Bitcoin Forum
October 24, 2017, 04:10:52 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Concerns about Ultraprune  (Read 11258 times)
Atlas
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
October 21, 2012, 09:22:54 AM
 #21

Atlas I don't understand how storing data differently locally changes how this data is verified to be valid?

Also please slow down, or I'll be forced to start clicking the Delete this reply button.
When you change the format of data, couldn't it be altered if an error is made in implementing the new format?
Wouldn't bad data being verified into the blockchain mistakenly be a problem?
1508818252
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508818252

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508818252
Reply with quote  #2

1508818252
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508818252
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508818252

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508818252
Reply with quote  #2

1508818252
Report to moderator
1508818252
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508818252

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508818252
Reply with quote  #2

1508818252
Report to moderator
1508818252
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508818252

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508818252
Reply with quote  #2

1508818252
Report to moderator
Polvos
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 597



View Profile
October 21, 2012, 09:24:55 AM
 #22

Atlas, in my opinion, you are doing a great job as a bitcoin spirit guardian. I really appreciate the devil advocate rol in your defense of a independent and decentralized blockchain.

You must really be doing things great when some of the people posting here use ad hominem arguments showing a sheep brainless behaviour to your warnings.

I agree with the need of months of hard testing before launching big or potentially dangerous changes in the system.

hazek
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
October 21, 2012, 09:32:09 AM
 #23

Atlas I don't understand how storing data differently locally changes how this data is verified to be valid?

Also please slow down, or I'll be forced to start clicking the Delete this reply button.
When you change the format of data, couldn't it be altered if an error is made in implementing the new format?
Wouldn't bad data being verified into the blockchain mistakenly be a problem?


No it couldn't. Because the "mechanism" inside the entire client code that validates the data is separate from the "mechanism" that stores the data. So even if bad data gets stored, next time it's read it wont pass the valid data test by this or any other client in the network.

Therefor how data is stored is not a protocol change as you've advertised it unless they also changed the mechanism for data validation.

My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right)

If however you enjoyed my post: 15j781DjuJeVsZgYbDVt2NZsGrWKRWFHpp
Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


View Profile
October 21, 2012, 09:34:33 AM
 #24

What atlas says make sense, the problem is how he says that... A title saying "might introduce a serious change to the protocol" means nothing. The thread you opened is about BUGS in the new database system, not about the change itself. The change is fine and will greatly boost the blockchain download speed. As for bugs, well sure, the new system must be tested, but then please get a proper title  Cheesy Right now it seems the problem is the new protocol!
Atlas
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
October 21, 2012, 09:40:08 AM
 #25

What atlas says make sense, the problem is how he says that... A title saying "might introduce a serious change to the protocol" means nothing. The thread you opened is about BUGS in the new database system, not about the change itself. The change is fine and will greatly boost the blockchain download speed. As for bugs, well sure, the new system must be tested, but then please get a proper title  Cheesy Right now it seems the problem is the new protocol!

Yeah, thanks.

Hazel, my concern would then be is if these new data stores can interfere with the verification process unintentionally due to extraneous code.

My knowledge is shallow, that is true. However, I think we can agree the blockchain makes Bitcoin.
deepceleron
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile WWW
October 21, 2012, 09:40:42 AM
 #26

Welcome to my ignore list. Trolling the other pull thread too in addition to this? Your ignore button can now be even more orange.

Changes to how the blockchain is stored on a local client do not affect the Bitcoin protocol or the way signature verifications work. It can only improve things. We already see the failings of the current BerkleyDB format with its single-purpose huge index file, notably the inevitable unrecoverable corruption that comes from writing and rewriting 2GB files, and we are halfway to the file size limit of the hard-coded index. Many alternate clients already store the blockchain in different ways.

Atlas
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
October 21, 2012, 09:44:11 AM
 #27

Welcome to my ignore list. Trolling the other pull thread too in addition to this? Your ignore button can now be even more orange.

Changes to how the blockchain is stored on a local client do not affect the Bitcoin protocol or the way signature verifications work. It can only improve things. We already see the failings of the current BerkleyDB format with its single-purpose huge index file, notably the inevitable unrecoverable corruption that comes from writing and rewriting 2GB files, and we are halfway to the file size limit of the hard-coded index. Many alternate clients already store the blockchain in different ways.

Thanks, things are clearer now but I remain skeptical.

I do not fear being wrong in this case. I only fear being right. Your ignores won't influence me.
hazek
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
October 21, 2012, 09:48:59 AM
 #28

What atlas says make sense, the problem is how he says that... A title saying "might introduce a serious change to the protocol" means nothing. The thread you opened is about BUGS in the new database system, not about the change itself. The change is fine and will greatly boost the blockchain download speed. As for bugs, well sure, the new system must be tested, but then please get a proper title  Cheesy Right now it seems the problem is the new protocol!

Yeah, thanks.

Hazek, my concern would then be is if these new data stores can interfere with the verification process unintentionally due to extraneous code.

It could, but that's a bug, not a protocol change.

My knowledge is shallow, that is true.

You are quite right, it's also the source of all these ad hominem attacks against you from people who do understand it and can easily tell just how wrong you are.

However, I think we can agree the blockchain makes Bitcoin.

It does not. What makes bitcoin are rules that govern it and the mechanisms that are at work that apply these rules. The existence of the blockchain is such a mechanism, the structure of the blockchain is not.

My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right)

If however you enjoyed my post: 15j781DjuJeVsZgYbDVt2NZsGrWKRWFHpp
Atlas
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
October 21, 2012, 09:51:54 AM
 #29

What atlas says make sense, the problem is how he says that... A title saying "might introduce a serious change to the protocol" means nothing. The thread you opened is about BUGS in the new database system, not about the change itself. The change is fine and will greatly boost the blockchain download speed. As for bugs, well sure, the new system must be tested, but then please get a proper title  Cheesy Right now it seems the problem is the new protocol!

Yeah, thanks.

Hazek, my concern would then be is if these new data stores can interfere with the verification process unintentionally due to extraneous code.

It could, but that's a bug, not a protocol change.

My knowledge is shallow, that is true.

You are quite right, it's also the source of all these ad hominem attacks against you from people who do understand it and can easily tell just how wrong you are.

However, I think we can agree the blockchain makes Bitcoin.

It does not. What makes bitcoin are rules that govern it and the mechanisms that are at work that apply these rules. The existence of the blockchain is such a mechanism, the structure of the blockchain is not.

What I fear is a bug then which has been my fear from the OP. All I want is this code to be looked over very carefully.

Anyways, it's great to be wrong.
hazek
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
October 21, 2012, 09:53:09 AM
 #30

I suggest you change your OP to reflect that.

Nvm, I see you already have..

My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right)

If however you enjoyed my post: 15j781DjuJeVsZgYbDVt2NZsGrWKRWFHpp
Pieter Wuille
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


View Profile WWW
October 21, 2012, 10:34:29 AM
 #31

If we change how blocks are verified and mined, and that is done with a bug included, it could lead to massive damage for the Bitcoin network as a whole since verification is everything.

Yes, of course. This is a very fundamental change, and it will require an extraordinary amount of testing before this will end up in a release. No one is thinking about just releasing this right now. This took a long time to write and tweak to get it in its current form, and took all precautions I could to make sure it behaves exactly as the old code - I'm all aware of the risks if it happens to contain a bug. However, in my opinion it is also the right way forward. We need to make sure fully validating nodes can keep running on end-user hardware, without crippling their machines.

How this was tested:
  • I've received and sent coins with it.
  • I've p2pool-mined on an ultraprune Bitcoind with 1 GH/s for a few weeks. An actual block was found.
  • I've written code to calculate a hash of the uncompressed database state, both for the old and new schema's. In every test, they result in exactly the same hash for the same block.

Nonetheless, the change is so large that claiming that it is bug free would be naive (and in fact, a bug was probably found already, as you pointed out). That is why I asked for testers in the announcements - we need the bugs to be found now and not later.

Can you now please change the title of this thread? I find this very offensive. I've invested weeks of my personal time in doing what is necessary to deal with the increasing scalability probles, and I get this in return? I have no problem with being cautious, but there is no need for fear mongering.

aka sipa, core dev team

Tips and donations: 1KwDYMJMS4xq3ZEWYfdBRwYG2fHwhZsipa
Prattler
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 192


View Profile
October 21, 2012, 11:08:25 AM
 #32

This should not be taken lightly at all. They want to restructure the entire blockchain which could potentially break Bitcoin if implemented poorly and all the nodes accept it.

Push them not to implement this change into Bitcoin-Qt/Bitcoind until it has been tested for at least 6 months.

Atlas and Co is the real DANGER. This change will benefit bitcoin A LOT!
paraipan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Firstbits: 1pirata


View Profile WWW
October 21, 2012, 11:14:55 AM
 #33

Atlas, that is the blockchain prune you prick!  Undecided

Peter is working for almost a year on it, so you better start learning how to read code and don't spend you energy on stupid threads like this one. In the future "the literate" could be only the people who know how to read and write computer code, the rest will still believe in withes and magic like they always did.

BTCitcoin: An Idea Worth Saving - Q&A with bitcoins on rugatu.com - Check my rep
LightRider
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1495


I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.


View Profile WWW
October 21, 2012, 11:16:24 AM
 #34

Technical problems call for technical solutions, not wild arm flailing DANGER WILL ROBINSON screaming. Use testnet, report bugs, be constructive. This thread isn't helping your cause.

Bitcoin combines money, the wrongest thing in the world, with software, the easiest thing in the world to get wrong.
Visit www.thevenusproject.com and www.theZeitgeistMovement.com.
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
October 21, 2012, 11:38:40 AM
 #35

Technical problems call for technical solutions, not wild arm flailing DANGER WILL ROBINSON screaming. Use testnet, report bugs, be constructive. This thread isn't helping your cause.
Atlas is a Computer Noob, can't code, and i don't think he knows how to use a terminal.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
freequant
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770


View Profile
October 21, 2012, 11:57:39 AM
 #36


Atlas, I've got some reading for you
Herodes
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile
October 21, 2012, 01:26:20 PM
 #37

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=119525.0

This should not be taken lightly at all. They want to restructure the entire blockchain which could potentially break Bitcoin if implemented poorly and all the nodes accept it.

Push them not to implement this change into Bitcoin-Qt/Bitcoind until it has been tested for at least 6 months.

I saw the title of the thread, secondly I checked whether or not it was Atlas starting the topic. Once determined it in deed was Atlas, care no more about this thread.
Stapleddiet
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 82



View Profile
October 21, 2012, 01:55:40 PM
 #38

Atlas you seem to have a good grasp of english, perhaps you could use that to voicing your concerns in a different way. If you are really concerned about how Bitcoin fares, less sensational sounding topics to go to google would be helpful to the whole project overall.

Yankee (BitInstant)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


Charlie 'Van Bitcoin' Shrem


View Profile WWW
October 21, 2012, 01:58:43 PM
 #39

While I disagree with your methods of communication and your motives sometimes, I do agree with you here.

As Bitcoin progresses and scales up, much more is at stake.

Not only should we wait a few months and thoroughly tested, but a standard path of Quality Assurance should be implemented.

Bitcoin pioneer. An apostle of Satoshi Nakamoto. A crusader for a new, better, tech-driven society. A dreamer.

More about me: http://CharlieShrem.com
MysteryMiner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile
October 21, 2012, 02:28:10 PM
 #40

As I understand the biggest change is to a higher performance database engine and logical layout of blockchain storage on local node. To ease the mind - some alternate clients like Ufasoft Coin use custom database already that is more compact size and someone might have mined a block using Ufasoft Coin.

Will the new 0.8 client be able to communicate with 0.3.xx properly? If Yes, then it is OK because no protocol is changed. Then please not upgrade all at once and give diversity and time to test it large scale.

Are bugs dangerous? Of course they are, we must have a plan what to do when something breaks. Testing, more testing and code reviews are the way to rule out any bugs.
Quote
Wouldn't bad data being verified into the blockchain mistakenly be a problem?
There was a serious bug back in 2010 that caused blockchain rollback. Look up Wiki for this.

Still the ASCII Bernanke would be there forever!

1LEaxxAh1LKFUvDKYVhiMEVAHRM7K5o7cF
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!