[02:20:22] Hello [02:20:34] How to staking nav [02:20:36] ? [02:53:21] @sabil there's a few options [02:53:26] navcoin core: https://info.navcoin.org/navcoin-core/how-to-stake-with-navcoin-core/ [02:53:55] or you can stake on an odroid with the navdroid software #navdroid-support [02:54:12] or you can stake with #navpool-support if you can't have a device running all the time [02:54:18] https://www.navpool.org/ [02:55:35] thankyou sir, and i wanna know stacking calculation sir [02:55:53] there's a staking calculator here: https://static-rewards.nav.community/ [02:56:19] roughly 8.43% at current network weight [02:56:22] per year [02:58:28] thats showing a years not a day sir [02:59:30] if you want to know daily, divide it by 365 i guess [02:59:30] 😛 [03:00:00] but the minimum stake is 2 NAV [03:00:07] to small if i stake 1k😋 [03:00:46] 1k NAV should stake around 84.343 NAV per year, which is around 0.23 NAV per day [03:00:54] but that's on average [03:01:59] yes sir, but to small 😋 [03:02:01] the block reward is 2 NAV, so you're likely to find one block roughly every 8 - 9 days [03:02:12] if you leave your computer staking 24 hours per day [03:03:10] mycomputer crash if 7/24 hours [03:04:35] any bounty or airdrop sir? [03:08:43] if you stake with NavPool, you don't need to have your computer running all the time and there's a competition there at the moment where you can win 1000 NAV if you sign up and start staking with at least 200 NAV before 31 July [03:08:43] https://www.navpool.org/ [03:08:47] @prodpeak [03:29:06] how to chose the winner? [03:55:08] not sure, random i think. Prodpeak can tell you, it's his staking service [03:55:23] @mxaddict @aguycalled tested, approved and merged: https://github.com/navcoin/navcoin-core/pull/517 [04:34:02] tested, approved and merged: https://github.com/navcoin/navcoin-core/pull/532 [04:53:20] do we need to merge in the new test framework for final release? [04:53:37] or are we happy that once this spam protection PR is done we should start to cut the release branch? [05:00:12] tested, approved and merged: https://github.com/navcoin/navcoin-core/pull/536 [05:00:24] also added a comment that i think we should try to add a unit test to cover the spam protection [05:00:59] if we're happy that these are the last issues for the next version i can start to create a release branch [05:01:11] and get the change log up to date etc [05:01:13] and version numbers [05:23:15] thats all i have time for today [05:23:32] if you guys agree master is ready for release i will start to cut the release branch tomorrow morning [05:23:56] I've also been doing work to curate the navcoin websites bounty tickets while i was waiting for things to compile [05:23:56] https://github.com/orgs/navcoin/projects/2 [05:23:57] 😃 [06:13:35] Looks like master should be Ok for RC [06:13:55] If we have time, maybe include these: https://github.com/navcoin/navcoin-core/pull/527 https://github.com/navcoin/navcoin-core/pull/467 [06:14:13] If not, then yeah, we should create the release branch and build an RC for people to test [06:14:21] What do you think @aguycalled ? [07:46:50] @aguycalled @prole if we decide to do the RC, let me know what the branch will be [07:46:55] And I'll do a gitian build [09:25:39] id cut master already and get the rc ready [09:25:49] i can send u the payments for those prs already [09:45:10] I'm not really concerned with the payment, I actually like the sticky change address feature [09:45:27] Will help me since, I set it everytime I send 😄 [09:45:40] I agree though [09:46:11] So we should create the RC get the gitian builds going and post the binaries for testing by community [09:58:59] And the navtech PR has no bounty and I don't want/expect to be paid for it either (All I did was delete code) 🤣 [09:59:45] Also, I think we should release the coldstaking fee PR next release as it requires a consensus change vote [10:00:05] And we still need to get the UI for the consensus change votes (I remember we have an issue for that) [10:12:41] yep i havent got with the ui yet [10:13:06] the dao consultations is taking some effort, trying to simplify the logic [11:07:32] Im happy to manage the release. So I'll cut the rc tomorrow and get the release notes updated etc [11:07:44] Will ping this channel with the branch for gitian build confirmation [11:08:30] ACK 👌 [11:10:31] @aguycalled I'm doing a full sync from peers on master [11:10:38] And getting these errors: 2019-06-29 09:08:17 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlock() : incorrect proof-of-stake at height 1025 (503656418) 2019-06-29 09:08:17 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-diffbits (code 16) 2019-06-29 09:08:17 ERROR: ProcessNewBlock: AcceptBlock FAILED 2019-06-29 09:08:17 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlock() : incorrect proof-of-work at height 1026 (506404649) 2019-06-29 09:08:17 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-diffbits (code 16) 2019-06-29 [11:10:39] 09:08:17 ERROR: ProcessNewBlock: AcceptBlock FAILED 2019-06-29 09:08:17 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlock() : incorrect proof-of-work at height 1027 (507022282) 2019-06-29 09:08:17 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-diffbits (code 16) 2019-06-29 09:08:17 ERROR: ProcessNewBlock: AcceptBlock FAILED [11:10:56] And got stuck on block 1009 [11:11:04] Any idea what the cause could be? [11:11:19] could be related to the nbits patch? [11:11:45] Maybe, I'll wait for full headers sync [11:11:56] And upload debug.log and error.log after [11:28:08] Ok, nodes are banning my node running master branch [11:28:18] I'm assuming because I keep request block 1025 [11:28:25] But also keep rejecting it [11:28:46] 2019-06-29 09:08:17 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlock() : incorrect proof-of-stake at height 1025 (503656418) 2019-06-29 09:08:17 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-diffbits (code 16) 2019-06-29 09:08:17 ERROR: ProcessNewBlock: AcceptBlock FAILED 2019-06-29 09:08:17 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlock() : incorrect proof-of-work at height 1026 (506404649) 2019-06-29 09:08:17 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-diffbits (code 16) 2019-06-29 09:08:17 ERROR: [11:28:46] ProcessNewBlock: AcceptBlock FAILED 2019-06-29 09:08:17 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlock() : incorrect proof-of-work at height 1027 (507022282) 2019-06-29 09:08:17 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-diffbits (code 16) 2019-06-29 09:08:17 ERROR: ProcessNewBlock: AcceptBlock FAILED Those are the only relevant entries in the log [11:29:06] @aguycalled [11:29:22] ok ill have a look [11:30:09] So the QT wallet says I'm on block 1009, but when I check via console i'm actually stuck on 1024 [12:19:34] @aguycalled [12:19:53] Not sure what was wrong, but I did a fresh compile (did a make clean) [12:20:05] And seems i'm able to get passed block 1024 with the code from master branch [12:20:11] i just compiled master and ran the wallet [12:20:13] Maybe it was just a fluke [12:20:16] Works too? [12:20:27] trying [12:20:32] have not started syncing [12:20:36] Ok [12:22:19] yes works [12:22:31] Ok, that's good [12:22:44] I guess must have been an issue with my build [12:22:56] Cause it's working now after I did a full make clean and make [12:23:12] did your node find peers automatically? [12:23:24] i moved the seed dns server to a new vps [12:23:29] Not sure, I already have a peers.dat [12:23:45] I'll try deleting and testing without that [12:24:03] i got error at block 1769 [12:24:17] Hmmm [12:24:29] Same/similar to that error I sent earlier? [12:25:10] yes, its the same [12:25:19] Looks like I got the error again [12:26:10] Hmmm, I'm gonna do a test with 4.6.0 release [12:26:22] And see if it happens as well [12:26:31] Sanity check [12:27:01] this is the consequence of an incompetent like @prole merged wrong code Compiles and runs on ubuntu 18.04. The --reindex flag gets stuck as best block 229 for me. Reconsidering the block does not get past it. The --reindex-chainstate flag also gets stuck as best block 229 for me. Reconsidering the block does get past it though. Removing the data folder and syncing again gets past block 229. Assuming this is just some [12:27:02] localized problem and am still happy to merge, just thought it was worth documenting what happened in my tests. now master branch is bugged by his incompetence [12:30:18] @navservers2017 that's not really helping [12:31:35] there might be some difference between how GetNextTargetRequired works in different contexts (connectblock vs contextualcheckblock) [12:31:52] Hmmm [12:32:16] Makes sense, I'll build a version with those changes reverted and see if it fixes the issue [12:33:19] BTW, I tested the wallet without an existing peers.dat [12:33:22] And it would not find peers [12:33:27] @aguycalled [12:34:10] if (block.IsProofOfStake()) { pindex->SetProofOfStake(); } [12:34:17] this is mixed in contextualcheckblock i think [12:34:28] building to test [12:34:33] Ok [12:35:03] nope its not that [12:35:18] The issue might be something to do with threads [12:35:27] It happens on different block heights for me [12:35:40] yes can be related [12:35:52] So I'm guessing a thread is updating data that the check is relying on [12:37:06] probably CBlockIndex->IsProofOfStake() [12:37:23] Hmm, that's a pointer right? [12:37:29] so GetLastBlockIndex differs between runs [12:37:45] when called in GetNextTargetRequired [12:37:53] yes [12:38:21] Ok, so if CBlockIndex is updated during GetNextTargetRequired() call [12:38:23] It would break [12:38:35] I'm not sure how to go about fixing that [12:39:10] Did ConnectBlock function have a lock of somesort? [12:39:56] That might be required in ContextualCheckBlock [12:40:28] connect hash contextual check does not [12:40:56] but it is called from acceptblock which it does [12:41:44] so maybe adding a lock for cs_main would fix? [12:42:52] there's already a lock in acceptblock [12:43:03] Hmmm [13:01:22] the problem is [13:01:38] the block index does not have proofofstake flag set [13:01:41] sometimes [13:01:43] just chcked [13:02:09] Ok, so you have a fix for it? [13:02:47] Some older blocks legitimately might not have it set right? [13:02:52] we can't set it in contextualcheck because pindex does not exist yet [13:02:56] As some older blocks are POW [13:03:14] so theres inconsistency between the order contextualcheck and connectblock is run [13:03:31] I see [13:15:18] Greetings folks. Is this where I can chat about a pull request for navcoin.org? [13:15:34] #dev-websites [13:15:47] @mxaddict can you test fix-stake-flag [13:16:00] synced till block 5k for me [13:16:04] and going [13:16:20] Ok, will do [13:16:31] I guess make a PR now [13:16:36] Then I'll review [13:17:07] great [13:17:09] BTW, what about the dns seed issue, any news on that? [13:19:34] i'll check that now [13:20:07] I just pull that branch [13:20:11] Got error: 2019-06-29 11:19:05 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlock() : incorrect proof-of-stake at height 529 (504249649 vs 504365055) [13:20:22] Stuck on branch 529 [13:20:57] I'm trying again to make sure [13:21:32] I tried again and got: 2019-06-29 11:21:11 ERROR: ContextualCheckBlock() : incorrect proof-of-work at height 532 (506706648 vs 506578556) [13:21:41] Stuck on 531 [13:22:12] @aguycalled [13:22:28] I'm gonna be afk for a while (Going on grocery run) [13:22:40] Just push changes to the branch and I'll build/test when I get back [13:22:44] 👌 [13:22:56] gr [13:22:57] ok [13:23:04] ill also be away for osme hours, having lunch out [14:49:18] When staking with navpay? [14:50:40] @Luigi Persico soon with NEXT Mobile [19:05:00] dns seeder is up again [19:05:18] would be great if someone spins more nodes so its not dependent solely on mine [19:44:22] i guess we might need to revert that patch and think in other solution, i can't figure out exactly why the check only fails in ContextualCheckBlock [21:45:36] *** Joins: aguycalled (~user@unaffiliated/aguycalled) [21:45:37] *** Parts: ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) () [21:45:41] *** Server sets mode: +cnt [21:59:42] *** Joins: aguycalled_ (~user@unaffiliated/aguycalled) [21:59:47] *** Server sets mode: +cnt [22:02:57] *** Quits: aguycalled (~user@unaffiliated/aguycalled) (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) [22:03:13] *** Quits: navcoin-bot (~navcoin-b@nav.community) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) [22:03:31] *** navcoin-bot1 is now known as navcoin-bot [22:09:48] *** Joins: aguycalled (~user@unaffiliated/aguycalled) [22:09:54] *** Server sets mode: +cnt [22:12:52] *** Quits: aguycalled_ (~user@unaffiliated/aguycalled) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) [22:13:21] *** Quits: navcoin-bot (~navcoin-b@nav.community) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) [22:13:38] *** navcoin-bot1 is now known as navcoin-bot [23:32:06] *** Joins: aguycalled_ (~user@unaffiliated/aguycalled) [23:32:11] *** Server sets mode: +cnt [23:35:01] *** Quits: aguycalled (~user@unaffiliated/aguycalled) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) [23:35:32] *** Quits: navcoin-bot (~navcoin-b@nav.community) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) [23:35:53] *** navcoin-bot1 is now known as navcoin-bot