Pastebin
Pastebin.com is the number one paste tool since 2002. Pastebin is a website where you can store text online for a set period of time.
1 messages · Page 2 of 1
Pastebin.com is the number one paste tool since 2002. Pastebin is a website where you can store text online for a set period of time.
chceck this issue https://github.com/anoma/namada/issues/2998
allraedy closed by brent
wow, one more point for the "ROIDS for uptime has no sense"
They should to remove that uptime task
I think that was discussed in yesterday's Validator Circle. Removing tasks is unfair to those who got ROIDs after spending time and effort on them. Keeping tasks is unfair to those whose efforts were not registered due to bugs. Not sure how to reconcile both perspectives.
they removed two crew tasks with no issue
Then they can remove uptime task too
Lets initiate proposal to remove uptime task 😅
on-chain proposals do not govern the competition
nope
Finally 🥹
Transaction was successfully applied at height 323169. Used 8072 gas.
@ornate lion Im not sure if it has any clue, but I deleted tx_wasm_cache/ vp_wasm_cache/ folders, restarted node and after ~ 24hrs it gave me run unjail TX..
ill give it a shot -- i just failed ot unjail again
still cant unjail but ill give it a shot tomorrow
i think its not about vp_wasm_cache/folder
Enter your decryption password:
Transaction added to mempool.
Wrapper transaction hash: B0127A3C4DFD7FF1C4D9F98F843AAAEB3092498E4A4F6EFC81BFC878BCC93A98
Inner transaction hash: 0B96738F0B655E2F851BDDF15B088DA9003DA59691AF93F10D37FDFD78152923
Wrapper transaction accepted at height 324406. Used 21 gas.
Waiting for inner transaction result...
Transaction was successfully applied at height 324407. Used 8448 gas.```
anyone who still can't unjail? got an idea I want to test..
still cant.. trying to remove tx_wasm_cache/ vp_wasm_cache/ and restart the node
ohhh maybe the vp_wasm_cache is the issue, if it still has the old VP in there and the tx is looking there
@spark hare can you try unjailing? If removing those folders, restarting the node, then unjailing is successful for you, then I would say definitively this is the issue
because right now in epoch 87 there are several below-capacity validators
unfortunately it does not work, tried yesterday and today 🥲
out of curiosity and probably a really dumb question, but what happens when you run it with --dry-run-wrapper (not --dry-run plain)
im trying another method, will post it here if it works 🥲
could you try what I asked above?
for my curiosity?
will try if I fail 🥲
please try it first. it's for a diagnostic matter. it won't change anything
My experience is this. Removed tx_wasm_cache and vp_wasm_cache, restarted the validator. The problem with unjail vp rejection still remains.
The vp rejection comes from small validators. And I had several times in a row vp rejection was from a validator that was not in the validator set because of the size of the steak.
Transaction was rejected by VPs: [
"tnam1qymkz6d4nny4dwh9gvgzm5awjy9ahyhjzsrzlyh3"
namadac validator-state --validator tnam1qymkz6d4nny4dwh9gvgzm5awjy9ahyhjzsrzlyh3 --node http://127.0.0.1:26857
Validator tnam1qymkz6d4nny4dwh9gvgzm5awjy9ahyhjzsrzlyh3 is in the below-capacity set
My validator stays in jail.
can you check dm, please
can you unjail in dry-run and dry-run-wrapper?
I unjailed successfully, it worked 🫡
if you're in the below-capacity you're not jailed.
namadac validator-state --validator tnam1qymkz6d4nny4dwh9gvgzm5awjy9ahyhjzsrzlyh3 --node http://127.0.0.1:26857 --epoch 89
for me, currently you're in the consensus
It's the same with the --dry-run parameter:
Dry-run result: Transaction was rejected by VPs: [
"tnam1q8yn7akp6gq2pjn36sg8yj4zcrx0yp0xs5uae9ze"
].
In the simulation, the transaction is also rejected by validators with a small ~1000 VP
I'm sorry, I must have mischaracterized it. My validator is tnam1q9as8pmadedmlckdxg0xeady6fgkqzwppcgv7szl.
But when I use the namadac unjail-validator command, I get an error Transaction was rejected by VPs and the error includes validators with either a very small steak or not in the validator set at all.
For example tnam1qymkz6d4nny4dwh9gvgzm5awjy9ahyhjzsrzlyh3 which at the time was below-capacity set.
that's interesting imo