Advanced Checkpointing released
-
Congrats. :)
-
How I reacted initially … [img]http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/not_having_it.gif[/img]
How I’m dealing with it now … [img]http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/just-hug-it-out.gif[/img]
How I hope it ends … [img]http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/the-brain-likes.gif[/img] -
Gangsters can kidnap me and chop my fingers off but I would not be able to checkpoint their blocks. That would be an unpleasant misunderstanding. The only control I have in the software is how deep the checkpoint is. I cannot remove existing checkpoints in the system.
-
[quote name=“Bushstar” post=“26451” timestamp=“1377676845”]
Gangsters can kidnap me and chop my fingers off but I would not be able to checkpoint their blocks. That would be an unpleasant misunderstanding. The only control I have in the software is how deep the checkpoint is. I cannot remove existing checkpoints in the system.
[/quote]for remove it’s absolutely true.
for checkpointing other blocks, unfortunately that is true only with unmodified code in real network. You have the private key to checkpoint, this is what in fact can make a checkpoint. so a modified or isolated checkpointer can checkpoint any block [b]after[/b] the last checkpointed block. So it can not checkpoint some block in a chain(not seen because it’s isolated or ignore via code change) and then checkpoint another chain block orphaning the first chain without checkpoint (i’m not sure what would happen if checkpoint on both conficting chain would be send. )
-
I am sure that this system could be abused if it fell into the wrong hands. Which is why I believe that we need to work on making this solution distributed.
I’ve posted this elsewhere and should post it here. You can enable and disable the checkpointing with enforcecheckpoint true and enforcecheckpoint false.
[quote]./feathercoind enforcecheckpoint false
./feathercoind getcheckpoint
{
“synccheckpoint” : “ac9376eb5161c3699ae8492bb23f17e02876d6f5b58dd9767ee137b49ea563c0”,
“height” : 68665,
“timestamp” : 1376803376,
“subscribemode” : “advisory”
}
./feathercoind enforcecheckpoint true
./feathercoind getcheckpoint
{
“synccheckpoint” : “ac9376eb5161c3699ae8492bb23f17e02876d6f5b58dd9767ee137b49ea563c0”,
“height” : 68665,
“timestamp” : 1376803376,
“subscribemode” : “enforce”
}[/quote] -
Also, kidnap and grievous bodily harm is illegal in the UK.
Feathercoin-qt, compiled from source under Linux, now on 4.3.1.
I agree with Bushstar, we have to work against the problems we have, kidnap isn’t one of them in the short term. Wheras, we are suffering from “cyber attacks” which is hitting our miners pockets, so ACP is a very positive development.
Well Done.
-
Wholeheartedly agree with wrapper0feather.
Well done Bushstar.
-
[quote name=“wrapper0feather” post=“26489” timestamp=“1377701628”]
Feathercoin-qt, compiled from source under Linux, now on 4.3.1.
[/quote]
What is the official version numbering? I’ve a Version 0.6.4.3, according to the .pro file
Where can I find the verision info in the sources?
I’ve created for Debian 7.0 and several OpenSuse distributions for those are not comfortable to compile the wallet on Linux themselves.
Debian: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/wellenreiter01/Debian_7.0/Packages.mirrorlist
-
[quote name=“wrapper0feather” post=“26489” timestamp=“1377701628”]
Also, kidnap and grievous bodily harm is illegal in the UK.Feathercoin-qt, compiled from source under Linux, now on 4.3.1.
I agree with Bushstar, we have to work against the problems we have, kidnap isn’t one of them in the short term. Wheras, we are suffering from “cyber attacks” which is hitting our miners pockets, so ACP is a very positive development.
Well Done.
[/quote]Agree :)
-
[quote name=“Bushstar” post=“26486” timestamp=“1377700458”]
I am sure that this system could be abused if it fell into the wrong hands. Which is why I believe that we need to work on making this solution distributed.I’ve posted this elsewhere and should post it here. You can enable and disable the checkpointing with enforcecheckpoint true and enforcecheckpoint false.
[quote]./feathercoind enforcecheckpoint false
./feathercoind getcheckpoint
{
“synccheckpoint” : “ac9376eb5161c3699ae8492bb23f17e02876d6f5b58dd9767ee137b49ea563c0”,
“height” : 68665,
“timestamp” : 1376803376,
“subscribemode” : “advisory”
}
./feathercoind enforcecheckpoint true
./feathercoind getcheckpoint
{
“synccheckpoint” : “ac9376eb5161c3699ae8492bb23f17e02876d6f5b58dd9767ee137b49ea563c0”,
“height” : 68665,
“timestamp” : 1376803376,
“subscribemode” : “enforce”
}[/quote]
[/quote][quote]“Will there be a console command in the future?”[/quote]
-
It’s sassy and I like it.
[img]http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/dancing/tumblr_liuqmpbAG81qzb2ai.gif[/img]
-
I didn’t realize how centralized this system would be…sorry I’ve been so busy to keep up with this development…
[u][i]“This is a form of centralisation as the checkpoint master node is deployed and maintained by the lead developer Peter Bushnell. Currently no other person has access to this system but it is planned to make the checkpointing system distributed over time. Distributing this system would allow several stakeholders like mining pools to have a vote on which block gets checkpointed. The controls in the system are very limited and only allow the developer to change the depth at which the blocks are checkpointed. This is an automated process and there is no facility to pick and choose which blocks get checkpointed.”[/i][/u]
Because of this I have to say I completely disagree with this model of protection. When Sunny King did this initially for PPC I was 100% against it, sounds the same.
Centralization of a cryptocurrency network in any form or fashion contradicts the original purpose for the cryprocurrency.
Allowing mining pools to vote based on their hash power is also flawed as it is just another form of centralization. This reminds me of the “Electoral Vote” which in my view is a BS system of determining results of an election. Same applies here.
-
[quote name=“Bushstar” post=“26451” timestamp=“1377676845”]
Gangsters can kidnap me and chop my fingers off but I would not be able to checkpoint their blocks. That would be an unpleasant misunderstanding. The only control I have in the software is how deep the checkpoint is. I cannot remove existing checkpoints in the system.
[/quote]So if you set the depth = 0 then what?
Broken system in my view.
-
[quote name=“Smoothie” post=“26595” timestamp=“1377788197”]
I didn’t realize how centralized this system would be…sorry I’ve been so busy to keep up with this development…[u][i]“This is a form of centralisation as the checkpoint master node is deployed and maintained by the lead developer Peter Bushnell. Currently no other person has access to this system but it is planned to make the checkpointing system distributed over time. Distributing this system would allow several stakeholders like mining pools to have a vote on which block gets checkpointed. The controls in the system are very limited and only allow the developer to change the depth at which the blocks are checkpointed. This is an automated process and there is no facility to pick and choose which blocks get checkpointed.”[/i][/u]
Because of this I have to say I completely disagree with this model of protection. When Sunny King did this initially for PPC I was 100% against it, sounds the same.
Centralization of a cryptocurrency network in any form or fashion contradicts the original purpose for the cryprocurrency.
Allowing mining pools to vote based on their hash power is also flawed as it is just another form of centralization. This reminds me of the “Electoral Vote” which in my view is a BS system of determining results of an election. Same applies here.
[/quote]I respect the opinion, but completely disagree. Cryptocurrency can evolve into whatever direction a community wants to take it. You have a Bitcoin Foundation talking to Washington on behalf of a LOT people, that’s a form of centralization. In fact, I’d argue what they are doing is far more centralized than ACP. I really do respect the purists, however, in the real world, *** I *** feel compromises need to be met.
Again, I want to avoid as much centralization as possible, however, I feel this was the right move with the direction we’re heading. Just my 2 cents.
-
[b]QUESTION: What would happen if the master node were to crash? Would the network come to a halt? Who or what would decide the depth of checkpointing and validate the checkpoints?[/b]
-
[quote name=“Justabitoftime” post=“26598” timestamp=“1377788725”]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26595#msg26595 date=1377788197]
I didn’t realize how centralized this system would be…sorry I’ve been so busy to keep up with this development…[u][i]“This is a form of centralisation as the checkpoint master node is deployed and maintained by the lead developer Peter Bushnell. Currently no other person has access to this system but it is planned to make the checkpointing system distributed over time. Distributing this system would allow several stakeholders like mining pools to have a vote on which block gets checkpointed. The controls in the system are very limited and only allow the developer to change the depth at which the blocks are checkpointed. This is an automated process and there is no facility to pick and choose which blocks get checkpointed.”[/i][/u]
Because of this I have to say I completely disagree with this model of protection. When Sunny King did this initially for PPC I was 100% against it, sounds the same.
Centralization of a cryptocurrency network in any form or fashion contradicts the original purpose for the cryprocurrency.
Allowing mining pools to vote based on their hash power is also flawed as it is just another form of centralization. This reminds me of the “Electoral Vote” which in my view is a BS system of determining results of an election. Same applies here.
[/quote]I respect the opinion, but completely disagree. [b]Cryptocurrency can evolve into whatever direction a community wants to take it.[/b] You have a Bitcoin Foundation talking to Washington on behalf of a LOT people, that’s a form of centralization. In fact, I’d argue what they are doing is far more centralized than ACP. I really do respect the purists, however, in the real world, *** I *** feel compromises need to be met.
Again, I want to avoid as much centralization as possible, however, I feel this was the right move with the direction we’re heading. Just my 2 cents.
[/quote]I never said that the changes could not be accepted by the users. People can choose to accept changes if they wish. That is the beauty of the free-market.
I just question if the users really understand the risks of having such a centralized system. As indicated by my question in my post above ^.
-
[quote name=“Smoothie” post=“26600” timestamp=“1377788896”]
[b]QUESTION: What would happen if the master node were to crash? Would the network come to a halt? Who or what would decide the depth of checkpointing and validate the checkpoints?[/b]
[/quote]http://bitcoinmagazine.com/6263/feathercoin-interview-with-peter-bushnell/
“This is not mandatory as clients can opt-out. If the feed goes down, the network carries on as normal and when the feed comes back it starts checkpointing from the end of the network blockchain.”
I have to get ready for work, good debating with you.
-
[quote name=“Justabitoftime” post=“26604” timestamp=“1377789081”]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26600#msg26600 date=1377788896]
[b]QUESTION: What would happen if the master node were to crash? Would the network come to a halt? Who or what would decide the depth of checkpointing and validate the checkpoints?[/b]
[/quote]http://bitcoinmagazine.com/6263/feathercoin-interview-with-peter-bushnell/
“This is not mandatory as clients can opt-out. If the feed goes down, the network carries on as normal and when the feed comes back it starts checkpointing from the end of the network blockchain.”
I have to get ready for work, good debating with you.
[/quote]Firstly, I wouldn’t call it a debate, but a discussion.
Secondly, having a system that can go down when the network “needs” it is pointless. What is the point of a system that isn’t in place 24/7? This would be a window of opportunity for an attacker to attack the network no?
I understand that people can opt out, but what does that really accomplish? The centralization still exists on Peter’s end. If he so chose he could set the checkpointing depth = 0. Then what?
-
[quote name=“Smoothie” post=“26606” timestamp=“1377789262”]
[quote author=Justabitoftime link=topic=3438.msg26604#msg26604 date=1377789081]
[quote author=Smoothie link=topic=3438.msg26600#msg26600 date=1377788896]
[b]QUESTION: What would happen if the master node were to crash? Would the network come to a halt? Who or what would decide the depth of checkpointing and validate the checkpoints?[/b]
[/quote]http://bitcoinmagazine.com/6263/feathercoin-interview-with-peter-bushnell/
“This is not mandatory as clients can opt-out. If the feed goes down, the network carries on as normal and when the feed comes back it starts checkpointing from the end of the network blockchain.”
I have to get ready for work, good debating with you.
[/quote]Firstly, I wouldn’t call it a debate, but a discussion.
[/quote]
*slaps head* Ok … well, good ‘talking’ to you then. There’s been a lot of debate about the checkpointing prior to implementation, it’s always nice to hear different points of view.
-
To be completely fair I suggest that Peter have the new portion of the code reviewed by other coin developers just to get input from a technical perspective.
Perhaps Peter already did this as I have not been watching this that closely.
