New versions of OpenSSL such as 1.0.0Q and 1.0.0L came out.
Are they affected by the bug ?
All new versions of OpenSSL for the foreseeable future will be affected. They don't see it as a bug, as they never guaranteed consensus compatibility. Oh, that is just beautiful. We're working on a 0.9.5 (and 0.10 of course) that will softfork to make us independent of OpenSSL so this can never happen again. See sipa's proposal at http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg06744.html |
|
|
|
New versions of OpenSSL such as 1.0.0Q and 1.0.0L came out.
Are they affected by the bug ?
All new versions of OpenSSL for the foreseeable future will be affected. They don't see it as a bug, as they never guaranteed consensus compatibility. |
|
|
|
Anyone want to throw out their lowest stable underclock command line?
Hm, I tried this command, but the Monarch still goes full blast: bfgminer.exe --set bitforce:_cmd1=F1X --set bitforce:_cmd1=V0X -o stratum+tcp://stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333 -u XXX -p XXX Also I get loads of these: [2015-01-19 17:33:51] BFL 0ee: Failed to find work for queue results: 2BD0,6C,1
41BCB839
[2015-01-19 17:33:51] BFL 0eb: Failed to find work for queue results: 2BC9,69,1
B94B99AB
[2015-01-19 17:33:51] BFL 0ar: Failed to find work for queue results: 2BCA,11,2
DA71CA12,D614DE35
[2015-01-19 17:33:51] BFL 0cf: Failed to find work for queue results: 2BBC,39,0
[2015-01-19 17:33:51] BFL 0dl: Failed to find work for queue results: 2BB5,59,1
82CD91C6
[2015-01-19 17:33:51] BFL 0bi: Failed to find work for queue results: 2BB9,22,1 All I can say is ask BFL... Probably you should make a debug log and put it on Google Drive or something to send them (feel free to open an issue on GitHub if you want me to confirm from that log everything is okay in BFG). |
|
|
|
@Luke-jr: how much work would be needed to modify the lowl-ftdi code to support the ft2232h as well?
I ask before I go usb to SPI&I2C interface shopping
Not sure, but I think the ft2232h is just a dual-channel version of the ft232h, which lowl-ftdi already supports (to some extent) for the BFx2. |
|
|
|
FWIW, I politely reported the copyright violation (the code being a copy of Bitcoin Core run through an auto-formatter with all the attribution removed) as an issue on the github for the project and john-connor accused me of stalking him and then hid the issue tracker on that github from public view. :-/
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as it's consistent with the rest of the concerns that resulted in creating this thread-- that there is some ongoing effort to keep that work out of the sunlight.
copyright violation? enlighthen me please since Bitcoin Core is an open source as far as i know Bitcoin Core is copyrighted open source, as most open source software is. If you violate the license terms, you can never copy it again, unless the copyright holders give you a new license. who is the copyright holder then?Sathoshi Nagamoto? Each individual contributor holds copyright to his contribution. That means any of us can DMCA or sue for copyright infringement, and that someone who has infringed on the license needs to get permission from each and every one of us, before they can distribute/copy Bitcoin Core ever again (even unmodified). (and yes, you're right that they will have a difficult time getting permission from Satoshi...) |
|
|
|
How can you underclock the Monarch?
--set bitforce:_cmd1=F?? --set bitforce:_cmd1=V?X Are those in the 5.0.0 release? They go back all the way to 4.0.0  |
|
|
|
FWIW, I politely reported the copyright violation (the code being a copy of Bitcoin Core run through an auto-formatter with all the attribution removed) as an issue on the github for the project and john-connor accused me of stalking him and then hid the issue tracker on that github from public view. :-/
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as it's consistent with the rest of the concerns that resulted in creating this thread-- that there is some ongoing effort to keep that work out of the sunlight.
copyright violation? enlighthen me please since Bitcoin Core is an open source as far as i know Bitcoin Core is copyrighted open source, as most open source software is. If you violate the license terms, you can never copy it again, unless the copyright holders give you a new license. |
|
|
|
so i have openssl 1.0.1f but everything seems up to date with the blockchain w/o any obvious problems. any need to reindex?
If you have 0.9.4 or 0.10.0rc3, and your blockchain isn't stuck already, you don't need to reindex. If you're not on the latest versions, then if your blockchain isn't stuck, it will be eventually. |
|
|
|
Sorry, but what is the actually BC version atm?
0.9.4 is current stable. 0.10.0rc3 is release candidate. |
|
|
|
Gentoo 0.8.6-r1 and 0.9.3-r1 have the patch to workaround the issue. LibreSSL isn't reinventing the wheel, but rather repairing a broken wheel. As LibreSSL grows more mature, and since it's a drop-in replacement for OpenSSL, it will with time deprecate OpenSSL and I'm sure the Bitcoin devs are wise enough to make the switch at some point.
Unless LibreSSL is guaranteeing bug-for-bug compatibility with old OpenSSL, it cannot safely be used with Bitcoin. That means it MUST make sure all bugs in OpenSSL 1.0.1j are still bugs in LibreSSL. As far as I know, that is not a goal of either OpenSSL nor LibreSSL, and is exactly why the new version of OpenSSL breaks Bitcoin by fixing a bug. |
|
|
|
What would be the right grammar to add both, "stratum+tcp://stratum.nicehash.com/#xnsub#skipcbcheck"?
Luke-Jr, it would be very useful if you would include a section in README explaining all #xxx pool parameters and the correct usage of them (syntax). Currently these options/features are only mentioned in NEWS... I agree it would be useful. Perhaps some non-coder can contribute these kind of changes?  |
|
|
|
What would be the right grammar to add both, "stratum+tcp://stratum.nicehash.com/#xnsub#skipcbcheck"? Yes |
|
|
|
How can you underclock the Monarch?
--set bitforce:_cmd1=F?? The first "?" is a frequency index, from 1 to F (hexadecimal). Due to dynamic clocking in the MCU, there are no set frequency numbers. The second "?" is either "X" for normal speed, or "D" for double speed. You can also use --set bitforce:_cmd1=V?X to control voltage. In this case, the "?" is one of: - 0 = 0.54 V
- 1 = 0.55 V
- 2 = 0.56 V
- 3 = 0.58 V
- 4 = 0.6 V
- 5 = 0.62 V
- 6 = 0.63 V
- 7 = 0.643 V
- 8 = 0.65 V
- 9 = 0.662 V
- A = 0.67 V
- B = 0.68 V
- C = 0.7 V
- D = 0.72 V
- E = 0.73 V
- F = 0.75 V
|
|
|
|
the problem is if BFG does not detect "shares" being accepted it throws up an idle error after 60 seconds. No, it doesn't. That error means the device has stopped responding entirely. |
|
|
|
I noticed those as well. They make me wonder whether Bitcoin Core should try to identify and drop useless peers when getting close to the connection limit.
I have all 8 connected to my testing node, what makes them useless? They're worse than useless - maintaining a persistent connection to every node is a serious privacy issue. Each node can also only have a limited number of connections, each of which consume resources. |
|
|
|
I think the world is not ready for sidechains yet, most people still didn't even understand bitcoin itself. No fork is currently proposed because there's a lot to do making bitcoin user-friendly and more used.
The reference client is not ment to be user friendly. Remember, this is a protocol, not a mom and pop application. It is being developed for developers in my point of view. I am not talking about the reference client. Or any client. Or any piece of software. I am talking about the whole idea of bitcoin and protocol, it needs to be improved/polish in ways that facilitate understanding and adoption, and sidechains are the opposite of that. Most people will never understand the protocol. Nor do they need to, in order to use/adopt Bitcoin. Sidechains are practically necessary to make most other changes. |
|
|
|
Once the SPV peg test sidechain is mature/stable/well-tested to everyone's satisfaction, at that point there can be a softfork to make it the "main" blockchain (at which point the federated peg becomes unnecessary and goes away).
Would you share some technical goals for that new main candidate? As gmaxwell said, it's far too premature to be talking about any concrete plans for this. |
|
|
|
Hmm, someone just sent me some µBTC via Backslash, but it wants me to sign up to get them... :/ How can I retrieve them without signing up? |
|
|
|
My question is: you say you can send bitcoins to "anyone" - but does that include being able to send bitcoins to bitcoin users? That is, to an explicit bitcoin address and/or via the payment protocol, so the recipient isn't forced to sign up for Backslash?
If not, this is just an ewallet that forces others to use it rather than Bitcoin itself.
It does, I withdrew to my Bitcoin wallet. It was processed instantly. That's withdrawing, not sending. I suppose you could withdraw to someone else's address, but some services have rules against that. I sent to an address. I said withdrawing as it was effectively that. It detected it was a blockchain transfer and mentioned the 0.1mBTC transaction fee. Ah, nice. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
