Bitcoin Core (Bitcoin-Qt) 0.9.1 released - update required - page 5.

Rawted

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on April 09, 2014, 01:32:38 PM

Quote from: Rawted on April 09, 2014, 01:04:56 PM

I keep small amounts in my pc wallet for casual spending. I applied the 0.9.0->0.9.1 update and once done syncing, the client told me that my database was corrupt and wanted to reindex it. I allowed it to, and sometime during the sync, 1.3 BTC went from confirmed to unconfirmed and hasn't moved since (24 hours or so I'd guess). Any ideas/suggestions?

If you look in the transaction list do you see any tx which are unconfirmed? If so check another source (blockr.io or blockchain.info) to determine if the tx is indeed unconfirmed.

No, but i just noticed that it reverted me to 0.8.6.... How is this possible? All tx before 7/30/2013 are gone, and those coins are still unconfirmed. I was at version 0.9.0 prior to updating..

Rawted

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: wumpus on April 09, 2014, 01:25:14 PM

Quote from: Rawted on April 09, 2014, 01:04:56 PM

I keep small amounts in my pc wallet for casual spending. I applied the 0.9.0->0.9.1 update and once done syncing, the client told me that my database was corrupt and wanted to reindex it. I allowed it to, and sometime during the sync, 1.3 BTC went from confirmed to unconfirmed and hasn't moved since (24 hours or so I'd guess). Any ideas/suggestions?

It appears to me that you have a few unconfirmed transactions that hold up inputs.
Have you perhaps set "spend unconfirmed change" in options to false (or passed -spendzeroconfchange=0)?

Nope.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: Rawted on April 09, 2014, 01:04:56 PM

I keep small amounts in my pc wallet for casual spending. I applied the 0.9.0->0.9.1 update and once done syncing, the client told me that my database was corrupt and wanted to reindex it. I allowed it to, and sometime during the sync, 1.3 BTC went from confirmed to unconfirmed and hasn't moved since (24 hours or so I'd guess). Any ideas/suggestions?

If you look in the transaction list do you see any tx which are unconfirmed? If so check another source (blockr.io or blockchain.info) to determine if the tx is indeed unconfirmed.

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1014

In Satoshi I Trust

thanks for that fast action! very good.

wumpus

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1022

No Maps for These Territories

Quote from: Rawted on April 09, 2014, 01:04:56 PM

I keep small amounts in my pc wallet for casual spending. I applied the 0.9.0->0.9.1 update and once done syncing, the client told me that my database was corrupt and wanted to reindex it. I allowed it to, and sometime during the sync, 1.3 BTC went from confirmed to unconfirmed and hasn't moved since (24 hours or so I'd guess). Any ideas/suggestions?

It appears to me that you have a few unconfirmed transactions that hold up inputs.
Have you perhaps set "spend unconfirmed change" in options to false (or passed -spendzeroconfchange=0)?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Thanks for the quick fix.

Rawted

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

I keep small amounts in my pc wallet for casual spending. I applied the 0.9.0->0.9.1 update and once done syncing, the client told me that my database was corrupt and wanted to reindex it. I allowed it to, and sometime during the sync, 1.3 BTC went from confirmed to unconfirmed and hasn't moved since (24 hours or so I'd guess). Any ideas/suggestions?

l4p7

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Joshuar on April 08, 2014, 06:07:04 PM

This applies to Multibit Bitcoin wallets? Multibit vs 0.5.17?

+1

Any update there?

wumpus

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1022

No Maps for These Territories

Quote from: PepitaJoe on April 09, 2014, 12:44:01 PM

My wallet is version 0.8.6 beta.
Can I continue to use it?

yes

Quote from: MichaelBliss on April 09, 2014, 11:40:57 AM

I just upgraded to 0.91 since I was using 0.9. I've never input my password using 0.9 but I have with prior versions, is there any reason for me to start a new wallet and transfer funds? As I understand, my bitcoin wallet password should be secure if I haven't entered the password into the 0.9 client?

no, no reason to do that

PepitaJoe

member

Activity: 268

Merit: 10

Quote from: theymos on April 08, 2014, 06:10:18 PM

Quote from: poordeveloper on April 08, 2014, 06:04:09 PM

Does ever mean in the 0.9.0 version, or at any point of time?

The payment protocol only exists in 0.9.

My wallet is version 0.8.6 beta.
Can I continue to use it?
If I upgrade to 0.9.1 version I have to download all blockchain?

MichaelBliss

hero member

Activity: 526

Merit: 500

I just upgraded to 0.91 since I was using 0.9. I've never input my password using 0.9 but I have with prior versions, is there any reason for me to start a new wallet and transfer funds? As I understand, my bitcoin wallet password should be secure if I haven't entered the password into the 0.9 client?

wumpus

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1022

No Maps for These Territories

Quote from: KGambler on April 09, 2014, 10:04:21 AM

Should we change our wallet password too?

Not really. There are two scenarios:

1) Your private keys are not compromised. Either you never used a bitcoin: URI with a payment request, or, at least never from a compromised server. No need to change your password or do anything.

2) Your private keys are compromised. You clicked on a bitcoin: URI in your browser that fetched a payment request from a malicious SSL server. By an unlikely fluke, memory was leaked to the server that contained private keys. Send your coins to a new wallet while you can, before the attacker abuses your keys. Changing the password is not enough as a precaution in this case.

KGambler

full member

Activity: 236

Merit: 100

Should we change our wallet password too?

windpath

legendary

Activity: 1258

Merit: 1027

Quote from: Luke-Jr on April 09, 2014, 09:05:26 AM

The Foundation contributes financially to Bitcoin development in general.
It doesn't (or at least, isn't supposed to) favour or control any given implementation.

I'm sorry, and I'm sure I'm not the first to point this out, when you have a board comprised of people running businesses based on Bitcoin it becomes very difficult to assert that their own positions and goals do not drive decision making about the core.

I honestly don't know any members of the board personally, and am not trying to throw anyone under the bus here, but I think we need to be realistic about "how it works"....

Quote from: wumpus on April 09, 2014, 09:23:51 AM

It would be interesting if the authors of other* (SPV) wallets made it possible to run and manage a walletless bitcoind in the background, so that their users can optionally contribute to the network by running a full node.

*Armory does this, but only because it needs to, it cannot work in SPV mode

100% agreed, I run 2 full nodes. 1 on my day-to-day computer (with Armory), and a second on a dedicated server that we pull data from for our site (http://162.242.245.151/).

I feel both obligated and proud to support the network, and can't see a reason that anyone involved with Bitcoin would not, would be nice if all wallet software had this option.

Meuh6879

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

update the binary (i don't touch the folder) is the right choice ?
(openssl is in binary file bitcoin-qt.exe, no ?)

wumpus

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1022

No Maps for These Territories

Quote from: windpath on April 09, 2014, 08:56:32 AM

Re-reading my post, it does come off as a rant, that is not how it is intended....

I just believe that the "core" should be just that, the minimum code required to participate in and contribute to the network.

I think the planned direction to split out the wallet is great, and appreciate you taking it.

It would be interesting if the authors of other* (SPV) wallets made it possible to run and manage a walletless bitcoind in the background, so that their users can optionally contribute to the network by running a full node.

*Armory does this, but only because it needs to, it cannot work in SPV mode

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: windpath on April 09, 2014, 09:01:53 AM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on April 09, 2014, 08:54:36 AM

Quote from: windpath on April 09, 2014, 08:30:57 AM

IMO the foundation has no business competing with other clients and features, be responsible for the core, let others build on it.

Nor does the Foundation have any relationship to Bitcoin Core.

I'm not sure I understand, this is from the foundation site:

Quote

As a non-political online money, Bitcoin is backed exclusively by code. This means that—ultimately—it is only as good as its software design. By funding the Bitcoin infrastructure, including a core development team, we can make Bitcoin more respected, trusted and useful to people worldwide.

Is this not a "relationship" to the core and its development? Huh

The Foundation contributes financially to Bitcoin development in general.
It doesn't (or at least, isn't supposed to) favour or control any given implementation.

windpath

legendary

Activity: 1258

Merit: 1027

Quote from: Luke-Jr on April 09, 2014, 08:54:36 AM

Quote from: windpath on April 09, 2014, 08:30:57 AM

IMO the foundation has no business competing with other clients and features, be responsible for the core, let others build on it.

Nor does the Foundation have any relationship to Bitcoin Core.

I'm not sure I understand, this is from the foundation site:

Quote

As a non-political online money, Bitcoin is backed exclusively by code. This means that—ultimately—it is only as good as its software design. By funding the Bitcoin infrastructure, including a core development team, we can make Bitcoin more respected, trusted and useful to people worldwide.

Is this not a "relationship" to the core and its development? Huh

windpath

legendary

Activity: 1258

Merit: 1027

Quote from: wumpus on April 09, 2014, 08:44:28 AM

Quote from: windpath on April 09, 2014, 08:30:57 AM

With the rename to "Bitcoin Core", you would think it would be just that, the CORE p2p network/functionality.

IMO the foundation has no business competing with other clients and features, be responsible for the core, let others build on it.

At the very least separate out all "features" that are not required by the core as a separate application.

I'm not sure I follow you. In the post that you reply to, I talk about splitting off the wallet functionality. I don't see why you still feel that you need to rant. This can't be done in one day (unless we get a lot of knowledgeable new contributors), but it is the planned direction.

Re-reading my post, it does come off as a rant, that is not how it is intended....

I just believe that the "core" should be just that, the minimum code required to participate in and contribute to the network.

I think the planned direction to split out the wallet is great, and appreciate you taking it.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: windpath on April 09, 2014, 08:30:57 AM

IMO the foundation has no business competing with other clients and features, be responsible for the core, let others build on it.

Nor does the Foundation have any relationship to Bitcoin Core.

Quote from: windpath on April 09, 2014, 08:30:57 AM

At the very least separate out all "features" that are not required by the core as a separate application.

That includes the wallet.

Topic: Bitcoin Core (Bitcoin-Qt) 0.9.1 released - update required - page 5. (Read 64172 times)