What is Better for a Developer Bitcoin Core or other hard fork proposals?
Any suggestion?
Topic: Bitcoin Core 0.14.2 Released - page 4. (Read 38054 times)
Guys, need I update my current Bitcoin Core version 0.13.1 to 0.14.2 or need to wait further updates?
Bitcoin Core is just a software, not the name of a coin.
I want to ask what is then the real essence of the bitcoin Core software ?
So is bitcoin core like bitcoin classic ??
No, please don't call Bitcoin Core that. There is a software called Bitcoin Classic which is based on Core. If there is a fork, don't call the fork that runs Bitcoin Core "Bitcoin Classic". You will confuse the hell out of most people.Just as we have ethereum classic and ethereum ??
There is no guarantee that there will be a fork. There currently is no fork. If there were a fork, Bitcoin Core would likely still be "Bitcoin". Right now, that analogy is completely wrong and you should stop thinking of it. Bitcoin Core is just a software, not the name of a coin.Hi thanks for the education..I'm really learning here
Hi everyone,
I have a question about the security of the file provided in the link at the beginning of this post, and is that after downloading the file and uploading it to virustotal.com there are five detections of malware, likewise as far as I know the sha256sum does not correspond the one provided by the same page, could someone confirm the latter, as well as ensure the reliability of the file?
The link of the analysis:
https://www.virustotal.com/es/file/3a0057e4d6ca172566a93192234ef28916cbb052db9e15997569d9c08502c49a/analysis/1499774418/
Thank's everyone !
The SHA256 of the file on virustotal matches that in the SHA256SUMS.asc file, so the download is legitimate. The executable is fine and safe. The detections on virustotal are false positives. Bitcoin Core is often flagged as a virus because it looks for a wallet.dat file (so usually considered a coin stealer) and it contains mining logic (so also considered a bitcoin miner). These are true, but are also integral to Bitcoin Core functioning properly; it is the software the makes the wallet.dat file that many viruses try to steal. It also contains logic for mining blocks, but this is only for testnet and regtest networks now. If you have verified that the sha256 of the file matches the sha256 in SHA256SUMS.asc and you have verified the PGP signature in SHA256SUMS.asc, then the file is safe and not a virus.I have a question about the security of the file provided in the link at the beginning of this post, and is that after downloading the file and uploading it to virustotal.com there are five detections of malware, likewise as far as I know the sha256sum does not correspond the one provided by the same page, could someone confirm the latter, as well as ensure the reliability of the file?
The link of the analysis:
https://www.virustotal.com/es/file/3a0057e4d6ca172566a93192234ef28916cbb052db9e15997569d9c08502c49a/analysis/1499774418/
Thank's everyone !
Sorry mate, i think i didn't do it right, cause i checked the SHA256 of the file through the terminal on linux using the sha256sum command and the result didnt' match the sha256sum.asc file, Could someone explain how to verify sha256 and PGP signatures ?, (i think it would be an important contribution for the newbies like me even if it is offtopic)
So is the conclusion that it is a safe download, or is there still some doubt about that?
So is bitcoin core like bitcoin classic ??
No, please don't call Bitcoin Core that. There is a software called Bitcoin Classic which is based on Core. If there is a fork, don't call the fork that runs Bitcoin Core "Bitcoin Classic". You will confuse the hell out of most people.Just as we have ethereum classic and ethereum ??
There is no guarantee that there will be a fork. There currently is no fork. If there were a fork, Bitcoin Core would likely still be "Bitcoin". Right now, that analogy is completely wrong and you should stop thinking of it. Bitcoin Core is just a software, not the name of a coin.
Hi guys. I'm new here. My first post.
So is bitcoin core like bitcoin classic ?? Just as we have ethereum classic and ethereum ??
So is bitcoin core like bitcoin classic ?? Just as we have ethereum classic and ethereum ??
So will this software work after August 1st (no matter what the particular outcome ends up being). Don't want to be running a bad wallet or anything, that would really bite!
My client is displaying this message
Can this cause any problems? Will an update be released that will recognise the new block versions?
See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.20199029 Quote
Warning: Unknown block versions being mined! It's possible unknown rules are in effect
Can this cause any problems? Will an update be released that will recognise the new block versions?
My client is displaying this message
Can this cause any problems? Will an update be released that will recognise the new block versions?
Quote
Warning: Unknown block versions being mined! It's possible unknown rules are in effect
Can this cause any problems? Will an update be released that will recognise the new block versions?
If you want to compile v0.14.2 with enforced UASF, you can do easy by this make file:
https://github.com/Perlover/bitcoin-uasf-makefile
This make doesn't ask root privilegies (only for creation "bitcoin" user in OS)
It compiles many things from original sources under local user (libtools, pkg-config, autotools, gcc compiler 7.1 and so on...)
Many linux OSes have old versions and easy way for compiling is not possible or requests compiling and installing under "root" that can affects to other already working software.
This make file was written for CentOS 6.x but was successfuly tested under Ubuntu. I think it works under mane Unix systems.
https://github.com/Perlover/bitcoin-uasf-makefile
This make doesn't ask root privilegies (only for creation "bitcoin" user in OS)
It compiles many things from original sources under local user (libtools, pkg-config, autotools, gcc compiler 7.1 and so on...)
Many linux OSes have old versions and easy way for compiling is not possible or requests compiling and installing under "root" that can affects to other already working software.
This make file was written for CentOS 6.x but was successfuly tested under Ubuntu. I think it works under mane Unix systems.
nah, old install was not unistalled properly and now the new one picks up some config of the old one, and crashes...
You have a dead RAM or HDD.
or ... it's the antivirus that it corrupt the job of Bitcoin Core.
so, uninstall first ... the antivirus.
Bitcoin Core don't crash since 0.9.1
or ... it's the antivirus that it corrupt the job of Bitcoin Core.
so, uninstall first ... the antivirus.
Bitcoin Core don't crash since 0.9.1
for some reason when i try to install bitcoin core, it gives me c++ error runtime . is there a way to completely uninstall core, then reinstall?
Downloaded it from the official site. The checksum was valid but when I checked the exe with virustotal it signaled Win32.Trojan.WisdomEyes.16070401.9500.9939 / Why is that?
I have already answered that question. Read the thread.The SHA256 of the file on virustotal matches that in the SHA256SUMS.asc file, so the download is legitimate. The executable is fine and safe. The detections on virustotal are false positives. Bitcoin Core is often flagged as a virus because it looks for a wallet.dat file (so usually considered a coin stealer) and it contains mining logic (so also considered a bitcoin miner). These are true, but are also integral to Bitcoin Core functioning properly; it is the software the makes the wallet.dat file that many viruses try to steal. It also contains logic for mining blocks, but this is only for testnet and regtest networks now. If you have verified that the sha256 of the file matches the sha256 in SHA256SUMS.asc and you have verified the PGP signature in SHA256SUMS.asc, then the file is safe and not a virus.
Downloaded it from the official site. The checksum was valid but when I checked the exe with virustotal it signaled Win32.Trojan.WisdomEyes.16070401.9500.9939 / Why is that?
Sorry mate, i think i didn't do it right, cause i checked the SHA256 of the file through the terminal on linux using the sha256sum command and the result didnt' match the sha256sum.asc file, Could someone explain how to verify sha256 and PGP signatures ?, (i think it would be an important contribution for the newbies like me even if it is offtopic)
There are instructions for verifying the release signatures here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/verifying-bitcoin-core-1588906Thanks a lot !
Sorry mate, i think i didn't do it right, cause i checked the SHA256 of the file through the terminal on linux using the sha256sum command and the result didnt' match the sha256sum.asc file, Could someone explain how to verify sha256 and PGP signatures ?, (i think it would be an important contribution for the newbies like me even if it is offtopic)
There are instructions for verifying the release signatures here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/verifying-bitcoin-core-1588906 Hi everyone,
I have a question about the security of the file provided in the link at the beginning of this post, and is that after downloading the file and uploading it to virustotal.com there are five detections of malware, likewise as far as I know the sha256sum does not correspond the one provided by the same page, could someone confirm the latter, as well as ensure the reliability of the file?
The link of the analysis:
https://www.virustotal.com/es/file/3a0057e4d6ca172566a93192234ef28916cbb052db9e15997569d9c08502c49a/analysis/1499774418/
Thank's everyone !
The SHA256 of the file on virustotal matches that in the SHA256SUMS.asc file, so the download is legitimate. The executable is fine and safe. The detections on virustotal are false positives. Bitcoin Core is often flagged as a virus because it looks for a wallet.dat file (so usually considered a coin stealer) and it contains mining logic (so also considered a bitcoin miner). These are true, but are also integral to Bitcoin Core functioning properly; it is the software the makes the wallet.dat file that many viruses try to steal. It also contains logic for mining blocks, but this is only for testnet and regtest networks now. If you have verified that the sha256 of the file matches the sha256 in SHA256SUMS.asc and you have verified the PGP signature in SHA256SUMS.asc, then the file is safe and not a virus.I have a question about the security of the file provided in the link at the beginning of this post, and is that after downloading the file and uploading it to virustotal.com there are five detections of malware, likewise as far as I know the sha256sum does not correspond the one provided by the same page, could someone confirm the latter, as well as ensure the reliability of the file?
The link of the analysis:
https://www.virustotal.com/es/file/3a0057e4d6ca172566a93192234ef28916cbb052db9e15997569d9c08502c49a/analysis/1499774418/
Thank's everyone !
Sorry mate, i think i didn't do it right, cause i checked the SHA256 of the file through the terminal on linux using the sha256sum command and the result didnt' match the sha256sum.asc file, Could someone explain how to verify sha256 and PGP signatures ?, (i think it would be an important contribution for the newbies like me even if it is offtopic)
I'm so confused already.
Will there be 2 bitcoins after 1 august or not?
Possibly. There may or may not be chain split; it depends on whether enough miners support BIP 148.Will there be 2 bitcoins after 1 august or not?
What will happen?
No one knows. That requires us to be able to predict the future, which is literally impossible. No one can say what will or will not happen until after August 1st.Wich wallet should I install and hodl or not to hodl?
Choose whatever wallet you want to use. Just check that they are supporting the proposal you support and that they have proper protections in place to ensure you are following the chain that you want to if a fork happens.Asking about UASF or BIP 148 is off topic for this thread.
This wallet supports UASF and 2 coins?First time I tried to download core database by HDD died 
No. Bitcoin Core does not support any current UASF.Thanks alot for explanations and sorry about offtopic.
Well lets wait for fork support implementation (if there will be one in the end)
Jump to: