(Experimental) pident — a pool-biased blockchain representation

[leveer]

Completely down now???

Each block is still being scored, just no verified owners...

[Artefact2]

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

[bz]

Seems stuck. It is not showing any updates since:

12 hours and 13 minutes ago    147,603   00000000000001b77b706b389df3ddfa9f161b66402092abc941e4dcd3f61cbc    4532 bytes    DeepBit    Scores

[wknight]

Ok who broke the server!

[Artefact2]

Ok who broke the server!

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++.)

[Litt]

so it is down for good?  

[Artefact2]

so it is down for good?  

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!

[Luke-Jr]

Didn't see this till today... do you still want that fixed patch, or have you abandoned pident entirely in the meantime?

[Artefact2]

Didn't see this till today... do you still want that fixed patch, or have you abandoned pident entirely in the meantime?

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

[Raoul Duke]

I wouldn't mind hosting it. Have an empty VPS I could use for it. But fixing it is out of my capacity as I'm not a programmer ;P

What would be the minimum requirements for the server?

[Aexoden]

I've been running my local bitcoind with the getblockbycount patch just fine. The patch has to be somewhat manually applied because there are conflicts since the last time that branch was rebased or merged. Someone should either update that branch or put an updated version somewhere else. Or even better, get the patch merged into bitcoin.

psy: In what experience I had, the biggest barrier is doing the initial load of the blockchain. It was fairly I/O intensive and wrought havoc with my VPS. I eventually had to give up (as it would have taken several days to finish), and run it instead on my local machine. However, the particular host machine my VPS is on has had a history of high I/O load from other users, so it's possible it might work better elsewhere.

[Artefact2]

psy: In what experience I had, the biggest barrier is doing the initial load of the blockchain. It was fairly I/O intensive and wrought havoc with my VPS. I eventually had to give up (as it would have taken several days to finish), and run it instead on my local machine. However, the particular host machine my VPS is on has had a history of high I/O load from other users, so it's possible it might work better elsewhere.

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.

[Raoul Duke]

The first 120k blocks are on sourceforge, zipped and ready to download

[Dusty]

Great, work, thanks!