Network Explorer

Hey @Support and @inccry,

There is a problem but I cannot determine what it is. I think the problem is on the blockchain side but I’m not sure. I check regularly for many hours. mempool page of incscan is empty but when I send mempool RPCs to mainnet and community fullnodes , there are always some transactions pending Txs in mempool. Then I check lock time of some of them and they are way behind the actual time. What’s happening exactly? :slight_smile:

Thanks.

Any ideas? @Support @inccry :point_up:

I think I read somewhere that they changed something about mempool, but not sure.

And the mempool here https://mainnet.incognito.org/txs/pending is quite weird, 700+ txs, yeah.

No idea :man_shrugging:

2 Likes

Mempool is back: https://incscan.io/blockchain/mempool

getrawmempool rpc method doesn’t seem to work anymore.

1 Like

(From Network Explorer)

Hey @inccry,

In case you miss the change, PrivacyCustomTokenProofDetail > OutputCoins > Value is the new place of the exact buy amount. Currently, incscan shows minacceptablevalue (which is fallback option I think) as the buy amount.

Best.

Hello @abduraman,

Thanks for the bug report!

I already fixed a lot of issues like this one but missed this one.

1 Like

It’s not as simple as that. Sometimes it’s in privacy custom token proof detail, sometimes somewhere else :grimacing:

Fixed.

1 Like

Sorry, forgot it. For v1 txs, the old one is correct.

Hey @inccry,

Here is another bug due to BSC introduction.

Currently, there are two PRV-pBNB pools: BEP2 (much more liquidity) and BEP20 (so low liquidity). Incscan shows BEP20 and because of that, liquidity chart of PRV-pBNB is also wrong.

1 Like

:frowning:

I guess BSC and not BSC tokens have the same symbol, pBNB?

Right. You can differentiate them via “OriginalSymbol” (empty vs BNB_BSC) parameter here: https://api.incognito.org/ptoken/list

:frowning:

:warning: BTC shielding and unshielding amounts are not correct since Portal V4 deployment. Amounts are 10x smaller than amounts shown on Incscan.

I’m waiting for a solution from Core Team to fix it.

4 Likes

:white_check_mark: False alarm: BTC amounts are ok except on transaction page for a burn tx, it should show a 10x smaller amount.

2 Likes

Fixed

1 Like

Not sure how to fix that, I’ll need to rework a lot of stuff as pSymbol is used as identifier on my side… :frowning:

@inccry As I was looking over all the parts of the incscan.io explorer, it occurred to me that the only thing missing in the “About” area was reference to the Incognito Chain white paper. It might be helpful to have a link to the white paper on the incscan.io explorer for reference and for anyone whose first contact with incognito is via the explorer.

https://we.incognito.org/t/incognito-whitepaper-incognito-mode-for-cryptonetworks/168

Hey @inccry,

How are you doing? It’s me again with another bug :slight_smile:

https://incscan.io/shielded-coins/evolution/pBTC and https://incscan.io/shielded-coins/evolution/pETH and maybe some other “graphs” show values less than 0 which is impossible unless someone in Incognito mints those coins and sends them out :slight_smile: “Evolution($)” graph works correctly. The problem is in “Evolution” graph. FYI.

I guess it’s related to that:

1 Like