trying to run the 32bit linux binary, on a fresh install of 32bit ubuntu lucid with the latest updates, and getting a segmentation fault, both with bitcoin and bitcoind, and both with and without the .bitcoin data directory. gdb traceback below: $ gdb bitcoind
GNU gdb (GDB) 7.1-ubuntu
Copyright (C) 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Type "show copying"
and "show warranty" for details.
This GDB was configured as "i486-linux-gnu".
For bug reporting instructions, please see:
<http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>...
Reading symbols from /home/dfolkins/bin/bitcoind...(no debugging symbols found)...done.
(gdb) run
Starting program: /home/dfolkins/bin/bitcoind
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
[New Thread 0xb7abbb70 (LWP 2010)]
[New Thread 0xb72bab70 (LWP 2011)]
[New Thread 0xb6ab9b70 (LWP 2012)]
[New Thread 0xb62b8b70 (LWP 2013)]
[New Thread 0xb5ab7b70 (LWP 2014)]
[New Thread 0xb52b6b70 (LWP 2015)]
[New Thread 0xb4aa7b70 (LWP 2016)]
[New Thread 0xb42a6b70 (LWP 2017)]
[Thread 0xb72bab70 (LWP 2011) exited]
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to Thread 0xb5ab7b70 (LWP 2014)]
0x002e150b in vfprintf () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
(gdb) bt
#0 0x002e150b in vfprintf () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
#1 0x002e2ec2 in ?? () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
#2 0x002dde13 in vfprintf () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
#3 0x0038203d in __vfprintf_chk () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
#4 0x08056458 in ?? ()
#5 0x080847d9 in ?? ()
#6 0x08091c7a in ?? ()
#7 0x08092853 in ?? ()
#8 0x0015296e in start_thread () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libpthread.so.0
#9 0x0036ea4e in clone () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
(gdb) on the same machine, absolutely no problems running previous version of bitcoin, 0.3.22. EDIT: aha! it segfaults when there's no internet connection. when internet connection is available, works ok. earlier versions used to be just fine without net, but this one segfaults, so it seems one of the network-code changes has introduced a bug. |
|
|
|
because bolloxing up an old thread is just as bad as making a new one, maybe?  |
|
|
|
This wasn't related to flags. "advertise" simply refers to a leaf node sending out their own address onto the network. You would need an additional connect-back message.
Well then I suppose my question is how do you not advertise? Old clients will always forward your IP because they have "seen" you, and unless there is a way to tell 3rd party new clients not to attempt to connect to you, they will just see you as another generic node. You can not advertise on IRC, but I'd like to see that go away anyway, plus that is only a way to bootstrap, not make connections after having previously connected. as i understand it, this is not about leaf nodes being "anonymous", but simply about reducing the signal-to-noise ratio in the node addresses being passed around for bootstrapping purposes. "over time" as nodes get upgraded to the new code, fewer and fewer of them will pass around 'useless' addresses to others. |
|
|
|
still no rap version? a little disappointing. |
|
|
|
+1 BTC ..I really don't see it as a problem. We have enough precision past the decimal. So what if we're dealing with small numbers, the "Bitcoin" theme is still just getting out for most people, no need to confuse millcoins or microcoins yet. When the value passes $100 US/1 BTC, then we may need a change.
so... in a few months, then? let's just pretend we're in october 2011 and coins are 100usd/btc. what do you choose now? |
|
|
|
пока тут вы разбираетесь с btcex.com, приглашаю всех на канал #bitcoin-otc-ru на freenode IRC. нецентрализованная торговая биржа. |
|
|
|
the key attribute of an escrow agent is trustworthiness - both buyer and seller have to trust the escrow party not to walk away with the funds. being a relative newcomer to the bitcoin community... you probably won't score all that much trustworthiness |
|
|
|
bump- forums are busy now!
post on OTC order book! (can link to this thread in notes, or for extra bonus points, make a quickie website on googlepages or something.) |
|
|
|
BTC = Bitcoin
UBC = ?
microcoin? as you said yourself, keeping 'bitcoin' in there is probably a good idea. microbitcoin, or 'mike' or 'ubic' |
|
|
|
|
you forget that difficulty only increases while there's expectation of making a profit on the miner hardware+ongoing costs - hardwareresale at the end.
difficulty increases will simply not happen, unless bitcoin price increases sufficiently in order to encourage new mining power to come in.
there's a feedback loop in operation here, things will level out eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
i think it would be interesting to contact them about it and ask....
|
|
|
|
As usual, being my girlfriend, you can buy ....
hey, i'm not your girlfriend!  </ambiguous sentence police> |
|
|
|
yep, <200 votes remaining to overtake #1 spot! go go go! |
|
|
|
You make a good point about providing solutions. I can't control the masses (thats a good thing), but there were people during the dust bowl telling 'farmers' to take it easy and be respective of the land. But they ignored them, and continued to 'farm' away with out consideration. Then finally the 'Dust Bowl' stopped them.
What I am saying is that the problem will resolve itself, but it needn't be so harmful to the community with a little forethought.
the question of whether bitcoin is 'overvalued' is only going to be empirically determined by what happens in the future. seeing as how my powers of future prediction are pretty shabby, i'll refrain from fretting about this. i think your powers are probably no better so i can suggest the same approach to you. This might be a surprise, but many do not follow MagicalTux, the IRC, or even this Forum. They goto his website, and the Lack of information puts a pause in their intent to trade or get involved. It feels, not quite right. With the lack of contact information, phone numbers, business information, dispute resolution, etc... They will not get involved with the community.
Now, if the intent is to keep it in a sub-group of a small amount of technical and semi-criminal types, then keep it as is. But if the intent is to have BTC used by your neighbors at the grocery store, gas station, etc... It needs to change. So, my solution, I can not enact because it requires an attitude change on many.
indeed these are good points - and i think all these things will happen with the site redesign in the near future. |
|
|
|
Rather than argue the merits, and since we all like Open Source and Freedom of Information. I will endeavor to post information that Inquiring Minds want to know, to more appropriately add to information. I will list first, the information, and then ask whether this information should be made public, then I might post.
1. Will the Real Slim Shady Please Stand Up? Identity of MagicalTux and location.
2. LLC information for MTGOX dealing with Bank Accounts in the U.S.
3. How many Accounts are on MTGOX?
4. Volume of New Money on MTGOX after subtracting volume from old accounts. Rate of growth.
5. The DarkPool price Points added to depth charts. Want to know where the DarkBids are? Hmm...
6. Any other questions you might want answered?
magicaltux's name and location are known. firm information i recall seeing as well. but you can email him for this information if you want. how many accounts - i think he has stated some days ago a rough approximation of number of accounts. money flows - that's proprietary information and you probably won't get it. dark pools: they are going away with the upgrade in june. anything else? Nanotube, I would never dump 100K BTC onto the market to depress the price, I would slowly trickle it in between the bids and asks to reap the greatest reward. So place your bids. Just because I think the price is overall bad for BTC, doesn't mean I don't take advantage of it. yes so... what exactly were you proposing to do, by way of solving the 'bitcoin price' problem that you perceive? or were you just talking without having any solutions in mind? if the latter is the case, then i'd like to join you and also complain about the us national debt, corrupt politicians, street crime, and rainy weather. |
|
|
|
90%+ of these Ops are just bitter.
If you are excited by Bitcoin the technology and can understand the value behind it, i.e. fast, frictionless, semi-anonymous transfers of money without involving third parties, then you would probably see $7/btc as dirt cheap. If you don't see the value in it, look a little harder at the current choices of bank checks/wires, western union, paypal, snail mail, etc. See it now?
but haters gonna hate.
Oh Contraire, not bitter, nor hateful, but fearful. Fearful of a rapid and successive decline that could destroy any and all credibility. I don't subscribe to the Labor Theory, although Labor is a factor in cost, it most certainly isn't the driving factor. A simple example is all it takes to show a fallacy in the Labor Theory. It might cost you $1 Million Dollars to produce an Apple, so the people will eat Oranges instead. One must be realistic when looking at BTC, does the value = $7 ? Should it? I am not doubting that a BTC could equal $7, it just shouldn't be there now, for the greater good of BTC. However, if the groups keep sub-dividing into their smaller groups, then let the best man win. At the cost of the whole. you're more than welcome to go and dump a few 100k btc on the markets to depress the price to bring it to where you think it should be. go, do in now! my bids are waiting! |
|
|
|
i voted. and as far as comments, please keep in mind gavin's PR suggestions. all this talk about overthrowing governments is both a little far-fetched, an unproductive as far as attracting 'regular people'. see http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=8940.0 |
|
|
|
I tried this a long time ago....it doesn't work. If you getwork from your local bitcoind, you can't send it to anyone else's bitcoind, and visa-versa.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Oh yes, no need to radically modify the mining platform, let's just use vanilla bitcoind! :/ maybe it is simple enough - have the block be sent to your local bitcoind - and your local bitcoind will then broadcast your block to everyone - including the pool node. of course, everyone but the pool node will reject your difficulty-1 blocks, but the pool node will see them and give you credit for them. so it seems that modifications necessary to bitcoind are actually quite minimal. (1) configurability to let it set getwork difficulty (2) configurability which nodes to send blocks to (ideally, to prevent network spam, it can be configured to send diff-1 blocks only to the pool's node, not everyone else.) |
|
|
|
While I like the idea of the first post, it seems like the only difference between this type of pool-mining setup and the existing ones is that the BTC generated at the user and then the pool decides how it's divided up, is that correct?
No. The pool picks the share difficulty and creates the coinbase TX. The user does the rest. mmm unless something changed in the past 3 pages , my understanding is quite the contrary. well, the pool is still in charge of user registration, and assigning addresses to be used in the coinbase by the clients. the creation of coinbase tx, the monitoring of the network and inclusion of transactions into the block, etc, is done client-side. but then, the distribution of the bounty is based on number of shares submitted by the clients. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
