[01:37:33] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/416000318149754881/577670806247571512/Screenshot_20190514-120033.png [01:37:45] Not sure if the problem is on navexplorer or the bootstrap server [01:37:54] I should include more information in the alert email like the block hashes lol [01:38:15] @aguycalled @prodpeak [01:43:55] So the bootstrap server forked? [01:47:10] @prole My navcoind best blockhash matches navexplorer [01:47:11] 😄 [02:44:37] i wrote a lil amiforked.py just now. was fun. https://gist.github.com/rocket-pig/3f21bf82ba1e1f9d5b8a03f31cd126e1 [02:45:47] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/416000318149754881/577687977099264020/unknown.png [03:38:19] @mxaddict not 100% sure. I'm away from my computer and can't check it. The email logs need better reporting lol [04:20:45] Btw, I've pushed final changes for patch-5 branch, I got lal the upstream changes applied to get the 5 builds working. [05:11:56] https://www.navexplorer.com/block/3126390 [05:12:29] I staked a block with duplicate proposal votes from the pool node [05:14:25] @prole [05:48:07] The explorer node is a std core node on 4.6.0 [05:48:07] the pool node has master core merged into it from post 4.6.0 [05:48:10] Could this be related [05:48:13] @aguycalled [08:00:21] all my nodes are correct [08:29:41] @prole @aguycalled I've got some questions on github about https://github.com/navcoin/navcoin-core/pull/461 [08:29:53] Can you give it a quick read/reply when you get the time 😄 [08:32:39] having a look [08:33:02] whats bitcoin-core position? @mxaddict [08:34:06] bitcoin-core is still compatible with GLIBC <= 2.11 for i686 and x86_64 builds [08:34:22] Which I think will allow to run the binaries all the way back on 14.04 [08:35:18] I think it might be good to support same as bitcoin-core [08:35:30] It's just a little extra effort on my part 😄 [08:38:09] But to summarize the PR is now deterministic for all builds (Linux, Mac, Windows via gitian) it's also statically linked curl it's using new QT, CURL and some other libs it's using new travis-ci configuration (Similar to what bitcoin-core uses, docker + ubuntu 18.04) [08:40:03] what's exactly different from bitcoin-core and us? [08:41:17] Not sure yet, but I think there are some function calls in our codebase that have been replaced in bitcoin-core that are compatible with GLIBC <= 2.11 [08:41:30] I think some of them are in random.cpp and random.h [08:50:42] @aguycalled running this: ./autogen.sh && ./configure --prefix=`pwd`/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --disable-ccache --disable-maintainer-mode --disable-dependency-tracking --enable-glibc-back-compat --enable-reduce-exports --disable-bench --disable-gui-tests --disable-shared CFLAGS="-O2 -g" CXXFLAGS="-O2 -g" LDFLAGS=-static-libstdc++ && make clean && make -j8 -C src check-symbols Checking glibc back compat... test/test_navcoin: [08:50:42] symbol getentropy from unsupported version GLIBC_2.25 test/test_navcoin: symbol __explicit_bzero_chk from unsupported version GLIBC_2.25 test/test_navcoin: symbol glob from unsupported version GLIBC_2.27 test/test_navcoin: symbol reallocarray from unsupported version GLIBC_2.26 test/test_navcoin: symbol __poll_chk from unsupported version GLIBC_2.16 qt/navcoin-qt: symbol reallocarray from unsupported version GLIBC_2.26 qt/navcoin-qt: symbol glob [08:50:43] from unsupported version GLIBC_2.27 qt/navcoin-qt: symbol __poll_chk from unsupported version GLIBC_2.16 qt/navcoin-qt: symbol __explicit_bzero_chk from unsupported version GLIBC_2.25 qt/navcoin-qt: symbol getentropy from unsupported version GLIBC_2.25 [08:51:06] So some of the symbols are in test_navcoin and navcoin-qt [08:52:02] ok, maybe you can leave this pr as it is right now [08:52:09] and create another issue for fixing that [08:52:13] Ok [08:52:18] Makes sense [08:52:18] so i can assign it another bounty [08:52:24] you already worked a lot on this [08:52:37] I know, I kinda got carried away [08:52:41] One thing led to the next [08:52:42] LOL [08:52:56] ill review it later today, good work 😉 [08:53:01] Thanks [08:53:16] Also this PR has some nice changes to the travis build process [08:53:24] Since it's based on bitcoin-core [08:53:36] When the build runs out of time, it will fail itself [08:53:58] So that the cache will be saved, then on restart, the test will run faster and be done in less than 50 minutes 😄 [08:55:32] great 😉 [10:20:07] @aguycalled @prole [10:20:18] What do you think about navcoin being feeless? [10:20:45] I mean, don't you think it's feasable to run the network without fees for sending NAV since we have the stake rewards? 😃 [10:22:20] This might attract the DOGE/DGB people ( I know some people personally that use DOGE/DGB to move large funds due to the very low fees ) [10:22:38] We might be able to attract those people with a feeless network 😄 [10:22:57] the fees also have the function to prevent spam [10:23:28] if blocks can be filled at no cost theres nothing preventing the network of congestion [10:24:05] fees are already very low in nav, id say too low from a security perspective. i would increase them [10:24:08] Hmmm, you have a point [10:25:07] What about fee's that increase the newer the input? [10:25:27] And X number or time can deem the input as spendable without a fee [10:25:40] This would protect against spam and will allow zero fee at the same time 😄 [10:26:16] And spamming would become more expensive than it currently is [10:32:16] Fee could be something like fee = 1.0 * (1.0 - input_age_in_seconds * 0.005) [10:32:42] So that means an input that is 1 second old would cost 0.995 NAV to spend [10:33:05] But an input that is 200 seconds or older would cost 0 NAV 😄 [10:33:11] Let me know what you think [13:57:08] @Juguelio @prodpeak what do you think about the fee calculation formula I'm suggesting 😄 [13:59:05] as Alex said we already have very low fees. [13:59:19] having 0 fees would be only for marketing porpuses. [13:59:41] @mxaddict Unless there is functional advantage i don't see the benefit. [14:00:06] I'd rather you using your time in working out Ledger/Trezor support. [14:00:15] Marketing yes, but that's a lot of effort for limited reward [14:00:20] (and making a good community fund proposal) [14:00:36] What @Juguelio just said X 100 [14:00:47] imagine... [14:00:59] keeping spending keys on trezor/ledger [14:01:13] Staking in NavPool... [14:01:24] and voting from Next mobile wallet [14:01:52] now we're talking [14:02:20] Hey @mxaddict actually... I won a ledger in a draw from an exchange.... [14:02:23] do you want it? [14:02:56] I don't want it, but If I were to work on adding ledger support, then I would need it. [14:03:04] I think @prole was wanting to work on it though [14:03:44] really? i thought he's super tied up with navshoppoer and kauri all the way to the end of year [14:03:55] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/416000318149754881/577858636194381855/Screenshot_from_2019-05-14_22-03-46.png [14:03:56] I'd rather vote for a new dev with community fund and let core team to focus in core matters [14:04:33] Also... Atomic Swaps... [14:04:36] LN... [14:04:45] what do you want to work on? @mxaddict [14:04:48] that can bring lots of interest to the project [14:04:49] I think @mntyfrsh said he had someone working on it. [14:05:09] @salmonskinroll right now I'm mainly working on navcoin-core [14:05:19] Been having lots of fun with the issues [14:05:57] Well bud...think about ledger... [14:06:06] that could be a nice comm fund... [14:06:22] nice, the things i want to see the most right now are the poll system and then for the direction of NAV to be finalized with it so devs know what to focus on [14:06:42] we need a privacy protocol, auditable or not [14:07:56] https://github.com/navcoin/navcoin-core/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+author%3Amxaddict [14:08:48] ledger would be the second to that for me, hopefully someone takes it up soon. there have been multiple people looking at it since end of last year but it was never really started. so hopefully we hear back from @mntyfrsh about his friend soon or someone should just take it [14:09:19] Hmmm [14:09:40] damn dude you're a monster 😃 [14:09:45] I guess if @mntyfrsh's friend does not start work on it soon, I'll see if I can take the reigns [14:10:10] @salmonskinroll , nah, I just drink monster 😄 [14:16:32] BTW @prodpeak the functional advantage would be that the fee would be more expensive if someone were to say spam the network with transactions [14:16:47] Yet keep it cheap or free for normal people 😄 [14:17:15] Yeah, I think it would be a nice marketing attribute to attrack more userbase [14:41:09] the whole idea with fees right now is that miners/stakers decide what fees are necessary for a tx to be included in a block, theres a fee market [14:41:15] fees are not set by consensus rules [14:41:41] id need to see a more detailed proposal to value it [14:42:31] re: ledger [14:42:39] Fabrice-ledger [8:00 AM] Hello Alex, first step (and mandatory one) is to get the BOLOS application ready. https://ledger.readthedocs.io/en/latest/additional/publishing_an_app.html Once ready, please let me know and I’ll open a dedicated channel. You need also to fill this form : https://goo.gl/forms/fROX8hzWG6eGMc7R2 [14:44:14] you can get a good proposal if you do it @mxaddict [14:44:36] i don't know if craig has time for it, or if mnty really has someone to do it [14:44:44] first come first served id say [15:09:21] @aguycalled so for ledger support, I need to create a BOLOS app Then we submit for review at that google form? [15:09:37] What do you mean by a good proposal [15:09:51] well paid proposal [15:10:15] the bolos app is what does the signing in the ledger [15:10:37] you send the transaction or whatever from the wallet, and the bolos app returns the signed [15:10:46] basically its a clone of the bitcoin bolos app [15:11:11] Ahh, I see [15:11:17] I'll have to do more reading on it [15:11:47] the thing is they wont approve the bolos app without a companion app [15:11:56] a companion app means support in a wallet [15:12:02] lets say navcoin core or navpay [15:12:23] Would it make sense to add the support on both then? [15:12:28] More options would be better [15:12:32] completely [15:12:36] but at least one should be [15:12:49] I think maybe navcoin-core support would be first up [15:12:59] https://github.com/particl/particl-core/tree/master/src/usbdevice [15:13:09] this would help you to make the integration in navcoin-core [15:13:33] https://github.com/LedgerHQ/ledgerjs [15:13:40] and this in navpay [15:13:55] The point of the app support is to broadcast the signed transaction right? [15:14:25] So you create a tx on app, give it to the bolos app, bolos app signs it, then gives it back to the app, app then relays to other nodes? [15:14:30] yes [15:14:31] Is that flow about right [15:14:35] Ok. [15:14:42] Thanks for the links [15:14:51] I'll spend some time when I get home reading up [15:15:05] What do you think a reasonable proposal amount would be for this? [15:16:36] less than 110k, that was already requested an rejected [15:17:05] https://www.navexplorer.com/community-fund/proposal/4cdf6475fe73427662d12bac606e79b3045c189ccf20c94dfad9b47be249aec5 [15:17:19] you might better talk it in the cfund channels [15:17:35] it's something the network decides about [15:18:26] ACK [15:19:03] I think 40k navs-50k navs... [15:19:14] but it's your time mate...and your development [16:14:42] @aguycalled @prole I've posted the hashes for gitian build for patch-5 [16:14:44] https://github.com/navcoin/navcoin-core/pull/461#issuecomment-492199178 [16:14:51] im building mine [16:15:02] prole is on holidays the whole week [16:15:11] Took me a while, I was building on my laptop in the office 😄 [16:15:25] Ahh, nice 😄 [16:15:33] I was off last sat/sun [16:15:55] I spend my Bday and mothers day at home with me mum. [19:02:45] Hello, how can i delete nav core blockchain from my mac os? [19:44:06] linux gitian build failed [19:44:20] missed why, the log got wiped [19:45:23] docker@build:~$ cat build #!/bin/sh export VERSION=$1 export REPO=$2 export URL=https://github.com/$REPO/navcoin-core.git #export USE_LXC=1 #export GITIAN_HOST_IP=10.0.3.2 #export LXC_GUEST_IP=10.0.3.5 export USE_DOCKER=1 rm -rf ~/navcoin-core && cd ~ && git clone $URL --branch $VERSION cd ~/navcoin-core && git pull ; git checkout $VERSION ; git pull mkdir -p ~/binaries/$VERSION cd ~/gitian-builder && ./bin/gbuild --memory [19:45:23] 2000 -j 2 --commit navcoin-core=${VERSION} --url navcoin-core=${URL} ~/navcoin-core/contrib/gitian-descriptors/gitian-linux.yml mv build/out/navcoin-*.tar.gz build/out/src/navcoin-*.tar.gz ~/binaries/$VERSION/ cd ~/binaries/$VERSION && rm *SHA256SUM* ; sha256sum * > $VERSION.SHA256SUM.asc #cd ~/gitian-builder && ./bin/gbuild --memory 2000 -j 2 --commit navcoin-core=${VERSION} --url navcoin-core=${URL} [19:45:24] ~/navcoin-core/contrib/gitian-descriptors/gitian-win.yml #mv build/out/navcoin-*-win.tar.gz inputs/navcoin-win.tar.gz #mv build/out/navcoin-*.zip build/out/navcoin-*.exe ~/binaries/$VERSION/ #cd ~/binaries/$VERSION && rm *SHA256SUM* ; sha256sum * > $VERSION.SHA256SUM.asc #cd ~/gitian-builder && ./bin/gbuild --memory 2000 -j 2 --commit navcoin-core=${VERSION} --url navcoin-core=${URL} ~/navcoin-core/contrib/gitian-descriptors/gitian-arm.yml #mv [19:45:24] build/out/navcoin-*.tar.gz build/out/src/navcoin-*.tar.gz ~/binaries/$VERSION/ #cd ~/binaries/$VERSION && rm *SHA256SUM* ; sha256sum * > $VERSION.SHA256SUM.asc #cd ~/gitian-builder && ./bin/gbuild --memory 2000 -j 2 --commit navcoin-core=${VERSION} --url navcoin-core=${URL} ~/navcoin-core/contrib/gitian-descriptors/gitian-osx.yml #mv build/out/navcoin-*-osx.tar.gz inputs/navcoin-osx.tar.gz #mv build/out/navcoin-*.tar.gz build/out/navcoin-*.dmg [19:45:25] ~/binaries/$VERSION/ #cd ~/binaries/$VERSION && rm *SHA256SUM* ; sha256sum * > $VERSION.SHA256SUM.asc rm ~/binaries/$VERSION/*debug* cd ~/binaries/$VERSION && rm *SHA256SUM* ; sha256sum * > $VERSION.SHA256SUM.asc [19:45:27] docker@build:~$ nohup ./build patch-5 mxaddict & [1] 14176 docker@build:~$ [19:45:34] restarting it [19:47:48] Ok [19:47:52] Did the other hashes match? [19:47:57] Especially the windows one 😄 [19:49:34] i stopped it [19:49:38] its really slow [19:50:40] Ahh [20:51:11] @aguycalled I think I see why it failed [20:51:33] The /contrib/gitian-descriptors/gitian-arm.yml no longer exists [20:51:51] The arm builds are now part of the /contrib/gitian-descriptors/gitian-linux.yml file [22:36:38] @aguycalled I merged master into patch-5 (I need to fix a merge conflict) [22:36:51] And I'm re running gitian builds to post updated hashes [22:37:01] I'm using your build script 😄