Verifying Bitcoin Core - page 5. | Bitcointalksearch.org

afbitcoins

legendary

Activity: 2101

Merit: 1061

Quote from: achow101 on September 16, 2016, 10:14:29 AM

Quote from: afbitcoins on September 16, 2016, 10:04:42 AM

Quote from: achow101 on September 13, 2016, 04:30:43 PM

Quote from: afbitcoins on September 13, 2016, 04:26:35 PM

I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, when i generate the hash it matches correct but then I tried verifying as below and got public key not found. I have imported the keys that were listed in OP, there were 5 i think

xxxxxxxxxxx$ gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.asc
gpg: Signature made Tue 23 Aug 2016 16:23:26 CEST using RSA key ID 36C2E964
gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found

I feel like it is safe to use the binary because the hashes did match, is that the case? why have i not go the right public key?

Double check that you have imported the key with fingerprint 01EA5486DE18A882D4C2684590C8019E36C2E964. That's the release signing key.

Thanks for getting back to me, I must have done something wrong on importing the keys, I had missed that one somehow. Now I am getting this

xxxxxxxxxxx$ gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.asc
gpg: Signature made Tue 23 Aug 2016 16:23:26 CEST using RSA key ID 36C2E964
gpg: Good signature from "Wladimir J. van der Laan (Bitcoin Core binary release signing key) <[email protected]>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: 01EA 5486 DE18 A882 D4C2 6845 90C8 019E 36C2 E964

I have a warning on the output now, is this something I should worry about?
Or can I now safely assume I have correct binary ?

You can assume you have the correct binary because the signature is good. However, the warning means that you personally have not trusted this key. Ideally you would meet up with Wladimir and he would show you his ID and his key fingerprint and prove to you that he is in control of the key. However, since that isn't likely to happen, you can check who else has signed his key, and if you trust them, you can set your own trust on his key.

Yes I have not personally trusted the key yet. this is a bit new to me but I intend to devote some more of my time to understanding it better as I agree that it is important to verify the download. Up until now I have usually just downloaded it and started using it right away without verifying anything.

Thanks for your help

achow101

staff

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6793

Just writing some code

Quote from: afbitcoins on September 16, 2016, 10:04:42 AM

Quote from: achow101 on September 13, 2016, 04:30:43 PM

Quote from: afbitcoins on September 13, 2016, 04:26:35 PM

I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, when i generate the hash it matches correct but then I tried verifying as below and got public key not found. I have imported the keys that were listed in OP, there were 5 i think

xxxxxxxxxxx$ gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.asc
gpg: Signature made Tue 23 Aug 2016 16:23:26 CEST using RSA key ID 36C2E964
gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found

I feel like it is safe to use the binary because the hashes did match, is that the case? why have i not go the right public key?

Double check that you have imported the key with fingerprint 01EA5486DE18A882D4C2684590C8019E36C2E964. That's the release signing key.

Thanks for getting back to me, I must have done something wrong on importing the keys, I had missed that one somehow. Now I am getting this

xxxxxxxxxxx$ gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.asc
gpg: Signature made Tue 23 Aug 2016 16:23:26 CEST using RSA key ID 36C2E964
gpg: Good signature from "Wladimir J. van der Laan (Bitcoin Core binary release signing key) <[email protected]>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: 01EA 5486 DE18 A882 D4C2 6845 90C8 019E 36C2 E964

I have a warning on the output now, is this something I should worry about?
Or can I now safely assume I have correct binary ?

You can assume you have the correct binary because the signature is good. However, the warning means that you personally have not trusted this key. Ideally you would meet up with Wladimir and he would show you his ID and his key fingerprint and prove to you that he is in control of the key. However, since that isn't likely to happen, you can check who else has signed his key, and if you trust them, you can set your own trust on his key.

afbitcoins

legendary

Activity: 2101

Merit: 1061

Quote from: achow101 on September 13, 2016, 04:30:43 PM

Quote from: afbitcoins on September 13, 2016, 04:26:35 PM

I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, when i generate the hash it matches correct but then I tried verifying as below and got public key not found. I have imported the keys that were listed in OP, there were 5 i think

xxxxxxxxxxx$ gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.asc
gpg: Signature made Tue 23 Aug 2016 16:23:26 CEST using RSA key ID 36C2E964
gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found

I feel like it is safe to use the binary because the hashes did match, is that the case? why have i not go the right public key?

Double check that you have imported the key with fingerprint 01EA5486DE18A882D4C2684590C8019E36C2E964. That's the release signing key.

Thanks for getting back to me, I must have done something wrong on importing the keys, I had missed that one somehow. Now I am getting this

xxxxxxxxxxx$ gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.asc
gpg: Signature made Tue 23 Aug 2016 16:23:26 CEST using RSA key ID 36C2E964
gpg: Good signature from "Wladimir J. van der Laan (Bitcoin Core binary release signing key) <[email protected]>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: 01EA 5486 DE18 A882 D4C2 6845 90C8 019E 36C2 E964

I have a warning on the output now, is this something I should worry about?
Or can I now safely assume I have correct binary ?

achow101

staff

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6793

Just writing some code

Quote from: afbitcoins on September 13, 2016, 04:26:35 PM

I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, when i generate the hash it matches correct but then I tried verifying as below and got public key not found. I have imported the keys that were listed in OP, there were 5 i think

xxxxxxxxxxx$ gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.asc
gpg: Signature made Tue 23 Aug 2016 16:23:26 CEST using RSA key ID 36C2E964
gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found

I feel like it is safe to use the binary because the hashes did match, is that the case? why have i not go the right public key?

Double check that you have imported the key with fingerprint 01EA5486DE18A882D4C2684590C8019E36C2E964. That's the release signing key.

afbitcoins

legendary

Activity: 2101

Merit: 1061

I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, when i generate the hash it matches correct but then I tried verifying as below and got public key not found. I have imported the keys that were listed in OP, there were 5 i think

xxxxxxxxxxx$ gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.asc
gpg: Signature made Tue 23 Aug 2016 16:23:26 CEST using RSA key ID 36C2E964
gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found

I feel like it is safe to use the binary because the hashes did match, is that the case? why have i not go the right public key?

poordeveloper

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 527

₿₿₿₿₿₿₿

Quote from: logocreator on September 06, 2016, 03:59:27 AM

whats the benefit, or should i say changelog of v0.13 in short ?

https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.13.0

coin@coin

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

Quote from: achow101 on September 03, 2016, 09:02:35 AM

That's because your file is wrong.

This line is incorrect:

Code:

54606c9a4fd32b826ceab4da9335d7a34a380859fa9495bf35a9e9c0dd9b6298  bitcoin-0.13.0-win64.2d61f88621301bbb00512376287f9df4568255f8b98bc10547dced96c8  bitcoin-0.13.0-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz

It should really be these two lines:

Code:

54606c9a4fd32b826ceab4da9335d7a34a380859fa9495bf35a9e9c0dd9b6298  bitcoin-0.13.0-win64.zip
bcc1e42d61f88621301bbb00512376287f9df4568255f8b98bc10547dced96c8  bitcoin-0.13.0-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz

That's because the files themselves are not pgp signed and do not have any signatures.

Yes that is all you need to trust that the .dmg is the right file.

Thanks for the help. I see were I went wrong now!

logocreator

legendary

Activity: 1134

Merit: 1000

www.cryptodesign.cc

whats the benefit, or should i say changelog of v0.13 in short ?

Goruno

sr. member

Activity: 401

Merit: 257

I also use bitcoin core ver 0.13.0. it runs smoothly .

ERossin

sr. member

Activity: 490

Merit: 262

The World’s First Blockchain Core

Quote from: achow101 on September 04, 2016, 03:54:28 PM

Quote from: ERossin on September 04, 2016, 11:22:03 AM

I have just downlloaded bitcoin core version 0.13.0 from bitcoin.org .is it good software?

Yes it is good. Make sure you verify it by following the instructions in the OP.

Thank you. just got your help for newbie.

achow101

staff

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6793

Just writing some code

Quote from: ERossin on September 04, 2016, 11:22:03 AM

I have just downlloaded bitcoin core version 0.13.0 from bitcoin.org .is it good software?

Yes it is good. Make sure you verify it by following the instructions in the OP.

ERossin

sr. member

Activity: 490

Merit: 262

The World’s First Blockchain Core

I have just downlloaded bitcoin core version 0.13.0 from bitcoin.org .is it good software?

smileman

newbie

Activity: 34

Merit: 0

Quote from: theymos on September 03, 2016, 03:03:51 PM

Quote from: smileman on September 03, 2016, 01:52:20 PM

in windows
Can a little more explanation
Step by Step

Hold down shift and right click on empty space next to the downloaded Bitcoin installer. Click "open command window here". In the box that comes up, type certUtil -hashfile bitcoin-0.13.0-win32.zip SHA256 (if the file you downloaded has a different name, use that name instead). Push enter. The hash will be printed. Between every two characters of the hash there will be a space, but you can ignore those spaces.

It's working

Big Thanks! Wink

Timelord2067

legendary

Activity: 3696

Merit: 2219

💲🏎️💨🚓

Quote from: theymos on September 03, 2016, 09:59:36 PM

Quote from: Timelord2067 on September 03, 2016, 06:31:04 PM

Will a future version prevent an older version from connecting at some later point in time?

Yes, but it's done very rarely. Versions as old as 0.3 can still connect to the network, though versions between 0.3 and 0.7 have a random chance of rejecting large blocks unless you add a special DB_CONFIG file to the data directory. (Those version numbers are from memory, and might be somewhat off.)

Except in case of some catastrophic network event such as an attack by the majority of miners, you should generally have at least 6 months of warning before a backward-incompatible change is made, and probably more like 12-24 months. The change which made versions older than 0.3 incapable of connecting to the network was done with 2 years of advance warning.

Hey thanks for that - I'll be sure to update sooner than that - I've also exported private keys of my PortableApps wallet just in case it ever gave out on me.

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

Quote from: Timelord2067 on September 03, 2016, 06:31:04 PM

Will a future version prevent an older version from connecting at some later point in time?

Yes, but it's done very rarely. Versions as old as 0.3 can still connect to the network, though versions between 0.3 and 0.7 have a random chance of rejecting large blocks unless you add a special DB_CONFIG file to the data directory. (Those version numbers are from memory, and might be somewhat off.)

Except in case of some catastrophic network event such as an attack by the majority of miners, you should generally have at least 6 months of warning before a backward-incompatible change is made, and probably more like 12-24 months. The change which made versions older than 0.3 incapable of connecting to the network was done with 2 years of advance warning.

achow101

staff

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6793

Just writing some code

Quote from: Timelord2067 on September 03, 2016, 06:31:04 PM

Quote from: theymos on September 03, 2016, 05:25:46 PM

Quote from: go6ooo1212 on September 03, 2016, 04:34:52 PM

Is there an issue if still using 0.12 core version.

No, there are no known problems with 0.12.1, and both the most recent major version and the previous major version are officially supported. So 0.12 will be supported until 0.14 comes out.

I recommend waiting a few months to upgrade on sensitive systems just in case any bugs are found.

Will a future version prevent an older version from connecting at some later point in time?

Probably not, but an older version will definitely not be able to connect to a future version at some point in time.

Quote from: Timelord2067 on September 03, 2016, 06:31:04 PM

I have a PortableApps BitCoin Wallet that I try to play catch up with the block chain, but that Wallet version for PA hasn't been updated in quite a while. (and unless the NBN comes to my area soon (and is affordable as well) I won't be able to have a local copy of the block chain anytime soon...)

It depends on the version of that wallet. I know for a fact that really old versions of Bitcoin are incompatible with the current network.

Timelord2067

legendary

Activity: 3696

Merit: 2219

💲🏎️💨🚓

Quote from: theymos on September 03, 2016, 05:25:46 PM

Quote from: go6ooo1212 on September 03, 2016, 04:34:52 PM

Is there an issue if still using 0.12 core version.

No, there are no known problems with 0.12.1, and both the most recent major version and the previous major version are officially supported. So 0.12 will be supported until 0.14 comes out.

I recommend waiting a few months to upgrade on sensitive systems just in case any bugs are found.

Will a future version prevent an older version from connecting at some later point in time?

I have a PortableApps BitCoin Wallet that I try to play catch up with the block chain, but that Wallet version for PA hasn't been updated in quite a while. (and unless the NBN comes to my area soon (and is affordable as well) I won't be able to have a local copy of the block chain anytime soon...)

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

Quote from: go6ooo1212 on September 03, 2016, 04:34:52 PM

Is there an issue if still using 0.12 core version.

No, there are no known problems with 0.12.1, and both the most recent major version and the previous major version are officially supported. So 0.12 will be supported until 0.14 comes out.

I recommend waiting a few months to upgrade on sensitive systems just in case any bugs are found.

go6ooo1212

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

quarkchain.io

Is there an issue if still using 0.12 core version. And I can't actually understand , why now in 0.13th version is that vulnerability ...

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

Quote from: smileman on September 03, 2016, 01:52:20 PM

in windows

Can a little more explanation

Step by Step

Hold down shift and right click on empty space next to the downloaded Bitcoin installer. Click "open command window here". In the box that comes up, type certUtil -hashfile bitcoin-0.13.0-win32.zip SHA256 (if the file you downloaded has a different name, use that name instead). Push enter. The hash will be printed. Between every two characters of the hash there will be a space, but you can ignore those spaces.

Topic: Verifying Bitcoin Core - page 5. (Read 206071 times)