|
1262
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / [FEATURE REQUEST/BUG REPORT] Limit maximum number of connections to X
|
on: May 24, 2011, 01:13:52 PM
|
|
Hello,
I'm having theoretically unimportant but practically problematic small problem with the main bitcoin client: it produces too many connections to external clients and clogs up my bandwidth.
On my 2Mbit broadband home connection, after the client passes 100 connections, most of webpages becomes unreachable. Yeah, i know it is a weak broadband because it becomes clogged easily, but still. (For bittorrent it usually takes about 150 connections to fill the pipe up)
I would like to propose adding "-max-connections=X" command line argument and/or "max-connections=X" directive to bitcoin.conf.
----
EDIT:
It seems that actually it is UPnP support in the client that causes this. So this is more of a [BUG REPORT] than ft. request .
|
|
|
|
|
1264
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Please help test: Bitcoin version 0.3.21 release candidate
|
on: May 18, 2011, 09:24:23 AM
|
So what is the point of this feature if somebody can "fix it" just by downgrading to a slightly lower version ?
Downgrading does not "fix" it. The earlier version would broadcast the transaction, and then it would (most likely) either sit in the network with 0 confirmations for half a day or sit on your machine with 0 confirmations for a few hours, until it aged enough to graduate from the 'very low priority' category. Perhaps the theory is correct, but the practice confirms you are wrong. The 9.95 was sent by me about 1 hour after receiving it using 0.3.20 version and later I got 3 confirmations after about 45 minutes. Perhaps the criteria for requiring transaction fees are wrong ? Yes, i am absolutely certain we got 3 confirmations and i think that 45 minutes is quickly enough, isn't it ? So why require a fee ? |
|
|
|
|
1266
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Please help test: Bitcoin version 0.3.21 release candidate
|
on: May 17, 2011, 05:16:11 PM
|
RE: changing the confusing transaction fee message: good idea, and yes, "we" can.
How about:
This transaction requires a transaction fee of at least 0.0N because of its amount, complexity, or use of recently received funds
I don't want to use the word "recommend", because the GUI doesn't let you try to send them without a fee.
Gavin, i don't doubt your good intentions when requiring 0.01 fee, but this produces serious issues currently in my Bitcoin trading. Meaningly, when i tried to transfer about 9 bitcoins again after receiving 7 confirmations, i still got the "0.01 fee required because of blah blah" message. When i downgrade to 0.3.20, it does not produce this error. So what is the point of this feature if somebody can "fix it" just by downgrading to a slightly lower version ? |
|
|
|
|
1271
|
Bitcoin / Mining / Re: massAPI (deepbit & slush)
|
on: May 15, 2011, 08:14:13 PM
|
RANDOM TEXT TIME
There once was a bit in a bucket
A golden hen if you could pluck it
The miner surmised
Its eggs were well prized
If combined with a coin from Nantucket
I think will just leave this here:  |
|
|
|
|
1275
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Maximum number of bitcoins
|
on: May 15, 2011, 05:56:15 PM
|
What the hell is complicated about 0.001 BTC = 1 mBTC and 0.001 mBTC = 1 uBTC?
I refuse to believe that anyone would be too stupid to get this, even most Americans. It’s damn simple.
technically to talk about bitcoins completely you need to use nano. The issue with nano is it starts at 10^-9 so you have 10 nanobitcoins, but not 1nanobitcoin. (bitcoins only go upto 10^-8) Well, we all could just agree that when it comes to BTC, 'nano' means 10 ^ -8, instead of the usual 10 ^ -9. But that may be a bad idea. |
|
|
|
|
1276
|
Bitcoin / Mining / Re: massAPI (deepbit & slush)
|
on: May 14, 2011, 01:03:47 AM
|
Furthermore, rarlabs started from the ground up. You probably weren't even alive since then by looking at your perspective of speech. I was, i knew the difficult process winrar had to go through to just get accepted because of people like you. If you want to act tough, do it elsewhere. Get out of my thread. What, do you want to see a birth certificate to prove that I was around then? Will the short-form certificate suffice, or are you going to go all birther on me and demand a long-form copy?  Your claim isn't worth the time. It's MY thread because I created it. And without me, there would be no thread of this name and value. Sure, the hosting company owns the space it's put on, but as it hasn't been deleted yet, it seems that ownership is still legitimate. To anyone owning a thread it's a valid reason that the thread they made is theirs. Dude. No source = nobody is going to trust you. You have no reputation here. Further discussion is pointless. We had enough scammers on this forum already. A lot of money got stolen... |
|
|
|
|
1279
|
Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: decentralized Bitcoin are highly centralized to mtgox!11
|
on: May 13, 2011, 06:28:02 PM
|
Here's what I want to know...
Can anyone please give me a LIST of all the sites, businesses, etc. that are owned by "bitcoinex" or his exchange site, "btcex"....?
I want to be certain to ban them from our directory (as he is a known liar / scammer).
Haha i called him a fraud before and people told me that btcex.com is "not strictly fraud". Oh the irony. |
|
|
|
|
1280
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Gavin will visit the CIA
|
on: May 12, 2011, 08:40:52 AM
|
Bitcoin is not a secret nor a very complicated idea, they don't need to meet with anyone to learn everything about this technology in a day or two. They have their own specialists.
Of course, but they also want to hear it first hand, form the main developer. It is a complletely different thing to read some technical documentation and hear it in person from somebody who is project leader. I find it disturbing. They want to get into personal contact, watch the community, learn about relations between developers, between major traders, their lives, perhaps even to "convince" Gavin somehow to work for them as informant. What's the better way to start it than get in touch with the current lead developer? They are not your friends.
You are probably right, however the most prominent CIA guys probably are living in the times before internet & rapid FOSS development, so they don't realize that Open Source projects cannot be controlled even if you buy out a project's boss. That's the beauty of it. Sure they will most likely try convincing Gavin to come to the "dark side", but sooner or later they will realize that this gives them nothing, and they will drop the idea. I think you should just send them info - you can learn everything about Bitcoin on bitcoin.org.
Sending info is NOT the same as coming to headquarters oneself. Face-to-face communication is simply waaaaaaaaay more effective than any other means. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
