Topic: Please help test: Bitcoin version 0.3.21 release candidate - page 2. (Read 9168 times)

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 !

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

I am sure whoever wanted to accomplish a DOS attack could do that. So, why inhibit regular users because of a possible attacker really is the question?

Captchas for example... some websites choose not to use them period, because they are such an inconvenience to the average user. No matter how many spam registrations they receive.

It's to stop denial of service on the network, by someone geting 1 BTC and then sending the tiniest fractions of it all over the place to fill up the block chain for no good purpose.

I would imagine that the minimum fee would be lowered at some point if the currency deflates that far - I think you want it to discourage frivilous transactions, but not be prohibitive to legitimate microtransactions. At this point though there is a ~1c USD charge to send anything that is vastly below ~1cUSD... which makes sense when you think about it.

yes, it's bad.
Because the exchange value of Bitcoin ( from USD ) can go very high.
So even 0.01 bitcoin can be a valuable amount of cash.

How can I add the updated translation to the next client release?

Why have you enforced a fee of 0.01 btc for small transactions? What sense does it make to send a transaction with a fee that costs more than the actual transaction itself?

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

There's no fee penality to send to self. But there is for small amounts & recent transactions.

It's not less than 0.01.
Coin selection choose 3 input transactions of the same amout (3 x 0.01234567) to pay 0.01234567. So, i guess the transaction is above 1k (or priority implies a fee). Not a bug so, just need to optimize coin selection maybe.

There's nothing wrong with yours - it's working flawlessly. Read a little about how networks work and what port forwarding does - you'll understand 

In the client? Nothing.

Some routers are terrible in their support of uPNP (eg, some firmware versions of D-link I believe it was would allow any uPNP client on the LAN to set the default gateway for other hosts, etc), but if you have one of those then it makes no difference if the Bitcoin client has it on or not. If it's enabled on your router and it's insecure, it's a security liability no matter what. Some folks disable it on their router automatically as a matter of habit, simply because historically router companies are idiots in the way they implement it.

So as far as just enabling/disabling it in the client, simply put if you are fine with manually forwarding ports where they need to go, or if they're already forwarded properly, don't bother enabling it.

Now for my questions, first: Does the Bitcoin client exchange peer information with other clients, such that it'll maintain a decent connection to the swarm if it's not able to go on IRC? (I'm assuming the answer to this question is affirmative, but I want to make sure because it's an assumption for the second question).

Second: Does the Bitcoin client do any type of validation on the IRC server it connects to to seed the p2p mechanism? I don't really want to be on some strange IRC network all day every day with several clients, so I was thinking about setting up an IRC server on my router and transparently forwarding my bitcoin clients there. Assuming at least one of my clients maintains at least one active peer outside my LAN, all clients should stay in the swarm with no issues right?

+1, the buttons are very small.


No, its not error or bug. Gavin mentioned it in first post itself. You can send coins less than 0.01, but you have to pay 0.01 as fees

i downloaded & ran it, here i got result with no bitcoin client running.

Then i ran bitcoin client with "map port using Upnp"
i got this

Actually, i see both same & i don't understand anything.
Can anyone explain why i got same thing both time or what is wrong in mine?

Sorry about the delay. After seeing the error message I realized what happened. I had manually forwarded 8333 on my router to another computer running bitcoin client. I now deleted the rule and it works ok.


After:

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?

Would you mind grabbing a copy of http://miniupnp.tuxfamily.org/files/download.php?file=upnpc-exe-win32-20110418.zip and running upnpc-static.exe -a YourInternalIPv4 8333 8333 tcp and posting the output?

To bitcoin, this type of transaction appears to be a low priority, spam transaction.  Sending tiny amounts of bitcoins to yourself is a waste of network resources -- remember, you are asking every bitcoin node, all over the world, to validate and store your transaction.

I don't have an account with GitHub, so here goes:

UPnP doesn't seem to work. I checked "Map port using UPnP" and restarted the client but still stuck at 8 connections.
I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 32bit in VMware Fusion 3.1. utorrent UPnP works fine in the same environment.

Also, might be just me, but I think "Send" and "Cancel" buttons are too small in "Send Coins"(in Windows 7 default theme)

I suspect some fee problem when sending with a CIn like 0.01234567.
I've sent 0.01234567 to myself, waited for 10 confirmations and try to send 0.01234567 to myself again.
=> bitcoin GUI suggest me a 0.01 fee
This transaction is over the size limit.  You can still send it for a fee of 0.01, which goes to the nodes that process your transaction and helps to support the network.  Do you want to pay the fee?

I tried 7/8 times, same message appears. There shouldn't be a fee here ?

I don't know anything about UPnP but I would have to say no. It would only open port 8333 (for incoming). Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Using for the past 10-20 minutes. So far no glitch or anything, besides, instead of 2 digits , now i see 8 digits after decimal point.


Is that mean can any port be used to connect bitcoin client to internet besides 8332.
I have a fear that suddenly ISP's will block 8332 port, at least my ISP.

Since the prohibition on non-standard transactions, the only reason for a transaction to be overly "complex" is due to its large number of inputs and outputs.

In this case the solution is for the client software to offer the option of  recasting the transaction into two or more less complex ones, possibly using staging addresses, which would no longer incur fees.

ByteCoin

Much more succinct!  And you're right--"we" is just a polite way of some random person on the internet trying to lend themselves credibility.  It's the people who actually wrangle code that do the work  

WOW, is it true?
I see 8 decimal points, that completely solves the microbitcent problem.