest2Coin-Qt.dmg
Use with caution, I think it will try to replace your original SpreadCoin client if it is installed. I don't have a Mac to test it.

Awesome, I will test it right away!  :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 14, 2015, 03:37:24 pm
At first glance, it works perfectly:

Not synced yet:

(http://i.imgur.com/JqeBQjY.png?1)
(http://i.imgur.com/AjVAyTr.png?1)

Synchronisation finished:

(http://i.imgur.com/foTNAWU.png?1)
(http://i.imgur.com/tgxoOLk.png?1)

Masternodes-List:

(http://i.imgur.com/TA6arFi.png?1)

Mining works:

(http://i.imgur.com/ohmYWOp.png?1)


Awesome, looks good.

Now I need to test transaction and creation of masternodes and their election.

Please can someone send me tSPR to this address:

mr4tw8Qki56sdV8huiyzjFZohH3N9WhCJb
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 14, 2015, 04:15:28 pm
Sent 5k.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Sergeant1999 on February 14, 2015, 04:32:17 pm
Also sent some. Strange thing is small amounts up to 200 SPR get confirmations from MNs immediately but transactions of 500 and 400 got nothing from MNs. Is it bug or feature?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 14, 2015, 05:08:01 pm
Also sent some. Strange thing is small amounts up to 200 SPR get confirmations from MNs immediately but transactions of 500 and 400 got nothing from MNs. Is it bug or feature?

The size of the  transaction may be too large.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: peanutbutter on February 14, 2015, 07:05:06 pm
Just signed up, would appreciate any test spr n2gzwvr44zEJmt2LAPduVZxwQqriWqGmSb
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Sergeant1999 on February 14, 2015, 07:21:35 pm
Also sent some. Strange thing is small amounts up to 200 SPR get confirmations from MNs immediately but transactions of 500 and 400 got nothing from MNs. Is it bug or feature?

The size of the  transaction may be too large.

So it seems to be a well known fact that MNs do not service large transactions? I did not know. Thank you!
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 14, 2015, 07:46:44 pm
Also sent some. Strange thing is small amounts up to 200 SPR get confirmations from MNs immediately but transactions of 500 and 400 got nothing from MNs. Is it bug or feature?

The size of the  transaction may be too large.

So it seems to be a well known fact that MNs do not service large transactions? I did not know. Thank you!

Did you send via InstantX or a normal transaction?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 14, 2015, 07:47:33 pm
Mr. Spread,

On the, "Send" tab, the balance at the bottom shows as the TOTAL balance.  Since it is the send screen, I think that balance should reflect what is available to be sent and not locked in masternodes.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 14, 2015, 07:48:51 pm
Also sent some. Strange thing is small amounts up to 200 SPR get confirmations from MNs immediately but transactions of 500 and 400 got nothing from MNs. Is it bug or feature?

The size of the  transaction may be too large.

So it seems to be a well known fact that MNs do not service large transactions? I did not know. Thank you!

I believe the current situation remains this:
Which transactions can be made instantly?
Currently these are all transactions with less than 15 inputs and fee of at least 0.001 SPR per input.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 14, 2015, 07:54:48 pm
Mr. Spread,

On the, "Send" tab, the balance at the bottom shows as the TOTAL balance.  Since it is the send screen, I think that balance should reflect what is available to be sent and not locked in masternodes.

Also, referencing the 15 inputs / 0.001 fee thing for IX, it would be nice if the wallet calculated / displayed the fees for your Send, and offered you the choice of IX or normal tx.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Sergeant1999 on February 14, 2015, 09:17:24 pm
Also sent some. Strange thing is small amounts up to 200 SPR get confirmations from MNs immediately but transactions of 500 and 400 got nothing from MNs. Is it bug or feature?

The size of the  transaction may be too large.

So it seems to be a well known fact that MNs do not service large transactions? I did not know. Thank you!

I believe the current situation remains this:
Which transactions can be made instantly?
Currently these are all transactions with less than 15 inputs and fee of at least 0.001 SPR per input.

15 inputs - yes, that explains. All SPR had been received from MNs, so there were definately much more than 15 inputs.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Sergeant1999 on February 14, 2015, 09:20:36 pm
Also sent some. Strange thing is small amounts up to 200 SPR get confirmations from MNs immediately but transactions of 500 and 400 got nothing from MNs. Is it bug or feature?

The size of the  transaction may be too large.

So it seems to be a well known fact that MNs do not service large transactions? I did not know. Thank you!

Did you send via InstantX or a normal transaction?

I wish I knew the difference.  :-[
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: IBGigglin on February 14, 2015, 09:25:04 pm
Forgive my basic question that Im sure is somewhere in this thread but when I send the coins I mined to myself it tells me 0.00 sent to self n/a
What am I doing wrong?

Also if someone could send me some tSPR (whatevers the current amount to be cleared quickly) thatd be great. Theres an issue with my mobo and CPU mining always crashes my computer. Not just with testnet, with any coin Ive tried to CPU mine with.

n1ZpfbooCQSLYwoaDQvm7S9K7wTGmHHUDB

This is my first time learning MNs and understanding exactly how they work. I've got a nice amount of SPR that I plan to run MNs with but obviously want a full understanding of the basics before I end up screwing something up with real SPR.

Thanks guys.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: IBGigglin on February 14, 2015, 09:28:09 pm
Someone just sent me 2500 so Im good for now to test with.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Wolf0 on February 14, 2015, 09:32:34 pm
Someone just sent me 2500 so Im good for now to test with.

Thanks.

No problem.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Sergeant1999 on February 14, 2015, 09:34:01 pm
Forgive my basic question that Im sure is somewhere in this thread but when I send the coins I mined to myself it tells me 0.00 sent to self n/a
What am I doing wrong?

I think it's OK. If you double-click transaction, you'll see all details: credit+debit=0

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 15, 2015, 12:23:23 am
...if the order of election were irrelevant, then we would see more MNs get elected faster.
We have now about 2000 mns in the list. We had 1440 ready mns in the list 2 days ago. If smaller MNs would have been allowed to receive votes everything would be faster,
Why? Order of election affects only order of election, not the rate at which masternodes can be elected. If they were elected in different order then we would have different set of elected masternodes but their number would still be the same that we get with current system.

Isn't the process that simply kicks the 1441st MN out enough to handle the weakest link?

What you do now is use the deposit amount of an MN earlier then you should, ...
You use it already in the voting / election process...

But I think the deposit amount should only be taken into consideration once we have >1440 elected mns.

(with the exception of the minimum amount requirement of 100 SPR ofcourse)
So we would first elect a bunch of 100 SPR masternodes and then we would suddenly discover that we should deelect most of them and replace them with other MNs.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 15, 2015, 12:25:56 am
Mr. Spread,

On the, "Send" tab, the balance at the bottom shows as the TOTAL balance.  Since it is the send screen, I think that balance should reflect what is available to be sent and not locked in masternodes.
Thanks for spotting this, will be fixed in the next version.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Mr. Spread on February 15, 2015, 12:42:30 am
georgem, in essence:
1. Voting for MN which is not in top 1440 doesn't make sense because it will be kicked off anyway. Therefore we should take the amount into account during voting.
2. Voting for MNs with higher amounts first is better because they are less likely to be kicked off.
3. Once there are 1440 masternodes the order of elections will be much less relevant because the rate of necessary changes to MN list will slow down. Also don't forget that parameters will be changed for mainnet to make elections faster.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: daddeo on February 15, 2015, 12:52:07 am
Are the wallet links at the beginning of the thread still the most recent for testing purposes?
Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 15, 2015, 01:02:11 am
Are the wallet links at the beginning of the thread still the most recent for testing purposes?
Thanks in advance.

Yes
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: daddeo on February 15, 2015, 01:57:52 am
Are the wallet links at the beginning of the thread still the most recent for testing purposes?
Thanks in advance.

Yes
Thx
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: daddeo on February 15, 2015, 03:34:02 am
Alright. I'm synced and ready to contribute. Could use some coins please.

mpfMH36NvWfGkQsSqGF3JQpwBC8ThVCurV
mugez3S6uBWxjjxN1ubMJe42vjE7Dehue7
mxZxv4tq1gr9Mcs78TuLF4eTr7RGS1d3us
mzozvszPw1ZUu8NHJMD1pBwkZKnLFjgsLB
n14U64nKxQKZpgrRarTaxKyr3iftGb7hNM
mt97GwxZAM3QwCw6Smhx9q1qvMpncMD5kZ
mgvsHwXCNiLYxBkQFVasHJ4GgTNcrXMk2b
mrhZXpd4vLfyd3KLeFBNtZ9jdHVxx2iAER
mwCSdpJbM7AUMZw9Ru1i1tDk7nZyiWfKbQ
mxF5D6dRooX1mizSweBZu7iKaqNS39Wbt2

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 15, 2015, 03:45:02 am
I sent 270, which is all I had, to your first address.  I'd suggest striking it out and hopefully others will send more.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 15, 2015, 03:52:26 am
Mr. Spread,

Have you decided if you're going to release masternodes to mainnet and then release a new build with InstantX to testnet or are you going to wait for InstantX to be ready before you release to mainnet?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: daddeo on February 15, 2015, 04:27:41 am
I sent 270, which is all I had, to your first address.  I'd suggest striking it out and hopefully others will send more.
Thanks. I'll split it up between two.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 15, 2015, 04:31:31 am
I sent 270, which is all I had, to your first address.  I'd suggest striking it out and hopefully others will send more.
Thanks. I'll split it up between two.
I'd suggest not as the lowest tSPR masternode that, at present, will be elected is 166 tSPR.  Remember, there is a cap of 1440 elected masternodes so you need to be in the top 1440 if you want elected and paid.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: daddeo on February 15, 2015, 04:44:04 am
I sent 270, which is all I had, to your first address.  I'd suggest striking it out and hopefully others will send more.
Thanks. I'll split it up between two.
I'd suggest not as the lowest tSPR masternode that, at present, will be elected is 166 tSPR.  Remember, there is a cap of 1440 elected masternodes so you need to be in the top 1440 if you want elected and paid.
Ah. Good to know. I knew about the cap and about the lower nodes not getting elected quickly. So something above 166 then, right.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 15, 2015, 05:23:55 am
Mr. Spread,

I've been watching masternode elections and the 14319 and 4000 masternodes pictured should be getting elected from my understanding.  But for some reason they're not.  They're being skipped.  Can you explain why please?

(http://i.imgur.com/iFs7YxE.png)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: peanutbutter on February 15, 2015, 06:37:31 am
The 4k node is mine.  I was looking to see if it would be elected in a faster time frame than the 250 spr nodes i have running, which appears not to be the case.  The 250 nodes I have up were all elected at the around the same time.  I'm assuming election priority is not given to nodes with more spr, making the amount assigned arbitrary provided it meets the 1440 cutoff
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 15, 2015, 08:06:35 am
Mr. Spread,

I've been watching masternode elections and the 14319 and 4000 masternodes pictured should be getting elected from my understanding.  But for some reason they're not.  They're being skipped.  Can you explain why please?

(http://i.imgur.com/iFs7YxE.png)

Maybe the owner hasn't clicked the check box  ::)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: GilAlexander on February 15, 2015, 08:51:36 am
Recently I stopped my 150spr nodes and started up 52 x 198spr. They all except one (it was my fault) were elected for a day.
Are we intend to achieve 1440 nodes? I can run more: n393tuERaYLMxMfXjCpn7DnLB3BKqe59Xq
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 15, 2015, 08:53:04 am
Recently I stopped my 150spr nodes and started up 52 x 198spr. They all except one (it was my fault) were elected for a day.
Are we intend to achieve 1440 nodes? I can run more: n393tuERaYLMxMfXjCpn7DnLB3BKqe59Xq

Yes, me too.

mi3C4Pg2QSJ1LhbRGgir8r7vQ7wGSKeiCd
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: peanutbutter on February 15, 2015, 09:17:51 am
Mr. Spread,

I've been watching masternode elections and the 14319 and 4000 masternodes pictured should be getting elected from my understanding.  But for some reason they're not.  They're being skipped.  Can you explain why please?

(http://i.imgur.com/iFs7YxE.png)

Maybe the owner hasn't clicked the check box.

no sir.  as owner of the 4k node, i can affirm the check box was clicked over 5hrs ago
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 15, 2015, 09:41:46 am
Mr. Spread,

I've been watching masternode elections and the 14319 and 4000 masternodes pictured should be getting elected from my understanding.  But for some reason they're not.  They're being skipped.  Can you explain why please?

(http://i.imgur.com/iFs7YxE.png)

Maybe the owner hasn't clicked the check box.

no sir.  as owner of the 4k node, i can affirm the check box was clicked over 5hrs ago

The score of the masternode is going up, so once it reaches sub 0.1 you should get votes.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: elbandi on February 15, 2015, 12:19:27 pm
Do you want this filter checkboxes?

http://imgur.com/vxf220p

Elbandi
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 15, 2015, 12:56:59 pm
Do you want this filter checkboxes?

http://imgur.com/vxf220p

Elbandi

Yes!

Could you add a box to check all of the MN check boxes?

Yes i know, lazy.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 15, 2015, 01:17:19 pm
Do you want this filter checkboxes?

http://imgur.com/vxf220p

Elbandi

I like that.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: sparkster on February 15, 2015, 01:54:26 pm
Some thoughts about *finite number* of MN in SPR... It's indeed contradicts the idea of MN itself. 1000 DRK 'bail' in Darkcoin is necessary only to prevent 'bad actor' to have most of the nodes. But in other senses DRK MN is just a regular node. In first place, all nodes should be able to be MN, but to prevent anybody to setup as many nodes as he want, there is 1000 DRK requirement. It's the basic idea of MN as I can understand it.

BUT.

SPR MN history is based on the blockchain. It needs some pretty high vote limit (now we just are trying to find it by our testing) to respond quickly enough to changes in MN network. The larger the number of MN, the bigger vote limit is needed for timeous reaction.

So to prevent blockchain blow-up (or - alternatively - too slow blockchain responding time), there must be finite number of MN in SPR.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 15, 2015, 02:02:00 pm
So to prevent blockchain blow-up (or - alternatively - too slow blockchain responding time), there must be finite number of MN in SPR.

No. If the blockchain can't handle a few extra bytes of voting per block the whole system is worthless. Blockchain bloat is a non issue for the forseeable future, and there are numerous ways it can be tackled anyway.

An arbitrary 1440 MN limit is stupid. There is no technical or economic reason for it, it just means that Spread will always have a weaker MN network than Darkcoin. Not good. Spread should capitalise on the ease of MN setup compared to Darkcoin and have as many MNs as people are willing or able to deploy.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 15, 2015, 02:16:06 pm
Is there a way to make the MN payments "free" instead of going into coin control every time and clicking the box?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 15, 2015, 02:39:42 pm
Is there a way to make the MN payments "free" instead of going into coin control every time and clicking the box?

I don't understand the question, but... you can safely send funds from a wallet containing MNs without using coin control as the MN inputs are locked when you check the MN box.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 15, 2015, 02:53:55 pm
georgem, in essence:
1. Voting for MN which is not in top 1440 doesn't make sense because it will be kicked off anyway. Therefore we should take the amount into account during voting.
2. Voting for MNs with higher amounts first is better because they are less likely to be kicked off.
3. Once there are 1440 masternodes the order of elections will be much less relevant because the rate of necessary changes to MN list will slow down. Also don't forget that parameters will be changed for mainnet to make elections faster.

Thanks for the explanations.

I am sure better parameters that will make elections faster will make everything look and feel better.

I am looking forward to see what it will be like, and if it will make this strange effect go away that we have now:
that the low amount MNs simply can't get any votes. (not even when we just had 700 total mns)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 15, 2015, 02:58:37 pm
Is there a way to make the MN payments "free" instead of going into coin control every time and clicking the box?

Do you mean "free" as in "you don't have to pay a fee",
or "free" as in "don't waste my time with this coin control shit"

 ;D
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 15, 2015, 03:13:03 pm
Is there a way to make the MN payments "free" instead of going into coin control every time and clicking the box?

Do you mean "free" as in "you don't have to pay a fee",
or "free" as in "don't waste my time with this coin control shit"

 ;D

Waste time with the coin control.

But I think strumpet migh have answered me as I don't need to worry about clicking those boxes.

EDIT: I guess I mean if you look at the pic it shows Amount of 34.953524707 I can send but that is because I went into coin control and clicked it. If I did not click it the send page shows nothing. SO are those 34.93524707 still able to be sent with out clicking them?

(http://s29.postimg.org/a3nwygedz/Capture.png)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 15, 2015, 03:21:21 pm
Oh, and another thing.

Overnight I shut down my PC again with the circa 100 MNs in it.... why am I crazy you ask?

No, because after I restarted 10 hours later - as expected - all my MNs were still elected, and I simply restarted them, and now they look as if nothing happened.

Why? Well, because the system prefers to give votes to only the top section of the maximum 1440 MNs, instead of spreading the votes equally over the whole spectrum (so that my low amount MNs get some votes too)
And this does ofcource concern all kinds of votes, not just election but also de-election votes as my example (shutting down all my MNs) demonstrates.

I guess we must allow for atleast 100 votes per block (144000 votes a day) to successfully counter this effect.
Or what number do you have in mind Mr. Spread?

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 15, 2015, 03:26:49 pm
Is there a way to make the MN payments "free" instead of going into coin control every time and clicking the box?

Do you mean "free" as in "you don't have to pay a fee",
or "free" as in "don't waste my time with this coin control shit"

 ;D

Waste time with the coin control.

But I think strumpet migh have answered me as I don't need to worry about clicking those boxes.

EDIT: I guess I mean if you look at the pic it shows Amount of 34.953524707 I can send but that is because I went into coin control and clicked it. If I did not click it the send page shows nothing. SO are those 34.93524707 still able to be sent with out clicking them?


Yes, the wallet should automatically use any change addresses available to "construct" your transaction.
The problem that sometimes can occur is that you have to account for the eventual higher tx fee.
Because scrapping all this change together from all those loose addresses will create a high number of inputs
for the transaction you are about to make, and therefor a higher than usual tx fee will apply.
So you are not going to be able to send 34.93524707, because the wallet will complain that you can't pay the fee.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 15, 2015, 03:37:31 pm
Do you want this filter checkboxes?

http://imgur.com/vxf220p

Elbandi
Yes please!
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 15, 2015, 04:46:51 pm
I've been thinking about Strumpet's concern about the rich owning masternodes.  What is everyone's thought on increasing the cap to 2880 from 1440?  In my opinion that would solve the issue.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 15, 2015, 05:33:45 pm
I've been thinking about Strumpet's concern about the rich owning masternodes.  What is everyone's thought on increasing the cap to 2880 from 1440?  In my opinion that would solve the issue.

Can you be a little bit more specific?

What problem do you (or strumpet) have with "the rich owning masternodes"?

And why do you think that increasing the max amount of MNs is going to solve this supposed problem?

Is your fear that a rich person could one day own all possible masternodes? If yes, we have debunked this multiple times. See BCT thread around one month ago and earlier.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 15, 2015, 05:50:05 pm
Do I think a rich person will one day own all the masternodes?  No, I do not.

I personally believe the value of a single Spreadcoin is going to go up a LOT.  With only 1440 masternodes, I forsee a time where only the rich can afford a masternode.  Now, we want them to be secured economically but we want someone with a few thousand dollars to be able to buy a masternode in a couple months.  It's not going to be good for the coin if it costs $10,000 in two months to buy a masternode because that excludes the vast majority of people from owning one.  If that happens a year from now, that's ok.  But Spreadcoin isn't yet widely distributed enough for it to happen in two months.  Having the cap be higher would help ensure that doesn't happen.  The value of Spreadcoin can appreciate still but because of the masternode supply, the lower masternodes will still be somewhat affordable.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 15, 2015, 06:22:30 pm
Originally Mr. Spread only wanted to use a max of 1000 MNs.

1440 max MNs was based around an idea I had that this way every MN would on average receive 1 payment a day.

I believe that having twice that (2880) will not solve the problem you describe (the problem of "how will newcomers be able to afford a masternode later in time"),
but only postpone the problem so it will come back and bite us later.

I always advocated for a flexible amount of MNs.

A limit yes, but a flexible one, that increases slowly over time.
This way it gets to act like a limit (that creates competition thru scarcity, and enables price discovery), but it will also have the flexibility to adjust for a large growth of SPR price and what an MN will cost.

I advocate for tying the max amount of MNs to the coinsupply:

Max MN = (total coinsupply)/ 1000.

or maybe divide them even further.

Max MN = (total coinsupply)/ 1440.

or

Max MN = (total coinsupply)/ 2880.

So today (with 1.865 Million coins) this would mean 1865 possible MNs, or 1294, or 647 possible MNs. (total coinsupply divided by 1000, 1440 and 2880)

This is not a fix limit, but a moving target, so let's look how this will change over time:

In 6 Months it will probably be 5000 MNs (or 3472, or 1736 MNs)....

We follow Bitcoins increase in coinsupply curve more or less.

So in about 6 years, we will have 13.85 Million coins.
How many MNs should we have in 6 years?
Based on my three suggestions, it would be 13850, or 9618, or 4809 MNs.

And what does that mean for eternity?
We will have 21000, or 14584 or 7292 MNs.

I should create a table, lol...

Any ideas?

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 15, 2015, 06:38:17 pm
A dynamic increase like you speak of would certainly be a more elegant solution.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 15, 2015, 06:50:09 pm
I particularly like Max MN = (total coinsupply)/ 2880.

Because it will allow for only a very limited amount of MN at the moment: around 650... (this will help drive the price of SPR up, now that it is young)
and it will grow to a healthy 1800 when we are as old as darkcoin... (1 Year)
and it will grow to a perfect 5000 MNs when we are as old as bitcoin... (6 years)

And when we reach the 21 Million max coinsupply in a 100 years we will have reached the maximum possible amount of 7292 MNs.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 15, 2015, 07:00:35 pm
georgem, in essence:
1. Voting for MN which is not in top 1440 doesn't make sense because it will be kicked off anyway. Therefore we should take the amount into account during voting.
2. Voting for MNs with higher amounts first is better because they are less likely to be kicked off.
3. Once there are 1440 masternodes the order of elections will be much less relevant because the rate of necessary changes to MN list will slow down. Also don't forget that parameters will be changed for mainnet to make elections faster.

Thanks for the explanations.

I am sure better parameters that will make elections faster will make everything look and feel better.

I am looking forward to see what it will be like, and if it will make this strange effect go away that we have now:
that the low amount MNs simply can't get any votes. (not even when we just had 700 total mns)

Currently 1440 masternodes with about 166SPR.

0 100 SPR MNs are going to be elected.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: kiindje on February 15, 2015, 07:20:19 pm
hey guys,

i'm having about 30mn's running here on testnet, and getting steady payments.

what stuff is still being sorted out or will this be going to mainnet soon?

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 15, 2015, 07:22:19 pm
hey guys,

i'm having about 30mn's running here on testnet, and getting steady payments.

what stuff is still being sorted out or will this be going to mainnet soon?

We're waiting for the 1440 masternodes to be elected so we can test the competition system.  After that, whether we go to mainnet is up to Mr. Spread.  So far he's not saying but hopefully he'll give us a hint soon.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 15, 2015, 07:41:36 pm
hey guys,

i'm having about 30mn's running here on testnet, and getting steady payments.

what stuff is still being sorted out or will this be going to mainnet soon?

A lot of stuff.

I think we will need atleast two additional test rounds, but they will not require Mr. Spread to do many changes.

Mr. Spread has said himself that the next testing round will include this:

Adjust the parameters of the voting process (change 10 max votes per block to something better, and probably even adjust the election requirement: "30 votes in last 60 blocks")

http://spreadcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93.msg1872#msg1872

http://spreadcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93.msg1876#msg1876

Also, god knows how well the kicking process will work in this test round.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 15, 2015, 07:56:49 pm
hey guys,

i'm having about 30mn's running here on testnet, and getting steady payments.

what stuff is still being sorted out or will this be going to mainnet soon?

A lot of stuff.

I think we will need atleast two additional test rounds, but they will not require Mr. Spread to do many changes.

Mr. Spread has said himself that the next testing round will include this:

Adjust the parameters of the voting process (change 10 max votes per block to something better, and probably even adjust the election requirement: "30 votes in last 60 blocks")

http://spreadcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93.msg1872#msg1872

http://spreadcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93.msg1876#msg1876

Also, god knows how well the kicking process will work in this test round.

I don't know.  Mr. Spread made the following statement:

georgem, in essence:
1. Voting for MN which is not in top 1440 doesn't make sense because it will be kicked off anyway. Therefore we should take the amount into account during voting.
2. Voting for MNs with higher amounts first is better because they are less likely to be kicked off.
3. Once there are 1440 masternodes the order of elections will be much less relevant because the rate of necessary changes to MN list will slow down. Also don't forget that parameters will be changed for mainnet to make elections faster.

That makes me think that he's comfortable not testing the new parameters on testnet and going straight to mainnet. 
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 15, 2015, 08:39:32 pm
georgem, in essence:
1. Voting for MN which is not in top 1440 doesn't make sense because it will be kicked off anyway. Therefore we should take the amount into account during voting.
2. Voting for MNs with higher amounts first is better because they are less likely to be kicked off.
3. Once there are 1440 masternodes the order of elections will be much less relevant because the rate of necessary changes to MN list will slow down. Also don't forget that parameters will be changed for mainnet to make elections faster.

That makes me think that he's comfortable not testing the new parameters on testnet and going straight to mainnet.

Ofcourse what he means by that, is that once we reach main net that the parameters will have changed by then.

I am very confident that Mr. Spread will not allow anything to reach main net without thoroughly testing it first.  8)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: peanutbutter on February 15, 2015, 08:40:56 pm
Has it been determined as of yet if the mn reward will increase past 30% over time like drk?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 15, 2015, 09:07:54 pm
georgem, in essence:
1. Voting for MN which is not in top 1440 doesn't make sense because it will be kicked off anyway. Therefore we should take the amount into account during voting.
2. Voting for MNs with higher amounts first is better because they are less likely to be kicked off.
3. Once there are 1440 masternodes the order of elections will be much less relevant because the rate of necessary changes to MN list will slow down. Also don't forget that parameters will be changed for mainnet to make elections faster.

That makes me think that he's comfortable not testing the new parameters on testnet and going straight to mainnet.

Ofcourse what he means by that, is that once we reach main net that the parameters will have changed by then.

I am very confident that Mr. Spread will not allow anything to reach main net without thoroughly testing it first.  8)

Maybe.  But if he was going to change the parameters before mainnet, I would think he already would have.

We'll see though :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 15, 2015, 09:08:51 pm
Has it been determined as of yet if the mn reward will increase past 30% over time like drk?
No it has not.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 15, 2015, 09:10:04 pm
Maybe.  But if he was going to change the parameters before mainnet, I would think he already would have.

But we are in the middle of a test round!  ;D
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 15, 2015, 10:13:37 pm
Maybe.  But if he was going to change the parameters before mainnet, I would think he already would have.

But we are in the middle of a test round!  ;D

Mr. Spread released Elbandi's update in the middle of a round.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 15, 2015, 11:05:37 pm
Maybe.  But if he was going to change the parameters before mainnet, I would think he already would have.

But we are in the middle of a test round!  ;D

Mr. Spread released Elbandi's update in the middle of a round.

... because it was just a Qt frontend-improvement, that didn't require a fork or restarting the blockchain.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: IBGigglin on February 16, 2015, 01:18:03 am
Okay the transaction I received for 2500 tSPR has been confirmed more than 50 times. I checked it as control and now Im just waiting for it to be elected. Looking at some previous posts I now see I should have made more smaller nodes rather than one at 2500. Ive got another at 139 SPR that has not been elected from 2 days ago but after what Ive read I see why.   

If anyone wants to send over smaller amounts (or explain to me how I create smaller transactions to myself from my wallet balance, but still large enough to be elected, that would be awesome and Ill attempt to run as many tSPR MCNs as my comp will allow.

Thanks

n1ZpfbooCQSLYwoaDQvm7S9K7wTGmHHUDB
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 16, 2015, 02:38:04 am
Okay the transaction I received for 2500 tSPR has been confirmed more than 50 times. I checked it as control and now Im just waiting for it to be elected. Looking at some previous posts I now see I should have made more smaller nodes rather than one at 2500. Ive got another at 139 SPR that has not been elected from 2 days ago but after what Ive read I see why.   

If anyone wants to send over smaller amounts (or explain to me how I create smaller transactions to myself from my wallet balance, but still large enough to be elected, that would be awesome and Ill attempt to run as many tSPR MCNs as my comp will allow.

Thanks

n1ZpfbooCQSLYwoaDQvm7S9K7wTGmHHUDB

You just send whatever amount to one of your own addresses. You can run many MNs from the same address or create a new address for each MN lump, it's up to you how you organise it.

eg. if you have one 2500 lump of tSPR you can send 1250 (or whatever amount you choose) to yourself at the same or a new address and run 2 MNs. Or send yourself 500 tSPR 4 times and end up with 5 MNs... use coin control to make sure you're sending from the biggest remaining lump each time.

edit: 1291 elected MNs now according to my local wallet - should see 1440 in 48hrs or so. :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 16, 2015, 04:47:28 am
If everyone with multiple MN under 300 coins in them and they have not been elected in days would combine them we could get to the magic number quicker.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 16, 2015, 04:49:49 am
If everyone with multiple MN under 300 coins in them and they have not been elected in days would combine them we could get to the magic number quicker.

No we wouldn't.  It wouldn't make any difference.  Other masternodes would simply get kicked down the list.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: duboisi on February 16, 2015, 05:00:15 am
Maybe due to non- VPS requirement, there are many Wallets/MNs with weak network connection are slowing down the Election process. They get Elected / De-elected / Elected. As long as the number of Elected MN keeps growing, once 1440 MNs are Elected, this "problem" will go away.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 16, 2015, 05:07:54 am
If everyone with multiple MN under 300 coins in them and they have not been elected in days would combine them we could get to the magic number quicker.

No we wouldn't.  It wouldn't make any difference.  Other masternodes would simply get kicked down the list.

How do you figure?

Say I have 3 MN with 120 coins in it that are not elected in over 2 days. I make 1 MN with 360 in it and it gets elected in a hour or a few hours. My one newly made MN counts were my 3 had no effect for days. It might have only added 1 to the list but those 3 was never going to happen if it has been days without happening.

I did this with every MN I had under 200 and they have all been elected and staking.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 16, 2015, 05:23:00 am
Maybe due to non- VPS requirement, there are many Wallets/MNs with weak network connection are slowing down the Election process. They get Elected / De-elected / Elected. As long as the number of Elected MN keeps growing, once 1440 MNs are Elected, this "problem" will go away.

I think de-election needs to be MUCH faster. If the MN isn't providing the service it shouldn't get paid and more importantly the rest of the network shouldn't be wasting bandwidth trying to communicate with it.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 16, 2015, 01:06:27 pm
1345 elected of 2173 running.

We are so close....

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 16, 2015, 01:26:49 pm
Maybe due to non- VPS requirement, there are many Wallets/MNs with weak network connection are slowing down the Election process. They get Elected / De-elected / Elected. As long as the number of Elected MN keeps growing, once 1440 MNs are Elected, this "problem" will go away.

I have been monitoring the election / de-election process, and I barely have seen any MN getting de-elected.

Since the start of test round 2 the bottle-neck (10 votes per block coupled with prefering the top amounts) really let's only the top section of the list get any votes at all.
And since our MNs don't really provide a service ATM (some do a little instantx, but most of the time they are in IDLE mode) we don't really see a big variance in score.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 16, 2015, 06:09:17 pm
Maybe due to non- VPS requirement, there are many Wallets/MNs with weak network connection are slowing down the Election process. They get Elected / De-elected / Elected. As long as the number of Elected MN keeps growing, once 1440 MNs are Elected, this "problem" will go away.

prefering the top amounts

I don't know about that.

You said your self masternodes are pretty inactive, so the only way to really score a MN ATM is by amount held in wallet.
This will change i suspect once we reach 1440 and have some more activity (only going to happen on mainnet).
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 16, 2015, 06:15:24 pm
Has anyone else noticed this?

I loaded up my tspr mns one after the other.
The payments are also coming in one after the other.

Shouldn't the payments be more random?

(http://i57.tinypic.com/6oq6nn.png)

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 16, 2015, 06:37:02 pm
Maybe due to non- VPS requirement, there are many Wallets/MNs with weak network connection are slowing down the Election process. They get Elected / De-elected / Elected. As long as the number of Elected MN keeps growing, once 1440 MNs are Elected, this "problem" will go away.

prefering the top amounts

I don't know about that.

You said your self masternodes are pretty inactive, so the only way to really score a MN ATM is by amount held in wallet.
This will change i suspect once we reach 1440 and have some more activity (only going to happen on mainnet).

Nothing will change with the voting process once we reach 1440 elected MNs.

What will be different is, that this condition will apply, and kick MNs out:

https://github.com/spreadcoin-project/spreadcoin/blob/mn-test/src/masternodes.cpp#L494-L495

But nothing else will change.
So I fear that once ALL 1440 MNs are elected, it will be difficult if not impossible for a newcomer to enter the market, except if he uses a high amount of SPR for his MN, so that he can barge into the top section of the 1440.
But it will NOT be possible for a new comer to barge into the lower section of the 1440.
That's my prediction. We shall see.  8)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 16, 2015, 06:49:20 pm
But nothing else will change.
So I fear that once ALL 1440 MNs are elected, it will be difficult if not impossible for a newcomer to enter the market, except if he uses a high amount of SPR for his MN, so that he can barge into the top section of the 1440.
But it will NOT be possible for a new comer to barge into the lower section of the 1440.
That's my prediction. We shall see.  8)

I disagree.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 16, 2015, 06:58:13 pm
Please elaborate...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 16, 2015, 07:09:36 pm
You are basing your assertion on what we're experiencing now with initial election and parameters that Mr. Spread plans to change to speed things up.

Once on mainnet, I see no reason that you won't be able to kick the lowest MN off and go just a little bit higher and get elected.  Unless someone then kicks you off of course.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 16, 2015, 07:17:09 pm
You are basing your assertion on what we're experiencing now with initial election and parameters that Mr. Spread plans to change to speed things up.

Once on mainnet, I see no reason that you won't be able to kick the lowest MN off and go just a little bit higher and get elected.  Unless someone then kicks you off of course.

Wait, I was just talking about what we are going to see happen in this test round 2 once we reach 1440 MNs (hopefully in a few hours).

I am not talking about future versions.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 16, 2015, 07:18:00 pm
Maybe due to non- VPS requirement, there are many Wallets/MNs with weak network connection are slowing down the Election process. They get Elected / De-elected / Elected. As long as the number of Elected MN keeps growing, once 1440 MNs are Elected, this "problem" will go away.

prefering the top amounts

I don't know about that.

You said your self masternodes are pretty inactive, so the only way to really score a MN ATM is by amount held in wallet.
This will change i suspect once we reach 1440 and have some more activity (only going to happen on mainnet).

Nothing will change with the voting process once we reach 1440 elected MNs.

What will be different is, that this condition will apply, and kick MNs out:

https://github.com/spreadcoin-project/spreadcoin/blob/mn-test/src/masternodes.cpp#L494-L495

But nothing else will change.
So I fear that once ALL 1440 MNs are elected, it will be difficult if not impossible for a newcomer to enter the market, except if he uses a high amount of SPR for his MN, so that he can barge into the top section of the 1440.
But it will NOT be possible for a new comer to barge into the lower section of the 1440.
That's my prediction. We shall see.  8)

If all 1440 seat's are taken and one MN drops out, the next MN with the highest SPR amount/score will take it's place.

He does not need a "high" amount of SPR more the proper amount of SPR at the right time.

BTW, what is a high amount of SPR?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 16, 2015, 07:19:46 pm
Has anyone else noticed this?

I loaded up my tspr mns one after the other.
The payments are also coming in one after the other.

Shouldn't the payments be more random?

(http://i57.tinypic.com/6oq6nn.png)
Nope. What you're seeing there is perfection. :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 16, 2015, 07:25:23 pm
If all 1440 seat's are taken and one MN drops out, the next MN with the highest SPR amount/score will take it's place.

He does not need a "high" amount of SPR more the proper amount of SPR at the right time.

BTW, what is a high amount of SPR?

MNs don't just "drop out" when 1440 seats are taken.
It needs a newcomer that barges in at a certain position.
THAT'S what kicks all the MNs below him down 1 rank.
And if your MN sits at rank 1440, it will be dropped.

The open question I have is, if a newcomer can just as easily barge in at a low position or if his chances are much much higher when he barges in at a top position.
Obviously the latter is the case (has been since the start of this test round 2)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 16, 2015, 07:31:05 pm
If all 1440 seat's are taken and one MN drops out, the next MN with the highest SPR amount/score will take it's place.

He does not need a "high" amount of SPR more the proper amount of SPR at the right time.

BTW, what is a high amount of SPR?

MNs don't just "drop out" when 1440 seats are taken.
It needs a newcomer that barges in at a certain position.
THAT'S what kicks all the MNs below him down 1 rank.
And if your MN sits at rank 1440, it will be dropped.

The open question I have is, if a newcomer can just as easily barge in at a low position or if his chances are much much higher when he barges in at a top position.
Obviously the latter is the case (has been since the start of this test round 2)

I meant for example. One MN owner decides to take his MN offline.

Edit.

Yes, more coins = more chance of election?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 16, 2015, 07:54:59 pm
The current minimum to have a chance of being elected is 199SPR.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 17, 2015, 03:09:17 am
1401 elected MNs...  :)

Mr Spread can you tell us how things are going behind the curtain?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: pokeytex on February 17, 2015, 09:18:29 am
I can confirm that I have had a couple of my smaller mn's with 175 tSPR kicked off even at 1400 elected mn's.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: LeongTap on February 17, 2015, 09:42:46 am
i originally had 4 MN, each having about 380 - 399 tSPR inside, after a circuit breaker trip (due to air-conditioning fault) at the middle of the night, wallet was offline for about 3-4 hours before everyone woke up and noticed.

Booted up the PC and the wallet, noticed that all 4 MNs were knocked off, been almost 24 hours now only 1 Mns has been re-elected while the remaining 3 are yet to be re-elected.

should such a short (couple of hours) down time knocked off your nodes ? i left for work in a hurry and didn't really see it sync back those lost hours, but i did tick *control, when i booted up the wallet.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: duboisi on February 17, 2015, 11:35:24 am
For last 6 hours, total number of MNs has been fluctuating between 1411 -  1395 from my occasion observations.

Edit : MNs down to 1390.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 17, 2015, 04:09:30 pm
should such a short (couple of hours) down time knocked off your nodes ?

In my opinion, yes. A couple of hours of not providing network service should definitely mean the boot.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 17, 2015, 04:11:45 pm
should such a short (couple of hours) down time knocked off your nodes ?

In my opinion, yes. A couple of hours of not providing network service should definitely mean the boot.

Absolutely.
I even hope to see a more or less immediate kicking of any offline masternode.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: elbandi on February 17, 2015, 04:53:20 pm
i started some masternode at yesterday night. all have >200 coins. none of them are elected. this is normal? is the election process so slow??  :o
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 17, 2015, 05:06:43 pm
i started some masternode at yesterday night. all have >200 coins. none of them are elected. this is normal? is the election process so slow??  :o
This is normal because:

1.  Elections are slow (Mr. Spread plans to speed it up with the next build)

2.  There are more than 20 masternodes with 1000+ tSPR that haven't even been elected yet so your 200+ masternodes are going to have a LONG wait.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: duboisi on February 17, 2015, 05:08:53 pm
At this moment, you need more than 602.00 tSPR to have a chance to be Elected. But this is a moving target. Must probably you will need 700 tSPR.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 17, 2015, 05:09:38 pm
i started some masternode at yesterday night. all have >200 coins. none of them are elected. this is normal? is the election process so slow??  :o

The current minimum to be elected is 202 - 203 SPR per MN.

This will fluctuate depending on how many MN's you are putting online.

Go to masternodes tab.
Click amount (descending)
Scroll down to the 1440 slot, and look what that amount is.
This will give you the minimum that is needed to get into the "list".
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 17, 2015, 05:38:25 pm
At this moment, you need more than 602.00 tSPR to have a chance to be Elected. But this is a moving target. Must probably you will need 700 tSPR.

I agree.

Since 3 or 4 days I go by the following rule of thumb:

Sort the mnlist by amount. (from highest to lowest)
Look at rank 144.
Take this amount and you will have an mn elected in a few hours.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: njs811 on February 17, 2015, 05:53:18 pm
I'm willing to setup the last 40 or so MNs if someone will send me the tspr. Even if you have small amounts just send it to me. Collectively I can get enough.
n1CTTKaEpN5D6PqqohdT5n61eCVgnhStQb
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 17, 2015, 09:02:04 pm
At this moment, you need more than 602.00 tSPR to have a chance to be Elected. But this is a moving target. Must probably you will need 700 tSPR.

I agree.

Since 3 or 4 days I go by the following rule of thumb:

Sort the mnlist by amount. (from highest to lowest)
Look at rank 144.
Take this amount and you will have an mn elected in a few hours.

Well there are about 40 unelected MNs above rank 144 right now, so hopefully we'll hit 1440 by tomorrow.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: IBGigglin on February 18, 2015, 01:08:19 am
How do I open coin control to separate my 2500 tSPR?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 18, 2015, 01:13:19 am
How do I open coin control to separate my 2500 tSPR?

Settings > Options > Display tab > tick the 'display coin control stuff' box and revisit your Send tab, click Inputs...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 18, 2015, 02:15:02 am
I had elected masternodes with 161.111 and 162.111 tSPR in them.  The computer they're on hasn't had issues and other masternodes on that computer have remained elected.  They appeared to get kicked already.  I'm not sure I understand why since we only have 1412 elected masternodes.  Does anyone have any ideas?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: xojex on February 18, 2015, 03:38:15 am
I've had some masternodes de-elected as well. These were mn with 152, 303 and 505 in them. It is puzzling since the testnet hasn't reached the magical number.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: chrysophylax on February 18, 2015, 04:28:01 am
I've had some masternodes de-elected as well. These were mn with 152, 303 and 505 in them. It is puzzling since the testnet hasn't reached the magical number.

mine did the same ...

this is why its called testnet ;) ...

to nut out the issues by testing ...

#crysx
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 18, 2015, 04:30:53 am
I have a feeling that the cap is 1400 and not 1440 as intended.

1401, 1402, 1403, and 1404 are all showing votes meaning votes to be de-elected.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MemoryShock on February 18, 2015, 08:35:03 am
It's been a long weekend (work plus a two year old and a psych major...the latter has taken much time since I am designing an experiment and trying to help some one with theirs; long story short - been reading but damned if there is time to watch the numbers here)...

I see that we are at less than 1400 MN's...just sent a 3000+ tSPR to myself (mining) in order to try and boot someone but I don't think that is an issue?  Should I split them up?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 18, 2015, 01:11:02 pm
I have noticed like others that my newly created MN have not been selected either.

I created 10 with 350 two days ago and 11 with 400 in each yesterday.

So should I just deselect and combine to create bigger MN to add to the total?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: duboisi on February 18, 2015, 01:47:58 pm
If you sort by "Elected", you will see that there are 175 MNs with more than 400 that will be elected before yours.
If you sort by "Amount", you can see that at position 1440, the amount is 225. As of now your 350s and 400s will be elected eventually. However in current test round, it shows that the election/de-election mechanism will need to speed up.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: jjjordan on February 18, 2015, 04:13:26 pm
So I have a lot of MNs in the 200s, 300s, 400s and 500s. All more than 24hrs.
None is elected, all have scores 0.01-0.02 or less.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 18, 2015, 07:42:16 pm
1415 total elected MN's

We may see 1440 in the next few hours.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: minerpage on February 18, 2015, 10:37:40 pm
1415 total elected MN's

We may see 1440 in the next few hours.

1426... what's next?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 19, 2015, 01:31:46 am
Heh, maybe we'll never get to 1440 but have a constant tidal zone beyond the 1410+ mark.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 19, 2015, 01:50:09 am
Heh, maybe we'll never get to 1440 but have a constant tidal zone beyond the 1410+ mark.

Could be.... I am sure this was not intended... but maybe this is a behaviour that just emerged out of nothing... lol
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: Strumpet! on February 19, 2015, 01:53:14 am
Heh, maybe we'll never get to 1440 but have a constant tidal zone beyond the 1410+ mark.

Could be.... I am sure this was not intended... but maybe this is a behaviour that just emerged out of nothing... lol

I suspect that's the case. The voting process is too slow to support a rigid 1440 cutoff maybe. In which case, we can conclude that the soft limit of 1440ish is working and has been for a few days...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MyFarm on February 19, 2015, 02:03:00 am
Heh, maybe we'll never get to 1440 but have a constant tidal zone beyond the 1410+ mark.

Could be.... I am sure this was not intended... but maybe this is a behaviour that just emerged out of nothing... lol

I suspect that's the case. The voting process is too slow to support a rigid 1440 cutoff maybe. In which case, we can conclude that the soft limit of 1440ish is working and has been for a few days...

I tend to agree as I have definitely had my lowest masternodes get kicked.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MemoryShock on February 19, 2015, 07:39:24 am
Still waiting for a 3023 to be elected from last night...the process does seem to be slow but I imagine that is part of the test process.

Would be nice to hear from Mr. Spread though....
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: MemoryShock on February 19, 2015, 08:17:10 am
Finally elected...still looking forward to a next update...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 19, 2015, 09:29:40 am
Finally elected...still looking forward to a next update...

It's not looking good.     
 
MrSpread should be here at this point in testing.

Whats the point in having testnet if your not here to respond to testing?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: pokeytex on February 19, 2015, 12:23:57 pm
It appears as though mn's are working correctly - we now have 1440 in play and some of my lower ones are now kicked properly for higher ones.  I would say a success...

as far as Mr. Spread being mia - we don't know his situation.  It could be as simple as a broken computer or storm event knocking out power?  I can't imagine someone who put in this much time and effort just saying "oh forget about it".  Let's have Mr. Spread respond when he is ready.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on February 19, 2015, 05:28:31 pm
1440 MN!

(http://i58.tinypic.com/2qn7hwn.png)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 19, 2015, 06:37:26 pm
Took us 11 days to get here...

Damn, I wish we could speed up the testing rounds somehow.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: jjjordan on February 19, 2015, 06:53:51 pm
Alright, are we done testing now? Does anybody need 100k tSPR then?  ;D
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: elbandi on February 20, 2015, 12:55:26 am
Took us 11 days to get here...

Damn, I wish we could speed up the testing rounds somehow.
We need a round3 to test the speed...  ::)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: njs811 on February 20, 2015, 05:37:38 am
I wish some of it would convert to real SPR as a reward for our work.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: chrysophylax on February 20, 2015, 06:53:49 am
I wish some of it would convert to real SPR as a reward for our work.

same ... but alas ...

im taking all mine off now ...

focusing on the farm now guys - not even mining spr as of this minute - but will get back into it soon ...

im wondering who would be interested in joining me in a group focused on spr and mn's when they hit mainnet ...

i read up somewhere in another thread that there are those that have concerns with the way mn's were setup between home and datacenter / business ...

home users are more likely to be dropped if any internet link is dropped or a wallet locks up on their systems or other such issues - whereas most people who set all these things up inside a datacenter or business based system and NOT drop and de-elected ...

its just an idea that is bubbling in my mind as to the stability of the systems and farm that we have here as opposed to those with home systems ...

im not offering anything - yet - but it may be something to look at that may help the 'smaller' systems stay online by having their wallets and mn's on a more ( albeit not entirely concrete ) reliable place to call home ...

we have unlimited internet - unlimited storage ( yes - in excess of 24TB currently ) and the technical network expertise to get some thing sorted for the 'underdogs' here ... the only thing missing here is simply - there are no developers that we have in the 'team' as yet ...

and of course - we are STILL growing the farm and increasing the ability to mine these little fellas - whether spr or not ... but obviously im aiming this comment directly between the eyes of spr not drk ... ;)

its only an idea at the moment - thats all ...

( posting this also on bct to see what responses are given ) ...

#crysx
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: pokeytex on February 20, 2015, 07:51:41 pm
So just wondering if anyone has any news on the testing?  Do I keep my wallet running or are we in limbo waiting for some response from Mr. Spread?  Does anyone have any contact with Mr. Spread?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 23, 2015, 04:31:17 am
So my weakest MN is set at 174 and it is still elected.

Shouldn't it have been kicked by now?

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: jjjordan on February 23, 2015, 04:45:01 am
There is even lower set MNs - 166 and still my 300s don't get elected...
Watup with Mr Spread? I hope he is busy rewriting all that...
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: chrysophylax on February 23, 2015, 07:53:41 am
So my weakest MN is set at 174 and it is still elected.

Shouldn't it have been kicked by now?

theoretically - yes ...

#crysx
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 24, 2015, 11:22:38 pm
Is round 2 still ongoing?

I just noticed that the MN has been under the 1,440 for a while now, or is my wallet not working correctly?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on February 24, 2015, 11:29:48 pm
Is round 2 still ongoing?

I just noticed that the MN has been under the 1,440 for a while now, or is my wallet not working correctly?

I guess as long as there are participants running their wallets... test round 2 is still on.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: SJRulez83 on February 25, 2015, 12:33:27 am
Is round 2 still ongoing?

I just noticed that the MN has been under the 1,440 for a while now, or is my wallet not working correctly?

I guess as long as there are participants running their wallets... test round 2 is still on.

If people can keep it running it would help, elbandi did an MN data dump. I d like a few days with the current test net to see what tools i can knock together ahead of the next test to help us see whats going on.
Title: Re: Why don't we Not Ignore KANYE WEST'S REEBOK Collaboration
Post by: njs811 on February 25, 2015, 01:30:24 am
Do you think about your own self the actual ultimate Kanye West Cooling fan? Do you own almost all of of His collaborative sneakers? Consider yet again, since there may be around a 99% probability that you really don't own virtually any of the particular following 4 Yeezy sneakers. Possibly not the particular adidas Yeezy, not necessarily his Nike Yeezys, and also not possibly his Louis Vuitton joint parts. Exactly what we all have here can be the particular collection of the Reebok S. Carter manufactured in particular intended for Kanye. Every single colourful suede or patent leather-based colorway featuring his School Droput era bear logo on the heel is a discount sample designed with regard to Kanye, and thought to be restricted to around 50 couples each one. nike shoes shop (http://www.nikespirit.com/nike-free-run-3-c-65.html) for new Nike shoes pictures.

Can we buy it with SPR?
Title: Re: Why don't we Not Ignore KANYE WEST'S REEBOK Collaboration
Post by: jjjordan on February 25, 2015, 02:50:57 am
Do you think about your own self the actual ultimate Kanye West Cooling fan? Do you own almost all of of His collaborative sneakers? Consider yet again, since there may be around a 99% probability that you really don't own virtually any of the particular following 4 Yeezy sneakers. Possibly not the particular adidas Yeezy, not necessarily his Nike Yeezys, and also not possibly his Louis Vuitton joint parts. Exactly what we all have here can be the particular collection of the Reebok S. Carter manufactured in particular intended for Kanye. Every single colourful suede or patent leather-based colorway featuring his School Droput era bear logo on the heel is a discount sample designed with regard to Kanye, and thought to be restricted to around 50 couples each one. nike shoes shop (http://www.nikespirit.com/nike-free-run-3-c-65.html) for new Nike shoes pictures.

Can we buy it with SPR?

Did you mean like with all the SPR? ;)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: antonio8 on February 26, 2015, 03:40:02 am
So I see as of this moment there are only 1,126 MN elected.

Not sure if we gained the results that this Round was supposed to accomplish. If not I have some more coins that I can set up more MN. If so what would be a good number to help get elected quicker.

Also is there a flaw. I would think that all the unelected MN would have been elected by now.

Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: minerpage on February 26, 2015, 05:06:01 am
So I see as of this moment there are only 1,126 MN elected.

Not sure if we gained the results that this Round was supposed to accomplish. If not I have some more coins that I can set up more MN. If so what would be a good number to help get elected quicker.

Also is there a flaw. I would think that all the unelected MN would have been elected by now.

Some of my servers went down and I just rebooted them... a lot of the nodes were still elected and I checked all of them again... we'll see if the count goes up again...

EDIT: nodes under 500 SPR get a score but no election (in my wallet)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: literabit4477 on February 26, 2015, 04:20:52 pm
I HAVE 2000 TEST SPR . CAN I CONVERT TO NORMAL SPR?
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: njs811 on February 26, 2015, 08:07:39 pm
I HAVE 2000 TEST SPR . CAN I CONVERT TO NORMAL SPR?

no. this is all testnet
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: e1ghtSpace on February 28, 2015, 08:09:50 pm
I HAVE 2000 TEST SPR . CAN I CONVERT TO NORMAL SPR?

no. this is all testnet
Well, he could sell them. Maybe for 1 spr. :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: jjjordan on March 05, 2015, 02:31:48 pm
Does anybody need tSPR? I will be shutting my test wallet now.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: def15 on June 01, 2015, 09:57:10 pm
I managed to scrape together enough files from my hard drive to revive testnet. I'm currently mining on the network, but unsure if this is the correct chain?

Can someone else jump on testnet to see what happens?

If you need the files i can send.
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: minerpage on August 14, 2015, 02:49:27 pm
When do we announce Round 3? Perhaps the image on the left can be replaced with the new announcement :)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: georgem on August 14, 2015, 03:03:29 pm
When do we announce Round 3? Perhaps the image on the left can be replaced with the new announcement :)

It will happen eventually!

 8)
Title: Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
Post by: RickSP on February 23, 2018, 11:48:34 pm
When do we announce Round 3? Perhaps the image on the left can be replaced with the new announcement :)

It will happen eventually!

 8)

is it still available in 2018?