blob: 326f88d8ad770cbeceb026fec06e7b6b0fefe2c9 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jayf@outlook.com>) id 1UFOi3-0004tL-Ow
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:53:39 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of outlook.com
designates 65.55.111.160 as permitted sender)
client-ip=65.55.111.160; envelope-from=jayf@outlook.com;
helo=blu0-omc4-s21.blu0.hotmail.com;
Received: from blu0-omc4-s21.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.111.160])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1UFOi1-0007Is-I4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:53:39 +0000
Received: from BLU0-SMTP421 ([65.55.111.137]) by
blu0-omc4-s21.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft
SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:41:02 -0700
X-EIP: [ACPMlK+m67RnE17Ex5DsfIHKI1NtOrI/]
X-Originating-Email: [jayf@outlook.com]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP421E184DD5F1D5562F40D3FC8E20@phx.gbl>
Received: from [192.168.1.15] ([67.189.14.219]) by BLU0-SMTP421.phx.gbl over
TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);
Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:41:01 -0700
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:40:59 -0700
From: Jay F <jayf@outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= <jtimonmv@gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBip_4Jtxhq+rm-na2=RSJ_PuoZt+akGgJyo0b_Bwbr1Dw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBjm+e=A+edSRHXU7JSqyfSc4hou_SRdQHF48xhKQGA4zA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2V9uDQ-dmyaUBbsCuj5u3Mrh+jvU9RDpYkrKQV6+t0tQ@mail.gmail.com>
<FB4ED2C4-8B65-438B-8B77-44234A644051@ceptacle.com>
<20130312114426.GA3701@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
<CABOyFfrVCRfJ2R8a-XGcviSbORDswe+N13G_FrVkbWtEhtoTjw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABOyFfrVCRfJ2R8a-XGcviSbORDswe+N13G_FrVkbWtEhtoTjw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2013 12:41:01.0409 (UTC)
FILETIME=[DA689510:01CE1F1E]
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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
(jayf[at]outlook.com)
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [65.55.111.160 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.0 MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER Message-Id was added by a relay
X-Headers-End: 1UFOi1-0007Is-I4
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:53:40 -0000
On 3/12/2013 5:18 AM=2C Jorge Tim=F3n wrote:
> 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=2C if someone can
> bring some light to it I would appreciate it.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
It was reported that not all 0.7 died from the BDB error either. This=20
will likely take a post-mortem to determine exactly what build=20
environments and versions are incompatible=2C by feeding each the bloated=20
block (hopefully there are lots of snapshots of the bad chain being the=20
best height for testing=3B I forgot to get one).
|
