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
|
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 <gmaxwell@gmail.com>)
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 <multiple recipients>; 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: <CANEZrP2V9uDQ-dmyaUBbsCuj5u3Mrh+jvU9RDpYkrKQV6+t0tQ@mail.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>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:38:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSOxon1m79gA_afgG7ypHRJfurb4ydZuCBgb_sSy1HG+w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
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-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
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: <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 12:38:33 -0000
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> 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 <gronager@ceptacle.com> 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 ???
|
