Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
That midmagic drama made me stumble across what I think is kind of a gem.

I think this is very indicative of Core's complete lack of comprehension regarding sound money, by considering inputs as analogous to accounts, whereas the nature as sound money very clearly indicates that inputs are individual coin denominations:

 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX and Norway

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
@awemany

your tactic has just blown the claim out of the water that "the majority of the technical community agrees that we should stay with small blocks".
 

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
@cypherdoc: Well thanks, but I won't go that far to say that :D

But it does appear to have a certain effectiveness in deflating some of the reddit bullshit bubbles.

Especially so since Coblee said he wants to implement it.

What is curious to me is that - although I must admit I don't follow the Litecoin or other Altcoin communities at all - there doesn't seem to be any hint of a user revolt or disconnect between devs and users in the Litecoin space, like there is for Bitcoin.

It appears almost as if Coblee's bullshitting about supposedly caring for Bitcoin is silently acknowledged within the Litecoin community as simply being a game being played that is advantageous for Litecoin.

While many LTC people probably silently expect him to not do anything that could actually hurt Litecoin's valuation.
 

cliff

Active Member
Dec 15, 2015
345
854
@awemany - RE - "What is curious to me is that - although I must admit I don't follow the Litecoin or other Altcoin communities at all - there doesn't seem to be any hint of a user revolt or disconnect between devs and users in the Litecoin space, like there is for Bitcoin."

No other coins have devs that start from a non-negotiable position of: 'I have to be able to run a node on steam power from the bottom of a cave in Afghanistan... I mean some stateless-area in Slovakia, an off-grid mountain shack in NH or Montana, or the back of a tricked-out airboat while cruising a swamp somewhere'.

EDIT - Does this mean Samson Meow gets to become a good guy?
 
Last edited:

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
I don't think he has time for that now. I'm running multi thread dialogs with him, keeping him (and me) too busy to go to the bathroom. I can see he is getting tired, lol!

EDIT: His weakness is that he must have the last word, yet there are only 24 hours per day.
You need to get a bunch of boilerplate prepared and just cut & paste a bunch at a time. Maybe with some processing to mix it up and make it look a bit different each time.
[doublepost=1467165058,1467164341][/doublepost]
No other coins have devs that start from a non-negotiable position of: 'I have to be able to run a node on steam power from the bottom of a cave in Afghanistan, I mean an off-grid mountain shack in NH or Montana, or from the back of a tricked-out airboat while cruising a swamp somewhere'.
Announcement for Paleocoin launch should be ready soon...
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
@albin
He doesn't believe in what he is writing. He is only constructing fuzzy logic sentences to push an agenda. The second you question his logic, he makes personal attacs.

EDIT: His two year old reddit account has 1 link karma and 188 comment karma.
And he is intimately familiar with the Bitcoin protocol, its history, forum moderation, its policies and software, and advertisement. He is either Theymos, or someone very close to him. When there is more time, this can be proven or disproven.
 

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
I can't really understand this:

Increasing the block size doesn't mean that miner are forced to mine max block size block. Every miner has to balance between orphan risks and fee inclusions. Just that. Especially since minted coins for each new solved block will be an order of magnitude higher of collected fees value wise.

Lastly, we don't need to thank "growers". The system is already thanking them by the means of 25 bitcoin per solved block plus txs fee. In return they have to "thank" the system to stimulate their greediness :)
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
@sickpig Sounds like you understand it just fine.

Its giddy price pumper BitfuryKikvadze who doesn't get i.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway and AdrianX

steffen

Active Member
Nov 22, 2015
118
163
I have a BU node which crashed about a week ago. After the crash it hasn't work. I don't remember the exact error but to me it looked like some problem with the newest block. I think I deleted the rev-something.dat file with the highest number in the .bitcoin/blocks folder (called rev00551.dat I think) and restarted. After the restart I got a message that the client needed to do some reindexing. I accepted. It did its thing which apparently meant checking the validity of everything from the genesis block and on. It never got past "2 years and 30 weeks behind". Later I discovered that there are also some files named blk00000.dat, blk00001.dat and so on in the same folder.

I have tried rebooting a few times but I never successfully get through the troublesome point a couple of years back.

Now I reach this point / message:
"No block source available... 2 years and 31 weeks behind"

I have looked in debug.log where I see a lot of "Acceptable block"-lines like the three first below but then the problems start as you can see.

Do any of you have suggestions how I may make my BU node work again?

From debug.log:
2016-06-29 11:59:15 Acceptable block: ver:2 time:1384773611 size: 249160 Tx:698 Sig:1489
2016-06-29 11:59:15 Acceptable block: ver:2 time:1384771614 size: 248968 Tx:554 Sig:1340
2016-06-29 11:59:15 Acceptable block: ver:2 time:1384770730 size: 498959 Tx:1474 Sig:3049
2016-06-29 11:59:15 No coin database inconsistencies in last 289 blocks (162387 transactions)
2016-06-29 11:59:16 block index 22077ms
2016-06-29 11:59:16 init message: Loading wallet...
2016-06-29 11:59:16 nFileVersion = 120000
2016-06-29 11:59:16 Keys: 101 plaintext, 0 encrypted, 101 w/ metadata, 101 total
2016-06-29 11:59:16 wallet 11ms
2016-06-29 11:59:16 init message: Activating best chain...
2016-06-29 11:59:16 mapBlockIndex.size() = 270568
2016-06-29 11:59:16 nBestHeight = 270566
2016-06-29 11:59:16 setKeyPool.size() = 100
2016-06-29 11:59:16 mapWallet.size() = 0
2016-06-29 11:59:16 mapAddressBook.size() = 1
2016-06-29 11:59:16 init message: Loading addresses...
2016-06-29 11:59:16 torcontrol thread start
2016-06-29 11:59:16 Loaded 767 addresses from peers.dat 4ms
2016-06-29 11:59:16 net thread start
2016-06-29 11:59:16 init message: Done loading
2016-06-29 11:59:16 addcon thread start
2016-06-29 11:59:16 dnsseed thread start
2016-06-29 11:59:16 opencon thread start
2016-06-29 11:59:16 msghand thread start
2016-06-29 11:59:16 GUI: Platform customization: "other"
2016-06-29 11:59:16 GUI: PaymentServer::LoadRootCAs: Loaded 172 root certificates
2016-06-29 11:59:16 receive version message: /Satoshi:0.12.1/: version 70012, blocks=418495, us=195.192.232.251:33456, peer=1
2016-06-29 11:59:16 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: block is marked invalid
2016-06-29 11:59:16 ERROR: invalid header received
2016-06-29 11:59:16 ProcessMessages(headers, 162003 bytes) FAILED peer=1
2016-06-29 11:59:17 connect() to [2001:0:5ef5:79fb:cfd:3fb0:b1a5:2647]:8333 failed: Network is unreachable (101)
2016-06-29 11:59:17 receive version message: /Satoshi:0.12.1/: version 70012, blocks=418495, us=195.192.232.251:42756, peer=2
2016-06-29 11:59:23 connect() to [2002:d06d:cd2c::d06d:cd2c]:8333 failed: Network is unreachable (101)
2016-06-29 11:59:24 receive version message: /Satoshi:0.12.1/: version 70012, blocks=418495, us=195.192.232.251:43238, peer=3
2016-06-29 11:59:25 receive version message: /Satoshi:0.12.1/: version 70012, blocks=418495, us=195.192.232.251:48760, peer=4
2016-06-29 11:59:25 connect() to [2001:0:5ef5:79fb:24d2:2a0e:c18b:150]:8333 failed: Network is unreachable (101)
2016-06-29 11:59:26 receive version message: /Satoshi:0.12.1/: version 70012, blocks=418495, us=195.192.232.251:54294, peer=5
2016-06-29 11:59:26 receive version message: /Satoshi:0.12.1/: version 70012, blocks=418495, us=195.192.232.251:42606, peer=6
2016-06-29 11:59:27 P2P peers available. Skipped DNS seeding.
2016-06-29 11:59:27 dnsseed thread exit
2016-06-29 11:59:33 receive version message: /Satoshi:0.11.2/: version 70002, blocks=418495, us=195.192.232.251:49998, peer=7
2016-06-29 11:59:50 receive version message: /Satoshi:0.12.1/: version 70012, blocks=418495, us=195.192.232.251:47620, peer=8
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
@steffen : The "network is unreachable" stuff looks like your node is having network trouble. Investigate that first (can you ping other Internet servers from your node?)

I would recommend you find the bitcoin.conf (if you use any) and remove entries which establish fixed connections. Since your node is now having to sync up again, it won't go > 8 peers, and if those can't be reached... you would end up without a block source.
So remove (or comment out) any fixed peer configurations you may have.

Also, backup and rename the peers.dat and banlist.dat files to give your node a clean start when it comes to selecting peers. And review any firewall configuration which may be preventing traffic to/from your node.
[doublepost=1467205166][/doublepost]
@sickpigIts giddy price pumper BitfuryKikvadze who doesn't get i.
From where I'm looking, the price isn't exactly pumped.

Can we perhaps call them "fee pumpers" instead?
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
haha
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

steffen

Active Member
Nov 22, 2015
118
163
@steffen : The "network is unreachable" stuff looks like your node is having network trouble. Investigate that first (can you ping other Internet servers from your node?)

I would recommend you find the bitcoin.conf (if you use any) and remove entries which establish fixed connections. Since your node is now having to sync up again, it won't go > 8 peers, and if those can't be reached... you would end up without a block source.
So remove (or comment out) any fixed peer configurations you may have.

Also, backup and rename the peers.dat and banlist.dat files to give your node a clean start when it comes to selecting peers. And review any firewall configuration which may be preventing traffic to/from your node.
@freetrader Thank you for your help. Internet connection is fine for other things like a browser. I have not created nor made any manual configuration of any bitcoin.conf file and I haven't found that file. I appended .old to peers.dat and banlist.dat which were both located in the .bitcoin folder. Tried starting again. Result:

Synchronizing with network... 2 years and 31 weeks behind
If I open the debug window and look at the Information Tab it says
Number of connections: 11 (In 3, Out 8)
I suppose that means it is not a firewall problem?
And now it has been Synchronizing with network for over 20 minutes and it is still 2 years and 31 weeks behind.
Number of incoming connections have increased to 6, and then dropped to 5 and then increased to 8 and then 9.

Other ideas besides waiting?
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
@steffen: I'm not sure how much this affects a syncing node, but recently there was a connection exhaustion attack, and some advice on banning the subnets that those pesky nodes came from.

I would make sure that you've got them banned, otherwise perhaps they could interfere by clogging up your slots. Check out the output of RPC command 'getpeerinfo' too, perhaps you can see something wrong.

Recent: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4kbm4r/nodes_are_being_dos_attacked_w_fake_spv_clients/

Older: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/connection-slot-exhaustion-attack.1111/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: steffen and Norway

steffen

Active Member
Nov 22, 2015
118
163
In debug.log there are many similar lines like these
2016-06-29 13:46:24 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: block is marked invalid
2016-06-29 13:46:24 ERROR: invalid header received
2016-06-29 13:46:24 ProcessMessages(headers, 162003 bytes) FAILED peer=2

The only thing that changes is the time stamps and the peer number. My client seem to believe it receives invalid headers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway