Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin Core version 0.13.1 is now available from:

  <https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.13.1/> (https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.13.1/)
This is a new minor version release, including activation parameters for the
segwit softfork, various bugfixes and performance improvements, as well as
updated translations.

Please report bugs using the issue tracker at github:

  <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues> (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues)

To receive security and update notifications, please subscribe to:

  <https://bitcoincore.org/en/list/announcements/join/> (https://bitcoincore.org/en/list/announcements/join/)

Compatibility

Microsoft ended support for Windows XP on April 8th, 2014 (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/WindowsForBusiness/end-of-xp-support),
an OS initially released in 2001. This means that not even critical security
updates will be released anymore. Without security updates, using a bitcoin
wallet on a XP machine is irresponsible at least.

In addition to that, with 0.12.x there have been varied reports of Bitcoin Core
randomly crashing on Windows XP. It is not clear (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7681#issuecomment-217439891)
what the source of these crashes is, but it is likely that upstream
libraries such as Qt are no longer being tested on XP.

We do not have time nor resources to provide support for an OS that is
end-of-life. From 0.13.0 on, Windows XP is no longer supported. Users are
suggested to upgrade to a newer version of Windows, or install an alternative OS
that is supported.

No attempt is made to prevent installing or running the software on Windows XP,
you can still do so at your own risk, but do not expect it to work: do not
report issues about Windows XP to the issue tracker.

From 0.13.1 onwards OS X 10.7 is no longer supported. 0.13.0 was intended to work on 10.7+,
but severe issues with the libc++ version on 10.7.x keep it from running reliably.
0.13.1 now requires 10.8+, and will communicate that to 10.7 users, rather than crashing unexpectedly.

Notable changes

Segregated witness soft fork

Segregated witness (segwit) is a soft fork that, if activated, will
allow transaction-producing software to separate (segregate) transaction
signatures (witnesses) from the part of the data in a transaction that is
covered by the txid. This provides several immediate benefits:

• Elimination of unwanted transaction malleability: Segregating the witness
    allows both existing and upgraded software to calculate the transaction
    identifier (txid) of transactions without referencing the witness, which can
    sometimes be changed by third-parties (such as miners) or by co-signers in a
    multisig spend. This solves all known cases of unwanted transaction
    malleability, which is a problem that makes programming Bitcoin wallet
    software more difficult and which seriously complicates the design of smart
    contracts for Bitcoin.
• Capacity increase: Segwit transactions contain new fields that are not
    part of the data currently used to calculate the size of a block, which
    allows a block containing segwit transactions to hold more data than allowed
    by the current maximum block size. Estimates based on the transactions
    currently found in blocks indicate that if all wallets switch to using
    segwit, the network will be able to support about 70% more transactions. The
    network will also be able to support more of the advanced-style payments
    (such as multisig) than it can support now because of the different weighting
    given to different parts of a transaction after segwit activates (see the
    following section for details).
• Weighting data based on how it affects node performance: Some parts of
    each Bitcoin block need to be stored by nodes in order to validate future
    blocks; other parts of a block can be immediately forgotten (pruned) or used
    only for helping other nodes sync their copy of the block chain.  One large
    part of the immediately prunable data are transaction signatures (witnesses),
    and segwit makes it possible to give a different "weight" to segregated
    witnesses to correspond with the lower demands they place on node resources.
    Specifically, each byte of a segregated witness is given a weight of 1, each
    other byte in a block is given a weight of 4, and the maximum allowed weight
    of a block is 4 million.  Weighting the data this way better aligns the most
    profitable strategy for creating blocks with the long-term costs of block
    validation.
• Signature covers value: A simple improvement in the way signatures are
    generated in segwit simplifies the design of secure signature generators
    (such as hardware wallets), reduces the amount of data the signature
    generator needs to download, and allows the signature generator to operate
    more quickly.  This is made possible by having the generator sign the amount
    of bitcoins they think they are spending, and by having full nodes refuse to
    accept those signatures unless the amount of bitcoins being spent is exactly
    the same as was signed.  For non-segwit transactions, wallets instead had to
    download the complete previous transactions being spent for every payment
    they made, which could be a slow operation on hardware wallets and in other
    situations where bandwidth or computation speed was constrained.
• Linear scaling of sighash operations: In 2015 a block was produced that
    required about 25 seconds to validate on modern hardware because of the way
    transaction signature hashes are performed.  Other similar blocks, or blocks
    that could take even longer to validate, can still be produced today.  The
    problem that caused this can't be fixed in a soft fork without unwanted
    side-effects, but transactions that opt-in to using segwit will now use a
    different signature method that doesn't suffer from this problem and doesn't
    have any unwanted side-effects.
• Increased security for multisig: Bitcoin addresses (both P2PKH addresses
    that start with a '1' and P2SH addresses that start with a '3') use a hash
    function known as RIPEMD-160.  For P2PKH addresses, this provides about 160
    bits of security---which is beyond what cryptographers believe can be broken
    today.  But because P2SH is more flexible, only about 80 bits of security is
    provided per address. Although 80 bits is very strong security, it is within
    the realm of possibility that it can be broken by a powerful adversary.
    Segwit allows advanced transactions to use the SHA256 hash function instead,
    which provides about 128 bits of security  (that is 281 trillion times as
    much security as 80 bits and is equivalent to the maximum bits of security
    believed to be provided by Bitcoin's choice of parameters for its Elliptic
    Curve Digital Security Algorithm [ECDSA].)
• More efficient almost-full-node security Satoshi Nakamoto's original
    Bitcoin paper describes a method for allowing newly-started full nodes to
    skip downloading and validating some data from historic blocks that are
    protected by large amounts of proof of work.  Unfortunately, Nakamoto's
    method can't guarantee that a newly-started node using this method will
    produce an accurate copy of Bitcoin's current ledger (called the UTXO set),
    making the node vulnerable to falling out of consensus with other nodes.
    Although the problems with Nakamoto's method can't be fixed in a soft fork,
    Segwit accomplishes something similar to his original proposal: it makes it
    possible for a node to optionally skip downloading some blockchain data
    (specifically, the segregated witnesses) while still ensuring that the node
    can build an accurate copy of the UTXO set for the block chain with the most
    proof of work.  Segwit enables this capability at the consensus layer, but
    note that Bitcoin Core does not provide an option to use this capability as
    of this 0.13.1 release.
• Script versioning: Segwit makes it easy for future soft forks to allow
    Bitcoin users to individually opt-in to almost any change in the Bitcoin
    Script language when those users receive new transactions.  Features
    currently being researched by Bitcoin Core contributors that may use this
    capability include support for Schnorr signatures, which can improve the
    privacy and efficiency of multisig transactions (or transactions with
    multiple inputs), and Merklized Abstract Syntax Trees (MAST), which can
    improve the privacy and efficiency of scripts with two or more conditions.
    Other Bitcoin community members are studying several other improvements
    that can be made using script versioning.

Activation for the segwit soft fork is being managed using BIP9
versionbits.  Segwit's version bit is bit 1, and nodes will begin
tracking which blocks signal support for segwit at the beginning of the
first retarget period after segwit's start date of 15 November 2016.  If
95% of blocks within a 2,016-block retarget period (about two weeks)
signal support for segwit, the soft fork will be locked in.  After
another 2,016 blocks, segwit will activate.

For more information about segwit, please see the segwit FAQ (https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/), the
segwit wallet developers guide (https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_wallet_dev/) or BIPs 141 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki), 143 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0143.mediawiki),
144 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0144.mediawiki), and 145 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0145.mediawiki).  If you're a miner or mining pool
operator, please see the versionbits FAQ (https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/06/08/version-bits-miners-faq/) for information about
signaling support for a soft fork.

Null dummy soft fork

Combined with the segwit soft fork is an additional change that turns a
long-existing network relay policy into a consensus rule. The
OP_CHECKMULTISIG and OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY opcodes consume an extra
stack element ("dummy element") after signature validation. The dummy
element is not inspected in any manner, and could be replaced by any
value without invalidating the script.

Because any value can be used for this dummy element, it's possible for
a third-party to insert data into other people's transactions, changing
the transaction's txid (called transaction malleability) and possibly
causing other problems.

Since Bitcoin Core 0.10.0, nodes have defaulted to only relaying and
mining transactions whose dummy element was a null value (0x00, also
called OP_0).  The null dummy soft fork turns this relay rule into a
consensus rule both for non-segwit transactions and segwit transactions,
so that this method of mutating transactions is permanently eliminated
from the network.

Signaling for the null dummy soft fork is done by signaling support
for segwit, and the null dummy soft fork will activate at the same time
as segwit.

For more information, please see BIP147 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0147.mediawiki).

Low-level RPC changes

• importprunedfunds only accepts two required arguments. Some versions accept
    an optional third arg, which was always ignored. Make sure to never pass more
    than two arguments.

Linux ARM builds

With the 0.13.0 release, pre-built Linux ARM binaries were added to the set of
uploaded executables. Additional detail on the ARM architecture targeted by each
is provided below.

The following extra files can be found in the download directory or torrent:

• bitcoin-${VERSION}-arm-linux-gnueabihf.tar.gz: Linux binaries targeting
    the 32-bit ARMv7-A architecture.
• bitcoin-${VERSION}-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz: Linux binaries targeting
    the 64-bit ARMv8-A architecture.

ARM builds are still experimental. If you have problems on a certain device or
Linux distribution combination please report them on the bug tracker, it may be
possible to resolve them. Note that the device you use must be (backward)
compatible with the architecture targeted by the binary that you use.
For example, a Raspberry Pi 2 Model B or Raspberry Pi 3 Model B (in its 32-bit
execution state) device, can run the 32-bit ARMv7-A targeted binary. However,
no model of Raspberry Pi 1 device can run either binary because they are all
ARMv6 architecture devices that are not compatible with ARMv7-A or ARMv8-A.

Note that Android is not considered ARM Linux in this context. The executables
are not expected to work out of the box on Android.


0.13.1 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.

### Consensus
- #8636 `9dfa0c8` Implement NULLDUMMY softfork (BIP147) (jl2012)
- #8848 `7a34a46` Add NULLDUMMY verify flag in bitcoinconsensus.h (jl2012)
- #8937 `8b66659` Define start and end time for segwit deployment (sipa)

### RPC and other APIs
- #8581 `526d2b0` Drop misleading option in importprunedfunds (MarcoFalke)
- #8699 `a5ec248` Remove createwitnessaddress RPC command (jl2012)
- #8780 `794b007` Deprecate getinfo (MarcoFalke)
- #8832 `83ad563` Throw JSONRPCError when utxo set can not be read (MarcoFalke)
- #8884 `b987348` getblockchaininfo help: pruneheight is the lowest, not highest, block (luke-jr)
- #8858 `3f508ed` rpc: Generate auth cookie in hex instead of base64 (laanwj)
- #8951 `7c2bf4b` RPC/Mining: getblocktemplate: Update and fix formatting of help (luke-jr)

### Block and transaction handling
- #8611 `a9429ca` Reduce default number of blocks to check at startup (sipa)
- #8634 `3e80ab7` Add policy: null signature for failed CHECK(MULTI)SIG (jl2012)
- #8525 `1672225` Do not store witness txn in rejection cache (sipa)
- #8499 `9777fe1` Add several policy limits and disable uncompressed keys for segwit scripts (jl2012)
- #8526 `0027672` Make non-minimal OP_IF/NOTIF argument non-standard for P2WSH (jl2012)
- #8524 `b8c79a0` Precompute sighashes (sipa)
- #8651 `b8c79a0` Predeclare PrecomputedTransactionData as struct (sipa)

### P2P protocol and network code
- #8740 `42ea51a` No longer send local address in addrMe (laanwj)
- #8427 `69d1cd2` Ignore `notfound` P2P messages (laanwj)
- #8573 `4f84082` Set jonasschnellis dns-seeder filter flag (jonasschnelli)
- #8712 `23feab1` Remove maxuploadtargets recommended minimum (jonasschnelli)
- #8862 `7ae6242` Fix a few cases where messages were sent after requested disconnect (theuni)
- #8393 `fe1975a` Support for compact blocks together with segwit (sipa)
- #8282 `2611ad7` Feeler connections to increase online addrs in the tried table (EthanHeilman)
- #8612 `2215c22` Check for compatibility with download in FindNextBlocksToDownload (sipa)
- #8606 `bbf379b` Fix some locks (sipa)
- #8594 `ab295bb` Do not add random inbound peers to addrman (gmaxwell)
- #8940 `5b4192b` Add x9 service bit support to dnsseed.bluematt.me, seed.bitcoinstats.com (TheBlueMatt, cdecker)
- #8944 `685e4c7` Remove bogus assert on number of oubound connections. (TheBlueMatt)
- #8949 `0dbc48a` Be more agressive in getting connections to peers with relevant services (gmaxwell)

### Build system
- #8293 `fa5b249` Allow building libbitcoinconsensus without any univalue (luke-jr)
- #8492 `8b0bdd3` Allow building bench_bitcoin by itself (luke-jr)
- #8563 `147003c` Add configure check for -latomic (ajtowns)
- #8626 `ea51b0f` Berkeley DB v6 compatibility fix (netsafe)
- #8520 `75f2065` Remove check for `openssl/ec.h` (laanwj)

### GUI
- #8481 `d9f0d4e` Fix minimize and close bugs (adlawren)
- #8487 `a37cec5` Persist the datadir after option reset (achow101)
- #8697 `41fd852` Fix op order to append first alert (rodasmith)
- #8678 `8e03382` Fix UI bug that could result in paying unexpected fee (jonasschnelli)
- #8911 `7634d8e` Translate all files, even if wallet disabled (laanwj)
- #8540 `1db3352` Fix random segfault when closing "Choose data directory" dialog (laanwj)
- #7579 `f1c0d78` Show network/chain errors in the GUI (jonasschnelli)

### Wallet
- #8443 `464dedd` Trivial cleanup of HD wallet changes (jonasschnelli)
- #8539 `cb07f19` CDB: fix debug output (crowning-)
- #8664 `091cdeb` Fix segwit-related wallet bug (sdaftuar)
- #8693 `c6a6291` Add witness address to address book (instagibbs)
- #8765 `6288659` Remove "unused" ThreadFlushWalletDB from removeprunedfunds (jonasschnelli)

### Tests and QA
- #8713 `ae8c7df` create_cache: Delete temp dir when done (MarcoFalke)
- #8716 `e34374e` Check legacy wallet as well (MarcoFalke)
- #8750 `d6ebe13` Refactor RPCTestHandler to prevent TimeoutExpired (MarcoFalke)
- #8652 `63462c2` remove root test directory for RPC tests (yurizhykin)
- #8724 `da94272` walletbackup: Sync blocks inside the loop (MarcoFalke)
- #8400 `bea02dc` enable rpcbind_test (yurizhykin)
- #8417 `f70be14` Add walletdump RPC test (including HD- & encryption-tests) (jonasschnelli)
- #8419 `a7aa3cc` Enable size accounting in mining unit tests (sdaftuar)
- #8442 `8bb1efd` Rework hd wallet dump test (MarcoFalke)
- #8528 `3606b6b` Update p2p-segwit.py to reflect correct behavior (instagibbs)
- #8531 `a27cdd8` abandonconflict: Use assert_equal (MarcoFalke)
- #8667 `6b07362` Fix SIGHASH_SINGLE bug in test_framework SignatureHash (jl2012)
- #8673 `03b0196` Fix obvious assignment/equality error in test (JeremyRubin)
- #8739 `cef633c` Fix broken sendcmpct test in p2p-compactblocks.py (sdaftuar)
- #8418 `ff893aa` Add tests for compact blocks (sdaftuar)
- #8803 `375437c` Ping regularly in p2p-segwit.py to keep connection alive (jl2012)
- #8827 `9bbe66e` Split up slow RPC calls to avoid pruning test timeouts (sdaftuar)
- #8829 `2a8bca4` Add bitcoin-tx JSON tests (jnewbery)
- #8834 `1dd1783` blockstore: Switch to dumb dbm (MarcoFalke)
- #8835 `d87227d` nulldummy.py: Don't run unused code (MarcoFalke)
- #8836 `eb18cc1` bitcoin-util-test.py should fail if the output file is empty (jnewbery)
- #8839 `31ab2f8` Avoid ConnectionResetErrors during RPC tests (laanwj)
- #8840 `cbc3fe5` Explicitly set encoding to utf8 when opening text files (laanwj)
- #8841 `3e4abb5` Fix nulldummy test (jl2012)
- #8854 `624a007` Fix race condition in p2p-compactblocks test (sdaftuar)
- #8857 `1f60d45` mininode: Only allow named args in wait_until (MarcoFalke)
- #8860 `0bee740` util: Move wait_bitcoinds() into stop_nodes() (MarcoFalke)
- #8882 `b73f065` Fix race conditions in p2p-compactblocks.py and sendheaders.py (sdaftuar)
- #8904 `cc6f551` Fix compact block shortids for a test case (dagurval)

### Documentation
- #8754 `0e2c6bd` Target protobuf 2.6 in OS X build notes. (fanquake)
- #8461 `b17a3f9` Document return value of networkhashps for getmininginfo RPC endpoint (jlopp)
- #8512 `156e305` Corrected JSON typo on setban of net.cpp (sevastos)
- #8683 `8a7d7ff` Fix incorrect file name bitcoin.qrc  (bitcoinsSG)
- #8891 `5e0dd9e` Update bips.md for Segregated Witness (fanquake)
- #8545 `863ae74` Update git-subtree-check.sh README (MarcoFalke)
- #8607 `486650a` Fix doxygen off-by-one comments, fix typos (MarcoFalke)
- #8560 `c493f43` Fix two VarInt examples in serialize.h (cbarcenas)
- #8737 `084cae9` UndoReadFromDisk works on undo files (rev), not on block files (paveljanik)
- #8625 `0a35573` Clarify statement about parallel jobs in rpc-tests.py (isle2983)
- #8624 `0e6d753` build: Mention curl (MarcoFalke)
- #8604 `b09e13c` build,doc: Update for 0.13.0+ and OpenBSD 5.9 (laanwj)
- #8939 `06d15fb` Update implemented bips for 0.13.1 (sipa)

### Miscellaneous
- #8742 `d31ac72` Specify Protobuf version 2 in paymentrequest.proto (fanquake)
- #8414,#8558,#8676,#8700,#8701,#8702 Add missing copyright headers (isle2983, kazcw)
- #8899 `4ed2627` Fix wake from sleep issue with Boost 1.59.0 (fanquake)
- #8817 `bcf3806` update bitcoin-tx to output witness data (jnewbery)
- #8513 `4e5fc31` Fix a type error that would not compile on OSX. (JeremyRubin)
- #8392 `30eac2d` Fix several node initialization issues (sipa)
- #8548 `305d8ac` Use `__func__` to get function name for output printing (MarcoFalke)
- #8291 `a987431` [util] CopyrightHolders: Check for untranslated substitution (MarcoFalke)

Credits
=======

Thanks to everyone who directly contributed to this release:

- adlawren
- Alexey Vesnin
- Anders Øyvind Urke-Sætre
- Andrew Chow
- Anthony Towns
- BtcDrak
- Chris Stewart
- Christian Barcenas
- Christian Decker
- Cory Fields
- crowning-
- Dagur Valberg Johannsson
- David A. Harding
- Eric Lombrozo
- Ethan Heilman
- fanquake
- Gaurav Rana
- Gregory Maxwell
- instagibbs
- isle2983
- Jameson Lopp
- Jeremy Rubin
- jnewbery
- Johnson Lau
- Jonas Schnelli
- jonnynewbs
- Justin Camarena
- Kaz Wesley
- leijurv
- Luke Dashjr
- MarcoFalke
- Marty Jones
- Matt Corallo
- Micha
- Michael Ford
- mruddy
- Pavel Janík
- Pieter Wuille
- rodasmith
- Sev
- Suhas Daftuar
- whythat
- Wladimir J. van der Laan

As well as everyone that helped translating on Transifex (https://www.transifex.com/projects/p/bitcoin/).

Finally. We should probably update the thread with the proper hashes then: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1588906.0
Source (https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/release-0.13.1/).

Informative & uber helpful as usual achow101, I wouldn't expect anything less. You're a credit to the forum, thank you.

It's right there under "Compatibility". The last paragraph.

So it is. I'll get my coat.  :D

Thanks for this thread.

Forwarded to the local language : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1663974.0

If I got this right , this Segregated witness soft fork is implemented but will only be activated in 15th November ? what does that mean for lightweight wallets btw ? IIRC Bitcoin Core 0.13.0 or 0.12.x added HD wallet feature , If I want to upgrade now , should I take the wallet.dat I have and make a backup of it or that wouldn't do much as the wallet became HD and all addresses have one private key now ?

No. That's the signaling start day. Activation will likely happen in December or later.

Nothing special.

If you have a SD wallet, it will remain SD. Only wallets created using version 0.13.0 or later are HD.

It's going to create a new wallet even If I add the old backup of wallet.dat in the appdata folder ?



It's in the same path of your wallet.dat C:\Users\admin\AppData\Roaming\Bitcoin where admin is your username

This would be thread hijacking. Create your own thread after you've found the debug.log here: Technical Support (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=4.0)

No. If you have a wallet.dat in your Datadir, it will not create a new wallet.

Your protection program is the one at fault, and you're probably using something half-baked. Bitcoin Core tends to be falsely identified by such.

Make your anti-virus software ignore it, and report a false detection. As said, open a thread for your own issues.

0.13.1 (and 0.13.0) don't support MAC OS X 10.7 ... you must have an 10.8 or earlier.

i want to ask something about pruning, how much time can pass before i need to resync again after pruning with a wallet?, what i mean is, if i have two wallet, and i sync first with both of them, then i do pruning with one, let's say the main one, and i prune the other again after one month, do i need to resync again?

That is not how pruning works. Pruning is not wallet specific. You will probably need to resync when you switch wallets, but I think it is dependent on how many days of blocks are kept when you pruned.

Will this version resync faster then the older one?

News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.0  [Torrent]. This is not changed yet. Do it means that you don't know if 0.13.1 is stable?

No. This version does not contain such improvements.

No. That has just not been updated yet. It usually takes a few days.

Looks like there is a bug if you have a disconnect from the internet.
Most of the german internetproviders have an automatic 24h disconnect. Im running on 0.13.1 for two days now and after every reconnect it stucks with 8 connections and on bitnodes the node is showed open but down.
restarting core solves the problem until the next reconnect.
Somebody else notes this?

It was after a disconnect I got all the problem to continue resync.

And again the same behavior after the 24 h Internet disconnect tonight.
I think we have to open a new ticket  :-\

That's strange. You should open up an issue on Github (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues). Please make sure that you properly describe your issue in the used format.

I have tried since Okt. 28

Ticket is open, we will see!
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9056

that what i was talking about, there is a way we can know how many days pass until we need to resync again after pruning? maybe some command line?

You can set how many MB of blocks you want to store. If you go by worst case scenario, one blocks is 2 MB (append and revert data) and the minimum Bitcoin Core allows is 550 MB which is ~2 days of blocks.

This update is not required for my client to receive full SegWit support of bitcoin network when it will be activated in the future?
For now I am using older Core version and want to know if version 0.11 will be still supported and fully compatible.

You will not have full segwit support without this version of Bitcoin Core. You will not be able to take advantage of segwit's features. However, you will not be forked off of the network should you not upgrade and you will be able to spend and receive Bitcoin as you do now.

If you are korean

use this page to understand

http://blog.naver.com/monsterbit/220840575705

the issue in the previous version about the windows that let you know about your transaction movements, still isn't fixed apparently, it was missed since 0.13 version
 this
i'm talking about

https://s13.postimg.org/fu9it0b2v/image.png

We haven't been able to replicate this issue. I have no problems with it on my install of Bitcoin Core on windows.

If you are running Windows 10, popups are disabled by default when you are duplicating the screen to multiple monitors (I have a widescreen TV as well as a computer monitor).  You can turn this off in Settings -> Notifications

"hide notification when i'm duplicating my screen"? this is already off by default, it's strange because in my other computer i get those windows with an altcoin, so it must be something else, settings are the same on both system

also i was getting the notification with the 0.12 version

this guy was also in the same boat with the previous version https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1594650.msg16084752#msg16084752

It might have something to do with qt, but it's hard to know. I can't reproduce it so I can't really help you. Have you tried it on another machine to see if you see the same behavior there?

As of today I am running Bitcoin Unlimited. Just say no to SegWit.
Here's what made me switch from Core to Bitcoin Unlimited: https://vid.me/kz1s

I upgraded my client to ver 0.13.1 today but I encountered some problem with my antivirus - Avast.
After an upgrade when I wanted to start my wallet Avast stopped the process did a deep scan and quarantined the bitcoin-qt.exe.
Apparently bitcoin-qt.exe is infected with Dyna:BitCoinMiner-CR[PUP] - but I am pretty sure it is a false positive.

Verify the hashes.

The antivirus flagging bitcoin-qt isn't new, it has happened before with other versions. And they aren't wrong about it containing a bitcoin miner, it does have one, just for testnet and regtest, not mainnet.

Just downloaded, installed and it's working beautifully. Thank you for the brilliant work BTCCrew. Quite a few contributors now, very cool to see.

Funny how this thread gets almost no attention compared to some of the others ;) From reading some parts of the board, you'd wonder if Bitcoin even existed anymore. (without a healthy, regularly updated Ignore list, that is)

It's only high quality work being delivered yet again, nothing worth writing about  ;)

1. unlimited will not have any chances, be realistic
2. I suppose you are a bitcoin investor and are interested in rising prices. This will happen if SegWit and later LN will be accepted
3. unlimited blocks is the easiest but worst attempt for scaling

1. I'm taking my chances, it is very important for Bitcoin to reject SegWit. If it fails we lose BTC, and it will become yet another Ethereum centralized bankstercoin
2. Yes I am a bitcoin holder since 2011 and I belive the price will rise more without SegWit.
3. Unlimited blocks is the most decentralized and best free market based attempt for scaling. I support Satoshi's original vision. If you disagree with Satoshi go ahead and create SegWItCoin as an altcoin to Bitcoin.

Nonsense FUD by someone who's either very misinformed or just trolling.

Doesn't matter even if you were satoshi, this does not give you more credibility.

No. Unlimited blocks are inherently safe. Also stop appealing to authority. Just because Satoshi created it, or had a vision, that does not mean that that is the utmost correct and perfect way to move to.

You are generating nonsense FUD. It does matter what was the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto. There is no such thing as unlimited blocks because network speed will cap the block size anyway. Eventually the combination of free market and network speed will result in the floating maximum block size. Bitcoin will be more decentralized and thus more trustworthy. I am running Bitcoin Unlimited full node and my node is already finding and connecting to other such nodes. You can say what you want but the numbers won't lie. People prefer decentralization and Satoshi's original vision to the corrupt ideas of Bitcoin-core dev team funded by banksters.

Why? Because some random alias had supreme knowledge of everything ? Appeal to authority.

"Network speed will cap"? What kind of ludicrous made up thing is this? With no hard limit, any malicious entity should be able to DOS the network.

What numbers? The minority of nodes and hashrate on BU?

---

Note: This is all off-topic to this thread. We should stop derailing it. Create a separate thread.

It's not off-topic. Since 0.13.1 includes foul code for the first time it is just the right place to discuss it.

Network speed cap is the maximum block size that can travel through the network fast enough so that it would not be orphaned. Miners are never going to mine blocks that are so large that they will be orphaned (another miner mining a much smaller block will get to propagate it faster, thus stealing the block reward). There is no way to DOS the network because individual nodes can choose to reject blocks based on their individual preferences. Bitcoin Unlimited allows every node to define their own maximum block size limit.

It is important to respect the vision of Satoshi Nakamoto because they are the author of Bitcoin. The Core devs are not authors nor legal owners of the Bitcoin software. For that reason they should not act like ones. This is called theft of intellectual property.

False. Segwit is the most peer-reviewed and tested change to date. There is nothing foul about it. If you want to discuss foul things, then you may want to take a look at the *ex-convicts* supporting BU.

There's nothing preventing a malicious miner from doing this.

There's nothing prevent someone from creating a super-majority of nodes and manipulating this metric as well. You could easily end up with a minority of nodes not accepting such blocks.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

This is just wrong on so many levels.

What you just said is simply false and you keep repeating it. I guess this argument leads nowhere.

A clear example of argumentum ad lapidem. You have no valid points to defend an invalid stance, hence the dismissal.
I'm done. Someone else is free to address this.

---

Update: Now we have false dillema and poisoning the well.

I don't really care. I'm expressing my opinion for the sake of people who can actually do their own thinking. You clearly cannot (perhaps because you are being paid to lie?) SegWit will eventually lose just like Killary Clinton did. People are waking up to the lies. BTW, you seem to be fanatically holding on to the assumption that I support BU so much. I don't. I don't think BU should even get the majority of nodes because that will lead to more centralization again just like it is the case with Core. Bitcoin Unlimited is currently the best alternative simply because it includes the logic to deal with competing chains. If Core enabled options for the users to disable SegWit on their node and to define my own maximum block size then I would consider using Core. If you oppose decentralization which you clearly do then you do not belong to the Bitcoin community. Why are you here then? Ethereum or Ripple would suit much better to you. Have you heard of them?

If any any point miners find that blocks are being orphaned because they are too slow to propagate then the rational, natural, and previously observed behavior is that miners will simply centralize since doing so eliminates that cost. Because the effect of orphaning can be made arbitrarily small (by centralization or other means), your proposed effect cannot constitute a long term effective control on resource utilization.

Says someone who wants to rewrite the network rules in a way radically unlike and incompatible with the state that Bitcoin's creator left it.

How are maxconnections=__ controlled now? Is it now n-1?

In my bitcoin.conf file I can set maxconnections=10 but only nine other clients will connect. If I set maxconnections=11 then only ten other clients will connect. Is this a bug, or feature?

An extra connection is reserved for short lived 'feeler' connections which the node uses to explore the network.

Oh will they really? You're from the future or something? So you are proposing one form of centralization as a solution to the hypothetical other? Well if that's the choice then I'd still go to the direction of empowering the full nodes and taking power away from the development team of a particular branch of the bitcoin software. We have seen mining centralization in past and it was solved. What gives you the fantasy of it not getting solved in the future? That's right. You've got nothing.


Says someone who wants to rewrite the network rules in a way radically unlike and incompatible with the state that Bitcoin's creator left it.

I just download Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 setup file from link in forum header, before install I checked with

https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/a7d1d25bbc46b4f0fe333f7d3742c22defdba8db9ffd6056770e104085d24709/analysis/

is it safe to install?

I just scanned my setup file too which I downloaded when this version first got released from Bitcoin.org and I'm having the results as you so I assume It's a false positive and there is nothing be worried about.

Double check the hashes and verify the binaries by following https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1588906.0. If it all checks out, then it is a false positive.

Hashes are definitely the same but I'm not sure what I did wrong here , I imported all the developers PGP keys theymos posted and while trying to verify this : https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.13.1/SHA256SUMS.asc , I get KEY NOT VALID

https://i.imgur.com/d0RRJOq.png

Verifies fine for me. Are you sure you imported the key properly? The release key is the second key in Theymos's list of keys.

Except this fork is a soft fork, so it is backwards compatible by definition. You're advocating a hard fork, which is not backwards compatible. By definition. So you're wrong.

Yes , I tried with importing the key of that guy alone and with importing them all at once but It's not working . Importing keys  works just fine with GPA but verifying doesn't. Are you using the same software as me ?

I believe so. I used GPA on Windows 10 to verify the contents of the file.

An ugly hack soft fork is no better than a proper and elegant hard fork. So you are wrong.

edit:
What is more, neither of these options will activate without strong consensus. So if we are going to have a consensus either way then let's do a proper and elegant hard fork (has happened before and worked like a charm). There's absolutely nothing bad about a hard fork if we have a strong consensus. Since SegWit won't activate without consensus there is no point to have it in the first place.

So.. how does one go about exporting the "seed" out of this version, instead of saving each wallet.dat file, my understanding is that we can just save the seed to access all the wallets.dat/addresses from that  1 seed..

Icon

PS

I understand we need to make a new wallet using the 13.x version first..

Bitcoin Core does not support BIP 39 mnemonics yet (what people commonly refer to as seeds). You can however export the wallet in a human readable format (csv I believe) which will contain the master private key. Keep in mind that every time you change the password (add one or change it), the master private key will change.

"the password" you are referring to is the lock wallet phrase, correct?

Also i am assuming you can "import" the .csv back into bitcoin core to access the wallet..?

Sorry never messed with any signing/export/print private keys just always truecrypt the wallet.dat and stored :)


Thanks


Icon

Yes.

No, you cannot. The wallet export isn't really for backing up the wallet, rather it is for your own information or if you want to import your Bitcoin Core wallet into another wallet. Right now you cannot restore a Bitcoin Core wallet from the master private key. You need to have the wallet.dat file. The big difference between this and the old versions is that you don't need to backup the wallet.dat every 100 transactions, you only need to do it every time you change the password, which probably isn't very frequent.

I made a korean language version post about 0.13.1 version

http://blog.naver.com/monsterbit/220841502398

It's really good to see the improvement of bitcoin blockchain


From wan

Wow! that is fantastic for those people who are comfortable with their languages, it will more easy for them manipulate their coins.

A multilingual program can earn more client :D

I hope that there is also version on the Philippines :D

Where's the code for the HF of segwit?

Nonexistent. There is no hard fork of segwit.

kaspersky internet security see that version as virus today
https://s12.postimg.org/5mfg63gd9/image.png (https://postimg.org/image/np8ixbc7t/)xocтинг кapтинoк (https://postimage.org/index.php?lang=russian)

Old news. AVs have constantly been flagging Bitcoin Core as a virus. Just check the hashes and signatures to verify your install is legit and then add it to your AVs exception list.

That text ... "not a virus", "bitcoin miner".

Anybody seen this -

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1694796.msg17005766#msg17005766

how does one go about exporting the "seed" out of this version, instead of saving each wallet.dat file, my understanding is that we can just save the seed to access all the wallets.dat/addresses from that  1 seed

You can't do that yet. The HD wallets created by this version just allow you to backup the wallet.dat file once (you will have to backup every time you change the password) and not have to do it every 100 transactions.

I can smell a new update ;D
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases
0.13.2 rc1 is out

Is there a manual or tutorial on how to compile that on linux
and what toolchain/dependencies are needet?

I don't want to use a prebuild binary on my server.

I got trouble on compiling it on debian64.

Read https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/build-unix.md

Thank you for pointing that, I was not aware that now there is a bit more as
it was one month before.
I will try it again and report.

Small question not worth to start a new thread:


System: OS X El Capitan 10.11.6
Wallet: Bitcoin Core 13.1

I have a backup of my wallet.dat file. Where do I move it if I want to restore it?

On internet I found that it should be moved to ˜\Library\Application Support\Bitcoin\
But I guess that is outdated information, because that folder does not exist on my computer, neither with hidden files shown.

Also, I wonder, can I use this same file to restore a wallet on a windows PC?

You put it in the data directory. If you changed it (i.e. chose a different folder with the initial startup dialog which asked you if you wanted to), then you put it in the folder that you specified. Otherwise, it should go in the default data directory which is the path you mentioned.

Yes.

Thanks! Indeed I specified a different folder, found it!

What is the benefit of bitcoin core?

Bitcoin Core will signal support for and recognise SegWit enabled blocks, amongst other additions. Depending on your stance in the max block size issue, you might like to consider using one of the other many bitcoin clients such as https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/ (https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/) which supports bigger maximum block sizes as a solution to the full blocks we currently are experiencing.

What client you run has zero effect on what becomes the new standard which is determined by a majority of miners only. You're free to use whatever client you want though, it's like publicly showing your support for a political party but not having the right to vote...

Both, Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Unlimited, are full nodes. Fulle nodes have advantages in terms of privacy (no address information is leaked) and security (more difficult to feed false data than SPV clients). If you dont run your full node in pruned mode you can also help others sync their node. If you accept inbound connections you provide information to SPV clients.

i remember that merchants have an impact as well maybe not directly but they will influence miners decision, if for example the majority go with a specific side, either way at some point miners will be forced to do a decision...