haitispaceagency
Sr. Member
 Offline
Activity: 252
Merit: 250
Coinlancer.io ICO | Oct 14th
|
 |
March 12, 2013, 03:36:24 AM |
|
So if I may say something... I learned about this glitch fairly early on and immediately hopped into the bitcoin-dev IRC room. The impression I got was one of many brilliant, professional, dedicated bitcoin developers working together to resolve the issue. I was immensely impressed with them.
Even people like Luke-Jr and myself, who seem to be mortal enemies, worked politely together and did what was needed to contain the situation and fix things. Most of the people in the room stayed respectfully quiet and let the important work occur.
To all the amazingly intelligent devs who make this crazy shit actually work, my hat is off to you (even you, Luke-Jr!). Eternally impressed with your work, coordination, and skill. And this all being done for the simple passion of Bitcoin. Quite inspiring, really.
paid shill? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the
core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dscotese
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:37:41 AM |
|
Is this where the "EXCEPTION:11DbException Db::put: Not enough space" message comes from?
Do I need to do anything on my non-mining client to fix things, or will it auto-fix itself soon?
it will fix itself. |
|
|
|
symbot
Member
Offline
Activity: 118
Merit: 10
Nobody accepts bitcoin on the moon.
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:39:01 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:40:30 AM |
|
It is my understanding that it's still possible for the problem to occur, if someone keep mining on 0.8, right? As long at 0.8 is in the field...
The defaults for 0.8 mining are just fine. However, if you increase the default block size limit, you can reintroduce the problem, yes. Don't worry though. Now that people are aware of the issue, it is easy to handle. The fork will "heal", and all coins are safe. thx for the update. |
|
|
|
|
coinhammer
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 62
Merit: 1
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:40:52 AM |
|
Watching the devs IRC you fockers are top notch!!! MAD RESPECT!!!  |
|
|
|
|
Largo
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:41:21 AM |
|
Any info on when its expected to be sorted out?
How long will it take for 0.8 clients to be in the correct chain so people can resume trading?
|
|
|
|
arruah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1357
Merit: 1004
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:41:48 AM |
|
my pool is 0.7 version  |
BCH
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1009
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:41:55 AM |
|
paid shill
Is that a confession? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
haitispaceagency
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 252
Merit: 250
Coinlancer.io ICO | Oct 14th
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:44:06 AM |
|
paid shill
Is that a confession? i had a question mark |
|
|
|
MysteryMiner
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1029
Show middle finger to system and then destroy it!
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:44:15 AM |
|
I agree that he nailed it. The problem is that he proposed a solution that wasn't necessary. This is like the CEO who says the product has to go through another full QA cycle, costing the company another $350,000 instead of letting the possibly buggy code out because the devs know that the average 200 bugs cost about $25,000 to fix. We don't bother spending the extra $325,000 just to please a CEO. With Bitcoin we as a community cannot take unnecessary risks. We can probably risk producing buggy code for Space Shuttle or automatic nuclear missile launch systems, but not with Bitcoin. Atlas main concern was different back then (ultraprune implementation and possibility to break it) but he still was right about fundamental database engine changes who might cause trouble. I also agree that no testing of 0.8.0 could reveal the fault because the unknown fault was in 0.7.x So the cautious approach of not updating paid off this time. |
bc1q59y5jp2rrwgxuekc8kjk6s8k2es73uawprre4j
|
|
|
goxed
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1006
Bitcoin / Crypto mining Hardware.
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:44:26 AM |
|
0.8 is not flawed. The flaw lied in 0.7 and below. If an upgrade was hastened, the problem would not have been a problem at all.
Sadly, 0.8 is flawed— its "one job" was to faithfully follow the behavior of 0.7, "bugs" and all. It did not. Had we known about this behavior in 0.7 or had testing turned it up we would have made sure 0.8 behaved the same way. This is the nature of a distributed consensus system. The primary definition of right and wrong is "consistent" and if you aren't consistent you aren't right, no matter what. The testing should have happened with the older version of Bitcoin. I don't see how testing 0.8 would fix this issue, given that 0.8 fixes the bug. +1 |
Revewing Bitcoin / Crypto mining Hardware.
|
|
|
|
Monster Tent
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:44:36 AM |
|
This could have really forked my day if it wasnt fixed |
|
|
|
endlesscustoms
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:45:29 AM |
|
Is this where the "EXCEPTION:11DbException Db::put: Not enough space" message comes from?
Do I need to do anything on my non-mining client to fix things, or will it auto-fix itself soon?
i have same problem and seem to be stuck on block 225441 |
|
|
|
|
|
dscotese
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:46:03 AM |
|
Yes, fixed now. You can see the sequence of orphaned blocks on blockchain.info if you want.
|
|
|
|
dree12
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:46:14 AM |
|
Am I correct that we will need upgrades for every version of the Bitcoin client, because 0.7 and lower throw exceptions when parsing any block that breaks the DB? Could this be used as a DOS attack?
So that means the versions to upgrade to will be:
0.8.1, which somehow simulates the bug in 0.7 and lower.
0.7.3, which stops throwing the exception and flat out rejects the blocks the bug breaks.
0.6.5, as 0.7.3
0.6.0.11, as above
0.5.8, as above
0.4.9, as above
0.3.25, as above
I assume there will be no need to upgrade 0.2 or below.
|
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1009
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:47:53 AM |
|
Yes, fixed now.
Fixed as in the chain containing the large block is now officially orphaned? |
|
|
|
|
|
Uglux
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:50:41 AM |
|
hilarious  |
|
|
|
|
evoorhees
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1021
Democracy is the original 51% attack
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:51:01 AM |
|
So if I may say something... I learned about this glitch fairly early on and immediately hopped into the bitcoin-dev IRC room. The impression I got was one of many brilliant, professional, dedicated bitcoin developers working together to resolve the issue. I was immensely impressed with them.
Even people like Luke-Jr and myself, who seem to be mortal enemies, worked politely together and did what was needed to contain the situation and fix things. Most of the people in the room stayed respectfully quiet and let the important work occur.
To all the amazingly intelligent devs who make this crazy shit actually work, my hat is off to you (even you, Luke-Jr!). Eternally impressed with your work, coordination, and skill. And this all being done for the simple passion of Bitcoin. Quite inspiring, really.
paid shill? Wouldn't be the first time people called me that. |
|
|
|
|
|
joecooin
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:51:27 AM |
|
I personally am surprised and delighted that we move in this direction (back to the universal fork as trunk) rather than force an upgrade.
So am I. I thought only once banks or governments start cracking down on Bitcoin we will appreciate Bitcoins's capability of graceful degration [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault-tolerant_system] but it only took a flaw to proove that it has that capability. My deep respect for the devs who took this issue on and solved it. You guys made Bitcoin and my believe in it even stronger. To blockchain eternity! Joe |
|
|
|
|
