Regarding the few long block intervals on Reddcoin network

Sorry guys. I’m on a business trip so only saw this last night. I’d like to clarify some technical details.

First, it’s incorrect to say the Reddcoin network is down. The network works as it should: nodes relay block and transaction information to each other and most importantly all the nodes on the network agree on one single longest chain, which is the cornerstone of our decentralised network. There is no magic switch to turn our decentralised network off or on. Being a truly decentralised crypto-currency is what Reddcoin Project is all about.

Second, minting a block is an action carried out by each staking node (staker) independently. All the information required to create a coinstake transaction and its corresponding PoSV block is available locally after being relayed on the network. When hundreds or thousands of stakers compete to mint the next block, there is no coordination required among them. Not only no coordination, it’s actually a fierce competition in nature.

So what could be causes? I can think of three potential reasons:

  • A software bug that exists in all Qt wallets that prevent all clients from successfully finding a PoSV block. I’ve looked through debug.log file and seen nothing suspicious.

  • Some major stakers went temporarily offline. If this is the case, block difficulty will drop gradually and it is indeed.

  • Pure bad luck. Block interval follows geometric distribution. PoSV has been working with zero problem for 5 months now, producing over 200K blocks since inception. It’s statistically quite possible that we see a fat tail by now, even one that looks very unusual.

  • A combination of some of the above.

I’m keeping an eye on this and will investigate more when I’m back next week. But one thing is indisputable: we always need more stakers! I’m finalising the technical details of PoSV 2.0 which will distribute the interests given up by inactive wallets to active stakers. I’ll write up a design document and start a discussion in the next couple of weeks. It’ll be part of our Social X release.

Great post, thank you for clarifying this

2 Likes

laudney
Thanks,
Agreed the network was not down or disabled.
However, the stand out part is that in each case i documented the time difference between blocks was was 1 hour.
I would expect with a change in difficulty that this would not be the case and would be more subtle change

1 Like

Gnasher Difficulty adjusts based on KGW and it’s indeed relatively smooth and also gradual. Change in difficulty has nothing to do with actual block intervals but expected block intervals. Block interval follows geometric distribution and can be very volatile. So your suggestion of subtle change in block interval is incorrect.

It’s possible that we hit an extremely rare path in the code which is only triggered under a combination of several conditions. I have a hunch where it could be and will look into it.

5 Likes

laudney Cool, just keeping the conversation alive.
No problem to me on being corrected… love to be involved in the process.
We can all learn something

3 Likes

laudney said:

I’m finalising the technical details of PoSV 2.0 which will distribute the interests given up by inactive wallets to active stakers.

This is incredibly exciting as it should swell the number of active stakers and reward those who are already staking more hansomly. Can’t wait. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

finitered Yeah. I’ve been thinking about several ways to achieve this and I think I’ve found one that’s simple and robust to implement. Let’s talk about it in coming weeks.

3 Likes

Nice. I stake 100% of the time, unless my 1 year old turns off my server when Im not looking lol (She will push any button that has a light on it, including turning off my tv lolz)

I always say, the smartest people I know happen to love reddcoin, there is a reason for that.

4 Likes

One more reason to create a ReddPi that is easy to setup for mainstream users, so everyone can stake 24/7 with ease.

1 Like

laudney Excelent, will look forward to it :slight_smile:

PoSV has the potential to fully realise Satoshi’s original notion of providing fully distributed network security where everyone can take part and reap the rewards for securing the network. Whilst classical mining (regardless of algorithm) has become more and more centralised as the big players invest millions, PoSV and it’s current and future revisions will foster global cooperation on an unprecedented scale. Exciting times.

Thanks for this update. PoSV is a huge benefit to this coin, and yet still seems underrated even by the commenters here. With all the anticipation for Social X , I think we (collectively) have not realized what an advantage this is.
With all the talk of side chains and a “bitcoin peg,” it may well be a huge difference maker going forward… Imagine using the phrase “And Reddoin ISN’T pegged to bitcoin” as a selling point… Also, wouldn’t a peg cause any “newly minted” coins created on a side chain to undermine the value of the original, bought and paid for, side chain coins? This is an advantage… Also, mining farms and centralization of the side chain medium to the bitcoin block chain itself is a negative in my view… Redd may win on the hubris of btc alone…

1 Like

laudney
Further investigating this issue, a little background and using the following example

I am also assuming that the time used in the block header is inserted at the time the client created the block, and it is then accepted into the chain.

According to Bitcoin Wiki
Block timestamp - Bitcoin Wiki
The time value used needs to be greater than the median of previous n blocks and greater than network time + 2hours
note: these values may not be entirely correct for ReddCoin

So looking at my snippet above

at 11:00:15 block 490156 accepted and has a time stamp of 2015-01-08 10:59:53 << IS NORMAL (timestamp ~ log time)
at 11:00:24 block 490157 accepted and has a time stamp of 2015-01-08 11:59:57 << IS NOT NORMAL (timestamp >1hr of log time)

approximately 1 hour then passes in log before next block

at 11:51:31 block 490158 accepted and has a time stamp of 2015-01-08 11:50:12 << IS LESS THAN log time (but acceptable?)

My question is:
Has the client that generated the block got too great a variance on its local time (day light saving/incorrectly set local time) but within the bounds of acceptable?

2 Likes

Gnasher It happened again… one hour between block 493646 and 493647

1 Like

ReddcoinRocks
Thanks for the heads up,
Can you keep the feedback coming if another long block occurs, i have relaunched my client in debug mode to gather more clues

Gnasher This could be interesting too: https://www.reddcointalk.org/topic/221/sent-redd-that-never-got-there-what-do-i-do/4

ReddcoinRocks I’m working on a fix and will post update in coming days.

7 Likes

I’ve found the subtle bug in Qt wallet and have the fix. I’m testing it. Many thanks to Gnasher for providing all the logs and discussions!!!

4 Likes

laudney I know you’re on top of this, but just in case it helps there were two long blocks in a row earlier:

495010

495011

GrayPhoenix said:

laudney I know you’re on top of this, but just in case it helps there were two long blocks in a row earlier:

495010

495011

Nevermind, just saw your post.

laudney Just out of curiosity, does the bug exist in some legacy code (fork from the original project) or in the code written by the Reddcoin dev team? It’s ok to not answering my question if you are busy because it’s low priority. I am curious because similar situations seem also observed on some other coin networks.