Topic: Bitcoin version 0.3.21 (Read 17509 times)

Thanks for the explanation!!!

Its a P2P network, others will download the blockchain from you, so it is uploaded using your bandwidth.

Hi,

I noticed a relatively high upload rate while Bitcoin (version 0.3.21-beta) is on.

Even after downloading all blocks the upload rate is mostly higher then the download. Why this? When I quit Bitcoin the up- and download goes to nearly 0 again, so it't not an other program doing this.

Excellent work guys...

Can I make a few requests?
1) The ability to order the Address Book listings by a column.  For instance, the ability to order the list by "label" automatically, or maybe from newest to oldest.
2) The ability to hide addresses in the Address Book.

Don't know if those have been brought up before (they must have been) but those are things that I would like to see implemented.

Hm, I guess my repo was unclean. 

Current branch (#crypter) compiles just fine.

Was not aware anyone was working on it, I thought the IVs were just going to be the public key hashes.  I just assumed no one was really putting any time into it as it hadn't been updated in quite a while (and doesn't even compile for me).
/Thread Hijack

just upgraded through windows installer and I got a new receiving address(I think) is that normal?

?

AFAIK, the current wallet encryption implementation only lacks IV storage, and someone is indeed working on it

Oh alright, I was just confused because nobody reacted to my post.
And actually no, I don't know anything about C++ or wxWidgets, I'm more of a Java fan

Looks like the window sizes are fixed in src/uiproject.fbp. I can't easily rebuild Bitcoin right now, but this is where I'd start looking.

That is correct, the client keeps track of how up-to-date the wallet is and should automatically scan the necessary portions of the blockchain for transactions that belong to you when started.

So what's the deal with the automatic rescanning? Sipa mentioned it in IRC.

I use a program that allows me to switch between wallets easily. They are stored encrypted, and when one is opened, it extracts to the data directory. I have been forcing a rescan every time I open Bitcoin because if blocks are downloaded with one wallet, the other wallets won't recognize their transactions in those blocks otherwise.

Do I no longer need to -rescan every time I open Bitcoin, saving me a few minutes each time?

No, you are right.  64-bit on the client has no bearing on its mining performance.  You should be using either a gpu miner or a rpc cpu miner, as those tend to be faster anyway. 

No, thank you for reporting the bug.  The problem is, I dont think anyone knows how to fix it very easily.  Currently almost all of the Bitcoin developers/contributors work on the backend and add new features.  Reworking the GUI is not anyone's specialty.  If you know anything about wxWidgets and C++, please take a look.

So implementing 64-bit hashing wouldn't improve hash rate? This is my major concern. I should probably be asking this to the major mining software makers instead of the stock client maker though.

Am I getting ignored ??

You're running into the "very low priority transactions require a fee" rule.  Priority depends on the value of the transaction (fewer bitcoins == lower priority) and how long ago you received the bitcoin(s) (older == higher priority).

That rule was in place for 0.3.20.2, but only for most miners.  Most would not include very-low-priority transaction in blocks until they were old enough to have a high priority.  The result was a big backlog of very-small transactions starting to build up.

With 0.3.21, the rules are the same for miners, for relaying transactions across the network, and for the user interface-- if your transaction is very-low-priority, it won't get relayed and the user interface will insist that you pay a fee if you really want it transmitted RIGHT NOW.

If you really really really need to send 0.01 bitcoins right now, then you'll have to pay the fee.  If you're willing to wait a while, you'll find you can send it without a fee after it is old enough and has enough priority.

All of this is to discourage people from "penny flooding" -- constantly sending pennies back and forth to themselves without a fee just because they can.

Footnote:  if you don't upgrade, you can send that 0.01 bitcoins without a fee.  But as everybody else upgrades, you'll find that it will take a long time for that transaction to get confirmed.

hmm, with new version i can't send 0.01 BTC without fee
0.3.20.2 works fine

This is planned for version 0.4, however the only current implementation is very incomplete and AFAIK no one is working on it.