@adamstgbit : A way to make bitcoind (BU as well as Core) more robust is automatic restart upon failure (+ a limit on respawn frequency).
AFAIR apache has such features, for a good reason.
AFAIR apache has such features, for a good reason.
Doubt it. I could believe he's counting high turnover dynamic ip addresses multiple times though.@freetrader
Is it possible then that the 10k+ number is any nodes with ports open that he sees at any time? That seems like alot but I can almost kinda believe that many nodes that pop on the sync every so often then go offline, but happen to have ports open.
I feel like the correct action if you have such a situation is to put the effort in to fail gracefully. Sometimes when I'm hacking in Perl and being lazy, I'll do the 'or die' thing but my experience has been that if you're letting that go through to production, you will inevitably regret it. At least in the main loop. You have to bear in mind what the aim of the software is and that's usually to keep running unless things have really gone seriously wrong.what ever happened to return false; pass back *err and deal with the error
but i can see why asserts are cool, often we'll say things like "that OK because its impossible it gets here while he's in that state because XYZ" that sounds like a good use case for assert.
That may be something best handled by external software. Linux comes with several options for daemon control.@adamstgbit : A way to make bitcoind (BU as well as Core) more robust is automatic restart upon failure (+ a limit on respawn frequency).
AFAIR apache has such features, for a good reason.
I'm looking at my Alt portfolio I 90% of was lost to cryptsy, 60% of the remaining 10% are duds. so I dont consider myself diversified in this space.The only direct investment advice that I would give to people, is to diversify, hedge your bets.
We need to take ownership of our shortcomings.Bitcoin Exchanges Unveil Emergency Hard Fork Contingency Plan
[doublepost=1489769197][/doublepost]Highlights:
- Plan to list as "BTC" and "BTU"
- Say they won't list "BTU" unless BU implements replay protection
Great point - I totally agree with what you are saying. We should add relay protection for the rules where where is no consensus, ie. tagged 1MB BCC blocks - Core need to own up to the fact that the block limit is not a consensus rule that dictates valid bitcoin transactions.I'm not overly concerned with the naming issue, "BTC" vs "BTU". I think that's something that the market would work out over time, and everyone would just end up calling the winner "BTC".
The bigger issue is the insistence on replay protection. I think BU should absolutely not be bullied into this. Another term for it would be "transaction incompatibility". It's a losing move to make transactions incompatible with all the wallets out there.
BS/Core are opening themselves up to an attack vector here and a trojan horse. BU can can add replay protection, but a fork of BU lets call it BItcoin Dynamic, may not, what happens when the majority miners switch to BItcoin Dynamic?I think the replay protection is a great idea. This would allow people to feel safe listing on exchanges and would open the door to allow for free market based fork arbitrage. One chain will likely die quickly but this is the safest way for everyone.
LOL - love the idea, it is in keeping with the philosophy of BU - let users descried, (decentralized governance) BU members vote on it, if we vote on yes, we implement it, make it user activated, and by default it set to off.We probably should go ahead and have a vote on this replay issue to get it out of the way and end speculation (I'll be voting no). Some kind of optional replay protection might work tho. Perhaps we could have a flag that core could choose to ignore with a hard fork...
Given that:LOL - love the idea, it is in keeping with the philosophy of BU - let users descried, (decentralized governance) BU members vote on it, if we vote on yes, we implement it, make it user activated, and by default it set to off.
Bitcoin might indeed be the best option, but that is not necessarily the best option for an investment strategy. I would think that it is better to have a diversified position, even if that means we just put a small proportion into the alternatives.I'm looking at my Alt portfolio I 90% of was lost to cryptsy, 60% of the remaining 10% are duds. so I dont consider myself diversified in this space.
I still see evidence that, what grows the network of money is users. I still see evidence that the more users who don't understand money the more susceptible they are to manipulation and of the money supply to centralized control.
The conclusion I draw from that is we don't need more complicated money we need simple money - that attracts new users. The easier it is to understand the lower the barrier to enter, and the harder it is to centralize control. The more complicated the more centralized the people who understand it, and the more controlled the people are who use it.
Layer 1,2 and soon 3 (3 being - smart contract fractional reserves) are going to make it impossible for the majority of the market to understand money (bitcoin) - the result is centralized manipulation.
So I still see bitcoin as the simplest of solutions, BS/Core aside they are trying to turn it into an inferior Etherium used as a settlement layer for Layer 2 networks.
so help me reconcile my position, Why is bitcoin still not the best option?