Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin Core version 0.11.1 is now available from:

https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.11.1/

This is a new minor version release, bringing security fixes. It is recommended to upgrade to this version as soon as possible.

Please report bugs using the issue tracker at github:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues

---

Upgrading and downgrading

How to Upgrade

If you are running an older version, shut it down. Wait until it has completely shut down (which might take a few minutes for older versions), then run the installer (on Windows) or just copy over /Applications/Bitcoin-Qt (on Mac) or bitcoind/bitcoin-qt (on Linux).

Downgrade warning

Because release 0.10.0 and later makes use of headers-first synchronization and parallel block download (see further), the block files and databases are not backwards-compatible with pre-0.10 versions of Bitcoin Core or other software:

Blocks will be stored on disk out of order (in the order they are received, really), which makes it incompatible with some tools or other programs. Reindexing using earlier versions will also not work anymore as a result of this.

The block index database will now hold headers for which no block is stored on disk, which earlier versions won’t support.

If you want to be able to downgrade smoothly, make a backup of your entire data directory. Without this your node will need start syncing (or importing from bootstrap.dat) anew afterwards. It is possible that the data from a completely synchronised 0.10 node may be usable in older versions as-is, but this is not supported and may break as soon as the older version attempts to reindex.

This does not affect wallet forward or backward compatibility. There are no known problems when downgrading from 0.11.x to 0.10.x.

---

Notable changes

Fix buffer overflow in bundled upnp

Bundled miniupnpc was updated to 1.9.20151008. This fixes a buffer overflow in the XML parser during initial network discovery.

Details can be found here: http://talosintel.com/reports/TALOS-2015-0035/

This applies to the distributed executables only, not when building from source or using distribution provided packages.

Test for LowS signatures before relaying

Make the node require the canonical ‘low-s’ encoding for ECDSA signatures when relaying or mining. This removes a nuisance malleability vector.

Consensus behavior is unchanged.

If widely deployed this change would eliminate the last remaining known vector for nuisance malleability on SIGHASH_ALL P2PKH transactions. On the down-side it will block most transactions made by sufficiently out of date software.

Unlike the other avenues to change txids on transactions this one was randomly violated by all deployed bitcoin software prior to its discovery. So, while other malleability vectors where made non-standard as soon as they were discovered, this one has remained permitted. Even BIP62 did not propose applying this rule to old version transactions, but conforming implementations have become much more common since BIP62 was initially written.

Bitcoin Core has produced compatible signatures since a28fb70e in September 2013, but this didn’t make it into a release until 0.9 in March 2014; Bitcoinj has done so for a similar span of time. Bitcoinjs and electrum have been more recently updated.

This does not replace the need for BIP62 or similar, as miners can still cooperate to break transactions. Nor does it replace the need for wallet software to handle malleability sanely[1]. This only eliminates the cheap and irritating DOS attack.

[1] On the Malleability of Bitcoin Transactions Marcin Andrychowicz, Stefan Dziembowski, Daniel Malinowski, Łukasz Mazurek http://fc15.ifca.ai/preproceedings/bitcoin/paper_9.pdf

---

0.11.1 Change log

Detailed release notes follow. This overview includes changes that affect behavior, not code moves, refactors and string updates. For convenience in locating the code changes and accompanying discussion, both the pull request and git merge commit are mentioned.

#6438 2531438 openssl: avoid config file load/race
#6439 980f820 Updated URL location of netinstall for Debian
#6384 8e5a969 qt: Force TLS1.0+ for SSL connections
#6471 92401c2 Depends: bump to qt 5.5
#6224 93b606a Be even stricter in processing unrequested blocks
#6571 100ac4e libbitcoinconsensus: avoid a crash in multi-threaded environments
#6545 649f5d9 Do not store more than 200 timedata samples.
#6694 834e299 [QT] fix thin space word wrap line break issue
#6703 1cd7952 Backport bugfixes to 0.11
#6750 5ed8d0b Recent rejects backport to v0.11
#6769 71cc9d9 Test LowS in standardness, removes nuisance malleability vector.
#6789 b4ad73f Update miniupnpc to 1.9.20151008
#6785 b4dc33e Backport to v0.11: In (strCommand == “tx”), return if AlreadyHave()
#6412 0095b9a Test whether created sockets are select()able

---

Credits

Thanks to everyone who directly contributed to this release:

Adam Weiss
Alex Morcos
Casey Rodarmor
Cory Fields
fanquake
Gregory Maxwell
Jonas Schnelli
J Ross Nicoll
Pavel Janík
Pavel Vasin
Peter Todd
Pieter Wuille
randy-waterhouse
Ross Nicoll
Suhas Daftuar
tailsjoin
฿tcDrak
Tom Harding
Veres Lajos
Wladimir J. van der Laan
And those who contributed additional code review and/or security research:

timothy on IRC for reporting the issue
Vulnerability in miniupnp discovered by Aleksandar Nikolic of Cisco Talos
As well as everyone that helped translating on Transifex.

Yeah, this has been out for hours. Saw it on reddit, and also saw a thread here. I wonder why at the top of the forum where it says "news" it still haven't changed. They should change immediately, specially when a vulnerability exploit is happening. Tons of people notice Bitcoin updates because of this forum.

The news field is updated manually and should be done soon.

The buffer overflow bug was something I had been experiencing for a while, it would cause my client to crash, glad to see that has been fixed.

Core is still randomly crashing for me from time to time, but I think that is because I run it on a very old system.  I have not been able to pinpoint the cause of most of my crashes, and the log file doesn't give any clues.

Updates and specially these kinds of updates are always welcome :)


RAM, maybe? I'm running a node on a 4GB machine and it crashes every now and then without an apparent cause... I suspect it is an extreme RAM usage. It crashed during stress tests, at least here...

My node has also 4GB of ram and it runs fine. I was having constant crashes, after researching around it turns out that it was 1 module of RAM with faulty memory, which was causing a memory leak when a program took way too much RAM. The client wouldn't stop growing in RAM usage until it collapsed. So I would do a memtest for starters.

Good suggestion, thank you. Unfortunately the machine in question is a VPS.

RAM issues are usually indicated by "bad alloc" in either the bitcoin or the systems log files.

Edit: I wrote this small bash script to see whether the high memory usage was related to the spam attack:


I also add a header every 24 hours.


Sample output for today:

Can you give the specs of your machine? I run a node on my old laptop with 4GB of ram. Still runs on 0.11 but no crashes or whatsoever.

Laptop specs in case you're wondering:

AMD Phenom II N620 2.8 Ghz
AMD Mobility Radeon HD4250
4 GB of ram and a 320GB HDD

If yours is greater, I suspect a faulty memory in that case.

Can you also add that the minrelaytxfee default was increased? It was part of the new version and that note was also included in the email message on bitcoin-dev announcing this version. The email is here: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-October/011545.html

Has anyone encountered any problems upgrading from 0.11.0 ? I'm wondering because I barely have any time to upgrade at the moment. If any issues arrive I would not have time to troubleshoot and fix them. The upgrade is recommended, but one can always use that workaround for the flaw that was found.

I had no issues, but I never had any issues with core so I might not be that representative.

Some people have reported issues with using this version with Armory. Apparently Armory doesn't enforce lowS signatures while this 0.11.1 does so sometimes transactions sent from Armory don't go through.

Yeah, same here. I just quickly upgraded. It looks fine (for now).

Well, I do not use Armory. I only use Bitcoin Core and thus that is not really relevant to me. Thanks for the information though.

i'm with you.
since 0.9.3 ... bitcoin crash for no reason.

so ... i use an auto-restart program : Application Monitor
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1114415.msg12386392#msg12386392

work perfectly.

Why haven't this thread stickied yet? Older version with flaws is still stickied.

Do we know if there's going to be any release date or word on when the next version that will solve the blocksize problems? Also, I seem to be getting some akwardness going on with the installer on this version.

Memory has been brought to my attention before as a likely culprit.  My machine is old, here are it's specs:

Intel Core2 6600 @ 2.40 GHz
Nvidia GeForce GTX 550 Ti
4 GB ram, but WinXP only sees 2.75 GB
1 TB+ 7200 rpm of HD space on 3 physical drives

I will run memtest just for fun, but it's probably just the age and architecture of my machine that crashes core.


When bitnodes emails me that my node is down I can VPN to my machine and restart core.

well for me 0.11.1 fixed the huge memory usage i am back down to 500 meg (from 2 gb of ram running) of ram like the other 2 qt's i run.. And no i didn't have any problems upgrading from 0.11 to 0.11.1


Icon


** little update ***

Noticed twice now if the pc running the qt loses power the bitcoin Dbase crashes and wants to start from the beginning ~ 6 years.. Now the older versions didn't have that problem

No significant reason to upgrade for me.
But its great developers keep this project up to date :)

Cyrus, can you update the OP to have the full release notes? Bitcoin.org didn't have the full release notes when they initially posted the new release. They were missing the information about the minrelaytxfee default increase. This has been fixed now.

If by "fixed" you mean 30x higher, then yes, they were "fixed".  A tx I sent to a company a few weeks ago has a fee of like 2000 satoshi. I sent another tx for the same amount to the same company yesterday and the default fee added was over 60,000 satoshi.  Yikes!

What are you talking about?

I was talking about the bitcoin.org website which has fixed the release notes posted to match the actual release notes of 0.11.1.

And the minrelaytxfee has nothing to do with setting the fee for transactions. It is about the minimum threshold of a fee that Bitcoin Core will accept to its mempool and relay. What you are complaining about is probably the fee estimation, which will estimate fees and adjust them accordingly for your transactions. The recent amount of spam from the transaction malleability attack has pushed fees up.

I have the same exact problem. My wallet is stuck on Bitcoin Core splash screen with "Activating best chain" text for hours. Is there a solution for this?

After upgrading from 0.11.0 to 0.11.1 is it still recommend to keep this settings?

minrelaytxfee=0.00005 is the default value now, no need to set it. AFAIK limitfreerelay=5 is 15 by default. If you have issues with the memory demand on your node, keep the settings. If not, reduce them. E.g. my VPS runs fine with minrelaytxfee=0.00002 on 2 GB (system wide, core uses ~1GB).

Thx shorena! Im runnin only a small bananapi with 1GB RAM and 40 connections

I would like to thank the developers for solving the Malleability attack problem with this update, it was such a nuisance and really affected some services which depend on the exact transaction IDs. This really made things back to normal again. :)

How can I get access to addresses where I receved a change?
I maked backup of wallet before I recived change, I lost BTC when decided to check old wallet, then I paste my new wallet last transactions where lost, now my wallet show 0 BTC, where 0.17.

Change addresses are among the 100 pregenerated and hidden in the wallet.dat file. Unless you made many transactions older backups should include these keys as well. You have to make regular backups to avoid going over the 100 addresses though. If your backup is very old the coins might be lost.

The wallet was pretty new, I know addresses, where the change.
But when I try dumpprivkey, wallet writes error.
Can someone help me to return my coins? I can sent the wallet and can offer 0.105 (half of loss) BTC for this.
The addresses with change:
1EZPJcRLrMcjQuaomk7hCC3vjovWDMFL7W
1NspErFCzA6y8niuvEaCYHgQ1b6FeeX2sG
1eZsbVqpbJzSxu9TuXbjhedTcs33HPEbs

Whats the error?


If addresses would help to recover your coins, bitcoin would not be safe to use as anyone could do it all the time.

18:56:01

Private key for address 1eZsbVqpbJzSxu9TuXbjhedTcs33HPEbs is not known (code -4)

Sounds like the private key is not part of the wallet. This probably means that your backup is too old.

Another thing I could tink of is that you made a backup before you encrypted the wallet. When you set a password the old pregenerated keys that have not been used at that point are replaced by freshly generated address/private key pairs. This makes sure that the private keys you need later have not been stored on the disk unencrypted.

The latest version of bitcoin core has been released, which has brought in many security changes. The vulnerabilities which were in the software, which were creating privacy risks for the miners. Consensus behaviors Have been fixed in the software too.. so upgrading to this version is beneficial for everyone. Update can be done from bitcoin.org site for free.

After this whorish update I put my own address to change in every time I launch the wallet.
I will never forget how I lost 0.2 BTC in addresses, wich I never used.

What are you talking about? Do you have issues with the change addresses?

Of course, I have lost 0.2 BTC here:
https://blockchain.info/address/1EZPJcRLrMcjQuaomk7hCC3vjovWDMFL7W
https://blockchain.info/address/1NspErFCzA6y8niuvEaCYHgQ1b6FeeX2sG
https://blockchain.info/address/1eZsbVqpbJzSxu9TuXbjhedTcs33HPEbs

You can download my wallet and check the transactions:
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/9Z73/FWynhTCEC

Ah yes you posted above. I remember now.

The address 1eZsbVqpbJzSxu9TuXbjhedTcs33HPEbs was never used to send coins, only to receive coins here[1]. If it is a change address as you suggest your wallet should have the private key to 1NspErFCzA6y8niuvEaCYHgQ1b6FeeX2sG, but it has not.


Your 1st TX for the wallet is this[2], the change address is 14kF8gLXCtXYGtWLhas9Kn4C3CGnnoNqLj and the wallet knows the private key to it.


Im not exactly sure why you blame core, but from what I see in your wallet file there is no issue with it.

[1] https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/7916f1f0263bdc4fd8d5829fdd473f021bfb83b74e3fc28993228d398b706ce4
[2] https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/3b01054070a1901bce0be92a4150d89aa1a65fa58bb4fdf8ffb390380d84352e

I do not understand how I can return bitcoins.
I must make backup in every time before I close the core or manually set my address to change a lesson that I've learned.

You just spend them normally and Bitcoin Core will automatically select the Bitcoin for you, be it from change or elsewhere where you have received bitcoin.

Why must you make a backup every time before you close Bitcoin Core? Are you restoring from a backup every time you open it? Because if you are doing that, then that might have caused you to lose the Bitcoin if you restored from the wrong backup. After you have used 100 addresses (from either receiving Bitcoin or just automatic change), then the keypool will be refreshed with 100 more addresses (it actually happens on the fly but you don't get those addresses until the first 100 have been used). If you restored from an older backup, then it is possible that the change address was part of the newly generated addresses but when you restored, it wasn't in the backed up wallet.

very happy with the latest update, the memory usage looking much better!

Yeah, this has been out for hours.Saw a thread here. Tons of people notice Bitcoin updates because of this forum.

How about a bootsrtap, any idea where I can find one

When I last time downloaded the chain it takes less when 1.5 days and 52.5 Gb. Why are you want a bootstrap?

You shouldn't need to bootstrap since they went to headers first, https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#headers-first, although my old, slow-ass computer still takes almost 4 days to re-sync the blockchain.

Do we have a release date for 0.12?

i had 0.11.0 till now  but i had a probleme

i made 4 transaction sins 19 october   none of them was confirmed i always try to send with low fees around 2000sat   for +- 0.01 btc
(i alredy send with 200sat fee with no problem in the past)

so it was not working anymore so 3th transaction i  did 3200sat fees   and 4 th transaction 5000sat fees, but none of them where confirmed  (last one from 3 days ago)

so i just update to 0.11.1  and i notice it canceled my transactions, got my coins back , status : in conflict

so i made a new transaction 0.07 btc  but it s asking 42000 sat of fees  ??? :o  seriously ?  why is that so much ?

That does seem a lot.

Try increasing your RAM, maybe it should help? Also go for the latest version of Os (whichever one you might be using).

So I have found a common thread with my random crashes.  It seems that (almost) whenever I receive a payment, core crashes without any error or indication of what happened in the log.

Can anyone think of what is happening, that receiving a payment causes the crash?  Does core use a bunch more ram to process incoming payments or something?

so i made payment today
but in transaction  it s show as 27/10/2015  ?  my computer is on the right time


i close bitcoin and restart

now the payment shows up on 19/10/2015  ???

bug after bug. I think someone(a dev) is making it with good knowledge.

Rest assured someone is developing an exploit for IGDstartelt in MiniUPnP..

 ;D :o Bitcoin is little bit confusing website no one can easily understand how to use bitcoins and what is bitcoins it is a online currency which you can use on online transaction and it is very safe site you can use bitcoins just safely go head and use bitcoins

Not true. It's a software currency that uses a distributed and crypto validated ledger. Miners validate blocks of transactions using computing power for the crypto operations and make money off fees.

The only -what are they thinking- part of BTC are fees which seem arbitrary because they pretty much are..

You could argue the cost of the required computing power creates the same problems that come from fiat currency too..

Today this is the best news that I have come across. I get to marvel at the fact that when bitcoin is facing serious challenges, it has  kept on growing against all these odds. I am happy that the new version is up and it really paints a good picture to the people who are trading. Every release means that the security of the algorithm is taken into consideration to avoid tapping related cases. I hope the releases will come from time to time to curb for all the flaws.

This version is not new, latest version is 0.11.2 and not 0.11.1, this thread is old. About the website of bitcoin.org being confusing, what confused me when I was a noob was that i couldn't find a "download" link, it was under "get involved" or something, it wasn't clear how to download the thing.