Nu 2.0 release now on test net


#21

“sfG6GpAqKpjmKhYtDsTmw3SodEFh824oqx” : {
“1337.00” : {
“blocks” : 1001,
“block_percentage” : 10.01,
“sharedays” : 459799898,
“shareday_percentage” : 17.62030981
}

Am I on a wrong fork?


#22

I seem to have forked. Hopefully this was only because the v1.2 fix was not applied to the version we’ve been testing. I’m attempting a resync with the new build.

Seed nodes 198.52.200.26 and 198.52.199.30 are down at the moment. 62.210.25.6 should be on the correct chain if you’d like to try syncing to it.


#23

Besides looking into the issues, what should i do to contribute to testing?
I am currently playing around inputting random rates or custodial grant votes.


#24

Hey, sorry about the lack of interaction. We’ve run into an unexpected network fork that the new build did not solve. Sigmike is investigating and hopefully we’ll have a solution soon so we can move forward. I’ll give you an update as soon as I know more.


#25

If you’d like, you can try to devise scenarios that would be good ways to test each issue. Think about it like you’re trying to break the software. Try to think of things the developers might not have thought of, or ways that the functionality could be exploited to do things that could be harmful. We know that we need to pass an NSR grant and make sure it’s spendable, but can you think of anything else we could do to test this? We know that we need to make sure the new liquidity identifier provides the correct information, but maybe there’s a way to spam it with bogus information so it doesn’t work correctly? No pressure, just wanted to give you some food for thought. If you have any ideas, these types of discussions will be very helpful.


#26

Ok tks for the hints.
I ll try to think of weird plots.

Also, I am curious about this. [quote=“pennybreaker, post:24, topic:2296”]
We’ve run into an unexpected network fork
[/quote]
What fundamentally changed compared to Nu1.2 in Nu2.0 to cause such a fork?


#27

I doubt that it was because of the protocol switch. I think it’s more likely due to very few people using the testnet and minting intermittently. I am guilty of contributing to this as I have done a good bit of traveling this year and have not always been in a position to leave my test machine running.


#28

@cryptog @willy Hey, can you guys delete your testnet database (everything in the testnet folder except for the two wallet files) and try resyncing again? I think we may have gotten things sorted out but someone is still on a bad chain. Sorry for the trouble. Thanks!

Update: The builds posted below include a reorganize RPC that will allow you to go back to a certain block height without having to redownload the database. From the console, the command is:

reorganize <the height you want to go back to>

I would suggesting trying this:

reorganize 380000

#29

Guys,

Switch to these builds …

Windows: https://bitbucket.org/JordanLeePeershares/nubit/downloads/nu-2.0.0-Test4-win-gitian.zip

Linux: https://bitbucket.org/JordanLeePeershares/nubit/downloads/nu-2.0.0-Test4-linux-gitian.zip


#30

With the new build, I am getting that.


18:29:46

Switched to NuBits wallet

18:29:54

reorganize 380000

18:39:21

Db::del: Not enough space (code -1)

18:39:21

Switched to NuShares wallet

18:41:57

reorganize 380000

18:49:31

Db::put: Not enough space (code -1)


Any idea?


#31

@sigmike Do you know the reason for this error? I did not experience it when I ran the command.


#32

This might sound stupid, but: what about the file system (where the Nu application data is) - is there space left?


#33

I’ve never had this error either and I’m not sure what it means. The program may not have enough disk or memory space. But it may also be requesting too much. Try restarting the client before calling the RPC.


#34

found this github issue. seems to think it’s a ‘pthread-win32 version problem’ (not much more detail than that unfortunately)

Other search results pointed to potential corruption of wallet.dat files but nothing concrete, more people suggesting a back up / restore.
Interestingly, the bulk of people reporting this issue on bitcoind and dogecoind say that their disk space is fine so it seems it’s a misleading error message.


#35

Tks for the piece of advice but I am still having the error.

Perhaps I should delete the blokchain files and re-download them, which ruins the role of “reoganize”, in order to execute:


#36

The error will be hard to fix because we can’t reproduce it. So yes, re-downloading will certainly be faster anyway.

Don’t forget to run “repairwallet” after that to recover the stake of your unconfirmed blocks.


#37

all right!


#38

Have downloaded the whole bc. Hopefully, I am on the correct one.

Waiting now to recover all my minted stakes.

Most of it has not been recovered, yet.


#39

Can somebody ELI5 me on what the main improvements are compared to last version?


#41

well you have fee voting, nsr grant…as it is mentioned in the OP.