951100+ entries in 0.7s
smickles: ThickAsThieves: look, about 2.45% of
the network is using .3 still
Luke-Jr: [13-03-12 17:24:00] 1784/529458 available (520270
tried in 61095s, 9164 new, 24 active), 177 banned; 1692328 DNS requests, 112840 db queries
imsaguy: if
they cut people off cold
turkey,
they could cut a lot of hackjobs added
to make old software work with
the new stuff
imsaguy: they keep
trying
to support
the morons
that refuse
to update
imsaguy: ThickAsThieves: Its on
the of problems with Microsoft
smickles: where's
the statics on what version people are running, i
think
there are a bunch still on .3
imsaguy: I'm not advocating
they do
this
imsaguy: you've just put an expiration date on
the software
imsaguy: and
they say 'this version isn't good after block X'
imsaguy: you
take
the bitcoin.org reference software
Namworld: Yeah. But almost
the same if software upgrade is forced
through
the blockchain itself. Not sure how
that could even work
tho
smickles: ThickAsThieves: but you don't have
to go along with
them
ThickAsThieves: any
thoughts on somehow
tying
the bitcoin software
to
the blockchain itself? dumb idea?
mircea_popescu: the way mpex works you get
the
trade engine lag printed rioght on each stat
mircea_popescu: once i get
the rest online, can you measure
the lag for
the entire $proxies list ?
mircea_popescu: mpex could
trade on beenz if i wanted
to, it's completely btc agnostic.
smickles: benkay: i could have it place an order,
to
test, but
the problem would be cancelling
that order later
mircea_popescu: (this has
to be sustained at
that level for an hour or so for
things
to start feeling it)
benkay: assuming you don't mean btc
testnet?
benkay: what kind of volume would your
trade engine have
to see before it started lagging?
mircea_popescu: it
takes .11 seconds for an order
to go from bot
to remote proxy ->
to local proxy and back
mircea_popescu: it
takes .11 seconds for an order
to go from bot
to remote proxy ->
to local proxy ->
to
trade engine and back
ThickAsThieves: so i know
they me seem ignorant, but just
thinking out loud, is
there not a way
to make
the bitcoin software part of
the blockchain itself?
benkay: to
the order-parsing system?
mircea_popescu: the lag
to
talk
to mpex,
through a remote and a local proxy
benkay: market dominance is never an indicator of
technical competence
mircea_popescu: benkay
the
top pool is pretty much bankrupt now, is it ?
benkay: and for people who have
trouble keeping up with
the
technical
times,
the costs are going
to be higher next
time
mircea_popescu: that were illustrated by
this but aren't limited
to lage blocks
mircea_popescu: and incidentally, i wonder what OTHER exploits are
there for berkley
mircea_popescu: knowing in advance
there will have
to be a hard fork is a weakness of
the system.
Namworld: But really, merchants/miners can plan ahead if
they know. It's better if it's known in advance
than not.
Namworld: Other
than double-spend attacks
Namworld: No, I mean malicious stuff from knowing ahead of
time about a fork.
jborkl_: Well, first of all
they need
to plan
the change sooner
than later
mircea_popescu: that's not how
this works, "o, what bad stuff could happen?"
Namworld: what kind of malicious stuff might
there be?
mircea_popescu: just
the puppy eyed idiots don't quite get what happened so raw raw we love devteam
Namworld: But with proper warning and support from
the community for
the change, only
the few not switching are left behind.
ThickAsThieves: so does
that not give malicious people a specific
time in
the future
to plan for?
ThickAsThieves: they will still need
to hard fork us again at some point, no?
Namworld: and devs can consult with mining pool when changing limits and send a warning so everyone upgrades directly
to
the client, should
they want
to make a change
to allow scaling.
jborkl_: I like Death and
Taxes response
Namworld: I
think being heavily dependant on miners is actually what Satoshi wanted... miners vote with
their hashing power...
That's exactly how
the system is supposed
to work.
mircea_popescu: this seems
to be
the contemporary brain disease, people reading stuff
they don't understand here and
there, mashing it into a sort of compound
Namworld: Only bob I know around
these parts.
jborkl_: put both of
their ideas on how
to make money
together? 1+1=still is 0
imsaguy: sounds like a methlab waiting
to happen
Namworld: If it was a written
text, I might make less omissions. When chatting
tho, I
type fast and usually omit
things.
mircea_popescu: Namworld certainly.
this way misunderstandings are found early.
Namworld: I
think you are very literal on what sentences mean and interpret as little as possible. You avoid making
too many inferences during a conversation so even small omissions can result in misunderstandings.
jborkl_: The problem glaring from
this, now a obvious major problem is here and can be exploited again.
mircea_popescu: Namworld almost everyone else doesn't have much
to say.
imsaguy: bdb can't handle
the locking
MJR_: can't you change your code in .7
to accept larger blocks?
Namworld: Actually I find you go about
things in a different way
than anyone else...
mircea_popescu: which is a great way
to become a laughingstock, sure, but also a great way
to find obscure bugs.
mircea_popescu: i enjoy arguing with him mostly because he seems
to go about
things in a
totally different way
than anyone else
jborkl_: They have identified it as .BDB has a limit and can be broken. .8 does not have a limit and seems fine. Lets move back
to
the broken
Namworld: No. Maybe every month or
the other.
Namworld: That's new. I don't recall
that.
imsaguy: and
then your client chokes
Namworld: I hate it when I forget something in a sentence and I'm getting argued against for 10 minutes when I have
the same point of view as
the one arguing against me.
imsaguy: the problems is
that other people accepted it
MJR_: lol, you know people can run either version and change
the size of blocks
they can accept or mine
Namworld: mircea: I was referring
to
testing of .8 alone. I'm made an omission in it. I've been
trying
to correct myself for like
the last few minutes =/
Namworld: @smickles: some people even claimed
they sticked
to an old version specially because of potential such issues with new versions when .8 wasn't
the source of
the problem. If
they had switched it would have been an non-issue. We've reverted
to accomodate
the bug in .7 and not
to leave people behind.