Hi everyone !
Here’s my effort to describe how to setup a FunctionX testnet full node on a Raspberry Pi configuration : FunctionX.tutorial.20211121.rev003.pdf
Don’t hesitate to let me know how you find it !
Thanks,
@mdmdmd83
Edit: replaced with new ‘dhobyghaut’ testnet chain.
Great! @ClaudioxBarros i believe you had the same issue
@Richard
I upgraded my node and have the following version : testnet-f6f6de109f7667b904ab84169536504408071cdd
Can you confirm we’re good for further testing ?
Thanks !
the same goes for me too. Ready to run a codeless validator.
To run a codeless validator, we only just need the hardware right?
No, you will use functionx cloud servers.
If you want to use your own hardware, you will have to create your validator as in tutorial
codeless node you’ll need a pc to setup the node and validator with the wallet device; we connected to the FX wallet, so for maintaining the codeless node you’ll need to access via a pc logging in with your devices, if all is well you have no need to be connected; as the node is all functioning on cloud servers & you pay a server fee for the luxury, home coded nodes need your server/PC connected 24/7
In addition to being online 24/7 there are firewall and ddos security concerns that are not very feasible for even a enthusiast server guru to set up.
For example a sentry node system is highly recommended for uptime considerations in a hostile environment should a malicious actor want to shut your node done from denial of service.
How much is the server fee? Do you know
original est was $2500 of FX when FX was at 5c I did see a new cost but can’t remember I think $750 up the top here some where, so the more value FX has the less FX it will cost
I think the biggest thing you guys have go worry about in-regards to the cloud node is whether they have it at all. I don’t know if you caught Zac’s reply to where the cloud nodes are but they’re still deciding whether to deploy them so it’s a maybe not a when.
Cloud nodes are still viable and realistically the only way to host this for true security and uptime.
AWS will sell you a sentry node set up for a fee but you still gotta get the shell set up correctly on the Linux VM they provide and run through all the configs. Also be knowledgeable about the different error codes and be able to navigate the application of new updates without causing a serious crash of your node.
It’s a lot, but I don’t think it’s insurmountable and especially not so by a malicious actor. The fx barrier to entry was a deterrent but having such a small amount now makes it so anyone could spin up multiple malicious nodes with very little investment. I can’t theorize what this could actually achieve but hackers gonna hack.
Fence just keeps moving after 3 plus years of waiting and planning to be in this eco system my enthusiasm is just about run out, for me the attractions was to be one of the first in - not possible now; the only other was that it’s an easy relatively faultless and a higher yield in reward return then just delegating; what the function level and capacity is didn’t matter, But it’s looking like my level of support to the ecosystem will be Delegate/trader if I can’t enter when public nodes begin. if I’m going to only end up with a node that gets slashed because it can’t compete with home nodes there is no point trying would be like a nightmarish staking scenario.
I totally agree, that was a big selling feature for investing into this ecosystem and I hope that maybe turns into a yes because that would be a big letdown if it doesnt happen. We were just testing it in testnet a few months ago and by all accounts, it went well so I don’t know why they would just change course without communicating with us. It’s a slippery slope becauase now I’m worried what the status of code-less blockchains is because we were pretty excited about that too.
Can we run more than a node in same isp IP using the same ports ?
Was trying but it seems it dosen’t .
pi 718 701 99 12:38 pts/0 00:01:43 fxcored start
pi 734 701 0 12:40 pts/0 00:00:00 grep fxcored
pi@FunctionXFullNode:~$ curl localhost:26657/status
{
“jsonrpc”: “2.0”,
“id”: -1,
“result”: {
“node_info”: {
“protocol_version”: {
“p2p”: “8”,
“block”: “11”,
“app”: “0”
},
“id”: “c5d00eaf1d427564753890f655d5acc01a53eca1”,
“listen_addr”: “tcp://0.0.0.0:26656”,
“network”: “fxcore”,
“version”: “v0.34.9”,
“channels”: “40202122233038606100”,
“moniker”: “your-moniker”,
“other”: {
“tx_index”: “on”,
“rpc_address”: “tcp://0.0.0.0:26657”
}
},
“sync_info”: {
“latest_block_hash”: “”,
“latest_app_hash”: “”,
“latest_block_height”: “0”,
“latest_block_time”: “1970-01-01T00:00:00Z”,
“earliest_block_hash”: “”,
“earliest_app_hash”: “”,
“earliest_block_height”: “0”,
“earliest_block_time”: “1970-01-01T00:00:00Z”,
“catching_up”: true
},
“validator_info”: {
“address”: “71F2060BE487561C98777EE6A942E431529B041D”,
“pub_key”: {
“type”: “tendermint/PubKeyEd25519”,
“value”: “/q4Mf7R1uZTUxZN1heKOItRn9ILDeD/aYhfKKfJ9fE8=”
},
“voting_power”: “0”
}
}
}
Tried as well and faced issues with connections…
Similar error:
Error: error during handshake: error on replay: wrong Block.Header.AppHash. Expected DD1BAFC20187A9D3B7FB239693AE8CE6D043D9B4ED9D912588F905548D99515E, got BE037FED818D28340E99DC38B8B0EF11B120C7A7ECC2A7E587D5AA158A849681
while syncing from testnet node from scratch.
Hi Guys!
I dont know if this is the right thread to write it, when not sorry.
My focus is still to start a codeless node. I bought my 100k fx bag for more than 1 year ago. I made some x gain and im very thanksfull and i believe in this project. But my goal havnt changed. My plan was to validate from the mainnet start. Actually we believed we could do this from reading all the hash-outs and participating in testnet 1-3. I was already disappointed when i couldnt start at the beginning with the team nodes. Now i have the same feeling again. I understand that CLI has priority but it was not communicated from the beginning. Those who participated in the testnet 1-3, we believed we could start validating from mainet launch. That is also a reason why I bought so much fx to participate in testnet. Now i voted “YES” for adding another 30 Validator but i feel that im not gonna be one of them. I think testnet went very well. Thats why i dont understand why the people from testnet cant start to validate. Everyone from testnet follow this project over years. Are we still not trustfull to you?
@Richard @team @zaccheah
This is definitely a concern for many of us as there was no indication in any of the lead up that this was even a possibility of not being included from the start.
We would all at this point request a very clear reason for the shift and why the testing for codeless nodes in the test nets was done, but not fulfilled until now.
Along side the prerequisites change on the amount of tokens required this is very abrupt. This was done in a vacuum without even asking the community. Certain decisions are voteable it seems and others are executive. Please give us a concise report on what transpired to force the changes.
Thanks