Concerns about Ultraprune - page 3. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Atlas

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 1

Quote from: gmaxwell on October 21, 2012, 03:51:59 AM

Quote from: Atlas on October 21, 2012, 01:10:02 AM

They want to restructure the entire blockchain and protocol which could potentially break Bitcoin if implemented poorly and all the nodes accept it.

What the hell is wrong with you, a couple weeks ago you were calling the developers incompetent because the initial block download is not faster. Then it's made faster (on the order of 6-40x faster depending on the user's hardware, as a result of months of work) and you start screaming about "restructure the entire blockchain and protocol"— neither of which are changed by this improvement. And you can't seem to avoid invoking Gavin, though his only role in this particular set of changes has been reviewing code.

Things were much better on the forum when you and your crazy foaming were banned.

When you change the file format of the blockchains files which are then used for transactions, an error in implementing said format change could lead to problems.

I am open to being wrong but the way I see it, this is significant.

repentance

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Atlas on October 21, 2012, 02:29:32 AM

This is not a experiment.

I think even Satoshi himself would disagree with you on that assertion.

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: Atlas on October 21, 2012, 01:10:02 AM

They want to restructure the entire blockchain and protocol which could potentially break Bitcoin if implemented poorly and all the nodes accept it.

What the hell is wrong with you, a couple weeks ago you were calling the developers incompetent because the initial block download is not faster. Then it's made faster (on the order of 6-40x faster depending on the user's hardware, as a result of months of work) and you start screaming about "restructure the entire blockchain and protocol"— neither of which are changed by this improvement. And you can't seem to avoid invoking Gavin, though his only role in this particular set of changes has been reviewing code.

Things were much better on the forum when you and your crazy foaming were banned.

Atlas

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 1

Quote from: Carlton Banks on October 21, 2012, 03:12:24 AM

Please, can everyone not just ignore this guy? I mean, really ignore him. Don't even open his posts (I only even bothered myself with this thread so that I could get this off my mind). It's the most blatant example of FUD trolling that I have witnessed so far. Watch me ignore him when/if he starts to reply to me (it won't be difficult to resist, as I'm not opening this thread again).

Simply by engaging with him (talking to him, opening his post such that it gets 1 more view count etc) makes it easier for him to do his "job". Make it difficult for him. Stop.

I have no incentive to troll. I have a great incentive to protect Bitcoin.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Please, can everyone not just ignore this guy? I mean, really ignore him. Don't even open his posts (I only even bothered myself with this thread so that I could get this off my mind). It's the most blatant example of FUD trolling that I have witnessed so far. Watch me ignore him when/if he starts to reply to me (it won't be difficult to resist, as I'm not opening this thread again).

Simply by engaging with him (talking to him, opening his post such that it gets 1 more view count etc) makes it easier for him to do his "job". Make it difficult for him. Stop.

FreeMoney

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1016

Strength in numbers

You are unique atlas.

Atlas

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 1

Jgarzik is already having problems with this new build. His Bitcoins are not showing up under it.

http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2012/10/21

BUGS ARE IN THIS AS IS

Atlas

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 1

My vocabulary may be off but I stand by my assertion that this could compromise the verification process of transactions.

I care not if the problem would be detected quickly. A problem brings instability to the ecosystem.

I vote for rigid conservation. This is not a experiment.

Atlas

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 1

Quote from: Rotsor on October 21, 2012, 01:38:52 AM

This is not a protocol change, idiot.

It changes how the network operates and how some will verify the blockchain.

Rotsor

full member

Activity: 309

Merit: 102

Presale is live!

This is not a protocol change, idiot.

Atlas

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 1

Quote from: gusti on October 21, 2012, 01:25:56 AM

Quote from: Atlas on October 21, 2012, 01:10:02 AM

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ultraprune-merged-in-mainline-119525

This should not be taken lightly at all. They want to restructure the entire blockchain which could potentially break Bitcoin if implemented poorly and all the nodes accept it.

Push them not to implement this change into Bitcoin-Qt/Bitcoind until it has been tested for at least 6 months.

Dude, will you whistleblow for every change the devs introduce from now on ? Bitcoin needs to evolve continuosly, though I'm very conservative and wish to keep their original virtues.

If you are really concerned about future changes, I suggest you either :

1) Learn programming and participate in the code auditing.
2) Pay for a third party auditor to do that job.

You can do #2 thru a "bitcoin auditing task force" and donations or something similar.

It doesn't take a code audit to understand that changing the structure of the blockchain that will then be verified, which sets history for all Bitcoin holders, is a serious change that can go wrong.

"Anything that can go wrong will go wrong".

gusti

legendary

Activity: 1099

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Atlas on October 21, 2012, 01:10:02 AM

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ultraprune-merged-in-mainline-119525

This should not be taken lightly at all. They want to restructure the entire blockchain which could potentially break Bitcoin if implemented poorly and all the nodes accept it.

Push them not to implement this change into Bitcoin-Qt/Bitcoind until it has been tested for at least 6 months.

Dude, will you whistleblow for every change the devs introduce from now on ? Bitcoin needs to evolve continuosly, though I'm very conservative and wish to keep their original virtues.

If you are really concerned about future changes, I suggest you either :

1) Learn programming and participate in the code auditing.
2) Pay for a third party auditor to do that job.

You can do #2 thru a "bitcoin auditing task force" and donations or something similar.

Atlas

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 1

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 21, 2012, 01:17:25 AM

I can't see how that proposal would change the blockchain, it looks like it only changes how the blockchain is parsed locally.

Well, I need to reword what I said. The following looks like it might need to change how blocks are verified and mined:

A small summary of the changes:
Instead of blk000?.dat, we have blocks/blk000??.dat files of max 128 MiB, pre-allocated per 16 MiB
Instead of a Berklely DB blkindex.dat, we have a LevelDB directory blktree/. This only contains a block index, no transaction index.
A new LevelDB directory coins/, which contains data about the current unspent transaction output set.
New files blocks/rev000??.dat contain undo data for blocks (necessary for reorganisation).
More information is kept about blocks and block files, to facilitate pruning in the future, and to prepare for a headers-first mode.
Two new RPC calls are added: gettxout and gettxoutsetinfo.

If we change how blocks are verified and mined, and that is done with a bug included, it could lead to massive damage for the Bitcoin network as a whole since verification is everything.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

I can't see how that proposal would change the blockchain, it looks like it only changes how the blockchain is parsed locally.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: Atlas on October 21, 2012, 01:12:26 AM

Additionally, DO NOT ACCEPT a release of this kind until it has been tested for a long period of time regardless of calls for trust.

I have never upgraded without at least a month delay. Even if it's to deal with a 'critical' bug, I have just turned off my client and don't turn it on until others have had time to test it for me.

Atlas

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 1

Additionally, DO NOT ACCEPT a release of this kind until it has been tested for a long period of time regardless of calls for trust. This isn't a kangaroo court. This isn't Zion. This is Bitcoin, the money of a new age.

Atlas

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 1

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ultraprune-merged-in-mainline-119525

This should not be taken lightly at all. They want to restructure the entire blockchain which could potentially break Bitcoin if implemented poorly and all the nodes accept it.

Push them not to implement this change into Bitcoin-Qt/Bitcoind until it has been tested for at least 6 months.

Topic: Concerns about Ultraprune - page 3. (Read 11547 times)