Topic: ... (Read 1618 times)

this has nothing to do with core, but with the spam, attack, call it what you want, that we are facing recently

with spv would have been the same in this case

my transactions are working smoothly without any delay to be get cleared and Core is not broking on my side all thing working perfect, it seems some issue on your side but sometime transaction takes more than 6 confirmations to get clear.

It`s not broken all my transactions just took a little longer 4 days to clear 

You shouldn't be running bitcoin apps on windoze anyways. All the hacks, thefts, and crashes that I've heard of on this forum came from windoze bitcoin apps. Install Linux dual boot. I only use windoze for stuff that has no apps available in linux such as easy to use CAD software.

LOL. A statement like that is a double-edged sword. Who else could have coded that if not Hal Finney, Jeff Garzik, Gavin Adresen, etc? Ingrate.

So i guess a lot of people are having problems with the current version, is there a review website we could all vote or comment so we could get a revise version ?

Oh yeah, extremely unstable.  Using up 100% cpu?  And gobbling up all RAM?  

My VM running bitcoind.  Yep, a VM.  Not even a full physical computer, only 8GB RAM, no dedicated SSD, shared with other VMs on the same host.  Upgraded about a week ago, have been running through all the stress testing, never a blip.  And yes, I run a wallet as well.  

top - 22:17:13 up 7 days, 10:43,  1 user,  load average: 0.03, 0.06, 0.05
Tasks: 107 total,   1 running, 106 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
%Cpu0  :  0.0 us,  0.0 sy,  0.0 ni,100.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
%Cpu1  :  0.3 us,  0.7 sy,  0.0 ni, 99.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
%Cpu2  :  0.0 us,  0.0 sy,  0.0 ni,100.0 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
%Cpu3  :  0.0 us,  0.3 sy,  0.3 ni, 99.3 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.0 st
KiB Mem:   8209632 total,  5500108 used,  2709524 free,   533504 buffers
KiB Swap:  4192252 total,        0 used,  4192252 free.  3033112 cached Mem

  PID USER      PR  NI    VIRT    RES    SHR S  %CPU %MEM     TIME+ COMMAND
 1574 +  20   0 2731552 1.504g  45504 S   0.7 19.2 509:25.65 bitcoind
13972 +  20   0   24936   1564   1076 R   0.3  0.0   0:00.26 top

 bitcoin-cli getinfo
{
    "version" : 100200,
    "protocolversion" : 70002,
    "walletversion" : 60000,
    "balance" : xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
    "blocks" : 364928,
    "timeoffset" : 0,
    "connections" : 8,
    "proxy" : "",
    "difficulty" : 51076366303.48192596,
    "testnet" : false,
    "keypoololdest" : 1430067466,
    "keypoolsize" : 101,
    "paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
    "relayfee" : 0.00001000,
    "errors" : ""
}

Y'all are probably having physical machine issues.  Or, you messed something up in the upgrade.  There's zero wrong with core itself.

Thanks for correcting your statement. You had me worried for a minute there. Good backup procedures make this a non-issue. Even lax backup procedures work, if your backups never get more than 100 new key usages out of date.



Whatev. Different strokes. I understand your position, but I'm fine with Core.

I have it on good authority that Satoshi's spirit in now inhabiting a time-traveling crypto developer living in Canada.

It seems I was mistaken about this, as a little bit of research regarding the key pool has proved this statement to be incorrect. I have revised my post to reflect that you are at risk of loosing access to your funds if you use too many addresses after your most recent backup and something happens to your wallet file.
refrence1
refrence2

---

---

FTR, I still am not a fan of using Bitcoin as a wallet program because it does not deterministically generate your private keys.

Wait... Whaaaat?

I feel your pain OP. I had problems since the 0.9 version after this things seem to clutter up slow down to point of no response. I ended up removing old blockchain and downloaded off torrent and imported and this did resolve some of the crashes. After a week or so of not using and updating seems it uses massive amounts of resources ram and cpu power and this I hate and tried everything. SSD seems it was the cause to the problem for me and ended up moving it over to a normal HDD and fixed the problem. But after a month of messing around and still being slow and taking up much room decided on moving to Bither, since then I have not used Bitcoin qt unless really needed to. Only time used was to grab all private keys and import them into Bither. Since using Bither its been smooth and flawless. I know might be promoting Bither but in all honesty it is worth it in so many ways.

Indeed.  I was surprised to see you wasting time to reply in here, damned click-bait title.

This thread is a broken piece of shit.

Bitcoin core is fine.


 

I don't know, but I have over a dozen instances running on various servers across the world, and we've never experienced a problem.

I guess I should note, all servers are CentOS.

It's usually the hardware in situations like these. I think your HDD has bad sectors/blocks. You should do a deep scan of it.

Bitcoin is open source. Since you're such an expert, why don't you contribute some code yourself?

Or you could just stop being a whiny ingrate, and show a modicum of respect to the hard-working computer scientists currently adding tremendous value to your bitcoin savings while asking nothing of you in return.

The root cause may not be the software itself, but could be the fact that you started using 0.1 around the time the network was subject to significant additional load via the stress test. I suspect that you would have encountered similar results had you used older versions of Bitcoin Core.

A couple of points:

If you are calling what you are using "Bitcoin Core" then I believe you to be using the GUI interface version of Bitcoin, which I have been told is a lot more resource intensive then the command line version of Bitcoin, which is called "bitcoind", if my assumption that you are using the GUI then I would recommend to stop doing this and switch to bitcoind. You will have difficulty signing and verifying some bitcoin signed messages with bitcoind because it will be difficult to get formatting included in the command line, however there are dozens of alternatives you can use to verify a bitcoin signed message and I would not recommend using Bitcoin core as a wallet due to the fact that it does not deterministically generate your private keys, and only pre-generates a limited number of private keys, so if you use too many addresses after your last backup, then you would potentially lose access to your funds if something were to happen to your wallet file. There are also plenty of wallet alternatives that you can use in order to avoid encountering this issue, some of which will rely on your local instance of Bitcoin for transaction information so your able to rely on Bitcoin to validate transactions received would remain consistent.

If you are using Windows then I think it is probably safe to assume that you are running it in a local computer at your home or office. I would not recommend doing that. The demands of running a full node are great enough so that it really needs to be run on a server and/or a VPS. Renting a VPS that is strong enough to handle running Bitcoin is generally going to cost you less then the cost of your internet connection and you would still be able to rely on it in similar ways as if it was running locally.

+1
I thought about downgrading too. V0.1 is a piece of shit. Starting up the wallet takes about 8 to 20 times as much time as the old version.
Also crashes on me when i close it. Block indexing makes troubles. Think in some setups it could be even worse.

Turned into a shitcoin-wallet.

It seems the OP might read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html   

Description of specifics events around the crash-- crash message, possible triggers, etc.?  Nope.

Description of final events in the debug log at the time of the crash? Nope.

Specific Bitcoin Core version and origin of binaries? Nope.

Operating system and version, or if it's 32/64 bit? Nope.

Information about the hardware its running on (memory amount, type of storage) ? Nope.

Presence of possibly conflicting software such as anti-virus? Nope.

Decscription of steps taken so far to resolve the problem? Nope.

Post to an apropriate subforum (e.g. technical support) or issue tracker for getting aid with problems?  Nope.

Gratitious insults?  Yep.


Sorry-- the expirence reflected here doesn't reflect the case for most others. While no one can forbid you from being frustrated, your approach is unlikely to result in the resolution of your issues.  I suggest you take a breath, and head over to the techsupport subforum and try seeking some help and provide the above information without the insults.