Bitcointalk Mobile Browser presented by IRLBTC™

Re: Why the hell this shit was not tested on testnet?

I assume this has something to do with the kind of worrying "Critical: Current Bitcoin network fork. Action needed by mining pools. Merchants should hold transactions.".

Are my bitcoins worthless now?

Some people are reporting missing coins from very recent transactions, you better check your wallet to make sure.

btc: 15sFnThw58hiGHYXyUAasgfauifTEB1ZF6

justusranvier

Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1014

March 12, 2013, 02:23:56 AM

Re: Why the hell this shit was not tested on testnet?

Seriously, you made TWO major changes at once (block size and database type) at once... And deployed in production and partially only (because not all people upgraded).

The problem is older than you think. 0.8 is fine (at least with regards to the current problem). 0.7 had a bug in it and consequently is not capable of handling what it's supposed to be able to handle.

dree12

Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1085

March 12, 2013, 02:25:55 AM

Ironically, more testing on testnet would not have helped this issue. Significantly less may have, as the network would have more time to upgrade.

I think the blame rests upon miners and merchants here. Miners should always upgrade and merchants should run FAN nodes.

solex

Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1007

100 satoshis -> ISO code

Re: Why the hell this shit was not tested on testnet?

March 12, 2013, 02:27:54 AM
Last edit: March 12, 2013, 02:52:29 AM by solex

Re: Why the hell this shit was not tested on testnet?

Core Dev are always having to maintain the engines on a jet aeroplane flying at 35,000 feet. I don't notice any oil on your hands!

Please help fund projects to advance Bitcoin:
P2Pool decentralized mining at 1KxvX5Hx8nh36ig2gT5bpeEcqLQcwJsZGB
rocks: Changing the supply limit fundamentally destroys bitcoin, but increasing the blocksize limit is absolutely needed to make it successful.

justusranvier

Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1014

March 12, 2013, 02:28:50 AM

Quote from: dree12 on March 12, 2013, 02:25:55 AM

Ironically, more testing on testnet would not have helped this issue. Significantly less may have, as the network would have more time to upgrade.

This might have helped:

https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/56323.0

JoelKatz

Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Re: Why the hell this shit was not tested on testnet?

March 12, 2013, 02:33:19 AM

Quote from: giszmo on March 12, 2013, 02:21:05 AM

Are my bitcoins worthless now?

If you've had bitcoins sitting in a wallet since before this happened, they are safe. Just don't do anything with them until the problem is resolved.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN

Nemesis

Sr. Member

Offline

Activity: 462
Merit: 250

Re: Why the hell this shit was not tested on testnet?

March 12, 2013, 02:59:21 AM

I wonder where Gavin is?

Did he make any statement? I dont see him posting comments in the sticky thread.

justusranvier

Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1014

Re: Why the hell this shit was not tested on testnet?

March 12, 2013, 03:00:19 AM

Quote from: Nemesis on March 12, 2013, 02:59:21 AM

I wonder where Gavin is?

Did he make any statement? I dont see him posting comments in the sticky thread.

Probably has more important coding-related things to do right now.

pera

Sr. Member

Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 261

バカ

Re: Why the hell this shit was not tested on testnet?

March 12, 2013, 03:15:46 AM

#10

Quote from: justusranvier on March 12, 2013, 02:23:56 AM

Re: Why the hell this shit was not tested on testnet?

Seriously, you made TWO major changes at once (block size and database type) at once... And deployed in production and partially only (because not all people upgraded).

incompatibility between versions should be called (at least) an issue imho...

ｷﾀ━━━━(ﾟ∀ﾟ)━━━━ｯ!!

justusranvier

Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1014

March 12, 2013, 03:25:45 AM

#11

Re: Why the hell this shit was not tested on testnet?

incompatibility between versions should be called (at least) an issue imho...

My point was that exhaustive testing of 0.8 would never have revealed the bug in 0.7 that nobody knew about.

Unit testing to make sure the code was actually capable of operating at the protocol limits would have caught the problem had it been performed on 0.7

gst

Newbie

Offline

Activity: 38
Merit: 0

March 12, 2013, 03:27:32 AM

#12

Re: Why the hell this shit was not tested on testnet?

What the hell are the devs thinking? What is the testnet for? Testnet is not only to test userland code, but it is a fine place to test mining code too damnit!

So are you paying the devs for developing the Bitcoin software? And why didn't YOU test the code in testnet before it was released as 0.8?

dree12

Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1085

March 12, 2013, 03:28:08 AM

#13

Quote from: justusranvier on March 12, 2013, 03:25:45 AM

Re: Why the hell this shit was not tested on testnet?

incompatibility between versions should be called (at least) an issue imho...

Indeed, the testing should have been conducted in the three years since Bitcoin was released. It's appalling how the edge conditions were never tested.

pyra-proxy

Hero Member

Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 500

March 12, 2013, 03:34:12 AM

#14

Quote from: justusranvier on March 12, 2013, 03:25:45 AM

Re: Why the hell this shit was not tested on testnet?

incompatibility between versions should be called (at least) an issue imho...

Indeed, the testing should have been conducted in the three years since Bitcoin was released. It's appalling how the edge conditions were never tested.

Not sure backward compatibility is an edge case.... generally its a big deal you plan a transition for. What happened here was a rushed satoshi dice bailout with much discussion on filtering out their transactions while a real solution could be worked on.... which now leaves everyone feeling the pain instead of a single entertainment site.

Invest DVC into Pyramining! Invest LTC into Pyramining! Invest BTC into Pyramining!
BitMessage Me! BM-ona3KEN74LgZP7i6EFYi7rTy1MFgShHSm

n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU

Hero Member

Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500

March 12, 2013, 03:35:21 AM

#15

Quote from: solex on March 12, 2013, 02:27:54 AM

Core Dev are always having to maintain the engines on a jet aeroplane flying at 35,000 feet. I don't notice any oil on your hands!

Yep. Backseat driving is rampant on this forum. We have geniuses coming out of the woodwork who demand Bitcoin developers be exempted from fundamental laws of mathematics and produce 100% perfect software.

Hint: look up "Halting Problem".

There will be bugs. Always. Either contribute to the testing & development cycle with your time or money, or stop complaining.

markm

Legendary

Offline

Activity: 3248
Merit: 1172

Re: Why the hell this shit was not tested on testnet?

March 12, 2013, 03:36:17 AM

#16

Running all versions that are not totally obsolete on testnet at same time as running new version on it might have caught this, maybe?

Sure only running the new version on testnet without any old versions there would not test their compatibility.

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/

dree12

Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1085

Re: Why the hell this shit was not tested on testnet?

March 12, 2013, 03:36:32 AM

#17

Quote from: pyra-proxy on March 12, 2013, 03:34:12 AM

Quote from: justusranvier on March 12, 2013, 03:25:45 AM

Re: Why the hell this shit was not tested on testnet?

incompatibility between versions should be called (at least) an issue imho...

Indeed, the testing should have been conducted in the three years since Bitcoin was released. It's appalling how the edge conditions were never tested.

The edge condition is referring to the blocks that were rejected even before 0.8 was released. A perfectly valid block could be rejected by every Bitcoin node. Isn't this something that should never happen?

solex

Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1007

100 satoshis -> ISO code

March 12, 2013, 03:39:07 AM

#18

Quote from: dree12 on March 12, 2013, 03:36:32 AM

Quote from: pyra-proxy on March 12, 2013, 03:34:12 AM

Quote from: justusranvier on March 12, 2013, 03:25:45 AM

Re: Why the hell this shit was not tested on testnet?

incompatibility between versions should be called (at least) an issue imho...

Indeed, the testing should have been conducted in the three years since Bitcoin was released. It's appalling how the edge conditions were never tested.

A block rejected by all nodes is by definition invalid. Someone will produce a new valid one, and the building will continue as normal.

dree12

Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1085

March 12, 2013, 03:40:43 AM

#19

Quote from: solex on March 12, 2013, 03:39:07 AM

Quote from: dree12 on March 12, 2013, 03:36:32 AM

Quote from: pyra-proxy on March 12, 2013, 03:34:12 AM

Quote from: justusranvier on March 12, 2013, 03:25:45 AM