From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Qcd1u-0004cd-Cp for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:41:06 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-gy0-f175.google.com ([209.85.160.175]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Qcd1r-0008NW-VE for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:41:06 +0000 Received: by gyd12 with SMTP id 12so1713705gyd.34 for ; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 05:40:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.180.74 with SMTP id i50mr4133293yhm.366.1309524058258; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 05:40:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 173-5-35-131.pools.spcsdns.net ([173.5.35.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v4sm2341008yhm.48.2011.07.01.05.40.55 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 01 Jul 2011 05:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Doug References: <1309478838.3689.25.camel@Desktop666> User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Douglas Huff Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:41:02 -0500 To: Gregory Maxwell , Matt Corallo Message-ID: <5d917a01-5502-4f07-a6e6-1fdb8655b470@email.android.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1Qcd1r-0008NW-VE Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.3.24 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:41:06 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Why off on Linux? If anything Linux has, historically, had the most testing of the miniupnpc library. So it's the most stable of the three. Gregory Maxwell wrote: >On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Matt Corallo > wrote: >> Due to the flood control limits becoming an issue again, it would >appear >> we need a 0.3.24 release.  The idea is to have sipa's flood limit fix >> >(https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/df94ed7ac0ed7bb3a96cf434ca3c64c4b475e37e), >dnsseed on by default, and maybe UPnP enabled by default as well. > >*Flood fix > >I think this is important, slow bringups are problematic and I think >the flood disconnects have been contributing to network partitioning >(you'll disconnect nodes that have the full blockchain but keep ones >that don't), adding to the partitioning problems cause elsewhere. > >I've been running it for a couple hours on a large public node which >was seeing frequent flood disconnects, and it seems to be working >fine. No more flood disconnects. > >Syncing a local node to it (no a not terribly fast core) now takes >34.5 minutes (I new bringup on the same system a few days ago hadn't >synced in over an hour). > >Increasing the nLimit in sipa's code from 500 to 5000 reduced the >syncup time for me by about 1.5 minutes, almost all of the speedup >being in the early blocks. Since it has the 5MB limit now I don't see >much reason for a large per block limit. > >*Dnsseed > >I've been using this for a while, we need more dnsseed roots but I see >no reason not to turn it on now. > >*UPNP > >Lfnet now reports 32843. Presumably there are more bitcoin users than >that, because not all use IRC. 32843*8 = 262744 listening sockets. >Meaning, assuming a nice equal distribution we need 2189 listening >nodes to support the network— but the real distribution will be >somewhat uneven due to bad luck and the /16 limit. > >Matt has estimated that there are around 4000 stable listening nodes. > >Linear extrapolation from the two day lfnet growth leave us running >out of sockets in a little more than a month. While it won't all break >if it runs out, since we don't strictly need 8 connections, it's still >not good. > >I think getting more listening nodes is a somewhat urgent matter as a >result. > > >I'd also like suggest updating the checkpoint in 0.3.24. Difficulty >has increased almost 17x since the highest one currently in there. A >rather large number of parties could mine pretty nice forks at 1/16th >the current difficulty for nodes that they've sibyled. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously >valuable. >Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, >security >threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and >makes >sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >_______________________________________________ >Bitcoin-development mailing list >Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development - -- Douglas Huff -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: APG v1.0.8 iQIVAwUBTg3AXUPHkQabDWHPAQgI8RAAm4Csyc4jqLvJSpopwNKg20273Hk2dhpR s0RHerh1TgFDLDeByhzZLX/GC5SzGpPRDllDDlKcXl+E7iS7xtsuB+KbNdjYERmn eVm67PQnXZ0PaDUnUxywyl55dcM8WAhwAYZKxvY2IzJ5y6oV7aPSDt7+qtXGL5Tx EWjtQU06EaLhQkamelEc0KhHWqA72S/1VIgITvW4KVOf8SKyfTkxADdvRJ2iEznZ bemdm81nbNFuYjGng9pEzqs9CVkWthANFa8GhxV9yFiqhpT7rCZKktkmqazxw6le zog0v0MDfd55eWH59dHd9FbdiU757VMZtjTew3EoKrvIOwj1XQ50aSwaxO2CeTfW qfW/xrxo+6VJx2kpLC833rvek4nx/7a0YVSvtypp9R1td9wAPi14IT+wOZ6C6ofs Cg1VtETit4cS4xeHNx5boMayBvqpS1tmYgrTdi0QjmlWa75RDLIIteWcS7Q6NP0r G2BRm3sqTGo/7Vzhmqn3BWNe5lq21NCW9kMs8nzhntnalF13BdIN4ZMimmSmLb5O PUzg9OUZ5qfW3rsbYgYXXritzcNSftva+H/sCLIIoFOJO16wpiQXoHjTSY0TwwIT XrVAcP2sRQjfT5QzPfwHDBRcYDgpfGJs5+jXtPc1maac7AxRjZ0op7gXFb/3L/W4 mQFXl6I9hhg= =qsYM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----