NEM Beta is here!

Releases
#81


Before I copy and paste my real nem information, is there a fixed amount of characters for

Address
Public key
Private key

And how many for each? ......and has everyone the same number of characters?

Can a dev answer this please?


[B]Address:[/B] addresses always have the same length. The first character is the network version. Right now it can be "T" for test network or "N" for live network (will be used after launch). The second character is always "A", "B", "C" or "D". The length of an address is 40 characters (not counting the "-")
Example: TASSSR-OMJE3L-6ZUN6L-SW76Y2-FCIH3H-HULADH-PPUL

[B]Public key:[/B] public keys are always 64 characters long when using the hexadecimal writing.
Example: b5c6ade9ccb21f62de4f5b49ba63464d198226c4707460c11e1fe0604dd7f041

[B]Private key:[/B] private keys can be 64 or 66 characters long when using hexadecimal writing. If 66 characters in length, it begins with "00" (double zero).
Example: 00d4a0f7f34144086f232e39ee0ef6f3321ea570cc481a1de1d6587df0087a02fa


Thanks for this professional reply Bloodyrookie, exactly the info I needed.

I was just wanting to be sure I was ' copy and pasting' the right stuff. Cheers again!!!!!
#82

[quote author=DontPanic_42 link=topic=2546.msg7458#msg7458 date=1414153561]
Is the importance higher if I open that port? If not, is

#83


i am getting this error when try to send NEM. "The time stamp of the transaction id too far in the past."
Time and Date is correct on my computer  ???


Is your computer clock set to internet time?


Yes, do i have to change that?
#84

[quote author=DontPanic_42 link=topic=2546.msg7458#msg7458 date=1414153561]
Is the importance higher if I open that port? If not, is
#85

Just got my 100 000 BNEM for testing.How long time I need to wait to start harvesting?


1 day.
#86

Question for devs or anyone who knows.. Can you have multiple accounts harvesting on one node? I know its better to have more instances of nis but is it still better to have a few accounts to one nis rather than one account one nis?

I'm wondering if say I do set up for instance 10 vpn's with nis running on each, would it be better to just publicly post the ip's so people can connect resulting in multiple accounts to each instance or dish out privately so that there is only on account per nis(assuming I have a limit of ten vpn's but more than 10 accounts want to connect to a remote nis)


Default in the configuration is that one account is allowed to harvest per NIS. When setting up a vps you are usually using the standalone version so you can edit the config.properties in the NIS folder. I guess having 3 people harvest per vps should not be a problem.
#87

I'm stuck at block 6980 with 75 pending transactions that I spammed out to like 15 different people.  I have already closed the wallet and started it again once.  Thinking about turning the computer off and on. 

When I go to http://chain.nem.ninja/checknis/ I get the positive message saying "We have successfully reached your node!"

Can anybody else confirm their client has passed 6980 a while back and is going on regularly with new blocks?

#88





Question for devs or anyone who knows… Can you have multiple accounts harvesting on one node? I know its better to have more instances of nis but is it still better to have a few accounts to one nis rather than one account one nis?

I'm wondering if say I do set up for instance 10 vpn's with nis running on each, would it be better to just publicly post the ip's so people can connect resulting in multiple accounts to each instance or dish out privately so that there is only on account per nis(assuming I have a limit of ten vpn's but more than 10 accounts want to connect to a remote nis)


Default in the configuration is that one account is allowed to harvest per NIS. When setting up a vps you are usually using the standalone version so you can edit the config.properties in the NIS folder. I guess having 3 people harvest per vps should not be a problem.


Thanks… Do you know of any companies that allow you to set up multiple free vps'? Or perhaps a package that says you get a bundle of 20 or something for x per annum/month?
#89

Can anybody else confirm their client has passed 6980 a while back and is going on regularly with new blocks?

I can. I just made a transaction at block 7058.
#90


Can anybody else confirm their client has passed 6980 a while back and is going on regularly with new blocks?

I can. I just made a transaction at block 7058.


My NCC shows " (at block 7066)" ...
latest block which I have harvested is tho #6744 (with 0.07% importance).
Blockchain explorer seems to go at block #7066.

#91



Can anybody else confirm their client has passed 6980 a while back and is going on regularly with new blocks?

I can. I just made a transaction at block 7058.


My NCC shows " (at block 7066)" ...
latest block which I have harvested is tho #6744 (with 0.07% importance).
Blockchain explorer seems to go at block #7066.


Soooo, I just did a restart of not just the wallet this time but my whole computer.  Turned it back on and saw that all my transactions had cleared about 60 blocks prior.  Which must have been prior to the restart.  I checked the client though again right before the restart and it still said 6980.

Looks like NIS was going and still processing transactions but NCC wasn't showing it confirmed. 
#92




Can anybody else confirm their client has passed 6980 a while back and is going on regularly with new blocks?

I can. I just made a transaction at block 7058.


My NCC shows " (at block 7066)" ...
latest block which I have harvested is tho #6744 (with 0.07% importance).
Blockchain explorer seems to go at block #7066.


Soooo, I just did a restart of not just the wallet this time but my whole computer.  Turned it back on and saw that all my transactions had cleared about 60 blocks prior.  Which must have been prior to the restart.  I checked the client though again right before the restart and it still said 6980.

Looks like NIS was going and still processing transactions but NCC wasn't showing it confirmed.


If that is caused by the "spamming" then it is really important to start the stress testing, which have been written several times. At least to make sure that ...  :(



With which kind of frequency you made the transactions?

#93

I like to test the beta NEM.

Thank you

TB7RD3-F2BUX4-DSD4QW-H3IHP7-PLKBEB-AFILHG-OOVH

#94

Here are some of my screen shots.  In the first two photos you can see lots and lots of my transactions "pending".

In the third photo you can see that oddly some later transactions got processed through the network early and some earlier transactions were getting processed later.  Everything went through, just not in the regular order one might expect from oldest to newest. 

Also, even though the first two screen shots say "pending", it looks like behind the scenes they were actually getting pushed through the network, even if they were getting jumbled. 

I was literally sending out transactions as fast as I could in a systematic order to see if I could mess it up.  I had done this a few other times too and thought I forced a hiccup or two.  I think the good news is that all the transactions went through.  The bad news is, it wasn't a great user experience. 


1.


2.


3.

#95

Here are some of my screen shots.  In the first two photos you can see lots and lots of my transactions "pending".

In the third photo you can see that oddly some later transactions got processed through the network early and some earlier transactions were getting processed later.  Everything went through, just not in the regular order one might expect from oldest to newest. 

Also, even though the first two screen shots say "pending", it looks like behind the scenes they were actually getting pushed through the network, even if they were getting jumbled. 

I was literally sending out transactions as fast as I could in a systematic order to see if I could mess it up.  I had done this a few other times too and thought I forced a hiccup or two.  I think the good news is that all the transactions went through.  The bad news is, it wasn't a great user experience. 


1.
[/img]

2.
[/img]

3.
[/img]


I sent about 50 TXs in 10 minutes. They all seem to be sent properly and can be seen in the blockchain explorer.

My node is in the "orange category" ie.
"We were not able to reach your node :(
Make sure port 7890 is open in your router configuration!"
... so, maybe not so much stress in my pc/port/...
#96


Here are some of my screen shots.  In the first two photos you can see lots and lots of my transactions "pending".

In the third photo you can see that oddly some later transactions got processed through the network early and some earlier transactions were getting processed later.  Everything went through, just not in the regular order one might expect from oldest to newest. 

Also, even though the first two screen shots say "pending", it looks like behind the scenes they were actually getting pushed through the network, even if they were getting jumbled. 

I was literally sending out transactions as fast as I could in a systematic order to see if I could mess it up.  I had done this a few other times too and thought I forced a hiccup or two.  I think the good news is that all the transactions went through.  The bad news is, it wasn't a great user experience. 


1.
[/img]

2.
[/img]

3.
[/img]


I sent about 50 TXs in 10 minutes. They all seem to be sent properly and can be seen in the blockchain explorer.

My node is in the "orange category" ie.
"We were not able to reach your node :(
Make sure port 7890 is open in your router configuration!"
... so, maybe not so much stress in my pc/port/...


I checked  http://chain.nem.ninja/checknis/  and it said

We have successfully reached your node!

application : NIS

version : 0.4.9-BETA

platform : Oracle Corporation (1.8.0_25) on Windows 8

protocol : http

port : 7890

host : 222.104.xxx.xx

name : jabo38

public-key : 3800de1304f392369fe21d7e5e3747c55976be4760aae65dae561c60967bd3ed

------------------

Checking http://chain.nem.ninja/checknis/ was one of the first things I did when I noticed my client was stuck on a block, or at least seemingly stuck. 

I took me a long time to configure it correctly, so I am hoping it is configure right.  Since I configured it right, every time I checked http://chain.nem.ninja/checknis/ it was fine.  I do this each time I turn the computer off and on and restart NEM.

Further more......  If you look at my screen shots closely, you can see one transaction happening my time at 23:14:23 and my client said that was processed 100 blocks ago.  Then if you look at the transaction right before it at 23:14:17 it says it was processed 97 blocks ago.

These correspond in the block chain explorer at  http://chain.nem.ninja/#tx This is a great thing about NEM devs syncing the clocks and makes NEM better than other crypto. Just one of many.

My 23:14:23 equals the block explorer's time of 11:14:23, and
my 23:14:17 equals the block explorer's time of 11:14:17

But now....... again

my 14:23 was 100 blocks ago
my 14:17 was 97 blocks ago
but in the block explorer it reports them both in the same block!  The block of 7002. 

If one examines my screen shots and the block explorer than more examples like this can be found. 

I was sending one transaction about every 7 seconds, which is about as fast as I could do it manually.

The network and the block explorer seemed to be processing things just fine, but my client interpreting what was happening seemed to be having problems.  Or at least that is my impression of what happened.  In hindsight, I wish I was checking the block explorer in real time but I wasn't but I am sure it accurately reflects what was happening. 
#97

[B]Address:[/B] addresses always have the same length. The first character is the network version. Right now it can be "T" for test network or "N" for live network (will be used after launch). The second character is always "A", "B", "C" or "D". The length of an address is 40 characters (not counting the "-")
Example: TASSSR-OMJE3L-6ZUN6L-SW76Y2-FCIH3H-HULADH-PPUL

[B]Public key:[/B] public keys are always 64 characters long when using the hexadecimal writing.
Example: b5c6ade9ccb21f62de4f5b49ba63464d198226c4707460c11e1fe0604dd7f041

[B]Private key:[/B] private keys can be 64 or 66 characters long when using hexadecimal writing. If 66 characters in length, it begins with "00" (double zero).
Example: 00d4a0f7f34144086f232e39ee0ef6f3321ea570cc481a1de1d6587df0087a02fa

Made my life really easy. Thank you.
#98

@jabo38s: interesting analysis :slight_smile:
The block explorer shows 25 transaction in block 7002 while my debug interface says there are 21 transactions in the block. Probably the block explorer is wrong.
Your transactions at 23:14:23 and 23:14:17 are both in that block so they should show up with the same amount of confimations. There must be a bug either in the gui or the request the gui makes returns corrupt data. I will have to make a more detailed analysis to find out.
Thanks for thoroughly testing those things :slight_smile:

Edit: after reindexing the block explorer has 21 transactions in block 7002 too.

#99



i am getting this error when try to send NEM. "The time stamp of the transaction id too far in the past."
Time and Date is correct on my computer  ???


Is your computer clock set to internet time?



Yes, do i have to change that?


whats wrong with my NEM client, everything seems to be Running OK on my computer apart from NEM beta  :(
#100

whats wrong with my NEM client, everything seems to be Running OK on my computer apart from NEM beta  :(


Did you check that all fields were filled with reasonable values? If yes i would recomment to restart NCC (leave NIS running) and wait for 1 minute, then try again. We have a little bug in the release.