"Required" upgrade for Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind versions 0.7.2 and older - page 2.

tysat

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1004

Keep it real

Quote from: JeromeS on March 19, 2013, 04:34:37 PM

Also, apart from all that, I think several separate chains would actually improve bitcoin, even if they all follow the same rules. Transactions get split up between the chains and each network has less overhead for one thing.

Dude, several chains would make things super confusing. Bitcoin is already hard enough to understand for new people, do you want them to have to learn how to segregate different chains as well?

JeromeS

newbie

Activity: 55

Merit: 0

Quote from: dree12 on March 19, 2013, 04:39:24 PM

0.7 can in fact create blocks that 0.7 will reject. By increasing the number of locks, 0.7 will create the very blocks other 0.7 clients would reject. Both statements are therefore true.

What does set_lk_max_locks do ? and why didn't we have this problem before people started mining on 0.8 ?

dree12

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1076

Quote from: JeromeS on March 19, 2013, 04:27:58 PM

Two more problems I have with that announcment,

Quote

Miners/mining pool operators

And if you are creating blocks and cannot upgrade to version 0.8.1 for some reason, you should not set_lk_max_locks in a DB_CONFIG file until May 15th; if you increase locks before then you run the risk of creating or building on blocks incompatible with the rest of the network.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not exactly true, is it ?
If enough miners decide to start mining an alt blockchain now that is only compatible with the 0.8's there will just be another reorg on May 15 and their chain will become the main one. They actually stand to benefit from this.

Quote

Why this is necessary

A bug caused a temporary block chain fork on 11 March, 2013. After investigating that bug, we determined that the bug can happen even if the entire network was still running old versions of Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind.

How ?

0.7 can in fact create blocks that 0.7 will reject. By increasing the number of locks, 0.7 will create the very blocks other 0.7 clients would reject. Both statements are therefore true.

JeromeS

newbie

Activity: 55

Merit: 0

Quote from: tysat on March 19, 2013, 04:16:22 PM

Quote from: JeromeS on March 19, 2013, 04:13:29 PM

I think an intentional fork is exactly what we need right now. At least to have something to come back to as the main bitcoin becomes less and less attractive.

Are you saying you want 2 blockchains going? Your wording is a little confusing there.

Yes. meant to say if/when the main bitcoin etc...

It would be better than having only one blockchain going in the wrong direction.

Also, apart from all that, I think several separate chains would actually improve bitcoin, even if they all follow the same rules. Transactions get split up between the chains and each network has less overhead for one thing.

JeromeS

newbie

Activity: 55

Merit: 0

Two more problems I have with that announcment,

Quote

Miners/mining pool operators

And if you are creating blocks and cannot upgrade to version 0.8.1 for some reason, you should not set_lk_max_locks in a DB_CONFIG file until May 15th; if you increase locks before then you run the risk of creating or building on blocks incompatible with the rest of the network.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not exactly true, is it ?
If enough miners decide to start mining an alt blockchain now that is only compatible with the 0.8's there will just be another reorg on May 15 and their chain will become the main one. They actually stand to benefit from this.

Quote

Why this is necessary

A bug caused a temporary block chain fork on 11 March, 2013. After investigating that bug, we determined that the bug can happen even if the entire network was still running old versions of Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind.

How ?

tysat

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1004

Keep it real

Quote from: JeromeS on March 19, 2013, 04:13:29 PM

I think an intentional fork is exactly what we need right now. At least to have something to come back to as the main bitcoin becomes less and less attractive.

Are you saying you want 2 blockchains going? Your wording is a little confusing there.

JeromeS

newbie

Activity: 55

Merit: 0

I agree with what everyone else said about the wording.

Also, I think our benevolent dictator dev(s?) decided the only thing they can do to push this (unnecessary) upgrade is to use stronger language without giving any reasons or details, which is comforting to me tbh.

Bitcoin is not decentralized until it's working like an actual protocol with multiple clients and possibly blockchains. Right now there's only a handful of people who understand the (undocumented) source code and who are writing its future as they see fit. This cannot be good.

I think an intentional fork is exactly what we need right now. At least to have something to come back to as the main bitcoin becomes less and less attractive.

phillipsjk

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1001

Let the chips fall where they may.

Quote from: Richy_T on March 19, 2013, 01:31:04 PM

Sez who? Bitcoin central control?

Says the miners in control of the majority of hasing power, after consultation with developers. There used to be a link to a thread including Gavin's diplomatically worded e-mail at the top of the forum.

Was only able to find this earlier thread where they ask miner to revert to 0.7
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/alert-chain-fork-caused-by-pre-08-clients-dealing-badly-with-large-blocks-152030

coretechs

donator

Activity: 362

Merit: 250

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZRUaDGW7WQ

tysat

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1004

Keep it real

Quote from: Richy_T on March 19, 2013, 12:15:21 PM

http://bitcoin.org/may15.html

I don't like the language used. No one can "require" me to do this. I understand why I should and I will but the wording seems wrong to me. Opinions?

Worry less about wording and more about upgrading?

oOoOo

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Is there any info on who actually wrote that?

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 2119

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: evilpete on March 19, 2013, 01:51:52 PM

Quote from: Richy_T on March 19, 2013, 01:31:04 PM

Sez who? Bitcoin central control?

Not as such.. but more than 51% of the hash power is running 0.8.1 which has the code to automatically withdraw the artificial limit that buys people time to upgrade in an orderly fashion. The train has already left the station.

Yes, the wording is a bit strong, but as we saw there are a lot of people who are confused or unclear about what they should do. You obviously understand the situation and have already made an informed decision. But think of the other people who aren't paying as much attention, or just don't care. All they want is to be able to send, receive, and get confirmations. They do have to do something if they don't want to get left behind on the wrong side of the next block that breaks their client.

I don't disagree with any of this. Just the wording.

I think it's important if not essential that Bitcoin remains a decentralized, collaborative effort and the language should reflect that.

With that said, I think I've made my position clear so I'll leave the floor for others to discuss now.

evilpete

member

Activity: 77

Merit: 10

Quote from: Richy_T on March 19, 2013, 01:31:04 PM

Sez who? Bitcoin central control?

Not as such.. but more than 51% of the hash power is running 0.8.1 which has the code to automatically withdraw the artificial limit that buys people time to upgrade in an orderly fashion. The train has already left the station.

Yes, the wording is a bit strong, but as we saw there are a lot of people who are confused or unclear about what they should do. You obviously understand the situation and have already made an informed decision. But think of the other people who aren't paying as much attention, or just don't care. All they want is to be able to send, receive, and get confirmations. They do have to do something if they don't want to get left behind on the wrong side of the next block that breaks their client.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 2119

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Sez who? Bitcoin central control?

bg002h

donator

Activity: 1463

Merit: 1047

I outlived my lifetime membership:)

Required is unarguably the appropriate term. If you don't upgrade, you're technically not running Bitcoin anymore (and may end up on your own split chain). Required doesn't mean you must...it means you must if you want to run Bitcoin.

Recommended would imply if you do nothing you'll still be running Bitcoin.

Walter Rothbard

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm

I had the same concern when I saw how this announcement was worded.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 2119

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: phillipsjk on March 19, 2013, 12:59:28 PM

I think required is the appropriate wording. only 0.7.2 is required (with work-around), 0.8.1 is recommended.

I think "strongly recommended" or "urgently recommended" would be appropriate. There is currently no one with the authority to require anything wrt bitcoin.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 2119

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: eb3full on March 19, 2013, 12:53:37 PM

Let us know what you think of 0.7.2 in a few months.

Reading comprehension not your forte?

Quote from: ?? on ??

If you don't upgrade you'll be snivelling in the dark crying why no one warned you to upgrade.

Yeah, OK....

Quote from: Gabi on March 19, 2013, 12:55:28 PM

The code is open source, check it and you will discover why

That's an advertisement for Bitcoin for sure... I am a person who *would* be able to comprehend the source and *I* don't want to read it.

Simply saying "If you stay on 0.7, you are likely to end up the wrong side of a forked blockchain", which is what I assume is at issue, would have been enough.

phillipsjk

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1001

Let the chips fall where they may.

I think required is the appropriate wording. only 0.7.2 is required (with work-around), 0.8.1 is recommended.

Gabi

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1008

If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat

Quote from: Richy_T on March 19, 2013, 12:38:01 PM

Indeed. In fact that's another complaint. It doesn't even explain properly why you *should* upgrade.

The code is open source, check it and you will discover why

Topic: "Required" upgrade for Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind versions 0.7.2 and older - page 2. (Read 2699 times)