On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote:
Bringing the thread back on-topic:
Thanks.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Wladimir laa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Today I noticed that even my bank is warning people to not do internet
banking with Windows
Hi, in main.cpp, ProcessMessage(), the line:
if (vAddr.size() 1000) that appears at about line 3290
(not sure which, as I have made changes.)
What is the purpose of this line?
vAddr.size() was already checked at about line 3240, and if it was
1000, the function has returned.
Is pfrom-fGetAddr
I'm implementing a new testing mode that produces blocks
periodically. You can get what I have so far here:
https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/tree/timed
It depends on pull request #3824 with some improvements on
CChainParams, but after that the changes required to add this new
mode are very
So my question to the community is, how invasive is this to bitcoin's
source code?
I'd say not very considering you have regression testing mode.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Jorge Timón jti...@monetize.io wrote:
I'm implementing a new testing mode that produces blocks
periodically. You
2) If I wanted to measure validation performance, to get the number of
peak tps that could be processed without taking block sides or network
latency into account, how would I do that? Has anybody tried this
before?
You can just reindex/replay the chain. It's been done many times.
On 4/17/14, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
2) If I wanted to measure validation performance, to get the number of
peak tps that could be processed without taking block sides or network
latency into account, how would I do that? Has anybody tried this
before?
You can just reindex/replay
Not necessarily. Running a private server involves listening to the p2p
network for incoming transactions, performing validation on receipt and
organizing a mempool, performing transaction selection, and relaying
blocks to auditors - none of which is tested in a reindex.
A reindex would give you
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Jorge Timón jti...@monetize.io wrote:
So it seems a new mode only makes sense if the -private mode makes
sense, which in turn only makes sense to include in bitcoind if it's
useful enough for the network attack simulations, which remains the
open question.
Thank you for all the explanations on how to use regtest to reproduce
the example scenarios.
It seems like a private mode wouldn't be particularly helpful for
testing so I won't create a pull request and will just work on the
private chains separately from bitcoind.
Going back to chainparam modes
How does this system handle problems with the lower chains after they have
been locked-in?
The rule is that if a block in the child chain is pointed to by its parent,
then it effectively has infinite POW?
The point of the system is that a node monitoring the parent chain only has
to watch the
10 matches
Mail list logo
