Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

addrindex applied to 0.9.5 #3

Closed
robby-d opened this issue Jul 8, 2015 · 5 comments
Closed

addrindex applied to 0.9.5 #3

robby-d opened this issue Jul 8, 2015 · 5 comments

Comments

@robby-d
Copy link

robby-d commented Jul 8, 2015

Hi @btcdrak , as you probably know, we're experiencing multiple stability issues around bitcoind 0.10.x. Due to the severity of these, we were wanting to switch back down to 0.9.x for the time being. Given that 0.9.5 has the SPV mining fixes, I was wondering if you could produce a patched version for 0.9.5, which Counterparty could utilize until 0.10.x's sync stability issues are fixed.

Thanks in advance for any assistance here!
@btcdrak
Copy link
Owner

btcdrak commented Jul 8, 2015

Would you mind testing the a11 branch which is built on Bitcoin Core 0.11 which is about to be released?

@btcdrak
Copy link
Owner

btcdrak commented Jul 8, 2015

https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-lib/issues/784

@robby-d
Copy link
Author

robby-d commented Oct 12, 2015

@btcdrak I saw addrindex patches have been applied to 0.11. do you consider 0.11-addrindex good to go for production use? if so, would it be possible to get a binary build up? (I am seeing some performance issues with 0.10 -- e.g. direct RPC API calls to something simple like getblockcount can periodically vary widely in the amount of time they take to return, e.g. .5 seconds or more... wondering if 0.11 could possibly address this)

@btcdrak
Copy link
Owner

btcdrak commented Oct 12, 2015

Yes, I am planning a binary build the the next 0.11.1 Bitcoin Core release.

@btcdrak
Copy link
Owner

btcdrak commented Oct 23, 2015

Released.

@btcdrak btcdrak closed this as completed Oct 23, 2015
btcdrak pushed a commit that referenced this issue Oct 16, 2016
Squashed 'src/univalue/' changes from daf1285..16a1f7f
2ca7faa 
16a1f7f Merge #3: Pull upstream
3f03bfd Merge pull request #27 from laanwj/2016_09_const_refs
5668ca3 Return const references from getKeys, getValues, get_str
cedda14 Merge pull request bitcoin#28 from MarcoFalke/patch-1
9f0b997 [travis] Work around osx libtool issue

git-subtree-dir: src/univalue
git-subtree-split: 16a1f7f
btcdrak pushed a commit that referenced this issue Nov 21, 2016
@sipa
Merge bitcoin#9075: Decouple peer-processing-logic from block-connect…
9346f84 
…ion-logic (#3)

ae22357 Replace CValidationState param in ProcessNewBlock with BlockChecked (Matt Corallo)
7c98ce5 Remove pfrom parameter from ProcessNewBlock (Matt Corallo)
e2e069d Revert "RPC: Give more details when "generate" fails" (Matt Corallo)
btcdrak pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 14, 2018
Merge bitcoin#13806: qa: Fix bench/block_assemble assert failure
4d550ff 
6f53edb Acquire cs_main before ATMP call in block_assemble bench (James O'Beirne)

Pull request description:

  Calling `bench_bitcoin` currently fails due to calling ATMP without acquiring cs_main first in the recently added block_assemble bench (bitcoin#13219).

  ```
  $ cat <(uname -a) <(gcc --version)

  Linux james 4.4.0-119-generic bitcoin#143+jamesob SMP Mon Apr 16 21:47:24 EDT 2018 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
  gcc (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609

  $ ./src/bench/bench_bitcoin

  WARNING: This is a debug build - may result in slower benchmarks.
  # Benchmark, evals, iterations, total, min, max, median
  Assertion failed: lock cs_main not held in validation.cpp:566; locks held:
  [1]    19323 abort (core dumped)  ./src/bench/bench_bitcoin
  ```

  ```
  (gdb) bt
  #0  0x00007fbdc9cf5428 in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:54
  #1  0x00007fbdc9cf702a in __GI_abort () at abort.c:89
  #2  0x0000555a19580dc5 in AssertLockHeldInternal (pszName=pszName@entry=0x555a19834549 "cs_main",
      pszFile=pszFile@entry=0x555a1988a001 "validation.cpp", nLine=nLine@entry=566, cs=cs@entry=0x555a19ba55c0 <cs_main>) at sync.cpp:157
  #3  0x0000555a194b395f in AcceptToMemoryPoolWorker (chainparams=..., pool=..., state=...,
      ptx=std::shared_ptr (count 1, weak 0) 0x555a1bb819b0, pfMissingInputs=pfMissingInputs@entry=0x0, nAcceptTime=1532964079,
      plTxnReplaced=0x0, bypass_limits=false, nAbsurdFee=@0x7ffcbc1719d8: 0, coins_to_uncache=std::vector of length 0, capacity 0,
      test_accept=false) at validation.cpp:566
  #4  0x0000555a194ba661 in AcceptToMemoryPoolWithTime (chainparams=..., pool=..., state=...,
      tx=std::shared_ptr (count 1, weak 0) 0x555a1bb819b0, pfMissingInputs=pfMissingInputs@entry=0x0, nAcceptTime=<optimized out>,
      plTxnReplaced=0x0, bypass_limits=false, nAbsurdFee=0, test_accept=false) at validation.cpp:998
  #5  0x0000555a194ba7ce in AcceptToMemoryPool (pool=..., state=..., tx=std::shared_ptr (count 1, weak 0) 0x555a1bb819b0,
      pfMissingInputs=pfMissingInputs@entry=0x0, plTxnReplaced=plTxnReplaced@entry=0x0, bypass_limits=bypass_limits@entry=false, nAbsurdFee=0,
      test_accept=false) at validation.cpp:1014
  #6  0x0000555a19363fbe in AssembleBlock (state=...) at bench/block_assemble.cpp:102
  #7  0x0000555a193654d3 in std::_Function_handler<void (benchmark::State&), void (*)(benchmark::State&)>::_M_invoke(std::_Any_data const&, benchmark::State&) (__functor=..., __args#0=...) at /usr/include/c++/5/functional:1871
  #8  0x0000555a193501d7 in std::function<void (benchmark::State&)>::operator()(benchmark::State&) const (this=this@entry=0x555a1ba2cda0,
      __args#0=...) at /usr/include/c++/5/functional:2267
  #9  0x0000555a1934ec4c in benchmark::BenchRunner::RunAll (printer=..., num_evals=5, scaling=<optimized out>, filter=..., is_list_only=false)
      at bench/bench.cpp:121
  #10 0x0000555a1934ade9 in main (argc=<optimized out>, argv=<optimized out>) at bench/bench_bitcoin.cpp:92
  ```

Tree-SHA512: fdd7b28ff123ccea7a4f334d53f735d0c0f94aa9cc52520c2dd34dca45d78c691af64efcd32366fc472fedffbd79591d2be2bb3bfc4a5186e8712b6b452d64e3
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@robby-d @btcdrak