Slashdot Mirror
Bitcoin Blockchain Forked By Backward-Compatibility Issue
New submitter jhantin writes "The Bitcoin blockchain has forked due to a lurking backward-compatibility issue: versions older than 0.8 do not properly handle blocks larger than about 500k, and Slush's pool mined a 974k block today. The problem is that not all mining operations are on 0.8; blocks are being generated by a mix of several different versions of the daemon, each making its own decision as to which of the two forks is preferable to extend, and older versions refuse to honor or extend from a block of this size. The consensus on #bitcoin-dev is damage control: miners need to mine on pre-0.8 code so the backward-compatible fork will outgrow and thus dominate the compatibility-breaking one; merchants need to stop accepting transactions until the network re-converges on the backward-compatible fork of the chain; and average users can ignore the warning that they are out of sync and need to upgrade."
Turns out there's an approximately 512K limit to atomic updates in Berkeley DB which were used by versions prior to 0.8. 0.8 uses a new database, allowing blockchains that old versions won't accept to be created.
Just ask yourself what Ayn Rand would do in the same situation.
Die in penniless poverty while dependent on the state to provide basic income and medical facilities that are necessary to maintain her life, all while maintaining that such a system is inherently evil? It's what I like to think of Ayn Rand doing in *any* situation.
The Weimar republic and Zimbabwe suffered massive inflation, not deflation.
You laugh, but some of the developers, the lead developer Gavin, and another core developer Mike Hearn, are pushing really hard to get the current 1MB limit (7 transactions/second) on blocks lifted so Bitcoin can directly scale to VISA-like volumes.
Never mind that Bitcoin is inherently an unscalable O(n^2) network - every transaction has to be broadcast to every node - and the issue they ran into was also a problem scaling. Mike's solution is to just throw thousands of dollars worth of hardware at the problem. Never mind that for Bitcoin *any* issue the means that some nodes can process a large block, and some can't, turns into the same hard-fork we just saw. Never mind that it will make Bitcoin centralized, and lead to perverse incentives for large miners to attack smaller ones.
You'd think they'd say "OK, hold on, how about we just use ways to transfer funds that don't have to go into this shared state ball of mess?" but no, they're desperate to take the easy way out at any cost.
I really wonder if my Bitcoins will be worth anything in a few years.