Quote from: gjhiggins on January 31, 2015, 02:10:58 PM

I've been doing some integration work on the quiet. I intended to do more testing before announcing the results of my efforts but contemporaneity trumps caution.

I've been hacking around with the PPCoin git repos and (with a bit of judicious conflict resolution) have been able to retrofit SLIMCoin as a branch , thereby recruiting the full PPCoin commit history as the base for John Smiths SLM initial commit and subsequent commit history.

I was able to merge all the way up to the latest commit of the standard PPCoin master (not the more extensive develop branch tho' which is a shame because it integrates the 0.8.6 codebase, leveldb, coincontrol and all).

I've also integrated all the contributions from the recent changes in the three extant forks

https://github.com/gjhiggins/SLIMCoin

http://i61.tinypic.com/23kc239.jpg
That's awesome. It's pretty much what I wanted to do next, except am not expert enough with Git to do properly.
When I get a chance, I'll check it out and see if I can build it, then test it for a while.

Quote from: d5000 on February 07, 2015, 10:01:53 PM

Quote from: bonipper on February 06, 2015, 10:18:23 PM

A forum would be good but I bet most people would look here first for any important updates.

Obviously this thread would continue to be an important communication channel. But a forum enables to coordinate development, marketing etc. much better. I remember the experience of Peercoin: Before they got a forum (Peercointalk) it was more-or-less a one-man project. When the forum opened, soon there emerged discussions about future developments and a marketing team was formed, which drove attention to the coin and made it a top-5 coin for most of 2013 and 2014.

Indeed, this thread is rather awkward for discussing more than one topic at a time; a separate forum would be nice if things start happening faster.

Quote

I have currently syncing problems at block 228116. Somebody knows what to do? The last block seems to be on the main chain, at least it has the same block hash as 228116 on the bchain.info block explorer. Have redownloaded blockchain from an earlier snapshot three times now, without luck. Looking at debug.log I see a "Check proof-of-burn error", probably caused by an orphan block.

I'm not sure. I'm at block 235487 with no errors right now. I could try to zip up my copy of the blockchain for you, if anyone knows whether that will work? Another option is you could try starting from an old snapshot again with a limited peer list of nodes you know have the good blockchain...

I'm not sure the cause of this, but if it's a problem with handling orphan blocks then that's not good. Can't have users getting stuck on random points of the blockchain...

Quote from: d5000 on January 31, 2015, 01:12:03 PM

Quote from: Mr E on January 29, 2015, 01:35:41 AM

I seem to have gotten rid of the slimcoin-qt crashes by compiling a version which is more aggressive at banning 'old version' clients (ones that keep spamming getblocks requests). This suggests that the crash is due to dealing with large numbers of requests in close proximity or something similar - which would be consistent with what I've seen where the memory usage suddenly spikes upwards before a crash. I'm just not sure about pushing that pach out widely, since I don't know what the chances are of it banning a legitimate node by accident. I am still showing 27 active connections, though, which suggests it hasn't banned everyone (yet?).

I don't know if slimcoin on linux has the same problem; as far as I know, I'm the only one reporting issues with this and I'm mainly running the Windows client. (I should try running a linux one too and see how it goes.)

I'm running the linux version (without gui) and I get the errors and crashes only when I run it with too low memory / swap space (512 MB seems to be too low, for example). But here I can't help you because I'm not so much of a techie ...

Interesting, it's possible that it could be a memory-related crash that is triggered by the large quantity of requests, or something.

At any rate, my slimcoin has been running stable for the last week or so and I haven't dropped any more nodes (currently at 28 connections), so I'm cautiously ok with the change for now.