Concerns about Ultraprune

[Pieter Wuille]

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.

Yes.

From the P2P side of things, you can't even observe to what kind of node you are talking (except for the version number being announced, and assuming no bugs that give it away).

[MysteryMiner]

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.

Yes.

From the P2P side of things, you can't even observe to what kind of node you are talking (except for the version number being announced, and assuming no bugs that give it away).

Then the "blockchain reordering" and "protocol change" concerns of Atlas are void.

One more question - will the new database discard spent addresses? Some places says it will, some says it will not. I am confused. What will happen to clients that rely on downloading the complete transaction history and verify all blocks and transactions in them on-the-way, like 0.3.xx does?

[ElectricMucus]

Atlas, weren't you bitching earlier about the necessity to download the whole blockchain on every node?

Now something is done about that and you hit on that?  
How about it: Convince some Alternate Cyptocurrency devs to test it out before bitcoin does it if you really are that concerned... Do something productive for gods sake.

[Pieter Wuille]

One more question - will the new database discard spent addresses? Some places says it will, some says it will not. I am confused. What will happen to clients that rely on downloading the complete transaction history and verify all blocks and transactions in them on-the-way, like 0.3.xx does?

Please just read the thread in the dev forum about it.

[paraipan]

One more question - will the new database discard spent addresses? Some places says it will, some says it will not. I am confused. What will happen to clients that rely on downloading the complete transaction history and verify all blocks and transactions in them on-the-way, like 0.3.xx does?

Please just read the thread in the dev forum about it.

I think it was this one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=119525.0

[MysteryMiner]

One more question - will the new database discard spent addresses? Some places says it will, some says it will not. I am confused. What will happen to clients that rely on downloading the complete transaction history and verify all blocks and transactions in them on-the-way, like 0.3.xx does?

Please just read the thread in the dev forum about it.

I think it was this one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=119525.0

It still keeps all blocks around for serving them to other nodes, for rescanning, and for reorganisations.

By all blocks this means all full block contents or headers of all blocks?

The idea behind ultraprune is to use an ultra-pruned copy (only unspent transaction outputs in a custom compact format) of the block chain for validation (as opposed to a transaction index into the block chain)

So the validation code but not validation rules is changed? Atlas concern about hidden bug might hold some water then. Also how will the new validating client behave when validating double-spend when the double-spends are with large time spread like few months?

[sunnankar]

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.

Why are you using the pronoun WE? What part of the Bitcoin code have you contributed?

[Pieter Wuille]

As I told you: the behaviour of a new node and an old node should be indistinguishable, from the P2P side.

This means it will create the same blocks. It will accept the same blocks, and ignore the same invalid blocks. It will relay the same blocks and transactions. It will follow exactly the same rules. You cannot tell their behavior apart, except that it is faster.

The only difference is a) the database technology changed and b) we use a set of unspent transaction outputs instead of an index into the block chain that holds the same data. A transaction output is removed from the set as soon as it is spent, and only then. This means that even if they are a hundred years apart, a double spend will not find the inputs it wants to consume, and fail.

This is not a change of the block chain. This is an evolution in the technology for validating it, and be sure that it will be tested thoroughly.

[paraipan]

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.

Why are you using the pronoun WE? What part of the Bitcoin code have you contributed?

... you're feeding it 

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

Atlas, I've got some reading for you

This.

Atlas you have good intentions and and enviable level of energy, but need to pick your battles, consult with others, and force yourself to take a timeout (my suggestion: 24hs) before starting panic threads with incendiary accusations and allegations.  There is nothing nefarious, and much to be happy about, wrt. the arrival of client blockchain handling optimizations.  The developers, wishing to avoid crowds with pitchforks at their door, will have every incentive to ensure a long test cycle that preserves the integrity of the network as well as everyone's existing wallet.  

It would be a career-ending move to introduce bugs that lost people's money or allowed invalid transactions to be accepted.  We all (including you) should be grateful that Pieter is willing to do this work for free, and chosen to put on his shoulders a great deal of risk and responsibility in order to make the reference client a more usable product.

[Pieter Wuille]

Also, let's discuss the technology itself on the development thread, not here.

[sunnankar]

... you're feeding it 

Yes, I suppose you are right. But with regards to Atlas I suppose this describes it.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Please, can everyone not just ignore this guy? I mean, really ignore him.

No. And if u r not smart enough to get why ur advice is bad then u'd better just leave this site, coz its content is beyond ur comprehension.

[MysteryMiner]

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.

Why are you using the pronoun WE? What part of the Bitcoin code have you contributed?

Everyone who runs a Bitcoin node contributes. You don't need to write a code to contribute in a P2P system.

The only difference is a) the database technology changed and b) we use a set of unspent transaction outputs instead of an index into the block chain that holds the same data.

This is answer that can put a lock on this thread. Change in database engine or structure is not going to change the results produced. It is like going from blockchain stored in plaintext databases to MySQL databases. All it can change is a performance. This is how far my knowledge in databases goes.

P.S. I also did not know that 0.3.xx have a hardcoded 4GB database limit. This probably means my 0.3.xx clients will stop functioning sometime in future. Is this explicitly written in code or something to do with BerkleyDB database engine or 32-bit limitation?

[Atlas]

There is no room to be offended at skepticism when: 1) You guys are claiming an official release through Bitcoin.org and 2) when you're dealing with a highly valued asset.

This isn't a pet project. As much as Gavin Andresen insists that nobody should take Bitcoin seriously and that he should fuck up as he likes with no liability, I say nay. I say we should treat Bitcoin as the revolutionary tool it ought to be. 

[MoonShadow]

There is no room to be offended at skepticism when: 1) You guys are claiming an official release through Bitcoin.org and 2) when you're dealing with a highly valued asset.

This isn't a pet project. As much as Gavin Andresen insists that nobody should take Bitcoin seriously and that he should fuck up as he likes with no liability, I say nay. I say we should treat Bitcoin as the revolutionary tool it ought to be. 

Your concerns have been duely noted, Atlas.  However, you have little knowledge of what is really going on here, so I consider your perspectives discounted.  Just don't upgrade yourself, and if others do and are harmed by it, you will be able to say "I told you so" because you have.

But the personal attacks will end.  I don't know what problems you have with Gavin and some of the other developers, but if you want a soapbox to attack the developers you are going to have to find somewhere else to do it.

[Atlas]

There is no room to be offended at skepticism when: 1) You guys are claiming an official release through Bitcoin.org and 2) when you're dealing with a highly valued asset.

This isn't a pet project. As much as Gavin Andresen insists that nobody should take Bitcoin seriously and that he should fuck up as he likes with no liability, I say nay. I say we should treat Bitcoin as the revolutionary tool it ought to be.  

Your concerns have been duely noted, Atlas.  However, you have little knowledge of what is really going on here, so I consider your perspectives discounted.  Just don't upgrade yourself, and if others do and are harmed by it, you will be able to say "I told you so" because you have.

But the personal attacks will end.  I don't know what problems you have with Gavin and some of the other developers, but if you want a soapbox to attack the developers you are going to have to find somewhere else to do it.

No personal attacks have been made against their persons but only their actions in the Bitcoin ecosystem. This should be encouraged.

To say I have personal issues with certain individuals is libellous.

All people with power in this ecosystem shall be questioned.