Version 0.7.0 release candidate 1 ready for testing

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4172

Merit: 8419

Quote from: phelix on September 09, 2012, 03:01:23 PM

Together with multisig coin control is one of the most important features imho. No coin control is a deal breaker for me and potentially for anyone who ever used it...

Your claim is objectively false. If it were that important at all there would have been _someone_ to step up and maintain it. But there was none although we begged and begged and warned that it wouldn't go in without one. Complain all you like about "deal breakers", — actions speak much louder than words.

You can achieve the same level of control using the console and listaddressgroupings / listunspent / createrawtransaction / signrawtransaction / sendtrawtransaction. (Listaddressgroupings was part of the coincontrol patch, and I was willing to maintain it because it's all I needed to get the level of coincontrol functionality I wanted... I don't use the GUI)

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: phelix on September 09, 2012, 03:01:23 PM

Together with multisig coin control is one of the most important features imho. No coin control is a deal breaker for me and potentially for anyone who ever used it...

It is not quite clear to me, could you/team please clarify if it is possible via rpc in 0.7?

You can use external software to create your own custom transactions via RPC now.
You cannot simply "sendfromaddress ".

Quote from: phelix on September 09, 2012, 03:01:23 PM

Are there any plans for implementing the gui for it?

I suspect everyone would plan to merge it if anyone submitted a properly-designed and cleaned up GUI.
I suggested in another thread that those interested might set up a bounty, and/or hire a developer to get it done.

jgarzik

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1091

Quote from: phelix on September 09, 2012, 03:01:23 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on August 28, 2012, 10:00:23 PM

Quote from: drrussellshane on August 28, 2012, 07:02:26 PM

Does this version have coin control?

No, Coin Control was found to be poorly designed (how can you control specific outputs held by the same address?) and its maintainer disappeared. Parts of it (grouping logic) were merged into the new raw transaction RPC methods. At this point, getting Coin Control in probably means someone needs to step up to adapt it and clean it up to provide the same functionality as the raw transaction stuff.

Together with multisig coin control is one of the most important features imho. No coin control is a deal breaker for me and potentially for anyone who ever used it...

It is not quite clear to me, could you/team please clarify if it is possible via rpc in 0.7?

Yes, it is possible via the raw transaction RPC API. Your software is required to know how to construct proper binary-format bitcoin transactions.

Quote

Are there any plans for implementing the gui for it?

None immediately, no.

phelix

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1019

Quote from: Luke-Jr on August 28, 2012, 10:00:23 PM

Quote from: drrussellshane on August 28, 2012, 07:02:26 PM

Does this version have coin control?

No, Coin Control was found to be poorly designed (how can you control specific outputs held by the same address?) and its maintainer disappeared. Parts of it (grouping logic) were merged into the new raw transaction RPC methods. At this point, getting Coin Control in probably means someone needs to step up to adapt it and clean it up to provide the same functionality as the raw transaction stuff.

Together with multisig coin control is one of the most important features imho. No coin control is a deal breaker for me and potentially for anyone who ever used it...

It is not quite clear to me, could you/team please clarify if it is possible via rpc in 0.7?

Are there any plans for implementing the gui for it?

still: great to see all the progress.

Sergio_Demian_Lerner

hero member

Activity: 552

Merit: 622

Quote from: Luke-Jr on September 05, 2012, 08:05:52 PM

CVE-2012-4682 and CVE-2012-4683 are two reported by you and fixed in 0.7rc1.

Great, that means that there were no more vulnerabilities found.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: Sergio_Demian_Lerner on September 05, 2012, 07:22:29 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on September 05, 2012, 04:36:17 PM

It's my understanding that you reported multiple vulnerabilities fixed in 0.7.0rc1, each of which is assigned a different number.

Yes, you're right. These are not the same vulnerabilities that were fixed in 0.6.3, they may be the ones reported by me or other reported by somebody else, I don´t know.

CVE-2012-4682 and CVE-2012-4683 are two reported by you and fixed in 0.7rc1.

Sergio_Demian_Lerner

hero member

Activity: 552

Merit: 622

Quote from: Luke-Jr on September 05, 2012, 04:36:17 PM

It's my understanding that you reported multiple vulnerabilities fixed in 0.7.0rc1, each of which is assigned a different number.

Yes, you're right. These are not the same vulnerabilities that were fixed in 0.6.3, they may be the ones reported by me or other reported by somebody else, I don´t know.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: Sergio_Demian_Lerner on September 05, 2012, 02:18:15 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on September 05, 2012, 12:11:15 PM

Quote from: keystroke on September 05, 2012, 12:00:25 PM

Also will CVE-2012-4682 and CVE-2012-4683 be fixed in 0.7?

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on August 28, 2012, 04:02:26 PM

Thanks to Sergio Lerner for reporting denial-of-service vulnerabilities fixed in this release.

These are the same.

No, since CVE-2012-4682 and CVE-2012-4683 have different numbers, they are new vulnerabilities fixed in 7.0rc1 by the dev team.

It's my understanding that you reported multiple vulnerabilities fixed in 0.7.0rc1, each of which is assigned a different number.

Sergio_Demian_Lerner

hero member

Activity: 552

Merit: 622

Quote from: Luke-Jr on September 05, 2012, 12:11:15 PM

Quote from: keystroke on September 05, 2012, 12:00:25 PM

Also will CVE-2012-4682 and CVE-2012-4683 be fixed in 0.7?

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on August 28, 2012, 04:02:26 PM

Thanks to Sergio Lerner for reporting denial-of-service vulnerabilities fixed in this release.

These are the same.

No, since CVE-2012-4682 and CVE-2012-4683 have different numbers, they are new vulnerabilities fixed in 7.0rc1 by the dev team.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: keystroke on September 05, 2012, 12:00:25 PM

I see BIP 0034 is listed on the CVE page. Is it actually to fix a vulnerability?

The listed BIPs are there because they effectively create vulnerabilities in older pre-BIP clients. That is, the fact that these old clients accept blocks that are (now) invalid, is a risk.

Quote from: keystroke on September 05, 2012, 12:00:25 PM

Also will CVE-2012-4682 and CVE-2012-4683 be fixed in 0.7?

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on August 28, 2012, 04:02:26 PM

Thanks to Sergio Lerner for reporting denial-of-service vulnerabilities fixed in this release.

These are the same.

keystroke

hero member

Activity: 900

Merit: 1014

advocate of a cryptographic attack on the globe

I see BIP 0034 is listed on the CVE page. Is it actually to fix a vulnerability? Also will CVE-2012-4682 and CVE-2012-4683 be fixed in 0.7?

Diapolo

hero member

Activity: 769

Merit: 500

Quote from: keystroke on September 01, 2012, 12:58:34 PM

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/Tor.txt

"In particular, the Tor Browser Bundle defaults to listening on a random port."

As of the latest Tor Browser Bundle it no longer listens on a random port (at least under Windows from what I could tell).

On what port is it listening for you?

Dia

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4172

Merit: 8419

Quote from: justusranvier on September 03, 2012, 10:40:56 PM

Edit: I can connect to gmaxwell's hidden service. How would a new Tor-only node learn about hidden services without manually adding peers found via forum posts?

You need at least one peer before you can learn of more over the network. Right now the only way to bootstrap an onion-only node is manually.

URSAY

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1000

Send some coin to my 0.7.0 client? I'll send it back to your 0.7.0 client ehhhh...

13e23Ud5Nk8x52oF4zE1vSQkvyvrbrm3jN

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1009

My node is listening on ipv4, ipv6 and a Tor.

So far I haven't seen any ipv6 ~~or Tor~~ connections.

Edit: I can connect to gmaxwell's hidden service. How would a new Tor-only node learn about hidden services without manually adding peers found via forum posts?

Balthazar

legendary

Activity: 3108

Merit: 1358

We running bitcoin-0.6.99 snapshot for a week, and generated 20 "version 2" blocks during this time. Roll Eyes

keystroke

hero member

Activity: 900

Merit: 1014

advocate of a cryptographic attack on the globe

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/Tor.txt

"In particular, the Tor Browser Bundle defaults to listening on a random port."

As of the latest Tor Browser Bundle it no longer listens on a random port (at least under Windows from what I could tell).

sturle

legendary

Activity: 1437

Merit: 1002

https://bitmynt.no

Quote from: Binary Finery on August 30, 2012, 07:03:27 AM

Where's the -walldir option? Can anyone explain why it appears so difficult to write some code to separate the wallet.dat file from the blockchain?

First of all: wallet.dat is a file, not a directory. You would want -wallfile not -walldir. Just do it yourself if you think it is so easy. The rest of us just move wallet.dat to where we want it and symlink. Because it is even easier, works for any file, and is probably the reason why nobody can be bothered to write any code for it in the client.

OneEyed

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: LightRider on September 01, 2012, 02:02:24 AM

Oh well, I don't think I was able to maintain any ipv6 connections anyway. I'm behind a tunnel broker, so I don't know if that matters or not. Thanks devs for all the work and I look forward to future releases.

It would be great to have a flag asking to prefer IPv6 over IPv4 when selecting outgoing peers to connect to.

Diapolo

hero member

Activity: 769

Merit: 500

Quote from: Matt Corallo on August 31, 2012, 07:52:32 PM

Quote from: Diapolo on August 31, 2012, 07:48:17 PM

Via -addnode=[2001:470:9ff2:2:a001:3cff:fea5:a49] (that is an example IP, can't say if you are able to connect now).

Example? Thats my address...
And, no, I don't believe its up anymore...

I found it in a test script, sorry Matt

. I used the phrase example, as I did know it was working before, but was not sure about it ^^.

Dia

Topic: Version 0.7.0 release candidate 1 ready for testing (Read 9743 times)