I have two questions.
1) How do you prevent transactions from/to old "bank"?
2) Is anyone besides digiraha finding blocks?
1 - blacklisted adresses are hardcoded in the new source
2 - No since 99% of miners are there for now. Expect some to migrate if digiraha gets a downtime but not especially before
1) That's what I was afraid. It's done by 'isBankInput' function, right? You just run this on every transaction. You might probably know that this is a HUGE performance issue. I was wondering why the new client reqiures so much compute power...
2) I did some solo mining on my linux box and found a block but that just crashed the client:
2014-01-29 12:54:45,198 INFO template_registry # Yay, share with diff above 100000
2014-01-29 12:54:45,199 INFO template_registry # We found a block candidate! 00000000355cee72d59b041e843acaf27 22d0e072a4090f96eca5bf0f7843328
2014-01-29 12:54:46,200 ERROR bitcoin_rpc_manager # Problem with Pool 0 -- NO ALTERNATE POOLS!!!
2014-01-29 12:54:51,201 ERROR bitcoin_rpc_manager # Problem with Pool 0 -- NO ALTERNATE POOLS!!!
2014-01-29 12:54:56,205 ERROR bitcoin_rpc_manager # Problem with Pool 0 -- NO ALTERNATE POOLS!!!
.
.
.
When compiling the client I get a couple of warnings. The original client had no warnings. Example:
db/db_impl.cc: In member function âvirtual bool leveldb::DBImpl::GetProperty(const leveldb::Slice&, std::string*)â:
db/db_impl.cc:1347:33: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions [-Wsign-compare]
I then tried to run the test suite on the code. Result:
*** 402 failures detected in test suite "eToken Test Suite"
So I suspect the client might not be 100% stable...