Thanks guys, it sounds great.
Testing the JSON-RPC is/was not the main goal, just an interface for testing.
I didn't know that the bitcoinj implementation is getting close to a
full implementation..it sounds interesting, as it's much easier to
understand and work with. I'll look at the test cases.
These tests are run on each pull requests and on each new commit to
master. They arent very complete, but they do test a lot of block
acceptance rules.
https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/test-scripts
Matt
On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 12:24 -0500, Adam Ritter wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I just bought some BitC
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Adam Ritter wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I just bought some BitCoins after being lazy to do it for the last few
> years, but also looked at the client code and the messages that are
> going on this mailing list.
> I saw that there are quite some unit tests, but I didn't
Hey guys,
I just bought some BitCoins after being lazy to do it for the last few
years, but also looked at the client code and the messages that are
going on this mailing list.
I saw that there are quite some unit tests, but I didn't find
integration test for BitCoin, and I believe that it's quite
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 12:13:23PM +0200, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> Totally see the logic of this, and it makes sense. But I dont think the
> only risk is in terms of double spend, but rather
>
> 1) vandalize the block chain which may be difficult to unwind?
Vandalize the chain how? By delibratel
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:48:51 +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> However, youre somewhat right in the sense that its a self-defeating
> attack. If the pool owner went bad, he could pull it off once, but
> the
> act of doing so would leave a permanent record and many of the people
> mining on his pool would
On 5 April 2013 11:48, Mike Hearn wrote:
> 51% isn't a magic number - it's possible to do double spends against
> confirmed transactions before that. If Michael wanted to do so, with the
> current setup he could, and that's obviously rather different to how
> Satoshi envisioned mining working.
>
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> but I think p2pool still has a lot of problems dealing with
> FPGA/ASIC hardware and it hasn't been growing for a long time.
As an aside and a clarification— P2pool works great with FPGAs, and
one of the largest FPGA farms I've heard of uses it.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Melvin Carvalho
wrote:
> There was some chat on IRC about a mining pool reaching 46%
> http://blockchain.info/pools
The estimates on there may be a bit lossy.
> What's the risk of a 51% attack.
The whole fixation on "51" as a magic number is a bit confused— I'll
51% isn't a magic number - it's possible to do double spends against
confirmed transactions before that. If Michael wanted to do so, with the
current setup he could, and that's obviously rather different to how
Satoshi envisioned mining working.
However, you're somewhat right in the sense that it'
There was some chat on IRC about a mining pool reaching 46%
http://blockchain.info/pools
What's the risk of a 51% attack.
I suggested that the pool itself is decentralized so you could not launch
one
On IRC people were saying that the pool owner gets to choose what goes in
the block
Surely wit
11 matches
Mail list logo
