Namecoin Forum

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2015 11:02 am**

Someone informed me yesterday that he was frequently getting the linked-below error pop-up (from the system tray icon) in Namecoin-Qt 0.3.80 on Windows:

http://files.veclabs.net/namecoin/excep ... _02_23.png

Apparently it started yesterday and was occurring frequently.

Any idea what would cause this? I haven't seen any similar popups on Linux.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2015 7:12 pm**

This happens when a NamecoinCore client sends an inv message containing a type 3 vector (MSG_FILTERED_BLOCK) to a Namecoin-Qt or namecoind client.
EDIT: SPV clients also send out MSG_FILTERED_BLOCK requests.

Namecoin Core (and Bitcoin Core) inventory vector types:
https://github.com/domob1812/namecore/b ... col.h#L144

Namecoin-Qt/namecoind inventory vector types:
https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin/bl ... net.h#L374

I can reproduce this error by sending a MSG_FILTERED_BLOCK inv message to my Namecoin-Qt client. The debug.log then shows:

Code: Select all

************************
EXCEPTION: St12out_of_range       
CInv::GetCommand() : type=3 unknown type       
namecoin in ProcessMessage()

Very ugly effect. Not only that it creates the popup window you mentioned but also that the getinfo command comes up with this error forever:

Code: Select all

{
"version" : 38000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 219628,
...
"errors" : "EXCEPTION: St12out_of_range \nCInv::GetCommand() : type=3 unknown type \nnamecoin in ProcessMessage() \n"
}

@domob: Do you see a chance we can "hide" these type-3 vectors in a way that the standard clients ignore them, or do we need to release a 0.3.81 version in order to get rid of these error messages?

Posted: **Fri Mar 06, 2015 12:39 pm**

Hmm I never got it so far...

Posted: **Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:21 pm**

phelix wrote:Hmm I never got it so far...

AFAIK there is an option in the MS-Win Control Panel for turning on/off pop-up notifications. I guess you turned it off.

Posted: **Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:24 am**

cassini wrote:
phelix wrote:Hmm I never got it so far...
AFAIK there is an option in the MS-Win Control Panel for turning on/off pop-up notifications. I guess you turned it off.

If I did I am not aware of it. Did not find a way to turn it on either

Could it be the different versions mostly stick to themselves due to the way they look for peers?

Posted: **Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:17 am**

phelix wrote:Did not find a way to turn it on either

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Microsoft+Windows+ ... n+messages

phelix wrote:different versions mostly stick to themselves due to the way they look for peers

This is something that springs to mind, but then the error message (see OP) shouldn't turn up in the first place!?

Posted: **Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:24 pm**

phelix wrote:
cassini wrote:
phelix wrote:Hmm I never got it so far...
AFAIK there is an option in the MS-Win Control Panel for turning on/off pop-up notifications. I guess you turned it off.
If I did I am not aware of it. Did not find a way to turn it on either Could it be the different versions mostly stick to themselves due to the way they look for peers?

Wouldn't that be a potential security issue if the network is naturally segregated by version? Might make it easier to fork the chain?

Posted: **Tue Mar 10, 2015 8:38 pm**

cassini wrote:
phelix wrote:Did not find a way to turn it on either
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Microsoft+Windows+ ... n+messages

Hehe, naah, I had checked on this.

biolizard89 wrote:
phelix wrote:
cassini wrote:
phelix wrote:Hmm I never got it so far...
AFAIK there is an option in the MS-Win Control Panel for turning on/off pop-up notifications. I guess you turned it off.
If I did I am not aware of it. Did not find a way to turn it on either Could it be the different versions mostly stick to themselves due to the way they look for peers?
Wouldn't that be a potential security issue if the network is naturally segregated by version? Might make it easier to fork the chain?

Potentially... Can someone on namecore run a peerinfo ?

Posted: **Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:12 pm**

Here is the output of getpeerinfo on a fairly recent Namecoin Core build:

Code: Select all

[
{
"id" : 40,
"addr" : "184.72.238.42:8334",
"addrlocal" : "129.15.64.249:38366",
"services" : "0000000000000001",
"lastsend" : 1426025173,
"lastrecv" : 1426025198,
"bytessent" : 6837,
"bytesrecv" : 90924,
"conntime" : 1426024211,
"timeoffset" : 119,
"pingtime" : 0.00000000,
"version" : 35000,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 221398,
"banscore" : 0,
"synced_headers" : 221399,
"synced_blocks" : 221399,
"inflight" : [
],
"whitelisted" : false
},
{
"id" : 41,
"addr" : "85.139.163.132:8334",
"addrlocal" : "129.15.64.249:9797",
"services" : "0000000000000001",
"lastsend" : 1426025175,
"lastrecv" : 1426025189,
"bytessent" : 1997,
"bytesrecv" : 9078,
"conntime" : 1426024454,
"timeoffset" : -1,
"pingtime" : 0.00000000,
"version" : 38000,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 221399,
"banscore" : 0,
"synced_headers" : 221399,
"synced_blocks" : 221399,
"inflight" : [
],
"whitelisted" : false
},
{
"id" : 42,
"addr" : "5.45.108.219:8334",
"addrlocal" : "129.15.64.249:5093",
"services" : "0000000000000001",
"lastsend" : 1426025170,
"lastrecv" : 1426025189,
"bytessent" : 2205,
"bytesrecv" : 9176,
"conntime" : 1426024791,
"timeoffset" : -1,
"pingtime" : 0.00000000,
"version" : 37200,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 221399,
"banscore" : 0,
"synced_headers" : 221399,
"synced_blocks" : 221399,
"inflight" : [
],
"whitelisted" : false
},
{
"id" : 43,
"addr" : "54.213.254.200:8334",
"addrlocal" : "129.15.64.249:48960",
"services" : "0000000000000001",
"lastsend" : 1426025172,
"lastrecv" : 1426025173,
"bytessent" : 2266,
"bytesrecv" : 10703,
"conntime" : 1426024805,
"timeoffset" : -34,
"pingtime" : 0.00000000,
"version" : 37500,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 221399,
"banscore" : 0,
"synced_headers" : -1,
"synced_blocks" : -1,
"inflight" : [
],
"whitelisted" : false
},
{
"id" : 44,
"addr" : "72.51.28.206:8334",
"addrlocal" : "129.15.64.249:44701",
"services" : "0000000000000001",
"lastsend" : 1426025170,
"lastrecv" : 1426025187,
"bytessent" : 1986,
"bytesrecv" : 8844,
"conntime" : 1426024806,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"pingtime" : 0.00000000,
"version" : 37601,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 221399,
"banscore" : 0,
"synced_headers" : -1,
"synced_blocks" : -1,
"inflight" : [
],
"whitelisted" : false
},
{
"id" : 45,
"addr" : "173.23.166.47:8334",
"addrlocal" : "129.15.64.249:22095",
"services" : "0000000000000001",
"lastsend" : 1426025170,
"lastrecv" : 1426025187,
"bytessent" : 1742,
"bytesrecv" : 7664,
"conntime" : 1426024808,
"timeoffset" : -1,
"pingtime" : 0.00000000,
"version" : 38000,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 221399,
"banscore" : 0,
"synced_headers" : 221399,
"synced_blocks" : 221399,
"inflight" : [
],
"whitelisted" : false
},
{
"id" : 46,
"addr" : "50.116.41.120:8334",
"addrlocal" : "129.15.64.249:41517",
"services" : "0000000000000001",
"lastsend" : 1426025185,
"lastrecv" : 1426025185,
"bytessent" : 2138,
"bytesrecv" : 9992,
"conntime" : 1426024809,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"pingtime" : 0.00000000,
"version" : 38000,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 221399,
"banscore" : 0,
"synced_headers" : 221399,
"synced_blocks" : 221399,
"inflight" : [
],
"whitelisted" : false
},
{
"id" : 47,
"addr" : "128.199.64.80:8334",
"addrlocal" : "129.15.64.249:15831",
"services" : "0000000000000001",
"lastsend" : 1426025178,
"lastrecv" : 1426025194,
"bytessent" : 1864,
"bytesrecv" : 4440,
"conntime" : 1426024818,
"timeoffset" : -1,
"pingtime" : 0.00000000,
"version" : 37500,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 221399,
"banscore" : 0,
"synced_headers" : -1,
"synced_blocks" : -1,
"inflight" : [
],
"whitelisted" : false
}
]

There are plenty of peers with old versions, so I think we're fine (for now). Your guess is as good as mine as to whether it will stay fine when Namecoin Core and NamecoinQ clients exist in equal amounts on the network. As long as a single link exists in the peer graph, a fork shouldn't happen.

Posted: **Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:02 am**

biolizard89 wrote:Here is the output of getpeerinfo on a fairly recent Namecoin Core build:
Code: Select all
...
There are plenty of peers with old versions, so I think we're fine (for now). Your guess is as good as mine as to whether it will stay fine when Namecoin Core and NamecoinQ clients exist in equal amounts on the network. As long as a single link exists in the peer graph, a fork shouldn't happen.

Thanks. Looks good.

Does this error print something in the debug.log? I can't find anything like "st12" in my logs...

Namecoin Forum

st12out_of_range

st12out_of_range

Re: st12out_of_range

Re: st12out_of_range

Re: st12out_of_range

Re: st12out_of_range

Re: st12out_of_range

Re: st12out_of_range

Re: st12out_of_range

Re: st12out_of_range

Re: st12out_of_range