cpu-miner.c:43: error: ‘SCHED_IDLE’ undeclared (first use in this function)
Your OS needs to update /usr/include/sched.h to include this definition. If you add #include <linux/sched.h> does it fix the problem for you? |
|
|
|
RE microtransactions: this is a FAQ. It is even in satoshi's original paper and crypto postings. Bitcoin was never intended to be a useful microtransaction network. Bitcoin is not optimal for microtransactions, and probably never will be. RE fees: the rapid increase in value caught everyone by surprise. Months ago, we were dealing with "penny flooding" on the network. Now, 0.01 BTC is a non-trivial amount. Right now we are releasing new versions of the software as fast as possible, trying to fight the biggest fires ("triage") impacting users on the network. We know fees need work, and there are already pull requests trying to deal with this: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/289Longer term, we want the community to participate in a discussion about how to best balance (a) rapidly changing bitcoin value with (b) protecting the network. Right now most transactions do not require a fee, but the default client requires a fee in a few situations: 1. Transactions smaller than 0.01 BTC 2. Transactions whose byte size larger than the 27k free transaction area (very rare) So, to answer the question "why not make it easy to ignore fees?" is really unspending is very difficult. If it's just a checkbox for users, a lot of users will uncheck it, their transactions will not get relayed or confirmed, and their coins are simply lost in limbo: never confirming, and no way[1] to recover. Losing coins is a horrible user experience, far worse than having to pay 0.0005 BTC. But we are open to all suggestions about transaction fees. You just have to understand the "unspend" problem in its entirety, and the support nightmare that goes along with it. Jeff [1] Technically, this is not really true. You can "unspend" by restoring a wallet backup or some other esoteric means, but this is not something within the reach of your average user. |
|
|
|
|
MacOSX uploaded.
checksums:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
5ca82c5b694fc432b4b342dde5cd1b145e265f13 bitcoin-0.3.23-linux.tar.gz
42e8a86a97edcafb12d09fa69b56ad0451baa140 bitcoin-0.3.23-macosx.zip
779c6bb227801a51084be9594dc185d0a054ed53 bitcoin-0.3.23-src.tar.gz
12952b1c4a15ce55564500dace18ee22eb2feaa8 bitcoin-0.3.23-win32-setup.exe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)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=PEok
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
|
|
Win32, Linux, MacOSX and source releases for bitcoin v0.3.23 have been uploaded to https://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.3.23/This is another quick bugfix release, trying to deal with the influx of new bitcoin users. Priority for next version: wallet encryptionMain items of note: - P2P connect-to-node logic changed to reduce timeout a bit. The network saw a huge influx of new users, who do not permit incoming connections. This change is a short-term hack, to more quickly hunt for useful P2P connections. Better "leaf node" logic is in the works, but this should let us limp along until then. One may use -upnp to properly forward ports, and help the network.
- Transaction fee reduced to 0.0005 for new transactions (see note below)
- Client will relay transactions with fees as low as 0.0001 BTC (see note below)
NOTE: There has been some fee confusion recently. Free transactions are supported and relayed as they always have been, according to special anti-spam rules. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees for details. Full git changelog: Dean Lee (1): Updated Chinese Simp translation Doug Huff (3): Fix rfc1918 and rfc3927 compliance for ignoring non-internet-routable host Add common temp files to .gitignore. Demystify a few magic numbers. Han Lin Yap (2): Added Swedish translation Remove unused variable Jeff Garzik (4): Bump version to 0.3.23. Reduce minimum TX fee for new transactions, to 0.0005. Lower minimum relay TX fee to 0.0001 (from 0.0005) BTC. Add minimal release process docs. Matt Corallo (1): Fix CPU Usage bug when using -nolisten and have no connections. Nils Schneider (1): create keypool in LoadWallet() Pieter Wuille (3): Update transactions already in the wallet when rescanning. Fix for small change outputs Faster timeout when connecting There were no changes between -rc1 and -final. |
|
|
|
for example, multiple pushpools and multiple bitcoind? multiple pushpools and one bitcoind? other?
Multiple pushpoold's and multiple bitcoind's. The only question is about database scaling... |
|
|
|
Im getting this error in Ubuntu 10.04 LTS when running autogen.sh:
~/cpuminer$ sh autogen.sh
configure.ac:15: installing `./compile'
configure.ac:4: installing `./config.guess'
configure.ac:4: installing `./config.sub'
configure.ac:6: installing `./install-sh'
configure.ac:6: installing `./missing'
compat/jansson/Makefile.am: installing `./depcomp'
Makefile.am: installing `./INSTALL'
configure.ac:96: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_MSG_ERROR
If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow.
See the Autoconf documentation.
Any suggestion?
Standard advice -- your autotools installation is old or broken. Use release tarball. |
|
|
|
Do you agree that transactions are not safe if not included in the block chain?
*facepalm* This is stated in satoshi's original paper, and should be patently obvious to anyone. Block chain confirmations equal transaction security. Section 5, Conclusion. You don't understand any of the important decisions that went into the design of bitcoin. Either that or you are a very special kind of troll.
Pretty much. The vast majority of this stuff is covered in satoshi's original paper, the wiki or FAQs -- all of which are easily accessible. |
|
|
|
There is also -upnp option...
Cool. What's stopping it from being default? It's open for discussion... some people want it default. Others are concerned about bitcoin opening a port on a firewall by default, a potential security issue, they claim. Input is welcome, particularly examples of popular, in-the-field software using UPNP by default. |
|
|
|
|
There is also -upnp option...
|
|
|
|
Does switching from a newer version to a previous version mess up the wallet.dat file?
Probably not, we've taken steps to make sure that works. But if you jump back too far in time, that could create a problem. Is it possible that the previous version might have not handled full precision transactions properly?
Define previous version. All recent versions handle full precision correctly, though the UI might not display it or other cosmetic details like that. |
|
|
|
There will be a lot of fee-related UI changes in the next version. Matt C already has a 'better fee UI' pull request at github. This version is just to triage the P2P network, until we get to that awesome, big next version with wallet encryption and other useful things. The point of v0.3.23 is to release it fast, fast, fast... So people: test, test, test!  |
|
|
|
If no one invests in making their marketplace or site bitcoin capable because all they see is insane paranoid scheziophrenics who believe the government wiretapped their bathroom to steal their bitcoins then how is it ever going to get popular support? I want bitcoin to succeed, it's an excellent idea but currently the community seems to be really trying to destroy it (announcing they're going to use it for tax evasion, purchasing drugs, government conspiracies and such like).
We're working on a forum reboot, switching the current mess for a more business-professional one at weusecoins. As the "official" bitcoin forum, this is just an embarrassment. |
|
|
|
Why does it still say "Fee 0.01 recommended"? (under settings->options)
Hum... good question... |
|
|
|
RE speeding up client: -dnsseed does the same thing as manually grabbing fallback nodes. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is tiny, and will be for a while yet.
That means, necessarily, that one bored VC or trader can create a major move in the market.
Volatility is a given when it's young.
|
|
|
|
But for example in 3.22 when trying to send a very low priority tx, you were forced to pay a fee. Do you now have the option to not send with a fee even though it will likely take a long time to be confirmed?
No, you have to hack the client in order to send spam. In the future, people are considering a checkbox to avoid the recommended fee. |
|
|
|
MacOSX -rc1 binary uploaded. Updated sums: 5ca82c5b694fc432b4b342dde5cd1b145e265f13 bitcoin-0.3.23rc1-linux.tar.gz cdf6f76a41c880ebac53455e373fa78602da7be7 bitcoin-0.3.23rc1-macosx.zip 8853206ec4d9e48bb41a0482ac1367f6fb01bcad bitcoin-0.3.23rc1-src.tar.gz 12952b1c4a15ce55564500dace18ee22eb2feaa8 bitcoin-0.3.23rc1-win32-setup.exe PGP signed: http://paste.pocoo.org/raw/405159/ |
|
|
|
With over 50% of the hashing power, you decide what is the rules.
*facepalm* Wrong. If major miners deviate from what the rest of the network accepts, then they are simply self-selecting themselves away from their client population. If 80% of the hash power suddenly decides to start minting 100 BTC per block, that does not imply that clients will follow their lead. The entire community, including holders of bitcoin, must decide on major network changes. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
