It appears that "minimize on close" and "minimize to tray instead of taskbar" options don't work correctly on Win32 (Windows 7 x32). I've tested checking the options and restarting too.
-Bitcoin appears in both the tray AND the taskbar, both when operating and when minimized and regardless of the option "minimize to tray".
-"minimize on close" works, but it doesn't care about the other "minimize" option, it closes to a tray icon regardless, the option works like "tray icon on close", not a "minimize on close".
Topic: Please help test: Bitcoin-Qt, bitcoind version 0.5.2rc1 (Read 2533 times)
oh i see.... any estimated date for 6.0?
0.6, not 6.0. Big difference. I wouldn't bet on it being until March. 
oh i see.... any estimated date for 6.0?
just wondering why arn't some of the new RPC functions that are in the source built into this build? like getblockbyhash?
As stated in the initial post, this is a bugfix-only release. New features will be in 0.6.
just wondering why arn't some of the new RPC functions that are in the source built into this build? like getblockbyhash?
Are there digital signatures or hashes or such for the files? It looks like they're not even hosted on sourceforge over SSL (I don't know how hard it would be for them to set that up), and it'd be useful if the downloads were signed by the developers (preferably several), who could attest to the fact that the binaries are correctly compiled and won't (intentionally at least) take all our money.
I think I'm the only one who signed rc1. BlueMatt built it. The same binaries (except Bitcoin-Qt for Windows, since it isn't 100% deterministic yet) are being renamed to final now, built and signed by devrandom and sipa, and signed again by me. I expect Gavin might sign the hashes when he uploads them too.
Are there digital signatures or hashes or such for the files? It looks like they're not even hosted on sourceforge over SSL (I don't know how hard it would be for them to set that up), and it'd be useful if the downloads were signed by the developers (preferably several), who could attest to the fact that the binaries are correctly compiled and won't (intentionally at least) take all our money.
Arh - shame. Also the stats are wrong cos of Multibit and bitcoin spinner type clients that do not send address messages.
From a marketing point of view being able to say xx thousand active users is useful.
Bit of a useless post though as have no real solution to issue.
From a marketing point of view being able to say xx thousand active users is useful.
Bit of a useless post though as have no real solution to issue.
I know I am always behind adding new versions to the charts! You guys keep adding them too often and I have not worked out a nice easy way to add the to rrd. Anyway I have now added a table so you can at least see the current number of all versions:
Unfortunately, since this number is becoming the protocol version and neither of the more common clients (bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt) comply with BIP 0014, such nice statistics will probably become history anyway. 
I know I am always behind adding new versions to the charts! You guys keep adding them too often and I have not worked out a nice easy way to add the to rrd. Anyway I have now added a table so you can at least see the current number of all versions:
http://bitcoinstatus.rowit.co.uk/#versions
If somebody were mining using 0.5.0 or 0.5.1, could they have in theory been "tricked" into building onto malicious blocks?
No, that's not a realistic attack.
For an attacker to feed you a malicious block chain, they would have to be able to produce malicious blocks that have CORRECT proof-of-work. I don't think it is realistic to think that any attacker would throw lots of hash power onto a malicious block chain just so they can feed a bad block chain to somebody who connects to them.
Especially since that somebody would discover that their version of the block chain was incorrect within about 10 minutes, as soon as they got a new block message.
The bugfix was a "belt and suspenders" change to limit the potential damage from somebody who already had more than 50% of hashing power.
But it makes me wonder whether I should keep upgrading to the latest versions as soon as they come out, or whether the tried-and-true older versions are more or less likely to be "correct"…
That's why I'm maintaining the 0.4.x series. Check all transactions in blocks after the last checkpoint (0.5.0 and 0.5.1 skipped checking ECDSA signatures during initial blockchain download).
That sounds scary. Could you clarify what risks somebody has in using 0.5.0 and 0.5.1 right now? Is there link to a forum thread or the like about this? Or is this not as scary as it sounds?I do understand that anything with a handful of confirmations is fine, but it's rather disconcerting that the client has been effectively a lightweight client (trusting the miners entirely), especially as the Satoshi client is a reference of how to mine in addition to the core transaction client.
I guess this all just builds into Gavin's wish for more automated tests to try to verify correct operations. But it makes me wonder whether I should keep upgrading to the latest versions as soon as they come out, or whether the tried-and-true older versions are more or less likely to be "correct"…
Working fine on WinXP
seems to work with win7 64-bit.
didnt do anything special though, just checking all tabs, options and sorting and let it download a few weeks of blocks.
didnt do anything special though, just checking all tabs, options and sorting and let it download a few weeks of blocks.
I think it's crucial this gets released ASAP though. But of course, not without being sure there aren't any major bugs in this release. The thing is, the downloads for the client are picking up, most likely because of the The Good Wife show. Loads of new people might get turned off by the hours long blockchain synchronization. Decisions, decisions...
Check all transactions in blocks after the last checkpoint (0.5.0 and 0.5.1 skipped checking ECDSA signatures during initial blockchain download).
That sounds scary. Could you clarify what risks somebody has in using 0.5.0 and 0.5.1 right now? Is there link to a forum thread or the like about this? Or is this not as scary as it sounds?Check all transactions in blocks after the last checkpoint (0.5.0 and 0.5.1 skipped checking ECDSA signatures during initial blockchain download).
That sounds scary. Could you clarify what risks somebody has in using 0.5.0 and 0.5.1 right now? Is there link to a forum thread or the like about this? Or is this not as scary as it sounds? What's the ETA on the official release? It's looking good so far! 
Technically, it's already tagged. We just wanted to make sure more people tested it before putting it on the front page. 
What's the ETA on the official release? It's looking good so far!
Jump to: