Topic: The bug could be found!!! run them both in same test envrionment - page 3. (Read 4013 times)

Wait a second you just said that I am medieval

 for asking the foundation to not pay 1 payment of Gavin's and when I said this has lost me money, then it is a risk. Well aren't we just playing both sides of the fence. So Gavin didn't test bitcoin it is a risk... Please your argument is invalid bitcoin is a risk, but the software shouldn't be the risky part, especially when it comes from the lead developer, and has been "tested".

At most 4 hours mining wasted by the second bug impacting the blockchain in 4+ years is a problem for you? I fear there isn't many places where you can earn your bread without such risks...

I humbly suggest my point is somewhat cast further than this, see Gavin paid or not may argue that you need 10 gavins to do his job, and perhaps he is right...or wrong, consider there is more than one paid person at Visa or Bank X.

the best system (IMHO) is where we are all bound in to contribute to the extend we get the return (that cannot be taken from us by parasitical forces...cough *tax* cough)

I don't disagree with your points on Gavin per se (assuming evidence backs yo up), maybe he did not perform to par, I don't know ,

Perhaps I could Ask what would you see as better solution?

would this solution  (likely) averted what just happened?



To be honest bitcoin is my job, so maybe you hobbyist aren't affected but it hits hard for me to be down for a couple hours.



No Gavin whined about getting paid, now he is getting paid. The blame needs to fall on his shoulders cause this is his job, otherwise I would like to know what he is getting paid for? This doesn't demonstrate any weakness in that part, I could go and look thru the github blame and lay it on that person shoulders, but what good would that do. Gavin is lead developer and someone needs to step up and take responsibility for why people are losing money. Also I brought up when the foundation started paying him why they started paying him, everyone again sat and called me a troll cause I said paying Gavin cause he is and I quote "indispensable", that is also another reason why I am blaming him. Sorry to break to you, but this distributed protocol is controlled by one guy, and a foundation of businesses.

I can take the hit, it is when a bug that could have been easily found is making the entire network take a hit.

There wouldn't still be a Bitcoin but for the many months he put into it unpaid. Lighten up. If you can't take the hit, you shouldn't be in the game.

What do you do for a living gweedo? If you make a mistake, do they withhold your paycheck?

Hmm....I think the idea of a distributed anything is that it garners enough people who through self interest (ie bieng invested in the crypto) stand the best possible chance of fixing it

having one person to blame....may demonstrate a weakness in a distributed system

Gavin's pay and terms are just part of a debugging routine instituted by the larger [free] market,

the blame if it is to be leveled is at us all to....

I posit that the allocation of blame to a individual, is myopic/archaic, but convenient idea to the lenses of our mind to focus on....broaden you mind-scape and appreciate the interwoven nature of systems and outcomes.

Eg  A Car is an expression of pheno type of the genome of human DNA, but to look at human DNA you would not see this readily.

Gavin is paid, I think this month his payment should be revoked for this bug getting thru.

What about the bread out of my mouth? Time is money.

He why don't you go medieval and fetch the pitchforks instead. Removing bread from the mouth of a man (and his family if he has one to support) isn't fun enough, you should definitely eviscerate him...

So who do you blame? I mean the blame lies on Gavin, I think. He is project lead, he is getting paid which means no more BS that he is doing this free, he should take the blame. If one payment is breaking his bank I be surprised, but I think that this is mess up and someone needs to be held responsible. But of course no one will take my side, and you all call me a troll, but bugs like this need responsibility behind them.

So who do you blame? I mean the blame lies on Gavin, I think. He is project lead, he is getting paid which means no more BS that he is doing this free, he should take the blame. If one payment is breaking his bank I be surprised, but I think that this is mess up and someone needs to be held responsible. But of course no one will take my side, and you all call me a troll, but bugs like this need responsibility behind them.

Or not. 

I have done qa, and programed some time ago....but fair point to you.....

Aha, seems we have flushed out a nuance in the problem!!!

This is not accurate.

There was, indeed, testing on the testnet with a full (1 MB) block. This was accepted by both the 0.7 and 0.8 versions. There is no concern here.

Slush's block should have produced the same valid block. However, the block was structured carefully as to expose a problem in 0.7 that was never discovered. Not only was this an extremely difficult problem to catch, but its finding would in fact not have been accelerated with a mixed testnet. The introduction of 0.8 into the equation would actually delay finding the bug, as it would mean less time spent testing edge cases on 0.7.

Gavin is paid, I think this month his payment should be revoked for this bug getting thru.

You of course tested both v0.7 and 0.8 on testnet found the flaw and reported it to the development team.  When they ignored you, you went viral sharing the incompatibility with everyone you knew.  Thanks goodness we had you ... er wait you didn't do any testing.  Most of the developers are unpaid volunteers.  Given your extensive testing experience why aren't YOU doing something?

This is not accurate.

There was, indeed, testing on the testnet with a full (1 MB) block. This was accepted by both the 0.7 and 0.8 versions. There is no concern here.

Slush's block should have produced the same valid block. However, the block was structured carefully as to expose a problem in 0.7 that was never discovered. Not only was this an extremely difficult problem to catch, but its finding would in fact not have been accelerated with a mixed testnet. The introduction of 0.8 into the equation would actually delay finding the bug, as it would mean less time spent testing edge cases on 0.7.

So the problem was a pathological block, not simply a large block.

You of course tested both v0.7 and 0.8 on testnet found the flaw and reported it to the development team.  When they ignored you, you went viral sharing the incompatibility with everyone you knew.  Thanks goodness we had you ... er wait you didn't do any testing.  Most of the developers are unpaid volunteers.  Given your extensive testing experience why aren't YOU doing something?

There was, indeed, testing on the testnet with a full (1 MB) block. This was accepted by both the 0.7 and 0.8 versions. There is no concern here.

Slush's block should have produced the same valid block. However, the block was structured carefully as to expose a problem in 0.7 that was never discovered.