molecular reported a bug that occurs when several transactions are unconfirmed at the same time.
If the unconfirmed transactions use the same inputs, it will confuse the client; it will display incorrect
history and balance, and it might create transactions that will be rejected by the network (double spends).
I cannot fix this right now, I hope that I will have time this week-end
In the mean time, if you encounter this problem, the workaround is to wait until your unconfirmed transactions are confirmed.
ok, this was easier to fix than expected, so I released version 0.33 that fixes it. the distributed version contains only the client code now; the server code should be retrieved via git. |
|
|
|
|
molecular reported a bug that occurs when several transactions are unconfirmed at the same time.
If the unconfirmed transactions use the same inputs, it will confuse the client; it will display incorrect
history and balance, and it might create transactions that will be rejected by the network (double spends).
I cannot fix this right now, I hope that I will have time this week-end
In the mean time, if you encounter this problem, the workaround is to wait until your unconfirmed transactions are confirmed.
|
|
|
|
Note: I noticed that someone created a direct link from facebook to the tar.gz of version 0.22. In order to prevent users from downloading older versions, I removed the old tarballs from the website. If you want to link to Electrum, please link to the page http://ecdsa.org/electrum, so that users will download the most recent version.
|
|
|
|
True, I think ThomasV means it should be this: oldseed = seed
for i in range(100000):
seed = hashlib.sha512(seed + oldseed).digest() Indeed, this is the change I made in 0.31. Perhaps I should emphasize that this bug caused a vulnerability, and that the new version is a security update. I strongly advise you to update your client if you have not done so. You will need to move your coins to a new address (see my comment above and the release notes) |
|
|
|
The one I know of is Electrum http://ecdsa.org/electrum/Personally haven't tried it yet so can't speak if there are any issues with it, but is ugly as a sin on windows (uses GTK). hopefully Electrum will soon have a Qt gui |
|
|
|
|
I just released version 0.32
new features:
* compute transaction fees that depend on the size of the transaction
* fix precision issues caused by float
|
|
|
|
A solution like this can still be very decentralized. It's possible to have a lot of BCCAPI servers, all over the world. And even if someone decided to ddos all of them, it's not a huge problem. The actual bitcoins are still safe because the user has the private key, no one else. That key can be added to a regular, totally decentralized client, and the coins are usable again.
there is a decentralized, open-source alternative to BCCAPI. it is called Electrum: http://ecdsa.org/electrum |
|
|
|
thanks. perhaps you should start a new thread, and put the link in the first message of the thread; that way, you can update the link on each release, and I can directly link to that thread. |
|
|
|
Well, I must say I feel quite enthusiast about this project, so I put an ad about it in my signature.
thanks for the ad. there are now multiple developers who contribute to Electrum, so you do not want to put my name on it :-) I just released 0.31, that fixes the key stretching problem you spotted. Unfortunately, this means that the new version is incompatible with existing wallets; if you have an old wallet, the software will display a message asking you to move your coins to a new wallet. I am sorry about the inconvenience. Please note that another incompatible change is planned in the future, when we switch to "type 2" wallets |
|
|
|
There is something weird in the create_new_address function: # strenghtening
for i in range(100000):
oldseed = seed
seed = hashlib.sha512(seed + oldseed).digest()
Is it me or this code is just the same as: # strenghtening
for i in range(100000):
seed = hashlib.sha512(seed * 2).digest()
? Also, I'm not sure I see what is the point of this :-| PS. I set up a github repo to work on my Perl client: http://github.com/grondilu/Perlectrumoh you are right, the oldseed line should not be in the loop. the point of this loop is to make brute force attacks more difficult. I am afraid we need to fix this; it means that users will need to move their coins to new addresses. |
|
|
|
|
version 0.30 just released.
there is no new feature in this version of the client, but various bugs have been fixed and the gui has had small improvements.
the server now uses a memory cache.
|
|
|
|
Electrum is really fast and safe, but if nobody runs full Bitcoin client, network become centralized in the hands of few companies like exchanges or pools (ehm ehm).
I think that in the future most bitcoin users will connect through light clients. I have no problem with companies providing a paying access to Bitcoin via Electrum nodes; in a competitive market, this service would probably cost less than mining fees. Electrum nodes are stable nodes that will help propagate transactions; these nodes do not have the incentive to keep transactions for themselves (which was pointed out in the red baloons paper), because they would lose their customers if they fail to propagate transactions. So, they fit well in the ecosystem. |
|
|
|
It seems kind of ugly to me. What about using the fairly simple and standard 'shelve' module?
I think it would be good to keep the wallet file human readable. we will probably get rid of pythonisms, though. This is a great project and I'll try to help developing it. I'll also try to write a client in Perl.
nice I've noticed that the 'create' command does not work. Also, I wonder if someone is running the server on the bitcoin test network.
indeed. thanks for reporting it |
|
|
|
|
given that it is used by a very small fraction of the People, why not the 0.001%'s currency ?
|
|
|
|
you are right. this seems to be a server problem. I added a memory cache yesterday, which seems to cause the problem.
ok, I confirm that the problem was with the server (cache corruption). I think that it is fixed now, although I do not fully understand why it happened |
|
|
|
you are right. this seems to be a server problem. I added a memory cache yesterday, which seems to cause the problem. also notable: there's another transaction (sent from the other address, 1GCvktC2rozSuzGk56XUQKBF2iSVLtVfWB to the same address 1Kfm7F2nvHGYbFd99EHWss5Z9Y32QkEpTV) that is still pending, which is older than above transaction and which I can't find on blockexplorer.
yes it is on blockexplorer: http://blockexplorer.com/tx/2387ebd5107f95921fe59a4f1c6bdbe31f8b33c08bd1752e1ed336fc4a311d8b#o0apparently you sent coins to yourself (inputs and outputs belong to your wallet) tried switching server and also tried restarting client.
this is strange; switching server should have fixed it. I bet you have not really switched server; when you navigate the list, you need to either double click or press enter in order to change the content of the 'server' text field. Let me know if you did not get that, it means the dialog box needs to be improved anyway, I need to investigate this cache problem a bit more. not fixed yet. |
|
|
|
I forgot one word of my mnemoic sentence and looking for a way to look at it ...
not sure if this would have helped, but there's a "S" button in the status bar, it shows a dialog that displays your seed. (ok, "music revenge" is cool) |
|
|
|
Ah Edward is still pulling facts out of thin air how wonderful  If the price goes down, it's fundamentals, if it goes up, it's manipulator, sweet reason. what I do not understand is why it is so important for him that the price goes down... |
|
|
|
If you pick a new server, are all the balances re-requested, so you can verify the first server wasn't lying to you?
yes, it will create a new session |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
