btcd: a bitcoind alternative written in Go - page 5.

behindtext

full member

Activity: 121

Merit: 103

Quote from: coinrevo on December 29, 2013, 07:17:50 AM

I think there also has to be stronger firewalls and more transparency in terms of the relationship between the users of the network, and how development interacts with the users or developers who are not core, but build on top of the network.

It seems with so many people having made so much money of Bitcoin, there would/should be some capital re-investment into the economy. Instead we are seeing big VC money for online wallets, and more and more corporate elitists getting into this. Over time this will have its effects. The interactions with the legal system are much more complex than HTML.

the developer network is definitely in need of more transparency imo.

i probably could not agree with you more about the reinvestment angle and VC involvement. every time VCs get involved it is only a matter of time before there is (1) a race to the bottom and (2) centralization driven by heavy marketing. i figured i'd flip the script and preemptively contribute to the community before trying to build businesses on top of it.

behindtext

full member

Activity: 121

Merit: 103

Quote from: grau on December 29, 2013, 04:31:54 AM

Quote from: behindtext on December 28, 2013, 01:01:10 PM

it took less than 7 manyears labor to hack out over the past 10 months and we'll be at feature parity within the next 2 months, at most.

Congratulations. I know how that work feels.

It took me about half a man year to reach feature parity in Java though - passing the block tests used by satoshi and bitcoinj - thereafter I worked mostly on higher level projects using the code in production.

Regarding 100% security in distributed consensus I think in the meanwhile that it is a moving target we will not reach until we split out and freeze that part of bitcoind.

I hope you succeed, as there is no push in the core team to isolate concerns.

thanks grau

btcwallet + btcgui is coming along and is totally usable but has some bugs. the wallet format is deterministic (iirc) so if you backup your wallet every so often, especially after importing any new privkeys, it's totally safe.

if it weren't for all the test coverage on the various component packages, we would have been able to build a lot quicker.

totally agree with you that it's not feasible to reach distributed consensus until the entire protocol is properly documented, which it is most definitely not atm. having to dig through the tightly coupled bitcoind code is not exactly the proper way to document a protocol. it makes you wonder if it is thinly documented on purpose...

coinrevo

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: justusranvier on December 29, 2013, 04:36:14 AM

At some point all there needs to be inter-implementation coordination of features and specs, kind of like the W3C for HTML.

I think this is exactly the discussion that is needed. We have the BIPs, which I understand something Amir pushed for and is now part of a formal procedure: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips , They are like RFC or W3C specs, but can't cover everything. It's a good first step, but there are several weakness how these are structured.

I think there also has to be stronger firewalls and more transparency in terms of the relationship between the users of the network, and how development interacts with the users or developers who are not core, but build on top of the network.

It seems with so many people having made so much money of Bitcoin, there would/should be some capital re-investment into the economy. Instead we are seeing big VC money for online wallets, and more and more corporate elitists getting into this. Over time this will have its effects. The interactions with the legal system are much more complex than HTML.

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: grau on December 29, 2013, 05:11:15 AM

I did expect that the Bitcoin foundation would fill the role you describe, but seen nothing noteworthy. They instead focus on US lobbyism and building a profitable international franchise.

I'm not really impressed with them either. Apparently some other organization is going to have to take on that role instead.

grau

hero member

Activity: 836

Merit: 1030

bits of proof

Quote from: justusranvier on December 29, 2013, 04:36:14 AM

Quote from: grau on December 29, 2013, 04:31:54 AM

Regarding 100% security in distributed consensus I think in the meanwhile that it is a moving target we will not reach until we split out and freeze that part of bitcoind.

I hope you succeed, as there is no push in the core team to isolate concerns.

Why could there not be a crowdfunding effort to pay someone to push improvements upstream from the reimplementations?

Do BoP and btcd both have more comprehensive unit tests than the Satoshi client? Surely everyone would benefit from getting that same level of coverage in the reference implementation.

At some point all there needs to be inter-implementation coordination of features and specs, kind of like the W3C for HTML.

Unit tests of satoshi that were portable (means defined in JSON input and expected output) are all supported by BOP. It has some additional unit tests but is not as impressive as btcd sounds. I have lots of tests on much higher level, testing behavior of production systems that build on BOP, these however do not help the community as not open source.

I did expect that the Bitcoin foundation would fill the role you describe, but seen nothing noteworthy. They instead focus on US lobbyism and building a profitable international franchise.

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: grau on December 29, 2013, 04:31:54 AM

Regarding 100% security in distributed consensus I think in the meanwhile that it is a moving target we will not reach until we split out and freeze that part of bitcoind.

I hope you succeed, as there is no push in the core team to isolate concerns.

Why could there not be a crowdfunding effort to pay someone to push improvements upstream from the reimplementations?

Do BoP and btcd both have more comprehensive unit tests than the Satoshi client? Surely everyone would benefit from getting that same level of coverage in the reference implementation.

At some point all there needs to be inter-implementation coordination of features and specs, kind of like the W3C for HTML.

grau

hero member

Activity: 836

Merit: 1030

bits of proof

Quote from: behindtext on December 28, 2013, 01:01:10 PM

it took less than 7 manyears labor to hack out over the past 10 months and we'll be at feature parity within the next 2 months, at most.

Congratulations. I know how that work feels.

It took me about half a man year to reach feature parity in Java though - passing the block tests used by satoshi and bitcoinj - thereafter I worked mostly on higher level projects using the code in production.

Regarding 100% security in distributed consensus I think in the meanwhile that it is a moving target we will not reach until we split out and freeze that part of bitcoind.

I hope you succeed, as there is no push in the core team to isolate concerns.

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

Quote from: behindtext on December 28, 2013, 01:01:10 PM

..this is a bit of a strawman argument..

I think it's fantastic what you are doing and that while it's great that you defend against criticism, you should really pay no attention to that thinks he knows it all because he works for that company guy.

behindtext

full member

Activity: 121

Merit: 103

Quote from: coinrevo on December 28, 2013, 07:21:01 AM

For future reference I am saving Mike's critique on slashdot below, which raises some interesting questions

to keep this in context, note that this comment was made by mike when all we had was a wire protocol and the rest of the project was incomplete. the 'story' that went up on slashdot was misleading in its title and suggested we were nearly done with the project. pretty much everything except a chunk of the JSON RPC commands is done at this point and we're at the 10 month mark from starting the project.

i'll quickly address each point.

Quote

A full node is a really, really large amount of work. I feel that lots of people don't realise this, get enthusiastic and think, "I love Bitcoin! I love Go! I'll write Bitcoin in Go" where for Go you can substitute basically any language that's fun or popular. Then they write the easy bits (like wire marshalling) and eventually the project dies around the time that it's time to implement the wallet or Bloom filtering or robust test suites. Possibly Conformal is different, we'll have to wait and see, but the feature set they advertised in their blog is very much what has been seen many times before. In particular there's no handling of the block chain, re-orgs, no wallet and they haven't got any infrastructure to test edge cases.

all our devs used to code in POSIX-like C and that is really slow. writing this in Go allowed us to produce code much more quickly and get high test coverage for the code without needing a system external to the language. several comments here are no longer relevant because everything mentioned, except bloom filters, is implemented.

Quote

One reason implementing Bitcoin properly is not fun is an entire class of bugs that doesn't exist in normal software - chain splitting bugs - which can be summed up as "Your software behaves how you thought it's supposed to work rather than how the original bitcoind actually does work". Bitcoin is highly unusual in that it implements group consensus - lots of nodes have to perform extremely complicated calculations and arrive at exactly the same result in lockstep, to a far far higher degree of accuracy than other network protocols. This means that you have to replicate the same set of bugs bitcoind has. Failure to do so can lead to opening up security holes via consensus failure which can in turn lead to double spending (and thus your users lose money!).

Being compatible with the way bitcoind is written (bugs and all) may require you to break whatever abstractions you have introduced to make the code cleaner or more elegant or whatever reason you have for reimplementing Bitcoin. Here's a trivial example - signatures in Bitcoin have an additional byte that basically selects between one of a few different modes. It's actually one of three modes plus a flag. So a natural way to implement this is as an enum representing the three modes plus a boolean for the flag. But that won't work. There is a transaction in the block chain which has a sighash flag that doesn't fit any of the pre-defined values (it's zero) and because Satoshi's code uses bit testing it still works. But if you turn the flag into an enum, when you re-serialise the mode flags you'll re-serialise it wrong and arrive at an incorrect result. So you have to pass these flags around as integers and select via bit testing as well.

Bitcoin is full of these kinds of weird edge cases. Eventually you come to realise that reimplementing it is dangerous and probably whatever benefits you thought it had, it probably doesn't. Some people believe there should be independent reimplementations anyway and I can understand and respect that, but doing it safely is an absolutely massive piece of work. You have to really, really, really believe in diversity to do it - the features of language-of-the-day aren't good enough to justify the effort.

this is a bit of a strawman argument that suggests it is not worthwhile to develop a proper alternative full node implementation because it *might* fork the blockchain. davec, our lead dev, has taken great care to include all of the bitcoind behaviors for chain selection exactly. check the blog entry https://blog.conformal.com/btcchain-the-bitcoin-chain-package-from-bctd/ for more info here.

it really wasn't that massive a piece of work. sure, it was a lot of work, but it took less than 12 months to catch up with 5 years of development plus whatever time the SN crew took to do their initial dev work. doing this in Go made it a lot quicker than C or C++, but we did have to work through several nasty bugs in Go. it took less than 7 manyears labor to hack out over the past 10 months and we'll be at feature parity within the next 2 months, at most.

last friday davec finished the initial secp256k1 optimizations and the entire chain downloads from scratch in roughly 3 hours (1.75 hrs to last checkpoint, 1.25 hrs from checkpoint to last block) on an i7 + ssd linux machine.

coinrevo

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Here is Dave's talk on the 2013 conference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1IYvJs5GGw

coinrevo

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

I think this work is very valuable for several reasons, most importantly to have a clearer distinction between the software (reference client) and the protocol. I would second this comment of an anonymous poster on slashdot. One can acknowledge all the great work done and still be paranoid about backdoors. Ultimately adopters might know nothing about who implements bitcoin, but if there are many checks & balances in the process that is much more secure than one development tree.

Quote

Your post is extremely interesting, but the mandatory conclusion I make from it is the exact opposite of yours. If the original code is so full of idiosyncracies and gotchas then it's an extreme liability to everyone who values Bitcoin, and quite likely contains backdoors or deliberate weaknesses that are hidden by the obscurity.

There can be no more important task for the Bitcoin community I think than to specify all elements of the static protocol and dynamic behavior of all parts, and reimplement them in other languages, especially safe languages.

Go is certainly a good candidate for this large body of work, safe, clean, and fast.

I would like to understand more about the points raised in these comments. In how far does a re-implementation have to reproduce weird behaviour (not quite the same as bugs)? In how far are these documented at all?

Does btcd have a different concurrency model? How much of the security depends on the go-lang libs themselves?

coinrevo

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

For future reference I am saving Mike's critique on slashdot below, which raises some interesting questions

Quote

A full node is a really, really large amount of work. I feel that lots of people don't realise this, get enthusiastic and think, "I love Bitcoin! I love Go! I'll write Bitcoin in Go" where for Go you can substitute basically any language that's fun or popular. Then they write the easy bits (like wire marshalling) and eventually the project dies around the time that it's time to implement the wallet or Bloom filtering or robust test suites. Possibly Conformal is different, we'll have to wait and see, but the feature set they advertised in their blog is very much what has been seen many times before. In particular there's no handling of the block chain, re-orgs, no wallet and they haven't got any infrastructure to test edge cases.

One reason implementing Bitcoin properly is not fun is an entire class of bugs that doesn't exist in normal software - chain splitting bugs - which can be summed up as "Your software behaves how you thought it's supposed to work rather than how the original bitcoind actually does work". Bitcoin is highly unusual in that it implements group consensus - lots of nodes have to perform extremely complicated calculations and arrive at exactly the same result in lockstep, to a far far higher degree of accuracy than other network protocols. This means that you have to replicate the same set of bugs bitcoind has. Failure to do so can lead to opening up security holes via consensus failure which can in turn lead to double spending (and thus your users lose money!).

Being compatible with the way bitcoind is written (bugs and all) may require you to break whatever abstractions you have introduced to make the code cleaner or more elegant or whatever reason you have for reimplementing Bitcoin. Here's a trivial example - signatures in Bitcoin have an additional byte that basically selects between one of a few different modes. It's actually one of three modes plus a flag. So a natural way to implement this is as an enum representing the three modes plus a boolean for the flag. But that won't work. There is a transaction in the block chain which has a sighash flag that doesn't fit any of the pre-defined values (it's zero) and because Satoshi's code uses bit testing it still works. But if you turn the flag into an enum, when you re-serialise the mode flags you'll re-serialise it wrong and arrive at an incorrect result. So you have to pass these flags around as integers and select via bit testing as well.

Bitcoin is full of these kinds of weird edge cases. Eventually you come to realise that reimplementing it is dangerous and probably whatever benefits you thought it had, it probably doesn't. Some people believe there should be independent reimplementations anyway and I can understand and respect that, but doing it safely is an absolutely massive piece of work. You have to really, really, really believe in diversity to do it - the features of language-of-the-day aren't good enough to justify the effort.

jcv

jr. member

Activity: 34

Merit: 1

Quote from: cczarek123 on December 17, 2013, 04:23:04 PM

What strategy are you using to make sure that you're implementing the distributed algorithm consistently with the reference software?

Hi cczarek,

I assume you mean the verification of the blockchain (but if you mean something else, just correct me and I'll try to answer that).

We did a number of things to ensure that we match the behavior of bitcoind/-qt. For starters, there is a regression test with a number of test blocks and reorganizations of the chain that we made sure btcd could pass (we talk a little more about that in one of our blog posts https://blog.conformal.com/btcd-not-your-moms-bitcoin-daemon/#more-421). We've spent a lot of time writing test code (which doesn't exactly show that we match bitcoind, but it does help show that the code matches what we think it does which is usually half the battle).

Largely, this has come down to testing. We've collectively run btcd for a huge number of hours on a huge number of blocks to ensure it behaves the way bitcoind does. We also pay close attention to comments people have on github about to help catch bugs.

Hopefully that gives you some more confidence. And you can always look at the code if so inclined, that is part of why it is open source.

behindtext

full member

Activity: 121

Merit: 103

oh, and for an update:

headers-first has been committed to master - takes 1.75 hrs to get to last checkpoint at block 267300 vs 5 hrs previously
TLS and auth are available between all 3 daemons that comprise the software: btcd, btcwallet and btcgui
it is possible to use tor both between the public internet and btcd, and between btcd and btcwallet
everything is working on mainnet just fine, but it is only recommended for early adopters
mempool tx notifications will go into master shortly
optimized secp256k1 handling is roughly 50% complete and will be showing up in master in the next couple weeks

there is surely more but those are the big ones

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: behindtext on December 17, 2013, 05:12:18 PM

that is indeed interesting. i haven't seen anything like that to date.

did you file a GH issue?

Not yet - I wanted to make sure it wasn't a known issue.

If you check the log file here, the same behaviour shows up:

https://github.com/conformal/btcd/issues/62

behindtext

full member

Activity: 121

Merit: 103

Quote from: justusranvier on December 17, 2013, 01:24:54 PM

Is it normal for inbound peers to consistently quit after approximately 20 seconds?

Code:

08:22:04 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 95.154.245.77:62066 (inbound)
08:22:28 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:59544 (inbound)
08:22:45 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:59544 (inbound)
08:23:12 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 6m33.27s (320 transactions, height 275387, 2013-12-17 08:22:09 +0000 UTC)
08:24:18 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:37172 (inbound)
08:24:28 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:37172 (inbound)
08:25:42 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 85.17.207.181:8333 (outbound)
08:26:07 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:49392 (inbound)
08:26:18 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:49392 (inbound)
08:26:34 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 3m22.93s (142 transactions, height 275388, 2013-12-17 08:23:19 +0000 UTC)
08:27:12 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:56321 (inbound)
08:27:12 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:56321 (inbound)
08:27:20 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 45.05s (38 transactions, height 275389, 2013-12-17 08:29:10 +0000 UTC)
08:29:25 2013-12-17 [WRN] PEER: Peer 68.228.71.101:8333 (outbound) no answer for 5 minutes, disconnecting
08:29:25 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 68.228.71.101:8333 (outbound)

that is indeed interesting. i haven't seen anything like that to date.

did you file a GH issue?

cczarek123

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

What strategy are you using to make sure that you're implementing the distributed algorithm consistently with the reference software?

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Is it normal for inbound peers to consistently quit after approximately 20 seconds?

Code:

08:16:36 2013-12-17 [INF] BTCD: Version 0.4.0-alpha
08:16:36 2013-12-17 [INF] BTCD: Loading block database from '/var/lib/bitcoin/.btcd/data/mainnet/blocks_leveldb'
08:16:38 2013-12-17 [INF] BTCD: Block database loaded with block height 275386
08:16:38 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Generating initial block node index. This may take a while...
08:16:57 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Block index generation complete
08:16:57 2013-12-17 [INF] SRVR: Server listening on 192.168.135.17:8333
08:16:57 2013-12-17 [INF] AMGR: Loaded 16016 addresses from '/var/lib/bitcoin/.btcd/data/mainnet/peers.json'
08:18:40 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 192.168.135.21:55152 (inbound)
08:18:40 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Syncing to block height 275386 from peer 192.168.135.21:55152
08:19:15 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 174.54.52.15:8333 (outbound)
08:20:14 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 95.154.245.77:61910 (inbound)
08:20:32 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:48323 (inbound)
08:20:34 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 95.154.245.77:61910 (inbound)
08:20:42 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:48323 (inbound)
08:21:22 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 173.79.167.42:8333 (outbound)
08:21:22 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 68.228.71.101:8333 (outbound)
08:21:34 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 95.154.245.77:62066 (inbound)
08:22:04 2013-12-17 [WRN] BMGR: Got unrequested transaction 1c7caddc5b7111e8073ef9afef5ead5b73a378ea95a82b2918cfddf0b1ddb47a from 95.154.245.77:62066 -- disconnecting
08:22:04 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 95.154.245.77:62066 (inbound)
08:22:28 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:59544 (inbound)
08:22:45 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:59544 (inbound)
08:23:12 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 6m33.27s (320 transactions, height 275387, 2013-12-17 08:22:09 +0000 UTC)
08:24:18 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:37172 (inbound)
08:24:28 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:37172 (inbound)
08:25:42 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 85.17.207.181:8333 (outbound)
08:26:07 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:49392 (inbound)
08:26:18 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:49392 (inbound)
08:26:34 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 3m22.93s (142 transactions, height 275388, 2013-12-17 08:23:19 +0000 UTC)
08:27:12 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:56321 (inbound)
08:27:12 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:56321 (inbound)
08:27:20 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 45.05s (38 transactions, height 275389, 2013-12-17 08:29:10 +0000 UTC)
08:29:25 2013-12-17 [WRN] PEER: Peer 68.228.71.101:8333 (outbound) no answer for 5 minutes, disconnecting
08:29:25 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 68.228.71.101:8333 (outbound)
08:30:29 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:33235 (inbound)
08:30:44 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:33235 (inbound)
08:31:32 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 89.238.82.194:8333 (outbound)
08:32:03 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 50.179.47.222:8333 (outbound)
08:32:12 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 204.45.120.178:8333 (outbound)
08:34:10 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 146.247.64.250:8333 (outbound)
08:35:33 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:37558 (inbound)
08:35:44 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:37558 (inbound)
08:36:39 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.79.147.171:57856 (inbound)
08:36:39 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.79.147.171:57856 (inbound)
08:38:47 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 11m27.84s (399 transactions, height 275390, 2013-12-17 08:37:48 +0000 UTC)
08:46:56 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:32893 (inbound)
08:47:07 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:32893 (inbound)
08:52:02 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:60783 (inbound)
08:52:02 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:60783 (inbound)
08:54:27 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:51488 (inbound)
08:54:37 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:51488 (inbound)
08:56:30 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:52733 (inbound)
08:56:31 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:52733 (inbound)
08:59:08 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 20m20.39s (4 transactions, height 275391, 2013-12-17 08:58:48 +0000 UTC)
09:03:35 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:55559 (inbound)
09:03:46 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:55559 (inbound)
09:06:01 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 6m52.85s (1105 transactions, height 275392, 2013-12-17 09:04:48 +0000 UTC)
09:06:08 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:46141 (inbound)
09:06:18 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:46141 (inbound)
09:09:36 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:44179 (inbound)
09:09:46 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:44179 (inbound)
09:09:49 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:46203 (inbound)
09:10:00 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:46203 (inbound)
09:12:56 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:34110 (inbound)
09:13:07 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:34110 (inbound)
09:17:23 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 11m22.68s (480 transactions, height 275393, 2013-12-17 09:16:40 +0000 UTC)
09:21:50 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:51372 (inbound)
09:22:00 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:51372 (inbound)
09:25:21 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:51477 (inbound)
09:25:31 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:51477 (inbound)
09:25:58 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:49644 (inbound)
09:26:00 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:49644 (inbound)
09:27:53 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 10m29.54s (256 transactions, height 275394, 2013-12-17 09:27:12 +0000 UTC)
09:29:35 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:59208 (inbound)
09:29:45 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:59208 (inbound)
09:32:40 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 162.243.95.129:52718 (inbound)
09:32:40 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 162.243.95.129:52718 (inbound)
09:38:36 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:57651 (inbound)
09:38:47 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:57651 (inbound)
09:42:28 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 14m35.58s (539 transactions, height 275395, 2013-12-17 09:41:24 +0000 UTC)
09:47:25 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.79.147.171:52905 (inbound)
09:47:26 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.79.147.171:52905 (inbound)
09:48:00 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 5m31.65s (177 transactions, height 275396, 2013-12-17 09:47:35 +0000 UTC)
09:49:45 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:36937 (inbound)
09:49:56 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:36937 (inbound)
09:50:08 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:48738 (inbound)
09:50:18 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:48738 (inbound)
09:54:17 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 6m16.72s (261 transactions, height 275397, 2013-12-17 09:53:55 +0000 UTC)
09:55:01 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:60835 (inbound)
09:55:11 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:60835 (inbound)
09:56:36 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:51081 (inbound)
09:56:37 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:51081 (inbound)
09:57:36 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:45653 (inbound)
09:57:52 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:45653 (inbound)
09:58:54 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 4m37.04s (208 transactions, height 275398, 2013-12-17 09:58:09 +0000 UTC)
10:07:19 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:35775 (inbound)
10:07:29 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:35775 (inbound)
10:12:13 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:60577 (inbound)
10:12:24 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:60577 (inbound)
10:12:46 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:35030 (inbound)
10:13:06 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:35030 (inbound)
10:13:27 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 14m32.97s (574 transactions, height 275399, 2013-12-17 10:12:49 +0000 UTC)
10:17:37 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 4m9.77s (50 transactions, height 275400, 2013-12-17 10:16:39 +0000 UTC)
10:24:10 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:50355 (inbound)
10:24:20 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:50355 (inbound)
10:24:40 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:58662 (inbound)
10:24:51 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:58662 (inbound)
10:26:17 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:49290 (inbound)
10:26:18 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:49290 (inbound)
10:30:29 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:42752 (inbound)
10:30:54 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:42752 (inbound)
10:37:03 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:49568 (inbound)
10:37:13 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:49568 (inbound)
10:39:42 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:36136 (inbound)
10:40:07 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:36136 (inbound)
10:48:57 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:57198 (inbound)
10:49:19 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:57198 (inbound)
10:52:36 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:44489 (inbound)
10:52:47 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:44489 (inbound)
10:55:05 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:44309 (inbound)
10:55:06 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:44309 (inbound)
10:56:56 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 39m19.07s (77 transactions, height 275401, 2013-12-17 10:56:22 +0000 UTC)
10:57:16 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.79.147.171:56714 (inbound)
10:57:17 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.79.147.171:56714 (inbound)
10:58:15 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:48871 (inbound)
10:58:32 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:48871 (inbound)
11:01:25 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 4m28.92s (1324 transactions, height 275402, 2013-12-17 11:00:28 +0000 UTC)
11:04:45 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:37040 (inbound)
11:04:56 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:37040 (inbound)
11:07:05 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:37198 (inbound)
11:07:26 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:37198 (inbound)
11:08:33 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 7m7.9s (296 transactions, height 275403, 2013-12-17 11:09:51 +0000 UTC)
11:13:23 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 4m50.12s (200 transactions, height 275404, 2013-12-17 11:12:37 +0000 UTC)
11:17:45 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:41196 (inbound)
11:17:56 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:41196 (inbound)
11:19:10 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:56071 (inbound)
11:19:20 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:56071 (inbound)
11:19:33 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 6m10.74s (280 transactions, height 275405, 2013-12-17 11:19:02 +0000 UTC)
11:19:44 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 10.6s (35 transactions, height 275406, 2013-12-17 11:19:21 +0000 UTC)
11:25:14 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:44104 (inbound)
11:25:15 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:44104 (inbound)
11:25:42 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:57427 (inbound)
11:25:54 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:57427 (inbound)
11:27:04 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:58350 (inbound)
11:27:15 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:58350 (inbound)
11:34:54 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:37796 (inbound)
11:35:14 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:37796 (inbound)
11:39:55 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:36411 (inbound)
11:40:06 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:36411 (inbound)
11:41:13 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 21m28.46s (532 transactions, height 275407, 2013-12-17 11:39:32 +0000 UTC)
11:46:04 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:49892 (inbound)
11:46:14 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:49892 (inbound)
11:52:37 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 11m24.59s (537 transactions, height 275408, 2013-12-17 11:52:46 +0000 UTC)
11:54:37 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:41133 (inbound)
11:54:39 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:41133 (inbound)
11:56:48 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:50346 (inbound)
11:56:59 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:50346 (inbound)
11:58:26 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:52682 (inbound)
11:58:45 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 6m7.93s (266 transactions, height 275409, 2013-12-17 11:59:19 +0000 UTC)
11:58:45 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:52682 (inbound)
12:04:02 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:60513 (inbound)
12:04:14 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:60513 (inbound)
12:04:22 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:33312 (inbound)
12:04:33 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:33312 (inbound)
12:07:53 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.79.147.171:59572 (inbound)
12:07:55 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.79.147.171:59572 (inbound)
12:12:03 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 13m17.55s (470 transactions, height 275410, 2013-12-17 12:13:03 +0000 UTC)
12:12:04 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:34846 (inbound)
12:12:04 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:34846 (inbound)
12:16:45 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:59936 (inbound)
12:16:56 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:59936 (inbound)
12:17:00 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:34047 (inbound)
12:17:13 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:34047 (inbound)
12:20:39 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 8m36.78s (348 transactions, height 275411, 2013-12-17 12:20:04 +0000 UTC)
12:20:46 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:51893 (inbound)
12:20:57 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:51893 (inbound)
12:24:03 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 3m24.02s (141 transactions, height 275412, 2013-12-17 12:23:55 +0000 UTC)
12:24:24 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:39874 (inbound)
12:24:25 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:39874 (inbound)
12:25:12 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 1m8.37s (115 transactions, height 275413, 2013-12-17 12:24:46 +0000 UTC)
12:25:25 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 13.3s (112 transactions, height 275414, 2013-12-17 12:25:08 +0000 UTC)
12:28:27 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 3m2.02s (143 transactions, height 275415, 2013-12-17 12:27:59 +0000 UTC)
12:32:26 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:49284 (inbound)
12:32:37 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:49284 (inbound)
12:32:45 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 4m18.25s (235 transactions, height 275416, 2013-12-17 12:35:27 +0000 UTC)
12:36:19 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 3m33.48s (160 transactions, height 275417, 2013-12-17 12:35:35 +0000 UTC)
12:37:00 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:57971 (inbound)
12:37:10 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:57971 (inbound)
12:37:41 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 1m21.95s (132 transactions, height 275418, 2013-12-17 12:37:29 +0000 UTC)
12:40:24 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:52799 (inbound)
12:40:36 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:52799 (inbound)
12:43:55 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:43584 (inbound)
12:44:05 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:43584 (inbound)
12:50:30 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 12m48.97s (486 transactions, height 275419, 2013-12-17 12:49:44 +0000 UTC)
12:52:43 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:58666 (inbound)
12:52:53 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:58666 (inbound)
12:53:02 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 2m32.53s (104 transactions, height 275420, 2013-12-17 12:52:20 +0000 UTC)
12:53:14 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:34777 (inbound)
12:53:15 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:34777 (inbound)
12:56:02 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:51096 (inbound)
12:56:14 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:51096 (inbound)
13:00:56 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 7m53.98s (342 transactions, height 275421, 2013-12-17 13:00:18 +0000 UTC)
13:02:40 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 1m43.35s (105 transactions, height 275422, 2013-12-17 13:02:53 +0000 UTC)
13:02:52 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:33038 (inbound)
13:03:02 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:33038 (inbound)
13:06:49 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:60032 (inbound)
13:07:00 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:60032 (inbound)
13:10:57 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:35038 (inbound)
13:11:07 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:35038 (inbound)
13:18:39 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.79.147.171:46458 (inbound)
13:18:40 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.79.147.171:46458 (inbound)
13:19:55 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:52904 (inbound)
13:20:05 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:52904 (inbound)
13:23:16 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:33944 (inbound)
13:23:17 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:33944 (inbound)
13:23:40 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:40173 (inbound)
13:23:50 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:40173 (inbound)
13:27:24 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 24m43.85s (86 transactions, height 275423, 2013-12-17 13:30:09 +0000 UTC)
13:28:54 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 1m30.62s (1146 transactions, height 275424, 2013-12-17 13:27:20 +0000 UTC)
13:28:55 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:40714 (inbound)
13:28:55 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:40714 (inbound)
13:31:25 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 2m31.33s (233 transactions, height 275425, 2013-12-17 13:31:03 +0000 UTC)
13:33:24 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:36712 (inbound)
13:33:34 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:36712 (inbound)
13:36:38 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:51705 (inbound)
13:36:48 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:51705 (inbound)
13:44:00 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 12m34.41s (595 transactions, height 275426, 2013-12-17 13:43:33 +0000 UTC)
13:45:17 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:35516 (inbound)
13:45:27 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:35516 (inbound)
13:47:42 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:39959 (inbound)
13:47:52 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:39959 (inbound)
13:51:31 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 7m31.2s (342 transactions, height 275427, 2013-12-17 13:50:40 +0000 UTC)
13:52:28 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:58017 (inbound)
13:52:29 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:58017 (inbound)
13:57:02 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:39994 (inbound)
13:57:12 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:39994 (inbound)
13:57:40 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 6m9.26s (315 transactions, height 275428, 2013-12-17 13:57:04 +0000 UTC)
14:01:17 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 3m36.79s (171 transactions, height 275429, 2013-12-17 13:59:57 +0000 UTC)
14:03:31 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:39079 (inbound)
14:03:42 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:39079 (inbound)
14:04:04 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 2m46.55s (230 transactions, height 275430, 2013-12-17 14:07:33 +0000 UTC)
14:04:20 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:36175 (inbound)
14:04:30 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:36175 (inbound)
14:11:50 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:37553 (inbound)
14:12:01 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:37553 (inbound)
14:12:39 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 8m35.29s (532 transactions, height 275431, 2013-12-17 14:12:09 +0000 UTC)
14:18:03 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:33002 (inbound)
14:18:14 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:33002 (inbound)
14:22:05 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:41464 (inbound)
14:22:06 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:55562 (inbound)
14:22:07 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:55562 (inbound)
14:22:15 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:41464 (inbound)
14:26:34 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:42300 (inbound)
14:26:44 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:42300 (inbound)
14:26:53 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:44827 (inbound)
14:27:04 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:44827 (inbound)
14:29:19 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.79.147.171:46077 (inbound)
14:29:21 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.79.147.171:46077 (inbound)
14:31:46 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:39364 (inbound)
14:31:56 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:39364 (inbound)
14:33:36 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 20m57.26s (900 transactions, height 275432, 2013-12-17 14:32:43 +0000 UTC)
14:36:37 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:46275 (inbound)
14:36:48 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:46275 (inbound)
14:39:02 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:35902 (inbound)
14:39:21 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:35902 (inbound)
14:46:11 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 12m34.96s (626 transactions, height 275433, 2013-12-17 14:45:45 +0000 UTC)
14:50:31 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:53365 (inbound)
14:50:41 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:53365 (inbound)
14:51:17 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:36558 (inbound)
14:51:27 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:36558 (inbound)
14:51:58 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:54034 (inbound)
14:51:59 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:54034 (inbound)
14:57:17 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 11m5.4s (526 transactions, height 275434, 2013-12-17 14:56:04 +0000 UTC)
14:57:17 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:43871 (inbound)
14:57:35 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:43871 (inbound)
15:01:19 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 4m2.45s (269 transactions, height 275435, 2013-12-17 15:01:44 +0000 UTC)
15:02:08 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:49590 (inbound)
15:02:18 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:49590 (inbound)
15:02:35 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 1m16.11s (82 transactions, height 275436, 2013-12-17 15:03:04 +0000 UTC)
15:09:45 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:47612 (inbound)
15:09:56 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:47612 (inbound)
15:10:05 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 7m29.66s (361 transactions, height 275437, 2013-12-17 15:09:43 +0000 UTC)
15:16:13 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:60260 (inbound)
15:16:23 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:60260 (inbound)
15:21:01 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:49467 (inbound)
15:21:02 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:49467 (inbound)
15:23:13 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:40808 (inbound)
15:23:24 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:40808 (inbound)
15:28:09 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 18m3.67s (512 transactions, height 275438, 2013-12-17 15:27:29 +0000 UTC)
15:28:36 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:52526 (inbound)
15:28:48 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:52526 (inbound)
15:33:08 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:41694 (inbound)
15:33:12 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:42626 (inbound)
15:33:18 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:41694 (inbound)
15:33:22 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:42626 (inbound)
15:38:05 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 9m56.55s (651 transactions, height 275439, 2013-12-17 15:37:37 +0000 UTC)
15:39:42 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.79.147.171:54034 (inbound)
15:39:43 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.79.147.171:54034 (inbound)
15:40:23 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:36239 (inbound)
15:40:33 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:36239 (inbound)
15:43:21 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 5m16.1s (285 transactions, height 275440, 2013-12-17 15:43:43 +0000 UTC)
15:44:07 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:43091 (inbound)
15:44:28 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:43091 (inbound)
15:44:36 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 1m14.98s (107 transactions, height 275441, 2013-12-17 15:44:25 +0000 UTC)
15:45:59 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:39667 (inbound)
15:46:10 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:39667 (inbound)
15:51:24 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:49972 (inbound)
15:51:25 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:49972 (inbound)
15:53:01 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:37560 (inbound)
15:54:06 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:37560 (inbound)
15:54:12 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 9m36.18s (256 transactions, height 275442, 2013-12-17 15:52:48 +0000 UTC)
15:56:53 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:48324 (inbound)
15:57:03 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:48324 (inbound)
16:05:40 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 11m28.02s (577 transactions, height 275443, 2013-12-17 16:07:07 +0000 UTC)
16:05:40 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:42246 (inbound)
16:05:44 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:42246 (inbound)
16:07:46 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:40208 (inbound)
16:07:56 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:40208 (inbound)
16:09:45 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 2 blocks in the last 4m4.66s (339 transactions, height 275445, 2013-12-17 16:09:15 +0000 UTC)
16:12:05 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 2m19.96s (125 transactions, height 275446, 2013-12-17 16:11:51 +0000 UTC)
16:13:18 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 1m12.64s (104 transactions, height 275447, 2013-12-17 16:13:03 +0000 UTC)
16:14:55 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 1m37.38s (101 transactions, height 275448, 2013-12-17 16:14:39 +0000 UTC)
16:15:20 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:37822 (inbound)
16:15:30 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:37822 (inbound)
16:19:24 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 4m28.44s (277 transactions, height 275449, 2013-12-17 16:18:42 +0000 UTC)
16:20:50 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:44259 (inbound)
16:21:03 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:47589 (inbound)
16:21:05 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:47589 (inbound)
16:21:10 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:39347 (inbound)
16:21:15 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:44259 (inbound)
16:21:21 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:39347 (inbound)
16:23:29 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 4m5.54s (215 transactions, height 275450, 2013-12-17 16:22:23 +0000 UTC)
16:35:18 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:41783 (inbound)
16:35:28 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:41783 (inbound)
16:37:15 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 13m46.29s (682 transactions, height 275451, 2013-12-17 16:44:08 +0000 UTC)
16:41:23 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:52276 (inbound)
16:41:34 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:52276 (inbound)
16:43:07 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 5m51.41s (438 transactions, height 275452, 2013-12-17 16:42:27 +0000 UTC)
16:45:19 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:43067 (inbound)
16:45:29 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:43067 (inbound)
16:47:12 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 4m4.91s (287 transactions, height 275453, 2013-12-17 16:47:29 +0000 UTC)
16:50:09 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:43088 (inbound)
16:50:10 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:43088 (inbound)
16:50:15 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:41651 (inbound)
16:50:26 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:41651 (inbound)
16:51:13 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.79.147.171:56279 (inbound)
16:51:14 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.79.147.171:56279 (inbound)
16:51:18 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:45776 (inbound)
16:51:28 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:45776 (inbound)
16:52:19 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 5m7.57s (225 transactions, height 275454, 2013-12-17 16:52:02 +0000 UTC)
16:52:57 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 37.57s (71 transactions, height 275455, 2013-12-17 16:52:27 +0000 UTC)
16:58:37 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:42320 (inbound)
16:58:57 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:42320 (inbound)
17:00:24 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:49947 (inbound)
17:00:24 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:50005 (inbound)
17:00:35 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:49947 (inbound)
17:00:35 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:50005 (inbound)
17:06:23 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 13m25.78s (650 transactions, height 275456, 2013-12-17 17:05:53 +0000 UTC)
17:13:31 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:41436 (inbound)
17:13:41 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:41436 (inbound)
17:15:02 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:49495 (inbound)
17:15:13 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:49495 (inbound)
17:15:47 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 9m24.35s (431 transactions, height 275457, 2013-12-17 17:15:05 +0000 UTC)
17:20:17 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:42573 (inbound)
17:20:18 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:42573 (inbound)
17:24:25 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:52384 (inbound)
17:24:33 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:54069 (inbound)
17:24:35 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:52384 (inbound)
17:24:43 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:54069 (inbound)
17:26:03 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:43014 (inbound)
17:26:14 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:43014 (inbound)
17:26:32 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 10m44.69s (604 transactions, height 275458, 2013-12-17 17:25:59 +0000 UTC)
17:27:09 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:37228 (inbound)
17:27:32 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:37228 (inbound)
17:29:21 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 2m49.55s (62 transactions, height 275459, 2013-12-17 17:28:48 +0000 UTC)
17:32:23 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 3m1.87s (43 transactions, height 275460, 2013-12-17 17:31:41 +0000 UTC)
17:36:27 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:52045 (inbound)
17:36:47 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:52045 (inbound)
17:37:06 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:34619 (inbound)
17:37:17 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:34619 (inbound)
17:43:27 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 11m3.5s (648 transactions, height 275461, 2013-12-17 17:42:27 +0000 UTC)
17:49:15 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:54038 (inbound)
17:49:25 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:54038 (inbound)
17:50:01 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.18.90.41:40265 (inbound)
17:50:02 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.18.90.41:40265 (inbound)
17:51:52 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:59657 (inbound)
17:52:03 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:59657 (inbound)
17:53:12 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 9m45.37s (617 transactions, height 275462, 2013-12-17 17:52:08 +0000 UTC)
17:58:36 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:43809 (inbound)
17:58:46 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:43809 (inbound)
17:59:45 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 6m32.56s (455 transactions, height 275463, 2013-12-17 17:59:04 +0000 UTC)
18:02:01 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 178.79.147.171:40585 (inbound)
18:02:02 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 178.79.147.171:40585 (inbound)
18:02:51 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 3m6.88s (72 transactions, height 275464, 2013-12-17 18:02:25 +0000 UTC)
18:03:28 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:35060 (inbound)
18:03:52 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:35060 (inbound)
18:04:16 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 1m24.89s (209 transactions, height 275465, 2013-12-17 18:03:35 +0000 UTC)
18:04:52 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:41868 (inbound)
18:05:03 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:41868 (inbound)
18:05:48 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Processed 1 block in the last 1m31.77s (59 transactions, height 275466, 2013-12-17 18:05:11 +0000 UTC)
18:14:06 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 31.220.26.209:49539 (inbound)
18:14:19 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 31.220.26.209:49539 (inbound)
18:17:24 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: New valid peer 23.226.234.12:42112 (inbound)
18:17:34 2013-12-17 [INF] BMGR: Lost peer 23.226.234.12:42112 (inbound)

behindtext

full member

Activity: 121

Merit: 103

figured i would just update this thread: btcd has been released and is getting tested

https://blog.conformal.com/btcd-not-your-moms-bitcoin-daemon/

currently grinding out bugs with goleveldb and getting btcwallet + btcgui into shape.

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

This is starting to get really exciting: https://blog.conformal.com/btcchain-the-bitcoin-chain-package-from-bctd/

Topic: btcd: a bitcoind alternative written in Go - page 5. (Read 20982 times)