[Bitcoin-development] 0.3.23+patches bug: JSON-RPC leaves sockets around when not connected

On Eligius, I have two bitcoinds running on the same system: - a hub node, which is dedicated to relaying network activity between the hundreds of nodes Eligius peers with - a work node, which is dedicated to managing mining, and only ever connects to the hub node Lately, the hub node has been

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System

> In fact, I think the alert system should relay (note, NOT display) messages > *regardless of the key used*, so it isn't yet another "our client gets > special > status" thing, and can be used for other clients as well. > > > Be careful though, if you relay everything, it suddenly *does* have DDoS

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System

On Thursday, September 08, 2011 3:45 PM, "Luke-Jr" wrote: > I don't seem to recall this ever happening, despite Deepbit having over 50% > multiple times now. An alert would have been issued if they had abused that position. ---

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System

On Thursday, September 08, 2011 3:43:12 PM theymos wrote: > The alert system will be very important if there are ever any critical > problems in the network. For example, it is currently Bitcoin's only > defense against an attacker with >50% of the computational power, where > alerts would be used

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System

The alert system will be very important if there are ever any critical problems in the network. For example, it is currently Bitcoin's only defense against an attacker with >50% of the computational power, where alerts would be used to tell people to stop accepting transactions. Displaying a messa

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System

On Thursday, September 08, 2011 1:33:15 PM John Smith wrote: > Be careful though, if you relay everything, it suddenly *does* have DDoS > potential... Maybe require a proof-of-work then? -- Doing More with Less: The Next

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System

Be careful though, if you relay everything, it suddenly *does* have DDoS potential... JS On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Luke-Jr wrote: > On Thursday, September 08, 2011 12:51:02 PM Mike Hearn wrote: > > Bitcoin is one of the few pieces of software I use that has no concept of > > automatic up

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System

On Thursday, September 08, 2011 12:51:02 PM Mike Hearn wrote: > Bitcoin is one of the few pieces of software I use that has no concept of > automatic updates or even notifications at all. Yet the network badly > relies on people upgrading for stability, scalability and to enable new > features. >

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/506 has been closed pending additional commits or a change in consensus. -- Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop What are the key obstacles that have prevented m

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System

Alert system should be upgraded to pop up a dialog box every 30 minutes whilst you're using the software. Bitcoin is one of the few pieces of software I use that has no concept of automatic updates or even notifications at all. Yet the network badly relies on people upgrading for stability, scalab

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System

There is a lot of complaining about this alert system, but I really don't see the problem. As others have already said, it's just a message. Even if someone managed to compromise the private key, the most they could do is spam graffiti messages or try phishing. There are much worse things that cou

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System

On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 09:09:12AM -0700, David Perry wrote: > @Steve re "Who knows, it might be the only way we'll ever hear from Satoshi > again." > > That brings up a good point... Does anyone aside from Satoshi actually have > the ability to send such an alert? Should we at the very least chan

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System

On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 09:09 -0700, David Perry wrote: > @Steve re "Who knows, it might be the only way we'll ever hear from > Satoshi again." > > > That brings up a good point... Does anyone aside from Satoshi actually > have the ability to send such an alert? Gavin does > Should we at the very l

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System

@Steve re "Who knows, it might be the only way we'll ever hear from Satoshi again." That brings up a good point... Does anyone aside from Satoshi actually have the ability to send such an alert? Should we at the very least change the alert system to give such privileges to current devs and ensure

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System

Who knows, it might be the only way we'll ever hear from Satoshi again. On Sep 9, 2011 1:21 AM, "Matt Corallo" wrote: > On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 07:42 -0700, David Perry wrote: >> There has been some discussion on the new Bitcoin StackExchange site >> lately about the alert protocol. A few have sugge

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System

On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 07:42 -0700, David Perry wrote: > There has been some discussion on the new Bitcoin StackExchange site > lately about the alert protocol. A few have suggested that it might > carry the potential for abuse (spam/DoS) and others have argued that > it's merely deprecated. In any

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Alert System

I think there's a significant risk to not having it at this stage. There's many reasons why an urgent update may been to rapidly propagated in this stage of the network's lifecycle. Perhaps if there's a perceived threat of abuse the protocol could be altered slightly so it can't carry content

[Bitcoin-development] Alert System

There has been some discussion on the new Bitcoin StackExchangesite lately about the alert protocol. A few have suggested that it might carry the potential for abuse (spam/DoS) and others have argued that it's merely deprecated. In any case, enough have voiced conc

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bitcoind multiplexing proxy - request/response routing problem

> It's probably best to keep this discussion on just one mailing list. > It's confusing to have duplicate threads in different places. People > will end up making the same points. > Fair enough I'll take it to the bitcoinj list. I wanted to post here in case I got any nibbles from c developer

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bitcoind multiplexing proxy - request/response routing problem

It's probably best to keep this discussion on just one mailing list. It's confusing to have duplicate threads in different places. People will end up making the same points. To repeat what I posted elsewhere, for now I'd just start with the simplest possible approach: - Ignore version skew for no

Re: [Bitcoin-development] bitcoind multiplexing proxy - request/response routing problem

4a/ Serialize all request/response exchanges. i.e. request comes in from remote node, proxy aquires lock on the proxy-localdaemon channel and sends request. Channel remains locked until response is received or timeout (in which case remote node gets no response). Unlock channel after respons