Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-03-12 📝 Original message:On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-03-12
📝 Original message:On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Mike Hearn <mike at 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 at 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 ???
Published at
2023-06-07 11:37:25Event JSON
{
"id": "9f6cdc7cf4f3b445aaa80b5fcc4f8d7bb4d5fcd5c8749bfe82ea0fc7bf1839c2",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686137845,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"bf6db92ac74ed2040908c22a007eaccc4dacca3e534709bcb8876ea849933631",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4cdd1dace15dcaecec9b0871d6d8dcbff3e5743928fca6018fced0997052c59d",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"73b6e6f0344a84112c64d1df426c3d59d01dad0d1bc9c6503ca9c735bcfc9959"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-03-12\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e BDB ran out of locks.\n\u003e However, only on some 0.7 nodes. Others, perhaps nodes using different\n\u003e flags, managed it.\n\u003e We have processed 1mb sized blocks on the testnet.\n\u003e Therefore it isn't presently clear why that particular block caused\n\u003e lock exhaustion when other larger blocks have not.\n\nLocks are only mostly related to block size, once I heard what was\nhappening I was unsurprised the max sized test blocks hadn't triggered\nit.\n\n\u003e Therefore it is possible that we have a very limited amount of time\nuntil nodes start dying en-masse.\n\nScaremongering much? Egads.\n\nOn Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Michael Gronager \u003cgronager at ceptacle.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Forks are caused by rejection criteria, hence:\n\u003e 1. If you introduce new rejection criteria in an upgrade miners should upgrade _first_.\n\u003e 2. If you loosen some rejection criteria miners should upgrade _last_.\n\u003e 3. If you keep the same criteria assume 2.\n\nAnd ... if you aren't aware that you're making a change ???",
"sig": "01bad91dc738b94bbe2bc3d4e0bdbc08a8306290c9581ec6f39a0979c9a1008f690838fd820bda0b757072c72d9f6f00bd902d356288c9a3374592c34348bc05"
}