Yeah, it took several hours for me too, the first time. It was really frustrating actually when debugging it, when the integrity breaks near the end and you have to restart everything just to debug it!

But, if you can manage to get a somewhat recent dump of the db, inserting the new missing blocks is faster. The latest backup I have is from late august and is about 420M.

Well, I don't think I will run a pident instance here on the foreseeable future, although it would be nice to actually have it in a runnable state, if anyone else wants to host it

Until someone can manage to get a working bitcoind with the getblockbycount patch, pretty much. Good news is, you can still toy with it, the source is still out there!

Turns out I did. The patched "getblockbycount" branch does not compile with the newer miniupnpc versions, so I'm basically stuck here. If anyone can fix it, it's cool. Since I didn't get any feedback about pident in the last few weeks, I thought nobody was really using it anyway…

(And, of course, merging the old getblockbyhash branch in the new tree fails. And I'm not that great with C++.)

You forgot "Put f*ckin ads in the block headers"

Hello everyone. Sorry, I moved out and I only got my internet connection back right now… I'm still quite content to see it worked fine except for the "pools not showing" problem.

It should be fixed now. Email me or reply if you have more issues

Okay, the recent changes are enough for a version bump (because why not?). There is now a cool SVG graph of pool sizes, pools are now correctly sorted by descending size. Added support for BTCServ and readded RFCPool (yes, they repoened!).

I'd like to add BitClockers, ABCPool and NinjaCoin to the list, but I can't… If you want them too, try to convince the operators to publish their blocks!

(Also, sorry for the downtime Monday & Tuesday, had a big power outage just when I left the house for 2 days…)

No. that's not how it works. It's not that simple. Please refrain yourself from posting wrong statements.

That's some nice little (and completely irrelevant) advertising you are doing there.

Your post is bullshit.

Generated coins cannot be used in transactions until they have at least 100 confirmations (but the official client won't let you until it has 120 for some reason). So, unless you do some magic with the payouts, you have to wait at least 100 confirmations until a pool can pay its rewards for this block.

This has nothing to do with transactions, which requires far less confirmations.

And, by the way, confirmations have nothing to do wrt. invalids and orphans. If you somewhat generate a better blockchain which forked 200 blocks ago, you can orphan 200 blocks at once (even the 80 "confirmed" ones). (To some extent, since the official client hardcodes some hashes in the early blockchain.) This is of course very unlikely to happen.

"There are 1,786,752 different addresses in the block chain. That's less than 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001 % of all the addresses that can be generated."

But I used 2^160 ~= 1.46e48 as the total number of addresses (Because addresses are stored as hash160s internally, and I assume every hash160 is a valid address ; if I'm wrong then correct me!).

Okay, done. Now I don't mind you donating 1 BTC for pident developement, but to be honest, I don't think a 5-line commit is worth this

This was solved on IRC, but the problem was using PostgreSQL 8.x (needs version 9 at least).

Yeah, unfortunately it's not as easy as it sounds. They don't put block hashes or block numbers, only a date. I tried to correlate the dates they give with the time headers of blocks, unsuccessfully. I tried every time zone, so I think they deliberately obfuscate their data. Until they do something about it, I can't really do much.

It's a mistake, the share count is way off. I'll try to fix it.

[Edit: fixed]

Shares don't work that way. This can't be done.

Hmm, it doesn't scale at all. Mining is flawed because it favors pooled mining (not really good for the decentralized part of the network). Also, the code of the client is pretty horrible as well. Also, the wallet.dat is stored unencrypted on the disk. Finally, we lack a wallet protocol and per-address signing.

(Edit: never mind. I should have realized you were trolling, as usual.)

Maybe. That's not my problem.

This is fubar in so many different ways, it's not even worth trying. Also, obligatory "binary magic software may steal my wallet".

Added BitMinter support. If I'm missing other pools, don't hesitate to nag me about it. (Or even better, add the support yourself and make a pull request!)