11500+ entries in 0.02s
mod6: <+davout> mod6: i think it would actually be the least painful part to test << anyway, i hope so. im sure there will be more discussion in coming months.
mod6: yeah, a valid rawtx is valid, but yeha, should be approved, somehow by user, before sending.
mod6: i read 'errors are tolerated'. and freaked.
mod6: ok. i didn't grok your sentence above.
mod6: <+asciilifeform> mod6: error can be tolerated in ~autopilot that user can disable at all times~, i.e. it ~recommends~ a tx, user can review before firing << umm, i dunno about this.
mod6: anyway, im just working through the beginning stages here. so im certainly not an expert on rawtxns
mod6: "build" a rawtx by hand, send it.
mod6: eh. mis-spoke kinda.
mod6: and some other tools like 'listunspent' etc.
mod6: im not fixing the wallet, in this case, ftr. i'm just putting in the ability to create and send a raw tx.
mod6: we'll be discussing more in the near future i do suspect, Sir.
mod6: anyway! glad to have the help, and the experience from someone who uses this end of bitcoin quite a bit.
mod6: no room for error here, lest someone sends all their coins out as a large fee, or some crazyness.
mod6: i think over all it's a decent approach. have some pre-crafted transactions, and see how it goes. this is minimum. i wanna make sure we don't just capture "happy-path" but, all edge cases too.
mod6: those are not really unit tests, those are functional tests. but yeah.
mod6: really? why do you think so?
mod6: and am going to try to build tools, if needed, to help test this.
mod6: well, ... feel free. but i think the coding part aside, which isn't going to be horribru, since a lot of it is backport anyway. but the testing is gonna be gnarly.
mod6: well, was, anyway. once the new changes for V are complete/tested/released, will be back on it.
mod6: jurov: in that howto, you'll find a series of both offline steps, and online steps. you can choose your own adventure.
mod6: everything, if press happened correctly, should be under bitcoin/src
mod6: when I get a free moment, i'll throw the latest eulora on there. can be my mining box. :]
mod6: i had obsd on it like for nearly all of '16... but wasn't doing anything with it. so i threw linux on there.
mod6: oh, hey, actually. so I've got a box.
mod6: nice! i haven't done any sledding yet. gotta do that one of these times.
mod6: fwiw you can turn off those messages in your client too.
mod6: i think you maybe mean '-F' instead of '-f', it thinks 0 is a file
mod6: anyway, yeah, as I said in #trilema-mod6, i see this as low-priority and SUPER high risk. but I'm open to suggestions how to implement this properly and safely.
mod6: werd. thx for your input.
mod6: agree. just trying to be 100% positive I'm doing the right thing, before I do it. And it is discussion worthy imho.
mod6: "# It is entirely possible to have more than one root! ... exactly how, is left as an exercise for readers."
☟︎☟︎ mod6: this is not true according to v99 from alf ^
mod6: so i'll check, and accumulate roots that have only hashes that = 'false'.
mod6: this is what i wanted to avoid.
mod6: <+asciilifeform> mod6: 'genesis' means 'all antecedents are 'false'n rather than 'no valid antecedents' << just to re-iterate, does 'genesis' also apply to 'root' ?
mod6: im not sure that i get this ^ but... i think we're all saying the same thing.
mod6: ben_vulpes: so you think, what i'm calling the 'hack' to be just as good or more appropriate here? i'd rather check, personally.
mod6: asciilifeform: sweet! then i think im in good shape.
mod6: Then he's got a problem. So i felt like this type of checking, is more strict. And if it is proper, I will proceed.
mod6: phf: ok, see, there is a hack i could have put in, instead. where i just ensure that my root is named like /genesis/. But what if someguy calls his root, 1000 years from now, xyz.vpatch.
mod6: one way, I've found, to solve this is to ensure that any root in my list of roots, must be a "true root", in such that if the vpatch's every 'a'='false', then it is a "true root".
mod6: the reason, I'm finding, that my previous patch still listed a->b->d in the flow, is because 'd' got picked up as a root. and the reason it does is because at this point, it has no antecedents.
mod6: so going back to our discussion regarding: a->b->c->d all signed by x, if 'c' is removed then the flow should be a->b and now 'd' has become orphaned. the correct strictness, 'v' (wot-variant) drops 'c' out all together.
mod6: I have a bit of a question here..
mod6: ah ok. was that the pdf i didn't read?
mod6: tmsr aught to send out a message to them saying their shit dun work
mod6: ya 'tis what v.pl does
mod6: i'd actually say we're close, but we're working on some phrasing etc.
mod6: not as of yet. working on it.
mod6: and we had some ideas regarding the same, but didn't come to any specific conculsions.
mod6: gala? last we were discussing some sort of university advertising
mod6: Take your time, Sir.
mod6: lol, that kid in the background is really happy to be there.
mod6: just workin on these v changes
mod6: good! it warmed back up and we had a thunderstorm lastnight. crazy.
mod6: <+asciilifeform> i can only imagine their disappointment. << lol
mod6: any others while i'm at it?
mod6: "returned to earth"
mod6: so i think i've tested exactly what you laid out, asciilifeform, with V99995 (the current version out there), and this is the result:
mod6: <+asciilifeform> note that a correct vtron will not misbehave if you have this. << am trying this...
mod6: yeah, i certainly tried. and i thought i even tested this before... so maybe there was a regression. but i'll admit, that python code is very strange to me eith the for with the else.
mod6: and when I do that above test ^, i never hit this line: death("Cyclic Graph!\n");
mod6: well, i was trying to discern weather my toposort is correct or not.
mod6: im not sure if i follow. are you saying that genesis isn't a good place to test it because it is a root?
mod6: +++ b/bitcoin/src/net.cpp b72b573ba77b095e2497e297ba5b02aa68317f67438ee070fee86e129a95b85dc9b5ca98e96441bb2b3b98263dd88630990c913affbabf890641f349d1c6da47
mod6: --- a/bitcoin/src/net.cpp c67fdd55e9d9d6b4973122b76729d7e83a456a8dc410f1c130cffbfd9f626c47ca7e8006bde912d9e0bd0a4b8457e895270d4a0efd22c4a199cd52ffd95b10dd
mod6: diff -uNr a/bitcoin/src/net.cpp b/bitcoin/src/net.cpp
mod6: asciilifeform_dnsseed_snipsnip.vpatch:
mod6: so 'b72b573' ... and drop this into a down-flow vpatch that touches net.cpp, that should cause the cycle right? like so:
mod6: +++ b/bitcoin/src/net.cpp b72b573ba77b095e2497e297ba5b02aa68317f67438ee070fee86e129a95b85dc9b5ca98e96441bb2b3b98263dd88630990c913affbabf890641f349d1c6da47