Try adding the following line to conf/heat.properties:
Code:
heat.enableHallmarkProtection=false
This is not a normally recommended setting, but it might help things out until HEAT gets more hallmarked nodes.
Again to stress: is not normally suggested, only at this early stage.
EDIT: The reasoning behind this suggestion is that there are comparatively few hallmarked nodes on the network. If any hallmarks get on a fork (especially the ones with bigger accounts), they have a very high influence on remaining nodes because those nodes "trust" the hallmarks more than everyone else. This makes it hard to follow other chains if they are held by non-hallmarked nodes, even if the forging rules declare it a stronger chain.
As far as I know, the single biggest reason for hallmark protection is to prevent Sybil attacks. This is a desirable feature of a P2P network which is why it's not typically recommended to disable. We as a community should strive to have more good hallmarked nodes on the network. But for now maybe disabling it helps to stabilize??? (not really sure)
Right now the hard fork is live and running on the company servers, to keep things fair i'll give a thirty minute heads up before we release the server code on github so everyone can start mining at the same time.
This is understandable and acceptable - not the previous method of inviting a previlege few to do private mining for hours. Looking forward to a stable release.
Agreed. This is a step in the right direction. Still not perfect, but understandable in this early stage. Thank you.
After negotiations C-CEX have confirmed to us they'll do everything possible to implement the HEAT wallet and keep HEAT trading on their exchange.
According to our understanding this with high likelihood means multiplying the HEAT holdings there by ~1.5x tomorrow Feb 9th.
Is it not possible for you to make clear statements? Always some bs like "according to our understanding" or "As far as we know" or "high likelyhood" and then when it doesn't turn out that way you smug your way out by saying "we didn't promise anything...". This lawyer jingo mingo pisses me off. Are you guys retarded or something? Is it really so hard to have a conversation where you clear such things out? This is unbelieveable! xD
It's quite simple really. They can't speak for C-CEX and won't know for sure that what they say will be true until it happens.
So yeah, they hedge the statements in this way because of past C-CEX behavior. Don't invent drama where none is warranted.
jl777's and Supernet assistance as the highest HEAT stakeholder and major forger have been indispensable in clearing up the early phases of the network. Any "priviliged" forging for a few hours that's technically required from one or a few large forgers to keep the network in order, needs to be limited in attendance otherwise it misses the purpose of stabilizing a fork and harms the project's progress by scattering the blockchain to numerous instances. Bold theoretical principles of equality and fairness can be speculated but unfortunately there's no middle ground there for any practical purposes. Testnet testing and ample preparation time for sizable maneuvers are impossible due to time restricted circumstances.
If required, I'll personally cover the costs of any such rewards being re-distributed to the stakeholders or community when appropriate.
I'm not asking you or anyone else to cover the costs of this episode. Or burn, or donate, etc.
I'm asking you to do better in the future. This approach to new releases is abysmal. Perhaps the circumstances dictated this procedure for now, but you must come up with a better procedure and tools.
"Bold theoretical principles of equality and fairness". What a sloppy statement. You know people don't take kindly to ninja-mining in this space, right? Nothing theoretical about it, the PoS system performs quite well at choosing a forger by lottery.
I really need to know. Were there a privileged few who got early access to forge alone on the main chain for several hours? Not cool if true.
Anyone knows who "supernet" is?
The "who" doesn't matter. It's the "how" that does.
Developer creates a private 0.9.4 release
Developer gives this release to a few buddies (7 nodes other than heatwallet.com by my count prior to public release)
Developer and buddies create a fork and gain all rewards for several hours on their fucked up 0.9.4 chain
Nobody else can join that chain because software is not available
0.9.4 is finally made public and forces everyone to the fucked up chain
This is not acceptable. One of the most important jobs of a blockchain developer is to maintain fairness in blockchain rewards. This is non-negotiable, and any blockchain developer that disagrees needs to find a new line of work.
For a developer to create a fork for him and his buddies and then force it as the main chain is totally messed up. This belongs on a discarded testnet chain.
Don't do it again.
I see your point, what are the chances that it was a logistical problem? How long were they ninja mining?
Well, this is the second time Dennis has shown aloofness towards maintaining fair rewards, so go figure. Maybe it wasn't thought out. BUT IT NEEDS TO BE!!! This shit gotta stop!
They were ninja mining for at least 3 hours, maybe more.
EDIT: Here's a refresher:
Clone the main chain to a testnet
Invite a few buddies to testnet.
When tested to satisfaction, discard the testnet chain!
Simultaneous public release to everyone (including heatwallet.com and heatwallet download)
I really need to know. Were there a privileged few who got early access to forge alone on the main chain for several hours? Not cool if true.
Anyone knows who "supernet" is?
The "who" doesn't matter. It's the "how" that does.
Developer creates a private 0.9.4 release
Developer gives this release to a few buddies (7 nodes other than heatwallet.com by my count prior to public release)
Developer and buddies create a fork and gain all rewards for several hours on their fucked up 0.9.4 chain
Nobody else can join that chain because software is not available
0.9.4 is finally made public and forces everyone to the fucked up chain
This is not acceptable. One of the most important jobs of a blockchain developer is to maintain fairness in blockchain rewards. This is non-negotiable, and any blockchain developer that disagrees needs to find a new line of work.
For a developer to create a fork for him and his buddies and then force it as the main chain is totally messed up. This belongs on a discarded testnet chain.
But there are much better ways to handle this kind of 'early-access' testing. It's not rocket science. Hell, it's only blockchain science.
Here's what you do: * Fork the main chain to a testnet * Invite your privileged few to help you test it on the testnet. * When testing is complete, discard the testnet chain!
IT'S NOT THAT DIFFICULT! This 'privilege' bullshit is fucked up. Don't do it again.
Final point: * After tested to satisfaction (on the discarded testnet chain): * Simultaneous public release to everyone (including heatwallet.com and heatwallet download) * Coincident announcement on all major channels
You have to get this right in the future. Early access to a privileged few is reprehensible.
I really need to know. Were there a privileged few who got early access to forge alone on the main chain for several hours? Not cool if true.
xD So great! Yeah Heat is not very cool, glad you recognized that! Those people that are privileged are the ones on the slack. They are making decissions in private and we are the idiots that have to follow them... And if you don't agree with them on the slack then they simply kick you out. Privileged miners, CCEX funds are kept by Heat team, which fork we have to follow gets also decided on the slack. This HEAT coin is the biggest ripoff I have ever seen. I already stopped forging a long time ago.FUCK HEAT!
Just because I'm pissed off about this does not mean I agree with you on anything.
But there are much better ways to handle this kind of 'early-access' testing. It's not rocket science. Hell, it's only blockchain science.
Here's what you do: * Fork the main chain to a testnet * Invite your privileged few to help you test it on the testnet. * When testing is complete, discard the testnet chain!
IT'S NOT THAT DIFFICULT! This 'privilege' bullshit is fucked up. Don't do it again.
EDIT: And 7 peers show 0.9.4 ?!?!?! Are those all dev machines, or do only a select few get access??? (Maybe that's why we have a fork right now?) https://heatwallet.com/nodes.cgi
Almost two hours past the stated 23:00 UTC release for 0.9.4 and heatbrowser and heatwallet are on different chains.
Heatwallet is showing a 0.9.4 version (and has been for a couple hours), so I assume that it has the 'correct' chain. https://heatwallet.com/status2.cgi
Eager to contribute. Please update.
EDIT: And 7 peers show 0.9.4 ?!?!?! Are those all dev machines, or do only a select few get access??? (Maybe that's why we have a fork right now?) https://heatwallet.com/nodes.cgi
Do you guys think you'll be added to Poloniex or is your chain too complicated to maintain for a major exchange?
Too early for that discussion. Network currently in infancy and unstable. We are waiting for devs to fix some issues that cause forks and other odd behavior.
Well, in PoW mining power decides on consensus. Point is in both cases of PoW and PoS should behaviour would be considered attack on the network. That would look terrible. I rather wait for Supernet release the chain.
Attack??? Not at all. NXT-based PoS allows reorg up to 720 blocks. If anybody is 'attacking' the network, is SuperNet by hijacking chain with high forging stake. Many smaller forgers should band together to force a reorg.
More forgers on more machines is healthier for the network anyway.
We are waiting for the issue to be resolved, before that there is quite little we can do. The Slack-team has not been able to jump aboard the mainchain even if almost every measure has been taken.
Then heat slack team should find the best chain they can and put forging power behind that.
The 'heatwallet' chain is not necessarily the 'main' chain. It looks to have only 3 big forgers. Get enough smaller ones to overtake and force reorg.
That would be terribly unhealthy for the project and could act as a precedent. Seriously, I do not mind Supernet getting couple of additional coins and we should not penalise them for being on the right chain. That would be greed.
Um, in PoS forgers set the chain. That's how the consensus works. They are not necessarily on the 'right' chain if everyone else disagrees. I think having more smaller forgers make up the main chain is far healthier.