Merged mining + timetravel fix @19200 - must upgrade

cosurgi
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:12 pm
os: linux

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by cosurgi »

vinced wrote:Cross posted from http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1581#p1581 :
I have version nc0.3.24.54-rc4 up....
how do I use this latest one?

Code: Select all

$ git checkout nc0.3.24.54-rc4
error: pathspec 'nc0.3.24.54-rc4' did not match any file(s) known to git.
$ git checkout v0.3.24.54-rc4
error: pathspec 'v0.3.24.54-rc4' did not match any file(s) known to git.
$ git checkout v0.3.21.91
HEAD is now at bdf7739... Merge jgarzik's getblock rpc calls
As you see I am unable to switch to RC4, why?

EDIT: Hmm.... nc0.3.24.54-rc4 seems to not exist at all! Look:

Code: Select all

$ git ls-remote | grep nc
From git://github.com/vinced/namecoin.git
7ce5fbbe33311ccf77c44afd966fc676ab966763        refs/tags/nc0.3.21.91
bdf77399db427ba4eedcec2b3057c4ba029d8113        refs/tags/nc0.3.21.91^{}
4b44c7e365f09818d6de6d46e8bcc83d39570a35        refs/tags/nc0.3.24.51-rc1
a5ad62f1cbfb91b8ff2c76dc5b1ac333509ca4d8        refs/tags/nc0.3.24.51-rc1^{}
f52d3307bcbc019cdba38ec823293f49d8d207fc        refs/tags/nc0.3.24.53-rc2
8fe640578a18fda330f52019777ceeffb8e774a6        refs/tags/nc0.3.24.53-rc2^{}
665f4ac783de5b96d22918945451bdac10ff9bbd        refs/tags/nc0.3.24.53-rc3
6f1f8046c7c7338b08642109a7aa90c4fc2a1757        refs/tags/nc0.3.24.53-rc3^{}

doublec
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 12:47 am
os: linux
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by doublec »

cosurgi wrote:[
EDIT: Hmm.... nc0.3.24.54-rc4 seems to not exist at all! Look:
Looks like it wasn't tagged. You can use 'git tag' to get a list of tags btw.

vinced
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 1:16 am

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by vinced »

Version nc0.3.24.55-rc5 is now up. This time with the relevant tag.

See https://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php ... 1597#p1597 for the motivation behind this change.
!v | Namecoin founder | https://dot-bit.org/

cosurgi
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:12 pm
os: linux

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by cosurgi »

vinced wrote:Version nc0.3.24.55-rc5 is now up. This time with the relevant tag.

See https://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php ... 1597#p1597 for the motivation behind this change.
thanks.

I wanted to examine latest changes in bitcoind (parent) that enables aux tx. Is that the right way to get the latest code?

Code: Select all

git clone https://github.com/vinced/namecoin.git
cd namecoin
git checkout mergedmine
I see some radically different versions of merged-mine-proxy under various tags, which one is the good one?

thanks for help

vinced
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 1:16 am

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by vinced »

cosurgi wrote: I wanted to examine latest changes in bitcoind (parent) that enables aux tx. Is that the right way to get the latest code?

Code: Select all

git clone https://github.com/vinced/namecoin.git
cd namecoin
git checkout mergedmine
I see some radically different versions of merged-mine-proxy under various tags, which one is the good one?

thanks for help
The code you pasted above is the correct way to get the latest version of bitcoind and merged-mine-proxy.
!v | Namecoin founder | https://dot-bit.org/

nodemaster
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:46 pm
os: linux

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by nodemaster »

This are the voices from this thread regarding Merged Minin Block Number:
JohnDoe wrote:48000 sound fine, plenty of time to get everyone on board. If there's no opposition from pool operators it could be lowered to 36000 or more. If it were up to me though I'd start on 24000~28000 since we are still months away from that range and is more than enough time in my opinion.
jtimon wrote:I've been told that block 24K corresponds approximately to the end of year. Is that true? I wish it could be sooner.
vinced wrote:Anybody in favor of moving up the starting block number to 19500 if no bugs are found in the current version over the next week? At the current block rate, this would be about four weeks.
moa wrote:Maybe leave it until 25,000.
smoothie wrote:I'm in favor of block 19500.
thirdlight wrote:I like 20000 for before or 22300 (22176+120+a bit) for after.
cosurgi wrote:19500 seems like a good proposal...
Okay, I've done some extensive testing on Merged Mining on Testnet and are very confident this version is quite stable. I have a couple of users on my pool who tested merged mining on ALPHA as well. Many people are asking when we can start with merged mining. From my point of view I'd like to see Merged Mining start on block 19500.

If there are no further concern I'd be glad if vinced could add this block number into the official code base.
Access .bit domains with Firefox in 4 easy steps: https://masterpool.eu/proxy
MasterPool Namecoin Mining Pool

doublec
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 12:47 am
os: linux
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by doublec »

nodemaster wrote: If there are no further concern I'd be glad if vinced could add this block number into the official code base.
I'd like to see the points raised by luke-jr addressed first.

nodemaster
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:46 pm
os: linux

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by nodemaster »

doublec wrote:
nodemaster wrote: If there are no further concern I'd be glad if vinced could add this block number into the official code base.
I'd like to see the points raised by luke-jr addressed first.
Sure, but we are talking about a couple of weeks anyway. I'm quite confident it should be possible to sort this out within this time. The framework for Merged Mining is working without problems so far. In my opinion it is okay to agree on 19k5 despite this fact. This gives people time to upgrade. It won't make sense waiting a few more weeks and then have people upgrade in a short time.
Last edited by nodemaster on Sun Aug 14, 2011 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Access .bit domains with Firefox in 4 easy steps: https://masterpool.eu/proxy
MasterPool Namecoin Mining Pool

doublec
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 12:47 am
os: linux
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by doublec »

nodemaster wrote:In my opinion it is okay to agree on 19k5 despite this fact. This gives people time to upgrade. It won't make sense waiting a few more weeks and than have people upgrade in a short time.
I agree we need to give people time to upgrade. But the solution to that is not to add the block number in now. If changes need to be made as a result of the issues luke-jr is discussing then the users will need to update again anyway. We should decide the code is satisfactory, then pick a block number after that.

thirdlight
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:23 pm

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by thirdlight »

Yes, wait for the code to be ready. Then pick a block ~ 3 weeks away. Should give enough people a chance to get back from holiday & upgrade.

At current rate, that's gonna be about 19500!

Post Reply