for the medium term, there are plans for distinguishing between archive nodes (those that store the full chain) and validating nodes (pruned).
Could transaction format be changed to transmit less data? Here is one of raw transactions from Testnet: {
"hash": "f6c78bb23d47d129d24bf0774894e986e71ba73dd63f82419d9d537daa50c3a0",
"in": [
{
"prev_out": {
"hash": "78d193036ee2815ae40265a486a859bb334b1853590da967f6ae8d64ca73f1a0",
"n": 0
},
"raw_scriptSig": "48304502207cdc4498097bab7efe2bb4db449b3fbd075b4d4bb8730bade12aad604b58...",
"sequence": 4294967295
}
],
"lock_time": 0,
"out": [
{
"raw_scriptPubKey": "76a9148a84d1a0202fd4b77f9d0a84054e353f2732792a88ac",
"value": "48.99000000"
},
{
"raw_scriptPubKey": "76a9147abf72ef083647cd2cb792c9435ce854bee00aee88ac",
"value": "1.00000000"
}
],
"size": 192,
"ver": 1,
"vin_sz": 1,
"vout_sz": 2
}I don't know what is "live" format for transactions Bitcoin clients receive and send, but if all data above is sent than I see a room for reduction. its all the data above, but packed in a binary format. the proposal is not to reduce a single transactions size. But let nodes choose which transactions which they want to receive, thus reducing bandwidth. |
|
|
|
If code is less readable, you're wrong.
It's as simple as that.
i.e. for the very same reason you oppose goto, goto is good in some situations. yes, but not in C++, because C++ sucks. |
|
|
|
And a Jump table is what?
It is not part of the C++ language (so not relevant to this discussion). Understand that the main evil in coding goto is the possibility of it leading to undefined behavior which does not have to be reported by the compiler (same as something like a[ i ] = i++; which compilers are not likely to give you any warning about). I don't think this problem is specific to C++ complier. to explain the problem with pseudo c++ code(pseudo code with c syntax, gotos and exceptions. as i can't code C++, but hate it on principal): try {
goto out;
} catch exception {
print("am im getting printed or not?");
} finally {
print("okay, does i get printed too then?")
}
out:
throw exception;
|
|
|
|
I'm a novice at C++
Why use goto instead of a throw for error handling?
to take *advantage* of undefined behavior. |
|
|
|
Isn't this open source? anybody can rewrite the code in any language that they want.
... but the satoshi client is still official community approved and most well tested client, so nobody gonna use it unless rewrite is very good, or suits there specific needs. |
|
|
|
+1 CIYAM. To add to your good and explanative post, we could add that the main *good* usage of goto in C is for error handling, or to rephrase : to compensate for the lack of ... exceptions. Exception handling being provided by C++, there's no good reason to use gotos in C++ anymore.
gotoes are directly dangerous in C++. |
|
|
|
A lot of the more recent changes to C++ have been to make things *easier* (such as the new use of "auto") as well as to improve its *functional programming* limitations and other general improvements (such as no longer requiring a space between two '>' characters in order to avoid being confused with the '>>' operator). The major *problem* it has was that unlike more modern languages it wasn't designed to do some of the things that it was later found to be able to do (some admittedly much worse than can be done in other languages) and so has had to *evolve* (and this evolution has been slow). That evolution is still ongoing but I certainly understand that it is not appealing to many - if "beauty" is in the eye of the beholder then I can appreciate that C++ is the kind of language you would have had to have had quite a few beers before thinking of it as anything more than comely.  You assume evolution makes 'good' choices. Your assumption is wrong. C++ sucks. |
|
|
|
I will simply say that I did manage to build CIYAM which is a web application generating platform using C++ and using *no other framework* nor back-end scripting language.
Okay, you managed to use C++ to make a application. Good for you. So even if it does suck - it has enough going right with it to be able to do that much at least. Did you know that brainfuck can print the mandlebrot factal in ascii art? Just because you *can* code in it, does not make it good. Languages are tools and as such are really only as bad as the hands of those who lack the skill to use them correctly (yes - most people do not have the patience to learn a language as difficult as C++ and I would probably not advise anyone to do so if they don't want to spend many years learning).
Languages does not need to be complicated to be efficient, C++ is way to complicated(and yet i understand it!). Bjarne Stroustrup did it wrong, by taking a good and uncomplicated language(C), and fucked it up(C++). if he had designed it from the bottom, it would have been much better. C and classes does not mix well. but you can still do OOP in C, the whole linux vfs is OO C code. |
|
|
|
Of course you are aware that C++ *does* functional programming,
nope, it does not. can C++ generate complex functions at runtime, with only a little programming(compiling code/assembly/implementing brainfuck and then use it is cheating). you cannot easily compose one function from another 2 functions in C++. along with procedural, object oriented, generic
Well thats one is true, but which language doesn't? and let's not forget template meta programming (and actually the *last* one of these is the big *way forward* which basically *no other* language can do). nope that sucks too, because C++ generally sucks. Haskell does some of the same at compile time, because of its lazy evaluation and referential transparency. C++ sucks big time at this. |
|
|
|
nudiustertian
 thats not a word. |
|
|
|
a) C++ generally sucks.
c) C++ generally sucks.
anti c++ circlejerk thread? C++ generally sucks if you never had the time or intelligence to learn OOP. no, C++ generally sucks. I can code OO, but it sucks big time when you don't have a interpreter or duck typing. (python ftw!) and of course functional programming is the way forward, not OOP. |
|
|
|
Does the tinfoil hat thing still work?
tin foil hats are proven ineffective or even directly harmful to the privacy of your mind. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/ (OMFG, NSA took it of the net. fuck fuck fuck!) On topic: Depends on your position, but my patriots have yet to fly planes into buildings. |
|
|
|
|
a) C++ generally sucks.
b) goto err, the best way to handle errors in C, they are better than nested if/else and breaks.
c) C++ generally sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
Good prophet you are, do you have crystal balls and stuff?
(you didn't even bother to make funny colored charts...)
|
|
|
|
No. It doesn't. It offends you. Speech in public has no bearing on your actions, save what you make of it. Thoughts are not evil in themselves, and the transmission of them is how people are naturally equipped to interact. Aggression is ACTION, not speech.
So you are classifying speech/communication as inaction then? So yelling "allahu akbar" like a crazy in a crowed train station, and thereby cursing panic, is inaction? Cool, good to know! Yelling "allahu akbar", is fine. Acting crazy and appearing dangerous is not. are you telling me how to act? are you limiting my actions? may i not dress up in a jacket filled with red sausages, and open it while yelling that i love god in a foreign language in a crowed train station? That does sound dangerous though. In some countries this is called public disturbance. Anything that falls into this category isn't acceptable in these kind of countries. yes, but we are talking NAP without a state here. |
|
|
|
No. It doesn't. It offends you. Speech in public has no bearing on your actions, save what you make of it. Thoughts are not evil in themselves, and the transmission of them is how people are naturally equipped to interact. Aggression is ACTION, not speech.
So you are classifying speech/communication as inaction then? So yelling "allahu akbar" like a crazy in a crowed train station, and thereby cursing panic, is inaction? Cool, good to know! Yelling "allahu akbar", is fine. Acting crazy and appearing dangerous is not. are you telling me how to act? are you limiting my actions? may i not dress up in a jacket filled with red sausages, and open it while yelling that i love god in a foreign language in a crowed train station? |
|
|
|
No. It doesn't. It offends you. Speech in public has no bearing on your actions, save what you make of it. Thoughts are not evil in themselves, and the transmission of them is how people are naturally equipped to interact. Aggression is ACTION, not speech.
So you are classifying speech/communication as inaction then? So yelling "allahu akbar" like a crazy in a crowed train station, and thereby cursing panic, is inaction? Cool, good to know! |
|
|
|
Just curious, do you two really consider me to be the dickwad, here?
i do. Not that I care, but why? I don't see what makes him a dickwad (I didn't go through all the pages though) a) his reply(it hurts me very deeply  ) If I thought you were capable of feeling emotions, I might believe you. Great! now you don't even understand what lack of emphaty means. You just getting stupider and stupider... b) he can't see that NAP is inconsistent, and refuses to accept that a state can be a good choice. Explaining it with his "fact" about states, with that it kills people who chooses not to behave in a certain way, and then failing to see that the NAP does the same. The difference being that a State kills people who have done no harm to others, and a NAP-respecting person only kills people in defense. when they don't behave in a certain way, yes? No. when they DO behave in a certain way. As in aggression against me. If it's you or it's me, it's you. OTOH, if you leave me alone or respect my self, space and property, I'll never deliberately give you offense. Now contrast that to the state which will cage you and/or kill you simply over some words on a page written by somebody with no ideas that didn't come from "above" and who fears change and loves power. if it offends me, that you say that i can't commit an aggression against you, you have commited an aggression against me. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
