Madonna Mia … it looks like there was another fail with responsiveness (round 690), very probably due to same bug, and I (and maybe not just me ?) missed eligible reward payment again!
BloodyRookie, this is really sad (and a little bit annoying) - even if my node is fine & healthy & powerful, I just got 33% of my payment reward, due to (very probably) error in testing script.
I absolutely understand (I’m Linux engineer & network specialist, so I do similar kind of work), that tracing and solving of network problems is sometimes really “deep and bloody black magic”, sure. If you want, you can send me a code, which is responsible for measuring of responsiveness of supernodes, I can researching over the solution together with you.
In any case, I have proposal with two quick workarounds :
No.1 - if supernode fails (just) with “responsiveness” test, mark it as “semi-fail” and repeat (just this responsiveness) test again, e.g. after 15 minutes. If it fails again, then finally marked it as “FAIL”, otherwise change the final status as “PASS”.
No.2 - for the reward purposes, you counting last four rounds of tests, correct? So, what about change the rules and to acknowledge specific supernode as “payment-capable”, even if one of four tests will FAIL (due to “responsiveness error”) … or 0/4 will FAIL, of course (as it is implemented now).
If this “ghosty error” affects not just me, but also some other providers of supernodes, I’m afraid that they would be sad and disillusioned, which would be a big shame - because the idea of Supernodes rewards is excellent! And I (and not just me, I’m pretty sure) highly appreciated your hard work on it. So, I’d like to say big thanks for your activity in any case. And I hope we’ll solve this trouble soon… the sooner the better ;-).
