Maybe a bounty system would work. Depending on the severity of the bug you earn a few BTC for reporting it.

Seeing that certain people here spread their slap fights all over the board, I request a new section for such childish behaviour. Letting smear campaigns and libel threads run wild everywhere doesn't exactly make a good impression to new users who come here to get a better understanding of Bitcoin.

- That subforum should be hidden for members until they reach a certain postcount/onlinetime/are whitelisted.
- Threads are moved there without leaving a "moved to" note
- Dragging the slapfight back into the other forum sections should be a bannable offense

One should expect that people are civilized enough to solve their problems between each other in a decent way, but that doesn't seem to be always the case. So let's give them their own playground where they can club each other's heads in without splattering the guts everywhere.

- add column "showsigimg" to database and default it to 0
- add checkbox "Don't show images in users' signatures" under "Look and Layout Preferences"
- mod source to toggle showsigimg depending on checkbox state
- mod source to add <style type="text/css">.signature img {display: none;}</style> into head section if showsigimg==1

Problem solved. Thanks to btc_novice for starting this idea.

If users are not appealed, then this won't be the best forum possible. Simple as that. You can have the greatest product in the universe, but if nobody wants it, you're fubar'ed. See Betamax.

Seriously, this should be rather trivial and doesn't really deserve all this drama.

I tried bitcoin-0.5.0rc3-win32.zip and got a freeaddrinfo/WS2_32.dll error message about a procedure entry point which wasn't found.

MSDN has some information about it: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms737931(v=vs.85).aspx

I am well aware that W2k isn't supported by MS anymore, but if it just requires a tiny change it would be nice to have it rolled in. If there's a testbuild, I can try it; just PM me a link.

Thanks for the update and progress Gavin!

Perhaps it would be possible to compile it the way Luke-Jr did? His rc1 ran fine on W2k. He mentioned only minor makefile changes.

I want a free BTC at any time

Payment received, thanks!

Tested some more...

If you increase the number even more, results are INF; but happily added to the cart anyway. It again slows down, but is ok again as soon as I delete cookies.

When registering an account, I end up with a blank page after hitting the submit button (registered two accounts). I can log in though.

Sill seems to cause problem when used with the quantity field

Entering a large number in the order field causes a switch to e notation (see picture, top). From there on, it looks like the whole site grinds down a halt and gets pretty much unbrowseable, unless you have lots of patience.

When logging in after a reboot, the sum is displayed, but 0 items are in the cart (see picture, bottom).

Bitcoin symbol is not always displayed correctly (see picture). On a side note, I'd prefer BTC since the symbol you use is used for Thai Baht.

When having tons of items in the cart, the cart page either times out or causes the browser to crash because of memory exhaustion (I admit the VM I used to test is low on RAM).

http://picpaste.com/3c901fb847adeb113bdfe825d976aa8a.jpg

Agreed.

N1: I don't know if it's possible, but maybe the initial download could run backwards; eg load the most current blocks first so that new transactions show up. Then continue the rest of the blockchain in the background.

N2: Instant confirmations would be nice, but waiting up to 10 mins for the first hint in your wallet is acceptable (for me).

N3: Automatic backups should be an option (eg "keep x backups" or "keep backups for x months"). I solved that by creating a startup batchfile which does a backup before launching Bitcoin. But that's not an option for your everyday John Doe.

I've tested the two QT binaries on Win2k. They start perfectly fine
I used my real wallet.dat only with the network disabled (no offense at all, but I'll only use it with an official release). Seems there are no issues so far.
Thumbs up from me.

Did you ever consider that there are only two people posting on this forum? You and this other guy from Japan having the rest of all accounts?

Seriously, I'm paranoid too but you take it to a whole new level.

Thanks!

Remember: Rock bands burn stuff on stage, but not their tour bus 

The problem is that the video misses the moov header which contains the details about the audio/video streams inside. Also, the header at the beginning of the file is missing.
The header at the top is rather easy to recreate by copying the first bytes from the good file and calculating the offset for the mdat part. From there on, pretty much the only option is to move over the moov section too. This results in a video file which at least opens in VLC, but it still looks buggy (it looks like you filmed something that's burning).

I have created a patch which can be applied with xdelta to the broken 3gp file: http://www.files.to/get/22295/330dkvjfmz

MD5 sums:
broken file: 96f52e415760249d9ab367f755e36f7c
patch: b479140c6b4c1f6b7ffdc7a56ad5f4f9
repaired file: 1da0c96cd94da30466fdd7b29feab2df

You can apply the patch with: xdelta -d -s 2011-09-24_04-25-32_612.3gp repair.delta 2011-09-24_04-25-32_612-PATCHED.3gp

Maybe this will help you some; I don't really do much video editing, so the number of video programs I have is limited. Since you already tried a lot, maybe one of those programs can work with the patched file.

As said, it does all its work perfectly fine. Leave the imaginative problems which you assume I'm having to me and play with your phone.

Again, as said, Matt worked on that for v0.3.24 and I successfully tested the fixed binary. It's an official MS fix and the only problem was compiler-related.

Actually, I do have WfW on floppies. Also DOS.

But seriously, why should I replace a perfectly running system that's working as a server? I'd need to buy new hardware, a new Windows, install and configure it along with all the tweaks and services running on top of it. Just to run the client of an experimental currency? Yeah, like that will happen.

As I said before, I provided a solution already and hope that the Devs will add it.

Yes. Use the datadir switch.

It's a server in my home network and already behind a Linux gateway. It's never been compromised and has been running fine needing no attention. I know W2k is old, but this one just works and I don't intend to replace it just because of this update while the old client still works. Especially since the fix should be pretty simple (I already provided details in another thread).

And don't get me started by implying "Linux is safe by default"; for the sake of a civilized discussion, I'll assume you were trolling.

Sadly still not working on W2k 

Disagreement here. I often check the postcount, especially when transfers are involved. In my opinion, someone with 500+ posts is less likely to run away with your money than someone who asks for a 10btc loan in the first post. I don't want to call all newbies scammers, but for obvious reasons it would be easier to scam people because all you need to do is register a new account and ask for your next loan instead of building up a reputation. This forum has a newbie section and minimum requirements to post in the other forums; and from what I know, this was done to keep spam and trolling under control. For me, the postcount works like that when it comes to transactions.

That said, it would be nice to have some sort of rating system between users. For example, when Joe sells something to Jane, he could enable a "rate me" option for her. When the trade is done, Joe gets a rating which is displayed underneath the postcount. I'm sure a lot of people here are honest traders, but nobody knows. Same for the dishonest ones.