Topic: Any news on Bitcoin v0.9 release? (Read 5906 times)
when does Bitcoin v0.9 release?
It's been a while, and can't see anything on the Bitcoin Foundation's blog about it. Any idea when it's getting released? And is it 100% confirmed we'll be able to store up to 80 bytes of data in a transaction? That would be a god-send for us.
You already can store data in transactions; OP_RETURN just makes it easier to do that in ways that harm the Bitcoin network less. For instance see Mastercoin's "class B" encoding: https://github.com/mastercoin-MSC/spec#class-b-transactions-also-known-as-the-multisig-method
My advice for new projects is to support multiple encoding methods, the same was Mastercoin did, so you aren't dependent on the Bitcoin devs. Incidentally there's no practical way to stop all those methods - even P2SH^2, itself a very invasive change to the ecosystem which is unlikely to happen, can't stop encoding data in P2SH scriptSigs without merkleized abstract syntax tree support and risky changes to the scripting language... and that in turn has the big risk that you make upgrades in the future, perhaps because a crypto algorithm has been weakened, much more difficult to implement.
Of course, that's why I'm spending my time working on actually improving fundamental scalability rather than wasting time trying to tell people what to do with a trust-free decentralized system...
And is it 100% confirmed we'll be able to store up to 80 bytes of data in a transaction? That would be a god-send for us.
No it's not guaranteed— recently we've been talking some about removing this, reducing this, and will likely make it switchable. So far the initial commentary we've seen mostly appears to be people looking to use it abusively and in ways which will be detrimental to the Bitcoin currency. 
So what's new in this version? I mean what's the main difference? What is improved?
The list for the current release candidate is here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-notes.md
So what's new in this version? I mean what's the main difference? What is improved?
Edited - based on your edit too (cut some). ;-)
For example if I look at it from the CLI (this is built with the latest changes since rc1 so will be slightly different than your's), I see lots of stuff, including:
-rwxrwxr-x 1 user group 69750836 Feb 13 10:22 bitcoind
-rwxrwxr-x 1 user group 14246918 Feb 13 10:22 bitcoin-cli
If you are at the CLI, if you type this while in the src directory, it launches. So I'm thinking this is just a GUI issue.
What do the properties show for the files?
For example if I look at it from the CLI (this is built with the latest changes since rc1 so will be slightly different than your's), I see lots of stuff, including:
-rwxrwxr-x 1 user group 69750836 Feb 13 10:22 bitcoind
-rwxrwxr-x 1 user group 14246918 Feb 13 10:22 bitcoin-cli
If you are at the CLI, if you type this while in the src directory, it launches. So I'm thinking this is just a GUI issue.
What do the properties show for the files?
GUI properties indicate that all 3 are executable, and the type is specified 'shared library (application/x-sharedlib)' for all 3. They are executable, but bitcoin-qt only works by launching it from the command prompt. Error if you try from the GUI: "Could not display "/home/username/Documents/bitcoin-0.9.0rc1/src/qt/bitcoin-qt - There is no application installed for shared library files.
Do you want to search for an application to open this file?". Sounds like it's trying to read the contents of the file, even though it's specified as executable.
Sorry, I've still got a little bit of a MS windows hangover, linux is still new to me really. The idea that a GUI bug or suchlike would cause this confusion didn't occur to me. I'm running it with Mate desktop on Mint 15, if that's useful. Perhaps Mate is known for being incapable of launching certain types of executables?
If you can run it from the CLI, it is definitely compiled and so would seem to be a GUI issue or typing (mime?) issue. The bitcoind etc files in src, are definitely just "bitcoind" not "bitcoind.so" right? :-) (.so is usually shared object library).
You might try a
make install
at the end if you haven't done that. I am not sure under Mate, but perhaps it will fix the issue. Perhaps it is only looking for executable applications in certain directories (e.g. /usr/bin/ or /usr/local/bin) The good thing is that you got it installed without a problem, just not in Mate yet. :-)
Edited - based on your edit too (cut some). ;-)
For example if I look at it from the CLI (this is built with the latest changes since rc1 so will be slightly different than your's), I see lots of stuff, including:
-rwxrwxr-x 1 user group 69750836 Feb 13 10:22 bitcoind
-rwxrwxr-x 1 user group 14246918 Feb 13 10:22 bitcoin-cli
If you are at the CLI, if you type this while in the src directory, it launches. So I'm thinking this is just a GUI issue.
What do the properties show for the files?
For example if I look at it from the CLI (this is built with the latest changes since rc1 so will be slightly different than your's), I see lots of stuff, including:
-rwxrwxr-x 1 user group 69750836 Feb 13 10:22 bitcoind
-rwxrwxr-x 1 user group 14246918 Feb 13 10:22 bitcoin-cli
If you are at the CLI, if you type this while in the src directory, it launches. So I'm thinking this is just a GUI issue.
What do the properties show for the files?
GUI properties indicate that all 3 are executable, and the type is specified 'shared library (application/x-sharedlib)' for all 3. They are executable, but bitcoin-qt only works by launching it from the command prompt. Error if you try from the GUI: "Could not display "/home/username/Documents/bitcoin-0.9.0rc1/src/qt/bitcoin-qt - There is no application installed for shared library files.
Do you want to search for an application to open this file?". Sounds like it's trying to read the contents of the file, even though it's specified as executable.
Sorry, I've still got a little bit of a MS windows hangover, linux is still new to me really. The idea that a GUI bug or suchlike would cause this confusion didn't occur to me. I'm running it with Mate desktop on Mint 15, if that's useful. Perhaps Mate is known for being incapable of launching certain types of executables?
Edited - based on your edit too (cut some). ;-)
For example if I look at it from the CLI (this is built with the latest changes since rc1 so will be slightly different than your's), I see lots of stuff, including:
-rwxrwxr-x 1 user group 69750836 Feb 13 10:22 bitcoind
-rwxrwxr-x 1 user group 14246918 Feb 13 10:22 bitcoin-cli
If you are at the CLI, if you type this while in the src directory, it launches. So I'm thinking this is just a GUI issue.
What do the properties show for the files?
For example if I look at it from the CLI (this is built with the latest changes since rc1 so will be slightly different than your's), I see lots of stuff, including:
-rwxrwxr-x 1 user group 69750836 Feb 13 10:22 bitcoind
-rwxrwxr-x 1 user group 14246918 Feb 13 10:22 bitcoin-cli
If you are at the CLI, if you type this while in the src directory, it launches. So I'm thinking this is just a GUI issue.
What do the properties show for the files?
Carlton Banks, nothing you've posted so far indicates an error. Those three lines are in fact telling you that it was successfully built. Try "make clean && make all" and pastebin the *entire* result.
That would be my next suggestion or
make -f makefile.unix clean; make -f makefile.unix
Also, does
find / -name bitcoind
show it being built anywhere odd?
make -f makefile.unix clean; make -f makefile.unix
Also, does
find / -name bitcoind
show it being built anywhere odd?
Okay, in the /src directory is a 'Shared Library' called bitcoind and bitcoincli, so it actually is producing the targets. Sort of (also a bitcoin-qt 'Shared Library' in src/qt)
How can I make these ordinary executables, and not 'Shared Libraries'? bitcoin-qt only launches from the command line
Paste of make output: http://pastebin.com/mmtxsVK7
Carlton Banks, nothing you've posted so far indicates an error. Those three lines are in fact telling you that it was successfully built. Try "make clean && make all" and pastebin the *entire* result.
That would be my next suggestion or
make -f makefile.unix clean; make -f makefile.unix
Also, does
find / -name bitcoind
show it being built anywhere odd?
(I presume you did a too (assuming you just want bitcoind):
./configure --without-qt
)
Carlton Banks, nothing you've posted so far indicates an error. Those three lines are in fact telling you that it was successfully built. Try "make clean && make all" and pastebin the *entire* result.
this is all i can come up with
Carlton Banks, nothing you've posted so far indicates an error. Those three lines are in fact telling you that it was successfully built. Try "make clean && make all" and pastebin the *entire* result.
So, after the "executing depfiles commands" you get nothing?
Oh no, it convincingly executes everything in the build script. With hundreds of output lines, no errors.
The three lines I posted two posts up are the very last three from those hundreds lines of error free make output.
No errors or warnings.
The only conceivable clue is the final lines of the make output:
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/user/Documents/bitcoin-0.9.0rc1'
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all-am'.
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/user/Documents/bitcoin-0.9.0rc1'
There's an implication something got skipped.
The only conceivable clue is the final lines of the make output:
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/user/Documents/bitcoin-0.9.0rc1'
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all-am'.
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/user/Documents/bitcoin-0.9.0rc1'
There's an implication something got skipped.
I presume you checked in the
~/bitcoin/src
directory to see if the new bitcoind was built in there? (Just trying to cover all the bases). :-)
(you might have to copy it to /usr/bin/ afterward if you want it globally accessible, but for testing purposes, probably not).
~/bitcoin/src
directory to see if the new bitcoind was built in there? (Just trying to cover all the bases). :-)
(you might have to copy it to /usr/bin/ afterward if you want it globally accessible, but for testing purposes, probably not).
Yep, tried looking in there. Using verbose now, looks like it picks up the language to compile no troubles, so that's not it.
I presume you checked in the
~/bitcoin/src
directory to see if the new bitcoind was built in there? (Just trying to cover all the bases). :-)
(you might have to copy it to /usr/bin/ afterward if you want it globally accessible, but for testing purposes, probably not).
~/bitcoin/src
directory to see if the new bitcoind was built in there? (Just trying to cover all the bases). :-)
(you might have to copy it to /usr/bin/ afterward if you want it globally accessible, but for testing purposes, probably not).
Perhaps I missed it, but are there any messages showing up indicating an error when you go to make it?
No, I scrapped the old build directory, then built again. I scrutinised the build output all the way from the start, no errors or warnings. All the commands appear to complete without complaint. And the target files do not build. No bitcoind or bitcoin-qt is produced after the compile. It's gotta be one of the compiler flags that the configure script names, I can't think what else.
I will try with the verbose output option, maybe there will be more useful detail
Edit - possibly an error:
"Removed plural forms as the target language has less forms.
If this sounds wrong, possibly the target language is not set or recognized."
Jump to: