Title: Interesting logs - BitcoinMiner usng Bitcoind on CentOS Post by: vkgandhi84 on March 15, 2014, 04:38:24 PM Hi,
I am a beginner to use bitcoind . I installed it on CentOS and started the it with flags -server -gen -daemon -conf . With -gen flag, I believe it would try to mine coins. I see following logs in debug.log. 2014-03-15 16:30:25 Running BitcoinMiner with 118 transactions in block (73416 bytes) 2014-03-15 16:30:25 Running BitcoinMiner with 118 transactions in block (73416 bytes) 2014-03-15 16:30:27 Running BitcoinMiner with 118 transactions in block (73416 bytes) 2014-03-15 16:30:28 Running BitcoinMiner with 118 transactions in block (73416 bytes) 2014-03-15 16:30:29 Running BitcoinMiner with 118 transactions in block (73416 bytes) 2014-03-15 16:30:39 Running BitcoinMiner with 118 transactions in block (73416 bytes) 2014-03-15 16:30:40 Running BitcoinMiner with 118 transactions in block (73416 bytes) 2014-03-15 16:30:41 Running BitcoinMiner with 118 transactions in block (73416 bytes) I am curious about two facts I see in the logs. 1. I am in EST and actual time of the logs is 12:30 pm, but logs show 16:30 . I believe that's the bitcoin network time and based on the peers I am connected to by default. But, why that big difference? 2. I see that BitcoinMiner is running with 118 transactions in block! Why? I thought that a block is solved roughly about 10 minutes. If that's true, then why my bitcoind is trying to use older transactions that might already been packed in a solved by somebody else? Can someone explain me this or throw some light on misunderstandings if I have any about the way this work? Thanks a lot. Title: Re: Interesting logs - BitcoinMiner usng Bitcoind on CentOS Post by: vkgandhi84 on March 17, 2014, 12:56:03 AM Now I see following.
2014-03-17 00:53:05 Running BitcoinMiner with 194 transactions in block (115430 bytes) How could that be? I don't mind reading code to find this. Can someone please direct me to location where I can download the code from. I'll really appreciate if some one can point out which part of the code relates to this behaviour. Thanks a ton. |