Atlas was right, why was he attacked so much?

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote from: benjamindees on March 12, 2013, 03:20:19 AM

Quote from: Moonshadow

Your concerns have been duely noted, Atlas. However, you have little knowledge of what is really going on here, so I consider your perspectives discounted. Just don't upgrade yourself, and if others do and are harmed by it, you will be able to say "I told you so" because you have.

I haven't followed the trials and tribulations of Atlas. But, yeah, you can't go wrong by promoting caution in upgrading Bitcoin.

Personally, I am glad that the developers and the mining community decided to do the right thing, and to scuttle the upgrade fork. Pushing ahead with 0.8.0 would have called their judgment into question in my opinion.

It is not over yet ... they are going to be pushing extremely hard to rush everyone onto 0.8 ASAP ... https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1615347

benjamindees

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Moonshadow

Your concerns have been duely noted, Atlas. However, you have little knowledge of what is really going on here, so I consider your perspectives discounted. Just don't upgrade yourself, and if others do and are harmed by it, you will be able to say "I told you so" because you have.

I haven't followed the trials and tribulations of Atlas. But, yeah, you can't go wrong by promoting caution in upgrading Bitcoin.

Personally, I am glad that the developers and the mining community decided to do the right thing, and to scuttle the upgrade fork. Pushing ahead with 0.8.0 would have called their judgment into question in my opinion.

MysteryMiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1049

Death to enemies!

Quote from: gyverlb on March 11, 2013, 11:58:58 PM

So Atlas feared the unknown? This fact surely deserved to be dug out of the archives to celebrate his wisdom.

This thread and Atlas still delivers the Lulz! No, he did not fear the unknown, he wanted to be sure that Bitcoin protocol will not change by accident with new database implementation. In original thread Atlas at some unknown point got high on ganja so the proposed solution was not the best.

Quote

I don't see a hard fork.

Majority of 0.7.x and earlier relay users being permanently unable to accept new 0.8 blocks built upon unacceptable one is a hard fork.

Quote

I see would be orphans which is quite different in both concept and consequences...

Orphans happen from time to time as a normal operation. This fork was caused by one database implementation rejecting blocks that was valid in another implementation.

gyverlb

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on March 11, 2013, 11:59:44 PM

Quote from: gyverlb on March 11, 2013, 11:20:07 PM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on March 11, 2013, 11:04:04 PM

Semantics ... in essence he was absolutely correct

Your grasping at straws. He was very clear about what he feared: that the different storage format would somehow corrupt the data it stored. This is exactly the opposite that happened: the previous storage format had a flaw and couldn't store data everyone supposed was valid.

His contention was that the database upgrade would cause a hard fork, which is exactly what just happened.

I don't see a hard fork. I see would be orphans which is quite different in both concept and consequences...

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote from: gyverlb on March 11, 2013, 11:20:07 PM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on March 11, 2013, 11:04:04 PM

Semantics ... in essence he was absolutely correct

Your grasping at straws. He was very clear about what he feared: that the different storage format would somehow corrupt the data it stored. This is exactly the opposite that happened: the previous storage format had a flaw and couldn't store data everyone supposed was valid.

His contention was that the database upgrade would cause a hard fork, which is exactly what just happened.

No straws needed to see that.

gyverlb

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Quote from: MysteryMiner on March 11, 2013, 11:55:06 PM

These unforeseen consequences is what Atlas feared

So Atlas feared the unknown? This fact surely deserved to be dug out of the archives to celebrate his wisdom.

MysteryMiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1049

Death to enemies!

Quote from: justusranvier on March 11, 2013, 11:23:51 PM

Quote from: MysteryMiner on March 11, 2013, 11:19:29 PM

Quote

0.7 refuses good data, 0.8 doesn't put bad data in the blockchain...

What is good and bad data is determined by majority of nodes and miners. Basically Atlas was right on spot about new database engine breaking things, even if it broke them by fixing what already was broken... If it works don't fix it!

A majority of the hashing power was on 0.8 before they decided to downgrade. By your definition at the moment of the fork the 0.8 version was the good version.

Even if it was from standpoint of correctness and majority of miners, the current network was broken... by 0.8.0 fixing previously unknown flaw in database engine. These unforeseen consequences is what Atlas feared, so technically Atlas was right.

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: MysteryMiner on March 11, 2013, 11:19:29 PM

Quote

0.7 refuses good data, 0.8 doesn't put bad data in the blockchain...

What is good and bad data is determined by majority of nodes and miners. Basically Atlas was right on spot about new database engine breaking things, even if it broke them by fixing what already was broken... If it works don't fix it!

A majority of the hashing power was on 0.8 before they decided to downgrade. By your definition at the moment of the fork the 0.8 version was the good version.

gyverlb

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on March 11, 2013, 11:04:04 PM

Semantics ... in essence he was absolutely correct

Your grasping at straws. He was very clear about what he feared: that the different storage format would somehow corrupt the data it stored. This is exactly the opposite that happened: the previous storage format had a flaw and couldn't store data everyone supposed was valid.

In fact this very bug is an argument to promote alternative clients instead of refraining from implementing different ones like Atlas did.

MysteryMiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1049

Death to enemies!

Quote from: bbit on March 11, 2013, 10:54:33 PM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on March 11, 2013, 10:53:49 PM

Bitcoin community needs to fess up here and widen their minds, imho.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1287467

Quote

When you change the format of data, couldn't it be altered if an error is made in implementing the new format?
Wouldn't bad data being verified into the blockchain mistakenly be a problem?

Atlas....who would have thunk!

Quote from: misterbigg on March 11, 2013, 10:57:27 PM

A Broken Clock Is Right Twice A Day

Quote from: Severian on March 11, 2013, 10:59:53 PM

0.8.0: Am I wrong?

0.7.x version: You're not wrong 0.8.0. You're just an asshole.

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote from: gyverlb on March 11, 2013, 10:59:37 PM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on March 11, 2013, 10:53:49 PM

Bitcoin community needs to fess up here and widen their minds, imho.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1287467

Quote

When you change the format of data, couldn't it be altered if an error is made in implementing the new format?
Wouldn't bad data being verified into the blockchain mistakenly be a problem?

Nothing to do with what happened here. The problem is that there is a bug in 0.7 that isn't present in 0.8: 0.7 refuses good data, 0.8 doesn't put bad data in the blockchain...

Semantics ... in essence he was absolutely correct and got abused for suggesting it ... maybe he is an asshole but so are some of the devs imho, they are just better at hiding it.

bbit

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1000

Bitcoin

Quote from: Severian on March 11, 2013, 10:59:53 PM

Walter: Am I wrong?

The Dude: You're not wrong Walter. You're just an asshole.

-The Big Lebowski

ahaha toucheee!

Severian

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Walter: Am I wrong?

The Dude: You're not wrong Walter. You're just an asshole.

-The Big Lebowski

gyverlb

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on March 11, 2013, 10:53:49 PM

Bitcoin community needs to fess up here and widen their minds, imho.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1287467

Quote

When you change the format of data, couldn't it be altered if an error is made in implementing the new format?
Wouldn't bad data being verified into the blockchain mistakenly be a problem?

Nothing to do with what happened here. The problem is that there is a bug in 0.7 that isn't present in 0.8: 0.7 refuses good data, 0.8 doesn't put bad data in the blockchain...

misterbigg

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1001

A Broken Clock Is Right Twice A Day

bbit

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1000

Bitcoin

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on March 11, 2013, 10:53:49 PM

Bitcoin community needs to fess up here and widen their minds, imho.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1287467

Quote

When you change the format of data, couldn't it be altered if an error is made in implementing the new format?
Wouldn't bad data being verified into the blockchain mistakenly be a problem?

Atlas....who would have thunk!

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Bitcoin community needs to fess up here and widen their minds, imho.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1287467

Quote

When you change the format of data, couldn't it be altered if an error is made in implementing the new format?
Wouldn't bad data being verified into the blockchain mistakenly be a problem?

Topic: Atlas was right, why was he attacked so much? (Read 1022 times)