Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • 21:59
    ymonye commented #11297
  • 21:57
    ymonye commented #11297
  • 21:49
    ymonye edited #11297
  • 21:48
    ymonye commented #11297
  • 21:42
    ordian review_requested #11322
  • 21:32

    sorpaas on sp-eip2384

    (compare)

  • 21:32

    sorpaas on master

    Enable EIP-2384 for ice age har… (compare)

  • 21:32
    sorpaas closed #11281
  • 21:09
    ryanschneider commented #11324
  • 19:28
    dvdplm commented #11326
  • 17:54
    ymonye commented #11297
  • 17:54
    ymonye commented #11297
  • 17:52
    ymonye opened #11326
  • 16:51
    dvdplm closed #11321
  • 16:48
    makuro commented #11321
  • 16:44
    makuro commented #11321
  • 16:42
    makuro commented #11321
  • 16:24
    dvdplm edited #11325
  • 16:08
    ordian unlabeled #11322
  • 16:07
    ordian synchronize #11322
richard
@jmzhuzhonghua
I can't find ethernet device such as eth0.
joshua-mir
@joshua-mir
There may be an issue with drivers..
richard
@jmzhuzhonghua
I solve the problem. It's the virtualization mode problem. My cpu can't support hvm, so should change it to pv(paravirtualization)
richard
@jmzhuzhonghua
@joshua-mir Qubes is mainly for desktop(it's based on fedora). I need secure server OS. Do you know if there is one or not?
richard
@jmzhuzhonghua
@joshua-mir I have created one account and used for several months, but now forget the password, can I restore the account to use again?
joshua-mir
@joshua-mir
@jmzhuzhonghua 😥 if you have the seed phrase, yes. Otherwise, no.
richard
@jmzhuzhonghua
what's the seed phrase? is it the password which i have passed to create account?
joshua-mir
@joshua-mir
@jmzhuzhonghua the seed phrase is the 12/24 word phrase that can be used to recover the account - it is not the password.
gt299792
@gt299792
Is there any way to add a sealer into a running poa blockchain? For example "clique.propose" in geth poa chain. But how about in Parity?
Ayushya Chitransh
@AyushyaChitransh
@gt299792 are you looking to something similar to add new validators? https://wiki.parity.io/Validator-Set-Tutorial-3.html#2-add-node1-as-validator
gt299792
@gt299792
I am looking for how to add a new address which is not in json file
Ayushya Chitransh
@AyushyaChitransh
@gt299792 Thatwould be possible via hard fork. There are two ways of adding new addresses as validators
one is via contract. In that case, there is one contract which regulates the addresses which act as validators.
Ayushya Chitransh
@AyushyaChitransh
Other is by specifying in the list in chain spec file. An answer here describes the process. https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/a/45535/16048
gt299792
@gt299792
@AyushyaChitransh So, if I need to build a blockchain which can add new seal in future, I should use This type of Contract (https://wiki.parity.io/Validator-Set.html#contracts) as initial validator?
richard
@jmzhuzhonghua
@joshua-mir does parity have RPC method to generate seed phrase which is nemonic word?
gt299792
@gt299792
@AyushyaChitransh After reading those page, Could you check if my understand correct?
"The only way to add a new sealer to a running chain is modifying the chain_spec.json file, and hard fork it."
joshua-mir
@joshua-mir
@gt299792 that is correct - ideally you would use a multiset and properly configure a future hardfork block
@jmzhuzhonghua you can't get a seed phrase from a private key, only the other way around. You should use ethkey to generate and account and seed phrase simultaneously
richard
@jmzhuzhonghua
can parity itself generate the seed phrase complying with bip39?
joshua-mir
@joshua-mir
@jmzhuzhonghua parity's seed format isn't bip39 compatible unfortunately
Stefano De Angelis
@deanstef

@joshua-mir by overloading the network with hundreds of RPC requests per second I receive this error

jsonrpc-eventloop-1 ERROR jsonrpc_http_server  Error serving connection: Error { kind: BodyWrite, cause: Os { code: 32, kind: BrokenPipe, message: "Broken pipe" } }

Do you know what does it means? I read something about limitations due to dDoS but I am not sure. Thank you

richard
@jmzhuzhonghua
@joshua-mir I can use parity_exportAccount to export one account's wallet file. But the file is encrypted, if I want to export private key(no encryption), how can I do this?
Vaibhav Chellani
@vaibhavchellani
@joshua-mir someone from my team accidently changed network id of a validator node, now other nodes are not able to sync, is there anything that can be done ?
Guillermo Pérez Alba
@gperezalba_gitlab
Hi! In a PoA with a certified address to use 0 gasPrice, is there any way to force validators validate transactions of the certified address first? With gas_factor and gas_price tx_queue_strategy transactions from certified address are going to be validated last, isn't it? Thanks
Deepanshu Tyagi
@deepanshutyagi
Hey guys {'code': -32015, 'message': 'VM execution error.', 'data': 'Bad instruction 1c'}
any idea what this error is, its POA chain using parity
joshua-mir
@joshua-mir
@deepanshutyagi most likely a contract compiled for the mainnet evm that you are trying to run on your chain without all of the same transitions.
ilson-
@ilson-
Captwefwefwef.PNG

Hello I’m using MS EthereumOnAzure. From Azure portal I created POA with smart-contract https://github.com/Azure-Samples/blockchain/blob/master/ledger/template/ethereum-on-azure/permissioning-contracts/validation-set/SimpleValidatorSet.sol. By Default I was admin with 2 validators. Then I added another admin with two validators. SYSTEM user called finalizeChange() method and flag appliedLastChange sets to true. It is OK for now (Block 890).

But then this second admin kills validators VMs with nodes. Now only 2 validators stay online (50%). I try remove second admin and his offline validators, but SYSTEM user don’t call finalizeChange() method for apply changes.

I created another POA with 1 admin and 2 validators, but with custom smart-contract for manual calling finalizeChange(). I added 2 random validator addresses - Ok (System called method), then I try deleted 2 validators – fail. I manually called finalizeChange() and offline validators are gone. But then I can’t add 2 random validators again. I think Network still remembers old offline validators and SYSTEM user ignore this contract. How I can see all validators in POA? How I can remove offline validators correctly?

ilson-
@ilson-
Also I tried calling methods ReportBenign|Malicious from two online validators accounts like in Kovan contract. https://github.com/parity-contracts/kovan-validator-set/blob/master/contracts/interfaces/BaseOwnedSet.sol
Still nothing.
joshua-mir
@joshua-mir
@ilson- finalizeChange is called by the system contract after the client finalizes the change in order to update state on-chain, not the other way around (ie, you can't force the client to finalize a change by manually calling the function) - the only way to reliably resolve the problem would be to launch nodes with the signing keys for the validators that went offline - when they produce blocks, the change should finalize properly and then they will actually be removed from the validatorSet.
ilson-
@ilson-
@joshua-mir Thank you! What if private keys from 50% offline nodes are lost forever? My contract is in deadlock and I need recreate POA network? Can I change ValidatorSet contract in network to another? Can I perform HardFork from block X and set another ValidatorSet?
My spec is
"engine": { "authorityRound": { "params": {
"stepDuration": "2",
"validators" : {
"safeContract": "0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000006"
} } } }
joshua-mir
@joshua-mir
@ilson- you should consider using https://wiki.parity.io/Validator-Set.html#multi-set for manual changes, I believe validatorSet transitions still only happen once the blocknumber in question is finalized though, so it may not be helpful for your network, in which case you would need to spin up a new network.
bananapete
@bananapete
@joshua-mir I'll re-phrase my question. We want to add a new validator to a private chain using the Clique engine. Can we use the validator set contracts and if so, how do we specify the fork at which the list of validators will be be taken from the contract?
joshua-mir
@joshua-mir
@bananapete clique doesn't use validatorSet contracts to determine changes in the validatorSet - it has its own mechanism to determine changes in validators and parity doesn't natively have logic to access that (it involves changing the extradata of the blocks produced by miners - parity respects changes as defined in the protocol but we don't have the logic to easily make those changes using the parity itself.)
bananapete
@bananapete
@joshua-mir any plans to develop parity to have the logic to access the validator mechanism in clique?
joshua-mir
@joshua-mir
@bananapete the goal was to get clique sync working - nobody is currently working on interacting with it currently to my knowledge.
jannikluhn
@jannikluhn
Hello! I tried to set an author address for a validator. The idea is that account A signs blocks, but rewards go to account B. I tried both the CLI argument --author and adding it to the config file, but Parity seems to simply silently ignore this. Am I doing something wrong or is this not possible?
joshua-mir
@joshua-mir
@jannikluhn engine_signer is what you are looking for - author only applies in PoW
jannikluhn
@jannikluhn
But engine_signer is the account that's used to sign the block, right? I don't want to change that, I just want the rewards to go to a different address
jannikluhn
@jannikluhn
the idea is to separate the two for security: The validator account must be a hot wallet, but the rewards can go to a safe cold wallet in a bunker somewhere in Siberia with no internet access
joshua-mir
@joshua-mir
@jannikluhn yeah I don't believe aura supports that. you may be able to get a similar outcome using block reward contracts https://wiki.parity.io/Block-Reward-Contract but I don't believe there's a pre-made solution for your usecase in this situation
jannikluhn
@jannikluhn
@joshua-mir I checked the code and as able to confirm this. The author address is indeed checked as part of the header validation. Which I think is unnecessarily restrictive as checking the signature against the expected proposer would be sufficient. But anyway, that's how it is I guess. Thanks for the answer!
Aveesh Shetty
@Aveesh52
Hey
Guillermo Pérez Alba
@gperezalba_gitlab
Hi! What could be the reason for a validator who validates blocks just sometimes? Sometimes the other validators report benign misbehaviour and sometimes they don't...Maybe the time sync?
Guillermo Pérez Alba
@gperezalba_gitlab
Logs don't show any mistake-info...