Please help test: Bitcoin version 0.3.21 release candidate

elmom

newbie

Activity: 21

Merit: 0

Quote from: gigabytecoin on May 17, 2011, 04:37:23 PM

Nobody saying anything about bitcoin gui not working on ubuntu 11.04 out of the box?

EDIT:
Just saw the issue on github, should've looked there first

OLD:
Same here.

Starting the client, it uses some cycles, but gives no kind of output. No gui and nothing on stdout/err. Maybe wxwidgets 2.9 doesn't like Unity?

I've tried with both 0.3.19 and *.21.

Can someone try without Unity?

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1005

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on May 17, 2011, 01:47:00 PM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on May 17, 2011, 01:16:11 PM

So what is the point of this feature if somebody can "fix it" just by downgrading to a slightly lower version ?

Downgrading does not "fix" it. The earlier version would broadcast the transaction, and then it would (most likely) either sit in the network with 0 confirmations for half a day or sit on your machine with 0 confirmations for a few hours, until it aged enough to graduate from the 'very low priority' category.

Perhaps the theory is correct, but the practice confirms you are wrong.

The 9.95 was sent by me about 1 hour after receiving it using 0.3.20 version and later I got 3 confirmations after about 45 minutes.

Perhaps the criteria for requiring transaction fees are wrong ? Yes, i am absolutely certain we got 3 confirmations and i think that 45 minutes is quickly enough, isn't it ? So why require a fee ?

gigabytecoin

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 252

Nobody saying anything about bitcoin gui not working on ubuntu 11.04 out of the box?

josef

newbie

Activity: 1

Merit: 0

Quote from: Matt Corallo on April 22, 2011, 05:48:50 PM

Quote from: jorgen on April 22, 2011, 05:31:31 PM

When I try to edit or add new entry in address book, I can't add or edit bitcoinaddress field. It looks like thin line under the field with contact name

I don't think you ever could. Though that would be a nice feature to add.

Wouldn't this be futile unless you could also could copy in the private key that goes with that address?

Gavin Andresen

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 2216

Chief Scientist

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on May 17, 2011, 01:16:11 PM

So what is the point of this feature if somebody can "fix it" just by downgrading to a slightly lower version ?

Downgrading does not "fix" it. The earlier version would broadcast the transaction, and then it would (most likely) either sit in the network with 0 confirmations for half a day or sit on your machine with 0 confirmations for a few hours, until it aged enough to graduate from the 'very low priority' category.

The rule of thumb is 1 BTC you just received needs 144 confirmations (1 day) before it is considered 'normal priority.' 10 bitcoins requires 1/10'th that-- 15 confirmations would do it.

Given the recent rise in bitcoin value, I think it makes sense to modify that formula so 1 BTC takes (perhaps) 10 confirmations to be considered 'not likely to be spam'.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1005

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

This is the receiving address I am talking about:

http://blockexplorer.com/address/1LBK2EespTDpcxnR1J4utP9tBtbA6X5SF9

As you can see, i received 9.95 bitcoins on it, and then i was unable to push the bitcoins further even though i had 7 confirmations.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1005

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on April 20, 2011, 05:39:50 PM

RE: changing the confusing transaction fee message: good idea, and yes, "we" can.

How about:

This transaction requires a transaction fee of at least 0.0N because of its amount, complexity, or use of recently received funds

I don't want to use the word "recommend", because the GUI doesn't let you try to send them without a fee.

Gavin, i don't doubt your good intentions when requiring 0.01 fee, but this produces serious issues currently in my Bitcoin trading.

Meaningly, when i tried to transfer about 9 bitcoins again after receiving 7 confirmations, i still got the "0.01 fee required because of blah blah" message. When i downgrade to 0.3.20, it does not produce this error.

So what is the point of this feature if somebody can "fix it" just by downgrading to a slightly lower version ?

Matt Corallo

hero member

Activity: 755

Merit: 515

Quote from: jorgen on April 22, 2011, 05:31:31 PM

When I try to edit or add new entry in address book, I can't add or edit bitcoinaddress field. It looks like thin line under the field with contact name

I don't think you ever could. Though that would be a nice feature to add.

jorgen

vip

Activity: 113

Merit: 12

When I try to edit or add new entry in address book, I can't add or edit bitcoinaddress field. It looks like thin line under the field with contact name

dbitcoin

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

BTCDig - mining pool

Quote from: Matt Corallo on April 22, 2011, 04:46:56 PM

You shouldn't comment out that line. There is no point changing the source when all you have to do is undefine USE_UPNP by specifying USE_UPNP= when you build.

For custom build this is doesn't matter. I anyway apply several patches for pool.

Matt Corallo

hero member

Activity: 755

Merit: 515

Quote from: dbitcoin on April 22, 2011, 04:44:58 PM

Quote from: Matt Corallo on April 22, 2011, 04:35:09 PM

Quote from: dust on April 22, 2011, 03:53:38 PM

Commenting out the USE_UPNP line allowed me to build without miniupnpc. Assigning zero still defines the symbol.

If you build with USE_UPNP= then the effect is the same as commenting out that line (undefining USE_UPNP). If you build with USE_UPNP=1, you are building with UPnP with it on by default, USE_UPNP=0 also builds with UPnP with it off by default.

Yep, with commenting all builds ok.

You shouldn't comment out that line. There is no point changing the source when all you have to do is undefine USE_UPNP by specifying USE_UPNP= when you build.

dbitcoin

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

BTCDig - mining pool

Quote from: Matt Corallo on April 22, 2011, 04:35:09 PM

Quote from: dust on April 22, 2011, 03:53:38 PM

Commenting out the USE_UPNP line allowed me to build without miniupnpc. Assigning zero still defines the symbol.

If you build with USE_UPNP= then the effect is the same as commenting out that line (undefining USE_UPNP). If you build with USE_UPNP=1, you are building with UPnP with it on by default, USE_UPNP=0 also builds with UPnP with it off by default.

Yep, with commenting all builds ok.

Matt Corallo

hero member

Activity: 755

Merit: 515

Quote from: dust on April 22, 2011, 03:53:38 PM

Commenting out the USE_UPNP line allowed me to build without miniupnpc. Assigning zero still defines the symbol.

If you build with USE_UPNP= then the effect is the same as commenting out that line (undefining USE_UPNP). If you build with USE_UPNP=1, you are building with UPnP with it on by default, USE_UPNP=0 also builds with UPnP with it off by default.

dust

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Commenting out the USE_UPNP line allowed me to build without miniupnpc. Assigning zero still defines the symbol.

dbitcoin

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

BTCDig - mining pool

Quote from: Matt Corallo on April 22, 2011, 03:13:03 PM

Have you tried building with USE_UPNP=

Yep.
I found where is problem. Current makefiles want installed libminiupnpc.
But this is wrong. If I not need upnp support at all, why I need install it?

Matt Corallo

hero member

Activity: 755

Merit: 515

Quote from: dbitcoin on April 22, 2011, 02:47:59 PM

bitcoind nogui not builds without miniupnpc (default settings).
Looks like at least unix makefile and related header files do not proper handle this.

And when I completely exclude miniupnpc from build by hand:

Code:

++ -O2 -Wno-invalid-offsetof -Wformat -g -D__WXDEBUG__ -DNOPCH -DFOURWAYSSE2 -DUSE_SSL -o bitcoind obj/nogui/util.o obj/nogui/script.o obj/nogui/db.o obj/nogui/net.o obj/nogui/irc.o obj/nogui/main.o obj/nogui/rpc.o obj/nogui/init.o cryptopp/obj/sha.o cryptopp/obj/cpu.o obj/sha256.o -Wl,-Bstatic -l boost_system -l boost_filesystem -l boost_program_options -l boost_thread -l db_cxx -l ssl -l crypto -Wl,-Bdynamic -l gthread-2.0 -l z -l dl
obj/nogui/db.o: In function `CWalletDB::LoadWallet()':
/home/dlancer/bitcoin/src/bitcoin-patched/db.cpp:811: undefined reference to `fUseUPnP'
obj/nogui/db.o: In function `Unserialize':
/home/dlancer/bitcoin/src/bitcoin-patched/serialize.h:136: undefined reference to `fUseUPnP'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

Have you tried building with USE_UPNP=

dbitcoin

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

BTCDig - mining pool

bitcoind nogui not builds without miniupnpc (default settings).
Looks like at least unix makefile and related header files do not proper handle this.

And when I completely exclude miniupnpc from build by hand:

Code:

++ -O2 -Wno-invalid-offsetof -Wformat -g -D__WXDEBUG__ -DNOPCH -DFOURWAYSSE2 -DUSE_SSL -o bitcoind obj/nogui/util.o obj/nogui/script.o obj/nogui/db.o obj/nogui/net.o obj/nogui/irc.o obj/nogui/main.o obj/nogui/rpc.o obj/nogui/init.o cryptopp/obj/sha.o cryptopp/obj/cpu.o obj/sha256.o -Wl,-Bstatic -l boost_system -l boost_filesystem -l boost_program_options -l boost_thread -l db_cxx -l ssl -l crypto -Wl,-Bdynamic -l gthread-2.0 -l z -l dl
obj/nogui/db.o: In function `CWalletDB::LoadWallet()':
/home/dlancer/bitcoin/src/bitcoin-patched/db.cpp:811: undefined reference to `fUseUPnP'
obj/nogui/db.o: In function `Unserialize':
/home/dlancer/bitcoin/src/bitcoin-patched/serialize.h:136: undefined reference to `fUseUPnP'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5166

Merit: 12850

Quote from: gigabytecoin on April 21, 2011, 03:06:45 AM

Couldn't somebody interested in a DOS attack on bitcoin in this manner simply re-build their own customized client of bitcoin?

They won't be processed by the network (most of it, anyway), even if you modify your client to send them. They'll just sit at "0/unconfirmed" forever.

Matt Corallo

hero member

Activity: 755

Merit: 515

Quote from: mewantsbitcoins on April 20, 2011, 09:47:21 PM

After this I installed the new client on the other machine. When I turned "Map port using UPnP" the first machine's port forwarding was dropped by the router. How would I go about setting up multiple machines running bitcoin client behind 1 router?

You can't, simple as that. You can only ever forward one port to one client thus port forwarding will only work on one (as you can't change the Bitcoin port). Which one gets the port forward with specific who has UPnP on, etc settings depends on your router.

dishwara

legendary

Activity: 1855

Merit: 1016

Quote from: toffoo on April 21, 2011, 04:01:22 AM

Quote from: alkor on April 21, 2011, 01:43:13 AM

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on April 20, 2011, 03:12:20 PM

Linux and Windows binary releases are at:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.3.21/

What about the Apple binaries? Is Mac OS no longer supported?

Well, I saw Gavin's photo in Forbes today, sitting in front of his iMac ... which made me wonder why it seems like Apple-users are second-class Bitcoin citizens. If the lead developer is coding on a Mac, can't he build us a binary? I don't think OSX even got an official build of 0.3.20.2 !

Don't get wrong. Linux is primary here for one thing open source, so do bitcoin - open source.
Due to huge number of users & request windows client made.
Soon their will be for mac.
The problem is Gavin is the only one so far working on whole official client.
Now some programmers joined with him. If you know about Mac programming you can help.

Topic: Please help test: Bitcoin version 0.3.21 release candidate (Read 9167 times)