Topic: Experimental pre-0.8 builds for testing - page 4. (Read 19873 times)

Sorry, that I like to disagree. The error message is from the compiler or preprocessor (not linker) that it don't find the (source) file db_cxx.h (which is in /usr/include/db4.8 as I wrote).

Meanwhile I discovered in bitcoin-qt.pro these comments:

# Dependency library locations can be customized with:
#    BOOST_INCLUDE_PATH, BOOST_LIB_PATH, BDB_INCLUDE_PATH,
#    BDB_LIB_PATH, OPENSSL_INCLUDE_PATH and OPENSSL_LIB_PATH respectively
and after inserting
BDB_INCLUDE_PATH=/usr/include/db4.8

directly after these comments lines. It worked.
Now it stops later complaining about

src/net.cpp:18:32: Error: miniupnpc/miniwget.h:

So it looks like I must check where all the needed PATHS really are and write it into bitcoin-qt.pro .... wondering that the default include PATH is not searched by qmake. Well, thanks to only 3 different used libraries I need hopefully at most to customize 6 paths.

smtp

The error is harmless. It uses git to determine the current version, but it has a fallback in case that fails.

The db_cxx error means you don't have libdb4.8++-dev or libdb5.1++-dev installed. See doc/build-unit.txt for instructions.

I wonder whether I should point you to my next problem? "qmake" seems to finish fine and then I type "make" resulting in:

....
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/achim/Downloads/bitcoin-turbo/src/leveldb'
cd /home/achim/Downloads/bitcoin-turbo; /bin/sh share/genbuild.sh /home/achim/Downloads/bitcoin-turbo/build/build.h
fatal: Not a git repository (or any parent up to mount parent )
Stopping at filesystem boundary (GIT_DISCOVERY_ACROSS_FILESYSTEM not set).
....

and a bit later it aborts in src/db.h:14:20: Error: db_cxx.h was not found. So I presume this bundled bitcoin-turbo.tar.gz assumes still some Git-structure/environment/dependency to work correctly. /usr/include/db4.8/db_cxx.h exists - but this is not on the /home filesystem and I dislike to test it on the (readonly) /usr filesystem.

BTW: If you dislike that I'm able to compile your pre-release without Git-knowledge, no problem for me if you thus refuse to support me.

Appendum: Meantime I have set/create an environment variable GIT_DISCOVERY_ACROSS_FILESYSTEM=1 , but this has no effect. Same failure when calling "make".

smtp

A typo -- a single lost ". Unbelievable that this did not trigger a syntax error message in qmake.

Thanks Pieter, and sorry that I have pressed you effectively to debug it for me. :-/

smtp

There was a syntactic error in the bitcoin-qt.pro file (which was fixed before, but it seems the fix got lost). Newer versions of lrelease didn't break on it, but older ones did. It should be fixed now.

That's why I add that builds in gitian show the same problem, so I confirm there is a problem here. I just haven't spent the time investigating why.

You deduce from your environment to other people's environment.
Seriously, when calling "qmake" in the directory $HOME/tmp/bitcoins/bitcoin-0.7.1-linux/src I get no errors but the message

Project MESSAGE: Building with UPNP support
Project MESSAGE: Building with UPNP support
Removed plural forms as the target language has less forms.
If this sounds wrong, possibly the target language is not set or recognized.


I don't know whether this should sound wrong or not, but obviously something has changed regarding "bitcoin-qt.pro" compared to the old release 0.7.1.

smtp

Building works fine on my laptop, but I believe I hit the same problem when trying to build release binaries for Linux in gitian. It may require the package 'qt4-linguist-tools'.


I've certainly seen more than that - 6000tx/s is over 12000txins/s.

I just have downloaded the current source version (1869678 bytes), "tar -xf bitcoin-turbo.tar.gz" it and call in the new created directory bitcoin-turbo the "qmake" . But gets lots of error messages about being unable to find all these local language files:

Project MESSAGE: Building with UPNP support
Project MESSAGE: Building with UPNP support
lrelease warning: Met no 'TRANSLATIONS' entry in project file '/home/achim/Downloads/bitcoin-turbo/bitcoin-qt.pro'
RCC: Error in 'src/qt/bitcoin.qrc': Cannot find file 'locale/bitcoin_bg.qm'
RCC: Error in 'src/qt/bitcoin.qrc': Cannot find file 'locale/bitcoin_ca_ES.qm'
RCC: Error in 'src/qt/bitcoin.qrc': Cannot find file 'locale/bitcoin_cs.qm'
....
RCC: Error in 'src/qt/bitcoin.qrc': Cannot find file 'locale/bitcoin_zh_CN.qm'
RCC: Error in 'src/qt/bitcoin.qrc': Cannot find file 'locale/bitcoin_zh_TW.qm'

So, what are the exact preconditions/dependencies for compiling this turbo-bitcoin source successfully? (Are there linux-binaries availible?).

I want to make a speed measurement of blockchain verification with this bitcoin-turbo release compared to my own blockparser.
Currently I'm able to make 939.88 script-verification/sec with my 2 GHz AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+ stepping 00 processor (a few years old)
using gcc 4.4.5 with (my default) options -march=athlon64 -O2.
Thus I wonder, a new, say 3 GHz cpu with 6 cores should even be able to acomplish 10000 script-verification / sec or more today ... not to mention optimized secp256k1 code.

Appendum: "qmake  -v" results in   
QMake version 2.01a
Using Qt version 4.7.2 in /usr/lib64/qt4

smtp

Not just miners. Anyone relaying your transaction could modify it without invalidating it, with hash-locked transactions.


I was talking about the near future - not about this very moment. The fact that the hardware exists today means it is accessible for consumers, which is what matters (i.e., one doesn't need a big investment to run/maintain a validating node). Also, not everyone needs to run a validating node (but the more accessible we can make it to do so, the better).

I c, Thx. But to spend something I need NOT to prove my identity principially. The problem in the bitcoin-model are the miners, because only this special subcommunity can put my transactions (or what ever they want) into blocks. Thus I must trust them not to change my transaction or need another algorithm (signature) to check/prove that theses did not change my transaction. This I had forgoten. :-/ I always feel uncomfortable by relaying on these miners in this bitcoin-world - I mean, to be unable to write my wanted transactions by myself into the block chain.

Fine, and what about the guys still have half the CPU-power (or less) than me? I did a bit preciser estimation: I needed 160 sec to read the block chain up to height 21500 (and get all data in place), but then needed 1031 sec (the wrongly 1191 sec was including the 160 secs) to read and verify the next 1283 blocks (which contain a total of 838243 OP_CHECKSIG). Which shows a speed of 813 tx/s (not 704 tx/s) (script-verifications) -- far more realistic/typical than your 6-core hyperthreading parallel machine, IMHO.

BTW: I believe the most cpu-time consuming part of the signature-verification is the modulo-n arithmetic (with n a 256-bit number).

smtp

Using hashes for signatures, where you reveal a secret to spend an output that contained it hash, you give the world the ability to steal your coins as soon as you spend them. For example, any miner could change the transaction to send it them self by using your revealed secret. This is an inherent problem with symmetric cryptography. You need some secret that only you know to prove your identity.

I have seen systems validate over 5000 tx/s (on a 6-core, hyperthreading machine with hal's optimized ECDSA code), so I think in the near future, we're good (at least until the block size limit would be lifted). Not every machine will be a full node, but if hardware to keep up and sync at least at over 1 block/s, is available to consumers, we probably don't have that much to worry about.

Today, the first time my blockparser could verify the current block chain (until block height 216049) completely. (I removed a few bugs in the documentation at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_CHECKSIG - but I did not implement  the hashtype SIGHASH_SINGLE and therefore did not check its documentation (because it is currently not used in the main block chain.) Thus I can now judge your "several orders of magnitude slower".
Indeed, roughly 99% of the CPU time is used for evaluation of all these OP_CHECKSIG (about 8 hours real time on my 2 GHz Athlon64-PC) when checking the total block chain.

My (first) guess: Either we need a much faster implementation of  the openssl function ECDSA_verify  or abandon this OPCHECK_SIG. E.g. a hash computation (and its verification) only should be of equal security, but it is much faster than verifying a signature. Already some bitcoin-transactions in the block chain have used a "OP_HASH160 <14> OP_EQUAL"-script as txout-script.

smtp

Thanks, fixed.

Seems I forgot testing building bitcoin-qt on Linux, after all tinkering to get the Windows build working again.

I tried again tonight.  The dbghelp error is indeed gone now, but the shlwapi error persists.  Head is 4fb73728b2a924c8b940042b3b7fbe8ef7a4b274

Removing -lshlwapi from line 100 of bitcoin-qt.pro (LIBS line) allows the build to complete.  It is now running with a fresh (empty) datadir and seems to be syncing nicely.

As the number of blocks on the network is only a rough estimate, we can't really rely on that number, I'm going to think about how this could be handled more user-friendly .

Dia

Tried again with bitcoin-0.7.1-313-g4fb7372-win32.zip - successfully downloaded blocks and verified, from scratch. It took about 11 hours. Setup the same as in my earlier posts here:
Windows XP SP3
Pentium M, 1.6 GHz
760 MB RAM
bitcoin-qt.exe -connect=192.168.0.xxx -logtimestamps -benchmark

Peak memory usage ~180MB.

There may have been a WiFi problem towards the end of download (or client got stuck doing nothing). Finally I restarted it with port forwarding and made ~20 connections within hours. Received and sent coins.

All in all, even this weakling can download (via LAN) and verify complete blockchain overnight.

Minor issues:

- download progress bar still disappearing towards the end of download
- it says "processed X of 210000 blocks" - even though we are well past 210000
- CPU usage for the first ~third of blocks is 40%-100%, then it slows down to 0%-40% for the most part - not sure what the bottleneck is
- verification slows down progressively; would it make sense to base progress bar on megabytes, not on the block count?

Thanks for reporting this. We (mostly Gavin) found a general problem with the LevelDB code on older Windowses, The last build (0.7.1-313-g4fb7372) should fix this.

Please try again if you can.

Seems to be a Windows related issue with LevelDB...

Dia