public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "\	Jorge Timón" <jtimonmv@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Michael Gronager <gronager@ceptacle.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Warning: many 0.7 nodes break on large number of tx/block; fork risk
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:18:21 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABOyFfrVCRfJ2R8a-XGcviSbORDswe+N13G_FrVkbWtEhtoTjw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130312114426.GA3701@vps7135.xlshosting.net>

A related question...some people mentioned yesterday on #bitcoin-dev
that 0.5 appeared to be compatible with 0.8.
Was that only for the "fatal block" and would have forked 0.8 later
too or is it something else?
I'm having a hard time understanding this 0.5 thing, if someone can
bring some light to it I would appreciate it.

Thanks in advance

On 3/12/13, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:13:09AM +0100, Michael Gronager wrote:
>> Yes, 0.7 (yes 0.7!) was not sufficiently tested it had an undocumented and
>> unknown criteria for block rejection, hence the upgrade went wrong.
>
> We're using "0.7" as a short moniker for all clients, but this was a
> limitation that all
> BDB-based bitcoins ever had. The bug is simply a limit in the number of lock
> objects
> that was reached.
>
> It's ironic that 0.8 was supposed to solve all problems we had due to BDB
> (except the
> wallet...), but now it seems it's still coming back to haunt us. I really
> hated telling
> miners to go back to 0.7, given all efforts to make 0.8 signficantly more
> tolerable...
>
>> More space in the block is needed indeed, but the real problem you are
>> describing is actually not missing space in the block, but proper handling
>> of mem-pool transactions. They should be pruned on two criteria:
>>
>> 1. if they gets to old >24hr
>> 2. if the client is running out of space, then the oldest should probably
>> be pruned
>>
>> clients are anyway keeping, and re-relaying, their own transactions and
>> hence it would mean only little, and only little for clients. Dropping
>> free / old transaction is a much a better behavior than dying... Even a
>> scheme where the client dropped all or random mempool txes would be a
>> tolerable way of handling things (dropping all is similar to a restart,
>> except for no user intervention).
>
> Right now, mempools are relatively small in memory usage, but with small
> block sizes,
> it indeed risks going up. In 0.8, conflicting (=double spending)
> transactions in the
> chain cause clearing the mempool of conflicts, so at least the mempool is
> bounded by
> the size of the UTXO subset being spent. Dropping transactions from the
> memory pool
> when they run out of space seems a correct solution. I'm less convinced
> about a
> deterministic time-based rule, as that creates a double spending incentive
> at that
> time, and a counter incentive to spam the network with your
> risking-to-be-cleared
> transaction as well.
>
> Regarding the block space, we've seen the pct% of one single block chain
> space consumer
> grow simultaneously with the introduction of larger blocks, so I'm not
> actually convinced
> there is right now a big need for larger blocks (note: right now). The
> competition for
> block chain space is mostly an issue for client software which doesn't deal
> correctly
> with non-confirming transactions, and misleading users. It's mostly a
> usability problem
> now, but increasing block sizes isn't guaranteed to fix that; it may just
> make more
> space for spam.
>
> However, the presence of this bug, and the fact that a full solution is
> available (0.8),
> probably helps achieving consensus fixing it (=a hardfork) is needed, and we
> should take
> advantage of that. But please, let's not rush things...
>
> --
> Piter
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester
> Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the
> endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to
> tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>


-- 
Jorge Timón

http://freico.in/
http://archive.ripple-project.org/



  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-03-12 12:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-03-12  0:18 [Bitcoin-development] Warning: many 0.7 nodes break on large number of tx/block; fork risk Pieter Wuille
2013-03-12  1:01 ` Pieter Wuille
2013-03-12  9:10   ` Mike Hearn
2013-03-12  9:53     `  Jorge Timón
2013-03-12  9:57     ` Peter Todd
2013-03-12 10:10       ` Mike Hearn
2013-03-12 10:17         ` Peter Todd
2013-03-12 10:13     ` Michael Gronager
2013-03-12 10:26       ` Peter Todd
2013-03-12 10:43         ` Mike Hearn
2013-03-12 10:40       ` Roy Badami
2013-03-12 11:44       ` Pieter Wuille
2013-03-12 12:11         ` Mike Hearn
2013-03-12 12:27           ` Michael Gronager
2013-03-12 12:18         `  Jorge Timón [this message]
2013-03-12 12:40           ` Jay F
2013-03-12 12:38     ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-03-12 13:00       ` Michael Gronager

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CABOyFfrVCRfJ2R8a-XGcviSbORDswe+N13G_FrVkbWtEhtoTjw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=jtimonmv@gmail.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=gronager@ceptacle.com \
    --cc=pieter.wuille@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox