|
Okay trying that. It's only early days yet (~block #46000) but it hasn't crashed yet.
A more general question: if I do somehow end up with a big blockchain that's mostly correct until the last little bit gets corrupted, what exactly would I have to delete to 'roll it back'? I get that I'd have to delete the last blk00xxx.dat, but what other files? I'd hate to have 19GB of perfect blockchain data and have it redownload every damn thing from the beginning.
|
|
|
|
Well, just to give an update... bitcoin-qt is still running, it hasn't crashed... but I don't like what it IS doing. Basically block downloading stalled 40 min ago, as shown by the timestamps for blk00006.dat and rev00006.dat. It has been stuck at block #156748 all this time. What IS being continually updated is debug.log, which is now almost 900MB!! The last few lines of debug.log now are: 2015-06-03 21:50:46 ERROR: CheckBlock() : hashMerkleRoot mismatch 2015-06-03 21:50:46 Misbehaving: 83.85.132.142:8333 (329801600 -> 329801700) 2015-06-03 21:50:46 ERROR: ConnectTip() : ConnectBlock 0000000000000088dc6197ddd62a76882d4d6ec4ea619e79d51fdecab423c71d failed 2015-06-03 21:50:46 ERROR: CheckBlock() : hashMerkleRoot mismatch 2015-06-03 21:50:46 Misbehaving: 83.85.132.142:8333 (329801700 -> 329801800) 2015-06-03 21:50:46 ERROR: ConnectTip() : ConnectBlock 0000000000000088dc6197ddd62a76882d4d6ec4ea619e79d51fdecab423c71d failed I presume that most of the 900MB is like that. Core is also telling me that there are 10 active connections to the network which sounds like *that* isn't the problem. GRR!  If it doesn't like the last few blocks for some reason, why the hell can't it just go back to whenever it DID like them and restart the download from there? And how about trimming debug.log while you're at it? ETA: hmm wait a minute... are those lines telling me that it's being fed bad data by some peer? But if so, why doesn't it just try someone else? |
|
|
|
What version of Bitcoin Core are you running? Are you compiling from source? Also, what are the specs of your machine? Can you post the debug.log here? All of these will help us diagnose the issue.
Machine is a 5-yr old laptop with 3GB of memory. Bitcoin version and installation as above. I'm now getting different behaviour that may be more acceptable. In my most recent run, it crashed out thus: The last few lines of debug.log are all of the form: 2015-06-03 20:50:19 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000778dfa81c3a653acf1ef06ce13da4747cde8529cc4fe86a81a6 height=138839 log2_work=65.787511 tx=1169347 date=2011-07-30 19:22:59 progress=0.007195 cache=171211 2015-06-03 20:50:19 UpdateTip: new best=00000000000007fadd5d4e5e0210a8bbfd4eca94af0bb2b63de6898e56c7f983 height=138840 log2_work=65.787675 tx=1169378 date=2011-07-30 19:37:30 progress=0.007195 cache=171228 ... for hundreds of lines This time Bitcoin-qt never even showed me a dialog box telling me it encountered an error. It simply crashed out. I'd invoked it from a terminal window and on crashing I see the following in the terminal: *** glibc detected *** bitcoin-qt: double free or corruption (out): 0x2b308d40 *** ======= Backtrace: ========= /lib/i386-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x74f82)[0x2a61f82] /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6(_ZdlPv+0x1f)[0x96fc51f] bitcoin-qt(+0x291f0f)[0x5c8f0f] bitcoin-qt(+0x28eff9)[0x5c5ff9] ... followed by several similar lines and then a 'memory map', however that helps. HOWEVER, I have now restarted bitcoin-qt, and after a while it just resumes the synchronisation. So with a bit of luck it will simply carry on with no further crashing. Do you reckon it's dodgy memory? It looks like dodgy memory to me. |
|
|
|
|
Hi all. Though I use electrum for all my wallet needs, I use bitcoin-qt to have a local copy of the blockchain. A few days ago it told me something about a need to reindex, or a corrupt database, or something... can't remember.
Anyway since then I have repeatedly tried to download the blockchain from scratch and it cannot proceed past four years ago. I have now completely removed and reinstalled bitcoin-qt running under Ubuntu-12.04, and I still get the same problem. I try downloading from scratch, it goes okay until I get to about 4 years out-of-sync. Then bitcoin-qt tells me there was a fatal internal error. Trying to run it subsequently it keeps mentioning a segmentation fault. All I can do is delete the whole of ~/.bitcoin and... round we go again.
Any ideas? There's still 60GB of space on the hd partition.
ETA: in case it's important, the software tells me it's "Bitcoin Core version v0.10.1.0-gd8ac901 (32-bit)" and I installed it using the standard Ubuntu apt-get way of doing things.
|
|
|
|
However, if it was the bottleneck, then we would see tons of 1 Mb blocks right now, and there aren't. The average blocksize right now is around 0.5 Mb.
Right. And I presented you with an either/or situation, and you have identified one of the branches does not apply. Therefore I contend the other one does. Since Bitcoin is not currently filling up 1MB blocks, there is no worry that block sizes will immediately become 20MB when the limit is raised. If and when they do it will be because it was NEEDED. Stop. You are part of the group that is spewing out anti fork nonsense. It does not matter if it is filling up blocks now or not. Reaching consensus later will be very hard, we're even having problems right now. Doing a hard fork will also be much harder. Do you even have an idea what the media will do to Bitcoin once it stops including some transactions into blocks? It's better to prevent this from happening on time rather than having to fix it after it happens. Some people just have big authority problems. Er, dude, I'm PRO-fork and I was clarifying to someone why an ANTI-fork piece of reasoning ("The blocks will bloat immediately, we won't be able to keep up") was bogus. Maybe have some more coffee? ETA: actually I can see where the problem arises - I was responding to someone who is also PRO-fork. But my point stands. Apologies, knightdk, for misinterpreting you in much the same way LaudaM misinterpreted me.  |
|
|
|
|
I'm nobody, but FWIW I appreciate your effort, Elwar.
|
|
|
|
Turtle, implementing it in Core would still constitute a hard fork, between people using the post-raising-blocksize version and the pre-raising-blocksize version. A hard fork is absolutely inevitable, because the 1MB cap is not sustainable. It's fine for *this* year, and probably most of *next*, but the bitcoin economy simply can't grow enough if the limit is not raised eventually. I'm 95% certain that Gavin is 'on the right side of history' here. The fork is inevitable, and IMO so is a short period of uncertainty and hence price stagnation (hah! how would we tell?  ). What's uncertain is just how disruptive that will be. But I'd be very surprised if 'Gavincoin' didn't emerge as the clear winner after, oh a week, two weeks maximum. I have heard no convincing arguments for keeping the blocksize at 1MB. But to be fair, I've pretty much only heard from Mircea Popescu, his sockpuppets, and his sycophants. Peter Todd sounds like a reasonable guy, can anyone point me to a long, carefully argued screed from him? |
|
|
|
Under 'gavincoin', 20MB is not the mandatory size of all new blocks. It's the maximum blocksize. If, as you say, Bitcoin is chugging along comfortably right now at 1 transaction a second, it's not suddenly going to jump to 20MB blocks overnight. OTOH if it DOES do that, it rather suggests that the 1 tr/sec was a bottleneck choking the system, doesn't it? That 20MB isn't going to be filled up unless the transactors need it to be, in which case it's a damn good job it was there.
However, if it was the bottleneck, then we would see tons of 1 Mb blocks right now, and there aren't. The average blocksize right now is around 0.5 Mb. Right. And I presented you with an either/or situation, and you have identified one of the branches does not apply. Therefore I contend the other one does. Since Bitcoin is not currently filling up 1MB blocks, there is no worry that block sizes will immediately become 20MB when the limit is raised. If and when they do it will be because it was NEEDED. |
|
|
|
|
To be fair, the OP is only quoting an article there, so it's they who really deserve the facepalm.
Having said that, HOW MANY GODDAMN THREADS DO WE NEED?
|
|
|
|
Yeah, try telling that to people when they try to use BTC and there are so many transactions per second that shit takes ages to get confirmed etc.
That's not how transaction bottlenecks work. They work in precisely the opposite way - transactions take ages to get confirmed when there isn't enough room in the block for them. Maybe I was a bit premature to say the thread turned the corner.  Except that there's around 1 transaction a second(Actually slightly less) in Bitcoin, which is basically nothing, so what Gavin is doing, is rushing things exponentially. Makes Zero sense and will deter people from running nodes if the blocksize is moved upto 20 MB so early. But hey, that's Bitcoin's centralization coming into full view for ya. Under 'gavincoin', 20MB is not the mandatory size of all new blocks. It's the maximum blocksize. If, as you say, Bitcoin is chugging along comfortably right now at 1 transaction a second, it's not suddenly going to jump to 20MB blocks overnight. OTOH if it DOES do that, it rather suggests that the 1 tr/sec was a bottleneck choking the system, doesn't it? That 20MB isn't going to be filled up unless the transactors need it to be, in which case it's a damn good job it was there. |
|
|
|
Yeah, try telling that to people when they try to use BTC and there are so many transactions per second that shit takes ages to get confirmed etc.
That's not how transaction bottlenecks work. They work in precisely the opposite way - transactions take ages to get confirmed when there isn't enough room in the block for them. Maybe I was a bit premature to say the thread turned the corner. |
|
|
|
It is a bad thing that one person currently has so much influence on the bitcoin perception
Oh, don't worry. Mircea Popescu's "influence on the bitcoin perception" seems to be waning quite rapidly. Yeah, the first page of this thread was mostly sky-is-falling stuff, but we've turned the corner and the fudsters are being called out. Hell, one guy even posted Gavin's exact words so we wouldn't have to go to the trouble of so many mouse clicks. |
|
|
|
|
What would I say to him?
Well, if one of the IMO less plausible theories of his identity is true, I'd say,
"Should have worn a seatbelt!"
(too soon?)
|
|
|
|
|
"Online wallet"... "wallet service"... why it's almost as if some people don't understand what Bitcoin is about.
(or, what gbianchi said)
|
|
|
|
Worst/Best invesment in X year means from 1 January to 31 December, not from the top to the bottom in the same year.
Good God, really? Oh I can't even be bothered to google for that Nicolas Cage jpg. Just imagine it in this space. Unless of course you actually CAN'T. |
|
|
|
This is probably the worst analysis I've ever seen. The OP simply cherry picked the high and low for each year, ...
Jesus FUCK. Why can't people read? Why can't people detect irony? Why does no one have a working theory of mind any more? I know everyone on the internet loves to declare themselves autistic, but surely it can't be EVERYONE? I *didn't* read the link and I *still* figured out where the OP was coming from, largely from the three innocuous words 'let us explain'. Not 'here is a stupid argument I am making in all sincerity', but 'here is a stupid argument I am using to demonstrate the stupidity of other similar arguments'. ETA: aaaand now I've read the link, and yep it's sarcasm. They should NOT have put the last sentence in though. No need to spoonfeed the slow people. |
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to follow this thread (and the D&T one) closely. Whilst I'm still firmly on the pro side of the fork, I appreciate that some of the antis are putting forward thoughtful criticisms, objections and calls for caution. I also appreciate that this isn't exactly an either/or situation, that a number of in-between compromises or alternatives are worth exploring.
What I'm NOT interested in hearing about, over and over and OVER and OVER AND OVER ANNNNDDD OVVVVVVEEEEER is the fucking PYRAMIDS. And I suspect davout, RoadStress, D&T, tvbcof and many others could find a point of agreement on this.
So traincarswreck, please, put a sock in it. I could hit ignore, but I'm really still open to the idea that you have useful points to make.
ETA: and you can STFU about Newton and Copernicus too. As someone with a bit of physics training I'm starting to take your gibberish as a personal affront.
|
|
|
|
Just briefly glancing through here it seems like anywhere from 15-25% could be diagnosed as morbidly paranoid, with 5% of that as full bore schizophrenia. There's also a great deal of mania in this forum, with the other subforums exhibiting mania/depression or both depending on the subject. It's difficult to parse through a forum but it just seems like an unusually large number of posters here are suffering from some combination of narcissistic/victim personality disorder, either resulting from social isolation, autism spectrum diseases, substance abuse (perhaps bitcoin's primary use) or PTSD. Has anyone elucidated the link between bitcoin and mental illness? How many people here got involved in bitcoin because you couldn't function in the normal economy, or in society at large? I'm seriously asking because the idea of a currency that specifically draws the unstable members of society is fascinating from a social psychology perspective. There are certainly a very high number of sociopaths leading the bitcoin community (which explains the continuous scams and thefts of the beta member resources). Anyway if there are any normal members here you might want to commission a social worker to survey this forum for potential suicide/homicide risks or a psych researcher to try to and determine what factors of the bitcoin system are selecting for dredges. Cheers!  Forget it Jake, it's The Internet. Actually the egomania/narcissism quotient dropped considerably when Mircea Popescu's sock buggered off a few months ago. Then this blocksize limit thing started and it's gone right back up again, for the corresponding reason. |
|
|
|
before you reach that limit you'll upgrade to 50MB and quantitative ease another 10 million btc into existance to cover miners - that's how it'll end up. (not really because people won't even use the 20MB version)
What plausible reasons can you give for either of those assertions? Why *wouldn't* people use the 20MB version? Why *would* the network majority agree to create another 10 million BTC? |
|
|
|
What else would make people pay a fee? I do not think alturism would pay for an infrastructure of 300 mio USD and increasing.
What else, is that the miners don't mine if it's not profitable. And it's NOT altruism to pay a fee to the miners. You can't use bitcoin without miners, so if you want to use bitcoin, you pay a fee. If you DON'T want to use bitcoin, then surely the question of whether or not you WOULD choose to pay a fee is irrelevant? There are TWO incentives to pay fees - getting your transaction in a block, and having a bitcoin currency at all. Increasing the blocksize may attenuate the first incentive but doesn't remove the second at all. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
