MPOE-PR (OP)
|
|
March 12, 2013, 01:24:05 AM |
|
This matter was apparently for the first time discussed here, which is in itself ridiculously late, but the recent events illustrate the need of having the various issues much more clearly delineated. Recently Bitcoin came close to unmitigated disaster, in the following way: Gavin diplomatically suggested that miners increase their block size, from the previous magic number of "250k" to something they themselves pick. This approach is flawed: the solution to the problem of having a magic number in the code is not passing the responsibility of choosing it to a larger group. It may work politically, in the sense that where large, vague groups are responsible for a bad move nobody will ever be hung. It does not work practically. This point does not begin to get sufficient emphasis: stop thinking politically, stick to thinking practically. The political importance, usefulness or competence of a dev is nil. This is not your job, and more importantly this is one of the things you suck at the most. A casual skim through the -dev sessions is ample proof for this, more ridiculous dickwad posturing and knowshitism has never before been seen (outside of the mailing lists of some meanwhile failed open source projects). Snap out of it. Stick to writing code. But we digress: as a result of a number of miners implementing their own version of a magic miner, a number of large blocks were created and mined by them, as long as they ran 0.8. Miners running 0.7 failed to mine these same blocks, and a fork developed. The reason is that Bitcoin code sucks. It's not that "the blocksize", it's not that "the database", it's not that "nobody could have foreseen their using a plane like a rocket". That shit does not belong in this discussion, passing the buck is not and cannot be accepted in Bitcoin. The reason is that Bitcoin code sucks, and Bitcoin code sucks because people want to be Bitcoin devs, people want to call each other Bitcoin devs, people want to participate in idle irc chatter as if they in fact were Bitcoin devs, but those same people do not have either the ability or intellectual resources to write dependable, usable, good, clean code. This is a problem, and this problem needs to be resolved, preferably by the people who are causing it. You know yourselves, I won't name and shame. Fix your heads. You won't be getting much more warning. Today will go down in history as the day when Bitcoin nearly died, and its fate depended on BTC-Guild staying online. Stop and think for a minute. What are you doing here? Why are you here, really?
|
|
|
|
misterbigg
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001
|
|
March 12, 2013, 01:31:38 AM Last edit: March 12, 2013, 03:11:38 AM by misterbigg |
|
Talk about armchair quarterbacking. How easy it is for someone to just sit back and point the finger. Have you seen the Bitcoin software? Do you understand C++ code? It's complicated, and the rules which have evolved in response to strengthening the network are not so easily factored into neat code compartments.
Instead of bitching why don't you write your own client that has clean code?
|
|
|
|
JonSnow
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
March 12, 2013, 01:32:09 AM |
|
Likewise, misterbigg.
|
|
|
|
Bowjob
|
|
March 12, 2013, 01:35:22 AM |
|
Mhm.. Sell?
|
It seemed like a good idea at the time.
|
|
|
xcsler
|
|
March 12, 2013, 01:42:50 AM |
|
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
|
|
|
|
pizzaman1337
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 37
Merit: 0
|
|
March 12, 2013, 01:45:00 AM |
|
This matter was apparently for the first time discussed here, which is in itself ridiculously late, but the recent events illustrate the need of having the various issues much more clearly delineated. Recently Bitcoin came close to unmitigated disaster, in the following way: Gavin diplomatically suggested that miners increase their block size, from the previous magic number of "250k" to something they themselves pick. This approach is flawed: the solution to the problem of having a magic number in the code is not passing the responsibility of choosing it to a larger group. It may work politically, in the sense that where large, vague groups are responsible for a bad move nobody will ever be hung. It does not work practically. This point does not begin to get sufficient emphasis: stop thinking politically, stick to thinking practically. The political importance, usefulness or competence of a dev is nil. This is not your job, and more importantly this is one of the things you suck at the most. A casual skim through the -dev sessions is ample proof for this, more ridiculous dickwad posturing and knowshitism has never before been seen (outside of the mailing lists of some meanwhile failed open source projects). Snap out of it. Stick to writing code. But we digress: as a result of a number of miners implementing their own version of a magic miner, a number of large blocks were created and mined by them, as long as they ran 0.8. Miners running 0.7 failed to mine these same blocks, and a fork developed. The reason is that Bitcoin code sucks. It's not that "the blocksize", it's not that "the database", it's not that "nobody could have foreseen their using a plane like a rocket". That shit does not belong in this discussion, passing the buck is not and cannot be accepted in Bitcoin. The reason is that Bitcoin code sucks, and Bitcoin code sucks because people want to be Bitcoin devs, people want to call each other Bitcoin devs, people want to participate in idle irc chatter as if they in fact were Bitcoin devs, but those same people do not have either the ability or intellectual resources to write dependable, usable, good, clean code. This is a problem, and this problem needs to be resolved, preferably by the people who are causing it. You know yourselves, I won't name and shame. Fix your heads. You won't be getting much more warning. Today will go down in history as the day when Bitcoin nearly died, and its fate depended on BTC-Guild staying online. Stop and think for a minute. What are you doing here? Why are you here, really? MPOE-PR, what are you doing here? Why are you really here? Has MPEx considered hiring "good" programmers to work on the bitcoin code?
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR (OP)
|
|
March 12, 2013, 01:48:47 AM |
|
MPOE-PR, what are you doing here? Why are you really here?
Has MPEx considered hiring "good" programmers to work on the bitcoin code?
Considered, yes. One problem is the centralization issue stemming from that approach. The one correct way to handle Bitcoin development is exactly as designed: independent devs doing it. The problem is that instead of doing it they spend their time opining on things that utterly ain't their business.
|
|
|
|
alexkravets
|
|
March 12, 2013, 01:49:10 AM |
|
Time to deversify into Ripple ledger chain, lol
Seriously, the bug was in old 0.7 version but it got a chance to manifest only because of an incomplete .8 rollout WHILE at the same time suggestion was made to increase soft block size limit.
Lesson: do only ONE major change at a time and let the dust settle before moving to the next one
|
|
|
|
misterbigg
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001
|
|
March 12, 2013, 01:52:33 AM |
|
Devs handled this like fucking pros. Bullish for bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
|
March 12, 2013, 01:52:57 AM |
|
MPOE-PR, what are you doing here? Why are you really here?
Has MPEx considered hiring "good" programmers to work on the bitcoin code?
Considered, yes. One problem is the centralization issue stemming from that approach. The one correct way to handle Bitcoin development is exactly as designed: independent devs doing it. The problem is that instead of doing it they spend their time opining on things that utterly ain't their business. What's stopping your company from hiring one developer to do nothing but code cleanups and submitting them to GitHub? There's nothing centralized about that.
|
|
|
|
paraipan
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 924
Merit: 1004
Firstbits: 1pirata
|
|
March 12, 2013, 01:52:59 AM |
|
Damn, you had to be the one to bring the bad news... Be back in a minute, have to patch some software.
|
BTCitcoin: An Idea Worth Saving - Q&A with bitcoins on rugatu.com - Check my rep
|
|
|
MPOE-PR (OP)
|
|
March 12, 2013, 01:59:07 AM |
|
What's stopping your company from hiring one developer to do nothing but code cleanups and submitting them to GitHub? There's nothing centralized about that.
Because cleanups would require very deep reaching changes. If we hired a cleanup dev his #1 task would be "find and remove all magic numbers anywhere in the codebase". Meanwhile listen to these idiots: gavinandresen petertodd: what would you think of a max block size set so a crappy broadband user of today could still validate and mine everything, with a limit set to increase by 20% a year (the approximate rate of bandwidth increase these days) ? MORE MAGIC NUMBERS. It looks more like a lost cause than anything. And no, the fact that "we're fixing it" does not impress me in the slightest, and NO, they're not handling it "like pros".
|
|
|
|
alexkravets
|
|
March 12, 2013, 02:01:44 AM |
|
Another way to state the real problem: There is no Bitcoin Protocol Spec, most semantics buried in the hairball of the C++ reference implementation
|
|
|
|
NegativeNancy
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 39
Merit: 0
|
|
March 12, 2013, 02:03:00 AM |
|
I guess that's your cue to leave. Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
|
March 12, 2013, 02:03:55 AM |
|
Because cleanups would require very deep reaching changes. And? If you say you know what the problem is, and have the ability to correct it, why complain about it unless you're going to do something?
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR (OP)
|
|
March 12, 2013, 02:04:47 AM |
|
Another way to state the real problem: There is no Bitcoin Protocol Spec, most semantics buried in the hairball of the C++ reference implementation
That would be correct. It's a huge issue.
|
|
|
|
Severian
|
|
March 12, 2013, 02:08:25 AM |
|
Because cleanups would require very deep reaching changes.
Then you should develop your own cryptocoin with code that even a blind man could read. It sounds like you already have it figured out. This is an experiment. Something like Bitcoin has never been done before. I don't recall getting any guarantee when I got my coins or sent transactions, do you?
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR (OP)
|
|
March 12, 2013, 02:11:06 AM |
|
Because cleanups would require very deep reaching changes.
Then you should develop your own cryptocoin with code that even a blind man could read. It sounds like you already have it figured out. This is an experiment. Something like Bitcoin has never been done before. I don't recall getting any guarantee when I got my coins or sent transactions, do you? This (and the rest of the mindless crap) has nothing to do with the matter. A guarantee or no guarantee doesn't make the lift eyelid insert fork person any less of an idiot. Let's try and stick to the topic.
|
|
|
|
lophie
|
|
March 12, 2013, 02:12:28 AM |
|
On 2011 an external factor made Bitcoin nose dive...... Imagine what would happen this time.... Don't kid yourselves like some people in the IRC room. This is the biggest problem Bitcoin ever faced and it is waaaaay bigger than the MTGox. hack.
I am not pulling out I am just pissed off Bitcoin will suffer greatly because the DEVS MADE A MISTAKE! you dont freaking PUSH such things without proper testing. EVER HEARD OF TESTNET!!!!!!
|
Will take me a while to climb up again, But where is a will, there is a way...
|
|
|
Severian
|
|
March 12, 2013, 02:13:47 AM |
|
Let's try and stick to the topic.
The topic is you calling a group pf people idiots that are doing something you can't do.
|
|
|
|
|