Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 02:46:22 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: cbitcoin - Bitcoin implementation in C. Currently in development.  (Read 18452 times)
MatthewLM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile WWW
August 15, 2012, 07:29:48 PM
 #101

Good luck with that python project. I take it that the client will use the SPV model?

cbitcoin wont be a bitcoin client but will provide the low-level interface for creating a client. After cbitcoin reaches alpha stage I will start working on the client on top of cbitcoin which is currently code-named BitEagle.

And I'm close to alpha stage. I've just got to sort out the address discovery and do the block validation code. cbitcoin wont relay/download transactions or blocks. cbitcoin only has a low level interface to the bitcoin network and also provides handshakes, pings and address discovery. You can choose to turn these features on or off using flags, so for instane you may not want address discovery if you plan to connect to specific nodes only and you may wish to implement your own behaviour.

Bitcoin Extra Wallet | Peercoin Android Wallet
BTC: 1D5A1q5d192j5gYuWiP3CSE5fcaaZxe6E9  PPC: PH7fVn1Xs7nkUFmdwCX2ZRYfLPCSwGxAq9
1481208382
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481208382

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481208382
Reply with quote  #2

1481208382
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481208382
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481208382

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481208382
Reply with quote  #2

1481208382
Report to moderator
1481208382
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481208382

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481208382
Reply with quote  #2

1481208382
Report to moderator
1481208382
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481208382

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481208382
Reply with quote  #2

1481208382
Report to moderator
jgarzik
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
August 15, 2012, 07:38:26 PM
 #102

Nice! im only testing against the satoshi client for now. im also making an alternative client in python. Tongue
so far i can download and verify blocks and transactions(mostly... have implemented a hacky replacement for the scripting, just ripping out the sig and publickey and checks if it verifyes...). i have no working wallet for now, but i can send hand crafted transactions.

If you are using python, please consider using the 'bitcoin' module found in https://github.com/jgarzik/pynode

It already does full script and block verification.

The only major to-do is chain reorg, and that does not impact the 'bitcoin' module at all.


Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 16, 2012, 07:30:22 AM
 #103

Good luck with that python project. I take it that the client will use the SPV model?
no, it will be a full blown client. but it will be very modular so a SPV would be very simple to make with the codebase

Quote
cbitcoin wont be a bitcoin client but will provide the low-level interface for creating a client. After cbitcoin reaches alpha stage I will start working on the client on top of cbitcoin which is currently code-named BitEagle.
awesome!

Quote
And I'm close to alpha stage. I've just got to sort out the address discovery and do the block validation code. cbitcoin wont relay/download transactions or blocks. cbitcoin only has a low level interface to the bitcoin network and also provides handshakes, pings and address discovery. You can choose to turn these features on or off using flags, so for instane you may not want address discovery if you plan to connect to specific nodes only and you may wish to implement your own behaviour.
i python i have created a seperat class, that controls block down/up-loading behavior, and another class that keeps track of the addresses.
...and i have not implemented ping yet, because im lazy and its not really an important feature(but connections closes sometimes...)

happy coding!

"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
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 16, 2012, 07:38:34 AM
 #104

Nice! im only testing against the satoshi client for now. im also making an alternative client in python. Tongue
so far i can download and verify blocks and transactions(mostly... have implemented a hacky replacement for the scripting, just ripping out the sig and publickey and checks if it verifyes...). i have no working wallet for now, but i can send hand crafted transactions.

If you are using python, please consider using the 'bitcoin' module found in https://github.com/jgarzik/pynode

It already does full script and block verification.

The only major to-do is chain reorg, and that does not impact the 'bitcoin' module at all.


+1 will look into it. Smiley

"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
MatthewLM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile WWW
August 16, 2012, 02:33:05 PM
 #105

When you get to validating scripts fully it would be a good idea to test the scripts with the scripts the original client uses. I've made a file with many tests written in my script format, with a line for the script followed by 1 if the script should be valid and 0 is it should not. This includes tests from the C++ client: https://github.com/MatthewLM/cbitcoin/blob/master/test/scriptCases.txt

For the scripts I use this BNF:

Code:
<digit> = "0" | "1" | "2" | "3" | "4" | "5" | "6" | "7" | "8" | "9" | "a" | "b" | "c" | "d" | "e" | "f" | "A" | "B" | "C" | "D" | "E" | "F"
 <hex_digits> ::= <digit> | <digit> <hex_digits>
 <hex> ::= "0x" <hex_digits>
 <operation_name> = "0" | "FALSE" | "1NEGATE" | "RESERVED" | "1" | "TRUE" | "2" | "3" | "4" |  "5" | "6" | "7" | "8" | "9" | "10" | "11" | "12" | "13" | "14" | "15" | "16" | "NOP" | "VER" | "IF" | "NOTIF" | "VERIF" | "VERNOTIF" | "ELSE" | "ENDIF" | "VERIFY" | "RETURN" | "TOALTSTACK" | "FROMALTSTACK" | "2DROP" | "2DUP" | "3DUP" | "2OVER" | "2ROT" | "2SWAP" | "IFDUP" | "DEPTH" | "DROP" | "DUP" | "NIP" | "OVER" | "PICK" | "ROLL" | "ROT" | "SWAP" | "TUCK" | "CAT" | "SUBSTR" | "LEFT" | "RIGHT = 0x81" | "SIZE" | "INVERT" | "AND" | "OR" | "XOR" | "EQUAL" | "EQUALVERIFY" | "RESERVED1" | "RESERVED2" | "1ADD" | "1SUB" | "2MUL" | "2DIV" | "NEGATE" | "ABS" | "NOT" | "0NOTEQUAL" | "ADD" | "SUB" | "MUL" | "DIV" | "MOD" | "LSHIFT " | "RSHIFT" | "BOOLAND" | "BOOLOR" | "NUMEQUAL" | "NUMEQUALVERIFY" | "NUMNOTEQUAL" | "LESSTHAN" | "GREATERTHAN" | "LESSTHANOREQUAL" | "GREATERTHANOREQUAL" | "MIN" | "MAX" | "WITHIN" | "RIPEMD160" | "SHA1" | "SHA256" | "HASH160" | "HASH256" | "CODESEPARATOR" | "CHECKSIG" | "CHECKSIGVERIFY" | "CHECKMULTISIG" | "CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY" | "NOP1" | "NOP2" | "NOP3" | "NOP4" | "NOP5" | "NOP6" | "NOP7" | "NOP8" | "NOP9" | "NOP10"
 <operation> ::= "OP_" <operation_name>
 <lines> ::= "\n" | "\n" <lines>
 <seperator> ::= <lines> | " "
 <operation_or_hex> ::= <operation> | <hex>
 <seperated_operation_or_hex> ::= <operation_or_hex> <seperator>
 <script_body> ::= <seperated_operation_or_hex> | <seperated_operation_or_hex> <script_body> | ""
 <lines_or_none> ::= <lines> | ""
 <operation_or_hex_or_none> ::= <operation_or_hex> | ""
 <script> ::= <lines_or_none> <script_body> <operation_or_hex_or_none>

I do now have an issue with EPIPE: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11990700/broken-pipe-epipe-on-connection-to-loopback-address

Bitcoin Extra Wallet | Peercoin Android Wallet
BTC: 1D5A1q5d192j5gYuWiP3CSE5fcaaZxe6E9  PPC: PH7fVn1Xs7nkUFmdwCX2ZRYfLPCSwGxAq9
MatthewLM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile WWW
August 19, 2012, 11:19:40 PM
 #106

The EPIPE problem might be with libevent. I'll try libev (which is apparently better...). If anyone knows libev and would like to help, please get in touch.

Bitcoin Extra Wallet | Peercoin Android Wallet
BTC: 1D5A1q5d192j5gYuWiP3CSE5fcaaZxe6E9  PPC: PH7fVn1Xs7nkUFmdwCX2ZRYfLPCSwGxAq9
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 20, 2012, 11:41:43 AM
 #107

 signal(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN) ?

"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
MatthewLM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile WWW
August 20, 2012, 01:41:40 PM
 #108

That is for ignoring SIGPIPE. I disable SIGPIPE via SO_NOSIGPIPE and MSG_NOSIGNAL.

The problem is the EPIPE that shouldn't be there. The connection over the loopback IP is not always working for some reason.

UPDATE: It seems the other side of the connection does not accept before the connection event is received..

Code:
CN CONNECTION WAIT
CN CONNECTED OK
CN CONNECTION WAIT
CN SENT version

When printing everything out it says the connection is OK but there was not accept. There should be at least a "L1 TRIED ACCEPT" in there.

UPDATE 2: Edge triggered events also fail.

UPDATE 3: Adding the events after trying the connection does nothing to help.

Bitcoin Extra Wallet | Peercoin Android Wallet
BTC: 1D5A1q5d192j5gYuWiP3CSE5fcaaZxe6E9  PPC: PH7fVn1Xs7nkUFmdwCX2ZRYfLPCSwGxAq9
MatthewLM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile WWW
August 21, 2012, 05:32:04 PM
 #109

So I made an attempted implementation of the networking code using libev. The problem is it doesn't work. If anyone can get it to work, please help. I've comited the changes. This is the new libev code: https://github.com/MatthewLM/cbitcoin/blob/master/dependencies/sockets/CBLibevSockets.c

When I run it, it seems to occasionally partially work any other times it will not work. For instance here:

Code:
CN CONNECTION WAIT
CN CONNECTION WAIT
L2 TRIED ACCEPT
L2 MADE ACCEPT
L2 HAS ACCEPTED OK
CN CONNECTED OK
CN CONNECTED OK

The connecting CBNetworkCommunicator waits for the connections, the second listening CBNetworkCommunicator accepts the connection but then the connecting CBNetworkCommunicator thinks both connections are fine when only one was accepted. Then the next time I run it:

Code:
CN CONNECTION WAIT
CN CONNECTION WAIT

So the connecting CBNetworkCommunicator waits for the connections but they do not get accepted.

Why is this so hard? It surely isn't meant to be this hard.

Edit: To allow time for any help to arrive (if ever) I'll skip this for now and move onto block validation and P2SH.

Bitcoin Extra Wallet | Peercoin Android Wallet
BTC: 1D5A1q5d192j5gYuWiP3CSE5fcaaZxe6E9  PPC: PH7fVn1Xs7nkUFmdwCX2ZRYfLPCSwGxAq9
MatthewLM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile WWW
August 22, 2012, 01:35:38 PM
 #110

I modified the libevent code to detect socket errors during the connect event.

Code:
void CBDidConnect(evutil_socket_t socketID,short eventNum,void * arg){
CBEvent * event = arg;
if (eventNum & EV_TIMEOUT) {
// Timeout for the connection
event->loop->onTimeOut(event->loop->communicator,event->node,CB_TIMEOUT_CONNECT);
}else{
int optval = -1;
socklen_t optlen = sizeof(optval);
getsockopt(socketID, SOL_SOCKET, SO_ERROR, &optval, &optlen);
if (optval)
// Act as timeout
event->loop->onTimeOut(event->loop->communicator,event->node,CB_TIMEOUT_CONNECT);
else
// Connection successful
event->onEvent.ptr(event->loop->communicator,event->node);
}
}

Occasionally optval is given as 61 (ECONNREFUSED). Still begs the question, why is there a ECONNREFUSED for a loopback connection?

Edit: Fixed it, needed to use SO_REUSEADDR.

Problem now seems to be that the connecting CBNetworkCommunicator is not replying to getaddr requests.

Edit 2: Well the reason why is because the addresses are not broadcast. So you might expect the connecting CBNetworkCommunicator to relay the addresses when they are broadcast but this is only done for unsolicited addr messages and at the time the CBNetworkCommunicator has made the original getaddr request so it does not relay the addresses. As far as I can tell this is successfully following the behaviour of the original client. I'll simply set the addresses as being public so that they are always given in getaddr responses.

Bitcoin Extra Wallet | Peercoin Android Wallet
BTC: 1D5A1q5d192j5gYuWiP3CSE5fcaaZxe6E9  PPC: PH7fVn1Xs7nkUFmdwCX2ZRYfLPCSwGxAq9
MatthewLM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile WWW
August 25, 2012, 09:30:03 PM
 #111

Good news. Just now my networking code past the unit test for the first time. I'm fast approaching alpha stage now. I just need to implement the block validation code. I suspect that will be easier than the horrid networking code. Also I should finnish the libev implementation of the networking.

Bitcoin Extra Wallet | Peercoin Android Wallet
BTC: 1D5A1q5d192j5gYuWiP3CSE5fcaaZxe6E9  PPC: PH7fVn1Xs7nkUFmdwCX2ZRYfLPCSwGxAq9
MatthewLM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile WWW
August 26, 2012, 11:44:27 PM
 #112

So far I've discovered the way bitcoin uses targets is silly. For instance, what is the point in blocks containing the target? That's calculated by clients. Also the way you can't have a mantissa over 7FFFFF is stupid. The fact the original client uses a bignum to do calculations is stupid. So yes, it's silly.

Validating blocks is not as nice as I thought it was. I keep finding weird parts of the bitcoin protocol.

Bitcoin Extra Wallet | Peercoin Android Wallet
BTC: 1D5A1q5d192j5gYuWiP3CSE5fcaaZxe6E9  PPC: PH7fVn1Xs7nkUFmdwCX2ZRYfLPCSwGxAq9
jgarzik
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
August 27, 2012, 02:33:08 PM
 #113

So far I've discovered the way bitcoin uses targets is silly. For instance, what is the point in blocks containing the target?

At a minimum, you do not need the entire blockchain history just to validate the block matches the target.

Quote
Also the way you can't have a mantissa over 7FFFFF is stupid.

By "stupid" ITYM avoiding pointless, redundant support that would exist only to enhance the artificial sense of completeness that some computer scientists need.

It's quite efficient, considering the limited storage (32 bits) into which a much larger number is stored.


Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
MatthewLM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile WWW
August 27, 2012, 03:33:42 PM
 #114

Quote
At a minimum, you do not need the entire blockchain history just to validate the block matches the target.

But you need the history to validate the proof of work regardless. Why not just check the proof of work when you are able to calculate the target all the way to the block. Is there any point in doing it earlier?

Here's my implementation of retargeting and proof of work validation: https://github.com/MatthewLM/cbitcoin/blob/master/src/CBValidationFunctions.c

Bitcoin Extra Wallet | Peercoin Android Wallet
BTC: 1D5A1q5d192j5gYuWiP3CSE5fcaaZxe6E9  PPC: PH7fVn1Xs7nkUFmdwCX2ZRYfLPCSwGxAq9
Pieter Wuille
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile WWW
August 27, 2012, 05:06:08 PM
 #115

Quote
At a minimum, you do not need the entire blockchain history just to validate the block matches the target.

But you need the history to validate the proof of work regardless. Why not just check the proof of work when you are able to calculate the target all the way to the block. Is there any point in doing it earlier?

It's certainly faster to be able to do some checks before requiring the parent to exist. This allows you to validate the PoW of received orphan blocks, before bothering to request parent. Also, it allows doing some checks on a received block before needing a lock on the block tree data structure.

aka sipa, core dev team

Tips and donations: 1KwDYMJMS4xq3ZEWYfdBRwYG2fHwhZsipa
MatthewLM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile WWW
August 27, 2012, 05:11:11 PM
 #116

Useless complaining over 4 bytes per block anyway.  Cheesy

Bitcoin Extra Wallet | Peercoin Android Wallet
BTC: 1D5A1q5d192j5gYuWiP3CSE5fcaaZxe6E9  PPC: PH7fVn1Xs7nkUFmdwCX2ZRYfLPCSwGxAq9
MatthewLM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile WWW
September 01, 2012, 09:09:46 PM
 #117

I'm very close to alpha stage now but I'm getting horrible heap corruption. Goodness knows how long it will take to debug...


Bitcoin Extra Wallet | Peercoin Android Wallet
BTC: 1D5A1q5d192j5gYuWiP3CSE5fcaaZxe6E9  PPC: PH7fVn1Xs7nkUFmdwCX2ZRYfLPCSwGxAq9
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
September 01, 2012, 09:26:33 PM
 #118

Good luck with that.

(thats why i don't code in C, Tongue )

"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
MatthewLM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile WWW
September 01, 2012, 09:34:49 PM
 #119

Thanks... The power afforded by C does sometimes cause problems like this....

It's got even worse since the stack has screwed up. Like here, where the hell did main() go???

Code:
(gdb) bt
#0  0x0000000100266d4d in CBNewAddressManager (events=0x5fbff838) at /Users/matt/Programming/BitEagle_Projects/cbitcoin/src/structures/CBObject/CBMessage/CBAddressManager/CBAddressManager.c:40
#1  0x0000000100000e24 in start ()

Luckily for me, this type of awkward error is rare but when it happens it's horrible.

...Almost certain the root cause is some stack corruption, not heap corruption. Eventually I'll figure it out...

Edit: Figured out what I thought was the problem was actually completely fine... I must be too tired. I will come back to this tomorrow.

Bitcoin Extra Wallet | Peercoin Android Wallet
BTC: 1D5A1q5d192j5gYuWiP3CSE5fcaaZxe6E9  PPC: PH7fVn1Xs7nkUFmdwCX2ZRYfLPCSwGxAq9
jgarzik
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
September 01, 2012, 11:57:16 PM
 #120

valgrind is your friend Smiley

Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 »  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!