[Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core 0.9.2 release candidate 1 is available

2014-06-04 Thread Wladimir
Bitcoin Core version 0.9.2rc1 is now available from: https://bitcoin.org/bin/0.9.2/test This is a release candidate for a new minor version release, bringing mostly bug fixes and some minor improvements. Release candidates are wide-scale testing releases, so use with care. Non-technical users

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Core 0.9.2 release candidate 1 is available

2014-06-04 Thread Wladimir
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Wladimir laa...@gmail.com wrote: Bitcoin Core version 0.9.2rc1 is now available from: https://bitcoin.org/bin/0.9.2/test This is a release candidate for a new minor version release, bringing mostly bug fixes and some minor improvements. Almost forgot to

Re: [Bitcoin-development] # error Bitcoin cannot be compiled without assertions. NOT

2014-06-04 Thread Mike Hearn
Hi Ron, FYI your mail is being spamfoldered due to Yahoo's DMARC policy and the brokenness of the SF.net mailing list software. I would not expect to get replies reliably whilst this is the case. I think we should move away from SF.net for hosting mailing lists personally, because it's this list

Re: [Bitcoin-development] # error Bitcoin cannot be compiled without assertions. NOT

2014-06-04 Thread Wladimir
assert() should have *no* side effects, that is the problem. I'm pretty sure that all the side effects of assertions have been removed before 0.9.0. However, the assertion checks are extremely important to the proper sanity of the client and network, so IMHO it's fair to still require

Re: [Bitcoin-development] # error Bitcoin cannot be compiled without assertions. NOT

2014-06-04 Thread Jannis Froese
There are reasons to have assertions enabled by default in software like Bitcoin Core, where incorrect behaviour can be costly. But this comes at a prize: our assertions have to satisfy certain performance requirements. It's no longer possible to do expensive, redundant checks in performance

Re: [Bitcoin-development] # error Bitcoin cannot be compiled without assertions. NOT

2014-06-04 Thread Mike Hearn
Currently expensive checks are guarded with command line flags. It'd be nice if there could be one unified command line flag -expensivechecks that subsumes -checkmempool and so on. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Jannis Froese s9jaf...@stud.uni-saarland.de wrote: There are reasons to have

Re: [Bitcoin-development] # error Bitcoin cannot be compiled without assertions. NOT

2014-06-04 Thread Wladimir
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Jannis Froese s9jaf...@stud.uni-saarland.de wrote: I think most concerns about the current use of asserts would be resolved if the currently used asserts would be changed to a nicer definition which is independent of NDEBUG, and a second class of debugging

Re: [Bitcoin-development] # error Bitcoin cannot be compiled without assertions. NOT

2014-06-04 Thread Jeff Garzik
Yes, check macros like that can be useful. I like the kernel's policy, which parallels our direction: 1) Enable and use lightweight assertions for most users. 2) No assertions with side effects If you want to compile them out, that's fine, but they should always be present in production

Re: [Bitcoin-development] error Bitcoin cannot be compiled without assertions. NOT

2014-06-04 Thread Ron
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 08:15:08 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] # error Bitcoin cannot be compiled     without assertions. NOT To: Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net Cc:

[Bitcoin-development] Future Feature Proposal - getgist

2014-06-04 Thread Richard Moore
Bitcoin development team, I recently started implementing my own Python full-node, and had an idea, so I’m prowling through BIP 001 for this proposal, which says to e-mail you kind folks to make sure the idea is original (enough) and that there aren’t other existing means to accomplish what I

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Future Feature Proposal - getgist

2014-06-04 Thread Mike Hearn
Why do you want to optimise this? getheaders is used by SPV clients not full nodes. SPV clients like bitcoinj can and do simply ship with gist files in them, then getheaders from the last checkpoint (I wish I hadn't reused terminology like that but this is what bitcoinj calls them). In practice