Here's what I'm seeing downloading the block chain now (each of these are SetBestChain calls, parsed through awk). 2012-03-08 17:43:13 (0s elapsed) best=0000000019fcb554faef height=14000
2012-03-08 17:46:18 (185s elapsed) best=000000000871e813323a height=14001
2012-03-08 17:46:31 (13s elapsed) best=000000000f60295af34f height=14002
2012-03-08 17:46:31 (0s elapsed) best=0000000019c41e1c36f4 height=14003
...
2012-03-08 17:48:56 (1s elapsed) best=000000001411ef303df1 height=14500
2012-03-08 17:52:14 (198s elapsed) best=000000001954852f2353 height=14501
2012-03-08 17:52:23 (9s elapsed) best=00000000102efff0a206 height=14502
...
2012-03-08 17:54:42 (0s elapsed) best=000000001c571559854d height=15000
2012-03-08 17:58:22 (220s elapsed) best=000000002b63eb1b0d54 height=15001
2012-03-08 17:58:31 (9s elapsed) best=0000000007a7c6cc2078 height=15002
2012-03-08 17:58:31 (0s elapsed) best=000000001f192fedaa59 height=15003
...
2012-03-08 18:00:46 (0s elapsed) best=00000000278dd687559a height=15500
2012-03-08 18:04:27 (221s elapsed) best=000000002183230d1304 height=15501
2012-03-08 18:04:36 (9s elapsed) best=000000001c205bf86f60 height=15502
2012-03-08 18:04:36 (0s elapsed) best=000000001b06eaabb549 height=15503 Every 500 blocks it stops getting anything for a few minutes and I see a lot of this in the log. askfor block 000000001863b82e9f96 0
askfor block 00000000086e274dfcc9 0
askfor block 00000000161295ccfc22 0
askfor block 00000000036f097e8e2f 0
askfor block 0000000006f4dd953c8b 0
askfor block 00000000053d4015d9d0 0
askfor block 0000000004390f5800da 0
received block 0000000bc8debd1285bf
ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=0000000029a45c0a51f0
sending getdata: block 0000000024ab0abf1702
sending getdata: block 000000002198f2d28e62
sending getdata: block 0000000024f54d89577c
sending getdata: block 0000000010a37c65ed4b
sending getdata: block 00000000164de5d3f3a2
sending getdata: block 00000000134bb8e6b6d1
sending getdata: block 000000002497d576f7fe |
|
|
|
|
Was running version 0.5.1-beta. Tried deleting everything but wallet.dat out of ~/.bitcoin/testnet and restarting with bitcoin-qt -testnet -rescan, but the problem persisted. Updated to 0.5.2 but the problem persisted. Deleted everything again but now the block chain is downloading very slowly, so I don't have logs around the time of stopping.
Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
I've built a working piratebox from a TP-Link MR-3020 ( http://wiki.daviddarts.com/PirateBox_DIY_OpenWrt#Tutorial_A:_TP-Link_MR3020) and now I want to put a small bitcoin 'relay' on the device. The goal is to have a simple process running on the piratebox that will present itself to connected peers as a bitcoin peer, allow bitcoin clients (on android devices, for example) to connect as normal, and relay transactions, blocks and other messages from one connected peer to all others present, but not to perform checks on the transactions or blocks or to keep a local blockchain. The idea is to allow two (or more) bitcoin clients to transact in meatspace (within radio range of the piratebox) without either device needing live access to the Internet to do so. Imagine, as an example, a phone-to-phone bitcoin transaction during a power and/or widespread Internet outage; or alternately, a transaction between two people out camping beyond their service plan's coverage map. Why two people would want to deal in bitcoin beyond the reach (or observation) of elements of the Internet are beyond the scope of this request. Can it run Java? I recently added the capability to accept incoming Bitcoin requests to BitcoinJ (my local copy, not pushed upstream yet). |
|
|
|
Andreas has also implemented tx marshalling across NFC too, so you can send coins even if only one side has a working internet connection. But the standard method just exchanges addreses.
That's awesome, but does it not work if neither device has a working internet connection? |
|
|
|
i mean seriously, could not this whole thing been prevented if the wallet was just encrypted?
you would think so  whats the excuse for not doing this? If payments were automated, it would have to decrypt the keys at some point... What may have prevented this is multi sig transactions. |
|
|
|
Will it ship in mid or early march?
Maybe. |
|
|
|
That was me! http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/q4uuq/i_ate_grub_go_ama/For posterity's sake, I ordered a turkey sandwich, fried okra, potato salad, soup, and a root beer (there's a $15 minimum). He gave me 10% off the order for paying with bitcoins. I also got a free order of deep fried doughnut holes due to a web/phone pricing discrepancy. |
|
|
|
Your analogies are laughable. The very definition of justice pertains to fairness, equity and the upholding of law. Please show where orange juice and jet engines are products in which individuals expect the same from. Your fatal assumption is that you assume justice is an objective thing. It's not, it's subjective; what I consider to be just you may not. Orange juice and jet engines are the same way... what I consider to be good OJ, you may not. Thankfully, there is not a single monopoly supplier of orange juice or jet engines, so competition allows the satisfaction of diverse demands for those products. Unfortunately, in every geographical region, there is a single monopoly supplier of justice. In the United States, that means justice looks like this. |
|
|
|
What we have now is orderly societies all over the democratic world. If these states are not peaceful orderly societies, then there has never been an orderly society and I dread to think what you would call societies like Syria or Iraq.
If you define what we have now as "top down chaos" then its a bit pointless talking with you. Why not agree to use words as they are commonly understood?
For thousands of years, the world has been run by states under the assumption that a few given power at the top of the pyramid can provide outcomes that benefit all the rest. That brings us to today, where you state that the world is far from perfect. How much more power must be given to the few in order to generate a more perfect outcome? Is it not possible that the underlying assumption, that order can be created from the top down, is invalid? Anyway, as you said this discussion is pointless, so I shall not expend any further effort replying. |
|
|
|
OK. Point taken. there is nothing worse than an analogy that is meant to make things clear but actually obfusticates; my leaky roof analogy did that so please ignore it while I try to myself clearer. I appreciate your willingness to concede that the analogy is unfit. I think we are both agreed that society is far from perfect. Yes. I would say it is fundamentally flawed. We both know that there is violent chaos if the present system breaks down. Actually, I believe that the present system is chaotic, and that you mistake top-down chaos for order. In London, a city that has been at the heart of a strong state for over 1000 years, it took all of 30 minutes for riots and mayhem to start once word got out that the police were not going to protect property last summer. First of all, can you please provide a citation for your claim that riots began after "word got out that the police were not going to protect private property"? My understanding is that the riots began after police killed Mark Duggan. Second, in what way is this not a condemnation of the state? These are individuals educated in the state's educational system, taught implicitly and explicitly that it is sometimes acceptable to initiate violence against others. Is it any wonder that when faced with socio-economic hardship, they turn to violence? If you want to remove the state, you have to offer a way to protect people from this violence and chaos first.
So how do you do it? You are convinced that a violent monopoly is necessary in order to maintain peace, and that chaos is in fact order. I have no idea how to convince you that this is completely self-contradictory if it is not immediately obvious. |
|
|
|
That sounds like an admission that NAP is not realistic. It's one thing to pine for a society where it will work, and in theory it could work if the society was small and all were fervent NAP believers, but it simply isn't workable in the real world.
So, we've been asking the same question to you guys over and over. How do you make NAP work? And we finally got an answer: it won't work, accept in small isolated communities.
You're reading too far into it. It merely means that right now most of society has accepted the state's proposition that it is acceptable to initiate the use of violence. This, of course, is because that acceptance is necessary in order for the state to exist. However, the state's use of violence always comes back to bite it's citizens, and the hope is that by spreading the message of NAP, eventually people will say "enough", and refuse to tolerate a state any longer. |
|
|
|
That is an even worse analogy. Rape is a clearly understood concept and all are agreed its bad. Living in a democracy is also a clearly understood concept but no-one really thinks its bad. Your analogy had nothing at all to do with the morality of human interaction. Our analogies have everything to do with the morality of human interaction. Government is an entity which mediates human interaction, and claims to be moral doing so. How is it possible that our analogies were worse than yours? I also dispute the claim that rape is a clearly understood concept and all agreed it is bad (rape is common in many places of the world, and the line between rape and consensual sex is fuzzy in many cases). I would agree if you had made that claim about slavery, except that is a fairly recent development. There was a time when many people considered slavery to be necessary and perfectly moral. Did that make it so? |
|
|
|
If I might offer an analogy, its not enough to say the roof on a house is leaky; you have to offer a way to fix it or a way to replace it with a better roof. You rightly point out that modern societies are not perfect. The problem is that you don't offer an alternative that is better.
Unfortunately for you, repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. The alternative we offer is a society organized from the bottom-up. I'm sorry that you are unable to wrap your mind around that. Let me offer an analogy for why your criticism is flawed. In the time when slavery was a widespread institution, it was a valid criticism to say that slavery should be abolished, even if you did not offer any alternative to how the things slaves did would get done. In the same way, anarchists of various stripes say that the state should be abolished, even though we do not (and cannot) tell you exactly how the things government does will be accomplished. To think that one person or one small group could tell you that is the pretense of knowledge, and is one of the reasons that centralized institutions like states fail at their goals. |
|
|
|
Is there any kind of generic library or API? Not really. The closest thing to what you're asking is libbitcoin, but I believe that it is in the very early stages of development, even compared to BitcoinJ. Your best bet is probably using the bitcoind API (as linked earlier in the thread) or some third party service. |
|
|
|
- Create a new private key.
- Send X BTC (where X is some small amount) to the key's address.
- Print "bitcoin" + the key on the banknote.
 - Prophet!
|
|
|
|
Did you send the Spanish Police a complaint about Bitcoinica on the toilet as well?
I disagree with his actions too, but is it beneficial to bring this up in wholly unrelated threads? |
|
|
|
|
Restaurants seem like a great place for the use of Bitcoin. Imagine a party of 10 people wanting to split the check and they don't have cash.
One the one hand, the restaurant staff has to split the check and process 5-10 credit cards.
On the other hand, the restaurant prints a unique address (in text and/or QR code form) on the receipt. The party then determines ownership of their individual portion of the check, and sends that amount to the address. The restaurant staff then merely have to verify that the received amount is greater than or equal to that of the check, and anything above that gets sent to a virtual tip jar. This process could be completely automated, but even if it's done manually I think it would be less of a burden than credit cards (and without a large fee).
|
|
|
|
chrisrico - the reason the state is tied up in regulations as to how it uses violence is that within its borders, there is only 1 law. I believe you are incorrect. First, there is not "one law". The law is constantly changing and is subject to jurisdictional dispute. I will give you that with states, there is ultimately a final authority on law in a given region, but would you want a final authority on any other good or service in a region? That's called a monopoly, and most people recognize that they provide poor quality service. Second, the state is "tied up" in regulations of its own making. Those regulations could disappear in an instant if the state wanted badly enough to violate them. For example, take a look at the recent murder of a United States citizen by his own government. Citizens are forbidden from learning the legal justification under which any of them might be summarily killed, because it is a state secret. Remove the state and you have no one single law. So every dispute will require violence. How do you come to this conclusion? There is no "single law" for the entire world, and almost all disputes are resolved peacefully. Almost all of the most violently resolved disputes are between governments. Does that speak nothing to you? Please understand, I do not advocate for a stateless society in which every individual acts like a state. I merely believe that most individuals will generally prefer to solve problems non-violently, and this tendency is suppressed when immersed in a culture which celebrates the use of violence. I believe the state, as a fundamentally violent institution, provides such a culture. |
|
|
|
Another option is BitcoinJ for Java (or the port BitcoinSharp for .Net). We're currently using BitcoinJ to develop our project (with bitcoind interface as a backup). |
|
|
|
A state with a monopoly on violence which is tied down by rules as to when it can use violence
Why would or how could the same individuals who bind the state so securely not do the same to a competitive marketplace in the provision of law and justice? Just look at how each type of service is provided. It is considered legitimate (through social norms and state-run education) for the state to threaten violence against those who do not fund it, regardless of their satisfaction with services received. Private organizations, on the other hand, have no such guaranteed source of income, and must convince individuals to purchase their services without threat of violence. is a simple and efficient way of providing a safe social environment. Simple? Do you consider, for instance, the federal government of the United States, with its origin as an intentionally limited government, to be simple and efficient? I can't find an authoritative answer, but I've heard that the entire USC is over 200,000 pages long. If you know of a better one, let me know but it does have to be better - not just different for its own sake. That's exactly what I'm trying to do. Conversely, you seem stuck on the fallacy that currently exists must be beneficial for the fact that it exists. If, for instance, statist solutions to poverty really worked, don't you think they would have by now, in a world where governments have the largest welfare budgets of all time? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
