Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

05 Dec 2024 12:39

Anyway, all this requires constant monitoring, which no one has done yet.

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

05 Dec 2024 12:36

Another approach is to provide clear explanation that current mining power is actually sufficient, because we have many https://w8.io/top/Waves wallets of exchanges (for example Upbit: https://w8.io/3PDGpuS9AoKQUnJVTSNRZY7pTGaxwLJo1cq with 50M) we can consider as fair players, then we can subtract them from total value and do the math.

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

05 Dec 2024 12:00

Thank you for the explanation, so submitting a request to Gate for speeding things up is probably pointless in this case, right?

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

05 Dec 2024 11:42

(To be honest, I wonder what they count as a confirmation, because it's too slow. Transactions in the Waves network between wallets are instant)

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

05 Dec 2024 11:36

@deemru Hello, could you please clarify something? Transfers via the WAVES network towards Gate.io take an hour and a half to be confirmed. Is this a technical limitation of the WAVES network, or is it on Gate.io's side? Is it possible to reduce the confirmation limit on Gate.io's side or not? Thank you.

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

04 Dec 2024 12:25

Neither do I 😅, I don't even know what you are talking about

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

03 Dec 2024 17:30

Sure, L2 chains such as Units do not have its own consensus, it relies on Waves (L1) network flow. This flow microforks pretty often because microblocks generation is pretty fast now, and speed of light limits can not be overcome in decentralized way.

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

03 Dec 2024 17:24

Anything after finalized block is subject to change anytime

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

03 Dec 2024 17:23

I do not see anything special, microblock reorganisation on Waves net causes chain reorganisation on Units net

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

03 Dec 2024 17:20

I’m using fairly complex listener setups, but let’s start with something as simple as an RPC request to eth_blockNumber(latest block). Take a look at the attached screenshot to see what it’s returning. This behavior persists almost constantly. On EVM chains like ETH, POLY, BSC, or BASE, such cases almost never occur, with just a few rare exceptions. I believe this is the root cause of the issue where duplicate events are emitted for blocks that were already processed long ago.

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

03 Dec 2024 16:54

So if you think its the error on the besu side, you can reach them out

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

03 Dec 2024 16:53

units network for now uses unpatched besu as an execution client

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

03 Dec 2024 15:07

You can monitor finalized block if you need some sort of stability

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

03 Dec 2024 14:11

Hello, I was redirected here regarding an issue with the Unit0 chain. - I am experiencing an issue with event listeners over WebSocket connections. For example, even with a simple event handler on "eth_blockNumber," I receive the correct message after a block is mined. However, later, the same message is received multiple times (n times), either seconds or even minutes later. This problem occurs for all events, not consistently but very frequently. For instance, with the "Transfer" event, if there's only one transaction in the block (mine), I correctly receive the event after the block is mined, but then I receive the same event multiple times again—same value, same block. There seems to be an issue with event emission, parallelization, multiple nodes, or something along those lines on your end.

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

30 Nov 2024 19:32

i think i just fumbled my way through setting up a node. how do i know it's fully operational once it dl the chain?

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

05 Dec 2024 12:37

Only Upbit subtraction gives us x2 mining power.

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

05 Dec 2024 12:24

There is no theoretical proof that there is a smaller number of confirmations with the same risk they are already taken. So you have to attract more mining power first then you will be able to claim the reduction of the number of confirmations.

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

05 Dec 2024 11:44

Everyone has a right to require any number of confirmations. More confirmations = less risk.

There are possible theoretical scenarios when you can compute finalized block approved by the majority of generating power, but as you can see here https://w8.io/GENERATORS only 20M waves are mining for the last 24h, but the emission is more than 100M, so the majority have to be 50+M but it cannot be reached at all, so the exchanges have to do approximations to reduce risks.

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

05 Dec 2024 11:40

Gate.io requires 90+ confirmations to deposit

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

04 Dec 2024 18:10

Hello guys, we are looking for JavaScript dev. Is there someone from this group, let DM me

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

04 Dec 2024 12:20

I am trying to use it in a codeigniter (php) website but no clue how to use (or if it's possible) to use a node library with a PHP webapp

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

03 Dec 2024 17:27

Thank you for the explanation. So this behavior is more typical for L2 chains than for L1?

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

03 Dec 2024 17:23

If you want stability ^

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

03 Dec 2024 17:21

I'm not sure where the issue lies, I just wanted to discuss it with you because this behavior is not typical for the EVM chains I am familiar with.

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

03 Dec 2024 16:54

Also you did not provide tech data to reproduce your error

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

03 Dec 2024 16:54

https://github.com/hyperledger/besu

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

03 Dec 2024 16:52

This is not related to chain reorganizations. The duplicate events I receive are tied to the same block number, emitted several seconds or minutes later, and contain identical data. In a reorganization, I would expect events with a new block number, not repeats from an already confirmed block. This seems more like a node or event emission issue.

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

03 Dec 2024 15:07

Are you sure you are not talking about chain reorganizations which can occur pretty often on the last blocks

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

30 Nov 2024 20:08

Check in the logs whether it is mining the microblocks. If yes - its OK

Waves Dev Jedi | RIDE for dApps

29 Nov 2024 21:51

do I need to put any commands to start mining ? I just used the default things