Pages:
Author

Topic: ... - page 12. (Read 214771 times)

hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
July 01, 2015, 12:30:54 AM
#45
All of the 4-month timeline deadlines have been met. Cool

https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/118/4-month-timeline/9

Thank you for your support.

But can you juggle a chainsaw with a tiki torch and wiffle ball while reciting a step by step gumbo recipe?

Wink
sr. member
Activity: 596
Merit: 251
July 01, 2015, 12:11:10 AM
#44
All of the 4-month timeline deadlines have been met. Cool

https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/118/4-month-timeline/9

Thank you for your support.
sr. member
Activity: 596
Merit: 251
June 23, 2015, 03:11:32 PM
#43
Mining Tools: https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/166/mining-tools Cool

Thank you for your support.
sr. member
Activity: 596
Merit: 251
June 23, 2015, 12:53:32 AM
#42
Version 0.3.0 Beta has been released. This upgrade is mandatory. Cool

https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/165/version-0-3-0-beta-release

Thank you for your support.
sr. member
Activity: 596
Merit: 251
June 20, 2015, 10:51:21 PM
#41

The zero confirmation branch is private, but basic integration into branch master is starting as can be seen in /database. It's not as simple as "reject a block that is not in the local transaction pool" because an initial download can never occur. Instead you reject blocks close in time to the transactions in your transaction pool if a mismatch is found.

On a conceptual level this is a very promising approach. If it works, it's not impossible
that it could become a new standard that replaces the old Bitcoin-based infrastructure
in cryptocoins.

Also, in this way if for some reason a node doesn't have a transaction it will still accept the block just prior to the next block due to the timing I've described. This can occur if your node came online and is not fully synchronized with the global transaction pool when it receives a block. Cool

I'm not sure if I grasped that. Does a node accept a block with a transaction that
it does not know about?

Also, Vanilla has a Peercoin-style checkpointing. Will that become superfluous
once the 0-confirmation goes live?
Revisions of the ZeroTime draft and several unpublished but related drafts will answer these questions in time. Cool

Regarding the Peercoin-style checkpointing, it was implemented for backwards compatibility only, this code will be removed in it's entirety in subsequent releases since it is not needed.

Thank you for your support.
legendary
Activity: 996
Merit: 1013
June 18, 2015, 01:48:37 AM
#40

The zero confirmation branch is private, but basic integration into branch master is starting as can be seen in /database. It's not as simple as "reject a block that is not in the local transaction pool" because an initial download can never occur. Instead you reject blocks close in time to the transactions in your transaction pool if a mismatch is found.

On a conceptual level this is a very promising approach. If it works, it's not impossible
that it could become a new standard that replaces the old Bitcoin-based infrastructure
in cryptocoins.

Also, in this way if for some reason a node doesn't have a transaction it will still accept the block just prior to the next block due to the timing I've described. This can occur if your node came online and is not fully synchronized with the global transaction pool when it receives a block. Cool

I'm not sure if I grasped that. Does a node accept a block with a transaction that
it does not know about?

Also, Vanilla has a Peercoin-style checkpointing. Will that become superfluous
once the 0-confirmation goes live?
sr. member
Activity: 596
Merit: 251
June 17, 2015, 02:27:17 AM
#39
did you buy dark.io?
More information in Q3. Cool

Thank you for your support.
member
Activity: 92
Merit: 10
June 16, 2015, 07:59:53 AM
#38
did you buy dark.io?
sr. member
Activity: 596
Merit: 251
June 15, 2015, 06:39:08 AM
#37

Re: the confirmations...

Am I right in assuming that there is no way a transaction
can be included in a block without it having been relayed first?
You can but if the transaction is not already in the global transaction pool then the block will be rejected. In that regard you must first relay the transaction in order for it to be accepted into a block.

Thank you for your support.

Can you point me to where in the source the block
gets rejected if it is not found in the tx pool?

I have tried myself locating it by following the block
processing all the way from tcp_connection.cpp:2486
to block.cpp:2476, where the redundant pool contents
are finally removed, but I must have missed the part where
it occurs.
The zero confirmation branch is private, but basic integration into branch master is starting as can be seen in /database. It's not as simple as "reject a block that is not in the local transaction pool" because an initial download can never occur. Instead you reject blocks close in time to the transactions in your transaction pool if a mismatch is found. Also, in this way if for some reason a node doesn't have a transaction it will still accept the block just prior to the next block due to the timing I've described. This can occur if your node came online and is not fully synchronized with the global transaction pool when it receives a block. Cool

Thank you for your support.
legendary
Activity: 996
Merit: 1013
June 15, 2015, 04:13:09 AM
#36

Re: the confirmations...

Am I right in assuming that there is no way a transaction
can be included in a block without it having been relayed first?
You can but if the transaction is not already in the global transaction pool then the block will be rejected. In that regard you must first relay the transaction in order for it to be accepted into a block.

Thank you for your support.

Can you point me to where in the source the block
gets rejected if it is not found in the tx pool?

I have tried myself locating it by following the block
processing all the way from tcp_connection.cpp:2486
to block.cpp:2476, where the redundant pool contents
are finally removed, but I must have missed the part where
it occurs.

 
sr. member
Activity: 596
Merit: 251
June 14, 2015, 11:49:14 PM
#35
not a clone ?
it got a blockchain, it got private keys, public keys
it even got a wallet.dat... Smiley
same thing like the original. maybe implemented with different code but eventually does the same thing using the same principle
Is a Honda car a clone of a Ford car? Cool

Thank you for your support.
legendary
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000
June 14, 2015, 09:35:11 PM
#34
not a clone ?
it got a blockchain, it got private keys, public keys
it even got a wallet.dat... Smiley
same thing like the original. maybe implemented with different code but eventually does the same thing using the same principle
sr. member
Activity: 596
Merit: 251
June 14, 2015, 08:26:32 PM
#33
Version 0.2.9 Beta has been released. This upgrade is mandatory. Cool

https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/160/version-0-2-9-beta-release

Thank you for your support.
sr. member
Activity: 596
Merit: 251
June 11, 2015, 09:50:43 PM
#32

Re: the confirmations...

Am I right in assuming that there is no way a transaction
can be included in a block without it having been relayed first?
You can but if the transaction is not already in the global transaction pool then the block will be rejected. In that regard you must first relay the transaction in order for it to be accepted into a block.

Thank you for your support.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
June 11, 2015, 08:12:09 PM
#31
Hey, Josh-Connor,  did POW ever resume?

You can read an update here Smiley

https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/143/temporary-proof-of-work-pause-at-block-117833/11


Quote from: john-connor
Proof-of-Work will resume at block # 136000. All nodes will be required to upgrade "at the same time" because old node versions will no longer be able to connect.

I have placed an error macro in the source code to prevent accidental pre-mature upgrades. More news will follow as we get closer to block # 136000.

Thank you for your support.
hero member
Activity: 673
Merit: 500
June 11, 2015, 07:21:42 PM
#30
Hey, Josh-Connor,  did POW ever resume?
legendary
Activity: 996
Merit: 1013
June 11, 2015, 06:17:21 AM
#29

Re: the confirmations...

Am I right in assuming that there is no way a transaction
can be included in a block without it having been relayed first?
sr. member
Activity: 596
Merit: 251
June 11, 2015, 05:48:11 AM
#28
I have posted an update regarding the UDP (Consensus, Storage and Routing) Layer: https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/3/udp-consensus-storage-and-routing-layer/4 Cool

Thank you for your support.

Great news, was looking for this news after watching the github commits. Youre developing at an awesome speed Smiley
Yes some Miner++ and FPGA HDL being pushed soon. Cool

Thank you for your support.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1001
180 BPM
June 10, 2015, 05:13:05 AM
#27
I have posted an update regarding the UDP (Consensus, Storage and Routing) Layer: https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/3/udp-consensus-storage-and-routing-layer/4 Cool

Thank you for your support.

Great news, was looking for this news after watching the github commits. Youre developing at an awesome speed Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 596
Merit: 251
June 09, 2015, 06:28:23 PM
#26
I have posted an update regarding the UDP (Consensus, Storage and Routing) Layer: https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/3/udp-consensus-storage-and-routing-layer/4 Cool

Thank you for your support.
Pages:
Jump to: