Author Topic: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)  (Read 82877 times)

MyFarm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #150 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.

Wolf0

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #151 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.

antonio8

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #152 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.

minerpage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #153 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...

antonio8

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #154 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.



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.

MemoryShock

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #155 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.

MyFarm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #156 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.

MemoryShock

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #157 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...

minerpage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #158 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.



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...

MyFarm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #159 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 :)

xojex

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #160 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?

MemoryShock

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #161 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.

jjjordan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #162 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...

Strumpet!

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #163 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

MemoryShock

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
Re: Masternodes Testing (Round 2)
« Reply #164 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?)