Theoretically it would be sufficient to replace "unsigned int" and "fseek" by "fpos_t" and "fsetpos". But because of "CAutoFile" and "FILE *" mixing the actual fix may be quite complex.

The only clean install that I have now is Visual Studio 2012, therefore I can't really test it. But I clearly need a Windows development refresher.

Satoshi bitcoin client can't participate in transactions as required by any serious financial software, eg. CICS, Tuxedo, Microsoft Distributed Transaction Coordinator, etc. Also, bitcoind requires extensive modification to integrate with any GAAP-compliant accounting software and ACID-compliant database.

I wouldn't call it "re-doing", more like extensive "re-factoring" or "re-architecting".

But based on my over a year of participation on this forum I'm very sceptical. I haven't seen anyone proposing a new architecture for the "wallet" class/module/client that would correctly handle the asynchronous nature of P2P interface while submitting outgoing transactions. When the blockchain changes underneath the wallet the various implementations I've seen either deadlock, miscompute fees or fail in really complex ways requiring manual modification afterwards.

The worst failure mode is lack of idempotency which causes duplicate payments being made. And in Bitcoin the payments are not reversible by design.

I'll venture to guess that Nefario is the most recent victim of that last problem.

I think the "more to it that I can see" is simply that you have more patience for monotone and repeated speech than the most of other people.

I also found Goat,Rarity,bulanula,etc... entertaining to a certain degree. Even I would call them somewhat educational, in a "special education" way of learning how to deal with difficult people.

But the common thing amongst all of them was that they pretended to be idiots so well, that it was getting impossible to distinguish them from the actual idiots.

I think that sufficient condition for not getting banned here is simply to show ability to get influenced by the responses to ones own posts. Basically show a show of comprehension and an ability to change.

Acording to the above-mentioned thread Atlas has had self-imposed a ban on himself.

Thanks for letting me know. I just double-checked on the (private) code I used to maintain: I'm was using a custom build of GCC/MinGW/Cygwin made by/for a global data integrator.
Again, you are right. I most likely wouldn't notice it because of the custom modifications made in 2003-2005 to our Windows build environment. It is almost 2013 and I already forgot what was modified since Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0. It's been almost a decade of patches!

You've prompted me to make a new, truely clean, install of the Windows XP and the associated development tools.

Hmm. I'm not aware of any actual Microsoft Win32 implementation having 2GB limit. It was always 4GB-1. Many "compatible" re-implementations of FAT (or SMB) did have the 2GB limit, but Microsoft never had this problem. (Never here means at least Win95 OSR2 or WinNT 3.11 .)

Various 3rd party add-ons, like on-line antivirus, could create this situation.

My bet is on a flaky disk drive, especially if it is MLC SSD. Please run the usual battery of tests: chkdsk /f /r; smartctl and badblocks -n if you can reboot to Linux.

Ruby does have support for decimal floating point:

http://ruby-decimal.rubyforge.org/
http://flt.rubyforge.org/

http://speleotrove.com/decimal/

Please get on with the program, we have 21 century now and repeating the old "floating point is inexact" memes went out of fashion.

Thanks.

But from an artistic perspective, it's beauty.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46498.msg556688#msg556688

From the social perspective, the sacrifical good luck offerings paid to the address in the Genesis block are a confirmation of the importance of the religious thinking amongst the adopters of the Bitcoin.

Finally, from the eschatological perspective, the attempt to spend the initial 50 BTC will serve as an early warning for the return of our Creator/Saviour/Prophet. The ones who watch for this special case will know about this event about 5 minutes earlier than those who will wait for the split in the blockchain.

Dude, chill out. MysterMiner is just our token neo-nazi. Please treat reading his posts as a form of inoculation: small doses of weakened bacteria help strenghten out your immune system.

I've found a good link that will help to understand curious people why eldentyrell is unwilling to open source his Xilinx toolchain.

First, you have to really notice the world "algorihmically placed" in the title of this thread. It means that he had developed his own tool to do placing of the primitives and uses the ISE only for routing and the following stages of bitstream generation.

Second, the source form that enters the Xilinx ISE tool chain is in his case XDL, not VHDL or Verilog. XDL is the textual version of the NCD (Native Circuit Description) format used internally by the Xilinx toolchain. Try running the "xdl" tool on any .ncd file from any other open-sourced Xilinx project to understand that this format can hardly be called human-readable.

Here is the link to a very good 8-page document explaing what is XDL and why to use it:

http://www.mn.uio.no/ifi/english/research/projects/cosrecos/publications/paper/recosoc11beckhoff.pdf

I would venture to guess that the total value of the "algorithmic placer" replacement tool for the ISE toolchain greatly exceeds the BTC sums mentioned in this thread. It is quite possible that even the documentation for it (if it exists at all) would be considered extremely valuable and could be used to redevelop the actual custom placer tool for cheaper than it took to develop it originally.

I'm 100% with you on both issues: I understand that you need maintain the continuity of safety and I understand that you need to build new features in the incremental way.

But during the year since I made the inversion-of-control observation I had a very productive and educational conversation with slush in the Stratum thread. The implicit knowledge from that thread is that there is a wide gap between the stated knowledge of the Bitcoin application programmers using PR-languages (Perl,PHP,Python,Ruby,etc) and their actual skill. slush never stated it explicitly, but I had to infer it from the discrepancy of the discussion in that thread and various blog posts of the people trying to interface with both Stratum-engine and bitcoind RPC-interface.

So from the discussion with slush I learned that in order to have a decent chance at achieving full-application-stack correctness you'll need to somewhat dumb down the ideal solution. Otherwise the impedance mismatch will be still there it will just move upward into the higher tiers of the application. Your best architectural choices will be of little value if the application programmers will not be able to correctly apply them in their end-user interfaces.

To this extent I would suggest somewhat less ambitious additions to sendtoaddress: (1) upper limit of the fee (2) explicit random seed for the stochastic knapsack solver in the SelectCoins. I think (1) is fairly obvious. (2) will allow correct (and testable!) implementation of the iterative choice of a fee.

Finally, I have to say that I do not share your optimism about the applicability and suitability of boost. I have a deep feeling that the C++/boost community will struggle for many years without 100% correct implementation of exception handling in the multithreaded environment. I make this observation by comparison with IBM mainframe implementation of PL/1 exceptions (ON statement) and multiprocessing/multithreading (TASK type). IBM sometime late 60's/early 70's realized that this requires a tree of stacks to be 100% correct and made appropriate changes to the low-level function call sequences. I venture to guess that the broad C++ community will continue to struggle with the currently prevailing paradigm of collection of stacks (one per thread) and various ad-hoc partially correct solutions where lot of functionality is described in the standards as undefined.

OK, thanks for your patience while I was typing this post through my partially operational connection. Let me know if I need to clarify anything.

Actualy that is not true. bitcoind is a functional subset of bitcoin-qt in the core functionality of "sendtoaddress". And bitcoin-qt still suffers from the inversion of control problem.

I just checked the master github:
So the inversion of control in the fee calculation/addition is still there.

This isn't a patch or pull request. It is an architectural issue that requires extensive changes.

Thanks for the movie referral. I really enjoyed watching it today.

In Idiocracy the populace were conformist - they cooperated with the police and cheered when the police apprehended the fugitives.

In Bitcointalk the populace is largely non-conformist, libertarian and anarchist. They will not cooperate with the law enforcement as a matter of principle. So they make even easier targets for the abuse. Their only self defense is hitting the "Ignore" button: the libertarian ideal of ostracism as a primary law enforcement technique.

or revolution.

This time it is the geek that shall inherit the Earth.

I'm just quoting this for the future reference. "SQL magic" is a cute euphemism for "obstruction of justice" or "perverting the course of justice". I haven't seen it used before.

I have nothing to add, I'm just quoting this gem for the future reference.

IMO it is better to be upfront about the association with pornography.

BitPay came out of the need for pornographers associated with Stare Magazine to have non-reversible payment method.

Lots of merchants using BitPay will have to do extensive hand washing once this becomes a wider knowledge.

Peeps, just please stop repeating this cliche.

Conglomerate domains have their tactical uses, in this case as probably as a anti-filtering and anti-takedown measure. I don't have a specific knowledge about polimedia.us and Romania; but a conglomerate domain that would host a bitcoin securities exchange and a financial news site would have a very good prior restraint defense against stupid takedowns.

In Europe this tactic worked for the users of LiveJournal and many other traditional publishers.

This "dedicated domain name" really is a cheapo marketing shibboleth. If you don't believe me, read the post of the local hit&run marketing expert: reeses. Of course I have to quote it in full, since reeses always doing the purge of his posts before he runs.

Yeah, those threads are fun to watch. This one was started by a pure wannabe. The previous ones were started by various pretenders, for example the pretend-programmer that proposed BitClip:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=24852.msg308635#msg308635
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=24852.msg643656#msg643656

Now if there was a way to mine the deposits of comedy gold that are hidden in BitcoinTalk we would all be rich.

Edit:

Poking fun is too easy. Here's the link for some hardware wallet device proposal from somebody with an actual skill:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94119.0

I don't think that the extension would be needed. Bitcoin-denominated-securities could be supported with just a separate "digital prospectus". Such a prospectus could even do cross-blockchains validation to support truely atomic transactions.

But again: this is a long-term proposal. Lots of water will have to flow in the Alpheus and Peneus rivers to clean filth from the Augeas' stables of cryptocurrencies.

Thank you all for your comments.