could you tell me of what revision is this version ?
It is SVN revision 171. 
Thanks, i already managed to get this information by looking at logs.
Topic: Version 0.3.14 (Read 4082 times)
Thanks, i already managed to get this information by looking at logs.
could you tell me of what revision is this version ?
It is SVN revision 171. Satoshi, could you tell me of what revision is this version ?
I tried diff-ing the files (from SVN and from the binary package with sources), but there seems to be some kind of binary differences in the files, and they are marked as different when doing directory compare, but diff software cannot pinpoint what are the exact differences !!
That is the weirdest thing i have seen in a long time.
Perhaps the files from the package are encoded in UTF-8, UTF-16 or something ? In SVN, they are noticeably smaller.
I tried diff-ing the files (from SVN and from the binary package with sources), but there seems to be some kind of binary differences in the files, and they are marked as different when doing directory compare, but diff software cannot pinpoint what are the exact differences !!
That is the weirdest thing i have seen in a long time.
Perhaps the files from the package are encoded in UTF-8, UTF-16 or something ? In SVN, they are noticeably smaller.
SVN has Unix line endings, while the source in the packages has Windows line endings. The files are otherwise exactly the same.
Satoshi, could you tell me of what revision is this version ?
I tried diff-ing the files (from SVN and from the binary package with sources), but there seems to be some kind of binary differences in the files, and they are marked as different when doing directory compare, but diff software cannot pinpoint what are the exact differences !!
That is the weirdest thing i have seen in a long time.
Perhaps the files from the package are encoded in UTF-8, UTF-16 or something ? In SVN, they are noticeably smaller.
I tried diff-ing the files (from SVN and from the binary package with sources), but there seems to be some kind of binary differences in the files, and they are marked as different when doing directory compare, but diff software cannot pinpoint what are the exact differences !!
That is the weirdest thing i have seen in a long time.
Perhaps the files from the package are encoded in UTF-8, UTF-16 or something ? In SVN, they are noticeably smaller.
It's OK, thanks. I sent to my another address... twice.
Feature request for 0.3.14.1.
I don't know how it happened, but I just clicked Send button twice.
And I made two transactions instead of one. Send button should be
disabled if I click it and enabled again if Send Coins form appeared...
I really do not know why Payment Sent window did not protect me.
I don't know how it happened, but I just clicked Send button twice.
And I made two transactions instead of one. Send button should be
disabled if I click it and enabled again if Send Coins form appeared...
I really do not know why Payment Sent window did not protect me.
You must have a fast finger :-)
Hope it wasn't a big problem.
Feature request for 0.3.14.1.
I don't know how it happened, but I just clicked Send button twice.
And I made two transactions instead of one. Send button should be
disabled if I click it and enabled again if Send Coins form appeared...
I really do not know why Payment Sent window did not protect me.
I don't know how it happened, but I just clicked Send button twice.
And I made two transactions instead of one. Send button should be
disabled if I click it and enabled again if Send Coins form appeared...
I really do not know why Payment Sent window did not protect me.
Yes. I just wanna say that user should backup wallet only after he/she got at least one transaction in 0.3.14.
In this scenario:
Added: the transaction is not required, enough to request a new address once and the pool will be created.
In this scenario:
- backup wallet
- send some money
- keypool created
- lost your wallet
- restore from older backup
Added: the transaction is not required, enough to request a new address once and the pool will be created.
- send some money
- lost your wallet
- restore from older backup
- send some money
- be sure got it
- close Bitcoin
- backup wallet
- send some money
- ...
- send some money
- lost your wallet
- restore from older backup
No, you only need one send -- with one change transaction -- to create a problem.
- send some money
- lost your wallet
- restore from older backup
- send some money
- be sure got it
- close Bitcoin
- backup wallet
- send some money
- ...
- send some money
- lost your wallet
- restore from older backup
How does the keypool feature work and why is it safer?
This gives a bit of info: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/key-pool-feature-for-safer-wallet-backup-1414
Among other things, a key pool means that you are more likely to be able to recover your wallet from an older backup.
Previously, this scenario
- send some money
- lost your wallet
- restore from older backup
might result in you losing all your bitcoins, even the ones you did not send.
How does the keypool feature work and why is it safer?
Version 0.3.14 is now available
http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.3.14/
Changes:
- Key pool feature for safer wallet backup
Gavin Andresen:
- TEST network mode with switch -testnet
- Option to use SSL for JSON-RPC connections on unix/osx
- validateaddress RPC command
eurekafag:
- Russian translation
http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.3.14/
Changes:
- Key pool feature for safer wallet backup
Gavin Andresen:
- TEST network mode with switch -testnet
- Option to use SSL for JSON-RPC connections on unix/osx
- validateaddress RPC command
eurekafag:
- Russian translation
Jump to: