Re: Supporting BIP 16
Ozcoin will be once our downtime is over
Topic: Supporting BIP 16 (Read 3021 times)
It's a shame that the lead developer has to beg for supporter.
Although I think the 16/17 thing is a shambles, and that 16 is the way forward, I support this level of "decentralization". I trust Gavin Andresen with the Bitcoin protocol, but it's important that the network isn't ruled by one person: although "Benevolent Dictator" works really well for a lot of open source projects, the financial nature of bitcoin changes things somewhat!
"Move fast, break things" - Mark Zuckerberg
Breaking things in facebook is very different to breaking a financial system.
I realize that. While I do have skin in the game, I would rather see innovation than limitations. The internet moves at a different pace than Wall Street. Cautious exuberance is in order. Couldn't we just take a "Bitcoin Holiday" from mining and commerce to thoroughly test the new client?
It's a shame that the lead developer has to beg for supporter.
Although I think the 16/17 thing is a shambles, and that 16 is the way forward, I support this level of "decentralization". I trust Gavin Andresen with the Bitcoin protocol, but it's important that the network isn't ruled by one person: although "Benevolent Dictator" works really well for a lot of open source projects, the financial nature of bitcoin changes things somewhat!
"Move fast, break things" - Mark Zuckerberg
Breaking things in facebook is very different to breaking a financial system.
It's a shame that the lead developer has to beg for supporter.
Although I think the 16/17 thing is a shambles, and that 16 is the way forward, I support this level of "decentralization". I trust Gavin Andresen with the Bitcoin protocol, but it's important that the network isn't ruled by one person: although "Benevolent Dictator" works really well for a lot of open source projects, the financial nature of bitcoin changes things somewhat!
"Move fast, break things" - Mark Zuckerberg
It's a shame that the lead developer has to beg for supporter.
Although I think the 16/17 thing is a shambles, and that 16 is the way forward, I support this level of "decentralization". I trust Gavin Andresen with the Bitcoin protocol, but it's important that the network isn't ruled by one person: although "Benevolent Dictator" works really well for a lot of open source projects, the financial nature of bitcoin changes things somewhat!
simplecoin.us is now running the latest source, which I believe also supports BIP16?
It's a shame that the lead developer has to beg for supporter.
Supporting BIP 16 is important. Everyone, please ask your pool operators to start supporting it.
Or offer your Ghashes to a suitable pool in exchange for BIP 16 support. Most pools don't care to much about BIP 16 or not, or don't want to change anything that works, but they may care for a few percent increased hashing power.It's not so much that pools don't care, its that they weren't started to be in charge of what changes the bitcoin protocol adopts. With these block based votes, it put a significant amount of power into pool owner's hands that they did not ask for. We're being very careful with this issue because the last thing any pool owner wants is to be the one that allowed something to pass through that breaks something down the road.
Supporting BIP 16 is important. Everyone, please ask your pool operators to start supporting it.
Or offer your Ghashes to a suitable pool in exchange for BIP 16 support. Most pools don't care to much about BIP 16 or not, or don't want to change anything that works, but they may care for a few percent increased hashing power. 
Supporting BIP 16 is important. Everyone, please ask your pool operators to start supporting it. It's a critical update for the whole development of Bitcoin and if the development of Bitcoin stalls, so will your mining profits (eventually).
A bug in my code is dropping transaction fees from the block reward. Simple to fix, and obvious in hindsight; I will be personally reimbursing everybody who got bit by this bug by finding the blocks affected by this, figuring out what transaction fees the creators SHOULD have received, and sending that number of bitcoins to the block-award address.
Transaction sent: 2d3006cf1e16cb9f4097894fdaa0739c66d38eb9e0356be3fd8daf63810cf375
I wrote some code that found all blocks with "/P2SH/" in their coinbase that did not include transaction fees in the block reward. I extracted the block reward payment address (or addresses, if it was a p2pool block) and reimbursed those addresses.
If the amount would be less than 0.0011 bitcoins, then I rounded the amount awarded up to 0.0011. Just because eleven is my favorite number (well, and because I like the idea of rewarding p2pool users, I think p2pool is neat).
I've started a discussion on BIP 16/17 support moving forward (including trying to improve the testing process) here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/deadlines-and-moving-forward-bip-1617-support-61922
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/deadlines-and-moving-forward-bip-1617-support-61922
What are pool operaters thinking?
You know how I say "I make mistakes, don't trust me" ...
On a higher level:
There is obviously not going to be 50+% blockchain support for BIP 16 on Tuesday; I'm going to start conversations on how to move forward.
And there has obviously not been enough testing of the BIP 16 code. Getting people to thoroughly test things BEFORE code makes it into the main tree has been a chronic problem, I'd appreciate ideas on how to avoid this kind of annoying, time-wasting "it's ready"/"oops, found a bug"/"it's fixed"/"wait, no, somebody found another bug" thing in the future. I've been unsuccessful finding the kind of QA (quality assurance) person who can both do the QA and do the fundraising necessary so they get paid.
On a higher level:
There is obviously not going to be 50+% blockchain support for BIP 16 on Tuesday; I'm going to start conversations on how to move forward.
And there has obviously not been enough testing of the BIP 16 code. Getting people to thoroughly test things BEFORE code makes it into the main tree has been a chronic problem, I'd appreciate ideas on how to avoid this kind of annoying, time-wasting "it's ready"/"oops, found a bug"/"it's fixed"/"wait, no, somebody found another bug" thing in the future. I've been unsuccessful finding the kind of QA (quality assurance) person who can both do the QA and do the fundraising necessary so they get paid.
Well, everyone makes mistakes....don't get too hung up on that
But "time-wasting "it's ready"/"oops, found a bug"/"it's fixed"/"wait, no, somebody found another bug" thing" makes me think we need to spend more time on this solution rather than rushing into something, these changes are too important to Bitcoin in the future to get wrong now.
I do realise what is implemented now will take time, it still doesnt encourage me to rush now
QA does seem to be an issue, I would happily chip in 4-5BTC/month if some way of collecting to pay a suitable qualified and independent QA tester was organised, I am sure there would be plenty of others in the community willing to support this. I actually think this is more important than any of the BIPS currently on the table for Bitcoin going forward
my 0.002btc worth
Best
Graeme Tee
Ozcoin Pooled Mining Pty Ltd
There's strong support for this from the miners in my pool, so BitMinter is now running BIP-16 enabled bitcoind + BIP-16 votes in block generation.
nFees was defined twice?
How come the fees weren't 0 all the time?
How come the fees weren't 0 all the time?
The fees were 0 all the time, that was the bug.
What are pool operaters thinking?
nFees was defined twice?
How come the fees weren't 0 all the time?
How come the fees weren't 0 all the time?
You know how I say "I make mistakes, don't trust me" ...
A bug in my code is dropping transaction fees from the block reward. Simple to fix, and obvious in hindsight; I will be personally reimbursing everybody who got bit by this bug by finding the blocks affected by this, figuring out what transaction fees the creators SHOULD have received, and sending that number of bitcoins to the block-award address.
Backports and the main git HEAD tree have been patched with the fix.
On a higher level:
There is obviously not going to be 50+% blockchain support for BIP 16 on Tuesday; I'm going to start conversations on how to move forward.
And there has obviously not been enough testing of the BIP 16 code. Getting people to thoroughly test things BEFORE code makes it into the main tree has been a chronic problem, I'd appreciate ideas on how to avoid this kind of annoying, time-wasting "it's ready"/"oops, found a bug"/"it's fixed"/"wait, no, somebody found another bug" thing in the future. I've been unsuccessful finding the kind of QA (quality assurance) person who can both do the QA and do the fundraising necessary so they get paid.
A bug in my code is dropping transaction fees from the block reward. Simple to fix, and obvious in hindsight; I will be personally reimbursing everybody who got bit by this bug by finding the blocks affected by this, figuring out what transaction fees the creators SHOULD have received, and sending that number of bitcoins to the block-award address.
Backports and the main git HEAD tree have been patched with the fix.
On a higher level:
There is obviously not going to be 50+% blockchain support for BIP 16 on Tuesday; I'm going to start conversations on how to move forward.
And there has obviously not been enough testing of the BIP 16 code. Getting people to thoroughly test things BEFORE code makes it into the main tree has been a chronic problem, I'd appreciate ideas on how to avoid this kind of annoying, time-wasting "it's ready"/"oops, found a bug"/"it's fixed"/"wait, no, somebody found another bug" thing in the future. I've been unsuccessful finding the kind of QA (quality assurance) person who can both do the QA and do the fundraising necessary so they get paid.
I've updated to the latest version of Bitcoin and I'm mining with my meager farm in P2Pool. Just wanted to share. I don't need a place in the sig!
Hi, where can I download the Windows bitcoind.exe for using with p2pool? Thanks for help.
is there a windows binary available? (0.5.2?)
A few of the big mining pools have started supporting BIP 16, and I feel pretty confident that they've shaken out any major bugs.
If you'd like to jump on the bandwagon, backported code for BIP 16 is available at:
https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/
... in the "p2sh_backport" and "p2sh_backport_vinced" branches.
Backports are available for all releases from bitcoin version 0.3.19 forward; for example if you're running code forked from the 0.3.24 release you would:
The "vinced_mergedmine" tags are for if you are using Vince's 'getauxwork' patch/branch for merged mining (based on bitcoin version 0.3.24).
If you're running latest&greatest or are willing to upgrade to the latest&greatest, BIP 16 support is already in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/
Finally, if you do decide to support BIP 16, upgrade your code, and start mining with it, let me know and I'll be happy to thank you publicly in my signature (offer good until I run into the 300-characters-in-the-signature forum limit).
If you'd like to jump on the bandwagon, backported code for BIP 16 is available at:
https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/
... in the "p2sh_backport" and "p2sh_backport_vinced" branches.
Backports are available for all releases from bitcoin version 0.3.19 forward; for example if you're running code forked from the 0.3.24 release you would:
Code:
git checkout -b bip16 # Create a branch for the changes, just in case
git fetch --tags git://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git.git p2sh_backport
git tag -l 'bip16*' # List the backports available
git merge bip16_v0.3.24_1
The "vinced_mergedmine" tags are for if you are using Vince's 'getauxwork' patch/branch for merged mining (based on bitcoin version 0.3.24).
If you're running latest&greatest or are willing to upgrade to the latest&greatest, BIP 16 support is already in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/
Finally, if you do decide to support BIP 16, upgrade your code, and start mining with it, let me know and I'll be happy to thank you publicly in my signature (offer good until I run into the 300-characters-in-the-signature forum limit).
Jump to: