Sriram Karra [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2015-07-22 to 2015-10-09
💬 Posted a total of 9 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev, Bitcoin-development
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 19:39:45

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-07
📝 Original message:Your problem is it cannot find your Boost libs. Why exactly are you trying
to build with a custom lib directory?
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 11:24 PM, LinuXperia via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I am trying to compile bitcoin core on my ubuntu Linux machine as follow:
>
> ./autogen.sh
>
> ./configure
> CPPFLAGS="-I/media/linuxperia/mydata/Projects/bitcoi/depends/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/include/
> -O2"
> LDFLAGS="-L/media/linuxperia/mydata/Projects/bitcoin/depends/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/"
> --without-gui
>
> make
>
> but i am getting always this Build Error message here!
> What i am doing wrong ?
> How can i fix this build problem so i am able to run the Bitcoin-core Node
> on my Machine ?
>
> Thanks in advance for your helpful solution tips!
>
> CXXLD bitcoind
> libbitcoin_server.a(libbitcoin_server_a-init.o): In function
> `boost::filesystem::path::path<boost::filesystem::directory_entry>(boost::filesystem::directory_entry
> const&,
> boost::enable_if<boost::filesystem::path_traits::is_pathable<boost::decay<boost::filesystem::directory_entry>::type>,
> void>::type*)':
> /media/linuxperia/mydata/Projects/bitcoin/depends/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/include/boost/filesystem/path.hpp:140:
> undefined reference to
> `boost::filesystem::path_traits::dispatch(boost::filesystem::directory_entry
> const&, std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>,
> std::allocator<char> >&)'
> libbitcoin_util.a(libbitcoin_util_a-util.o): In function `GetNumCores()':
> /media/linuxperia/mydata/Projects/bitcoin/src/util.cpp:825: undefined
> reference to `boost::thread::physical_concurrency()'
> libbitcoin_util.a(libbitcoin_util_a-util.o): In function
> `boost::program_options::detail::basic_config_file_iterator<char>::getline(std::__cxx11::basic_string<char,
> std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >&)':
> /media/linuxperia/mydata/Projects/bitcoin/depends/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/include/boost/program_options/detail/config_file.hpp:161:
> undefined reference to
> `boost::program_options::to_internal(std::__cxx11::basic_string<char,
> std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > const&)'
> libbitcoin_util.a(libbitcoin_util_a-util.o): In function
> `boost::program_options::detail::basic_config_file_iterator<char>::basic_config_file_iterator(std::istream&,
> std::set<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>,
> std::allocator<char> >, std::less<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char,
> std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >,
> std::allocator<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>,
> std::allocator<char> > > > const&, bool)':
> /media/linuxperia/mydata/Projects/bitcoin/depends/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/include/boost/program_options/detail/config_file.hpp:145:
> undefined reference to
> `boost::program_options::detail::common_config_file_iterator::common_config_file_iterator(std::set<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char,
> std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >,
> std::less<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>,
> std::allocator<char> > >, std::allocator<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char,
> std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > > > const&, bool)'
> libbitcoin_wallet.a(libbitcoin_wallet_a-walletdb.o): In function
> `boost::filesystem::copy_file(boost::filesystem::path const&,
> boost::filesystem::path const&, boost::filesystem::copy_option::enum_type)':
> /media/linuxperia/mydata/Projects/bitcoin/depends/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/include/boost/filesystem/operations.hpp:497:
> undefined reference to
> `boost::filesystem::detail::copy_file(boost::filesystem::path const&,
> boost::filesystem::path const&, boost::filesystem::detail::copy_option,
> boost::system::error_code*)'
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> Makefile:2620: recipe for target 'bitcoind' failed
> make[2]: *** [bitcoind] Error 1
> make[2]: Leaving directory '/media/linuxperia/mydata/Projects/bitcoin/src'
> Makefile:6559: recipe for target 'all-recursive' failed
> make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[1]: Leaving directory '/media/linuxperia/mydata/Projects/bitcoin/src'
> Makefile:626: recipe for target 'all-recursive' failed
> make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150907/d7a00b09/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 19:36:25

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-21
📝 Original message:On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Jorge Timón <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> For the 73th time or so this month on this list:
>
> The maximum block size consensus rule limits mining centralization
> (which is currently pretty bad).
>
> But don't worry about not being an authority on the subject: Gavin
> (who has written extensively on the subject) doesn't seem to
> understand this either.
>
If your goal is to get the Miners (who are highly centralised today) to
implement a change in consensus rule that will limit mining centralisation,
guess what public position you will be taking?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150821/dcbed20f/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 17:48:00

- reply

2023-06-07 17:43:52

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-29
📝 Original message:On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
>
>
> > Miners who don't validate have a habit of bleeding money: that's the
> > system working as designed.
>
> The information I have currently is that the parties engaging in that
> activity found it to be tremendously profitable, even including losses
> from issues.
Is there any shred of evidence either of you can share to support your
claims on this pivotal point of interest to everyone here?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150729/0f0bfde4/attachment-0001.html>

2023-06-07 17:42:31

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-22
📝 Original message:On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I personally *don't* think he's doing that, rather I believe he knows
> full well it's a bad patch and is proposing it because he wants to push
> discussion towards a solution. Often trolling the a audience with bad
> patches is an effective way to motivate people to respond by writing
> better ones; Jeff has told me he often does exactly that.
>
> I think in this case we shouldn't do anything, so short-circuiting that
> process by pointing out what he's doing publicly makes sense.
>
Assuming that's what Jeff is doing, how does preventing better solutions
from emerging 'make sense'?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150722/5852b2ca/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 17:42:31

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-22
📝 Original message:On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Sriram Karra <karra.etc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
>> I personally *don't* think he's doing that, rather I believe he knows
>> full well it's a bad patch and is proposing it because he wants to push
>> discussion towards a solution. Often trolling the a audience with bad
>> patches is an effective way to motivate people to respond by writing
>> better ones; Jeff has told me he often does exactly that.
>>
>> I think in this case we shouldn't do anything, so short-circuiting that
>> process by pointing out what he's doing publicly makes sense.
>>
>
> Assuming that's what Jeff is doing, how does preventing better solutions
> from emerging 'make sense'?
>
Peter, sorry, scratch that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150722/b36d6328/attachment.html>