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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UFOTR-0001ob-EM; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:38:33 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.54; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f54.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f54.google.com ([209.85.215.54]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UFOTQ-0007xQ-Jk; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:38:33 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f54.google.com with SMTP id gw10so5008541lab.41 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:38:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.112.138 with SMTP id iq10mr5143872lab.55.1363091905661; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.96.164 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:38:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:38:25 -0700 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1UFOTQ-0007xQ-Jk Cc: Bitcoin Dev , bitcoin-security@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Warning: many 0.7 nodes break on large number of tx/block; fork risk 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: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:38:33 -0000 On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: > BDB ran out of locks. > However, only on some 0.7 nodes. Others, perhaps nodes using different > flags, managed it. > We have processed 1mb sized blocks on the testnet. > Therefore it isn't presently clear why that particular block caused > lock exhaustion when other larger blocks have not. Locks are only mostly related to block size, once I heard what was happening I was unsurprised the max sized test blocks hadn't triggered it. > Therefore it is possible that we have a very limited amount of time until nodes start dying en-masse. Scaremongering much? Egads. On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Michael Gronager wrote: > Forks are caused by rejection criteria, hence: > 1. If you introduce new rejection criteria in an upgrade miners should upgrade _first_. > 2. If you loosen some rejection criteria miners should upgrade _last_. > 3. If you keep the same criteria assume 2. And ... if you aren't aware that you're making a change ???