s_nakamoto 2008 12 10 https://web.archive.org/web/20091129020634/http://sourceforge.net/users/s_nakamoto
Forwarded from πͺππ±π±π₯π¦ππ°
Nils Schneider discovered in 2010 an optimization of the same kind as ASICBOOST to get 70% speedup in Bitcoin mining.
He he may have used it covertly before reporting (we don't know).
This was 2010-07-27.
Satoshi added the optimization to Bitcoin source code.
This optimization is of the same family as ASICBOOST. Nil's optimization removed a full SHA256 compression/message expansion.
You can see the diff here:
https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/code/113/tree//trunk/main.cpp?diff=515630145fcbc978e39dbaa5:112
The commit is r113: "tcatm's cached SHA256 state idea, about 70% faster generating"
Nobody called this an attack.
He he may have used it covertly before reporting (we don't know).
This was 2010-07-27.
Satoshi added the optimization to Bitcoin source code.
This optimization is of the same family as ASICBOOST. Nil's optimization removed a full SHA256 compression/message expansion.
You can see the diff here:
https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/code/113/tree//trunk/main.cpp?diff=515630145fcbc978e39dbaa5:112
The commit is r113: "tcatm's cached SHA256 state idea, about 70% faster generating"
Nobody called this an attack.
What is more annoying is that all Bitcoin releases before 0.3.24 were just deleted from sourceforge. Why?? Here's Linux 1.0.0 from 1994, they aren't trying to erase their history... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68121.msg814283#msg814283
Quote from: deepceleron on March 22, 2012, 02:21:51 PM
What is more annoying is that all Bitcoin releases before 0.3.24 were just deleted from sourceforge. Why?? Here's Linux 1.0.0 from 1994, they aren't trying to erase their history...
That's source code for the kernel, right?
I removed the old binary releases from SourceForge because it was getting annoying to find things like testnet-in-a-box in that very long list, and also getting hard to see what the latest release was. And with our gitian reproducible build process, the windows/linux binaries for recent releases are deterministically reproducible from the source code.
See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tags for the history back to the 0.1.5 release. Uploading 0.1 to github is a good idea, maybe somebody who knows more about git than I do can suggest the best way to do that. Gavin Andresen https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68121.msg814283#msg814283
What is more annoying is that all Bitcoin releases before 0.3.24 were just deleted from sourceforge. Why?? Here's Linux 1.0.0 from 1994, they aren't trying to erase their history...
That's source code for the kernel, right?
I removed the old binary releases from SourceForge because it was getting annoying to find things like testnet-in-a-box in that very long list, and also getting hard to see what the latest release was. And with our gitian reproducible build process, the windows/linux binaries for recent releases are deterministically reproducible from the source code.
See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tags for the history back to the 0.1.5 release. Uploading 0.1 to github is a good idea, maybe somebody who knows more about git than I do can suggest the best way to do that. Gavin Andresen https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68121.msg814283#msg814283
GitHub
Tags Β· bitcoin/bitcoin
Bitcoin Core integration/staging tree. Contribute to bitcoin/bitcoin development by creating an account on GitHub.
First post from Satoshi in SouceForge https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-list/?viewmonth=200812
2009-01-12
Release notes for Bitcoin v0.1 Alpha https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-list/?viewmonth=200901
Release notes for Bitcoin v0.1 Alpha https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-list/?viewmonth=200901
Forwarded from 2008 - 2010 361 BitCoin History (@RamonQuesada π·)
From: Nicholas Bohm <nbohm@er...> - 2009-02-18 14:55:50
Version 0.1.5 seems to be running trouble free. I have a list of 201
transactions, I've accumulated about bc8550. Transfers in and out seem
to work fine (after a bit of head-scratching to understand the labelling
of incoming transactions).
What's next?
Nicholas Bohm
Version 0.1.5 seems to be running trouble free. I have a list of 201
transactions, I've accumulated about bc8550. Transfers in and out seem
to work fine (after a bit of head-scratching to understand the labelling
of incoming transactions).
What's next?
Nicholas Bohm